Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF MARCH 26, 2005 FBO #1216
MODIFICATION

35 -- Logistical Support for the NRC's All Employee Meetings and Awards Ceremony

Notice Date

3/24/2005
 

Notice Type

Modification
 

NAICS

561920 — Convention and Trade Show Organizers
 

Contracting Office

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Administration, Division of Contracts, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852-2738
 

ZIP Code

20852-2738
 

Solicitation Number

ADM-05-403
 

Response Due

4/1/2005
 

Archive Date

4/16/2005
 

Point of Contact

Deborah Neff, Contract Specialist, Phone (301) 415-8160, Fax (301) 415-8157,
 

E-Mail Address

dan1@nrc.gov
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Total Small Business
 

Description

CONTINUATION OF SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION POSTED ON 3/17/05 PRICING SCHEDULE Base Period (May 2005) Firm-fixed-price for tents, chairs, supplemental lighting, fans, water barrels, miscellaneous items, and professional assistance - 1 job $___________ Optional Items: 1. Canopy (Entrance Marquee) - 1 job $___________ 2. Supplemental Platform - 1 job $_____________ 3. Heaters - ___ ea. $_______________ 4. Stage Ramp - ____ ea. $_________ Option Period (May 2006) Firm-fixed-price for tents, chairs, supplemental lighting, fans, water barrels, miscellaneous items, and professional assistance - 1 job $___________ Optional Items: 1. Canopy (Entrance Marquee) - 1 job $___________ 2. Supplemental Platform - 1 job $_____________ 3. Heaters - ___ ea. $_______________ 4. Stage Ramp - ____ ea. $_________ PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM (Questionnaire) Solicitation No. RS-ADM-05-405 “Logistical Support for the NRC’s All Employee Meetings and Annual Awards Ceremony” 1. How would you rand the quality of the services you received? Exceeded minimum requirements ( ) Met minimum requirements ( ) Less than minimum requirements ( ) 2. Was the Contractor cooperative? Extremely Cooperative ( ) Satisfactorily Cooperative ( ) Minimally Cooperative ( ) 3. How cooperative was the Contractor in working with Government to solve problems? Extremely Cooperative ( ) Satisfactorily Cooperative ( ) Minimally Cooperative ( ) 4. Was the Contractor a problem solver or a problem generator? Problem solver ( ) Problem generator ( ) 5. Were the Contractor recommended solutions effective? Extremely effective ( ) Generally effective ( ) Ineffective ( ) 6. How would you rate the firm’s responsiveness to emergency situations? Extremely responsive ( ) Responsive ( ) Non responsive ( ) 7. How would you rate the firm’s responsiveness to your basic requirements including service calls? Always responsive ( ) Usually responsive ( ) Unresponsive ( ) 8. How would you rate the Contractor’s implementation of their Quality Control Plan? Extremely effective ( ) Generally effective ( ) Ineffective ( ) 9. Did you issue any poor performance letters to the Contractor? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, could you describe the nature of the problem(s)? 10. Did you assess a significant amount of performance deductions during the contract period? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, please comment: 11. Did the company satisfactorily respond to the deficiencies cited? Satisfactorily ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) 12. Were there any significant or recurring problems? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, please comment: 13. Were the building tenants generally satisfied or unsatisfied with the services performed by the Contractor? Extremely satisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Unsatisfied ( ) 14. Did the Contractor exhibit a propensity to submit unnecessary contract change proposals with cost or price increases? Constant requests for change orders/cost increase ( ) Moderate requests for change orders/cost increases ( ) Requested increased as appropriate ( ) 15. Did the Contractor commit adequate resources in a timely fashion to the contract to meet the minimum requirements and successfully solve any problems? Yes ( ) No ( ) 16. Was/is the firm the Prime Contractor, subcontractor, or consultant to another firm? Prime Contractor ( ) Subcontractor ( ) Consultant ( ) 17. Was the Contractor’s coordination of its subcontractors satisfactory? Extremely satisfactory ( ) Satisfactory ( ) Unsatisfactory ( ) 18. Did the Contractor provide highly competent key personnel with infrequent turnover? Always ( ) Generally ( ) Rarely ( ) 19. Would you contract with this firm again for the same service? Yes ( ) No ( ) Why or why not? 20. Was the Contractor effective/cooperative in interfacing with the Government representatives? Extremely so ( ) Generally so ( ) Not effective/cooperative ( ) Additional Comments: (Please use additional sheets if necessary) NAME: (Person Completing Questionnaire) COMPANY/AGENCY: PHONE NUMBER: SUBMITTED FOR: (Name of Potential Offeror) DATE: NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO WWW.FEDBIZOPPS.GOV ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (24-MAR-2005); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
 

Web Link

Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/NRC/OA/DCPM/ADM-05-403/listing.html)
 

Place of Performance

Address: 11545 and 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland

Zip Code: 20852

Country: US
 

Record

SN00776074-F 20050326/050324215305 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |