Evaluation Factors-Phase One Requirements.pdf

FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT/ TECHNICAL APPROACH

Under Factor 1, an offeror shall provide a narrative, not to exceed ten (10) pages (double sided) in length. The ten page limitation excludes Resumes, Letters of Commitment, and Organizational Charts. The narrative shall address the Management and Technical Capability.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

Management/Technical Approach

An offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the overall scope of work for the project and describes the offeror’s approach to completing the work. An offeror’s narrative should identify all major scope components of the project, including critical components.

The narrative shall also address the following:

a. Jordan Business License: An offeror shall include, with its narrative, proof of current Jordan business licensure in the offeror’s name, or alternatively, the offeror’s supported plan to obtain a Jordan business license.

b. Base Access: An offeror shall explain how it will comply with security requirements to base access in Jordan. The narrative shall also describe the offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for its personnel, subcontractors, and its construction materials and equipment.

c. Organization: An offeror shall describe the process it plans to use to manage the project. The offeror shall discuss its proposed project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to its team. This includes the identification and description of who will perform the major or critical aspects of construction. The offeror shall include an organizational chart along with an accompanying narrative, which shows the relationship and how work flows through the organization between the offeror’s home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, and USACE. If applicable, the offeror shall clearly state the roles of any JV partners and major subcontractors in its discussion.

The management/technical approach portion of an offeror’s proposal will be limited to ten (10) pages in length, not including organizational chart(s) or letters of commitment. Any pages beyond ten will not be evaluated and will be ignored.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

Management/Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate proposals to determine the completeness and feasibility of an offeror’s management approach and its understanding of the overall scope of work and anticipated challenges. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s management approach based on the following aspects:

• Jordan Business License: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the process, procedures, and requirements to obtain a business license to work in the Jordan.

• Base Access: The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s understanding of the security requirements. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to control access to the work site and for obtaining base access for completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility of the plan.

• Organization: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s plan to manage the project. The Government will assess an offeror’s proposed project organization for well-defined roles, responsibilities, and authority delegated to its team. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s organizational chart and narrative to determine the effectiveness of the relationships and work flow between the offeror’s home office, field office, major subcontractor(s), QC personnel, safety personnel, USACE, and any JV partners if applicable.

Greater Weight Considerations:

A. Greater weight will be given to offerors who possess a current Jordan business license.

B. Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide evidence of having obtained a security clearance and gate passes to work on a Jordan military base for previous or current projects.

C. Greater weight will be given to offerors who effectively demonstrate they will self-perform more than twenty percent (20%) of the work.

A single technical rating will be assigned to the management/technical approach of an offeror’s proposal. The ratings include consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. The Factor 1 evaluation will utilize the combined technical /risk ratings and the risk descriptions as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings 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.

FACTOR 2: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Each offeror’s experience will be examined for breadth and depth of work performed in design-build and construction projects ($1-$5 million) in Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as stated in this solicitation. The successful offeror will possess demonstrated experience performing design-build construction projects similar to the solicitation.

Relevant types of project experience include, but are not limited to: construction of concrete facilities, pre-engineered metal buildings, roadwork, fencing, and associated utilities.

Offerors shall provide information about projects, delineating the project name, major feature overall contract value (US dollars), overall contract value the entity was responsible for (dollars or percent), location of project site (country, nearest city), contract duration (calendar days) and year in which it was completed, or its current completion date. If any offeror has multiple divisions or units, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Additional experience examples may be submitted for consideration on any other member of a Contractor Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project (i.e.

greater than 30% of the work). Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or construction completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation.

The offeror shall submit a completed Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A) capturing all projects being submitted for evaluation, as well as a Construction Experience Form (Attachment B) for no more than five (5) projects that have been completed by the offeror within the past five years or are currently being performed and well underway (at least 75% construction complete) in Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

At least two (2) projects must have a construction value greater than $1 million but less than $5 million. At least one (1) project must have been performed in Jordan within the past five years. Projects less than $1 million will not be considered. If more than five projects are submitted for this factor, only the first five will be evaluated.

Although an offeror may highlight any experience it has gained, an offeror’s narrative, not to exceed five (5) pages, shall pertain to the offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with construction challenges within the last five (5) years, and how these experiences will positively impact its performance handling this project in Jordan. As part of its narrative, an offeror should address process improvements or innovative techniques it created or established to address construction challenges.

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings, and Descriptions:

For purposes of this portion of the evaluation, the focus is on the Offeror’s prior experience in dealing with construction challenges, not on those project metrics required to conduct a past performance relevancy evaluation. A separate project relevancy analysis will be completed under the past performance factor.

Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate an offeror’s prior experience on projects dealing with construction challenges to determine how these experiences will enable the offeror to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

At a minimum, an offeror should address its experience in the following:

1. Hiring qualified laborers and maintaining a qualified workforce.

2. Procurement of long lead items.

3. Obtaining access to work locations, such as base access.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may discuss experience on projects performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner. In its evaluation, the Government is focused on the offeror’s prior experience. If an offeror discusses experience of its proposed major subcontractor(s), a firm, unequivocal letter of commitment signed by the subcontractor(s) must be included in the offeror’s proposal. If this requisite letter of commitment is not submitted, the prior experience of the major subcontractor(s) will not be considered.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s experience and will rate each offeror on the basis of relative depth of their experience in managing and executing projects that are similar in price ($1-2M) and complexity in the past five years and as stated in the solicitation.

The Government places a greater weight on a proposal that demonstrates successful experience in the following areas in order of importance:

a. Construction projects similar to the solicitation requirements in the following locations in order of precedence:

• Construction projects on a Jordan military base

• Construction projects in Jordan

b. Construction projects for which the prime offeror served as the prime contractor.

c. Performance of multiple concurrent projects across Jordan similar to the solicitation requirements.

d. Construction projects in Jordan which maximized the use of local subcontractors/businesses.

e. Offerors who demonstrate the ability to obtain access to Jordan Military Bases.

f. Offerors with quality control experience on a USACE project.

g. Offerors with USACE QC experience on a project in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

h. Offerors that demonstrate previous experience with subcontractors on relevant projects.

A single technical rating will be assigned to Factor 2. The ratings include consideration of risks in conjunction with a proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies. The Factor 2 evaluation will utilize the combined technical /risk ratings and the risk descriptions as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

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.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Factor 3 Past Performance evaluation includes an assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and results in an assignment of a single past performance confidence assessment rating based on an offeror’s overall record of recent, relevant, and quality performance.

For the purposes of this evaluation:

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years of the RFP issuance date, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the RFP issuance date.

A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined as the construction of construction of concrete facilities, pre-engineered metal buildings, roadwork, fencing, and associated utilities.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $1 million.

An Offeror shall submit recently completed, relevant project experience using the Experience Overview Sheet (Attachment A), and Construction Experience Form (Attachment B) (can be ones submitted for above factors or additional forms submitted for this factor). The offeror should include a project description that is detailed enough to permit an evaluation of project relevancy, recency, and quality and should describe project scope and magnitude. The offeror should also provide the name of an English speaking reference and current contact information on the Construction Experience Form (Attachment B).

An offeror should provide references who have first-hand knowledge of the offeror’s past performance for the applicable project submitted and may be asked to comment on specific aspects of the offeror’s performance, including: quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management including timely payment to subcontractors or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and contractor, level of support for such elements as as-built documentation, training, correcting design or construction errors, and warranty work.

References should be the contracting agency or entity that administers the contract such as the construction agent, owner, or Government representative. The offeror’s references should be independent and willing and available to answer questions. The offeror should also ensure that each reference is notified that he/she may be contacted for the purposes of the evaluation. The Government may contact and interview references provided, and additionally reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the reference provided, if the reference is not available.

When submitting past performance information for consideration, the offeror is limited to at least two but no more than five projects that have been performed by the offeror.

Additional projects submitted that exceed these limits will not be considered for evaluation.

If an offeror is a JV, the offeror may submit projects for evaluation performed by the JV and projects performed by any JV partner as the past performance of the offeror.

The Government will consider past performance information submitted for one JV partner as the past performance information for the JV-offeror, if: (a) for each project submitted for past performance consideration, the offeror’s proposal describes the role of the JV partner for that specific project; and (b) the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the role of the JV partner on the submitted project is relevant to the role the partner will be performing on the solicitation project. The Government will not consider for evaluation under this factor the past performance of any subcontractors.

An offeror is responsible for obtaining a client-completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ-0) (Attachment C) for each project submitted. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client before the proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with its proposal the first page of the PPQ-0 (including blocks 5 and 6), which will provide the contract and client information necessary to conduct an assessment.

An offeror should follow up with clients to ensure that PPQ-0 submissions are in accordance with the solicitation requirements and the proposal closing date. If the client requests, completed PPQ-0’s may be submitted directly to the Government’s point-of-contact, Mr. Ryan Gregory at ryan.k.gregory@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors may submit PPQ-0’s for submitted projects which were previously filled out by clients and used in previous proposal submissions. However, offerors shall not incorporate these PPQ-0’s by reference into their proposals.

In addition to the PPQ-0’s, the offeror is permitted to submit DD Form 2626 (Performance Evaluation (Construction)) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) for projects submitted. Past performance information such as awards, certificates, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition shall not be submitted as this information will not be evaluated. The offeror should provide details for any past performance problems encountered and the corrective actions taken for projects submitted in the appropriate space provided on the Construction Experience Form (Attachment C).

FALSIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION MAY BE GROUNDS FOR

DISQUALIFICATION OF AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR

FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR TO THE APPROPRIATE

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY.

The Government reserves the right to contact and interview references and clients submitted by an offeror, or by any other means available in order to verify past performance information. The Government reserves the right to authenticate any past performance information submitted by the offeror by reviewing relevant Government databases, other DoD or Government appraisal systems, or other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in an offeror’s proposal;

inquiries of owner representative(s); Federal Awardees Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS);

Government field representatives; and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

mailto:ryan.k.gregory@usace.army.milR

Evaluation Procedures, Adjectival Ratings and Descriptions:

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation (recency, relevancy, and quality) which results in a single performance confidence assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Recency: The first is to evaluate the recency of an offeror’s past performance.

A “recently completed” project is defined as a project which (1) has been completed within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP issued, or (2) is currently under construction and is at least 80% complete as of the date the RFP is issued.

b. Relevance: The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by an offeror is to the solicitation’s effort. A “relevant” project is defined as a recently completed project, with a similar scope and cost magnitude as the project that is the subject of this solicitation.

“Similar scope” is defined is defined as the construction of concrete facilities, pre-engineered metal buildings, roadwork, fencing, and associated utilities.

“Similar cost magnitude” is defined as a project with a total value of at least $1 million”.

Within the relevancy aspect, an offeror’s past performance is evaluated to determine how relevant the offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance is to the efforts required in the solicitation. The Government’s assessment under the Relevancy Assessment of past performance is a significant contributor to the final past performance rating; however, it is not a formal rating in and of itself.

The following criteria will be used to establish the overall level of relevancy of an offeror’s past performance.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival 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

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.

c. Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of an offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this solicitation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of an offeror’s performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well an offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the work required in the solicitation. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance.

The Government places a higher value on past performance for which documented successful outcomes are both available and supported by outside source confirmation (for example, telephone interviews with references and clients, CPARS or other agency performance databases, or personal knowledge of Government employees that have worked closely with the offeror).

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the confidence assessment and overall rating assigned for Factor 3, Past Performance, than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

In the case of an offeror for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offerors past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. However, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria. The Government may seek and obtain past performance information pertaining to an offeror from Governmental and non- Government sources and databases.

Performance Confidence Assessment

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 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 a no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Greater Weight Considerations:

a. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on a relevant project that include both design and construction (design- build) of a modular facilities.

b. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on relevant projects in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, or Qatar.

c. If an offeror proposes as a joint venture, more weight will be given to the past performance of a joint venture that has previous experience working together than to a newly formed joint venture with no such previous experience.

d. Greater weight will be given to offerors who have documented success performing on a relevant project that include both design and construction (design- build) of a modular facilities.

Attachment A Construction Experience Reference Sheet

List work which best illustrates current qualifications relevant to this award. List no more than six (6) CONSTRUCTION contracts from the last five (5) years. Each contract listed on this sheet shall have a completed Offeror’s CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FORM (Attachment B) provided. Failure to furnish complete information on all sheets may result in the Government's rejection of your proposal. Mark either Prime, Sub, or Joint Venture. Explain all projects provided on this sheet with a completed Offeror’s CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FORM.

Contract Name/Client, Location of Services Prime Sub Joint Total Contract dollar amount Offeror’s Share of Responsibility for Total Construction Contract

Offeror’s Name

ATTACHMENT B

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FORM

PROJECT No. . (check one): - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Name of Offeror: ___________________________________________________________

E-mail Address: ____________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: ____________________________________________________________

Project Title: _______________________________________________________________

Contract Number: __________________________________________________________

Contract Amount (U.S. Dollar Amount) $__________________________________________

Contract Completion Date: _____________________________________________________

Contract Duration (Period of Performance): _______________________________________

Description of the Project’s Scope and Magnitude:

Location of Project:

Details of your company’s role and activities during construction of the project: (Describe your role in this project. Include whether your firm participated as a prime or as a subcontractor.)

Attachment C USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs 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:

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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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)

E VG S M U N

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

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

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.)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or KO in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

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

E = Excellent, VG = Very Good, S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unacceptable, N = Neutral

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):

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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.