Amendment_0002_to_W912DW19R0001_-_Well_14.pdf

W912DW19R0001

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

W912DW19R0001 - Well 14 - Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

Amendment 0002 provides the follow ing changes (Changes in RED) Section 00 22 00 Paragraph 3.1 Evaluation Process

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Mar-2019

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 W912DW19R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Feb-2019

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

14-Mar-2019

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

Award of this Contract will be made to the technically acceptable responsible Offeror submitting the lowest priced offer (based on the total of all line items on the Bid Schedule) – Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer (LPTA). This acquisition will result in the award of a firm-fixed price, construction contract.

The technical evaluation of each proposal will be solely on the basis of Technical Evaluation Factors found in this section. The Government will evaluate each proposal on a technically acceptable/unacceptable basis only with respect to the technical evaluation factors (criteria) described herein. Award will be to the Offeror who presents the technically acceptable proposal with the overall total lowest price. It is the intent of the Government to award off initial offers without discussions.

2.1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

2.2 Technical Evaluation

Acceptability will be based on all factors receiving an acceptable rating. The proposal will be evaluated according to the Criteria for Non-Price Evaluation Factors of this section.

Proposals will receive either an ACCEPTABLE or an UNACCEPTABLE rating for each of the evaluation factors. Find the description of these ratings in Table 1.

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating: Description:

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Pricing Evaluation

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all line items, including optional items, identified on the Contract Line Item Schedule (Price-Schedule), Section 00 11 00 of this Solicitation.

3.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process consists of three parts:

Proposal Compliance Review. This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that a complete proposal is received. An initial review of each of the proposals will be conducted to check for apparent errors, omissions and areas that require clarification. The purpose of this preliminary review session is to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes. This preliminary evaluation will ensure that each proposal contains the Price Volume II and the correct number of copies.

Relevant Experience – Past Performance. , Qualifications of Key Personnel and Past Performance.

Relevant Experience Qualifications of Key Personnel and Past Performance will be evaluated according to the Criteria for Non-Price Evaluation Factors found in this section.

Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price will also be verified for unbalancing of line items.

3.2 Definitions

Clarification is a limited exchange with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal or to address adverse past performance not previously addressed with the Offeror. Clarifications do not give an Offeror the opportunity to revise of modify its proposal and are used, as necessary, when not opening discussions.

Communications are a limited exchange with an Offeror used to assist in determinations of the competitive range. Communications are limited to enhancing Government understanding of proposals and addressing adverse past performance information not previously addressed if said information is the determining factor preventing an Offeror from being included in the competitive range. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, or otherwise revise the proposal.

Discussions offer the opportunity to resolve deficiencies or weaknesses in the proposals, based on the requirement and the evaluations factors set forth in the solicitation. If the Contracting Officer determines it is necessary to open discussions, they must discuss with all Offerors in the competitive range. Offerors have the opportunity to revise their proposals at the conclusion of discussions.

Relevant is defined as having a logical connection with the requirements in this request for technical proposals; that is, featuring work that is similar in complexity, function, magnitude, and scope to the current requirement. To be acceptable, there must be an explanation of how the provided project information is relevant to the proposed work.

Year is defined as 365 consecutive days.

4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.2 Criteria for Non-Price Evaluation Factors

Proposals shall concisely, accurately, and completely provide the information required for each of the following non-price evaluation factors. NOTE: Absence of complete information will be deemed as if no support information was provided for that factor. Proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements of all of the non-price evaluation factors shall be determined to be UNACCEPTABLE and are not eligible for award consideration. NO assumptions may be made by the Government. Your proposal must CLEARLY demonstrate the requisite technical experience and qualifications to receive an ACCEPTABLE rating for each of the following criteria:

TABLE 2: EVALUATION

FACTORS

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

FACTOR A VOLUME 1, TAB A RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

FACTOR B VOLUME 1, TAB C PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 FACTOR A – RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

5.2 Definitions for Factor A (Definitions for the purposes of this factor)

‘Complexity’ means new construction of 2 project(s) with deep line shaft turbines and pumping level of 450 feet or more; at least one well house for municipal potable water supply system serving at least 2,000 people and which includes chlorination, fluoridation, communications (SCADA), electrical distribution systems, and

HVAC; Complexity also refers to at least 2 municipal potable water distribution system serving at least 2,000 people.

‘Function’ means construction of municipal potable water supply system serving at least 2,000 people and which includes chlorination, fluoridation, communication (SCADA), electrical distribution systems, and HVAC.

‘ Magnitude/Cost’ means a total project contract value between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

‘Scope’ refers to a project containing verticle construction elements of a bulding greater than or equal to one story and consiting of approximatley 700 to 1,000 square feet.

‘Similar’ means not necessarily identical but showing a resemblance in qualities or characteristics of the proposed project.

5.3 Submission Requirements for Factor A

The Offeror shall submit examples of construction projects which illustrate the required relevant experience on projects of similar complexity, function, magnitude/cost, and scope as defined in paragraph 5.1. Only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor or Joint Venture partner will be accepted for consideration. For purposes of evaluating construction experience as a Prime Contractor, the Offeror and prime contractor are defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of SF1442. If a Joint Venture is identified in Block 14 of the SF 1442, then a signed Joint Venture Agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the Joint Venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) before the proposal response date established in this solicitation. The Offeror may demonstrate prime contractor experience if it served on the example project as one of the partners in a Joint Venture executing that project; if an Offeror is claiming prior project experience as a partner in a Joint Venture, then the signed Joint Venture Agreement applicable to that example project must also be submitted.

Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror (such as teaming partners) will not be evaluated as construction experience by a prime contractor unless those other contractors are part of a Joint Venture for this solicitation as demonstrated by a signed Joint Venture Agreement. Prior experience as a subcontractor is not considered relevant when evaluating the experience of the Offeror as a prime contractor.

Offeror shall submit at least two (2) project examples, but no more than four (4) projects. If more than two project examples are submitted, they will be considered in the order presented in the Offeror’s submissions under Factor A, and evaluated in sequence until two project examples are determined to be fully compliant with these requirements and Acceptable under the evaluation method for Factor A. Submit projects, stating start and end dates, that are currently 100 % construction complete and accepted by the owner as of the issue date of the Solicitation) or completed and turned over no longer than six (6) years preceding the issue date of this Solicitation. If the Offeror submits more than four (4) project examples, the Government shall only consider the first four (4) submitted projects, in the order presented in support of Factor A, to determine whether any two are both fully compliant with these requirements and Acceptable. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, the proposal must demonstrate that each of the Joint Venture partners has served as Prime Contractor or Joint Venture partner on at least one of the two project examples submitted under Factor A.

The Government will also consider prime contractor experience of the Offeror's parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm as experience attributable to the Offeror for evaluation purposes if the proposal establishes that the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm will have a significant involvement in performance of this contract and describe the resources of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm that will be utilized on project that is the subject of this procurement. If submitting a parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm’s project for experience, it is the Offeror's responsibility to effectively demonstrate and describe how the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm's resources (such as workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will significantly contribute to the execution of the project which is the subject of this procurement; failure to effectively demonstrate and describe the planned contribution of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firm’s involvement in the subject project of this procurement will cause the past experience of the parent/subsidiary/affiliate firms to be considered not relevant for evaluation purposes in this procurement.

5.3.1. At least one (1) project for construction of a new well house with at least three (3) deep line shaft turbines with pumping level of 450ft or more.

5.3.2. At least one (1) project for construction of municipal potable water distribution system serving at least 2,000 people with chlorination, fluoridation, communications (SCADA), electrical distribution systems, and HVAC.

Note: Project experience for Factor A must be submitted using Attachment 1.

5.4 Evaluation Method for Factor A

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements of this Factor A. If any of the required information is not provided in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be evaluated as “Unacceptable.”

The Government may check any or all cited references to verify that the supplied information demonstrates compliance with the relevance criteria.

TABLE 3: FACTOR A – RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OF OFFEROR

Acceptable The proposal clearly demonstrates how the project examples submitted meet the requirements of paragraph 5.2.

Unacceptable The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the project examples submitted meet the requirements of paragraph 5.2.

6.1 FACTOR B – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.2 Submission Requirements for Factor B

The two project examples submitted for Paragraph 5.2, Submission Requirements for Factor A, and determined by the Government to be Acceptable pursuant to Paragraph 5.3, will be used for evaluation of Past Performance of the Offeror. DO NOT provide Past Performance references for projects other than those project examples provided for Factor A.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 2) included in the back of this Section 00 21 16 is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client of each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor A in paragraph

5.2. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client’s point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact identified as Contract Specialist in Section “Instructions to Proposers,” paragraph “Offeror’s Questions and Comments,” via email prior to proposal closing date and time.

The Government will accept resubmissions of previously submitted PPQs on Form PPQ-0. Please ensure all information is up to date including client point-of-contact information, reflects the state of completion of each example project as of the issue date of this Solicitation, and meets the requirements of the evaluation factor.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

Note: You may submit CPARS ratings in lieu of the PPQ forms included in Attachment 2 if you completely fill in blocks 1 – 5 of the Contract Information portion of the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) and submit with the Final CPARS report. Be sure to include the POC’s information of the Client and the Contract Number of the project.

6.3 Evaluation Method for Factor B

The Government will evaluate the successful completion of the two project examples that were submitted in the proposal for Factor A and determined by the Government to be Acceptable. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. As a minimum, the offeror shall demonstrate overall satisfactory performance (to include a showing of adequate corrective action on adverse past performance information). Government evaluators may contact points of contact listed in the Past Performance Questionnaire for the projects submitted, to verify past performance on these projects.

The Offeror shall encourage all customer points of contacts/references to provide evaluation of your performance as requested.

The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.

TABLE 4: FACTOR B – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING

Acceptable The Offeror’s performance record is considered acceptable if all performance criteria are rated “satisfactory” or better.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s performance record is considered unacceptable if any performance criteria are rated below “satisfactory”.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror’s past performance may not be evaluated as favorable or unfavorable. [Ref: FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)].

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

7.0 PRICE

Price proposals will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. Price will also be checked for unbalancing of line items. The Offeror shall provide its pricing on the price schedule and submit with the Request for Proposal.

It is the intent of the Government to award without discussions.

8.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

8.1. Submission Requirements

8.1.1. If the Offeror proposing on this solicitation is a large business concern, in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, “SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATION”, upon notification that it is the apparent successful Offeror, the firm must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Jan 2002) (see Appendix A of this solicitation for the full FAR Clause). The goals established for small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned business, HUBZone business, Service disabled veteran-owned small business participation are described in Section 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers.

8.1.2. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be thorough, complete, and in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and FAR Clause 52.219-9, as it will be incorporated into the contract upon award of the contract to the Offeror, if acceptable and upon final approval of the Contracting Officer.

8.1.3. The Plan shall include a description of the types of services the firm proposes to subcontract with small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), along with the proposed percentages of their participation, to demonstrate a plan to meet the subcontracting goals that will apply to these contracts.

If practical, the Offeror shall provide specific information on proposed subcontracted effort for this project.

8.1.4. Submit the firm’s subcontracting compliance on previous projects completed or underway within the past three years of the date of this solicitation. This requirement may be supported by using copies of the U.S.

Government Standard Form 295.

8.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will evaluate the Plan in accordance with the rating scheme in Army FAR Supplement Appendix DD and with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9. This requirement is rated as GO/NO-GO. To be acceptable (“GO” rating), subcontracting plans must:

(a) Adequately address the required statutory elements.

8.2.1. Provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to answer affirmatively questions A through H of Appendix DD, Part 2, number 8, (Army FAR Supplement 19.705).

8.2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will compare the small business subcontracting opportunities in the plan with the goals established in the solicitation with additional consideration given for a proposed subcontracting plan that exceeds the goals established as follows:

Small Business – 21%

HUBZone Small Business – 3%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business – 3% Veteran-Owned Small Business – 3% Small Disadvantaged Business – 5% Women-Owned Small Business – 5%

The Government will give additional credit for a plan which is more specific in nature as to the proposed subcontracting opportunities for Small Business Community (small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone business (HUBZone), and service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB).

8.2.3. As part of the subcontracting plan evaluation, the Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in establishing realistic yet challenging goals, and in achieving them.

SECTION 00 22 00, ATTACHMENT 1 - OFFEROR’S RELEVANT

EXPERIENCE

Use this Form for:

Factor 1 – Relevant Experience of Offeror

(Offeror must complete the applicable paragraphs as noted below) Provide the following information of project submittals which shows your firm meets the requirements set forth for Factor 1.

(a) Type of Project Represented

(b) Your Firm’s Name

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner

(f) General Scope of Construction Project:

(g) Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed:

(h) Construction Cost

(i) If Project is a Government Contract, please list Contract Number:

(j) Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out:

(k) Dates Construction Began: Completed:

(l) Percent Complete (Describe in narrative if less than 100% complete):

(m) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is “Yes,” attach an Explanation)

(n) Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

(o) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC:

(p) Describe how the project demonstrates relevant experience under Factor 1:

SECTION 00 22 00, Attachment 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE OUESTIONNAIRE (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 nrime (Name/Phone #):

3.Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (ifapplicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

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

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Medium Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

Note: NAVFAC/USACE requests that the client completes the 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 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 and Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government/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 CONTRACTORS 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.

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 innovation 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 cost? E VG S M U N

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?

E VG S M U N

f) Have there been any indication that the contractor has had any financial problems? E VG S M U N

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?

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) E VG S M U N

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

(End of Summary of Changes)