2. 00202 22R1319 AMD 0001.pdf

FY22, P-2005 WORKING DOG TREATMENT FACILITY WON 1602243

REPLACEMENT,

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202/AMD1

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

2.4 RATING SCHEME

ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction Experience Data Sheet

(B) Past Performance Questionnaire

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202/AMD1

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 reasonable pricing 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 must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. The awardee’s proposal will be incorporated into the contract and all items proposed will become binding requirements of the contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., construction management plan, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions must be equal or better and will require prior approval by the Contracting Officer.

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 technical evaluation factors. An overall technical factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be considered for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor will result in the overall technical proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” will make a proposal ineligible for award.

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

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

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

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

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: SAFETY

FACTOR 4: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Factor 1 –EXPERIENCE:

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) for each project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment A and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered.

The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment A; however, Attachment A for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages [or, two (2) double-sided pages], 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger. Information exceeding the four (4) single-sided pages [or two (2) double-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.

Submit a maximum of three (3) construction projects that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below. If the Offeror submits more than three (3) projects for evaluation, the Government will evaluate the first three (3) projects submitted and disregard any other project information after the first three (3). For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is further defined as:

New construction veterinary treatment facility, veterinary clinic, medical clinic, or hospital; or a veterinary treatment facility addition, veterinary clinic addition, medical clinic addition, or hospital addition.

Facility/addition shall be at least 10,000 square feet in building size; approximately $10,000,000 or more in dollar value; and completed or substantially completed within the past 15 years.

NOTES:

1. Veterinary treatment facility, veterinary clinic, medical clinic, or hospital alteration, renovation, or repair will NOT be considered relevant. Veterinary treatment facility, veterinary clinic, medical clinic, or hospital additions with primarily administrative or office spaces will NOT be considered relevant.

2. A relevant project is defined as either a single project in a stand-alone contract, or a single task order project under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

3. “Substantially completed” is defined as at least 90% physically complete.

4. 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.

5. The “Offeror” is defined as the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442). If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is now part of the Offeror, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage in the

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202/AMD1

performance of the contract at the worksite. Note that generalized statements concerning 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.”

The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that any entity (other than the Offeror and, if the offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing at least one relevant construction project as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph 2.4 below.

Factor 2 –Past Performance

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 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 CPARS or CCASS evaluation is not available, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 1. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration. A PPQ shall not be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor. The Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations, as long as complete, required information is included.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1. 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.

NOTES:

1. 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, 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 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.

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

3. See Notes for Factor 1.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated 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 may consider information in the

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202/AMD1

Offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, Federal databases and other references. The information provided by the Offeror may provide the major portion of the information used in the Government’s evaluation for past performance. The Government however, is not restricted to the information provided by the Offeror and may use other sources (such as those listed in the submittal requirements) to assess past performance information.

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 Offeror’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”.

The basis of evaluation and acceptability are as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph

2.4 below.

Factor 3 – SAFETY

The Offeror shall submit the following information: For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate OSHA300 logs, OHSHA Form 300A, TRC and DART rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member;

however, only one safety narrative is required. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has TRC and/or DART rates, then, TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why it is unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member.

(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 and OSHA Form 300A summary for the five previous complete calendar years (2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016). If an offeror does not have the OSHA DART or TRC rates, affirmatively state so, explain why and submit equivalent DART and TRC rates based upon the OSHA formula shown below. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

The OSHA 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 OSHA TRC rate 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 Rate =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

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202/AMD1

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 methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contractor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that utilizes sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

There is no page limitation to address paragraph (1) above. The narrative to address paragraph (2) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger).

Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability are DART rates of 2.99 or less for the five previous calendar years, TRC rates of 4.49 or less for the five previous calendar years, and an acceptable technical approach for safety as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 3 and paragraph 2.4 below.

Factor 4 – CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Construction Management Plan. Submit a detailed narrative Construction Management Plan, which shall not exceed 3 pages (single-sided, 8.5”x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 12-point font). Narrative pages shall contain the page number from 1 through 3. Any page beyond the third page will not be evaluated. Page limitations shall exclude organizational charts and project schedules. Include the following:

1. Organizational Chart. Provide an organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience or past performance of an entity is being claimed in Factors 1 or 2, then the entity must be included in the organization chart. (Note: The organization chart shall not be considered a part of the 3-page limit).

2. Management Plan. Provide a Management Plan that describes the following:

a. Management Structure. Describe the proposed management structure for this contract, corresponding to the organizational chart. Describe the roles, the lines of authority, and the responsibilities of each entity shown on the organizational chart.

b. Subcontractor Management. Describe the strategy for effectively managing sub-contractors.

c. Quality Control. Discuss how management will oversee and ensure construction quality control.

3. Proposed Schedule. Submit a proposed schedule for the project, indicating the number of calendar days from contract award for mobilization, construction, and final acceptance.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror’s Construction Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness in addressing each of the submittal requirements discussed in Factor 4 Solicitation Submittal Requirements and paragraph 2.4 below.

2.4 RATING SCHEME

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

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

(a) Deficiency: A material failure of the 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.

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE, FACTOR 3 – SAFETY, AND FACTOR 4 CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT PLAN

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.

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

RFP N62742-21-R-1317

DOCUMENT 00202 – ATTACHMENT A / AMD1

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: __________________________________ Entity Identifier (DUNS #): __________________________ Point of Contact: _________________________________ Contact Phone Number: _____________________________

a. If the firm that performed the project has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror.

b. Name of Entity that Performed Work that Experience is Claimed for* (i.e.; if the project was performed by 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: ___________________________________ Entity Identifier (DUNS #): __________________________ 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):

DOCUMENT 00202 – ATTACHMENT A / AMD1

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Total Construction Award Amount: $___________________ Final Construction Price: $______________________

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

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

8. 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, any problems encountered and how it was resolved), including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications. If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.

DOCUMENT 00202 – ATTACHMENT B / AMD1

ATTACHMENT B

NAVFAC 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 (ACQ33) REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ33) 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 DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ33). PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC PACIFIC (ACQ33) 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

(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.

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

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

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

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

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

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

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

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

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

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

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

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

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).

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):