W912DR-17-T-0079_0001.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 update the solicitation w ith information for attending an HVX prototype demonstration w ebinar, as w ell as to extend the RFI period. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Jun-2017

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 W912DR-17-T-0079

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jun-2017

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 1 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

30-Jun-2017

CODE

USACE, BALTIMORE DISTRICT

10 S. HOWARD ST

ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21201

W912DR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR-17-T-0079

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

PROTOTYPE WEBINAR INFORMATION

All vendors considering bidding on this project are HIGHLY encouraged to attend the HVX prototype demonstration at 2 PM EST on Thursday, July 6, 2017.

The webinar can be accessed via – Topic: HVX architecture and demonstration Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 Time: 2:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) Meeting Number: 644 432 339 Meeting Password: NDCej762

To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)

1. Go to https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mf6d5ee6006daad7e31c1204191678043

2. If requested, enter your name and email address.

3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: NDCej762

4. Click "Join".

To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:

https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m202c7fd73e17862814cff6119e4c3f7b

Please be aware that the USACE has extended the Request For Information (RFI) Period:

Questions concerning this solicitation must be submitted by email no later than 11 July 2017 at 3:00 PM EST.

This will allow responses to be posted on FBO prior to the solicitation closing date.

Email questions to Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil.

This was updated in the instructions to offeorers as well.

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Offers can be submitted via e-mail to Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil or fax at (410)-962-2001, ATTN: Ian Weiss or via mail to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division, Simplified Acquisition Team, ATTN: Ian Weiss, 10 South Howard Street, 7th floor, Room 7000, Baltimore, MD 21201-2530.

Contractors must complete all line items to be considered for award. All line items must be priced. Quotes providing partial pricing shall be considered non-responsive.

Questions concerning this solicitation must be submitted by email no later than 11 July 2017 at 3:00 PM EST. This will allow responses to be posted on FBO prior to the solicitation closing date.

Email questions to Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil.

OFFEROR SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1. The Offeror’s Proposal shall be submitted via Email to Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil is preferred.

1.1 Each Offeror is required to submit a Proposal consisting of four volumes. The Volumes are I - Technical; II – Management Approach; III - Past Performance, and IV- Price and Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks is prohibited.

2. Offeror Submission Requirements

a. Each volume shall be separated. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or offer revisions) should have changed information clearly marked. The revised pages shall be dated. Each Volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title, Submission Date, and Solicitation Number.

b. Text should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 11-point minimum font size with one inch margin on all sides applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscaped.

c. Electronic Requirement - Offerors must provide an electronic copy of their technical offer in .pdf format via email and/or on a compact disc(s) (CD). Flash drives WILL NOT be accepted. The cost/price offer shall be submitted with a narrative cover sheet. The cost/price offer MUST be submitted electronically the format provided in this solicitation by close of business on the offeror due date to Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil.

d. Offeror proposals shall be marked with the RFQ Closing Time and Date and the Solicitation Number.

(See SF1449, Block 8)

e. Specific Requirements: An Offeror’s proposal will consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this RFQ. The submission of false or misleading information will be grounds for disqualification of the offeror. Offerors must organize their offers as described. The Offeror’s name, RFQ number, and date must be included in each volume. Each volume must have a table of contents. Pages in each Volume MUST be numbered sequentially.

f. Offerors shall submit their offers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: Ian Weiss, Ian.Weiss@usace.army.mil , 10 South Howard Street, Suite 7000, Baltimore, MD 21201, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1449, Block8. Offeror proposals received after the required time and date deadline will not be evaluated.

DISCUSSIONS

1. Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that an award will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, offerors should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer will limit the number of offerors in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offerors.

2. Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of offerors that are identified as the most highly rated, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Competitive range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each offeror against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its offer. The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the competitive range.

3. Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offerors at any time prior to award, to negotiate with Offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the Offeror with the most advantageous offeror to the Government.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best value to the government, with tradeoffs as described below.

The offer that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors : Technical, Management Approach, Past Performance and Price.

To receive consideration for award, offeror must meet the criteria stated in the Request for Proposal (RFQ), to include responsiveness, acceptability and responsibility. Technical acceptability will be determined by a comparative assessment of offer against all source selection criteria in the RFQ.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer is the best value to the Government. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors:

Technical, Management, Past Performance and Price. The overall relative importance of the factors is as follows:

• The Management factor is more important than the Past Performance and Technical factors.

• The Past Performance and Technical factors are of equal importance.

• The non-price factors (Management, Past Performance and Technical), when combined, are more important than Price

• EVALUATION APPROACH

All offerors shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response: The offeror will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFQ. The offeror will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the offeror in accordance with the offeror submission section of the

RFQ.

b. Feasibility of Approach: The offeror will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The offeror will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The offeror will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

a) Factor 1 - Technical Factor Evaluation of the offer shall address each element listed as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW).

Project Management Transferring HVX prototype system to vendor’s servers Testing HVX At Scale Continual Verification of Input Data Sources System Control, Monitoring & Recovery OpenAM for user authentication OpenStreetMaps server/configuration Rating Description

Rating Adjectival Description

Blue Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Green Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Yellow Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Orange Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

In Addition:

The support services sought under this solicitation are critical to the mission of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal agencies. The operation and maintenance of existing systems and the programming and additional functionality that will be added to the next generation Hurricane Evacuation Decision Support Platform, currently referred to as the HVX prototype system during the period of performance of this contract must (1) be transparent in design and practice to the Government oversight personnel; (2) be capable of being seamlessly handed over to a successor contractor skilled in the art of computer programming, maintenance, and upgrading, including documentation and licensing of any third party software components or modules; and (3) assure that the ability of the system is contemporaneously archived to assure stability and the ability to survive outages.

The offeror’s proposal must present a plan to assure these characteristics and will be evaluated as to the Government’s assessment of the completeness and viability of the plan.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each offer.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

b) Factor 2 - Management Factor

A person or combination of persons with the following years of experience shall be designated key personnel:

A Project Manager with no less than five years on similar size and scope projects. This PM will be the primary contact for the Government.

Five years of experience with operating and maintaining software or web based systems that includes real time data feeds.

Five years of experience for providing tropical cyclone and/or hurricane decision support.

Five years of experience with applying tropical cyclone and/or hurricane forecast products.

Five years of experience with applying public evacuation planning information.

Successful execution of the requirement is largely dependent upon the technical capabilities of the contractor performing the work. The contractor’s range of experience and the technical qualifications of his personnel are important elements in determining the ability of the contractor to execute the requirements with a low level of risk.

Resumes for these key personnel will be required with the solicitation response.

These are the minimum required standards. Companies with personnel that exceed these minimum standards will be given higher ratings.

Rating Description

Rating Adjectival Description

Blue Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Green Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Yellow Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

c) Factor 3 - Past Performance

There are two aspects to the Past Performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate each Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts; Performance Confidence Assessment will be evaluated.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in the instructions to offerors.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating:

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.

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

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

Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Very Confident 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.

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

d) Factor 4 - Price

The resulting award will be a contract consisting of Firm-Fixed-Priced (FFP) contract line items. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis.

APPENDIX D – PAST PERFORMANCE ON EXPERIENCE IN RELEVANT PROJECTS

ENCL 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:

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 OFFEROR, 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 contractor 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 subcontractor, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back‐up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

(End of Summary of Changes)