3389 LCHD-ESS Section M - OCT2025.docx

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (SECTION M)

EVAULATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a fixed priced supply contract with economic price adjustment to the Offeror who represents the best overall value in accordance with all the requirements in the solicitation. The award will be made to the proposal that is determined to be the best overall (i.e., best value) that is the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to all the evaluation factors identified below. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than offerors with the highest technical rating if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to have discussions, and the Government reserves the right to set a competitive range and discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors if the Government determines it to be necessary to do so. Offerors should be aware that the Government may also make award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received; therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating to each factor, except for “price”, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. A detailed explanation of the criteria for each evaluation factor can be found in Paragraph E “Evaluation Approach”.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 4: Price

C. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS

All non-price factors when combined (Factors, 1, 2, & 3) are approximately equal to Price (Factor 4).

Factor 1 (Technical Approach) is more important than Factors 2 (Past Performance) and 3 (Small Business Participation). Factor 2 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 3 (Small Business Participation).

D. DEFINITIONS

1. ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTIONS:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The ratings below will be used for Factor 1 – Technical Approach

RATINGS FOR FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL/RISK

Adjectival Rating Description

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The Past Performance Factor Ratings (Factor 2) excerpted below focus on the level of Confidence the Government has that Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Government will make a Performance Confidence Rating for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the “Performance Confidence Assessment” chart below. As part of the process to determine the Past Performance - Factor 2 (Performance Confidence) rating, the Government considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Although not rated separately, relevancy and recency will be evaluated as part of the process. The tables to be utilized for assessing recency and relevancy are also provided below.

Performance Confidence Assessment

Past Performance Recency Assessment

Past Performance Relevancy Assessment

The Small Business Participation Factor Ratings (Factor 3) are excerpted in the table below.

1. FINDINGS DEFINITIONS:

Strength – is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength - is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001)

Significant Weakness - in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001)

Deficiency – is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (Per FAR part 15.001)

Uncertainty – is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Risk - the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

E. EVALUATION APPROACH

The information submitted by the Offeror in accordance with Section L of the specification will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the procedures set forth within this section and using the tables listed earlier. The overarching evaluation approach of submitted information for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods, understanding, and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable, the end results are achievable, and the risk of unsuccessful performance has been minimized. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1. FACTOR 1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative, and the Preliminary Design Report as set forth below to determine technical adequacy, feasibility of approach, and risk of unsuccessful performance. The Government’s primary focus with Factor 1 is on the reduction and minimization of technical risk.

The Offeror must demonstrate that its proposed vessel will achieve carrying the requirement of 6,500 cubic yards of 1.8 specific gravity material in accordance with the solicitation technical specifications (C-Section). NOTE: The “C” Section (technical requirements) of this solicitation requires that every design must achieve a hopper capacity of 6,500 cubic yards to the top of the overflow at a minimum of 1.8 specific gravity. For precision of volume, the 6,500 cubic yard ceiling amount may be achieved by setting hard limits on the overflow height as identified through the API sanctioned process identified in Section C of the specification for volume validation.

PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE IF CAPACITY BY VOLUME EXCEEDS 6,500 CUBIC YARDS AT MAXIMUM OVERFLOW HEIGHT.

Technical Approach Narrative Areas of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical narrative of their design for this proposal based on the preliminary design report, system maturity, design stability throughout the design phases to construction, the design’s operational and construction experience, if applicable, the design’s ability to reduce technical risk, and the design’s ability to reduce the possibility of an unsuccessful performance. Considerations being relationships to previous hopper dredge designs, if any. The evaluation will look at the following:

A. Design Starting Point: The design starting point will be assessed based on the application of previously designed vessels to the design being proposed. Previous vessel design starting points will be checked and verified against the proposal design for consistency in operational requirements and conditions. The design starting point will be used to determine the familiarity of working with a similar design and amount of technical risk that is associated with the development of this proposal design. Offerors may include a design starting point consisting of any marine design project, but considerations may be given if the design starting point consists of a previously designed dredge and/or hopper dredge, further leading to the reduction of technical risks to the Government. Lastly, consideration may be given if the design starting point has previously been approved by a marine regulatory body.

A. Design Development Stability: The design development stability will be assessed based on:

· how the starting point design was utilized and developed into the proposed design required by this solicitation, and

· how the design development to the Preliminary Design level addressed Design Stability The similarities between the starting point design and the proposed design will be evaluated based on the significance of any risks associated with the proposed design and construction. The possible similarities between the two may be evaluated based on the following parameters and the significance of the similarities, if any:

1. Hull Size

2. Crew Space on Board

3. Endurance

4. Draft

5. Hopper Capacity

6. Dredging and Transit Performance

7. Motions in Waves during Dredging

8. Specification Technical Requirements

9. Powering System, Propulsion, and Dredge System Power Levels

10. Vessel Class and/or USCG Certification This portion of the evaluation will assess if the development of the starting point design demonstrates an understanding of the requirements specified, shown through the proposed design. Consideration may be given through greater levels of similarity between the starting point design and the proposed vessel design. The more similarities between the two designs, the bigger reduction of possible technical risks.

B. Operational Maturity: The operational maturity will be assessed based on the application of any in-service operational vessel, that started with the same starting point as described in A. above, to the design that is being required by this solicitation. This parameter will be used to determine the significance of any technical risks that are associated with current in-service vessels, if any, that will be used as reference throughout this project. Consideration may be given should the operational vessel referenced herein be a dredge, by the greater number of those operational vessels that are currently in-service, and if the in-service vessel(s), has been approved by a marine regulatory body. The greater significance of the vessel(s), the greater reduction of risks to the Government.

C. System Maturity: The system maturity will be assessed based on significant systems previously designed and utilized within marine vessel applications, as subsets of designed vessels. In addition, the proposed system developments may be evaluated to determine if the developed design was approved by a marine regulatory body. This parameter will be used to evaluate any technical risks that are associated with a similar system that could be used within the proposed design. Consideration may be given if the matured system is used on dredging vessels, and/or hopper dredge applications.

D. Design Integration into Construction Methodology: The design integration into construction methodology will be assessed based on the application of successful integration of marine designs into the construction of the vessel(s), if applicable. This parameter will be used to evaluate any technical risks that are associated with the design in terms of the schedule on previous construction acquisitions. Considerations may be given if the construction of the design was a dredging vessel and/or hopper dredge.

E. Teaming Arrangement: Any teaming arrangements will be assessed based on the historical history of successful teaming on relevant marine projects. This parameter will be used to evaluate the significance of any technical risks of the team and their history. This will be evaluated based on the team’s experience of working on similar projects. Considerations may be given if the team can demonstrate significant design experience with dredging vessels and/or hopper dredges.

Preliminary Design Report Areas of Evaluation:

· Design Narrative Summary: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s design narrative summary by verifying the summary follows the technical requirements identified in Section C, as referenced in Section L. The Design Narrative Summary will be evaluated and assessed based on:

· the Offeror providing a well-developed and reliable design approach to the solicitation requirements,

· the Offeror demonstrating a thorough understanding of the technical requirements and the related design efforts,

· the Offeror’s ability to reduce technical risk,

· the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate the possibility of an unsuccessful performance is low.

· the Offeror’s development of the proposed Preliminary Design from the starting point design,

· the assessment of Design Stability from the proposed Preliminary Design through the remaining design phases to construction,

· and consistency throughout the Offeror’s proposal submission, including minimal to zero calculational mistakes.

· Payload Definition: The proposed hopper volume capacity table (considering deductions for structure, piping systems, and overflow weir) will be checked to verify that 6,500 cubic yard capacity to maximum overflow height is provided but not exceeded. The vessel load carrying capacity of 6,500 cubic yards hopper capacity at 1.8 specific gravity will be checked and verified for consistency with the other submittals listed in this section.

· Lines Drawing: The proposed lines drawing will be assessed for consistency with the buoyancy characteristics used in the stability analysis.

· Outboard Profile Drawing: The proposed outboard profile drawing will be assessed for consistency with the technical requirements and the design.

· Inboard Profile Drawing: The proposed inboard profile drawing will be assessed for consistency with the technical requirements and the design.

· Machinery Arrangement Drawing: The machinery arrangement drawing will be assessed for consistency with the technical requirements and the design.

· Weight Report (3-digit level, KG and LCG): The proposed weight report will be used to assess the weight and Center of Gravity characteristics used in the stability analysis. Radii of gyration shall be included in the weight report. These will be used for the ship motions evaluation.

· Stability Analysis, Intact and Damage at Maximum Loaded Draft: The proposed stability analysis results will be reviewed for compliance with USCG and USACE intact and damage stability requirements. The stability analysis will be reviewed to assess the risk that the vessel will not meet stability standards for safe operation in all conditions with the stated hopper capacity of 6,500 cubic yards.

· Endurance Fuel and Water Analysis: The endurance fuel and water analysis will be assessed to ensure that the stability analysis incorporates consistent weights of fuel and water.

· Preliminary Scantling Drawings (Hull & House) and Midship Section: The proposed drawings will be used to assess how the structure of the hopper is integrated into the remaining hull structure. The drawings will be reviewed to assess the risk that the structure is adequately defined and corresponds with the weight report.

· General Arrangement (to individual compartment level), Machinery Arrangement, Outboard Profile, and Inboard Profile Drawings: The proposed drawings will be used to assess the consistency with the stability analysis and the weight report. The drawings will be reviewed to assess the risk that hopper capacity cannot be achieved within the arrangement of the vessel.

· Description of Principal Ship Systems and Features: The proposed description of principal ship systems and features will be applied to determine the ship systems that are required to be in operation during hopper fill and pump-out dredging operations. The principal ship systems and features will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time cannot be achieved due to the total energy needed for the identified ship systems and features exceeding the available power on the vessel.

· Dredge Pump and Jetting Pump Systems Analysis: The dredge pump and jetting pump systems analysis will be used to determine the power required for the main dredging equipment during hopper fill and pump-out operations. The dredge pump and jetting pump system will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time identified will not be achieved using the pump sizes identified.

· Preliminary Master Equipment List: The proposed Preliminary Master Equipment List will be used to determine the power requirements for the operating ship systems. This will be used to check the completeness of the electric load analysis for hopper loading and pumping out.

· Azimuthing Drive Propulsion Power: The proposed Azimuthing drive propulsion power will be used to determine the adequacy of propulsion power provided for the vessel resistance during dredge transits, and hopper fill and pump-out operations. The Azimuthing drive propulsion system analysis will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time cannot be achieved due to the total energy needed for propulsion during loading and pump-out.

· Speed Power Curves at Max Draft: The proposed speed power curves at max draft will be used to determine there is sufficient propulsion power provided during the hopper fill, transit to dump site, and pump-out operations. The speed power curves will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time while Weathervaning in 3-knot current cannot be achieved due to the total energy needed for propulsion during loading and pump-out.

· Speed Power Curves at Transit Draft (Hopper Empty but Free Flooded): The proposed speed power curves at transit draft will be used to determine there is sufficient propulsion power provided for the transit speed requirement (with hopper empty, but free flooded).

· Dredge System Wear Allowance: The proposed wear allowance will be assessed to ensure it is in accordance with the contract requirements.

· Hopper Plate Wear Allowance: The proposed wear allowance will be assessed to ensure it is in accordance with the contract requirements.

· Electric Load Analysis for Transiting and Dredging – (Hopper Filling, Pumping Out, and Transiting Hopper Full and Empty): The proposed Electric Load Analysis will be checked against the information in the above evaluations to determine that the overall vessel power levels required for transiting, hopper fill, and pump-out operations are properly identified in the load analysis. The electric load analysis for dredging will be reviewed to assess the risk that the hopper loading time, pump-out time, and transit speeds cannot be achieved within the limits of the diesel electric propulsion system.

· Diesel-Electric Power System Analysis: The proposed Diesel-Electric Power System Analysis will be used to check that the required power levels can be provided by the Diesel-Electric power system. The diesel electric power system analysis will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time and transit speeds cannot be achieved within the limits of the diesel electric propulsion system.

· Diesel-Electric Power System One Line Diagram: The proposed Diesel-Electric Power System one line diagram will be used to check that the vessel electric power distribution system can provide the required amounts of electric power to the machinery and service systems in use during the hopper fill and pump-out operations. The diesel electric power system one line diagram will be reviewed to assess the risk that the loading time and pump-out time cannot be achieved within the limits of the diesel electric propulsion system.

· Ship Motions in Waves During Dredging: The proposed vessel design will be checked to ensure ship motions in waves during dredging was considered based on the provided analysis and accelerations. The motion analyses allow for predictability of how a ship will behave in the intended AOR during dredging operations. The motions analysis will be reviewed to assess the risk that the vessel cannot withstand given accelerations and motions during operations within the limits of the AOR.

2. FACTOR 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Solicitation. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The evaluation of this factor will result in a single “Performance Confidence Assessment” rating (details below).

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this factor utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix B as well as applicable CPARS reports.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s identified teaming arrangement’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including design, construction, schedule, and order of magnitude cost. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating”, and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and his current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar products.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Recency is not separately rated, but the criteria listed in the Table above will be used to evaluate recency and is identified within. If past performance information is determined Not Recent, the effort will not be evaluated any further.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. Relevancy is not separately rated, but the criteria listed in the Table above will be used to evaluate relevancy. The relevancy assessment will be based on applications and relationships to the maintenance hopper dredge required by the solicitation (a 6,500 cubic yard maintenance hopper dredge) to include design, the type of vessel, size of vessel, materials of construction, overall powering and power configuration, complexity of vessel from an operational perspective, complexity of automation, project schedule, and order of magnitude cost. The past performance information sheet and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Formal letters of commitment must be provided to utilize any past performance information from subcontractors.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance per FAR 15.304(c)(2).

(iv) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance as defined in the “performance confidence assessment” table.

3. FACTOR 3 – Small Business Participation

The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be evaluated in accordance with the table identified earlier in this section to assess the offeror’s best effort in utilizing small business and the various subcategories of small business identified in the submittal requirements in Section L of this solicitation to best support the use of small business. Plans that identify formal commitments, signed teaming agreements, or other assurances of small business participation will be considered more significant than just stated intentions.

4. FACTOR 4 - Price

The Government will compare each offerors proposal against historical data, prevailing market conditions, and an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) to determine if the price is fair and reasonable and has no signs of unbalanced pricing. When assessing proposals, the total evaluated price will include the maximum potential financial exposure to the government due to Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Clause. The total evaluated price includes the base contract CLIN 0001 (Section B of the Contract) plus a potential amount of $13M, as described in paragraph (j) of the EPA clause.

In addition, the Government will evaluate the costs identified for each of the commodity unit prices in the EPA clause to determine if these base unit costs are fair and reasonable and have no signs of unbalanced pricing (See Section I for EPA Unit Price Table). To make this determination, the Government will compare the unit prices against prevailing market conditions and the Independent Government Estimate. (See Section I for EPA Unit Price Table). Proposals found to have an unreasonable or materially unbalanced price may be deemed unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

F. DISCUSSIONS:

GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held; should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 3 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. When discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two (2) business days prior to their discussion session. The discussion sessions will take place via conference call, or by written notification. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

ATTACHMENT A – SUB-CONTRACTOR LETTER OF COMMITMENT

TO: Contracting Officer

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract for ____________________

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Proposer), that (insert name of firm) will fulfill the duties of (state role and proportion of work to be performed on the project).

Sincerely, (Authorized Official & Title)

Date:

ATTACHMENT B – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: |_| Prime Contractor |_| Sub Contractor |_| Joint Venture |_| Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: |_| Firm Fixed Price |_| Cost Reimbursement |_| Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work |_| High |_| Med |_| Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

7. GENERAL

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

image1.emf