am_01.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of theoffer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

J

PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

0001 12 JAN 2026 574828

W9126G

W076 ENDIST FT WORTH

KO CONTRACTING DIVISION, 819 TAYLOR ST BOX 17300

FORT WORTH, TX 76102-6124

UNITED STATES

PATRICIA DICKSON, EMAIL: PATRICIA.L.DICKSON@USACE.ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE:

(817) 886-1095

SCD: PAS:

W9126G26RA041

19 DEC 2025

SEE SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

The Solicitation for Freer Border Patrol Station, Freer, TX is amended as follows.

See SF30 Continuation Page(s)

NOTE: Proposal receipt date is 23 January 2026, 4:00, PM, CT.

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

DIVISION 00 PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Replaced Sections: The following sections have been updated and replaced, bearing the notation W9126G26RA041-0001:

00 22 00 PHASE 1 of 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

W9126G26RA0410001

SECTION 00 22 00

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

This is a solicitation for the design and construction of a new Border Patrol Station in Freer, Duval County, Texas. The new Freer BPS will include the following major facilities: main administrative-training building/comprehensive processing/holding area, communication tower, parking areas, impound lot area, short stay kennels, above ground refueling area, vehicle maintenance facility, carwash facility, ATV facility, and facility maintenance facility.

This two-phase solicitation for a Design-Build, Firm Fixed Price contract at Freer, Texas.

For the first phase, Offerors submit their past performance information and technical approach for review and consideration by the Government. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. <AMD001>The Government will select no more than five of the Phase 1 Offerors to proceed to Phase 2. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified offerors will be established prior to discussions (if held), to proceed to the second phase.</AMD001>

In the second phase, only offerors selected from the first phase submit detailed technical and price proposals based on the information provided in the DB RFP. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the technical proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP.

Award will be made to the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, through the tradeoff process. The Tradeoff Process permits the tradeoffs among cost, price and/or non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will give due consideration to all the factors and their relative order of importance but reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or to other than the offeror with the highest technical rating or to reject all offers--if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

Relative weights among technical factors are provided in this Section. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) reviews, evaluates, and rates the proposals against the source selection criteria in the RFP. A competitive range consisting of the most highly qualified technical offerors will be established prior to discussions (if held).

Concurrently, the Government analyzes price proposals of Offerors utilizing the project cost proposal. Price will not be rated but will be a factor in making the final best value determination for award. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) compares proposals and determines the best value for the government. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented.

W9126G26RA041-0001

BASIS OF AWARD

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the SSA determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable with regard to pricing, and whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described herein.

Phase 1 Proposal Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance (Vol. I TAB C):

<AMD01>Most Important Factor in Phase 1 and Second Most Important Factor in Phase 2. More Important that Factor 2</AMD01>

Factor 2 – Technical Approach (Vol. I TAB D):

<AMD01>Second Most Important Factor in Phase 1 and Third Most Important Factor in Phase 2. Less Important Than Factor 1, More Important Than Factor

3</AMD01>

Phase 2 Proposal Evaluation Factors:

Factor 3 – Design Technical (Vol. II TAB A):

Most Important Factor. <AMD01>This factor is more important that Factors 1, 2, 4, and 5.</AMD01>

Factor 4—Summary Schedule (Vol. II TAB B):

Fourth Most Important Factor. <AMD01>Less important than Factors 1, 2, and 3 and more important than Factor 5.</AMD01>

Factor 5 – Small Business Participation (Vol. IV TAB A):

Fifth most important factor <AMD01>(slightly less important than Factor

4.)</AMD01>

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to the price. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria. After the Government evaluates and rates each proposal, the SSA will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value for award.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify award to that Offeror.

NOTE: All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price.

VOLUME I: PAST PERFORMANCE/TECHNICAL APPROACH

TAB CONTENTS OF THE PAST PERFORMANCE/TECHNICAL APPROACH

A Signed Standard Form 1442 & Acknowledgement of Amendments

B Letters of Commitment

C Past Performance (FACTOR 1)

D Technical Approach (FACTOR 2)

TAB A – Standard Form 1442 and acknowledgement of all amendments (Block 19), completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Letters of Commitment – Provide letters of commitment signed by both parties for all firms included on the organizational chart. Information provided on firms without signed letters of commitment will not be considered in the evaluation of this factor.

TAB C – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance refers to the quality of relevant and recent project experience. This tab shall contain past performance information regarding same/similar projects that demonstrate the experience of the offeror and/or proposed team. The past performance evaluation factor assesses 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 performance.

a. Submission Requirements for Factor 1:

Offerors shall submit no more than five Government and/or commercial projects for Design and no more than five Government and/or commercial projects for Construction which are recent and relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation as defined below. Use the attached Design Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment 1) to submit design experience and Construction Past Performance Worksheet (Attachment 2) to submit construction experience. Limit each worksheet to no more than three pages.

Relevant: Demonstrate the experience of the offeror and/or proposed team on projects same/similar in MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, and COMPLEXITY to that described in the solicitation. Offerors shall identify and describe the relevancies for each of the projects submitted compared to the scope of this project. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination.

Projects that integrate both vertical (building) and horizontal (site/infrastructure) construction within the same effort may be considered more relevant. Additional consideration may be given to projects with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and/or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) construction, holding, prison, jail, detention, or similar facilities.

Recent: All projects submitted for construction experience must have been completed within <AMD01>ten six</AMD01>years from the date of this solicitation, except one project may be submitted that is currently under construction and at least 50% completed. Projects completed more than <AMD01>ten six</AMD01>years from the date of this solicitation will not be deemed recent and will not be evaluated.

All projects submitted for design experience must have completed designs, with the designs completed within <AMD01>ten six</AMD01>years from the date of this solicitation. For DB projects, submitted for design experience, either the DB contract must have been completed within <AMD01>ten six</AMD01>years from the date of this solicitation, or the design must have been completed within <AMD01>ten six</AMD01> years of the date of this solicitation.

If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. If projects were design-bid-build, identify them as such. If the Offeror is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) and past performance cannot be provided as a JV, each partner shall submit past performance information. Combined number of projects submitted shall be no more than the number allowed.

Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 3) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1: Past Performance that does not have a final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation or is a non-Federal Government project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal for projects submitted for past performance experience. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Patricia Dickson via email at Patricia.L.Dickson@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs into their proposal. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Do not request PPQs on projects that have a final CPARS evaluation. If a final CPARS evaluation exists and a PPQ is provided for the same project, the CPARS evaluation will be reviewed as the official past performance record for the project, and the PPQ will not be considered by the Source Selection Board or the Source Selection Authority.

For USACE or other DoD projects which are completed but do not yet have a final CPARS evaluation, one PPQ per contract may be submitted; to be considered, the PPQ shall be signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for the contract.

Offerors are not required to submit any additional past performance information. The Government will utilize CPARS, and any other information deemed relevant to assess confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform.

Offerors are encouraged to submit completed CPARS for projects submitted for past performance experience.

Offerors may submit performance recognition documents received within the last <AMD01>ten six</AMD01>years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. There is no page limit for the performance recognition documents.

Offerors may submit information on past performance issues and corrective actions taken to prevent these issues from reoccurring. Discuss whether these corrective actions have been implemented on projects awarded subsequent to the performance issues, the effectiveness of the corrective actions, and POC information for the subsequent projects. Limit to no more than three pages, if submitted.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through CPARS, using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

B. Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1:

1. Relevancy Determination

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance to determine how relevant each of the past performance projects is to the project under consideration.

The Government may place greater value on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations.

Federal Government project past performance will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project past performance.

b. Projects completed outside the defined time period for recency will not be considered relevant to this solicitation.

c. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

d. Projects with lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final past performance confidence rating.

e. Projects that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating; however, any projects with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

2. Confidence Determination

a. The SSEB will review the past performance information available to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. If the Government cannot establish the Offeror’s relevant past performance, it reserves the right to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire to conduct telephone interviews on any source it deems relevant to the evaluation. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc.

b. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

c. In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, the degree of relevancy/recency of each of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; the number and severity of problems and the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); recognition documents; and trend data will be considered. Projects with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Projects with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating however, any projects with adverse past performance could reflect larger company- wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating. Projects which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older projects. The resulting relevant/recent assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior projects, to arrive at a single performance confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor.

d. The confidence rating will be established based on the past performance of the firms or that of its predecessor, if applicable. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its key personnel apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, a rating of “Neutral Confidence” will be assigned.

e. If adverse past performance information is received and the Government initiates discussions, the offeror will be given the chance to respond to this information.

CPARS included in the official record will be treated as if the offeror has already had an opportunity to address any adverse past performance identified during the evaluation process.

f. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

C. Evaluation and Rating System

1. A single, overall confidence rating shall be assigned to Past Performance.

2. The relevancy determination will assess the Offeror's past performance on a project-by-project basis to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation.

3. The confidence rating assesses the risks associated with each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent projects. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror's past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral confidence rating.

TAB D – FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

A. Submission Requirements for Factor 2:

Offerors shall provide a comprehensive, well-organized description of their team’s approach to successfully executing the requirements outlined in the RFP. The narrative should demonstrate a clear understanding of the scope of work, illustrate the offeror’s capability to meet or exceed performance expectations, and describe how the work will be delivered on time and within budget.

FACTOR 2 shall be limited to 30 pages. Tables, illustrations, and drawings are excluded from this limitation.

The Technical Approach shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:

1. Disruption Mitigation

This project, located at Freer, TX, presents unique challenges which include limited workforce resources, and logistical constraints (e.g. lack of specialized subcontractors, third party inspectors, testing, labor, materials and equipment delivery, etc.). These challenges can impact project timelines, costs, safety, and requires careful planning and innovative solutions.

Explain your strategy for minimizing schedule delays and cost growth, and for maintaining project safety based on the above stated challenges as well as disruption to ongoing operations and adjacent activities during the construction effort.

Include any innovative methods, staging techniques, or sequencing approaches intended to reduce impacts.

2. Project Execution Plan

Provide a comprehensive work plan describing how the project will be managed and executed from start to finish. At a minimum, address the following areas:

Site mobilization and demobilization

Subcontractor management

Safety management and compliance

Environmental compliance and sustainability measures

Physical and information security requirements

3. Methodology and Innovation

Describe the specific techniques, tools, frameworks, or best practices your team will use to accomplish the work.

Highlight any innovative solutions or value-added approaches that will improve efficiency, safety, quality, or cost-effectiveness.

4. Key Personnel

Identify all key personnel assigned to the project.

Include their roles, responsibilities, qualifications, and relevant experience managing similar efforts.

Explain the structure of the project team and reporting relationships.

5. Risk Management

Provide a risk mitigation plan that identifies potential construction-related risks and outlines proactive strategies to address them.

Include both internal and external risk factors (e.g., weather delays, supply chain issues, subcontractor performance).

6. Quality Control

Describe how you will comply with Section 01 45 00.

Provide your internal quality control measures that exceed the requirements of the solicitation that will be implemented to ensure that all deliverables meet contractual, regulatory, and technical requirements.

Discuss inspection protocols, testing methods, and corrective action processes.

7. Communication Plan

Describe how your team will communicate with the Government throughout the project lifecycle.

Include the frequency and format of progress updates, stakeholder coordination, points of contact, and issue escalation protocols.

B. Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the degree to which it reflects a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and the feasibility of the proposed plan to successfully execute the work. This evaluation will consider the clarity, completeness, and logic of the overall approach, as well as the offeror’s ability to deliver quality results within the required timeframe and with minimal disruption to ongoing operations.

The offeror’s strategy for mitigating challenges such as schedule delays, cost growth, and project safety as well as minimizing disruption to ongoing operations will also be evaluated. The Government will consider the practicality and effectiveness of proposed sequencing, staging, and work-around measures intended to reduce impacts on the installation or adjacent activities. Proposals that demonstrate innovative but realistic approaches to disruption mitigation may be evaluated more favorably.

The work plan will be reviewed for its level of detail and the adequacy of its approach to managing and executing the construction effort. This includes evaluation of the offeror’s plans for site mobilization, subcontractor management, quality control, safety management, environmental compliance, and adherence to security requirements. The Government will assess how clearly the offeror presents these elements and the degree to which they contribute to overall project success.

Additionally, the methodology and techniques proposed to execute the work will be evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness. This includes the use of industry best practices, management frameworks, construction methods, and any value-added or innovative approaches that enhance project performance, efficiency, or cost-effectiveness.

The qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel will be assessed to determine their ability to successfully manage and execute the project. The evaluation will consider the clarity of team structure, the relevance of personnel experience to the scope of work, and the definition of roles and responsibilities.

The Government will review the offeror’s risk mitigation plan to assess how well potential risks are identified, analyzed, and addressed. Evaluation will consider the realism of the proposed mitigation strategies and the offeror’s ability to proactively manage risk throughout the project lifecycle.

The quality control approach will be evaluated based on the offeror’s proposed procedures for ensuring compliance with contract requirements, including the use of inspections, testing protocols, and corrective action measures to ensure deliverable accuracy and completeness.

Finally, the Government will assess the offeror’s communication approach, including how the team will maintain effective interaction with Government stakeholders throughout the project. This includes evaluation of reporting mechanisms, issue escalation procedures, and coordination practices.

ATTACHMENT 1

DESIGN PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(Limit each worksheet to no more than 3 pages)

DESIGN PROJECT #

Design Firm:

Project, Location & Contract Number:

Was this design performed by the division or unit of the company submitting as the design firm for this solicitation?

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference: Telephone:

Estimated Construction Cost: Actual Construction Cost (if known):

Date of Award: Original Design Completion

Date:

Revised Design Completion Date:

For DB Projects only – Provide DB Contract Completion Date:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction:

Offeror’s Role in Design (Self-Performed Work):

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Identify and describe the relevancies for this project compared to the scope of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination.

Did any members of the proposed Design/Build team (firms, not individuals) have a role in this project? Identify the team members (by firm), their role in this project, and their proposed role in this solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONSTRUCTION PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(Limit each worksheet to no more than 3 pages)

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT #_______

Offeror:

Project, Location, and Contract Number:

Was this project performed by the division or unit of the company submitting the offer for this solicitation?

Owner:

Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference:

Telephone:

Awarded Construction Cost: Final Construction Cost:

Explain Cost Growth, if any:

Date of Award:

Original Completion Date:

Revised Completion Date:

Percent Complete:

Explain Time Growth, if any:

General Scope of Construction and Offeror’s Role:

Work Your Company Self-Performed:

Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

Identify and describe the relevancies for this project compared to the scope of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the information provided in making the relevancy determination.

Did any members of the proposed Design/Build team (firms, not individuals) have a role in this project? Identify the team members (by firm), their role in this project, and their proposed role in this solicitation.

ATTACHMENT 3

USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI 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.)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Continued

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: 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Continued

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

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

corrective actions appear or were ineffective. 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.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CUI

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)

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; to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.)

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).

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):

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N