A.07.24_Solicitation_Amendment2.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

Project Title: Tanana River OB/OD Area, Ft Wainw right, Alaska has been amended to reflect the removal of bonding lanagage below found in Section M under 9.0 1.1.24(e).

offeror’s ability to obtain performance and payment bonds in the amount of their proposal price.

FAR Clause 52.237-1 and 52.237-2 have been added to this solicitation.

All other terms and conditions of W911KB17R0064 remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Jul-2017

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 W911KB17R0064

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Jun-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

20-Jul-2017

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, AK

CEPOA-CT (W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911KB17R0064

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.237-1 52.237-2

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

SELECTION PROCEDURES

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD ONE

STEP - - TRADEOFF PROCESS

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB A - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB B - FACTOR 2: KEY PERSONNEL

7.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB C – FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

8.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB A – FACTOR 4: STANDARD FORM 33, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET, AND

CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

9.0 VOLUME 2 -- TAB B – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

10.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

ATTACHMENTS

1 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

2 - COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

3 - KEY PERSONNEL RESUME FORMAT

4 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. Interested firms (here after referred to as Offerors) shall submit proposals demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the construction services contract resulting from this solicitation.

1.2 This is a Trade-Off source selection for the Characterization, Transportation, and Disposal of Soil Small Arms Complex OB/OD River Site, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price IDIQ contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government utilizing procedures in accordance FAR PART 15.101-1 – Tradeoff Process.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the “best value” to the Government. Exchanges may occur (see FAR PART 15.306.

2.2 After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the Government will assign an adjective rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable to technical factors one and two which reflects the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

2.3 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information

2.3.1 Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. With appropriate parameters to assess past performance recency, descriptions and ratings of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

2.3.2 Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.3 Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

2.3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a technical standpoint, key personnel . Do not assume offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Para. (f)(4), 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 Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

3.2 Submit proposal in separate tabbed, three-ring binders for each volume.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location

Factor Number

Description

Rating

Volume 1, Tab A Factor 1 Technical Approach most important technical factor

Volume 1, Tab B Factor 2 Key Personnel second most important technical factor

Volume 1, Tab C Factor 3 Past Performance third most important technical factor

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Volume 2, Tab A

Factor 4

Standard Form 33, Proposal Data Sheet Contract Line

Item Schedule equal to all other factors combined

Volume 2, Tab B

N/A

Required Pre-Award Information

Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1- TAB A - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.1. Submission Requirement:

Submit a technical approach and a milestone schedule that describes the equipment and methods to be used, manpower required, and experience in characterization, containerization, transportation, excavation, disposal, and/or treatment of previously excavated soils at Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK. The contractor shall specifically address how soil from decision unit (DU) 9 will be removed from the site no later than 31 October 2017. The Technical Approach description shall be no longer than five (5) in length, with Offerors specifically addressing the following criteria in their submitted plan:

• Approach to characterizing the soil piles (DUs) using multi-incremental sampling techniques, standard waste profiling sampling, and data quality analysis.

• Approach to transportation and disposal of hazardous soil from the site to an approved

Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF).

• Approach to transportation and disposal of non-hazardous soil from the site to an approved TSDF.

• Approach to potentially transporting and treatment of soil at Organic Incineration

Technology (OIT), Incorporated in North Pole, AK.

• Approach for site confirmation sampling.

• Provide an Organizational Chart clearly identifying the roles, responsibilities, lines of communications for the key personnel, teaming partners, and subcontractors. Describe how the key personnel and teaming partners will be integrated to successfully complete the PWS objectives and key milestones.

• Discussion of all technical approach assumptions.

Note: Offerors shall reference the following document:

o Fairbanks Environmental Services (FES), 2017. Post TCRA Soil Sampling Report, Draft, February

The evaluation standard has been met when the contractor demonstrates an understanding of the work that adequately addresses the contract requirements. The contractor simply stating that their technical approach stated herein will be performed in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations will be considered unacceptable. The inclusion of numerous assumptions that significantly “assume away” contractor risk with regard to major issues or problems that may be encountered on the project will be considered unacceptable.

6.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB B – FACTOR 2: KEY PERSONNEL

6.1. Submission Requirement:

The Contractor shall demonstrate competence for the specific tasks described in the performance work statement (PWS) through the use of qualified key personnel. Key personnel shall include the following, at a minimum, and shall meet the specified work experience requirements:

• Project Manager – 10 years

• Project Scientist – 5 years

The Contractor shall submit resumes (no more than 3 pages each) for each of the two key personnel proposed for this task order that demonstrate recent (within the past five years), relevant experience in the following areas:

(1) Experience preparing work plans and planning documents in accordance with the Uniform

Federal Policy (UFP) for Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Manual; experience at DoD sites and/or sites in Alaska preferred.

(2) Experience characterizing the soil (decision units) using multi-incremental (MI) sampling techniques, waste characterization sampling for disposal, disposal manifesting, and data quality analysis; experience with characterization and disposal of RCRA and CERCLA waste preferred.

(3) Data quality assessment experience for projects where U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) are actively engaged in the review of the data quality.

The resumes shall identify the specific projects/tasks in which applicable experience was gained. The resume shall clearly indicate if the personnel are employed by the Offeror or obtained by subcontracting.

Sufficient detail must be provided in the resume for the Government to evaluate the suitability of each person to fill a Key Personnel role. Failure to do so will be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will evaluate the submitted information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet the experience qualifications identified above which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar types of work.

The Contractor shall use the proposed key personnel for the duration of this project. Any changes in key personnel must be approved by the Contracting Officer (KO).

7.0 VOLUME 1 – TAB C – FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1. Submission Requirement:

The Contractor shall demonstrate recent (occurring within the past five years), and relevant specialized experience, and technical competence in all of the following areas through prior experience projects:

(1) Projects showing experience in preparation and obtaining approval for a UFP-QAPP and

Work Plan.

(2) Projects requiring characterization and disposal of contaminated soil; experience with disposal of soil from Alaska to facilities outside Alaska is preferred.

(3) Work experience on Department of Defense (DOD) facilities; projects in Alaska, and particularly at Fort Wainwright, preferred.

(4) Projects showing experience working with ADEC and EPA; having established relationships with ADEC personnel in Fairbanks and USEPA in Anchorage is preferred.

The contractor shall provide examples of three (3) past projects of similar size, scope and complexity that best demonstrate the above qualifications. Submit projects that are at least 50% complete or were completed within the past five (5) years. The example project summaries shall be limited to two (2) pages each. P l e a s e , u t l i z e t h e P a s t P e r f o r m a n c e Q u e s t i o n a i r e ( P P Q ) i n c l u d e d a s A t t a c h m e n t 4 . The example project summaries shall identify:

• Name of Project

• Location of Project

• Brief description of the project

• Your role (Prime or subcontractor) and work self-performed

• Dates project began and was completed

• Relevancy this project has to this task order

• Complexities of the project

• Key personnel (identified above) who participated in the project(s)

• Provide the Clients contract information

The Government will utilize the example project summaries to evaluate the capability and experience as a basis for comparing offerors to determine best value. Federal Government experience in Alaska will be rated inherently more important than Federal Government experience not in Alaska, and non-Federal Government project experience.

8.0 VOLUME 2 – TAB A – FACTOR 4: PRICE (STANDARD FORM 33, PROPOSAL DATA

SHEET, AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

8.1. Submission Requirement:

8.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 33, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing. See instructions in Section L, “Instructions to Offerors.” Submit the Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 1).

8.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information,” in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three (3) working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

8.2. Evaluation Criteria:

8.2.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis; comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and comparison of proposed prices with the independent government estimate. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc., and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

8.2.2 If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

9.0 VOLUME 2, TAB B - REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

1.1.1.

1.1.2.9.1 Submission Requirement:

1.1.2.1.

1.1.2.2. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1.1.2.3.

(a) Joint Venture agreement or Limited Liability Company Certificate of Organization, Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement, if applicable.

1.1.2.4.

(b) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

(c) A certified statement listing: (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract; and (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three (3) year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract. If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

(d) Competed Representations and Certifications included by full text in Section I. List any changes to SAM (System for Award Management) in 52.204-8 for FAR Clauses and 252.204-7007 for DFAR clauses. Provide for any certification where vendor indicated in SAM that certification would be provided with specific offer.

(e) One copy of the following information:

(1) Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities)

(2) Number of years the firm has been in business

(3) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references.

1.1.3.9.2 Evaluation Criteria:

1.1.4.

The Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

10. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

10.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. The SSEB will not consider any information incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

10.2. EVALUATION

10.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

10.2.2. The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

10.2.3. A “Competitive Range” will be established in the event that the Government decides that discussions with offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests.

10.2.4. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

10.2.5. Upon conclusion of discussions, offerors will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation.

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

(1) Name of Solicitation:

(2) Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

E-mail:

DUNS #:

Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS database. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted. Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

(3) AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.]

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company completed within the last ten (10) years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

a. Type of Work ______________________________________________________________________

b. Your Firm’s Name __________________________________________________________________

c. Name of Project (include Federal Contract Number if applicable)______________________________

d. Location of Project__________________________________________________________________

e. Owner

f. General Scope of Construction Project

g. Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

h. Construction Cost

i. Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out __________________________________________

j. Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________

k. Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known _________________________________________

l. Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ___________________________________

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

m. Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) _______________________________

n. Current Telephone Number of Reference

POC_____________________________________________

o. Current Email Address of Reference POC

ATTACHMENT 3

KEY PERSONNEL RESUME FORMAT

Standard Format: RESUME

Important Note: Sufficient detail must be provided in the resume for the Government to evaluate the suitability for each person proposed to fill a Key Personnel role. Failure to do so will be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal.

1. The individual’s name:

2. Employer and proposed key position:

3. The total number of years the individual has worked in the proposed key position:

4. A brief description of the individual’s roles and responsibilities under the prospective contract:

5. Individual’s relevant education: (If applicable, specify Degree/Year/Specialization.)

6. Individual’s active registration, if applicable: (Specify State, Year, Discipline, and Certification Number.)

7. Relevant Specialized Training:

8. Relevant Employment History: (Provide a detailed list of relevant experience showing previous employers, positions with each, dates of employment, and a brief description of the work performed

9. Individual’s specific qualifications and experience relevant to this task order. (Provide any other information pertaining to the qualifications of this person for this project not specifically addressed above that directly relates to this person’s qualifications for the position. When providing project information, provide sufficient detail to establish the relevancy of the experience to this acquisition.)

ATTACHMENT 4

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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.

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

1. Offeror Information Firm Being Evaluated: 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.)

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete following blocks) Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe the client’s role in the project:

Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

Client’s Signature:

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

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

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

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

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

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

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

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

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

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or 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)

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.

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):

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE

OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

(End of Summary of Changes)