Am4.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

Am-0004 06/01/20

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

NAVFAC Hawaii Construction Acquisition Division (OPHA2) 400 Marshall Road See Item 6 JBPHH, Hawaii 96860-3139

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

N62478-20-R-4042

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22 Apr 20

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[ X ]The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [x ] is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning ____ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) NA

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF: FAR CLAUSE 52.243-4, CHANGES

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] is not, [ ] is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

N62478-20-R-4042, FY20 P-033 Magazine Consolidation, Phase 1, West Loch, Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam (JBPHH), Oahu, Hawaii

See page 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Am-0004 Standard Form 30 Item No. 14 (Continued) Page 2 of 2

1. CHANGES TO THE SOLICITATION. Attached hereto are revised pages to the solicitation. The revision mark “(Am-0004)” is shown on each page.

a. REVISED SECTIONS/PROVISIONS/CLAUSES/PAGES/PARAGRAPHS/ITEMS. The following are revised provisions/clauses/paragraphs/pages to the solicitation. Changes are indicated in bold print. Although the entire document is being re-issued under Am-0004, only the following page/paragraph/item changed in the following documents.

Document 00110

Paragraph 2.2a, Factor 1 – Experience, 1(a) Paragraph 2.2a, Factor 1 – Experience, 2. Basis of Evaluation Attachment A, top of the first page, Project No. (check one)

2. The proposal due date of June 8, 2020, 2:00 P.M., Hawaiian Standard Time, remains unchanged.

Document 00110

(Am-0004)

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE

1.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

ATTACHMENTS

(A) – CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

(B) – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

EVALUATION FACTORS

PART I – GENERAL

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE

Construct four standard earth covered Type D Box Magazines without loading platforms, each equipped with electronically operated doors at ground level, lightning protection system, and grounding system. Paving and site improvements include concrete magazine apron and site demolition. Electrical utilities include primary and secondary electrical distribution systems, and transformers.

1.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

a. The Government intends to award without discussions to the Offeror with the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal, in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the non-cost/price evaluation factors described in Paragraph 2.2 and the Offeror’s proposed total price.

b. Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Tradeoffs are not permitted.

c. The number of proposals to be evaluated for technical acceptability may be limited to the lowest priced offer at the discretion of the contracting officer. If the number of proposals to be evaluated is limited, the technical proposal shall be provided to the evaluator(s) without any identification of price. If the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable then the next lowest price proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also not found to be technically acceptable, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. If the contracting officer later determines that discussions are necessary, the procedures in FAR 15.306 shall be followed.

d. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract.

e. The distinction between experience and past performance is experience pertains to the type of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of the contracts. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, designers, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

PART II – EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

a. The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to that responsive responsible Offeror with the LPTA proposal based on the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

b. An overall non-price factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factor rating of ‘UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

c. Since the LPTA methodology prohibits trade-offs, all evaluation factors are equally important. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost and/or price factors.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The non-cost/price factors that will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable shall be as follows:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Safety

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Price

a. NON-COST/PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Experience:

1. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(a) Submit total of three (3) relevant construction projects, completed and performed by the Prime or Subcontractor(s), within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of the RFP, similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP, using the Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) for each project. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project must include one or more of the following types of

(Am-0004) work: (1) Magazine construction (valued at $10,000,000 or more), (2) Installation of electrical utility poles and overhead medium voltage power lines (valued at $2,000,000 or more), or (3) Probing and grouting for a coral subgrade which may have cavities and voids (valued at $2,000,000 or more). Magazine construction must have been performed as a Prime Contractor.

Installation of electrical utility poles and overhead medium voltage power lines and Probing and grouting for a coral subgrade which may have cavities and voids may be performed by a subcontractor to a prime contractor. Out of a total of three (3) relevant projects, at least (1) project must include Magazine construction and at least one (1) project must include Installation of electrical utility poles and overhead medium voltage power lines.

(b) The Offeror must provide signed letters of commitment from the Subcontractor(s), listed in Document 00110, Attachment A, that will perform the work. The letter must explain the involvement the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. Identify the types of work that each subcontractor will be responsible for.

(c) A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

(d) The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not alter the Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) with the exception of expanding the individual blocks on this form; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) and shall be Arial 10 font (minimum).

(e) For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e. unique features, area, complexities, construction methods).

2. Basis of Evaluation:

The requirement for acceptability will be based upon the projects submitted by the Offeror in its proposal. The Offeror must demonstrate experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements in Paragraph 2.2a, Factor 1 above. The Government will only review the first three (3) projects, in the order they were submitted in the proposal. Any projects submitted in excess of the three (3) will not be considered.

Factor 2 – Safety

(a) Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance

(Am-0004) of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work and the Offeror’s method for qualifying, evaluating, selecting all tiers of sub-contractors. The narrative shall include:

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include five previous complete calendar years’ (January 2015 through December 2019) worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: Submit five previous complete calendar years’ (January 2015 through December 2019) worth of OSHA DART and TRC data. If an offeror cannot submit OSHA DART and TRC rates for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: Technical Approach for Safety should describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Fully describe the safety management system that will be used to oversee safety compliance and performance of self-performed and sub-contractor performed work. Also describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and all subcontractor levels. Additionally, describe the methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages, Arial 10 font (minimum).

NOTE: For a partnership or JV, the EMR, OSHA DART, and TRC rates are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or JV; however, only one safety narrative is required.

Safety narratives for a partnership or JV may be up to one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages in length, Arial 10 font (minimum).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for its self-performed work and the work of its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the EMR, OSHA DART and TRC Rates to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. The Government will not calculate the EMR, DART and TRC Rates. Offerors that do not submit EMR, DART, and TRC rates and do not explain why it did not submit the rates will be rated unacceptable for that element. If extenuating circumstances that affect the rates and negative trends are not clearly addressed, the element will be rated unacceptable. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety performance record, safety management system, and the methodology of qualifying, evaluating, (Am-0004) selecting and overseeing its subcontractors. The Government may also consider other sources of information for evaluating safety that may include, but not limited to: OSHA, NAVFAC’s Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS) database, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project and the specific management practices that will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support.

Offeror’s EMR will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk EMR Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than 1.0 to 1.1 Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1 Offeror’s DART and TRC rates will be evaluated against the following Navy standards:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater Than 6.0

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(1) If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1. If there is not a completed CCASS/CPAR evaluation then submit Past performance Questionnaire (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 1. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Evidence of customer satisfaction shall

(Am-0004) be from the owner and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration. It shall not be from the designer on a design-build project nor shall it be from a prime construction contractor for a subcontractor. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, previously completed PPQs in full text submitted for other RFPs will be accepted. All previously completed PPQs shall include all information requested in Attachment B, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (form PPQ-0) located at the end of Document 00110. All PPQs shall be complete, contain clients’ signature, and include all information requested in Attachment B located at the end of Document 00110. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Jody Muraoka, jody.muraoka@navy.mil.

(2) Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall be Arial 10 font (minimum) and shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) in total.

(3) The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past or current performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

(4) Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

(1) This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1– Experience and may also consider an Offeror’s past and/or current performance on other projects, interim and/or final, documented in known sources.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(2) The Government may consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends, interim and/or final, in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

(3) 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”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”.

b. PRICE EVALUATION

Price Proposal:

1. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall complete the Proposal Schedule.

2. Basis of Evaluation:

(a) The price will be evaluated based on total price (price for the base schedule plus option).

(b) One or more of the following techniques will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, against one another.

Comparison of proposed prices received with the independent Government estimate.

Comparison of proposed prices received with available historical information.

Comparison of information reports obtained from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other outside agencies as required.

(c) A price that is found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award.

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE LIMITATIONS AS OUTLINED IN FAR 2.101 & 3.104 APPLY

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5

1. Experience for: Offeror Joint-Venture Other (Explain)

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

DUNS Number:

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 prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Title:

Location:

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

5. Type of work:

Magazine Construction Installation of electrical utility poles and overhead medium voltage power lines Probing and grouting for a coral subgrade which may have cavities and voids

6. Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Award Amount: Final Price:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (explain):

If Design-Build, identify the Lead Design Firm:______________________________________________

8. Not Used

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE LIMITATIONS AS OUTLINED IN FAR 2.101 & 3.104 APPLY

9. Provide a detailed description of the project and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, square footage, construction methods). If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.

10. Provide a detailed description of what work your firm self-performed on this project:

11. Other Information:

Rev. Apr 2017 1 (Am-0004)

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE LIMITATIONS AS OUTLINED IN FAR 2.101 & 3.104 APPLY

ATTACHMENT B

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: Entity Identifier 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: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

Rev. Apr 2017 2 (Am-0004)

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.

Rev. Apr 2017 3 (Am-0004)

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

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

Rev. Apr 2017 4 (Am-0004)

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________ Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

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 Contracting Officer 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

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):