Attachment 2 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 Evaluation Process

1.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), composed of representatives from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, will evaluate the proposals. The SSEB will utilize technical advisors in the evaluation process, as necessary. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process.

1.2 The evaluation process consists of four parts: (1) proposal compliance review; (2) Volume I, technical proposal evaluations; (3) Volume II, price analysis; and (4) technical-price tradeoff analysis.

1.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is a review by the Contracting Division to ensure that all required Volumes, forms, certifications, etc., are complete and all administrative requirements comply with the RFP.

1.2.2 Technical Evaluations: Without knowledge of price, the SSEB will evaluate all Volume I proposals furnished to them by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Technical evaluation consists of an evaluation and adjectival ratings of all source selection factors. The rating systems and definitions used for the technical evaluations are included in this section.

1.2.3 Price Evaluations: Price is not rated but will be analyzed for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis techniques. The price analyst will also check for appearance of unbalanced pricing. Per FAR 15.401-l(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more-line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of costs or price analysis techniques. The Government may reject an offer as non-responsive if it is materially unbalanced. Price will not be revealed to the SSEB until the it has completed its quality evaluations and ratings of the Volume I submissions.

1.2.4 Performance/Technical-Price Tradeoff Analysis: Upon completion of its evaluations, the SSEB will then assess price in connection with the technical evaluation to determine the proposal offering the most advantage to the Government. The tradeoff analysis will be conducted after evaluations of initial offers if discussions are not necessary, or upon completion of the technical and cost evaluations of final proposal revisions if discussions are necessary. Offerors are reminded that some tradeoff considerations are usually part of the process of determining which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions if discussions are necessary

.If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are not required, the Contracting Officer, relying on the Board's report and independent business judgment, will decide which offeror is to be awarded the contract. This decision, reflected in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), will be based on the proposal that offers the best value to the Government in terms of their combined factor ratings and price. This may result in an award being made to higher rated, yet higher price offeror where the decision is consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the superiority of the non-price factor ratings of the higher priced offeror justifies the additional costs.

2.0 Submission Requirements for Volume I. Submit the requested Past Performance and Technical Approach information in Volume I under the tabs indicated below and number all pages. Note: Do NOT provide any price information in Volume I.

2.1 Factor 1 – Tab A: Past Performance of the Prime Contractor. The contractor noted on the SF1449 and that signs the SF1449 is considered the Prime Contractor and Offeror. The Offeror is to provide its past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate its accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform the effort required by this RFP. Past Performance information includes the following:

(a) Relevant Company Effort and (b) Quality of Past Performance.

Where the word "project” and/or “effort(s)" appears in the RFP, it is understood to mean the act of installing, testing, commissioning, and placing into service, draw-out mounted metal enclosed switchgear, panelboards, and switchboards rated at 15kV in powerhouses, power plants, generation stations, or similar industrial facilities under a single contract.

Examples of projects or efforts submitted by an Offeror may be projects performed for a State or Federal Government agency or for a commercial or private sector customer. If the Offeror is submitting projects or efforts performed under a “task order type contract”, each task order shall be considered a separate project. In other words, do not combine tasks order projects and present them as one project.

Where the word “recent” appears, it is understood to mean a switchgear rated 15kV to install, test, commission, and place into service type project, the contract for which has been completed within 10 years of the RFP issue date.

“Relevant” past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. Where the word “relevant” appears, it is understood to mean a single project that is similar in terms of scope (dollar value, size, project type, complexity) to the work described in this solicitation. The description of work is found in the Statement of Work.

2.1.1 (a) RELEVANT COMPANY EFFORT. The Offeror shall submit no more than five (5) examples of “recent” and “relevant” projects performed as a prime contractor to demonstrate its accomplishments on contracts similar to the effort required in this solicitation. If the Offeror submits more than five (5) projects, only the first five (5) projects shall be evaluated. For each “recent” and “relevant” project example, the Offeror shall submit a separate and fully completed Prime Contractor Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1 at the end of this section), or at a minimum, provide the following information:

1) Company Name.

2) Name of Project.

3) Location of Project.

4) Owner (i.e., customer work was completed for);

5) Narrative Description of the General Scope of Project/Contract as it relates to this solicitation.

6) Your Role on this Contract (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture Partner) and the type of effort your company self-performed.

7) Cost for this single contract.

8) Extent and type of work subcontracted out.

9) Contract Award Date (Provide Month and Year); Completion Date: (Provide

Month/Year);

10) Termination or Liquidated Damages Information; Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

11) Name and contact information of Owner’s point of contact

(b) QUALITY OF PAST PERFORMANCE.

1) The Offeror shall submit evidence of the quality of its past performance on projects submitted in paragraph 2.1.1 (a). The Offeror shall provide a completed contractor performance evaluation, whether interim or final, found in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (www.ppirs.gov). If a completed contractor performance evaluation does not exist in PPIRS (i.e., a non-U.S. Government project), the Offeror shall provide a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2 at the end of this section). If, at time of evaluation, a completed contractor performance evaluation exists in PPIRS that conflicts with a submitted PPQ, the completed contractor performance evaluation in PPIRS will govern.

2) Any past performance surveys/assessment/evaluation forms, other than PPIRS or the PPQ Form, are unacceptable submissions by the Offeror to evidence the quality of its past performance and will not be considered or evaluated.

3) Completed PPIRS or PPQs that were submitted in response to previous solicitations may be submitted. However, Offerors shall not incorporate either by reference, and thus must resubmit the PPIRS or PPQ with their proposal. However, this requirement does not preclude the Government, at its discretion, from utilizing previously submitted PPIRS or PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

4) If an Offeror has been required to take corrective action for any substandard performance, experienced other performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc., the Offeror should explain the circumstances and the corrective actions taken.

5) If a client will only provide completed PPQs directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, then ensure the client submits the PPQ before the proposal due date using the following electronic mailing address:

richard.w.bonnell@usace.army.mil

Please include the solicitation number in the subject line of the email.

PPQs received after the proposal receipt date will not be considered timely and will not be included in the Offeror’s proposal.

2.1.1.1 Joint Venture Submission Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals as a Joint Venture (JV) shall obtain a SAM Unique Entity ID number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in the name of the Joint Venture. The Offeror, that is the JV, must provide no more than five (5) “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by the JV that reflect the JV’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by Paragraph 2.1.1 subparagraphs (a) and (b).

2.1.1.2 If the Offeror, that is the JV, cannot provide a sufficient number of projects as the JV to meet the requirement, the Offeror must provide “recent”, “relevant” projects that it has performed as the JV, and then supplement the record with additional “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by any JV member in their individual capacities. In this instance, the total number of projects submitted shall be no more than five (5), regardless of the combination of JV projects and JV member projects.

2.1.1.3 If the Offeror, that is the JV, has no “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by the JV, then members of the JV must provide a combined total of no more than five (5) “recent”, “relevant” projects performed by either member of the JV that reflects the JV member’s ability to perform the work required in this solicitation as required by Paragraph 2.1.1 subparagraphs (a) and (b).

2.1.2 Verification: The Government reserves the right to verify the past performance record of cited projects or other recent projects not submitted by reviewing PPIRS, and other Government appraisal systems, or through interviews of project owners or references. An Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to reply to or explain adverse performance information which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to address.

2.1.3 Key Personnel and Key Subcontractors: Key Personnel and Key Subcontractor experience and past performance information is not a submittal requirement under this Factor. Company past performance information and/or effort demonstrated by another corporate entity other than the offering entity noted on the SF1449 will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.2 Factor 2 – Tab B: Technical Approach for Work. The Offeror shall clearly describe its overall organizational and technical approach to manage and execute the installation, testing, and commissioning of 15kV switchgear at the St. Stephens Powerhouse to show compliance with the technical requirements and scope of work. If the Offeror intends to subcontract out any effort for services or supply of the switchgear discuss the effort to be performed by any subcontractor(s).

2.3 Factor 3 – Tab C: The Offeror shall submit a schedule outline of the projected work for this project identifying major milestones and dates. The schedule shall demonstrate an understanding of special circuit outage scheduling and phasing requirements including the need to have only one switchgear, panel board, or panel taken out of service at a time.

3.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume I

3.1 In general, there are three (3) factors evaluated in Volume I, and they are listed below in order of relative importance.

Volume Location Factor Description Order of relative importance Volume I Factor 1

TAB A

Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

1st in relative importance

Volume I Factor 2

TAB B

Technical Approach for Work

2nd in relative importance, equal to Factor 1

Volume I Factor 3

TAB C

Technical Approach for Schedule

3rd in relative importance

3.2 Factor 1, Tab A – Past Performance Information of the Prime Contractor

In Factor 1, there are two aspects of past performance information:

(a) Relevant Company Effort

(b) Quality of Past Performance.

Only the past performance information of the Prime Contractor named on the signed Standard Form 1449 will be evaluated. The experience of the Offeror’s principal officers, key employees, related companies, such as a parent company, affiliate or subsidiary, or its various subdivisions will not be considered the past performance of the Offeror.

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate and rate Factor 1-Past Performance Information using the two rating schemes described below.

3.2.2 Evaluation of Past Performance Information. This is a three-step evaluation process. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will first evaluate all past performance information submitted in a proposal for compliance with the RFP submission criteria found in the respective paragraphs for “Relevant Company Effort” and “Quality of Performance”. A compliant project is a recent project that has both the “Relevant Company Effort” and the required PPIRS or PPQ record of quality. Only compliant projects will be included in step two, Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The SSEB will compare each compliant effort to the effort to be acquired in this solicitation, reach a consensus, and assign a relevancy rating. The SSEB will also evaluate the quality of the effort accomplished. There is no overall relevancy rating. The following definitions for relevancy will apply:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.2.3 When the recent/relevant performance record indicates performance (quality) problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective action taken (not just planned or promised). If discussions are held, an Offeror will be given the opportunity the address any problems that they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

3.2.4 Based on the Past Performance Relevancy assessment phase of the evaluation, the SSEB will conduct the third step in the evaluation process which is the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating is an overall rating that takes into consideration the level of relevancy of each project, the quality ratings for those projects, and the general trend of the project portfolio as a whole. The more relevant the projects are, and the greater degree of satisfaction expressed by project owners, the stronger the prediction that such Offeror will successfully perform.

For JV Offerors, the SSEB will evaluate and assess the JV’s Past Performance Information, and/or each JV partner’s Past Performance Information, as appropriate.

The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The performance confidence assessment ratings are described below.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.2.5 In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past performance or where past performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In such cases, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

3.3 Factor 2, Tab B – Technical Approach for Work

For Factor 2, the Government will assess strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach to the work. The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approach for the work shows compliance with the technical requirements and scope of work.

3.3.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. Based on the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, and deficiencies found, if any, Factor 2 will receive a Combined Technical/Risk Rating to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum capabilities and performance requirements of that factor. The combined technical/risk ratings are described below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

3.4 Factor 3, Tab C – Technical Approach for Schedule

For Factor 3, the Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s technical approach to the schedule. The Government will evaluate how well an Offeror’s proposed approach for the schedule adequately outlines the projected work for this project, identifying major work tasks, milestones to include completion of each zone of work, and completion dates that meet or exceed the Government’s minimum requirements.

3.4.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scheme. Factor 3 will be rated like Factor 2.

3.7 Additional Definitions used in Volume I and Volume II.

3.7.1 Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (see FAR 15.001). A deficiency will preclude award action to that Offeror.

3.7.2 Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Failure by an Offeror to rectify multiple significant weaknesses deemed essential will preclude award action to that Offeror (See FAR 15.001).

3.7.3 Strength - Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciable advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.7.4 Clarification. Means limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information/ adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarification does not give the Offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that corrections of apparent clerical mistakes result in a revision. Clarifications do not require discussions or submission of additional proposal information.

4.0 Submission Requirements for Volume II. The Price Proposal will consist of the Excel worksheet provided with this solicitation.

4.1 In submitting the Price Proposal, the Offeror will be required to fully complete the worksheet provided by the Government. The Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of all data provided, to include formulas and calculations. Offerors are cautioned to use the most current worksheet in the solicitation. Offerors shall insert a price on all numbered items of the Bid Schedule.

5.0 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II Price Proposal

5.1 Price Analysis. Price will not be rated but analyzed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, those listed in FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis for Commercial and Non-Commercial Items.

5.2 Arithmetic Discrepancies. For the purpose of initial evaluation of the price proposal, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the Bid Schedule as submitted by the Offeror:

a) Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected.

b) In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern.

c) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected; and

d) Apparent errors in addition of lump-sum and extended prices will be corrected.

For the purpose of bid evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the Offeror intends its bid to be evaluated on the basis of unit prices, extensions, and totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above, and the bid will be so reflected on the abstract of bids.

6.0 Need for Discussions

6.1 In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without “discussions” with Offerors. The Government however reserves the right to conduct “discussions”, if the Contracting Officer determines that “discussions” are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest. Considering the foregoing, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both price and non-priced technical submission with their initial offers, and not automatically assume they will be included in the competitive range for “discussions”, if “discussions” are deemed necessary. Note that “clarifications”, as described in FAR 15.306(a), conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors do not constitute “discussions”.

6.2 If “discussions” are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated and that have a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive “discussions” and major revisions such as to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those having more competitive offers.

6.3 If “discussions” are required, Offerors included in the competitive range shall receive a list of the weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies found in their proposals. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to respond in writing (8 1/2” x 11” format and/or spread sheets if responding to price comments). Responses, subsequent proposal revisions, and the final proposal revision (FPR) shall be submitted in both electronic and hard copy format. The Contracting Officer will notify all the Offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposals revisions are to be submitted.

6.4 If the Offeror’s price proposal is revised, the changes in the proposal must be explained, traceable, and understandable.

6.5 Upon conclusion of “discussions”, Offerors will be reevaluated and those still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit a final revised proposal.

7.0 Basis for Award

7.1 The Government will award a Firm Fixed Price Contract to that responsible Offeror whose combined proposal (technical and price proposal) conforms to the RFP, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation factors (Volume I), other than cost or price, are more important than price (Volume II). This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. As the differences in technical ratings and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror with any deficiencies as defined above.

7.2 Offerors with little or no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance. However, the proposal of an Offeror with little or no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral confidence in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to proposals of other Offerors.

7.3 The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest priced offer is selected for award, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest priced offer to justify the payment of additional amounts.

7.4 The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

ATTACHMENT 1

Prime Contractor Project Data Sheet

The Offeror shall provide the following information to show examples of the prime contractor’s company’s recent, relevant, specialized experience in similar type work. Use separate sheets for each project example.

1. Company Name:

2. Name of Project:

3. Location of Project:

4. Owner (i.e. customer work was completed for):

5. Narrative Description of General Scope of Project/Contract as it relates to this solicitation (use additional pages as necessary):

6. Your Role (Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture, etc.) and type work Your Company Self- Performed other than management:

7. Cost for this single contract:

8. Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted Out:

9. Dates Project: Began Completed

(Month/Year) (Month/Year)

10. Were You Terminated? If yes, attach an explanation. Were you assessed Liquidated Damages? If yes, attach an explanation. Provide comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the owner or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions (use additional pages as necessary):

11. Name and contact information (telephone/email/etc.) of Owner’s point of contact:

End of ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Part 1 of 3

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)

1. Contractor Information

Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Unique Entity ID Number:

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:

ATTACHMENT 2 cont.

Part 2 of 3

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(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. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that 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.

(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.

(NA) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

ATTACHMENT 2 cont.

Part 3 of 3

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U NA

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

E VG S M U NA

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

E VG S M U NA

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)

E

VG

S

M

U NA

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

E VG S M U NA

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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)

U NA

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

E VG S M U NA

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U NA

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

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 NA

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U NA

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U NA

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U NA

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

NA

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

E VG S M U NA

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U NA

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

E VG S M U

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)

U

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.

Yes

No

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

Yes No

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.)

U

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

E VG S M U NA

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).

E VG S M U NA

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

E VG S M U NA

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.

E VG S M U NA

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):

End of ATTACHMENT 2