RFPAttachment15PPQuestionnaire.doc

DOC document 148 KB Posted Oct 15, 2012

Attached to: Job Order Contract (JOC), Fort Hunter Liggett, California
Solicitation number: W9124J12R0015
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command Fort Sam Houston

About this file

From the source

Attachment 15

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
W9124J-12-R-0015_Amendment_0002.docx	DOCX document	Oct 22, 2012
RFPAttachment12SiteVisitAgendaFHL.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
W9124J-12-R-0015-0001.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment18FHL_QAs.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment11aWDCA29.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment8FHLForm6A.PDF	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttach5ENGForm93.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment13ConsentLetterFHL.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
Pre-Proposal.ppt	PPT presentation	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment16PriceEvalExample.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment7aJOCSiteLocation.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment4ENGForm4026.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment11bWDCA30.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment14SpecificRelevantKs.doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012
Site_Visit_PreProposal_Sign_In_Roster_3_Oct_2012.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment2DDForm1354.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
W9124J12R0015_Pre-proposal_Conf_Version_Highlighted_Pages_Only.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment6ENGForm93A.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttach1LocalAgencyRecordCheck.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment9ENGForm2440.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment3ENGForm4025R.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment10ENGForm2538-1.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
W9124J12R0015_21_Sept_2012.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2012
RFPAttachment17(SampleTask).doc	DOC document	Oct 15, 2012

Show all 24

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Attachment 15 past performance questionnaire W9124J-12-R-0015

In order to establish the quality and capability of an Offeror's (prospective contractor) work on previous contracts, past performance information is required in accordance with the subject solicitation.

The Offeror shall ensure that this Past Performance Questionnaire is provided to the appropriate point of contact for each contract/project it identifies in its proposal to support its claims of past performance. Relevant past performance information is defined as work of a nature similar to the scope of this solicitation, evaluated by the questionnaire respondents.

Questionnaires are to be completed by the applicable contracting agency (e.g., owners, clients, prime contractors, etc.) responsible for the Offeror's involvement in the particular projects; this completed questionnaire is to be submitted by the completing party directly to:

shawn.r.reinhart2.civ@mail.mil Or mailed to:

Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC)

– Fort Sam Houston

ATTN: Mr. Shawn R. Reinhart

2205 Infantry Post Rd.

Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234

MARK FOR: Job Order Contracting (JOC) Solicitation

Past Performance Information

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

A. Please complete this questionnaire using the following guidance. Note that while this form is formatted for electronic completion prior to printing, handwritten responses are sufficient.

B. Please indicate, based on the following adjective descriptions below (each with a corresponding Letter designation), the Offeror's performance in the identified areas relating to your contract/project. The rating definitions are:

Rating

Definition

Exceptional (E)

The Offeror successfully performed all aspects of the required effort in this area.

Very Good (V)

The Offeror successfully performed most aspects of the required effort in this area.

Satisfactory (S)

The Offeror successfully met the minimum requirements in this area without concerted effort by the contracting activity.

Marginal (M)

The Offeror successfully met the minimum requirements in this area, but only after concerted effort by the contracting activity.

Unsatisfactory (U)

The Offeror did not successfully meet the minimum requirements in this area.

Not Applicable (NA)

Factor either did not apply, or the respondent has no knowledge of the Offeror's performance in this area.

C. In the appropriate blocks on the following pages, please "X" below the rating code corresponding to your evaluation of the Offeror in the identified areas.

D. Also, please provide narrative in the space provided to further define or otherwise explain your ratings; if a particular issue demands more narrative than the space provided will accommodate, please feel free to attach additional pages. Any narrative provided will better enable us to accurately gauge the Offeror's performance on your contract, and is greatly appreciated.

E. In addition to completing this questionnaire for the project/contract identified, we solicit your comments on any other projects/contracts/programs, which you have had with the Offeror.

F. Finally, you are invited to feel free to supplement your personal knowledge of the Offeror's performance by querying other's in your organization for their comments.

I. OFFEROR, CONTRACTING AGENCY, & CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. Offeror Company Name: ______________________________________________

2. Contracting agency name, and point of contact (please include phone#):

3. Contract Number & Title: ____________________________________________

4. Physical Location(s) of the Work Performed by the Offeror:

5. Type of Contract: FORMCHECKBOX Firm Fixed Price

FORMCHECKBOX

Cost Plus

FORMCHECKBOX

Other (pls define)

(please X box)

6. Description of Contract Scope and $ Value of Work Performed by the Offeror:

7. Description of the Complexity of Work Contracted to the Offeror:

8. Period of Contract Performance: ______________________________________

9. Offeror Points of Contact, Superintendent(s), etc. involved with your procurement:

II. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Rating Scale:

E = Exceptional

V = Very Good

S = Satisfactory

M = Marginal

U = Unsatisfactory NA = Not Applicable

FORMCHECKBOX

MANAGEMENT. Rate how well the Offeror:

1. Provided a dedicated and qualified management team.

2. Demonstrated ability to manage work.

3. Complied with the terms of the contract.

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________

BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS.

Rate how well during the life of the contract that the Offeror:

FORMCHECKBOX

4. Cooperated in solving problems at all levels.

5. Maintained a good working relationship with agency contracting personnel.

6. Maintained a good working relationship with agency technical/project mgt. personnel.

7. Maintained good fiscal relationships with vendors (incl. prompt payment).

8. Maintained good fiscal relationships with subcontractors (incl. prompt payment).

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________

SUBCONTRACTOR / TRADESMAN MANAGEMENT.

Rate how well the Offeror acquired and managed subcontractors under the contract.

FORMCHECKBOX

9. Capable subcontractors and/or tradesmen were used.

10. Subcontractors / tradesmen were adequately managed and coordinated to meet scope and schedule across multiple orders.

11. Subcontractors / tradesmen / suppliers received timely payment.

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________

PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

Rate how well the Offeror managed the physical work required by the contract.

FORMCHECKBOX

12. Planned work / coordinated trades for timely & efficient construction.

13. Provided submittals and other deliverables to agency in a timely manner.

14. Ensured conformance to project scope without direction from agency.

15. Ensured conformance to project schedule.

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________

TIMELINESS. Rate how well the Offeror met the following:

FORMCHECKBOX

16. Timeliness in starting & completing project(s).

17. Met key milestones of performance schedule.

18. Timeliness in submitting reports.

19. Responded to agency inquiries, RFP's, etc., in a satisfactory manner.

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNICAL STAFF CAPABILITY. Rate how well the Offeror provided:

FORMCHECKBOX

20. Technical personnel capable of providing designs & information responsive to agency needs.

21. Designs & other technical products that were technically sufficient.

22. Technical personnel available to, and supportive of offeror's project management / QC staff.

23. Technical staff capable of communicating clearly and positively with agency staff.

24. Offeror’s ability to recognize need for, and then obtain supplemental technical staff/capability in a timely manner.

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________

QUALITY. Rate how well the Offeror satisfied your requirements in the following areas:

FORMCHECKBOX

25. Your satisfaction with the quality of the completed projects (workmanship/materials).

26. Reports / records submitted completely and accurately satisfied requirements.

27. Offeror utilized quality control process that ensured conformance to scope and quality requirements.

28. Offeror quality control personnel responsive to and cooperative with agency personnel regarding quality issues.

29. Responsiveness to warranty issues.

30. Please rate your overall satisfaction with this offeror and the work performed for you.

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________

COST CONTROL. Rate how well the offeror:

FORMCHECKBOX

31. Demonstrated financial stability during the project/contract performance period.

32. Demonstrated reasonableness of proposed initial project costs.

33. Demonstrated reasonableness of proposed modification scope and costs.

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________

GENERAL INFORMATION.

YES

FORMCHECKBOX

34. To your knowledge, has the offeror ever filed for bankruptcy?

35. Has the offeror demonstrated to you that it can, and does operate proactively and does not require significant agency oversight?

36. Given the opportunity, would you select this offeror again?

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________

III. RESPONDENT INFORMATION

The following information will assist us with the analysis of the supplied data. This information will be kept FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, CONFIDENTIAL.

Respondent Name (please type or print): ____________________________________________

Signature: _______________________________________________

Agency Name & Address: _______________________________________________________

Work Phone Number (Incl. Area Code): ________________________________

Work Fax Number (Incl. Area Code): __________________________________

Your role relative to the applicable project/contract (e.g., Contracting Officer, Inspector, Other Owner Representative (explain), etc.):

Length of your personal involvement with contract: ___________________________________

Date questionnaire completed: _______________________

Do you know anyone else you would recommend we contact for more information regarding this offeror's performance? If so, provide contact's name and phone/fax numbers if available:

ADDITIONAL REMARKS YOU MAY HAVE:

Thank You in Advance for Your Assistance In Ensuring We obtain a Quality Contractor for Our Procurement.

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 3.104

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.