A.07.24_W912GB19R0010_0003_Amendment_Bidder_Inquiry_Response.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

IDIQ MATOC for ERS for the AEC and other DoD Customers in DE/POL

The purpose of this amendment is to make changes to the Evaluation Factor 1 identified as a result of bidder inquiries. See continued pages.

Changes to the RFP sections are show n w ithin this amendment in the follow ing pages via "track changes". Insertions are highlighted via blue, bold font. Deletions are highlighted via red, strikethrough font.

The proposal deadline remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 14

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Nov-2018

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 W912GB19R0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Nov-2018

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

21-Nov-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KONRAD ADENAUER RING 39

D-65187 WIESBADEN GERMANY

WIESBADEN 65187

W912GB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912GB19R0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will conduct Source Selection in accordance with DPAP Class Deviation 18-O0006— Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task – or Delivery Order Contracts to determine best value.

Class Deviation 18-O0006 implements NDAA (2017) Section 825 “Exception to requirements to include cost or price to the Government as a faction in the evaluation of proposals for certain multiple-award or delivery order contracts.” Accordingly, the Government intends to make a contract award to each ‘qualifying offeror’. A qualifying offeror is defined as an Offeror that is determined to be a responsible source; submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation;

and the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing..

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph of the RFP Section M. Evaluators will ensure Offeror’s complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph of the RFP Section L..

The non-price factors are as follows:

1. NON-PRICE FACTORS: The purpose of the non-price factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A proposal receiving an unacceptable rating on one or more non-price factors or subfactors will result in an overall unacceptable rating and be ineligible for award.

Factor 1: Corporate Experience Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Past Performance

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

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

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

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

2. TEAM ARRANGEMENTS. As described in FAR Subpart 9.6, it is the Government’s policy to recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements. For a teaming arrangement to be recognized for purposes of source selection evaluation and the application of non-price factors, there must be full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships in the team's proposal. The proposal must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement, etc.).

The proposal must also include an agreement that has been or will be executed prior to award between/among all team members. The proposal and agreement must be consistent; substantive inconsistencies between the proposal and agreement may be construed against the Offeror. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility.

a. Joint Ventures (JV). If the Offeror is a JV, the Offeror must provide evidence of a legally binding JV agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the JV. Further details surrounding requirements related to the JV agreement are provided in the INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS section.

b. Other Teaming Arrangements. In the case of prime-sub teams (e.g. if an Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor”), the agreement must reflect that the prime contractor is vested with control and responsibility for the daily management of the work, and that it remains responsible for contract performance, including those items allocated to a subcontractor on the team. Offerors are reminded that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors. However, consistent with FAR 9.104-4, the Government may consider the responsibility of subcontractor team members when it may adversely affect the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility or when it is in the Government’s interest to do so. Finally, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default. There can be no substitution of subcontractor team members except that, in the case of a prime-sub team arrangement, the Government may (in its sole discretion and without any obligation whatsoever), at the request of the prime, permit the substitution of a subcontractor with equivalent or greater capability for a subcontractor on the identified team. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

3. RECENT AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For Factor 1 evaluation purposes, the definition of a recent and relevant contract must meet the following conditions.

a. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror which is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team (see previous paragraph on teaming arrangements) the contract must have been awarded to the prime or the key sub-contractor.

b. The contract was completed no earlier than five calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or is at least 85% complete as of the closing date of this RFP.

c. The contract is fundamentally for project management and the execution of environmental remediation and contaminant mitigation sites, involving one or more of the following activities:

(i) Soil characterization and remediation

(ii) Groundwater characterization and remediation

(iii) Remedial action involving in-situ soil cleanup as its primary effort.

(iv) Remedial action involving in-situ groundwater cleanup as its primary effort.

(v) Documentation for reporting requirements for characterization and remedial designs.

d. The contract involves working with Host Nation regulations for Germany or Poland.

e. The contract involves work at a U.S. Military installation.

f.e. The contract hasa total value between $150,000 and $1,000,000.

NOTE: Where a project was accomplished via a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered similar to the requirements of this RFP rather than the umbrella contract.

4. NON PRICE FACTORS: Data provided in response to the non-price factors described below shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.”

a. Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience. Offerors must submit no more than five projects meeting the criteria in Paragraph C.3.RECENT AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS. Offerors shall complete and provide an Experience Information Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix L2. The Experience Information Sheet shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

For Offerors submitting as a Teaming Arrangement, each firm/contractor in the Teaming Arrangement, whether JV or prime/key sub, shall submit a minimum of one (1) project. If more than five projects are submitted by an offeror, the Government will only review the first five (5) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in offeror’s submitted proposal.

The Government’s evaluation of experience will include an assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Offerors will be assigned an acceptable/unacceptable rating based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must submit a minimum of three recent and relevent contracts (as defined above) that involve work on a U.S Military installation, and demonstrate it has overall experience in ALL of the following activities. Each individual recent and relevant contract submitted by the Offeror need not have all of the elements listed below. However, collectively across all five submitted recent and relevant contracts, the Offeror must demonstrate it has the overall experience in all of these elements.

(i) Soil characterization and remediation

(ii) Groundwater characterization and remediation

(iii) Remedial action involving in-situ soil cleanup as its primary effort.

(iv) Remedial action involving in-situ groundwater cleanup as its primary effort.

(v) Documentation for reporting requirements for characterization and remedial designs.

Rating Method, Factor 1 Corporate Experience Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies.

b. Factor 2, Management Approach. Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s management approach demonstrates an understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. Offerors will be assigned an acceptable/unacceptable rating based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must include a brief narrative that addresses the items below. The information shall provide charts, tables, sketches and maps as needed to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall not exceed 10 pages:

(i) How the Offeror will complete the work described for this contract to include but not limited to, key personnel, subcontractor management, and their Safety and Health Program.

(ii) The Offeror’s organizational structure, presented in a way that clearly delineates lines of authority, and communication with the Government, including all offices involved with the management of the contract including Subcontractors and Joint Venture partners.

(iii) The Offeror’s quality management system, safety system, schedule, and intended staffing plan to execute the work and should explain how this plan will ensure the successful execution of the project.

(iv) How the Offeror will use proposed personnel and sub-contractor resources to assure the delivery of quality work in accordance with contract provisions.

(v) A plan for the performance of five concurrent task orders valued between $150,000 and $1,000,000 each that illustrates a thorough understanding of the contract requirements.

Rating Method, Factor 2 Management Approach

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies.

Factor 3: Past Performance. The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined below in paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii).

The evaluators will assess whether the Offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts, to demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ):

Quality Schedule/Timeliness of Performance Customer Satisfaction Management/Personnel/Labor Cost/Financial Management Safety/Security

Offerors shall provide a completed performance record for the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Experience. If available, a final completed record from the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be accepted for evaluation under this factor.

An interm CPARs rating will be considered as long as the minimum requirements have been met. If a final completed CPARS record is not available, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) from Appendix L3. The completed PPQ shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

PPQ Instructions: The offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (Appendix D) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact via email no later than the closing date of this RFP. For projects which were performed for other government entities that do not use CPARS, submit the performance appraisal sheets used by that government entity if available. Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. The Government may call and confirm information provided by the offeror on the Past Performance Information Sheet with the points of contact. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. If an offeror has no relevant past performance history, the offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. 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, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or committed subcontractors performing key elements of the project. 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.

For the Past Performance evaluation, to be considered acceptable, the Offeror must not have any past performance information assessed at below the satisfactory level (to include adverse past performance information where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as PPIRS or FAPIIS). Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Rating Method, Factor 3 Past Performance

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

APPENDIX L1:

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This PROPOSAL DATA SHEET must be completed and attached as the first page of the body of your proposal. The information required by this data sheet may be completed directly on this form or attached to the form as supplemental data sheets.

1. NAME OF OFFEROR.

Name of Offeror(s):

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Nature of Association:

2. DUNS NUMBER FOR OFFEROR

(If more than one DUNS number is to be considered, explain affiliation to Offeror)

3. CAGE CODE INDENTIFICATION FOR OFFEROR

4. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. SEE FAR 52.215-11. The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP). List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone/email address:

APPENDIX L2: EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET

PROJECT NO. _____, Page 1 Must have a total of 5 projects, more than 5 will not be evaluated; less than 5 may result in a lower rating Project Name and Location:

Name of Firm that performed this work (should be the Offeror or one of the offeror’s subcontractors)

Name, email, phone number of English speaking POC:

Experience:

1. The location work was performed: ___________________________________

2. Date work was begun: ________________________ Date work was completed: ________________________

3. The final cost of this project: _______________________________________

4. Is this project more than 85% complete? ____ Yes ____ No If “No” explain percentage of completion

5. Provide detailed information of the work performed (refer to the categories under Evaluation of Factor 1 – Experience, Evaluation Criteria.) Include explanations of any performance problems, issues, or conflicts and the resolution.

(Continue typing if required to provide more information)

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SHEET

PROJECT NO. _____ Page 2

Offeror: A contractor and/or company submitting a proposal for this solicitation.

Prime Contractor: A contractor that performed at least 20% of the work, and managed all other work for the project.

Sub-Contractor: A contractor that performed part of the project work, but did not manage the entire project.

Joint Venture: More than one contractor with a legal binding agreement to work together.

Committed Subcontractor: A contractor that has signed a letter of commitment to perform work for the duration of the contract for the Offeror, and the Offeror is allowed to take credit for the Committed Subcontractor’s experience the project.

6. Mark one of these selections:

Work was completed as the ____ Prime ____ Subcontractor ____ Joint Venture ____ Committed Subcontractor

a. No additional information is required for work performed as the Prime other than what is on Page 1 of this form.

b. If work was as a Joint Venture, explain the relationship of the company, which company performed the work, and how the work performed and the relationship provides an added benefit for experience.

c. If work was performed as a Committed Subcontractor, explain how the work performed as a Committed Subcontractor provides an added benefit for experience:

d. If work was as a Subcontractor, explain how the work performed as a Subcontractor is a benefit for experience such as, responsible for the work performed and managed the portion of work performed including submittals.

e. Ensure you provide a letter signed by both the Offeror and the Committed Subcontractor in order to take credit for the project work. Besides the signed letter, no additional information is required other than what is on Page 1 of this form.

APPENDIX L3: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone / email::

Point of Contact (name/phone/email):

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 & Title:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

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

E VG S M U N

variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

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

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

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

E VG S M U N

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

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

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

E VG S M U N

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

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

(End of Summary of Changes)