B3_Amendment_0002.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

The purpose of this amendment (0002) is to remove pages 70-76 of the "Instruction to Offerors" Evaluation Factors and replace w ith the "Comparative Evaluatiion" condensed version. If you feel your proposal requires a revision based on this change, please submit w ith the signed amendment. The proposal due date is extended to NLT 10:00 a.m. CST, 24 January 2018.

POC: Gloria Gonzales, 817-886-1082 or via email: gloria.gonzales@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 17

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 W9126G18R0044

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Dec-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 X is extended, 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 1 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.

U0002

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Jan-2018

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT

819 TAYLOR ST, ROOM 2A17

FORT WORTH TX 76102-0300

W9126G 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

QUOTER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME: see block 8, SF 1449 Central Standard Time (CST) POINT OF CONTACT: Christopher Ainsworth Phone: (817) 886-1084 Email POC: christopher.a.ainsworth@usace.army.mil

Quotes shall be accepted via “EMAIL ONLY,” no fax, mail, express mail, or hands carry, “NO EXCEPTIONS.” EMAIL your proposal to: CIV-OPS.Proposals@usace.army.mil cc:

christopher.a.ainsworth@usace.army.mil Subject line of email: Include the solicitation number and your name

For additional help contact your local Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC).

Centers were created by Congress to assist businesses seeking to compete on federal contracts.

Services are generally free; however, a small fee may be charged for certain services. Please use website http://www.aptac-us.org/new/ to contact a center to assist you in the preparation for a federal contract, registering in SAM or other required systems.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM) is REQUIRED to receive an award on all federal government contracts. Therefore, contractors are encouraged to begin this process sooner rather than later. If already registered, please ensure your registration is ACTIVE. The website to register with SAM is: www.sam.gov.

DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) is REQUIRED. Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) provides a DUNS Number, a unique nine digit identification number, for each physical location of your business. DUNS Number assignment is FREE for all businesses required to register with the US Federal government for contracts or grants in the System for Award Management (SAM see below).

The website to obtain your DUNS number: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform for technical difficulties, contact govt@dnb.com

ONLINE REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS APPLICATIONS (ORCA)

allows contractors to complete a one-time certification and representations for your use on any solicitation. The website to complete ORCA is available at the System for Award Manager (SAM): www.sam.gov. The information previously maintained in CCR, FedReg and ORCA now is contained within the Entity Management area in SAM. Legacy EPLS information resides in the Performance Information area of SAM.

ATTENTION TO OFFEROR(s)/CONTRACTOR(s): On July 14, 2014, Small Business Administration (SBA) increased the monetary-based industry size standards to account for inflation. You must update your Representations (Reps) and Certifications (Certs) for the impacted North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes identified with an exclamation point "!" next to the "Small Business" value in the System for Award Management (SAM). Please log into SAM, review, and resubmit your registration to apply the new size standard.

WAGE RATES: The Service Contract Act applies (see attached wage rates).

Below is a checklist to assist you to ensure all the proper documents are returned for consideration on this solicitation. Only those items checked below as “required” must be returned

Required Contractor Item

Complete page 1 of Solicitation (SF 1449-Sign and date in block 30).

Complete Bid Schedule(s) 1 EA. Task Order 0001

Complete Contractor Information Sheet below: Include your SSN or firm’s Tax ID Number (TIN) and active email address.

You may be notified of your selection by this method!!!

Offerors shall complete ORCA profile on line in SAMS:

Clause 52.212-3 paragraph (b) OR submit complete ORCA profile.

Offerors shall submit an active SAM registration (Attach first page).

The System for Award Management (SAM) is the Official U.S.

Government system that consolidated the capabilities of CCR/FedReg, ORCA and EPLS. Website: www.sam.gov

Ensure NAICS Code 561730 is listed in SAMS.

EMAIL Past Performance Questionnaire to a former employer or person who can vouch for your work capability or volunteer work.

Ensure former employer return the form and references the solicitation number in the email subject line. CIV-OPS.Proposals@usace.army.mil Cc: christopher.a.ainsworth@usace.army.mil

Scan all documents into a single.pdf file.

EMAIL your proposal to: CIV-OPS.Proposals@usace.army.mil Cc: christopher.a.ainsworth@usace.army.mil Subject line of email: Include the solicitation number and your name

Contractor Information Sheet

IN THE EVENT OF AWARD, ISSUE CONTRACT TO:

NAME

(Last, First Middle)

ADDRESS

(Number & Street) (City, State and Zip)

HOME PHONE NUMBER MOBILE

(Area code and number) (Area code and number)

EMAIL

ADDRESS________________________________________________________________

DUNS NUMBER CAGE CODE NUMBER

SSN/TIN NUMBER ______________________________

INSURANCE

Prior to commencement of work, the Contractor shall furnish the original of his Insurance Certificate directly to the Contracting Officer, Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CESWF-CT-S, P.O.

Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 and one copy directly to the Lake and Project Office. The Contractor shall maintain, during the entire period of his performance under this contract, the following minimum insurance requirements:

Submit a copy of Insurance Certificate directly to:

Three Rivers Region US Army Corp of Engineers James W. Nolen/Waco Lake ATTN: James Nolen 3801 Zoo Park Drive Waco, TX 76708

Or email to: christopher.a.ainsworth.usace.army.mil Phone: (817) 886-1084

(a) Comprehensive general liability insurance for bodily injury in the minimum limits of $500,000 per occurrence. No property damage liability is required.

(b) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance covering the operation of all automobiles used in connection with the performance of the contract in the minimum limits of $200,000 per person and $100,000 per accident for bodily injury and $20,000 per accident for property damage.

(c) Workmen's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $100,000.00 or in compliance with applicable State statutes.

(d) An endorsement to the effect that any cancellation or any material change adversely affecting the Government's interest shall not be effective until 30 days after the insurer or the Contractor gives written notice to the Contracting Officer.

NOTE:

(1) It is recommended that the contractor furnish a copy of the foregoing requirements to his insurance company in order to assure that an Insurance Certificate is issued meeting the minimum requirements shown. The Insurance Certificate shall also show the contract number to which it applies as well as a brief description and location of the work.

SITE VISIT INFORMATION:

Address: Whitney Project Office

POC: James Nolen 285 County Road 3602 Clifton, TX 76634 254-622-7406

Special Instructions: This location is not in Clifton. It is actually 15 miles NE of Clifton and 7 miles SW of Whitney, Texas.

DATE: 9 January 2018 at 10:00 a.m. CST

W9126G18R0044

Instructions to Offerors

(Amd #0002) Streamlined Evaluation procedures IAW FAR 12.602 and Comparative Evaluation procedures IAW FAR 13.106-2(b)(2) shall be incorporated in this solicitation. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation that provides the best benefit to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offers will be evaluated by performing a comparative evaluation in accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) to determine which response represents the “best” quote as a whole.

FACTOR 1-Price Submission Requirements

1. Offeror shall submit a unit price for each CLIN and the total price for each ordering period. The quote schedule shall be completed in the same manner.

FACTOR 2-Past Performance

1. Past Performance considers the Offeror’s track record for meeting customer satisfaction on project timeliness, quality, and safety. SEE ATTACHMENT 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNNAIRE

(PPQ)

Submission Requirements (Amd #0002) Provide a list NTE two (2) pages of relevant geographical surveying and mapping services that have been completed in the last four years or currently ongoing. (Amd #0002) Submissions should include contract number, type, dollar value, place of performance, date of award, extent of subcontracting, and contact information (name, phone number, email address) for two points of contacts. Offerors may submit information related to their performance on relevant effort for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontracts. Offerors should explain why the Offeror considers the submission relevant. Offerors may provide details on past performance problems and corrective actions taken as part of the quote. Offerors submitting responses shall provide a listing of the contacts that were mailed a past performance questionnaire to complete.

2. Questionnaires: Offerors shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), provided as ATTACHMENT 1 for two specific past projects completed. The offeror shall arrange for the reference customer’s point of contact (client) to complete the remaining Blocks of the Questionnaire and it is the Offeror’s responsibility to submit the completed PPQ with their Quote prior to the solicitation closing date. If the client requests, the PPQ shall be submitted directly to the SWF Contract Specialist Mr. Christopher A. Ainsworth via email at christopher.a.ainsworth@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. Offerors shall requests a minimum of two (2) customer references to complete the PPQ’s. The questionnaires will only be accepted from previous customers of completed projects and not be incorporated by reference into their proposal PPQ’s previously submitted for other RFQ/RFP’s. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors submitting responses shall present a list of reference contacts that were mailed/emailed a past performance questionnaire to complete. The Offeror shall briefly discuss its past performance on each project identified above in order to explain any rating that may impact overall rating for this factor (positively or negatively).

The Government will assess the degree of success of the Offeror’s past performance in recent relevant projects. Owners/references will be asked to comment on items such as quality of services, timeliness, management of work, safety, correcting errors, general conditions etc. The Government will target areas identified in the requirements of this solicitation including records conforming to quality, schedule, and customer satisfaction, safety, and resolution of errors.

Factor 3 – Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work

This factor considers whether the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. This narrative shall not exceed ten (5) pages.

Submission Requirements:

At a minimum, the quote for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall address how the Offeror will perform, develop and implement the work plan.

The narrative shall contain a description of the:

1. Work in terms of coordination with outside agencies, contractors, and government personnel to ensure safety, compliance and with federal and state regulations and performance requirements in an efficient manner.

2. Offeror will demonstrate how to manage resources out in the field during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable.

3. Difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with the work.

4. Resources (to include management and administrative) to perform requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). (Amd #0002) and understanding of current industry standards for geographical surveying and mapping services.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the Government, price, and other factors considered.

FACTOR 1- PRICE

FACTOR 1- Evaluation Criteria

The offeror’s price quote shall be evaluated as follows:

Prices will be evaluated in terms of fair and reasonable. The approach to the selection for this procurement will be pursuant to the best value concept. The objective is to select the quote that offers the best value for the Government, not necessarily the lowest price.

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

Past Performance considers the Offeror’s track record for meeting customer satisfaction on project timeliness, quality, and safety.

Factor 2 – Evaluation Criteria

The past performance of each offeror as reported on the past performance questionnaires will be evaluated to determine the quotes strengths in performing recent projects. Those quotes with questionnaires received indicating successful completion of recent and relevant projects will receive a better risk rating than those with past performance problems. The Government reserves the right to make contact with references provided and obtain clarification of the performance or other information as appropriate.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Adjectival) – Past Performance analysis provides insight into an Offeror’s probability of successfully completing the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts.

Rating Definition 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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment – Performance confidence is the confidence associated with an Offerors likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of current or Past Performance.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in accordance with the table below.

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record the Government has no confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3 – Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work This factor considers whether the Offerors demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement.

Factor 3 – Evaluation Criteria:

Consideration will be given to an Offeror for this factor that demonstrates the following:

1. A thorough understanding of the current commercial standards, policies, procedures and processes utilized in geographical surveying and mapping services.

2. A thorough understanding of coordination with outside agencies, contractors and government personnel associated with geographical surveying and mapping services as identified in the PWS with minimal disruption.

3. A thorough understanding of the difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with geographical surveying and mapping services.

4. A logical performance approach of geographical surveying and mapping services as identified in the

PWS.

5. Management and administration capabilities commensurate with the magnitude of the resulting contract.

6. Government will evaluate the quality of work performed and the level of industry standards exhibited by the contractor relevant to the Performance Work Statement requirements.

Color Rating

Rating Description

Blue OUTSTANDING Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple GOOD Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green ACCEPTABLE Quote 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 contact performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performances is no worse than moderate.

Yellow MARGINAL Quote 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.

Red UNACCEPTABLE Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is un-awardable.

Technical Evaluation Weights

Relative Importance Definition. For the Purpose of this evaluation, the following terms will be used to establish the relative importance of the evaluation factors:

More Important: The criterion is greater in value than another criterion Equal: The criterion is of the same value or nearly the same as another criterion.

ALL TECHINCAL FACTORS when combined are more important than PRICE.

Weight Among Technical Factors:

Factor 2 PAST PERFORMANCE is more important than Factor 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH

AND UNDERSTANDING

Basis for Award Quotations must meet the criteria stated in the RFQ in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, technical acceptability and responsibility.

The Government will award a firm fixed price indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract to the Offeror whose quotation the Contracting Officer determines conforms to the request of quotations, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing, and whose quotation offers the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced quotation or to reject all quotations. If the Government accepts other than the lowest quotation, it must be significantly more advantageous than the lowest quotation to justify the payment of additional amounts.

The combination of technical (non-price) evaluation factors are significantly more important than price. As technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination. (Amd #0002)

(Amd 0002) Remove pages 70-76 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION – FAR 13.106-2 (b)(2)

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation that provides the best benefit to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offers will be evaluated by performing a comparative evaluation in accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) to determine which response represents the “best” as a whole. Comparative Evaluations is the act of comparing two or more offers or proposal in response to the RFP.

Proposals will be evaluated by performing a direct comparison of one offer with another in a uniform manner to determine which provides the government with is needed, as identified in the

RFP.

The comparison also performed to compare each offeror to one another to determine which provides the best benefit to the government. The government reserves the right to consider a response that offers more than the minimum and select that response if it provides a benefit to the government. The government has the discretion to accept other than the lowest priced offeror that provides additional benefits. The government also has the has the discretion to make an award based on whether the lowest priced of the quotations/offers having the highest past performance rating possible represents the best benefit to the government The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Price Prices will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through a price analysis that compares the offered prices against each other and the independent government estimate. Award shall not be made to an Offeror’s proposal for goods or services that is found to be unbalanced and/or unreasonably low or high.

Factor 2: Past performance Past Performance Questionnaire forms provided in the solicitation shall be completed and submitted as specified in the Instructions to Offerors. They will be evaluated to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror's ability to supply products and services that meet users' needs based on a demonstrated record of recent and relevant work similar to the work described in this solicitation. Recent or relevant work is defined as similar work within the past four (4) years.

The Contracting Officer shall deem the offeror non-responsive if they fail to provide recent and relevant past performance prior to award IAW FAR 52.212-1(b)(11). The offeror must submit a PPQ with a satisfactory or higher rating to be deemed eligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance based on such information as the contracting officer’s knowledge and previous experience with the item or service being purchased, customer surveys, or other reasonable basis, without the existence of a formal database

Factor 3 – Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work

This factor considers whether the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. At a minimum, the quote shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall address how the Offeror will perform, develop and implement the work plan. It shall not exceed ten pages.

Submission Requirements:

At a minimum, the quote for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall address:

1. Work in terms of coordination with outside agencies, contractors, and government personnel to ensure safety, compliance and with federal and state regulations and performance requirements in an efficient manner.

2. Offeror will demonstrate how to manage resources at the work sites during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable.

3. How the contractor will prevent rework and if rework is necessary how it will be addressed.

4. Resources (to include management and administrative) to perform requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). (Amd #0002)

ATTACHMENT 1

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE (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/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNARIE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNARIE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATION. 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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATIONOF 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 many to the Government/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 contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. 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 meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. 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.

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 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 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 requirement 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 agree 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) In 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 indication 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 in necessary):

AFTER COMPLETION, PLEASE EMAIL TO: CIV-OPS.Proposals@usace.army.mil Ensure the former employer references the solicitation number in the email subject line.

(End of Summary of Changes)