36C24723R0064 Presolicitation v2.pdf

Presolicitation Notice

*=Required Field Presolicitation Notice

SUBJE

CT*

509-24-201 - Renovate for Patient Privacy - Building 801 - Wing 5D (VA-24-00000790)

GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTRACTING OFFICE’S ZIP CODE* 29209-1639

SOLICITATION NUMBER* 36C24723R0064

RESPONSE DATE/TIME/ZONE 05-15-2023 14:00 EASTERN TIME, NEW YORK,

USA

ARCHIVE 60 DAYS AFTER THE RESPONSE DATE

SET-ASIDE

PRODUCT SERVICE CODE* C1DA

NAICS CODE* 541330

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE Charlie Norwood VAMC

950 15th Street

Augusta GA

POSTAL CODE 30901

COUNTRY USA

CONTACT INFORMATION

CONTRACTING OFFICE ADDRESS

Department of Veterans Affairs

W.J.B. Dorn VA Medical Center

6439 Garners Ferry Road

Columbia SC 29209-1639

POINT OF CONTACT* Contracting Officer

Regina Lawrence regina.lawrence@va.gov

(803) 558-6460

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

AGENCY’S URL

URL DESCRIPTION

AGENCY CONTACT’S EMAIL ADDRESS

EMAIL DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

This Pre-solicitation Notice is NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. ALL

INFORMATION NEEDED TO SUBMIT SF330 DOCUMENTS ARE CONTAINED

HEREIN. NO ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE OR TECHNICAL

INFORMATION WILL BE ISSUED.

Project: 509-24-201 - A/E Design - Patient Privacy Renovation in Bldg 801, Wing 5D

Project Location: Charlie Norwood (VA) Medical Center, Augusta, GA

Estimated/Target Completion Period: 295 calendar days after Notice to Proceed

(NTP).

Estimated Magnitude of Construction: Between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000

NAICS: 541330 – Engineering Services

Small Business Size Standard: $25.5 million

Set-Aside: 100% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

Site Visits will not be arranged during this phase.

Request for Information (RFI): RFIs shall be submitted by the prime contractor, to Regina Lawrence, Contracting Officer at regina.lawrence@va.gov no later than Monday, May 8, 2023 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time.

SF 330 Date of Receipt/Due Date: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one (1) electronic SF 330 and attachments (if any) no later than Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time to Regina Lawrence, Contracting Officer at regina.lawrence@va.gov.

PROJECT OVERVIEW:

The Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center located in Augusta, Georgia is seeking a qualified Architectural Engineering firm to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and design services to include Schematics, Design Development, Construction Documents, Technical Specifications, Construction Period Services, Site Visits, Cost Estimates, As-Built Documentation, and all other related services necessary for the Patient Privacy Renovation in Bldg 801, Wing 5D

Scope of work to include, but is not limited to site investigation, designing, prepare drawings, phase planning, specifications, cost estimates for all disciplines, and construction period services for project 509-22-101, Renovate for Patient Privacy, building 801, Wing 5D. Project will renovate approximately 16,500 square feet on the 5th floor of building 801. Project will include replacement of air handling unit, demolition, asbestos abatement, architectural, mechanical, etc. The A/E will be required to attend phase meetings to discuss progress with the VA staff. The A/E will be required to take meeting minutes and distribute to the VA for approval and as documentation of what was covered within five business days of the meeting.

The A/E shall show a detailed containment plan for infection control and hazmat control, where required during construction design. This plan shall be detailed showing locations and what infection and hazmat control requirements are to be used for each area. Construction barriers will be required for the duration of the construction to isolate staff from dust, debris and construction hazards. The A/E shall indicate these construction barriers on their drawings.

SDVOSB SET-ASIDE:

This is a 100% set-aside for SDVOSB firms only. The firms registered and visible in the SBA Veteran Small Business Certification (VetCert) database at https://veterans.certify.sba.gov when SF330’s are submitted. Failure of a prospective SDVOSB to be verified by the SBA VetCert at the time the SF 330 is submitted shall result in elimination from consideration. All Joint Ventures must be verified at time of submission and submit agreements that comply with 13 CFR 125.15 prior to contract award.

Prospective Contractors are cautioned that proposal submitted in response to this solicitation must meet the criteria identified by 38CFR, Part 74. The SDVOSB concern agrees that in the performance of the contract, the concern will comply with the limitation on subcontracting requirements in accordance with VAAR Clause 852-219-73, VA Notice of Total Set Aside for Verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.

This requirement is being procured in accordance with The Brooks Act of 1972, Federal Acquisition Regulation 36.6 (FAR) and VA Acquisition Regulation 836.6 (VAAR).

A Firm Fixed Price A/E Design Service contract is contemplated for each of the task orders. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code is 541330, Engineering Services, and the small business size standards is $25.5 million respectively. Interested parties shall ensure current state licensing, shall have current registration on the System Award Management official website https://sam.gov and verified as a SDVOSB in SBA VetCert at https://veterans.certify.sba.gov and reporting to VETS-4212 Federal Contractor Reporting at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/vets4212. SDVOSB verification is mandatory to be considered for award.

A/E firms are advised that in accordance with VAAR 836.606-71 the total design services cost of the architect or engineer services contracted for must not exceed six percent of the estimated cost of the construction project plus any fees for related services and activities. Additionally, FAR Clause 52.236-22 - Design Within Funding Limitation, will be applicable to any task order or procurement action under this A/E

IDIQ.

Firms will be evaluated by the A/E Evaluation Board. The most qualified firms will be invited to interview with the selection board. The number of firms selected to interview will be dependent on the number of firms that submit SF-330s. A minimum of three firms will interview with the selection board.

Responses should be submitted on an SF330. The SF-330 can be downloaded through the GSA Forms Library at: https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/architect-engineer-qualifications.

Prospective firms shall address all selection criteria factors within their submitted SF330 packages. Submission of information incorporated by reference is not allowed.

Interested firms shall submit SF 330 via electronic transmission to the Contracting Officer by the designated date/time specified. No SF 330 hard copies will be accepted.

Failure to comply with this requirement may jeopardize the possibility of receiving an award for the contract due to noncompliance with the terms of the solicitation.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.6 (Brooks Act) selection procedures apply. The A-E Services listed herein is being procured in accordance with the Brooks Act (Public Law 92-582) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.6 and VAAR 836.6. Pursuant to FAR, the firm responding to this requirement must be permitted, by law, to practice the professions of architecture or engineering and meet all required qualifications for the state of Georgia.

SELECTION CRITERIA

1) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required.

a) Submission requirements:

i) SF 330 information shall be provided per the latest format from the GSA Library located at https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/architect-engineer-qualifications.

ii) Complete using blocks ‘F.’ and ‘H.’ of the SF330 form. Complete block ‘F.’ for each relevant project. Complete block ‘H.’ summary sheet for the Offeror and each key consultant; each summary sheet shall be not more than one (1) page in length, and no more than ten (10) pages total.

(1) Submit no more than five (5) projects like work in the solicitation from the date the solicitation closes to five (5) years prior.

(2) At minimum, three (3) projects must have construction completed or construction substantially (50%+) complete.

(3) Projects/data submitted shall be projects with total construction costs of $5,000,000 and greater.

(4) Projects may include Federal, State, or local Government, as well as private industry projects. Offerors are responsible for providing project description and applicable information in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy versus these minimum requirements.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Specialized experience pertains to the types, size, volume, budget, and complexity of work previously or currently being performed by the Offeror that is comparable to the work covered by this solicitation. Specialized experience may also include unique conditions, considerations, or circumstances encountered that are relevant to this solicitation.

ii) Specialized experience does not include overseas offices for projects outside the United States, its territories, or possessions; nor does it include subsidiaries that are not normally subject to management decisions, accounting, and policies, or a holding or parent company or an incorporated subsidiary that operates under a firm name different from the parent company.

iii) Technical competence includes construction and design projects similar in project scope, size, construction features, dollar value, and complexity of that listed in the solicitation. Technical competence also includes experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials.

iv) Similar complexity is considered projects of an operational, construction, or design likeness to the work covered in this solicitation.

v) Specific emphasis of experience and technical competence shall be geared towards the specific emphasis based on fire protection, and healthcare design/planning (including fixtures, furniture, and equipment).

vi) Offerors unable to demonstrate proven specialized experience and technical competence may be considered non-responsive or scored negatively.

vii) Failure to provide requested data may negatively impact an Offeror's rating.

2) Past Performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality work, and compliance with performance schedules.

a) Submission requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘H.’ of the SF 330 describing the Offeror’s past performance. The summary sheet shall be not more than two (2) pages in length.

ii) Provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each submitted project under “Specialized Experience” criteria, above. PPQs must be incorporated into the submission; PPQs will not count towards page limitations.

iii) Data from other projects not included under “Specialized Experience” criteria are acceptable (such as cost control or schedule delays) in tables or charts.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror satisfied its customers’ needs and requirements and compliance with applicable codes, standards, laws, and regulations. The evaluation of past performance will include but is not limited to:

(1) The customer’s assessment of the Offeror's commitment to customer satisfaction.

(2) Timely delivery of quality work.

(3) The Offeror's record of conforming to contract requirements and applicable codes, standards, laws and regulations.

(4) Successful implementation of a quality control plan and quality control procedures.

(5) Addressing design errors/omissions timely.

(6) Providing Construction Period Services satisfactorily to customers;

(7) Adherence to approved schedules; and,

(8) History of timely and professional communication and cooperative behavior.

ii) Include information on problems (errors/omissions) found, how the problems were corrected, and the impacts to the successful completion of the project (time delays, cost impacts, design modifications, etc.).

iii) Provide information supporting favorable cost control, quality of design submissions, and schedule compliance.

iv) Offeror risks receiving a lower rating if fewer than three (3) PPQs are provided or if the PPQs were not completed by project point of contact.

v) Include a discussion on the Offeror’s record of significant claims for improper or incomplete design services.

vi) Higher ratings may be given for work performed on VA Medical Center campuses.

vii) Failure to provide requested data or to provide an accessible point of contact (POC) may negatively impact an Offeror's rating.

viii)Failure to demonstrate proven competence to perform projects like the requirements of the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award.

3) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

a) Submission Requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘E.’ of the SF 330. Submit personal resumes and relevant information for key and responsible personnel. Block ‘E.’ shall be not more than one (1) page in length per individual, and not more than fifteen (15) total pages.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Evaluation of professional qualifications will include but is not limited to the subjective assessment of the Offeror's individual resumes.

ii) The Offeror shall have a professional engineer, currently registered in any state or territory of the United States, knowledgeable in their registered design discipline, to be the lead designer responsible for reviewing and approving design submissions.

iii) The Offeror shall have a professional engineer, qualified and knowledgeable of state and local regulations, be the lead designer responsible for reviewing and approving design submissions and facilitating permit documentation (depending on the nature of the design i.e. environmental, stormwater, etc.).

iv) Key personnel to provide qualifications to meet this criterion include Principal(s), Project Manager(s), key consultants, individuals responsible for implementation of the Design QA/QC Plan, and other individuals that are responsible or accountable for design submissions.

v) Physical Security Subject Matter Experts shall meet the requirements of Section 10.1.5 of the Physical Security & Resiliency Design Manual.

vi) The Offeror shall describe and/or depict which projects and how well key personnel of the design team have worked together.

vii) Higher ratings for this criterion may be given when the Offeror's specific personnel demonstrate relevant credentials, such as involvement and degree of involvement in professional organizations, research/publications, code/standard body involvement, etc.

viii)Offerors unable to demonstrate professional qualifications necessary to perform designs may be considered ‘non-responsive’.

ix) Failure to provide sufficient data supporting professional qualifications may negatively impact an Offeror's rating.

4) Experience in construction period services.

a) Submission Requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘H.’ of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s performance completing Construction Period Services (CPS) for construction for each submitted project under “Specialized Experience” criteria, above. Narrative shall be not more than two (2) pages in length.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Includes professional field inspections during the construction period, review of construction submittals, support in answering requests for information during the construction period, and support of construction contract modifications to include drafting statements of work, and cost estimates shall be included as an evaluation criterion when construction period services is included in the statement of work for A-E services.

ii) Evaluation of the Offeror’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to complete necessary CPS to support successful project completion.

iii) Provide a narrative describing the below services, but not limited to:

(1) Professional field inspections, both scheduled and emergent.

(2) Maintaining a comprehensive submittal log inclusive of material data, shop drawings, certifications, etc.

(3) Review of construction submittals for design conformance, variance, and applicable code/standard compliance.

(4) Providing timely and complete responses to requests for information.

(5) Providing supporting documentation (statements of work, cost estimates, technical reports, etc.) for construction modifications.

(6) Providing record drawing documentation.

(7) Process for correcting design errors/omissions identified during construction; and,

(8) Other requirements defined under CPS in the Statement of Work.

5) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.

a) Submission Requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘H.’ of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s work capacity. Narrative shall be not more than one (1) page in length.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Identify the Offeror’s past, present and projected future workload, including VA contracts over the previous 12 months.

ii) Describe the Offeror’s capacity to incorporate this solicitation’s work while meeting prescribed dates for current workload. Each key team member to include % of available capacity to take on new projects.

iii) Evaluation of this factor will be an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to complete design documents within the period of performance and meet solicitation requirements.

iv) Data is acceptable in tables or charts.

v) Higher ratings may be given for this criterion when information provided exceeds the minimum requirements.

6) Location in the general geographical area of Augusta, GA, and knowledge of the locality of the Charlie Norwood VA facility:

a) Submission Requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘H.’ of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror’s experience in the Augusta, GA geographical area. Narrative shall be not more than one (1) page in length.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Offerors will be subjectively evaluated based on their knowledge (and the knowledge of subcontractors) of unique conditions or variables, such as familiarity of applicable codes, regulations, construction market & labor conditions, geotechnical, seismic, weather, environmental, or other unique considerations found in Augusta, GA and the geographical area.

ii) If prior experience in Augusta, GA is minimal, describe how the design team plans to obtain specific knowledge of local conditions or project features required for a compliant design.

iii) Data from other projects and locations are acceptable to highlight knowledge of the Augusta, GA geographical area or areas of similar nature.

iv) Offerors that submit relevant projects outside of the Augusta, GA geographical area may be given a lower rating than projects within the Augusta, GA geographical area.

7) The extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to the use of service-disabled Veteran-owned small businesses, Veteran-owned small businesses, and other types of small businesses as subcontractors:

a) Submission Requirements:

i) Complete using block ‘H.’ of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that discusses the Offeror’s approach. Narrative shall be not more than one (1) page in length.

ii) Offerors shall complete and submit the following statement in block ‘H.’:

(1) “I [signatory authority], of [Offeror Company or Joint Venture] certify that the team proposed to perform under this requirement demonstrates the capability of 50% SDVOSB performance in compliance of 48 CFR 852.219-10”.

b) Basis of Evaluation:

i) Offerors shall be evaluated based on their utilization plans for service-disabled Veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), Veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs), or other types of small businesses.

ii) Offerors shall be evaluated on the expected amount of work versus key personnel to verify the above signatory statement. If less than 50% of work is estimated to be performed by the prime SDVOSB, the Offeror may be given a lower rating.

iii) Offerors shall submit qualifications for proposed consultants per other criteria in this solicitation.

Firms responding to this announcement by submitting a qualifying SF 330, before the closing date and time, will be considered for initial selection evaluation. Following the initial evaluation of the SF330s; three or more firms that are considered the most highly qualified to provide the type of services required will be selected for interviews. Selected firms will be notified by telephone or email of selection and provided further instructions.

Selection and evaluation of firms shall be made based on SF 330 submissions and direct responses to the selection criteria identified herein. Failure to address all selection criteria will result in a decreased rating. Evaluating past performance and experience may include information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and Contracting Officer knowledge of current project performance. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being removed from consideration. Firms that design or prepare specifications in conjunction with this contract are prohibited from participating on any future construction contracts based on those documents. All projects identified on the SF330 must be completed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract.

Submission Requirements: The SF 330 form may be downloaded from http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/type/SF. Completed SF 330’s shall include the primary firms, subcontractor firms and any consultants expected to be used on the project. Do not submit information incorporating by reference.

The following format shall be used:

(1) Cover Page with Solicitation Number, Project Title

(2) Table of Contents

(3) SF 330’s

(4) Copy of Current A/E License

(5) Copy of current vetBiz.gov SDVOSB certification

(6) DUNS Number

(7) Cage Code

(8) Tax ID number

(9) The E‐mail address and Phone number of the Primary Point of Contact.

All SF330 submittals and questions must be sent electronically to the attention of Regina Lawrence, Contracting Officer at regina.lawrence@va.gov. Please provide Pre- Solicitation Number, Project Title, and Firm Name in Subject Line of email. When submitting SF330s, if more than one email is sent, please number emails in Subjects as “1 of n”. Submittals received after the date and time identified on page one (1) will not be considered. Firms not providing the required information may be negatively evaluated. Facsimile submittals will not be accepted. All information must be included in the SF330.

ATTACHMENT 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE AND COVER LETTER

Complete one set of letters and forms for each project identified in your firm’s SF 330 Section F, Example Projects Which Best Illustrate Proposed Team’s Qualifications for This Contract.

Additional space or blank sheets may be added to answer any question.

Transmittal Letter to Accompany Past Performance Questionnaire

FROM: [Insert Company Official Name, Title, and Company Name]

SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for Contract(s):

[Insert Company Name] is currently responding to Department of Veterans Affairs (NCO 7) request for SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications for a complete design for the Patient Privacy Renovation in Bldg 801, Wing 5D. This Request for SF 330’s requires respondents to identify customers and solicit their response regarding [Insert Company Name] performance.

[Insert Company Name] is providing past performance data to NCO 7 relating to our performance on contract [Insert contract name/number] and have identified [Insert name of reference] as the point of contact for this contract.

The request for SF 330 instructs that the respondents will provide customers with the attached questionnaire. Please complete the questionnaire and submit it by____ directly to the NCO 7 Contracting Office Contracting Officer. The requested data may be submitted by mail, but the preferred method is email to the Government representative identified below. If the Past Performance Questionnaire is emailed, DO NOT send a hard copy via mail.

Regina Lawrence, Contract Specialist VISN 7 Network Contracting Office (NCO7) 6439 Garners Ferry Road Columbia, SC 29209 E-mail: regina.lawrence@va.gov

The information contained in the completed Past Performance Questionnaire is considered sensitive and cannot be released to [Insert Company Name]. Please direct any questions about the acquisition or the attached questionnaire to the VISN 7 NCO point of contact identified above.

Thank you, [Insert Company Official Name and Title]

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

A-E FIRM TO BE EVALUATED:

Firm Name:

Phone:

Address: Email:

Point of

Contact:

Firm Cage Code: ______________________________

Firm Tax ID Number: __________________________

Firm DUNS Number: _________________________________

Project Title: _______________________________________

Description of Project:

Description of A-E Firms’ Responsibilities:

Contract Number: ________________________________________________________

Dollar Amount: _____________________ _____________________________________

Contract Period of Performance: _____________________________________________ A-E Firm performed as: Prime Contractor/Sub-Contractor/Consultant/Team Member ______ Percent of work performed by A-E Firm:___________________________________________ Other (Please describe) ________________________________________________________

B. EVALUATION INFORMATION:

Evaluator’s Company or Agency Firm

Name:

Evaluator’s

Name:

Address: Title:

Phone:

Email:

A. SEND COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE (SECTIONS B through D) TO: (Email Only)

Regina Lawrence, Contract Specialist VISN 7 Network Contracting Office (NCO7) 3469 Garners Ferry Road Columbia, SC 29209 E-mail: regina.lawrence@va.gov

B. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate rating that most accurately describes the A/E’s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ALL RATINGS OF Marginal or Unsatisfactory on page 7 under Narrative Summary.

Exceptional (5) Very Good (4) Satisfactory (3) Marginal (2) Unsatisfactory (1) N/A

-Performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many of your company’s expectations. The contractual performance reflects or reflected few minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be highly effective or corrective actions taken were effective.

-Performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some of your company’s expectations. The contractual performance reflects or reflected some minor problems and corrective actions being taken by the contractor appear to be effective or Corrective actions taken were effective.

-Performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects or reflected some minor problems.

Corrective actions being taken by the contractor appear to be effective or Corrective actions taken were effective.

-Performance does or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects or reflected serious problems(s) for which the contractor has not yet identified acceptable corrective actions or did not provide acceptable corrective actions.

-Performance does or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely or did not occur. The contractual performance contains or contained serious problem (s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear ineffective or were ineffective.

-Not applicable or rater has not observed performance in this area.

A-E FIRM’S NAME: PROJECT NAME:

Contract Period of Performance:

Note: Include this information on each page of the questionnaire form to ensure there is no mix up in information among contracts surveyed for respective primes/subs, etc.

Place an “X” in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix on page 4.

Ite m FACTORS TO BE RATED

Ex ce pt io na l (

5)

Ve ry

G oo d (4

Sa tis fa ct or y

(3

M ar gi na l ( 2)

U ns at is fa ct or y

(1

N /A

Design Services:

1. Overall skill level and technical competence of A/E’s personnel.

2. A/E’s ability to identify and resolve design issues expeditiously.

3. A/E’s responsiveness to design review questions.

4. A/E’s ability to effectively coordinate, integrate and manage their consultants/subcontractors/team

5. A/E’s effectiveness and responsiveness in interfacing with the Client’s staff

6. Overall accuracy, completeness and coordination of final design documents. (Quality)

7. A/E’s ability to provide detailed, accurate cost estimates.

8. A/E’s ability to meet contract schedule.

Follow-On Construction Support Services:

9. Thoroughness and timely review of construction submittals.

10. Timely resolution of construction design issues.

11. Overall quality, responsiveness and timeliness of A/E follow-on construction support services.

LEED (If Applicable):

12. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness and coordination of LEED documentation.

13. A/E’s ability and understanding of the overall LEED process.

BIM (If Applicable):

14. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness and coordination of BIM documentation.

15. A/E’s ability and understanding of the overall BIM process.

Owner’s Representative on Design/Build Projects (If Applicable):16. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness and coordination of requirements documents and bridging documents.

17. A/E’s ability, thoroughness, timeliness and support as Owner’s Representative throughout the project.

Overall:

18. How would you rate the A/E’s ability to control cost?

19. How would you rate the A/E’s overall management performance on this contract?

20. How would you rate the A/E’s overall technical/quality performance on this contract?

21. Would you use this A/E again? (If “No”, please comment in the Narrative Summary) YES NO

CONTRACTOR’S NAME: PROJECT NAME:

CONTRACT PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE

Note: Include this information on each page of the questionnaire form to ensure there is no mix up in information among contracts surveyed for respective primes/subs, etc.

NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to explain any rating from the previous page)

ITEMS COMMENTS