Exhibit A - AFRC Architect-Engineer Contractor Performance Evaluation Standards.pdf

Exhibit A – Page 1

EXHIBIT A

Architect-Engineer Contractor Performance Evaluation Standards Evaluation Areas The area outlines mandatory performance elements to be included in assessments for Architect-Engineer (A-E) Contractors. The main categories listed (A-1) are fixed elements within the revised Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). All A-E Contractor assessments will include a post-award construction phase service rating when in the A-E's scope. Each narrative will be individually rated using Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or Not-Applicable (N/A). The overall rating will be selected from a range of (would/would not) recommend.

Quality. This narrative should reflect the contractor's management of the quality control program, the quality of work itself, and the product performance outlined in the contract's quality objectives. Factors to consider:

1. Did the A-E follow their Quality Management Plan?

2. Did the A-E perform appropriate site investigations to support the engineering services?

3. Were the plans, specifications, or other deliverables accurate and coordinated?

4. Were the deliverables clear and sufficiently detailed?

5. Did the A-E provide a functional and useable product as was intended by the scope of A-E services?

6. For facility design, did the A-E provide an appropriate aesthetically designed facility?

7. Did the A-E provide appropriate and timely responses to the review comments and correct the deliverables as required?

8. Was the design prepared in accordance with the present sustainability and environmental requirements?

9. Was the designed prepared in accordance with all codes and standards in force?

10. Did the A-E develop and implement any innovative approaches or technologies to improve the design product?

11. If a solicitation was prepared and issued, was it biddable with a minimum number of amendments?

12. Were all design products (CADD files, specifications, design analysis, studies, etc.) submitted in the appropriate format?

Schedule. This narrative should assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the required completion date of the contract, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements. Factors to consider:

1. Did the A-E adhere to the schedule within their contract/task order?

2. Were all deliverables submitted as required per schedule?

Exhibit A – Page 2

3. If the A-E was not able to adhere to their schedule, did they develop a corrective action plan and follow this plan?

Cost Control. This element is typically used to evaluate Cost Contracts. For A-E contracts, the purpose of this element will be to evaluate the A-E's cost estimating performance. If there was no cost estimating in the A- E's scope, then this area shall be N/A. Factors to consider:

1. If a design, was the cost within the cost limitations specified in the contract/task order?

2. For other products such as studies, was meaningful cost data provided to support the results of the product?

3. Were the submitted estimates performed with sufficient detail and accuracy?

4. If a Value Engineering study was performed, was A-E cooperative in implementing approved recommendations?

Management. The management narrative should reflect the Contractor's internal and external day-to-day business operations as they relate to meeting contract requirements. Factors to consider:

1. Did the A-E's Quality Control Manager and/or Project Manager provide the appropriate leadership?

2. Did the A-E exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?

3. Did the A-E manage and coordinate their consultants?

4. Did the key personnel identified to participate remain involved?

Utilization of Small Business. This category may be rated N/A for small business contracts. This area must be rated for all contracts and task orders that contain a small business subcontracting goal. Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participation. Factors to consider:

1. Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

2. Compliance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

3. Contractor's good faith effort(s) to meet contract goals and requirements

Regulatory Compliance. A-E evaluations shall be N/ A unless a specific component of the design or engineering services is governed by an environmental regulation is important enough to be broken out from the quality rating above.

Other Evaluation Area. This narrative is required for A-E Contracts to be named "Post- Award Construction Phase Services" (Construction Administration). Assessing officials are required to provide a Construction Phase Services rating for "Other Evaluation Area" in CPARS. This rating area will be N/A for evaluations completed before the award of a construction contract and A-E deliverables that are not constructed.

Factors to consider:

1. Was the constructed facility based on the design both maintainable and operable?

2. Did the plans reflect the true conditions and were the plans clear, sufficiently detailed, accurate and coordinated?

3. Was the design constructible and had minimal errors?

4. Was the A-E responsive in correcting errors and omissions of the engineering services?

5. Was the A-E responsive in providing technical assistance as required by the contract?

Exhibit A – Page 3

Evaluating Ratings Definitions. Reference FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 for revised evaluation rating definitions. A simplified version of the table is provided in Table 1.

Rating Contract Requirements Problems Corrective Action

Exceptional Exceeds Many – Gov't Benefit(s)

Few Minor Highly Effective

Very Good Exceeds Some – Gov't Benefit

Some Minor Effective

Satisfactory Meets All Some Minor Satisfactory Marginal Does Not Meet Some –

Gov 't Impact Serious – Recovery still Possible

Marginally Effective; Not Fully Implemented

Unsatisfactory Does Not Meet Most – Gov't Impact

Serious – Recovery not Possible

Ineffective

Table 1: Evaluating Ratings Definitions

Note: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to change the evaluation status.

For rating definitions to be used for Utilization of Small Business, reference FAR 42 .1 503 Table 42-2.

Roles and Responsibilities. The Contracting Officer, or a designated Contracting Officer Representative shall be responsible for monitoring contractor performance, evaluating the Architect-Engineer Contractor's performance, and preparing a performance assessment in CPARS. Official CPARS guidance, section 3.5 provides suggested responsibilities for completing assessments that may be modified by each agency.

1. CPARS Focal Point (FP). The Focal Point(s) and alternates shall come from the administering facilities office and are typically the Facilities Project Manager/Contracting Officers Representative (FPM/COR) in responsible charge of or assigned to specific A-E IDIQ Task Orders. Each Center can determine how many FPs are needed to manage evaluations. Assignments shall be coordinated with the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for information purposes.

2. Assessing Official Representative (AOR). The AOR will be a FPM/COR from the administering facilities office who performs oversight of the A-E Contractor's IDIQ Contract and its Quality Assurance Plan, typically the Lead AST for Experimental Facilities Development. Depending on the size and scope of a task order multiple AOR's may be assigned to an evaluation. When multiple AORs are assigned to an evaluation, coordination is needed to determine who will forward the evaluation to the Assessing Official (AO) and CPARS FP when narratives are complete. Depending on the Center's workflow, it may be advantageous to assign a FP or alternate FP as an AOR for administrative purposes.

3. Assessing Official (AO). The AO shall come from the Acquisitions group responsible for construction. The AO shall typically be a Contracting Officer.

Exhibit A – Page 4

It is recommended that before the AO sends the Contractor an assessment with a rating of "I would not recommend them for similar requirements in the future," a copy of the evaluation first be provided to the Reviewing Official (RO) and PCO.

4. Reviewing Official (RO). The RO shall typically be the Chief of Facilities. Formal CPARS guidance recommends RO involvement when a Contractor representative chooses not to concur with an evaluation.