W912EF-15-R-0057-0003.pdf

W912EF-15-R-0057

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 change the submission requirements for f ile types to be submitted. Changes w ill be highlighted in Yellow .

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Oct-2015

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 W912EF-15-R-0057

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Sep-2015

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

07-Oct-2015

CODE

USAED, WALLA WALLA - CONTRACTING DIV.

KENT R. BERNARD 201 N. THIRD AVENUE

WALLA WALLA WA 99362-1876

W912EF 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 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The MATOC awards and Task Order 0001 will be made based on the best value to the Government by using the Best Value trade-off source selection process in FAR Part 15 and two-phase design-build procedures in FAR Part 36.3. The MATOCs will be awarded for a three-year base period with a two-year option period. The total contract dollar capacity shared among firms will not exceed $45,000,000. Any unused capacity in one period may be carried over into the subsequent contract period. The minimum guarantee amount for the entire life of the contract for each IDIQ awardee is $10,000. The minimum Task Order value is $2,000 and the maximum Task Order value is $2,000,000. The Government intends to award up to four IDIQ contracts to the offeror(s) whose proposal, conforming to the RFP, will be most advantageous to the Government resulting in the Best Value. Task Orders will be primarily awarded on a firm-fixed price basis; however, task orders may be awarded on a Time and Materials (T&M) or Labor Hour basis if necessary to address unusual circumstances.

The government will initially evaluate offerors’ proposals submitted in response to Phase One of this solicitation. After evaluation of Phase One, the government will select up to seven of the most highly qualified firms to submit Phase Two proposals. Upon the conclusion of Phase One, the solicitation will be amended to include the Phase Two evaluation factors including price and the scope of work for the first Task Order 0001 that will be awarded along with the MATOC IDIQ contracts. Phase One submissions and evaluations will not be carried over into Phase Two. All offerors selected to propose for Phase Two will be evaluated only on the Evaluation Factors outlined in the Phase Two RFP.

Phase Two of the solicitation will include the informational plans (floor plan, cross section, and elevation), Statement of Work, and the specifications for Task Order 0001. The estimated construction magnitude for Task Order 0001 is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. A pre-proposal conference/site visit may be conducted during Phase Two. Phase Two offerors will have a minimum of 30 days to submit their proposals.

Phase Two evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1- Design Factor 2- Construction and Schedule Factor 3- Project Management Factor 4- Price

During Phase Two, the government will provide submission requirements and specific information pertaining to the Phase Two evaluation factors which will be based on the requirements for Task Order 0001.

Additionally, the relative importance of the Phase Two factors both to each other and to price will be identified in the Phase Two solicitation.

The government may award the MATOC contracts and Task Order 0001 on the basis of initial offers received in Phase Two, without discussions; therefore, an offeror’s proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

The price proposal will not be assigned a rating for evaluation. The government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest prices offered. Awards will be made based on the proposals found to be the most advantageous to the government considering the technical and price proposals.

The government will evaluate offerors’ proposals based on how well the proposals address each of the

Evaluation Factors provided below for Phase One and the Evaluation Factors that will be provided in more detail for Phase Two. The evaluation process includes an assessment of the offerors’ strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties in addressing the government’s requirements as specified in the RFP.

B. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS

The ratings and descriptions provided in the table that follows will be utilized by the government in the evaluation of Phase One, Factor 1. Experience and Factor 2. Technical Approach. These ratings and descriptions will also be used in the evaluation of all Phase Two factors except for price. Phase One, Factor 3, Past Performance is evaluated based on a performance assessment confidence rating and is described in detail under paragraph C below within the Past Performance Factor.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

C. PHASE ONE FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. All three Phase One evaluation factors are of approximately equal importance.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate and assess the extent of an offeror’s relevant Construction and Design- Build experience and proposed team’s experience (design firm and major subcontractors) on projects completed in the last six years or at least 50% complete at the time proposals are due. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s depth and breadth of experience on different types of relevant design capability and construction types. The Government will evaluate no more than five projects for each prime contractor, designer and three projects for each major subcontractor (Mechanical, Structural, Electrical) as listed by the offeror on Attachment A, Experience Overview Sheet and as further described on Attachment B, Experience Information Form. The following is not required but will be considered advantageous for evaluation purposes:

1) Relevant projects wherein the design was facilitated for the end user/customer from design concept through 100% design completion including construction of the design;

2) Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with multiple civil works type construction trade categories; and 3) Previous teaming experience between the offeror and proposed team.

The following parameters apply for evaluation purposes:

A. “Design-Build” construction is defined as a civil-works type project in which the contractor is provided less than a full design and is required to: complete the design with a state licensed Architect Engineer (A-E); participate in design review; and accomplish full construction of the designed project.

B. Projects will be considered relevant if they:

1. Are valued at $300,000 or larger; and

2. Include general construction and/or design service requirements similar to the following construction or repair on: structural concrete, waterstop installation, pre-engineered buildings, structural frames, machinery supports, metal fabrication and machining, Corps of Engineers paint systems, potable and waste water systems, underground utilities, drainage culverts, fall protection systems, stream bank stabilization, irrigation systems, road maintenance, paving, striping and river levee rehabilitation. Work on electrical systems may include: Telecom/CCTV systems, fiber optic, motor control (480v MCC or less), instrumentation and controls (e.g., PLC, SCADA), commercial/industrial lighting, fire and security systems, and medium voltage distribution (less than 5Kv). Work on mechanical systems may include construction or repair of the following systems:

HVAC, pumps (less than 100 HP), compressed air and general/industrial plumbing and other presently unforeseeable construction requirements that may arise.

C. Experience provided for proposed design firm and major subcontractors will only be evaluated if a letter of commitment is signed by each proposed firm and submitted with the proposal. A letter of commitment is not required if the offeror is a joint-venture and the firm is part of the joint-venture agreement.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The government will evaluate and assess the offeror’s understanding of the requirements, feasibility of the proposed technical approach, and risks and mitigation in the execution of task order projects wherein the Government provides minimal or limited design consisting of informational drawings and functional/performance specifications. The purpose of this factor is to determine whether the offeror has appropriate understanding of the design-build process and is not intended to limit an offeror to any proposed technical solution or to allow an offeror to provide less than the minimum requirements for Phases One and Two of the solicitation.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The government will evaluate and assess the offeror’s (and proposed team’s) record of performance on relevant projects to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the efforts of the MATOC scope of work. Past performance is the degree of success, in terms of quality, timeliness, customer satisfaction, management effectiveness, safety and other items important for success on prior relevant projects. From this information, the government will determine an overall performance confidence assessment regarding the offeror’s likelihood of success on the task orders to be issued under the MATOC. In the event an offeror lacks any record of relevant past performance, the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably and will receive an Unknown Confidence (neutral) rating. Data submitted for evaluation of past performance shall not extend past six years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past six years without regard to the contract award date. The government will consider Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and any other sources available to it regarding past performance for this factor.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy assessment and performance confidence assessment.

a. RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT. The government will utilize the four levels of relevancy identified in the table below to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the scope of anticipated work under this MATOC. For this procurement, relevancy is defined as projects that are valued at $300,000 or larger; and included general construction and/or design service requirements similar to the listing of relevant jobs under Factor 1 (B 2) of this solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

b. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT. The government will assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts evaluated as relevant. Based on this assessed quality, the government will arrive at a performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. Submit your proposal packages to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District at the address shown in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1442. The government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the SF 1442.

2. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements 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 proposal.

3. Offerors that include information in their proposals that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall mark such information in accordance with instructions at FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors— Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (e), “Restriction on disclosure and use of data.”

4. Offerors are cautioned to refrain from quoting prices, or other pricing terms of any nature, in the technical portion of the proposal.

5. Proposals shall not contain classified data.

6. Proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with an accompanying digital copy, as set forth below under submission requirements for Phases One and Two. The electronic files shall contain identical information to the hard copy files.

7. Offerors shall clearly label and tab their proposal consistent with the solicitation format outline herein.

8. Proposals shall be submitted in volumes as identified below for Phases One and Two.

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 4).

b. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a Table of Contents..

c. All files created in MS Word (doc) shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins –

Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations

d. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name.

**Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

e. All information shall be confined to the appropriate section. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

f. Printed pages should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

A standard, 12-point minimum font size 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 landscape.

g. In the event that an offeror submits a final proposal revision after entering into discussions, any pages that are revised shall be dated, of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page.

9. Submit the Phase One proposal in one (1) volume as identified below.

VOLUME TITLE

PRINTED

COPIES

ELECTRONIC

COPIES

Volume I Original + 4 1

a. Volume I shall contain the proposal cover sheet from the offeror and documentation demonstrating the offeror’s capability to secure a bid bond or irrevocable letter of credit (ILC) for the offeror’s maximum amount. Evidence of bonding capacity may be in the form of a commitment letter from a surety or if an ILC will be used, provide a similar letter from a financial institution agreeing to secure the bid. Actual bid, performance and payment bonds or other forms of security will be required in Phase Two of the solicitation. The proposal cover sheet is required by FAR Provision 52.215-1: Instructions to Offerors— Competitive Acquisition at paragraph (c) (2). Include the following information in the proposal cover sheet:

(i) The solicitation number;

(ii) The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror (and electronic address if available);

(iii) i) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Additionally agree for Phase Two to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

(iv) Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation; and

(v) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

(vi) Acknowledge that your company is registered and information is current in the System for Award Management (SAM) database

(vii) the offeror is organized as a joint venture (JV), provide a copy of the JV agreement as attachment to the proposal cover sheet.

b. Volume I shall contain the proposal for each evaluation factor: Factor 1, Experience; Factor 2, Technical Approach; and Factor 3, Past Performance. Each factor should be separately tabbed and adhere to any applicable page limitations.

B. PHASE ONE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE, Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall submit a completed Attachment A, Experience Overview Sheet listing Construction and Design- Build project type work that best represents the offeror’s experience. Project experience shall be identified for the offeror, design firm, and major subcontractors. The listing shall include relevant experience for projects completed in the last six years or at least 50% complete at the time proposals are due. If a project is currently under construction, annotate percent of completion on the form. In selecting projects to submit, offerors should pay attention to the evaluation parameters identified for this Factor 1 in Section 00100.

For each project listed on Attachment A, the offeror shall provide an Experience Information Form (EIF) found at Attachment B. Additional lines may be added as necessary not to exceed one additional page total per EIF.

Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy and may provide additional descriptive information on each form beyond what is required in the attachment. One page of photographs per project may be provided in order to provide clarity to the project description and do not count against the page limit per EIF. Information provided on the EIF will be evaluated for this Factor 1, and will also be used to support the evaluation of Factor 2, Past Performance. EIFs shall be provided for the categories that follow. Note that it is not necessary to submit more than one EIF for projects that are the same for two or more of the following categories:

a. OFFEROR (PRIME CONTRACTOR): Provide no more than five (5) examples of Construction and Design-Build projects within the last six (6) years that are relevant to the requirements identified in the MATOC scope of work. Provide an explanation of how these projects are similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this solicitation. If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall submit the Design-Build construction experience of each of the joint venture partners, providing no more than five (5) projects in total.

b. DESIGN FIRM: Provide no more than five (5) examples of Design and Design-Build projects within the last six (6) years that are relevant to the requirements identified in the MATOC scope of work. Provide an explanation of how these projects are similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this solicitation. Provide a letter of commitment signed by the design firm.

c. MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS: Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform Mechanical, Structural and Electrical work. Identify by name your major (one each) Mechanical, Structural and Electrical subcontractors that you intend to utilize under this MATOC. If work will be performed in- house, rather than subcontracted out, provide a statement to that effect. Provide no more than three (3) examples total of projects within the last six (6) years for which you, if performed in-house, or any of these subcontractors played a significant role on work that is relevant to the requirements identified in the MATOC scope of work. Provide an explanation of how these projects are similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this solicitation. Provide a signed letter of commitment for each proposed major subcontractor.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH, Submission Requirements:

(The Technical Approach proposal may not exceed 15 pages.)

Based on your understanding of the MATOC scope of work, describe your technical approach for design-build task order projects wherein the Government provides minimal or limited design consisting of informational drawings and functional/performance specifications. Address the following areas in your technical approach to include any risks and the proposed approach for risk mitigation:

Organization. Provide an organizational chart showing the reporting structure and lines of authority for the proposed team key functions such as project manager, superintendant, lead designer, safety manager, and others.

Without identifying by name, describe the role of the key functional members during design and construction.

Cost effectiveness and expedited completion. Describe your process for providing a task order proposal that is cost-effective and will allow you to expedite completion of the project. Describe your approach to streamlining design and construction resulting in reduced costs and achievement of aggressive schedules with consideration to operational or environmental restraints.

Communication and coordination. Describe your communication and coordination approach within the design-build team, and with the government during the design and construction phases. Describe your approach to facilitate design and construction submittal reviews. Describe in detail the Designer of Record’s involvement throughout the entire project period.

Quality control. Describe your approach for quality control for both design and construction. Include:

quality control organization; review of design; verification of construction materials; construction inspection; permit compliance; project documentation; and change request process.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE, Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall provide the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) at Attachment C to clients for each project the offeror (and proposed team) included in response to Factor 1, Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQ-0s should be submitted with your proposal therefore, offerors should follow-up with clients to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ-0 from a client before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ-0, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mr. Kent Bernard, via email at Kent.R.Bernard@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. The offeror must submit, with its proposal, a list of all the POC’s who were sent questionnaires.

The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields:

Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

C. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR provision 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-- Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

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 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 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)