B.01.01 - Amendment 0004 - Combined Synopsis Solicitation W912DQ22R7000-0004 - FINAL 01.13.2022.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to remove all language that states"Profit w ill be negotiated on a per task order basis" from the Instructions to Offerors and the Price Schedule. The proposal response date and time has been extended to Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 10:00 AM CST. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. See summary of changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jan-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W912DQ22R7000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Dec-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Jan-2022

CODE

USACE, KANSAS CITY CT

FEDERAL BLDG CT-M 601 E 12TH STREET

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

W912DQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DQ22R7000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

AMENDMENT W912DQ22R7000-0004: INDEFINITE DELIVERY/ INDEFINTE QUANTITY SINGLE

AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR FACILITATED PARTNERING SERVICES

EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 13, 2022

1. The proposal response date and time has been extended to Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 10:00 AM CST.

2. Instructions to Offerors, 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items, (a)(I)(3)(a) Price

Delete:

The Cost/Price Factor consists of two parts:

a) Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Price Schedule for reasonableness for each year of the ordering period.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed annual escalation rates as part of the basic contract price. Profit will be negotiated on a per task order basis and shall not exceed 10%.

Replace with:

The Cost/Price Factor consists of two parts:

a) Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Price Schedule for reasonableness for each year of the ordering period.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed annual escalation rates as part of the basic contract price. Profit will be negotiated on a per task order basis and shall not exceed 10%.

3. Price Schedule

Delete:

PRICE SCHEDULE

PARTNERING SATOC PRICE SCHEDULE / HOURLY RATES

DISCIPLINE UNIT YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Facilitator

Escalation % % % % %

*Profit will be negotiated and applied on a task order basis.

*Profit will not be added to travel.

*All travel will be in accordance with FAR 31.205-46(a)(2)(i), the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR).

*Overhead will only apply to Direct Labor, not on ODCs.

Replace with:

PRICE SCHEDULE

PARTNERING SATOC PRICE SCHEDULE / HOURLY RATES

DISCIPLINE UNIT YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Facilitator

Escalation % % % % %

*Profit will be negotiated and applied on a task order basis.

*Profit will not be added to travel.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 14-Jan-2022 10:00 AM to 18-Jan-2022 10:00 AM.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District (NWK) has a professional service requirement for facilitated partnering services. This acquisition is to procure the technical and administrative services to prepare and facilitate group partnering workshops and to assist government personnel in developing expertise to plan and facilitate informal team led sessions. This is a total small business set-aside.

NWK contemplates the award of a firm fixed-price (FFP) indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity (IDIQ) single award task order contract (SATOC) with a total contract capacity of $1,700,000 and a minimum guarantee of $2,500. The ordering period will be a base period of one-year with four (4) one-year option periods.

B. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items. The following documentation must be submitted with your offer for evaluation.

1. SF 1449, Solicitation, Offer and Award; company name and address as it appears in the System for Award

Management (SAM), include prompt payment terms, remittance address, Tax Identification Number (TIN), DUNS number, and Cage Code.

2. All amendments must be acknowledged

3. Completed schedule of prices

4. Review and submit all required information from FAR clause 52.212-2

5. A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3

C. Offerors Address - Prospective Offerors should indicate in the offer, the address to which payment and/or correspondence should be mailed, if such address is different from that shown for the offeror on Standard Form 1449 Block 17a.

D. System for Award Management - By submission of a proposal, the Offeror acknowledges the requirement that prospective awardees must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract resulting from this proposal. Lack of registration in the SAM database will make an Offeror ineligible for award. Contractors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements by calling 1-888-227-2423, or at: http://www.sam.gov.

E. Wage Determination – During the services performed for the resulting contract, vendors must ensure they are following the applicable Wage Determinations as found at http://www.sam.gov/content/wage-determination.

The applicable Wage Determination for this solicitation is 2015-5075 Revision 19 dated 10/20/2021.

F. Basis of Award - The Government will award, without discissions, to a responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government based on relevant corporate experience & past performance, key personnel and price. The Government reserves the right to award to an offeror providing other than the lowest price offer based on the technical merits of the offeror’s proposal. See performance work statement (PWS) and evaluation – commercial items specified in FAR 52.212-2 of this solicitation.

G. Responses will be evaluated to assure that an award is not made to a debarred contractor. In addition, contractors with known performance issued identified in determining the contractor’s responsibility per FAR Part 9 will be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer and may be considered in making the awards.

FAR Part 9, Contractor Qualification, requires that purchases shall be made from, and shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.

H. How to submit questions: Questions should be emailed to kris.a.huber@usace.army.mil and sierra.s.marshall@usace.army.mil NLT January 5, 2022 by 10:00 AM CST and a response will be provided via an amendment to the announcement posted to sam.gov.

I. How to submit Offers: Contractor may submit an electronic offer to the following email addresses no later than the stated due date and time in block 8 of the SF 1449. Submit an electronic offer to kris.a.huber@usace.army.mil and sierra.s.marshall@usace.army.mil.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Relevant Corporate Experience and Past Performance

(ii) Key Personnel

(iii) Price

The contract award will be made to the offeror providing the most advantageous value to the Government. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Key Personnel factor. The Government reserves the right to award to an offeror providing other than the lowest price offer based on the technical merits of the offeror’s proposal. IAW FAR 13.106, "Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor."

I. Submission Criteria and Evaluation Approach:

It is incumbent upon the offeror to submit sufficient information for the Government to make a determination of – technical capability (non-price factors) and price. Failure to submit sufficient information for the government to determine technical capability and/or price may be cause for rejection of your offer. Offerors are discouraged from providing information not required by this solicitation.

(1) Relevant Corporate Experience and Past Performance

i. Relevant Corporate Experience

Submission Criteria: The offeror shall submit three (3) examples of projects where facilitation services were provided that demonstrate the breadth and depth of the offeror’s experience performing work similar in size, scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS of this solicitation. To be evaluated, projects must have been performed within seven (7) years of the date this solicitation is issued. Projects that are ongoing may be submitted if performance has been underway for at least 1 year. An IDIQ contract or other similar ordering vehicle is not considered a “project;” however, a single task order issued under that IDIQ or ordering vehicle may be considered a “project” under this evaluation factor.

A maximum of three (3) projects will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than three (3) projects, only the first three (3) projects will be evaluated. Offerors should submit offers that describe each project submission and how each project demonstrates the offeror’s ability to perform the work called for under this solicitation. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how each project demonstrates the offeror’s experience with performing the work called for in this solicitation. Offerors must limit the description of these projects to two pages per project submission. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two pages per project, only the first two pages will be evaluated.

Offerors should use the following format when submitting project information under this factor:

a) Project Title, Contract Number, and Location

b) Total Dollar Amount

c) Start and Completion Dates

d) Description of the Project (Describe the project, the involved entities, size of the teams, and discuss how the services provided relate to the work called for in this solicitation)

e) Customer Point of Contact (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current phone number and email address)

ii. Past Performance

Submission Criteria: The offeror must provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) and/or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the identified point of contact for each of the projects the offeror submits under Factor 1, Relevant Corporate Experience.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. 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 page of the PPQ (attached) 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, Contract Specialist, Kris Ann Huber and Contracting Officer, Sierra Marshall at kris.a.huber@usace.army.mil and sierra.s.marshall@usace.army.mil, prior to the solicitation 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.

Evaluation Approach: The Offeror’s Relevant Corporate Experience and Past Performance will be evaluated based on the Government’s assessment of each submitted project’s similarity (in terms of size, scope and complexity) to the work described in the PWS of this solicitation. The Government intends to give greater consideration to offers that demonstrate experience providing partnering and facilitation services to government agencies such as USACE, experience with large military installation projects and experience with large multi-million-dollar construction projects with multiple stakeholders.

The Government will first evaluate the recency and relevancy of each offeror’s project submissions identified in the offeror’s proposal to the work called for in this solicitation. Offers that demonstrate successful past performance of projects similar in size, scope and complexity will be considered when the Government is assessing the relevance of each project.

After determining the relevance of each submitted project, the Government will assess the contractor’s performance on its submitted projects and will then assign each offeror a confidence rating based on the offeror’s relevant performance record and the Government’s expectation that the offeror will successfully perform all contract requirements.

While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Owners, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with each offeror.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or unknown, the offeror will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

(2) Key Personnel

Submission Criteria:

Offerors shall provide up to two (2) resumes for the following Key Personnel proposed for this contract:

Facilitator

Minimum qualification requirements are found in Paragraph 1.5.1 of the base performance work statement:

A maximum of two (2) facilitator resumes will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two (2) resumes, only the first two (2) resumes will be evaluated. Offerors should submit resumes for individuals that will be used in the initial task order, and that demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the work called for under this solicitation. Resumes should describe the individual’s education and training, background and experience and examples of facilitation efforts with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how each individual’s qualifications demonstrate the capability to perform the work called for in this solicitation. Offerors must limit resumes to two pages per individual. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than two pages per resume, only the first two pages will be evaluated.

Evaluation Approach:

Each offeror’s proposed Key Personnel submitted will be evaluated based on the Government’s assessment of each individual’s qualifications (training, education, background and experience) to carry out the work described in the PWS of this solicitation. The Government intends to give greater weight to proposals that include Key Personnel that have successfully performed on the example projects provided in Factor 1. The Government also intends to give greater consideration to offerors with Key Personnel that demonstrate proven experience on construction projects of similar size, scope and complexity to the work called for in the seed project PWS.

(3) Price

The contract will be a FFP task order contract. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed price of the labor categories and the proposed escalation rates in accordance with FAR 13.106. The Government will examine price offers for unbalanced and/or unreasonably low prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unreasonably low, or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices, which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. In addition, an offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and there is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer. The evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed rates in conjunction with the proposed price for the seed project will be considered in determining the overall reasonableness of the Offeror’s cost/price proposal and the potential risk to the Government.

Additionally, the Cost/Price factor will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy to determine if the Offeror has understood the proposal instructions and properly completed the price schedule and for mathematical accuracy.

The Cost/Price proposals of the qualified Offerors will be evaluated in order to determine whether they are reasonable in relation to the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and reflect a clear understanding of the technical proposal.

Price analysis techniques shall also be used to corroborate the results of the reasonableness of prices.

The Cost/Price Factor consists of two parts:

b) Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed hourly rates for the labor categories provided in the Price Schedule for reasonableness for each year of the ordering period.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed annual escalation rates as part of the basic contract price. Profit will be negotiated on a per task order basis and shall not exceed 10%.

c) Seed Project: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price and the methodology used to develop the proposed price for the seed project. Provide a price breakdown by task in the Performance Work Statement that includes number of hours, rates, direct costs and travel. Labor rates, the number of hours, mix of labor categories, materials, other direct costs and any other costs that may be associated with this seed project will be evaluated to determine price reasonableness and distribution of costs.

II. Rating Method

Proposal Compliance Review: A proposal compliance review will be performed to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical proposal has been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose. An Offeror’s failure to provide all of the requested information may adversely affect the evaluation or result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.

Past Performance Ratings: There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

Factor (i) (Relevant Corporate Experience and Past Performance) will be evaluated by evaluating the projects submitted to determine the relevancy of a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror and assigning one of the relevancy ratings below. These ratings will then influence the overall Confidence Assessment for Factor (i):

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

The following ratings will be used to identify the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s Past Performance.

These ratings will be influenced by the relevancy ratings, above, the past performance questionnaires (PPQ-0) as well as any Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) ratings, Contractor Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings or other databases using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency listed for and associated with the submitted projects:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS:

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance report is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

The following ratings will be utilized in the evaluation of Factor (ii) (Key Personnel):

COMBINED TECHNICAL / RISK RATING METHOD:

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

PROPOSAL FORMS: Forms recommended to be used in responding to this RFP are provided on the following pages. They are:

Attachment A: Past Performance Questionnaire

ATTACHMENT A: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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:

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

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

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

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

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

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

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

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

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

E VG S M U N

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.

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):

PRICE SCHEDULE

PRICE SCHEDULE

PARTNERING SATOC PRICE SCHEDULE / HOURLY RATES

DISCIPLINE UNIT YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Facilitator

Escalation % % % % %

*Profit will be negotiated and applied on a task order basis.

*Profit will not be added to travel.

SEED PROJECT PRICE SCHEDULE

CLIN 0001 - Task 1 ELT Facilitation $________

CLIN 0002 - Task 2 Workshop Preparation and Planning $________

CLIN 0003 - Task 3 Conduct Workshops: $________

CLIN 0004 - Task 4 Prepare Workshop Reports: $________

TOTAL $________

(End of Summary of Changes)