B.08.pdf

CUI

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

APPENDIX C

Phase 1 Selection Procedures

The language below will be included in the Phase 1 Request For Proposal (RFP) to explain the evaluation factors and submission requirements for Phase 1.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO PHASE 1 RFP

PROPOSAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 This is a request for proposals (RFP) for design and construction to replace a service elevator at the Harry S. Truman Power Plant in Warsaw, Missouri.

1.2 This is Phase 1 of a two-phase RFP. The RFP is being conducted using two-phase design-build selection procedures as described in the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulations Overhaul (RFO) 36.101-2. In Phase 1, offerors submit a qualifications proposal, excluding design or pricing information.

1.3 The two evaluation factors for Phase 1 are: (1) Performance Confidence; and

(2) Management Approach. Price proposals are not submitted in Phase 1.

1.4 At the end of Phase 1, the Contracting Officer will select the most highly qualified offerors to submit proposals for Phase 2. The Government intends to select up to Five offerors to participate in Phase 2.

1.5 At the end of Phase 2, the Government intends to award a firm-fixed-price contract. The Government intends to make an award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government using a tradeoff process considering the evaluation factors from both phases. For more information on the evaluation factors, see section 4 below.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMISSION

2.1 General Proposal Format

2.1.1 Proposals must be submitted electronically in “pdf” format (Portable Document Format, filename extension “.pdf”) and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader.

2.1.2 All text must be legible. Use no smaller than 11-point font. Page size must not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches except graphic sheets, like organization charts, which can be

11 x 17 inches and will be counted as a single page. Do not have multiple pages on 11” x 17” sheets (2 opposing pages).

2.1.3 All proposals received will stand alone and be considered complete and final. The Government will not consider any external information or data that is incorporated by reference, except as may be expressly permitted by this solicitation.

2.1.4 Do not cross reference past performance information. It is acceptable to repeat project information or experience in more than one part of the proposal as long as it satisfies the requirements of the factor.

2.1.5 Any proprietary information must be clearly marked.

2.2 Page Limits

2.2.1 If a proposal exceeds the page limits, the Government will not consider the excess pages. If pages are printed double sided, each side counts as one page.

2.2.2 Volume 2 is limited to twelve pages with each project limited to a maximum of 3 pages. Note that the maximum number of projects is four projects, as stated in paragraph 3.1.1 below.

2.2.3 Volume 3 is limited to five pages.

2.2.4 These things do not count toward page limits:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms submitted as part of Volume

2. (For additional details about submitting these items, please see paragraph

3.1.9 below. The PPQ form is also included as Attachment 3 to this solicitation.)

• Cover sheets, table of contents pages, and tab dividers. Information on such pages will not be evaluated. It is strongly recommended to label such pages with the words “cover sheet,” “table of contents,” or “tab,” as applicable. If a page appears to be a cover sheet, table of contents, or tab divider but is not labeled, the Contracting Officer will have discretion to determine whether it is a cover sheet, table of contents, or tab divider and will have no obligation to seek clarification from the offeror.

• Any pages that do not fall within one of the two exceptions identified in this paragraph will count toward the page limits. If a proposal exceeds the applicable page limit(s), the Government will not consider the excess pages.

2.3 Submission of Proposals

2.3.1 Proposals received after the date and time in Block 13 of SF 1442 will be considered late and will not be considered for award. There will not be a public bid opening.

2.3.2 If an offeror submits multiple proposals, the Government will only consider the last complete proposal submitted prior to the due date and time.

2.3.3 Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted should be taken into account. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e.

offeror’s submission and all teammate/subcontractor independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442, or SF 30 if applicable.

2.3.4 To avoid rejection of a proposal, the offeror must make every effort to ensure their electronic submission is virus‐free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to RFO 15.108(c).

2.3.5 The requirement to submit a certain number of copies of the proposal along with the original proposal as stated in Block 13A of the SF 1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission.

3. COMPONENTS OF PROPOSALS

An offeror’s proposal must contain Volumes 1-3 with the elements described below.

*Note: The three volumes should be separate electronic files. Do not combine them into a single electronic file.

3.1 Volume 1 -- Pro Forma Requirements

Volume 1 must include:

• SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror.

• Acknowledgment of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30 (amendment form).

• Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offerors. The offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section 00 45 00 and also ensure current registration and completed/updated Annual

Representations and Certifications on the System for Award Management website (https://sam.gov).

• If applicable, submit completed IRS Form W-14 along with executed RFO provision 52.229-11. (See additional details in Section 00 73 00 under the heading “RFO PROVISION 52.229-11 AND RFO CLAUSE 52.229-12.”)

• Bond Surety Letter. Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the offeror is able to provide a bid bond for Phase 2 in the amount of at least $750,000.00 and obtain performance and payment bonds should they win the contract. FAILURE TO

PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN INELIGIBILITY FOR

AWARD.

• Bank letter that verifies sufficient funds will be available to perform the work.

• If applicable, include letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners.

• Offerors submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the teaming agreement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror.

• Offerors submitting proposals in the name of a joint venture shall include a copy of the joint venture agreement signed by each member entity.

• Offers submitted in the name of a joint venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

• Joint Ventures shall also submit the additional required documentation described below in paragraph 2.4 (Associations / Teaming Arrangements).

3.2 Volume 2 -- Performance Confidence

3.2.1 The offeror shall submit information describing at least two, but no more than four, complete or substantially complete projects that demonstrate the offeror’s experience performing projects of relevant scope and complexity and that were similar in size to the solicited project. (If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than four projects, only the first four projects will be evaluated.) At least two of the projects must demonstrate experience performing relevant design work and at least two of the projects must demonstrate experience performing relevant construction work. The projects demonstrating design experience can be the same projects that demonstrate construction experience, or they can be different projects.

3.2.2 Each project must have been completed, or substantially completed, within the last ten years. “Substantially complete” is defined as having completed a 75% https://sam.gov/ of the project work at the time of proposal submission. The offeror shall give the percentage of completion for each project submitted.

3.2.3 To be considered similar in size to the solicited project, each project must have been valued at $1,000,000.00 or more (present day value).

3.2.4 Projects will be considered more relevant to the extent they demonstrate any of the following attributes:

• Experience with design-build projects.

• Experience with design/construction relating to elevators.

• Experience with construction projects for USACE.

3.2.5 Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the

Government can meaningfully assess how well the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria.

3.2.6 Instructions on the use of major subcontractor experience: Offerors may use the experience of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience. A “major subcontractor” is a subcontractor that the offeror proposes to perform 25% or more of the work required under the solicitation. If the offeror submits experience of a major subcontractor, the proposal must identify the firm/company as a major subcontractor and the offeror must submit a letter of commitment from the subcontractor on the letterhead of that firm to be subcontracting. The letter of commitment must be signed by an authorized individual from the subcontractor that is proposed to perform the work. If a letter of commitment is not submitted, the experience will not be considered.

3.2.7 An offeror may include projects completed by predecessor or affiliate companies, as long as the relationship of the predecessor or affiliate company is clearly documented in the proposal. Offerors must demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will be relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Describe in detail the involvement that will be included in this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement.

3.2.8 Projects in which individual key personnel were involved do not qualify for consideration on that basis alone. For example, if one of the offeror’s key personnel worked on a project for a previous employer, that alone does not justify submitting the project under Factor 1.

3.2.9 For each of the projects submitted (including any projects submitted that were performed by a major subcontractor), the offeror shall also provide information about the quality of its performance. The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in its technical proposal.

• If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

• If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project.

• Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

o If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o 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, Laura Hedrick, via email at laura.l.hedrick@usace.army.mil and copying Contract Specialist Angella Curran at angella.curran@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials.

3.2.10 Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors may use previously completed PPQs and do not need to have one completed specifically for this project but must include it as part of the proposal document.

3.2.11 Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

3.2.12 In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers or UEIs (Unique Entity IDs) of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

mailto:laura.l.hedrick@usace.army.mil mailto:angella.curran@usace.army.mil

3.2.13 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.

3.3 Volume 3 -- Management Approach

3.3.1 Project Team Organization: Provide qualifications for the key personnel listed below. If the offeror does not use the nomenclature below but has an equivalent position (e.g., Safety Officer vs. Safety Manager), it is acceptable to identify the key personnel using the title of their equivalent position. However, in such case, the proposal must clearly identify which of the roles below is the equivalent of that position.

• Construction Team: Site Safety Health Officer, Quality Control Manager

• Design Team: Design Engineers, Designer of Record

The qualifications of the above key personnel shall include the following:

• The person’s title

• Number of years with this firm and with other firms

• Number of years in this position or role

• Any relevant professional registrations held (indicate type of registration and which state(s) the person is registered in)

• Provide individual's current assignment and the offeror's plan to ensure that the named personnel will be used on this project; however, if the named person isn't available upon award, a person with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government.

3.3.2 Design Organization: The offeror shall discuss its organizational structure for the design process. The offeror shall identify the areas they intend to design through consultants. The narrative should state why your design firm is qualified to undertake this specific project and its approach to the process of working with the customer during the design phase.

3.3.3 Construction Organization: The offeror shall discuss its construction organizational structure for performing this project. The narrative shall state why your construction firm is qualified to undertake this specific project. Include design refinement after acceptance of lssued For Construction (IFC) sets. Describe the items the offeror will self-perform.

3.3.4 Quality Management Control System: The offeror shall describe how they intend to manage quality through the design development and construction of the project.

3.3.5 Safety: The offeror shall discuss how they intend to manage and execute their Safety program for the contract. Include a discussion of the safety risks. Discuss how your program implements and/or adheres to USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1.

4. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

4.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to evaluate proposals received. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, permitted proposal revisions (if any), and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. Members of the SSEB will independently consider the information in the Phase 1 proposal. Once individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will deliberate and assign a consensus rating for each rated evaluation factor applicable to Phase 1. The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation. No more than five proposals will be included in Phase 2.

4.2 The evaluation factors are as follows:

PHASE 1

Factor 1: Performance Confidence. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant performance of the prime offeror and team members and assign a performance confidence evaluation. There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality assessment. The Government will evaluate these aspects to establish one performance confidence rating for this factor.

Factor 2: Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s explanation of its proposed management capabilities for this project.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined management and risk rating for this factor.

PHASE 2

Factor 3: Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror's explanation of its proposed technical approach to the project. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission and assign one combined technical and risk rating for this factor.

Factor 4: Price. The resulting award will be a firm-fixed-price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the firm-fixed-price effort.

4.3 The relative importance of the evaluation factors is described below in Table 1.

Table 1

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase(s) Factor Number Description Relative Importance

1 and 2 Factor 1 Performance Confidence

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and less important than Factor 3.

1 and 2 Factor 2 Management Approach

Factor 2 is less important than Factors 1 and 3.

2 Factor 3 Technical Approach Factor 3 is more important than Factors 1 and 2.

2 Factor 4 Price All non-price factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

4.4 The Government intends to make an award (after Phase 2) without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions should discussions prove to be necessary or advantageous to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to obtain only slightly superior technical advantages. The importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals submitted.

4.5 Evaluation Method for Factor 1 (Performance Confidence)

4.5.1 The performance confidence evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. Recency, relevancy, and quality of performance will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

4.5.2 The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For projects to demonstrate recent past experience of the offeror, they must have been completed or substantially completed (as defined above) within ten years of the date proposals are due. Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts.

4.5.3 The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. Each submitted project will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in the table below.

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.

4.5.4 With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. However, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the past performance confidence rating.

4.5.5 The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review the past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

Note that the past performance information is not limited to the information submitted by the offeror but can also include information the Government obtains from other sources as described in paragraph 3.1.12 above. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment rating for this factor based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Each offeror will be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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 record 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 a 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.

4.5.6 In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and therefore may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

4.5.7 At no time during this process, or during any debriefing, or after any award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in RFO Subpart

15.3. In that case, relevant comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror.

CPARS evaluations that are part of the official record will be utilized as if the offeror has already had an opportunity to respond.

4.6 Evaluation Method for Factor 2 (Management Approach)

4.6.1 The Government will rate this factor using a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies identified in the offeror’s proposal.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

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

Green Acceptable

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

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

Red Unacceptable

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

4.6.2 In evaluating this factor, the Government will utilize the risk descriptions in the following table:

RISK DESCRIPTIONS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

4.6.3 Evaluation under this factor will include consideration of the following:

• The extent to which the proposal includes qualifications for the required disciplines and the level of experience reflected in the proposal for key personnel.

o For construction team disciplines, “level of experience” refers to experience with design-build construction projects (i.e. number and magnitude of projects).

o For design team disciplines, “level of experience” refers to experience with elevators projects (i.e. number of projects).

• Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the Government.

• The offeror’s demonstrated capability and understanding with respect to quality control processes for both design and construction, to include the USACE Three Phase Quality Control Program.

• The offeror’s demonstrated capability and understanding with respect to managing and executing a safety program, to include implementation and/or adherence to USACE Engineer Manual 385-1-1.

5. DEFINITIONS

The Government will use the following definitions when evaluating proposals:

Deficiency ‐ Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO 15.001.

Risk - As it pertains to source selection, risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength ‐ An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength ‐ An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness ‐ A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 15.001.

Significant Weakness ‐ A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO 15.001.

(APPENDIX C, CONTINUED)

ATTACHMENT 2 TO PHASE 1 RFP

VENDOR INFORMATION FORM

Offeror’s Name:

(Provide formal business entity name.)

Offeror’s Address:

Offeror’s Phone Number: _______________________________________________

Offeror’s Email:

Offeror’s Unique Entity ID: _______________________________________________

Major subcontractors for this project (if any):

(“Major subcontractor” means they will perform 25% or more of the work required under this solicitation.)

ATTACHMENT 3 TO PHASE 1 RFP

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

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:

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 with

E VG S M U N

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):

ATTACHMENT 4 TO PHASE 1 RFP

OFFEROR’S EXPERIENCE FORM

NAME OF OFFEROR:

PROJECT TITLE:

CONTRACT NUMBER:

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:

CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT (U.S. DOLLAR)

FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (U.S. DOLLAR)

CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:

CONTRACT DURATION (PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE):

(If not complete, provide % currently complete)

PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD (DESIGN-BID-BUILD, DESIGN-BUILD, ETC.):

ROLE OF PROPOSING FIRM: (Prime contractor or key subcontractor. If a subcontractor, state who is the prime contractor. State if the example project represents a joint venture. If a joint venture, name the joint venture’s parties. Indicate type of work and percentage of work performed by the parties.)

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT’S SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE: (The description should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the similarities with the proposed project.)

SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, completed and signed by authorized individual of the offeror.