W912BU-13-R-0037_Amendment0002.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)

30-105-04 EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXTEND THE 20 AUGUST 2013 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AT 2:00 P.M. EST

(Continued)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15C. DATE SIGNED 15B. 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 W912BU-13-R-0037

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jul-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) Design/Build Fire Protection Water Storage, Al Dhafra Air Base (ADAB), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Aug-2013

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

CONTRACTING DIVISION – ROOM 643

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

W912BU 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA

POC: EMILY M. ACEDO-MALANEY

WANAMAKER BUILDING, 100 PENN SQUARE EAST

PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-3390

FACILITY CODE CODE

EMAIL: TEL:

W912BU

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Amendment No. 0002

RFP W912BU-13-R-0037

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (continued)

a. Section 00 22 00 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD: Please delete this section in its entirety and insert new Section 00 22 20 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD, annotated Amendment No. 0002, attached hereto.

b. Please indicate receipt of this amendment on Standard Form 1442 (SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD) as Amendment No. 0002. Failure to acknowledge all amendments may be cause for rejection of the bid.

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Section 00 22 20 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 20

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA

AND BASIS OF AWARD

ONE STEP – LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

1.0 OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and the evaluation rating system described herein. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, also as described herein.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with FAR 15.101-2, award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals satisfying the requirements of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 The solicitation is to inform all potential offerors that the Government intends to make a contract award without discussions except when the Government determines that it is in its best interest to hold discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

3.2 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals.

Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal, provided that the Offeror or Offeror's subcontractor has or will have professional architects and engineers listed as key personnel in accordance with Section 01 33 00.12 10, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

3.3 Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Technical and Price proposals shall be submitted under separate cover. Proposals should also be submitted electronically on a CD (Compact Disc).

3.4 Page Limits: The following page limits shall apply, which do not include title sheets, indices, tables of content, schedules, or cover sheets:

Seventy-five (75) pages maximum excluding past performance information/evaluation questionnaires or substitute correspondence from references. This page limit includes pages with illustrations/photos/sketches. Any evaluation documentation beyond 75 pages will not be read or considered during the evaluation process. A page printed on both sides will be counted as two pages. Pages containing text shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper, except pages containing schedules shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 inch paper. Each page shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum of a 12-point font and one inch margins all around.

Section 00 22 20 Page 2

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals must meet all of the evaluation factors listed below to be considered acceptable. Proposals which do not meet all of the evaluation factors listed below will be unacceptable and will receive no further consideration.

4.1 FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE and INITIAL/PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE: The Government will review the experience of the offeror. Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an “acceptable” rating for this evaluation factor.

4.1.1 An offeror shall convincingly demonstrate having performed construction in the UAE Area of Responsibility (AOR) for the preceding three calendar years that annually total at least $2,000,000.00 for each of those years. Offerors shall provide invoicing figures for work performed within UAE for each of the preceding three years. For joint venture offerors, this experience requirement may be satisfied by submitting conforming experience from any or all of the joint venture partners.

4.1.2 An offeror shall convincingly demonstrate experience by providing evidence of at least two construction (or design-build) projects performed within UAE of at least the scope, dollar value, and complexity described below, and substantially (i.e. at least 75%) completed within the last five years as of the date of proposal submission. For this acquisition, a project of similar scope, dollar value, and complexity is defined as Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build project with contract value in excess of $2,000,000.00 USD that involved that involved the coordination of, at a minimum, mechanical, electrical, site utility, and earthwork trades. For joint venture offerors, this experience may be satisfied by submitting conforming experience from any or all of the joint venture partners. Offerors shall also provide experience information in the same manner as required for the prime contractor offeror for each subcontractor proposed to perform more than 20 percent of the project on-site construction work.

4.1.3 Each project submitted for evaluation must include the following descriptive information: (i) project title, (ii) geographic location, (iii) date that the project was substantially completed, (iv) final project U.S.

dollar value, (v) detailed description of the project, and (vi) a description of the actual involvement in the performance of the presented project.

Offerors are required to provide information that convincingly demonstrates that the experience presented meets the requirements of qualifying construction experience (see requirements above).

4.1.4 If an offeror is a joint venture composed of two or more partners or proposes subcontractor(s) to perform more than 20 percent of the project on-site construction work, the offeror shall describe the project work that each member of the joint venture or the subcontractors would perform. The Government will assess the experience information provided in relation to the work that each of the joint venture partners or subcontractors would be performing.

4.1.5 INITIAL/PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE: An offeror shall present a schedule in sufficient detail, in order to identify major elements of design, construction and procurement activities to convincingly demonstrate its understanding of the solicitation project scope of work.

Section 00 22 20 Page 3

4.2 FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL: An offeror is to provide resume information concerning the qualifications and experience of its intended key on-site construction management and supervision personnel as identified below. The Government will compare this resume information against any and all requirements contained in the specs. Failure to satisfy a material (i.e. substantive) requirement for any of the personnel listed below will be a basis for receiving an unacceptable rating. The key positions to be evaluated are:

Design Specialists:

• Geotechnical

• Mechanical

• Architectural

• Civil

The Design Specialists are to be Registered Professional

Engineer(s), Registered Architect(s) or recognized consultants, with at least the following years design experience:

Geotechnical: 10 years Mechanical: 10 years Architect: 10 years Civil: 10 years

On-site Safety Officer (Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)) The SSHO will meet the following requirements:

• Minimum of 5 years of safety experience of a progressive nature

• Minimum of 5 years of safety experience on similar projects

• 30-hour OSHA construction safety class or equivalent in the last

5 years

• An average of at least 24 hours of formal safety training each year for the past 5 years

On-site Construction Quality Control (CQC) System Manager (Contractor Quality Contract Systems Manager (CQCSM))

The CQCSM will meet the following requirements:

• Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or Sciences

• Minimum of 8 years experience as a CQC or Superintendent, with a minimum of 2 of those eight years on similar projects.

All resumes must include the following information to the extent required by the solicitation and are not to exceed three pages in length for each resume. Information presented beyond the three-page limitation for each resume will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation process.

• Name of person

• Proposed project assignment

• Name of firm with which presently associated and or employed

• Years of experience as it applies to the position that would be filled

• Educational degree(s), year of graduation and institution

• Active professional registration (if any), year first registered, if applicable

• List of projects in which the individual has worked to include name of project(s), project location(s), and work assignments performed

Section 00 22 20 Page 4

4.3 FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE: The Proposal must include no more than five (5) projects using the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms (Attachments 1, 2, and 3) (do not include Attachment 2, Adjective Ratings and Definitions) at the end of Section 00 22 20, representing the Offeror’s relevant Past Performance. Past performance pertains to how well an offeror has performed relevant past work that is an indicator of future performance. Past performance information is not the same as experience information. Experience information pertains to what types of work an offeror has performed. Past performance pertains to how well an offeror performs project work. For the purpose of this evaluation, past performance means an offeror’s reputation for satisfying its customers by delivering:

(i) quality work

(ii) in a timely manner

(iii) at a reasonable cost

(iv) in a safe working environment as well as its reputation for

(v) reasonable and cooperative conduct

(vi) overall commitment to customer satisfaction

4.3.1 Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider past performance information obtained from other sources, the primary responsibility for providing past performance information rests with the offeror. In the case of an offeror that does not have a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”. There are two categories of Past Performance with this evaluation factor.

a. Prime Contractor Past Performance:

(1) The Government will evaluate an offeror’s reputation for performing work in a manner commensurate with the six areas of interest listed above.

(2) An offeror should provide written evidence of the above described six past performance qualities (see items (i) through (vi)) in the form of, but not limited to:

1. Letters and certificates of commendation

2. Performance awards

3. Performance evaluations

4. Evidence of repeat work with the same clients or owners (particularly when noncompetitively obtained), etc.

(3) Offerors are encouraged to solicit and obtain letters of recommendation from past owners, customers and clients from which written documentation contemporaneous with project performance may not be available. These past performance documents should not reference work completed more than six years prior to the date of proposal submission for this RFP. Past performance documents older than six years will not be considered in the evaluation and selection processes.

Section 00 22 20 Page 5

(4) If an offeror is a joint venture or partnership, information pertaining to the areas identified as (i) through (vi), above should be presented for each member of the joint venture or partnership (unless the information being presented is in regard to the joint venture or partnership as constituted in response to this solicitation). Although the Government prefers all members of a joint venture or partnership to have satisfied all the above indicated six performance areas, the Government will consider the complementary aspects of the separate participants in a joint venture or partnership, by evaluating the joint venture or partnership as a whole.

(5) Past performance information provided for a member of a joint venture or partnership having no involvement in the project will not be considered in the Government’s Past Performance factor evaluation.

Past performance information will only be evaluated from firms proposed to be involved in an offeror’s approach for performance of the solicitation work.

(6) In addition to the evidence submitted by an offeror, the Government may consider information from other sources, including but not limited to: past and present customers and their current and former employees; federal, state and local agencies (including court records); private consumer organizations; and Government past performance databases. In gathering this additional past performance information, the Government will attempt to contact an offeror’s past customers and clients for which contact information is provided by the offeror in response to the portion of the factor.

(7) Submit a list of projects that demonstrate the past performance information for six areas of interest listed above. A past performance questionnaire shall be submitted for each project listed.

b. Subcontractor Past Performance:

(1) The Government will evaluate a proposed subcontractor’s reputation for performing work in a manner commensurate with the six areas of interest listed above.

(2) This evaluation element is applicable to subcontractors employed by the prime contractor offeror, where the total subcontracting efforts performed on site (involving design, management and or construction efforts) equates to twenty percent or more of the on-site project work effort. An offeror should provide written evidence for its proposed subcontractors of the above described six past performance areas of interest (see (i) and (vi) above) in the form of, but not limited to:

1. Letters and certificates of commendation, performance awards, performance evaluations

2. Evidence of repeat work with the same clients or owners (particularly when noncompetitively obtained), etc.

(3) Offerors are encouraged to solicit and obtain letters of recommendation for its proposed subcontractors, from past owners, and/or customers and clients from which contemporaneous written documentation may not be presently available. These past performance documents should not reference work completed more than six years from the date of the solicitation. Past performance documents that are older

Section 00 22 20 Page 6 than six years will not be considered in the evaluation and selection processes.

(4) In addition to the past performance documentation submitted by an offeror for its proposed subcontractors, the Government may consider information from other sources, including but not limited to:

past and present customers and their current and former employees;

federal, state and local agencies (including court records); private consumer organizations; and Government past performance databases. In gathering this additional past performance information, the Government will attempt to contact an offeror’s past customers and clients for which contact information is provided by the offeror in response to the Prime Contractor Experience and Subcontractor Experience portion of this factor.

(5) Submit a list of projects that demonstrate the past performance information for six areas of interest listed above. A past performance questionnaire shall be submitted for each project listed.

Past Performance Questionnaires

a. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with the proposals. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. 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. The Past Performance Questionnaire 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 3, Past Performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. 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 (Attachment 1), 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. 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 6 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

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 the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

Section 00 22 20 Page 7

(CPARS), 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 of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

c. 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.

5.0 PRICE EVALUATION: The Government will evaluate proposals for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and completeness of the prices offered. Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing as a part of the Government’s reasonableness determination. Completeness includes review of Proposal.

5.1 PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE).

5.1.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1.1 Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the Price Proposal Schedule. See instructions in Section 00 10 00, “Bidding Schedule / Instructions to Bidders”.

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

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.1.2.1 The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsive and responsible offeror submitting the lowest reasonable price that has an overall acceptable rating concerning non-pricing evaluation factors. Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

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

6.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.1 The offeror that submits the lowest complete and reasonable, technically acceptable price proposal will be selected for the contract award. To be

Section 00 22 20 Page 8 considered technically acceptable, an offeror’s proposal must not be rated “unacceptable” under any technical factors.

6.2 An “acceptable” rating will be assigned to a proposal that has satisfied all of the requirements of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. An “unacceptable” rating will be assigned to a proposal that has not satisfied one or more requirements of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

6.3 The Government cannot make the contract award to an offeror that is determined to have a technical proposal that is deficient or unacceptable. An “unacceptable” rating will make the offeror ineligible for the contract award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with offerors and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal. It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions, although the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

Therefore, an offeror that desires consideration for the contract award is advised to comply with all mandatory requirements of this solicitation for submission of price and non-price proposals.

6.4 In accordance with FAR 15.101-2, award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals satisfying the requirements of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

Section 00 22 20 Page 9

ATTACHMENT 1

NAVFAC/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 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:

Section 00 22 20 Page 10

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 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.

Section 00 22 20 Page 11

ATTACHMENT 2

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E)Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG)Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S)Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Section 00 22 20 Page 12

(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.

Section 00 22 20 Page 13

ATTACHMENT 3

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts

E VG S M

U N

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

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

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

Section 00 22 20 Page 14

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

Section 00 22 20 Page 15

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

-- End of Section --

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.