Evaluation Factors for W912DS26RA002.pdf

Source Selection Plan

TBD

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting Albany Field Office, Troy, NY

SECTION III

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD, EVALUATION

CRITERIA, RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITIONS

SECTION M -SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

(Best Value Trade Off)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS,

SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 - PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL / TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

6.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

6.2 TAB C – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.2 EVALUATION

7.3 DEFINITIONS

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY

SUBCONTRACTOR

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

1. OVERVIEW

This is a "Best Value Tradeoff" solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 for Sandblasting and Repainting of the Albany Field Office sectional barge. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible firm, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2. BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. This is a Best Value Tradeoff procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer have determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price. All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within an acceptable range. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value. Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government will be performed as follows: The Total Evaluated Price used for purposes of the tradeoff analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and optional CLINS, The tradeoff analysis will be conducted and a-best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Source Selection Authority must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror.

2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS & MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA

3.1. Submit proposals initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that firms will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2. Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials:

Note: Proposals shall be submitted electronically. Refer to Instructions to Offerors, for complete instructions on submitting proposal electronically.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below. Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11 inch size paper. Schedules, drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17 inch paper, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count.

Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around.

Instructions for Submitting Electronic Proposals (see additional instructions in Section L - Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents): In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all bids shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to five (5) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 2GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Bidders may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

1 A Factor 1: Past Performance No page limit

1 B Factor 2: Organizational / Technical Approach 10

2 A Factor 3: Price (Standard Form 1442 and Contract Line Item Schedule)

No page limit

2 B Factor 3: Self-Performed Work No page limit

3.3. VOLUME 1– MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.) in the performance of the contract.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions under Factor 1:

1. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror.”

2. In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3. In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

4. In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information. The Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the sub-contractor will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

5. In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience may be submitted by any segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this

RFP.

6. In the case of affiliates, Past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé is a Small and Large Business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

4. PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS,

RATINGS, AND ELEMENTS

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Vol 1 TAB A Factor 1 Past Performance Factors 1-3 are in descending order of importance.

Vol 1 TAB B Factor 2 Organizational/Technical Approach

4.2 VOLUME 2 – PRICE

Vol 2 Factor 3 Price, Bid Guarantee & Self- Performed Work

All technical factors when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

EVALUATION RATINGS:

General: The Government will review the proposals and evaluate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the SSA/Contracting Officer will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

Past Performance Risk Ratings: assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts.

Table 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

Table 2

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating 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

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting 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 reasonably 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.

Technical Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding," "Good," "Acceptable," "Marginal," or "Unacceptable" to each factor, which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria:

Table 3

Technical Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating 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.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

5. VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: The first factor consists of examples of Past Performance that meet the relevant magnitude, scope, and complexity described below. This Volume 1 also includes a Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule with narrative and an Organizational/Technical Approach with narrative.

5.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 –PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror will provide past performance information on relevant projects (see section below on Relevant Past Performance) submitted using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s) or other personnel with knowledge of performance, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other sources.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects within the past seven (7) years from issuance of the solicitation that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a Cure Notice and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

5.1.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The source selection evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below.

Less than satisfactory performance information includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, the Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the past performance information available.

Recent projects are those completed within the past seven (7) years from issuance of the solicitation. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope to the current project, although past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the relevancy criteria for Factor 1.

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the solicitation based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts:

Rating Guidelines for Factor 1: Refer to Table 1 and Table 2, above (Section III).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral confidence”) past performance.

RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE:

5.1.2 Offeror must submit past performance for a minimum of two (2) projects and a maximum of four (4) projects total. The projects should be similar to the project described in this solicitation in scope, magnitude, and complexity. All projects must have been completed no earlier than seven (7) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

SIMILAR PROJECTS ARE DEFINED AS:

Similar Scope: The sandblasting, welding repair, and/or paint application of floating plant, such as ship hulls and sectional barges. A project involving all technical disciplines including paint application, sandblasting, welding, etc.

Similar Magnitude: a project with a total price of $250,000 to $500,000.

Similar Complexity: Projects involving handling, overland transportation, and storage of vessels up to 40 feet, and/or projects involving sandblasting, spray painting, and welding of vessels up to 40 feet long. Projects requiring Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) Quality Procedures (QP) 1 certification.

5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant performance of the contractor. Federal Government project performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project performance.

1. The government may give additional consideration for the following:

a. Projects demonstrating performance working in winter or spring.

b. Projects showing the application of the marine coating systems described in the solicitation.

c. Projects showing performance working with USACE.

d. Performance demonstrates the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors working together.

e. Prime contractor performance working as a prime contractor.

f. Projects demonstrating self-performance by the prime contractor.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

5.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL/TECHNICAL

APPROACH

Provide information that describes the Offeror's organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements of the solicitation.

Organizational Approach: Describe what firms will perform the work, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that will be established. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing each major feature of work. The Offeror should identify any specific firms chosen as key subcontractors and list specific features of work to be performed; or indicate self-performance.

The qualifications of firms submitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal will become part of the contract awarded. Should there be extenuating circumstances where a submitted firm is unable to perform, an alternate firm of equal or greater qualification may be proposed, subject to the Contracting Officer’s written approval. The substitute must be of equal or greater technical qualifications. The Government reserves the right to deny the substitution of firms.

Technical Approach: Describe the approach for performing the full scope of work in the contract, including specific scope features and specific constraints including pick up of all barge sections within 5 consecutive days, and return of the barge section in 5 consecutive days, and storage of barge sections at the contractor’s facility. Describe interactions with the Corps of Engineers during the contract. Describe elements such as schedule management, material and equipment delivery, labor management, personnel assurance system management, progress meetings, documentation and quality control.

Describe quality control procedures during contract performance. Include a description of quality control inspection and submittal register control.

Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2:

The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding and capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below.

Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participants’ contributions to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background. Additional consideration may be given to proposals that demonstrate Offerors self-performing more than 20% of the work.

Technical Approach: The Government places a higher value on an offeror that provides proposed methods to streamline contract work, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an effective schedule. The Government also places a higher value on a proposal that identifies and provides specific procedures for

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting each major feature of work, including, but not limited to, repair and testing of the barge sections. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes. Additional consideration may be given to proposals that demonstrate an effective approach to managing contract constraints, including, but not limited to, approach for pick up of all barge sections within 5 consecutive days, and return of the barge sections in 5 consecutive days.

6. VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

GENERAL: Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate electronic file labeled:

"Volume 2 – Pro Forma Requirements."

6.1 VOLUME 2 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1449 AND CONTRACT LINE

ITEM SCHEDULE)

Submission Requirements: Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1449, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration.

6.1.1 Evaluation Criteria: Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis by the Price Evaluation Board (PEB). Price will not be rated.

The PEB will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Firms are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

6.1.2 If deemed necessary, supplemental price breakdown information may be requested by the government after the initial proposal submission, to be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

6.1.3 Analysis of the price to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government will be performed. The Total Evaluated Price for purposes of tradeoff analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and option CLINS. The trade-off analysis will be conducted and a best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

6.2 VOLUME 2 TAB B – SELF-PERFORMED WORK

6.2.1 Submission Requirements: The Firm shall confirm that it understands and that it shall perform the amount of work required to be self-performed, in accordance with the appropriate clause in Section I that applies to the contract

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting performance.

6.2.2 Evaluation Requirements: This item is not rated. In order to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work, the Contractor shall be required to perform a significant part of the contract with its own forces. This public policy is expressed in various Statutes, as well as in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and in the Small Business Administration Code of Federal Regulations. The Firm must confirm that it understands the amount of work performed, based on the status of the firm, and that it will self-perform the required amount of work with its own forces.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

7.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

7.1.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2 EVALUATION

7.2.1 The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

7.2.2 Firms are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Firms should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer reserves its right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

7.2.3 Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated based on an evaluation of all evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for the purposes of efficiency. Competitive range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal. The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the competitive range.

7.2.4 If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those firms in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Firm an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Firm to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

7.2.5 Upon conclusion of discussions, those firms still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting evaluation and selection.

7.3 DEFINITIONS

7.3.1 Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

7.3.2 Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

7.3.3 Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7.3.4 Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criteria, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

7.3.5 Significant Strength: A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

7.3.6 Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The firm may or may not have called the deviation to the Government's attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

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

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

(1) Name of Solicitation:

(2) Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

UEI #

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s). If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture

(J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide UEI for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

(3) AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.]

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

ATTACHMENT 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

s 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:

NOTE: NAVFAC/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.

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

ATTACHMENT 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) (cont.)

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. 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.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

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

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

VG

S

M

U

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

E VG S M U N

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)

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, Engineer-in-Charge, 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.

E VG S M U N

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):

Controlled Unclassified Information - CUI Barge Sandblasting and Repainting

ATTACHMENT 3 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY SUBCONTRACTOR

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company performed within the last seven years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

Type of Work Represented

Your Firm's Name:

Name of Project

Location of Project

Owner

General Scope of Project

Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Contract Cost

Percent of Work Self Performed

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

Dates Construction: Began Completed

Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known

Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is "Yes", attach an Explanation)

Owner's Point of Contact for Reference(Name and Company)

Current Telephone Number of Reference