TOSI_70Z04724RPCNI0009 Academy Steam_Final.pdf

TASK ORDER SELECTION INSTRUCTIONS (TOSI)

FOR

TASK ORDER ANNOUNCEMENT

70Z04724RPCNI0009

Recapitalize Central Steam Distribution System at USCG Academy, New London, CT

Project Number: 60-17140186

PREPARED BY:

YOLANDA L. DAVIS Date

Contract Specialist

U. S. Coast Guard

REVIEWED BY:

SHARAN A. LIND Date

Senior Field Contracting Officer

U. S. Coast Guard

I. PURPOSE

These Task Order Selection Instructions provide the criteria, which will be applied during the consideration of proposals submitted in response to Solicitation Number 70Z04724RPCNI0009. Recapitalize Central Steam

Distribution System at USCG Academy, New London, CT. This is an order under a multiple-award IDIQ contract. The Fair Opportunity process outlined in FAR Subpart 16.505(b)(1)(iv) will be utilized for this competition. The following approach to this procurement will be used to develop procedures that will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for the task order.

II. TASK ORDER EVALUATION TEAM:

Selection Authority: Sharan A. Lind, Senior Field Contracting Officer

Technical Advisor/ Evaluation Chair: Wayne Miller, Supervisor, Project Design Division

Task Order Evaluation Team:

Team Member /Administrative Yolanda L. Davis, Contract Specialist

Team Member/Lead Chad Luettel, COR

Team Member Jessica Parks, Environmental Engineer

Team Member Robert Haupt, Civil Engineer

III. DEFINITIONS

STRENGTH – A strength is defined as an element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government. Hence, when identifying strengths, evaluators must also explain how the strength benefits the Government.

WEAKNESS – A weakness is defined as a flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance. When identifying a weakness, evaluators must comment on the significance of the weaknesses and the expected impact of such weakness on contract performance.

FLAW- A flaw is defined as an error or omission. For example, if a proposal includes confusing or inconsistent information about the offeror’s capabilities or plans to meet this requirement, that lack of such information would be considered a flaw. Additionally, if an offeror proposes an approach or plan that indicates that the offeror has failed to consider significant information pertaining to this requirement, such information would be considered a flaw.

DEFICIENCY – A deficiency is defined as a material failure of an offer to meet a government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in an offer or quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

DETAILED- Detailed is defined as being supported by specific information. For example, an offeror who provides examples of the means and methods that it plans to use on this requirement would be deemed to have provided specific information and to have demonstrated a “detailed understanding” of the work. A proposal that uses general language or is vague in addressing the work requirement would not be considered “detailed.”

THOROUGH – Thorough is defined as comprehensive. For example, an offeror that submits a technical proposal that addresses all work in this requirement would be deemed to have submitted a technical proposal that is thorough. A thorough understanding of the requirement may be characterized by discussion of some work requirements in a cursory manner and other work items in a detailed manner.

DETAILED AND THOROUGH – “Detailed and Thorough” is defined as a proposal that addresses all aspects of the work requirement (thoroughness) and has done so with specific information

(detailed). For example, an offeror whose proposal provides more than a cursory discussion of the requirement and its capabilities to complete the requirement and provides specific information supporting its capabilities, plans and means and methods would be considered “detailed and thorough”.

IV. NEUTRAL RATINGS

The non-price proposals shall be evaluated on the merits of the proposal and the evaluation team will develop a narrative to indicate the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as they relate to risk associated with each factor. The following adjectival ratings will be assigned to a non-price proposal only after the narrative comments have been discussed and documented. Use of adjective ratings will allow maximum flexibility in making any tradeoffs among the evaluation factors. Only the adjectival ratings below may be used.

Superior – Proposal demonstrates thorough and detailed understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities significantly exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal offers one or more strengths. Strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses, if any. The Proposal represents a high probability of success with no apparent risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Good – Proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities exceed performance and capability standards. Proposal offers one or more strengths. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. The Proposal represents a strong probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory – Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities meet performance and capability standards. Proposal offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are offset by weaknesses. The Proposal represents a reasonable probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal – Proposal demonstrates a limited understanding of requirements. Technical approach and capabilities are questionable as to whether or not they meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal contains weaknesses and offers no strengths, or, if there are any strengths, these strengths are outweighed by weaknesses. Proposal may contain major errors or omissions. The Proposal represents a low probability of success with overall high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unsatisfactory – Proposal fails to meet the requirements. Technical approach and capabilities do not meet performance and capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance. Proposal contains major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The Proposal represents a very low probability of success with an extremely high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

V. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

CLOSING DATE: Submit proposals by Close of Business, EST, Norfolk, VA, on

March 19, 2025, to ensure consideration. Proposals submitted after this date may or may not be evaluated at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will consider such factors as whether acceptance will unduly delay award or is necessary to increase competition. The

Contracting Officer will also consider when e-mails were sent and when the e-mails arrived at the

Government point of entry.

Agency close of business is presumed to be 4:30 pm local time.

The non-price proposal and price proposal shall be separate attachments. Each electronic submission must be less than 36MB. Proposals must be prepared in accordance with these submission instructions, providing all required information in the format specified. Failure of a proposal to comply with these general submission instructions and the specific submission instructions contained in this task order announcement may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration.

All contractors have the option to opt-out of proposal submission. If the contractor decides to opt-out, the contractor shall submit a statement via email to Yolanda.l.davis@uscg.mil and Sharan.a.Lind@uscg.mil informing the Contracting Officer of the contractor’s intent not to submit a proposal.

The contractor shall be required to respond to its representation in accordance with FAR Provision 52.204-

24(d) Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment

(Nov 2021). The Full Text of this Provision is contained under Additional Clauses in the solicitation.

Contractors ARE required to include their representation in FAR 52.204-24(d) with the submission of their proposal by indicating in a statement that “It □ will, □ will not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract or other contractual instrument resulting from this solicitation.”

Failure of a proposal to comply with these general submission instructions and the specific submission instructions contained in this task order announcement may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration

AWARD ON INITIAL RESPONSES

The Fair Opportunity Process outlined in FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) will be utilized. The Government anticipates selecting the apparent successful contractor based on best value trade off without engaging in exchanges with contractors. However, the Government reserves the right to engage in exchanges with the best-suited mailto:Yolanda.l.davis@uscg.mil mailto:Sharan.a.Lind@uscg.mil contractor as described in the paragraph below. Contractors are strongly encouraged to prepare their best price proposal in response to the TOA.

The Government intends to issue a task order award to the contractor whose proposal provides the best value to the Government, price and other criteria considered. The Government will award a task order only after a determination that the award can be made within the funds available and after a Contracting Officer determination that the price is fair and reasonable.

Exchanges with Best-Suited Contract:

At the conclusion of the Best Value Trade Off process and after the Government determines the contractor that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful offeror), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that contractor to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that contractor. These issues may include technical and price. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to communicate with the next best-suited contractor based on the original analysis and address any remaining issues. Once the Government has begun communications with the next best-suited contractor, no further communications with the original best-suited contractor will be entertained until after the task order has been awarded. This process shall continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a task order is awarded.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task order; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

Non-Price Submission: Font shall not be less than 12pt font, Garamond. Excluded from page count: cover page and dividers. Additionally, use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” or “good business practices will be employed” which are not substantiated may result in a lower non-price rating.

Non-Price Factor 1: Phasing Plan during construction

Page Limit: Discussion shall be no more than 5 pages

Note: The drawings do not count towards the Page Limitation.

Provide a detailed phasing narrative. Discuss how your strategy will provide the best long-term value to the

Government in the 3-year construction period. Provide proposed schedule for design and construction to include close out. Offeror may choose a critical path or other method of its choice; however, schedule shall be graphically presented; graphical presentation does not apply to page count.

a) Plan shall include the operation of the proposed temporary boiler plant. Provide graphic to show proposed location of temporary boiler. Unless otherwise noted, DB contractor shall provide temporary boiler plant whenever a CGA Building loses steam. Provide the location and number of temporary boilers required to meet proposed phasing plan objectives.

b) Discuss the overall construction strategy and proposed benefits. Execution strategies of replacing buried steam piping in Cadet Field (football field). Cadet Field is comprised of a proprietary fill and handled by Field Turf. The football field shall be available from April/May annually for graduation. See specs for blackout dates.

c) Design approach for contending with short construction season and extreme Northern weather conditions.

Basis of Evaluation for Non-Price Factor 1:

The DB contractor’s proposal will be evaluated based on the DB contractor’s identification and demonstrated understanding of the project requirements and risks of submitted phasing plan. Offeror’s proposal should demonstrate an understanding the CGA annual schedule, and cost effectiveness. A higher rating may be assigned for a phasing plan that appropriately accounts and mitigates for risk. Plan should show adequate detail including but not limited to location of temporary boiler plants, isolation valves, anticipated road/sidewalk closures, and estimated duration of Cadet field not available for use due to steam/condensate piping replacement. All future events on Cadet field shall not be impacted.

Higher ratings may be given to DB contractors whose proposals exceed the minimum level of detail and whose design approach is beneficial and demonstrates value to the Government. For example, beneficial is designed to limit disruption to the CGA campus and conceal construction as much as practical. Higher rating may be given to DB contractors who successfully implemented phasing plans in previous projects.

Minimum level of detail is defined as identification and understanding of the specifications as presented in the

Request for Proposal by the Government. Value to the Government is defined as long-term cost savings to the

Government offered in the DB contractor’s response to Factor #01. The Government intends to award a task order at the full performance period listed in the RFP. Unless otherwise stated, Building shall have heat in fall/winter as well as domestic hot water year-round. Proposal shall clearly describe method of providing alternate source of Building heat or Building Domestic Hot Water when steam is removed. Proposal shall include safety measures taken of temporary boiler operation on CGA to include manning, security features, etc.

Non-Price Factor 2 - Environmental Compliance:

Page Limit: Discussion shall be no more than 5 pages

Note: The drawings do not count towards the page limitation. The DB contractor’s submission should include the following:

a) Describe experience with environmental permitting and environmental compliance in confined spaces.

Discuss likely environmental constraints and difficulties in this project and the experience the DB contractor has in addressing these issues.

b) Provide (3) comparable projects performed by the prime contractor or key members of the subcontracting team in which environmental compliance was met while still meeting project construction deadlines. Provide cost of project and location (state). Discuss how environmental issues presented challenges to design approach and schedule, and how project delays were overcome.

c) DB contractor shall use information in Lead / Asbestos pre-award survey and describe how it will be incorporated into the Phasing plan. See Appendix C for more information.

Basis of Evaluation for non-price factor 2:

The DB contractor’s proposal will be evaluated based on the DB contractor’s identification and understanding demonstrated in response to the submittal requirements “Environmental Compliance” for Factor 2. Minimum level of detail is defined as identification and understanding of the specifications as presented in the Request for Proposal by the Government.

DB contractors will also be evaluated based on their environmental experience with complex projects and the similarity of the projects in construction scope and challenges to the subject contract.

Higher ratings may be given to experience with project sites requiring complex abatement in confined spaces and during phased construction. For purposes of the RFP, tunnels are considered confined spaces.

Proposal shall include challenges faced with construction that predates 1940s and how they were able to mitigate risk associated with lead and asbestos. Contractor shall also include projects in which abatement scope area covers multiple Buildings at the same time, not just a specific room. Due to the phased construction, the project will have to quickly and efficiently transition from area to area. As a result, contractor to include description of how to efficiently mobilize / demobilize the abatement level of efforts and work adjacent to areas currently occupied by CGA staff. Proposal to also include specific actions taken in the case of finding undocumented lead and asbestos during construction.

Past Performance – Submit CPARS (Interim or Final) for the work discussed above. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. An Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available shall receive a “Neutral” rating.

Price Proposal:

The Contractor must submit a complete price proposal form with the technical proposal. Price proposals must be prepared in accordance with the Price Proposal Form. It is imperative that the contractor’s proposed price include the Base Line Items, Option Line Item(s) and the total for all items shown on the attached Price

Proposal Form.

Contractors are not required to submit detailed cost or pricing data with their proposals since adequate price competition is anticipated. However, if after review of the price proposals, it is determined that there is not adequate price competition, cost and pricing data will be required. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to require submission of a detailed price breakdown or other additional information from one or more contractors, as required to both ensure that a fair opportunity is offered to all contractors and to also ensure that the price is fair and reasonable.

VI. BASIS OF EVALUATION:

Importance of Factors: Non-Price Factor 1 and Non-Price Factor 2 are approximately equal. All non-price criteria when combined are approximately equal to price.

Price:

The Government will evaluate the TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE for the Base Items and Options. The

Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and non-price standpoint.

The price shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (July 1990). Option item(s) may be exercised within 90 calendar days of Task Order Award.

Proposal Acceptance Period: The contractor’s proposal must indicate that it is valid for 90 calendar days from the Government’s receipt of offer.

VII. SELECTION PROCESS

The technical members will meet as a team to evaluate each proposal against the non-price factors to ascertain the contractor’s understanding of the requirements and describe the quality of each proposal in relation to the non-price factors. The technical team will assign a consensus adjectival rating for each non-price factor that corresponds to their assessment of the ability of the contractor to perform the requirements. The consensus must be documented in a fully understandable bullet or narrative manner that outlines all considerations that were made.

The entire evaluation team will then review the price and non-price criteria to select the contractor that provides the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will prepare documentation capturing the tradeoff and a recommendation of the contractor that is best-suited and provides the best value for award for

Source Selection Authority (SSA) review and approval. Based upon the results of the initial rating evaluation, the SSA shall determine if exchanges with the recommended contractor are necessary or shall make a determination to award on initials.

If the SSA determines that exchanges are necessary and these exchanges are held, it may be necessary to request revised proposals (technical and/or price). The technical evaluation team and Contracting Officer shall document how the remaining issues were addressed. The revised documentation will be reviewed by the SSA who shall make an independent source selection decision and document the file.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

PROJECT 60-17140186

Recapitalize Central Steam Distribution

System at USCG Academy, New London, CT

IMPORTANT NOTE: Contractors that include language in their proposals containing conditions and betterments may be rejected.

Base Item 001: Includes steam and condensate piping in following locations: See Section

01800_Design_Build criteria, Paragraphs 1.2 of RFP Specs for Base Bid work. See Drawings sheet G-001, G-

002 and G-003 for Bid Option schematics and demarcation lines. DOR shall finalize the exact tie in point. See

RFP drawings (Demolition and New Work) for the scope of work.

Item Design Price ($) Construction Price ($) Total Item Price ($)

All Base Item Work

Option Item Work 001:

1. Sub-basement Passageway – Steam and Condensate piping routed from Hamilton

Hall to Chase A Annex.

2. Sub-basement Passageway - Steam and Condensate piping routed from Hamilton Hall to

Satterlee Hall.

3. Direct Buried Piping near Leamy Hall (location marker 5D) and routed to Chase C.

Piping terminates inside Chase C Mechanical Room steam pit.

4. Chase A to Chase C cross connect for steam and condensate piping. Two paths are possible.

See RFP drawings for both paths

All Option Item 001 Work

Option Item 002: Mechanical Rooms- The work in this option has general and specific criteria call out for all

Mechanical Room Michel Hall, Billard Hall and Chase B. See RFP Drawings.

All Option Item 002 Work

Option Item 003:

1. Passageway- Billard Hall to Roland Hall

2. Direct Buried- Steam and condensate piping from McAllister to Yeaton Hall.

3. Direct Buried-Steam and condensate piping route from MH#8 towards Munro Hall and Johnson

Hall.

4. Direct Buried- Steam and condensate piping routed from MH#5 to Alumni Hall.

All Option Item 0003 Work

Total (Base Item + Option Item work) $__________________

AMENDMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED:

Amendment

No.

Date Amendment

No.

Date

Offeror:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Name:

Signed:

Date:

NAVFAC/USACE/USCG PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity ID:

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:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission?

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:

NOTE:USCG REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMIT DIRECTLY BACK TO THE

OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USCG WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY

DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USCG SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED

TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND

ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the

Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the

Government/Owner.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the

Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Neutral No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name):

Client Information (Name):

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH

BEST REFLECTS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff

(including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

Contractor Information (Firm Name):

Client Information (Name):

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a government cost type contract, please rate the

Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back- up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E

VG

S

M

U

N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in

Remarks section.

Yes

No

e) If this is/was a government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting

Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

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):