RFP_W9128A-19-R-0016_Section_00_21_16_Am0003.pdf

W9128A19R0016

Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org ) no later than 10 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via automated email, followed by an answer to the comment/question after it has been processed by our technical team. Offerors are requested to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted as an amendment to the solicitation in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and all answers are finalized.

The Solicitation Number is: W9128A19R0016

The Bidder Inquiry Key is: KI2GD2-9HQE85

Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

Amendment 0003 http://www.projnet.org/

Section 00 22 16 - Supplementary Instructions to Proposers

EVALUATION

1.0 GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

For Phase 1, all offerors are required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein. Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

Envelopes/packages containing offers must be sealed, marked and addressed as follows:

MARK ENVELOPES/PACKAGES:

Solicitation No. W9128A-19-R-0016

Proposals may be submitted via U.S. Postal Service, courier service, or personally delivered as follows:

Proposals submitted via U.S. Postal Services shall be mailed to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Contracting Division (CEPOH-CT), ATTN: Ms. Tracy Tenholder/ Ms. Merbby Nicolas Bldg. 230, Otake Street Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440

Proposals submitted via courier service or hand delivered shall be delivered to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Contracting Division (CEPOH-CT), ATTN: Mr. Tracy Tenholder / Ms. Merbby Nicolas Building 252, Walker Drive, Fort Shafter, Oahu, Hawaii 96858-5440

Proposal received by telegraph, facsimile and/or email will not be accepted.

Proposals received by the Government after the date and time set for receipt of proposals will be handled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (c), found in Section 00 21 16.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1 General Info

Submit proposal in two (2) separate envelopes as described below. An electronic copy of each volume of the proposal shall be submitted on two (2) digital copies (CDs) or DVDs, and shall accompany the hard copy submittals. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the solicitation number, volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one file using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Self extracting exe files will not be accepted. Electronic files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

All proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g. bold face print or underlining. Proposal replacement pages shall be clearly marked “REVISED,” shall show the date of revision, and shall be submitted in the appropriate number of copies (e.g., if four copies of the original page was required, then four copies of the revised page will also be required.) and 2 digital copies (CDs) for all documents in read-only format, preferably using .pdf files.

The proposal shall be submitted in sealed envelopes, clearly marked, “SOLICITATION No.

W9128A19R0016, “Install Relays at Castner, Menoher, and Wheeler substations, Schofield Barracks”

2.2 Volume I, Non-Price Proposal:

One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME I, NON-PRICE PROPOSAL, RFP NO.

W9128A19R0016”

Original and one copy (certified as a true copy) of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement (if the Offeror is a joint venture).

Original and three (3) copies of the Non-Price Proposal are required addressing the requirements provided in provision FAR 52.212-2 of the solicitation.

2.3 Volume II, Price Proposal:

The second envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME II, PRICE PROPOSAL, RFP NO.

W9128A19R0016”

• Original and one (1) copy of the Offeror’s completed Standard Form (SF) SF1449 SF1442, using a printed copy of the SF1449 SF1442 included in this solicitation.

• Original and two (2) copies of Price Proposal/Bid Schedule. Indicate whether or not Facilities Capital Cost of Money is included in the Offeror’s costs of performing the work. Proposals that state that Facilities Capital Cost of Money is not included, or proposals that do not address Facilities Capital Cost of Money, will be deemed to have waived Facilities Capital Cost of Money.

• Original of the Offeror’s completed Representations and Certifications, using a printed copy of Section 00 45 00 included in this solicitation. The representations and certifications shall be completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) website at http://sam.gov.

2.4 Table of Contents

Proposal volumes shall be tabbed. Each proposal volume shall include a Table of Contents that includes the title of the subject matter discussed therein and the page number where the information can be found. The proposal shall be organized in the same order described in provision FAR 52.212-2 of the solicitation. Proposals that are not correctly organized may be considered “Unacceptable.”

2.5 Proposal Presentation

Proposals shall completely address the requirements of the solicitation. Prepare proposals in the English language. Elaborate format, binders, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, the proposal shall be neatly organized and bound.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in which section the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the section for each factor.

2.6 Proposal Content

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors set forth below. All pages, except divider tabs, shall be numbered. Pages shall be single-sided, numbered, and shall be typed. Type pitch shall be 10 pitch or larger.

http://sam.gov/

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the solicitation requirements with a statement of intent to perform does not reveal the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. The inclusion of “filler” material from previous proposals or commercial applications shall be avoided unless it has direct application to the objective of this solicitation.

Offerors shall include sufficient details in the proposal, and shall present the details in the same order in which they are requested in this section to permit the Government to promptly, completely, and accurately evaluate the proposal. The Government will not make any assumptions concerning the Offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, or experience. Clear identification of the pertinent details shall rest solely with the Offeror.

Legibility, clarity, coherence, and contents are important. Offerors shall not submit verbatim sections of this solicitation as part of its proposal. Offerors that disregard these standards unnecessarily delay the evaluation process and may be determined by the Government to have an “Unacceptable” proposal.

Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation.

The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract.

5.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract, without discussions, to the Offeror that submits the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal, in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations.

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for NON-PRICE FACTORS described in provision FAR 52.212-2 of the solicitation.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating on any of the NON-PRICE factors may be determined “Unacceptable” and may not receive further consideration for award.

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award without discussions (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a) may be requested). In addition to evaluating all non-price proposals, the Contracting Officer will, in accordance with the provisions of the solicitation and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price.

In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the Offerors’ NON-PRICE and PRICE factors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

In accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR Part 9 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation.

6.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

All proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with formal source selection procedures. The principal objective of this process is to select a responsible offeror whose proposal represents the

Best Value to the Government. The process is designed to ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

Selection of the most highly qualified offerors will be based on overall evaluation of proposal after consideration of the following factors: Experience, Key Personnel, and Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals with a technical factor rating of Unacceptable on any factor regardless of the number of other proposals or their ratings.

The Government is not responsible for information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in the appropriate proposal section. To ensure the evaluation credit is appropriately received for proposal material submitted, do not incorporate by reference documents not contained in the proposal. References to sections of the proposal shall be by specific paragraph number (and name, if applicable), page number, and section.

7. EVALUATION FACTORS

All proposals will be evaluated on non-price and price factors. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated. Proposals that do not address all factors may be considered “Unacceptable” and may not receive further consideration.

Data provided in response to non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume 1, “Non-Price Proposal.” Only data from the Offeror will be evaluated. If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates joint and several legal responsibility on the part of all members of the joint venture.

All references herein to “the Offeror” include all proposed joint ventures. Information from members of a joint-venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated as long as the member or joint-venture was a prime contractor (or a self-performing subcontractor, in the case of work described in paragraph 2.1.3 below).

Information provided from potential sub-contractors (not included in the joint venture) will not be considered or evaluated.

NON-PRICE FACTORS (Proposal Volume I):

Factor 1, Experience Factor 2, Key Personnel Factor 3, Past Performance

PRICE (Proposal Volume II)

All Non-Price Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

7.1 VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – Experience

7.1.1 Submission Requirements / Evaluation Criteria

To achieve an “Acceptable” rating, the Offeror must submit at least two (s) relevant contracts, as defined in paragraph 7.1.2. No more than five (5) contracts shall be submitted. If more than five

(5) contracts are submitted, only the first five (5) contracts identified in the proposal will be evaluated.

Offerors shall provide a Contract Data Sheet (included as Attachment 1 to this section) for each submitted contract. No more than five (5) single-sided pages shall be submitted for each contract, including the Contract Data Sheet and any continuation pages. Pages exceeding this five (5) single-sided page limit will not be considered. Only the form provided as Attachment 1 will be accepted.

Information submitted in any other format will not be evaluated.

Within the Contract Data Sheet the Offeror shall provide a narrative description of each contract included in its proposal. The narrative shall specifically describe the Offeror’s role and responsibility on the contract. Each narrative shall contain a clear explanation of how the contract satisfies the criteria for relevancy (paragraph 7.1.2) and shall relate this past experience to the work to be performed on this contract. All requested information must be provided. Failure to provide any of the requested information may be cause to eliminate a contract from consideration in the evaluation.

At a minimum, include the following:

1. Describe the work performed on installation of SEL relays, or retrofit of SEL relays into existing solid state/electro-mechanical relay switchgear for micro-grid application.

2. Identify the experience:

• Working on substation and switchgear; minimum of 7.2/12.47 KV;

• Installation, testing, and trouble-shooting on a minimum of 2 substation protective relay control systems;

• Programming experience on SEL products;

• Doing secondary injection using a three phase test set;

• Testing and verifying current transformer accuracy class;

• Replacing existing operational electromechanical relays;

• Experience with Schweitzer SEL Protective Relays for micro-grid application including performance of end-to-end relay testing and function testing of substation on relay panel;

• Modification of substation switchgear; and

• Providing micro-grid capabilities incorporating multiple generation sources of differing ground fault capacities to include utility level, PV inverter systems and smaller rotating units.

Note: If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) and the JV does not have experience working as a JV, the partners of the JV may submit experience on behalf of the Offeror. All references herein to “the Offeror” include all proposed joint venture partners. Submitted contracts by members of a joint-venture or from the joint-venture itself will be considered and evaluated. Sub-contractor experience may be submitted on behalf of the Offeror provided the Offeror provides a copy of a binding teaming agreement or binding letter of commitment from that sub-contractor to perform the work required in this RFP for the Offeror.

The JV shall submit no more than five (5) contracts, but each respective JV partner must submit at least one (1) contract under this Factor.

7.1.2 Relevancy Criteria

A relevant contract must demonstrate all of the following:

1. It was substantially complete within ten (10) years before the date this solicitation was issued. Substantially complete means a contract administrator or equivalent determined that the terms of the contract have been fulfilled to the extent that the constructed product can be occupied or used for its intended purposes. Evidence of substantial completion from the contracting agency, or a CCASS rating must be included in the proposal in order for a contract to be considered relevant.

2. The contract involved in the installation of SEL relays, or retrofit of SEL relays into existing solid state/electro-mechanical relay switchgear for micro-grids.

3. The electrical work on medium-voltage switchgear and substations (15kV-49kV).

7.1.3 Factor 1 - Basis of Evaluation

7.2 VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 – Key Personnel

7.2.1 Submission Requirements / Evaluation Criteria

To achieve an “Acceptable” rating, the Offeror must submit:

1. Resume of Technician/electrician with a minimum of 4 years of experience in installation of protective relays and working on minimum of 7.2/12.7 KV substation and switchgear to perform/supervise the installation of the system. A minimum of 5 years’ experience working with HECO, and a Minimum of 3 years’ experience in areas with HECO transmission lines;

2. Resumes of Technicians/electricians with a minimum of 2 years of experience in installation of protective relays to assist in the installation, connection, and testing of relays and associated equipment and wiring;

3. Copy of Active General Electrical contractor (Hawaii C-13) license; and

4. Copy of Active Pole and line contractor (Hawaii C-62) license.

7.2.2 Factor 2 - Basis of Evaluation

7.3 VOLUME 1, FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

7.3.1 Submission Requirements / Evaluation Criteria

Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective.

For each project submitted under Factor 1, the Offeror shall provide past performance information. For Federal projects, the Offeror may submit finalized CCASS or CPARS reports. If a finalized CCASS or CPARS report is not available, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the RFP is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project. The Offeror shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current contact information (phone number and email address) on the PPQ form, for each experience submitted for Factor 1. Previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted; however, ensure current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

The completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal and may be duplicated for submission on future solicitations. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first 2 pages of the PPQ and Attachment 1, which will

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation, paragraph 7.1.1.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, paragraph 7.1.1.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation, paragraph 7.2.1.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, paragraph 7.2.1.

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 Government via e-mail to Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Projects for which past performance information is submitted shall be well underway (fully designed and at least 80% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no more than ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years preceding the issuance date of this RFP, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

For contract(s) that have/had an adverse past performance record, the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the short-coming(s) and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror shall provide copies of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on submitted contracts and provide a description of the corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts submitted were terminated and the type and reason(s) for the termination. Copies of Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters do not count against the page limitation.

7.3.2 Factor 3 - Basis of Evaluation

The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts submitted under Factor 1. The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror demonstrates that it has performed satisfactorily in the past on relevant contracts, including any trends in past performance, to ascertain the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under this solicitation.

Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluators will assess each Offeror’s past performance on relevant contracts submitted under Factor 1.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance of for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

In addition to the information provided above, the Government may obtain and evaluate additional past performance information from the Client on the submitted projects, or other mailto:Tracy.N.Tenholder@usace.army.mil relevant projects completed by the Offeror before ten (10) years from the date this solicitation was issued. The Government may contact and interview the Client, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed owners or owner’s representative listed as a reference, if the listed reference is not available. The Government may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. The Government may also obtain and evaluate existing past performance information on relevant projects completed before ten (10) years from the date this solicitation was issued through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company / subsidiary / affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries to owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources, even though not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies.

7.4 VOLUME 1, PRICE PROPOSAL

7.4.1 General

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit additional information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the price.

7.4.2 Volume II, Price Proposal – Basis of Evaluation

Price proposals will be evaluated to ascertain the reasonableness and fairness of the proposed price. Price analysis will be performed by one or more of the techniques under FAR 15.404 to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

ATTACHMENT 1 - PROJECT DATA SHEET

The data provided on this sheet will provide supporting information for the Offeror’s Technical (Factor I). Use this form to document relevant contracts that were substantially complete no earlier than ten (10) years preceding the solicitation issuance date. Properly referenced continuation sheets may be used if needed. Submit no more than 5 pages per contract – Project Data Sheet pages plus continuation sheets.

OFFEROR’S Name: ______________________________________________

If Offeror is in a Joint Venture, identify which contractor in the Joint Venture completed the project:

Owner’s / Owner’s Representative’s Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Fax Number:

E-Mail Address:

Type of project (Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, Work Plan Construct, etc.):

Period of Performance:

Name of electric utility provider to which the system is connected:

Contract Description:

Contract No:

Contract Title:

Location (city, state):

Contract Description (continued):

Award Date:

Original Completion Date: Actual Completion Date:

Award Amount: Final Contract Price:

Percentage of Contract Performed by Offeror:

Type/scope of work performed by the Offeror:

Type/scope of work performed by Subcontractors:

Quality Awards, Letters of Appreciation, etc.

Describe any other aspects of this project relevant to experience or past performance that demonstrate the Offeror’s capabilities and qualifications to perform the proposed contract.

Attachment 2 USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work: High Medium 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: 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.

ADJECTIVAL 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.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVAL 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) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

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

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):