1315_Amend2_Issued.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

RFP N62742-18-R-1315, WON# 1396567, FY17 MCAF PROJECT PAF150500 APR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FACILITY, ROYAL

AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE (RAAF) BASE DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

Amendment No. 0002 is continued on page 2.

THE DATE AND TIME FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS REMAINS UNCHANGED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6274218R1315

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

14-Nov-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

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 Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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)

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

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

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:

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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Dec-2017

CODE

NAVFAC PACIFIC

A-E/CONSTR CONTRACTS BRANCH (CODE ACQ31)

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

JBPHH HI 96860-3134

N62742 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6274218R1315 Amendment No. 0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

DOCUMENT 00202, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Remove Document 00202 in its entirety and replace with the attached Document 00202 (Amendment No. 0001).

(End of Summary of Changes)

FY17 MCAF PROJECT PAF150500 APR AIRCRAFT MAINT 1396567

SUPP FACILITY, RAAF BASE, DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 – Table of Contents

DOCUMENT 00202

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I GENERAL

1.1. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2. COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

2.4 RATING SCHEME

PART III ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction Experience Project Data Sheet

(B) Past Performance Questionnaire

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306 (a)). Therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price standpoint.

Only the three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness and technical acceptability.

If none of the three (3) lowest-priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then the next three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If none of the six (6) lowest priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then all remaining proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

The Government intends to select the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer and award a contract (within the funds available) without conducting discussions.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly rated. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may 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.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The proposal, both price and technical, must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the Offeror (as defined by the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442)) agrees that all work and services proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract. More specifically, by the submission of an agreement under Factor 1: Experience, the Offeror agrees to provide the specific entity that executed the agreement and performed the evaluated project, as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A, for the performance of this contract. Offeror acknowledges that the Government shall rely on such information and incorporate the agreement(s) into the contract, if award is made to the Offeror. Additionally, by submission of a project under Factor 1: Experience that was self-performed by the Offeror, the Offeror agrees to self-perform the work associated with that evaluated relevant construction item(s), in this contract. Furthermore, Offeror agrees that any substitutions of work and services will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer’s approval.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the lowest evaluated price of proposals (within the funds available) meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price evaluation factors.

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

a. One or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the total evaluated prices to ensure it is fair and reasonable:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government Estimate.

b. The price proposals will be listed from lowest to highest based on the evaluation criteria stated above.

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors shall be used to evaluate the technical proposals.

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Safety

Factor 1 – Experience:

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a maximum of three (3) relevant construction projects that best demonstrates experience on relevant construction projects as defined below. For all relevant construction projects, the Offeror shall complete the attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) and complete all individual blocks.

Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate relevant construction experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A. Information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A shall not exceed a total of five (5) pages, single-sided, 8.5” x 11” (210 x 279 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger for each project submitted. Information exceeding the five single-sided pages will not be evaluated. 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.

RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: The Government will only review three (3) projects for construction.

Any projects submitted in excess of the three (3) for Construction Experience will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a project that includes at least one of the following individual items:

1. Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse. One-story steel rigid framed open bay building with a footprint of at least 550 square meters constructed in high wind speed areas designated by governing local codes to have 3-second wind gust speed of at least 67.1 m/s (150 mph). Projects submitted to demonstrate Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse experience will only be considered if the work was performed by the specific entity proposed for the Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse, as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A.

2. Locations with Climatic & Logistical Challenges. Construction project with a dollar value of $1.5 million or more that was performed in a location with climatic and logistical challenges.

“Logistical challenges” is where construction materials and equipment are not readily available, similar to the Northern Territory of Australia. “Climatic challenges” is considered prevailing weather conditions that inhibit construction activities for significant periods of the year, similar to the monsoon season in the Northern Territory of Australia. Projects submitted to demonstrate Locations with Climatic & Logistical Challenges will only be considered if the specific entity that performed the work is proposed to perform work on this contract associated with Climatic & Logistical Challenges as identified in Block 10 of Attachment A.

Projects submitted to demonstrate relevant construction project item(s), i.e., Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse and Locations with Climatic & Logistical Challenges, will only be considered if the work was performed by the specific entity proposed to perform that work on this contract.

If the Offeror self-performed the relevant construction project item(s), i.e., Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse and Locations with Climatic & Logistical Challenges, then the Offeror confirms that it will self-perform the same relevant construction project items in order to be considered for award of the contract.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202

All projects submitted to demonstrate experience must have been completed or substantially completed (90% complete) within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. "Substantially Complete" is defined as at least 90% physically complete.

The relevant construction projects submitted shall collectively demonstrate experience in all items: (1) Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse and (2) Locations with Climatic and Logistical Challenges completed or substantially completed within the past 10 years. Failure to demonstrate experience in both criteria shall be considered a deficiency and an unacceptable rating will be assigned for this factor. All items, or multiple items, do not have to be within any single project scope.

A relevant construction project is further 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.

If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than the Offeror (as defined by the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442)), the Offeror shall submit the following:

If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of a proposed subcontractor, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement.

The agreement shall be between the Offeror and the subcontractor that performed the relevant construction project item that is proposed to perform the work on this contract. The agreement shall, at a minimum: (1) be signed by the Offeror and the subcontractor, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the scope of work to be performed by the subcontractor and other key terms to be included in the subcontract, if award is made to the Offeror.

If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any other entity, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed agreement. The agreement shall be between the Offeror and the entity that performed the relevant construction project item that is proposed to perform the work on this contract.

Additionally, the Offeror shall clearly indicate on Attachment A that the entity (which includes any proposed subcontractor) that performed the project will perform the work on this contract associated with the evaluated individual item(s) and clearly demonstrate in Block 11 of Attachment A that such entity will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the experience and past performance information of such entity to be considered.

b. Basis of Evaluation

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing:

At least one (1) relevant construction project meeting criterion for Steel Rigid Frame Warehouse and At least one (1) relevant construction project meeting criterion for Locations with Climatic and Logistical

Challenges.

Factor 2 – Past Performance:

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor

1. If a completed CPAR or CCASS evaluation is not available, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 1 for Construction Experience. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 construction contract administration. It shall not be from a prime contractor to a sub-contractor. The Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations.

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 not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided pages) in total.

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.

Performance awards, letter of appreciation, certificates, or additional information submitted will not be considered.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other relevant construction projects currently documented in known sources.

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 the Government. 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 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.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered “acceptable”.

There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance”. Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

Factor 3 – Safety

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each Contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log for the three previous complete calendar years’. If an offeror does not have the OSHA DART or TRC rates, submit equivalent based upon the OSHA formula used to calculate DART/TRC. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any negative DART rate trends and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any negative TRC rate trends and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) rate:

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

The DART rate is calculated by adding up the number of incidents involving work related deaths, one or more Lost Days, one or more Restricted Days, or the transfer of an employee to a different job within the same company, multiplying that number by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of DART incidents x 200,000 DART Rate = Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

The Total Recordable Case (TRC) is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000 TRC = Number of employee labor hours worked

“Recordable cases” include each work related death and each work related injury or occupational illness involving days away from work, restricted work, transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

(2) Technical Approach for Safety: 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.

The offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor will describe their 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 two pages.

There is no page limitation to address paragraphs (1) and (2) above. The narrative to address paragraph (3) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11” (210 x 297 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger). (For a partnership or joint venture, the mishap rates (DART and TRC) are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.) Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The acceptability of the Offeror’s safety record will be based upon (1) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate of

5.99 or less OR if the TRC rate exceeds 5.99, the Offeror’s explanation of the circumstances that caused the TRC rate(s) to exceed 5.99 and actions taken to prevent future occurrences; (2) Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) of 4.0 or less OR if the DART rate exceeds 4.0, the Offeror’s explanation of the circumstances that caused the DART rate(s) to exceed 4.0 and actions taken to prevent future occurrences; and (3) the Offeror’s Technical Approach to Safety for (1) if subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the qualification, evaluation, selection, of all levels of subcontractors on this project and (2) the plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance.

2.4 RATING SCHEME

The following information is pertinent to the rating of the technical proposals:

a. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement.

b. If the proposal contains an “Unacceptable” rating for any of the Factors, the overall rating of the technical proposal will be “Unacceptable”. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

ACCEPTABLE 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.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3: SAFETY

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-13-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment A

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

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

1. Name of Entity that Performed Project:

Address:

Phone Number: _____________ DUNS NUMBER:_________________ Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

Name of Entity that Performed Work that Experience is Claimed for (i.e.; if the Prime Entity was a J/V and Offeror is claiming experience of one of the J/V members that performed work on the project, state the exact legal name of the JV member the Offeror claims experience for):

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:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

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:

Total Award Amount: $_____________________ Final Price: $__________________________

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

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

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-13-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment A

8. Construction Project Details:

a. Project involved construction of steel rigid frame warehouse: Yes No

Was item self-performed by Offeror? Yes No

b. Project was in a location with climatic and logistical challenges: Yes No

Was item self-performed by Offeror? Yes No

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), including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-13-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment A

10. Provide a detailed description of the relevant construction item(s) that was performed on this project AND the specific entity that performed the item(s). If the Offeror self-performed the item(s), then the Offeror confirms that it will also self-perform the item(s) for this contract. NOTE: The Offeror cannot claim to have performed the item(s) if performed by a subcontractor or any other entity. If the item(s) was/were performed by ANY entity other than the Offeror (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), specifically provide the following information below:

Name of entity that performed and will perform the relevant construction item(s) on the project submitted:

Relationship between Offeror and entity proposed to perform relevant construction item(s) (i.e. Member, Parent, Subcontractor, Business unit (as defined by FAR 2.101)): ____________________________

11. MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT. If the Offeror is utilizing experience information of ANY entity other than the Offeror (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), meaningful involvement of that entity must be demonstrated in order for the experience (and past performance information) of the entity to be considered.

Clearly state the specific commitments of resources (personnel, management) and the role of the entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage in the performance of the contract at the worksite. Note that generalized statements concerning the roles to be performed and/or commitment of resources are not sufficient to demonstrate that an entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the contract. Examples of “generalized statements” include a commitment of resources merely based on an entity’s “access” to resources and other generalized statements such as an entity will “provide support and expertise on the project”.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment B

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: 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: NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ31) REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ31) WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON NAVFAC PACIFIC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment B

DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ31). PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ31) POC INFORMATION. THE

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

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.

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment B

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

Amendment No. 0002

RFP N62742-18-R-1315

Document 00202 – Attachment B

Contractor Information (Firm Name): ________________________________________________

Client Information (Name): ________________________________________________________

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 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):