AZ PFH 51-1(2) RFQ.pdf

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue

Lakewood, CO 80228 October 7, 2010 PH: (720) 963-3090

FAX: (720) 963-3360

ATTN: Interested Firms

AZ PFH 51-1(2) Control Road Bridge Replacements Project Tonto National Forest

Design-Build Request For Qualifications Solicitation Number DTFH68-11-R-00001

The Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is conducting a "two phased" Design-Build (D-B) selection process for the Control Road Bridge Replacements Project in the Tonto National Forest. Under this Notice, CFLHD is soliciting D-B firms/teams (Proposer) to participate in Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) – of the selection process.

This Request for Qualifications is being issued concurrently with the development and review of the environmental documentation that will determine the final Scope of Work and other project requirements. Any Work described herein is subject to adjustment as a result of the environmental process and other decisions of the Government.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction; the small business size standard is $33.5 million.

This is NOT a Request for Proposal. A solicitation package is not available.

Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) will only be accepted from Proposers intending to provide complete services required under the Contract. Responses from individual engineering, construction, or consultant firms not offering to provide all required services will be deemed non-responsive and will not be accepted.

SUBMIT ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE (5) COPIES (PAPER COPIES ONLY) OF YOUR

RESPONSE BY 2:00 PM Local Time, November 10, 2010 at the address below.

ATTN: Aaron Sanford (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Lakewood, CO 80228

Submit questions to: CFLContracts@dot.gov

Sincerely yours, ---Original Signed--- Contracting Officer

Attachments (6):

1-Project Description 2-Procurement Process Overview 3-Request for Qualification Evaluation Criteria 4- Proposal Evaluation Criteria 5-Submittals 6-Information Request of Past Performance

AZ PFH 51‐1(2)

Tonto National Forest Bridge Replacements

Design‐Build Solicitation

Request for Qualifications

ATTACHMENT 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Control Road Bridge Replacements Project is to design and construct replacements for seven deficient bridges and to improve one at-grade stream crossing along Control Road (also known as Forest Road 51 and National Forest System Road 64) in the Tonto National Forest, as listed below.

• Webber Creek Bridge, Milepost 5.7

• Bonita Creek Bridge, Milepost 13.8

• Perley Creek Bridge, Milepost 14.7

• Moore Creek Bridge, Milepost 15.4

• Lewis Creek Bridge, Milepost 16.8

• Ellison Creek Bridge, Milepost 17.4

• Roberts Draw Bridge, Milepost 19.6

• Tonto Village Low Water Crossing, Milepost 20.5

Due to safety concerns, the load capacity for the bridges has been restricted. These bridges are no longer able to meet their intended purpose. The existing bridges are in such condition that the FHWA recommends replacement of the bridges.

The Tonto National Forest is located in Gila County, Arizona. The project sites are on Forest Highway 51, starting at State Highway 87, 13 miles northwest of Payson, AZ, and extending east for 21 miles to the intersection with State Highway 260 near Tonto Village.

The limits of the Project sites are within existing National Forest right-of-way. The design and construction cost for the Project is estimated to be between $3,500,000 and $8,500,000.

Design-Build Scope of Work (SOW): The SOW for this Project includes Design and Construction, Project Management, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), including Materials Sampling and Testing, and includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Design Work

• Bridge design and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Design surveys

• Roadway design

• Context sensitive design/bridge details

• Soil erosion and sediment control design and dust control

• Retaining wall design

• Hydraulic design

• Temporary traffic management and control including public safety

• Geotechnical design

• Design QA/QC

• Public Relations

• Obtain Permits

Construction Work:

• Construction of bridges

• Construction of bridge temporary work

• Construction of roadways

• Construction of drainage devices and storm water management facilities

• Construction of retaining walls

• Construction of guardrail

• Installation of sediment, erosion and dust control measures

• Implement permit requirements

• Installation of sheeting, shoring, and other temporary safety protection devices

• Installation of temporary traffic control facilities and devices

• Utility coordination

• Removal and disposal of existing structures

• Construction QA/QC, including Materials Sampling and Testing

ATTACHMENT 2

PROCUREMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW

CFLHD is using a two-step procurement process to select a qualified D-B firm/team to deliver the Project.

The issuance of this RFQ is part of the first step to solicit information from interested Proposers in the form of an SOQ.

CFLHD anticipates the following procurement milestone dates. This schedule is subject to revision by addenda to this RFQ, to information in the RFP, and by addenda to the RFP.

Action Dates Phase 1– Request for Qualifications RFQ issued October 7, 2010 Deadline for submitting RFQ questions October 29, 2010 Deadline for CFLHD response to questions November 4, 2010 SOQs due November 10, 2010 Short-listed Proposers notified November 30, 2010* Phase 2 – Request for Proposals Draft RFP released for comments (to short-listed Proposers only) December 3, 2010 * Deadline for submitting draft RFP comments December 10, 2010* RFP issued (to short-listed Proposers only) Early January Deadline for submitting RFP questions Late January Deadline for CFLHD response to questions Late January Proposals Due Early February Notice of Award issued Early March Notice to Proceed issued Early April *Dates are subject to change

Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

CFHLD is issuing this RFQ for interested and qualified D-B firms/teams to submit an SOQ, which CFLHD will evaluate consistent with the evaluation criteria.

CFLHD’s selection committee – the Evaluation Board– will review and evaluate the SOQs submitted by all responsive Proposers. The Evaluation Board will evaluate the SOQs based on how well each meets the evaluation criteria.

A “shortlist” of three to five of the most highly qualified Proposers will be selected and invited to participate in Phase 2 – Request for Proposals. Once the shortlist has been established, Proposers not shortlisted will be notified in a timely manner.

It is not the intent of CFLHD to receive specific design or engineering recommendations regarding the Project as part of the Phase 1 process. Proposers should limit their SOQ’s to the information required by this notice, and other information that may be relevant to the qualifications and experience of the Proposer.

No reimbursement will be made for any of Proposers’ costs associated with the preparation of SOQ’s.

Phase 2 – Request for Proposals

The short-listed D-B firms/teams will be sent a Request for Proposal (RFP), which will outline the remainder of the selection process requirements. The RFP will contain the requirements necessary for the short-listed D-B firms/teams to submit both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal.

After receipt of the Phase 2 Technical Proposal and Price Proposal, an Evaluation Board will conduct a "best value" analysis. Attachment 4 contains a draft of the criteria expected to be used in the evaluation process. It is subject to change as the RFP is finalized. The Evaluation Board will submit their recommendation to the Source Selection Authority. Award of one firm fixed price contract is anticipated.

A stipend will be awarded to each Phase 2 Proposer who provides a responsive, but unsuccessful, Proposal.

ATTACHMENT 3

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA

Phase 1 – Evaluation Criteria: Proposers’ Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated using the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Criteria 1: Design-Build Understanding and Approach.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate each Proposer’s understanding of tasks involved in a D-B project and the Proposer’s approach to managing, designing and constructing the Project.

Submit a general description of the tasks involved in the D-B process and the approach the Proposer will take for design and construction administration. Include a discussion on how the Proposer intends to maximize the benefits of the D-B process. Discuss the involvement of the design members of the Proposer's team during construction including how design and construction members will interface during construction. Also discuss how review comments will be incorporated and submittals will be addressed during construction.

Describe how the team will coordinate with the Project Owner throughout the D-B process.

Describe your system to manage design and construction, project costs and schedule.

Identify potential risk factors, special issues or problems that require variance to the contract document and their impact on the delivery of the Project. Explain the approach to mitigate those risks, issues or problems.

2. Criteria 2: Personnel Experience.

The CFLHD Evaluation Board will review and evaluate the Proposers’ individual personnel qualifications and experience in highway and bridge design/construction, including technical and geographical similarities between the referenced experience/qualifications and the work described in this solicitation.

Submit documentation for each key individual indicating their specialized experience within the past five (5) years and their qualifications for performing Design-Build projects and for projects with technically the same or similar bridge, roadway, geotechnical, hydraulic, erosion control, permitting, project management, construction, and QA/QC work as required by the Project.

In addition to the specific information requested in this section, include a resume for each Key Personnel in an appendix to the SOQ.

(NOTE: If one individual will be fulfilling multiple roles during the Project, list how that individual meets the experience and expertise separately for EACH position).

PROJECT MANAGEMENT KEY PERSONNEL

• Design-Build Project Manager – The Proposer’s overall manager and principal point of contact for activities throughout the entire design-build process.

• Project QA/QC Manager – The Proposer’s single point of responsibility for managing quality through design and construction, and who is responsible for all quality assurance and quality control procedures and decisions. The Project QA/QC Manager may also function as the Design QA/QC Manager and/or Construction QA/QC Manager, as qualified.

• Safety Manager – The Proposer’s representative in charge of all aspects of the safety program, with authority to halt work if warranted by unsafe conditions at the Project site.

DESIGN KEY PERSONNEL

• Designer of Record – The Proposer’s single point of responsibility for all design procedures and decisions. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Bridge Engineer – The Proposer’s engineer who is in charge of the bridge design. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Geotechnical Engineer – The Proposer’s engineer who is in charge of the bridge foundation design and other geotechnical analyses. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Design QA/QC Manager – The QA/QC representative responsible for implementing the

Design QA/QC program referenced in Criteria 3.

CONSTRUCTION KEY PERSONNEL

• Construction Superintendent – The Proposer’s on-site authorized representative in charge of the construction work.

• Project/Construction Engineer – The Proposer’s individual responsible for engineering decisions, judgment and construction work on the Project. This individual shall be a registered, licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Construction QA/QC Manager – The QA/QC representative responsible for implementing the Construction QA/QC program referenced in Criteria 3.

Proposer’s obligation to keep Key Personnel intact:

In connection with the services covered by this procurement process, Key Personnel will be limited to the individuals and firms that are specifically identified in the Proposer’s SOQ. The successful Proposer’s Key Personnel will be incorporated into the awarded contract. The selected D-B firm/team shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution of the Key Personnel.

3. Criteria 3: Quality Management Plan.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate each Proposer’s approach to quality control to assess the soundness and reasonableness of the Proposer's planned QA/QC for quality of design, materials, and construction products.

Submit an outline of the system to be used to manage the design and construction schedule, and the management system to control the cost and quality of materials and constructed products. Describe how the quality management system(s) will interact between the design and construction functions and how it will be updated and monitored. Also describe how the system will address non-compliance issues of design and construction and how the system will facilitate strategic interaction with the Project Owner.

Submit evidence of construction work in within the last five (5) years, indicating that quality work was completed on schedule and within budget. Provide a minimum of two

(2) current references, with contact information.

4. Criteria 4: Design and Construction Capability and Resources.

The Evaluation Board will review and evaluate information about the Proposer’s past performance in the design and construction of bridge and roadway projects based on the Project Organizational Structure, and on Design and Construction Performance for projects similar in size and scope.

PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Submit the proposed D-B team’s organizational structure. Identify major participants, their roles in the Project and their percentage of work hours committed to the Project.

Identify how each partner and subcontractor interacts and fits into the overall D-B team makeup and their experience working together on past projects. Submit documentation that shows the direct experience of the Proposer, joint venture partners, and/or firms/teams related by an ownership agreement. Also include experience of key subcontractors that the Proposer intends to utilize in the execution of this Project. The successful Proposer’s organizational structure will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

DESIGN PAST PERFORMANCE

Provide information on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), bridge and roadway projects performed in the past three (3) years. Identify projects where the lead construction firm and the lead design firm have worked together on the same project in a Design-Build relationship. If any D-B project is provided as a reference that was not performed together by the lead design firm and lead construction firm, then the Proposer shall identify the construction entity with whom it was contracted for the design of each such project.

CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE

Provide information on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), bridge and roadway projects with a contract value of greater than $3,000,000 performed in the past three (3) years. Identify any projects where the lead construction firm and the lead design firm have worked together on the same project in a Design-Build relationship. If any D-B project is provided as a reference that was not performed together by the lead design firm and lead construction firm, then the Proposer shall identify the design firm whom it contracted for each such project.

Provide the Questionnaire included in Attachment 6 to the owner/agency to complete for each of the 3 to 5 projects. CFLHD will give due consideration to: the completed Questionnaire;

CFLHD’s communications with designated points of contact; Offeror’s information provided in their proposal; records generated and provided (if any) pursuant to FAR 42.15; and any other relevant past performance information that may be available to CFLHD.

The Proposer may provide letters of reference or recommendation, including contact information of the person/agency/owner. The letters will not be included in the page count limit.

The Proposer may provide evidence of awards or acknowledgements received regarding projects completed by Proposer. The material submitted will not be included in the page count limit.

ATTACHMENT 4

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA (DRAFT)

These RFP evaluation criteria are being developed concurrently as the RFQ is being issued and as the environmental documentation is being developed and the Scope of Work finalized. These RFP evaluation criteria are subject to change as a result of advancing project development.

Phase 2 – Technical and Price Proposals

The Request for Proposal describes information to be submitted by the Proposers and provides a framework for evaluating the proposals relative to established technical criteria and price.

The purpose of the proposal phase is to evaluate the proposals submitted by the shortlisted proposers. The evaluation will focus on technical elements: characteristics of the proposed project, management of the Design-Build team, design and construction approach, quality management plan and delivery schedule, and the price submitted by the proposer.

Technical Proposal The proposers shall submit information describing their proposed project and methods they intend to use in designing and constructing it. The submittal shall include drawings, written descriptions and other materials that address the criteria below.

Technical Characteristics of Proposed Project The proposers shall submit drawings, details, technical information and narratives that describe the project they intend to design and construct in response to the requirements presented in the Request for Proposals.

Approach to Design and Construction The proposers shall submit information that describes their approach to designing and constructing their proposed project.

Project Management Plan The proposers shall submit information that describes their plans for managing and controlling the work on the Project. The submittal shall address the Proposer’s plans for delivering a quality project on time and within budget.

Project Completion Time The proposers shall submit information regarding the establishment and management of schedule for design and construction of the Project. The goal of CFLHD is to complete the overall Project within the shortest reasonable time, preferably one construction season. The Proposer’s submittal shall address procedures and coordination for monitoring the commencement, prosecution and completion of work and for regular reporting to CFLHD.

Quality Management Plan The proposers shall submit information regarding their overall plan to manage quality throughout the delivery of the Project. The submittal shall include a written Quality Management Plan that describes the Quality Assurance and Quality Control activities that will be undertaken during design and construction.

Price Proposal The proposers shall submit a Price Proposal in a sealed package, separate from the Technical Proposal envelope. The successful Proposer’s Price will become the Contract Bid Price.

The price to be used for evaluation of the price proposal will be the Contract Bid Price only. Contract Administration Cost (cost per day incurred by CFLHD to administer the project) will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Best Value Analysis and Award. After receipt of the Phase 2 Technical and Price Proposals, the CFLHD Evaluation Board will conduct a "best value" analysis. The Technical scores and Price will be combined to rank Proposals for final selection. The Government will use a tradeoff process for this source selection.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation requirements and provides the best value to the Government considering the stated technical factors and price. The award of one firm fixed price contract is anticipated in spring 2011.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)); therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should be clear and complete and contain the offeror’s best terms from a price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later deemed necessary. The Government further reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

ATTACHMENT 5

SUBMITTALS

Phase 1 Submittals: Statement of Qualification

Proposers shall use the Standard Form (SF) 330 U.S. Government Architect-Engineer Qualifications, as the basis for their SOQ. SF 330’s are available on the U.S. General Services Administration website at:

http://www.gsa.gov/forms/. Although the SF 330 is formatted for Architect-Engineer and Related Services, the construction elements of the Proposer’s SOQ may also be included on the SF 330. The SOQ shall be bound and tabbed with the major headings. Each SOQ shall include a table indicating where the Criteria 1-4 can be found.

Each Proposer shall provide one (1) original AND five (5) copies of the completed SOQ. The SOQ shall contain no more than thirty (30) pages typed, one side only, on 8.5" x 11" paper. Resumes of Key Personnel and certain safety, financial material, and letters of reference/recommendation/evidence of project awards shall be included in appendices and will not be included in the page count. If dividers or photos are used and contain project-specific information they will be counted as pages. All SOQs shall be written using Times New Roman font with a size no smaller than 11-point. The SOQ shall address each of the evaluation criteria in the same order as listed in Attachment 3.

Submit the original and copies of the SOQ on or before that date/time indicated on page 1 of this RFQ, to the following address (fax and email submissions of SOQs will not be accepted):

ATTN: Aaron Sanford (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Questions concerning this Request for Qualifications shall be submitted via e-mail to CFLContracts@dot.gov. Only e-mail inquiries will be considered. No hard copy or oral inquiries will be considered.

Phase 1 Submittals: Questionnaires Regarding Past Performance

The Proposer shall provide questionnaires, with General Information filled in, to the contracting agency/owner with a request for completion and submittal (See Attachment 6). The completed Questionnaires must be submitted by the contracting agency/owner by US Mail, express delivery, email or fax to:

Mail/Express: Attn: Aaron Sanford (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228

Email: CFLContracts@dot.gov

FAX: 720.963.3360

NOTE: The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the questionnaires, including Government agencies’ or private sector companies’ submittal to the Contracting Officer rests solely with the Proposer. Questionnaires received directly from the Proposer will NOT be evaluated. The Proposer may verify receipt of these questionnaires by contacting Kevin R. Black, Contracting Officer, CFLContracts@dot.gov. The completed questionnaires must be received no later than the date/time set for receipt of the Proposer’s SOQ on page 1 of this RFQ.

Phase 1 Submittals: Bonding Capacity

Submit a bonding agent letter verifying the Proposer’s ability to obtain bonding of up to $10 million for a single contract.

ATTACHMENT 6

INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

(Questionnaire)

Transmittal Information for Owner/Agency: This transmittal is to use to forward the Questionnaire to the owner/agency of referenced projects. Once completed the owner/agency returns it directly to CFLHD to the fax/mail/email addresses indicated below.

TO: __________________________ FACSIMILE: ________________________

PHONE:______________________ EMAIL:____________________________

INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

(Questionnaire)

The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) is currently in the process of soliciting Statements of Qualifications and Proposals for a Design- Build contract. Specifically, CFLHD is looking for past performance information of design and construction firms in the following areas:

Planning, Scheduling and Coordination Quality Control System Change Management (Collaboration with Owner) Project Superintendence and

Management Personnel Subcontract Management

In order for CFLHD to complete its evaluation, the attached questionnaire must be completed and submitted directly to CFLHD not later than November 10, 2010. The completed questionnaire may be mailed, express mailed, e-mailed or faxed to:

Attn: Aaron Sanford (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

FAX: (720) 963-3360

E-MAIL: CFLContracts@dot.gov

For your convenience, a cover sheet for use in mailing/faxing is provided below.

NOTE: Pages 2, 3, and 4 of the Questionnaire can be filled out and submitted to CFLHD, ONLY by the owner/agency of the referenced project.

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

From: (Name and Address of Owner/Agency)

(Point of Contact Name): __________________________________________________

(Facsimile/Phone Number)__________________________________________________

(E-mail Address)__________________________________________________

To: Attention: Contracts

Aaron Sanford (Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001)

MAILROOM—DO NOT OPEN

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Envelope must be marked: “Solicitation Number: DTFH68-11-R-00001. For Addressee Only”

(Facsimile Number) (720) 963-3360

(E-mail Address) CFLContracts@dot.gov

Solicitation No.: DTFH68-11-R-00001

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

(Applicable when filled-in) Project Past Performance Questionnaire

(Submitted by Owner/Agency)

Directions: Page 1 Part B, and pages 2,3,4 ARE to be completed by the Owner/Agency and submitted directly to:

ATTN: CONTRACTS FAX: (720) 963-3360

Federal Highway Administration 12300 West Dakota Avenue E-MAIL: CFLContracts@dot.gov Lakewood, CO 80228 Part A - General Information (to be completed by the contractor):

Contractor’s Name

Contractor Name:

Owner/Agency

Contact Name: Contact Number:

Project Title

Project Number

Contract Number

Project Location (Town/State/Forest…)

Description of Work provided by the Contractor:

Contract Information for project listed above (to be completed by the Owner/Agency):

Contract Award Date: Contract Start Date:

Original Completion Date: Final Completion Date:

Initial Contract Amount Final Contract Amount

Were liquidated damages assessed for late completion? __ Yes __ No

Was a contractor evaluation prepared? __ Yes __ No If yes what was the overall rating?

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

(Applicable when filled-in) Project Past Performance Questionnaire

(Submitted by Owner/Agency)

Evaluation Factor Rating System. Please provide ratings and comments regarding the Contractor’s performance in each area below using the following ratings:

N/A=Not Applicable U=Unsatisfactory P=Poor F=Fair G=Good E=Excellent O=Outstanding

Unsatisfactory--Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is not effective Poor--Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is marginally effective Fair--Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective Good--Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is usually effective Excellent--Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative issues is effective Outstanding--The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. (It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".)

For ratings of “Unsatisfactory” and “Poor” please provide a brief explanation in the remarks section.

Planning, Scheduling and Coordination Developed realistic progress schedules, met established milestones, and submitted updated progress schedules as required.

N/A U P F G E O

Scheduling changes were clearly communicated to the workforce, suppliers and owner agency representatives. N/A U P F G E O

How would you rate the contractors overall project management performance in the areas of Planning, Scheduling and Coordination?

N/A U P F G E O

Change Management (Collaboration with Owner) Supporting price/cost information for modifications was accurate, complete, and reasonable. N/A U P F G E O

The contractor effectively collaborated with the owner in an equitable, businesslike and timely manner to come to satisfactory agreements.

N/A U P F G E O

How would you rate the contractor’s overall effort at collaboration with the owner agency in problem solving? N/A U P F G E O

Quality Management System Did the contractor follow their contractor quality control plan? N/A U P F G E O

Was quality control (QC) documentation timely and adequate? N/A U P F G E O

Did the contractor’s QC program effectively monitor all work including that of subcontractors? N/A U P F G E O

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 (Applicable when filled-in)

Did the contractor consistently take responsibility to ensure that all work met contract requirements? N/A U P F G E O

Did the contractor complete work in accordance with the specifications without owner agency presence? N/A U P F G E O

Did the construction work result in a quality project? N/A U P F G E O

Design-Build Project Manager and Construction Superintendent

Did D-B Project Manager foster an attitude of contract compliance? N/A U P F G E O Did D-B Project Manager deal in an ethical, collaborative and businesslike manner with owner agency representatives, workforce, subcontractors and suppliers?

N/A U P F G E O

Did D-B Project Manager act promptly to resolve problems? N/A U P F G E O

Did Construction Superintendent have sufficient authority to make decisions or to take appropriate actions? N/A U P F G E O

Construction Superintendent was consistently present and on site when work was performed. N/A U P F G E O

Did Construction Superintendent act promptly to resolve problems? N/A U P F G E O

Subcontract Management

Did the contractor take accountability for subcontractor performance? N/A U P F G E O

Did the contractor coordinate with subcontractors regarding changes to schedules or work? N/A U P F G E O

Did contractor include subcontractors in daily contractor quality control activities? N/A U P F G E O

Did contractor effectively represent subcontractors to the owner concerning changes or construction problems? N/A U P F G E O

Did contractor facilitate corrective actions to ensure subcontractor work was completed in a timely and satisfactory manner? N/A U P F G E O

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 (Applicable when filled-in)

Remarks: