B.08 - Solicitation Amendment 2 - W912HN19R4003.pdf

W912HN19R4003

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 clarify Letter of Surety submission procedures and make administrative changes to Attachment 1 "Proposal Data Sheet". All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Mar-2020

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 W912HN19R4003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Jan-2020

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, 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 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

02-Mar-2020

CODE

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

W912HN 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 SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been deleted:

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) under which task orders for Roofing will be issued. Work will be performed within the three state region of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia with the primary focus area being primarily at Ft. Bragg, NC. Work contemplated on this SATOC may be conducted for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard and Reserve Components, and other Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Agencies located on DoD installations and those in support of other Federal and Department of Defense operations. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and will be Design-Bid-Build. Project(s) requiring use of civil funds are not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 01 11 00 for the complete scope of the anticipated contract to be awarded under this RFP.)

1.2 Interested Offerors will submit specified performance and technical capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance and technical capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit a Proposal. The requirement will be advertised as a set aside for competition only among Small Busines Concerns (SBCs). Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.

2.2 Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor except in accordance with paragraph 4.1.1.

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in the schedule of the Notes to Offerors section of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on single sided 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.

3.4 Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II).These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e.

W912HN19R4003 USACE VolumeI.pdf). Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal.

3.5 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as

follows: VOLUME I TAB A - Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal. All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged.

TAB B - Section 00 45 00 - Representations and Certifications.

TAB C - Proposal Data Sheet - See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section.

Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture, it must also be submitted. The Offeror shall also submit its Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D - Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1, 2.2.

TAB E - Bid Bond - The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond for the sample project but is required to submit a hard copy letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor's surety validating the Offeror's single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney for siginature , if applicable to the following address: Letter of Surety must be submitted in original form and contain original signatures. Photocopied, facsimile, scanned or otherwise mechanically reproduced letter of surety will not be accepted. Failure to submit a proper letter of surety may be cause for rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

The original Letter of Surety must be mailed to:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (MAJ Daren Sotilleo) 100 West Oglethorpe Ave.

Savannah, GA 31401

Any letter found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror's responsibility determination. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable.

FAR clause 52.228-1, "Bid Guarantee" will be included in the contract. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a Bid Bond will be required for each task order.

TAB F - Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00 - Schedule A Base Contract Bid Schedule & Schedule B, Sample Task Order Pricing.

VOLUME II

TAB G -Joint Venture Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I) TAB H - FACTOR 1 Past Performance.

TAB J - FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The PPQ is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client.

Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients to ensure timely submittal of completed questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 - 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ and an additional page, if used, must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request submission of questionnaires directly to the Government's point of contact (Contract Specialist), MAJ Sotilleo. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance no later than five (5) business days before the proposal due date.

PPQ's submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be emailed or mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, or UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror's name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ or CCASS/CPARS format will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. Offerors may attach one additional single-sided page (per PPQ) to further describe how the project is similar to the RFP requirements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror's proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet shall include information for all columns.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government's requirements described in 4.1.2.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, the projects do not have to have been performed by the joint venture submitting the offer. The projects could have been performed by either company in the joint venture. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Ensure that the PPQs submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

4.1.2 Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), recent relevant projects that have a minimum value of no less than $500,000 each. Projects with similar size, scope, and complexity of the following may be considered relevant projects:

- Construction, rehabilitation, installation, maintenance, replacement or repair of roofs or roofing systems. Such roofs (or roofing systems) may include asphalt systems (including shingles and modified bitumen), ethylene-propylene-diene-monomer (EPDM) rubber, (including liquid EPDM, EPDM coatings and EPDM rubber coatings), standing seam metal, copper, and aluminum roofs, heat-reflective & energy efficient roofing systems, thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing & green roofing (including reflective membranes and recycled content/material roofing systems). New construction, rehabilitation, installation, maintenance, replacement or repair of roofs, roofing systems including but not limited to asphalt systems (including shingles and modified bitumen), ethylene-propylene-diene-monomer (EPDM) rubber, (including liquid EPDM, EPDM coatings and EPDM rubber coatings), standing seam metal, copper, and aluminum roofs, heat-reflective & energy efficient roofing systems, thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing & green roofing (including reflective membranes and recycled content/material roofing systems) and all devices, equipment and components associated with constructing and installing these systems. Roof work may require new or replacement gutters, downspouts, flashing, fascia and soffits.Incidental damage repairs as a result of leaks (e.g ceiling replacenment ,painting and carpet cleaning ).

All projects must be successfully completed or at least 50% construction progress completed within five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy.

4.1.3 Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs or CPARS (Attachment 3) in accordance with 4.1.2. Project information shall be limited to the PPQ and one additional page. Where a project was awarded as 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 relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the JV and its members. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. Offerors shall submit only projects wherein the Offeror or proposed joint venture members were the prime contractors.

4.1.4 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance and experience. These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance and experience information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, 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.

If a CPARS evaluation exists for a submitted project, it will be considered.

4.1.5 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.1.6 The experience and/or past performance of individuals will NOT be considered under this factor.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance and experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Government's confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation. Projects must meet the minimum criteria in paragraph 4.1.2 in order to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not relevant will not be considered.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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 complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

4.2.3 Confidence Assessment. Offerors may increase the SSEB's level of confidence if they are able to demonstrate successful performance of construction and renovation work on a variety of roofing types as described in paragraph 4.1.2. Conversely, the

SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the variety of roofing types described in paragraph 4.1.2.

4.2.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience using the sources available to it including but not limited to the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.2.5 The Government will consider the recency of the performance, the relevancy including the context of the data, and the quality of the performance and general trends in performance and source of the information to reach a confidence assessment rating using Past Performance Confidence Ratings.

4.2.6 If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record and experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of "Neutral Confidence" (Unknown).

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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.

Neutral Confidence (Unknown)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. The Offeror will submit a quantitative proposal for the SAMPLE project utilizing R.S. Means. Offerors final proposed price will be submitted on Breakout Schedule B and the Offeror shall provide ALL supporting documents (R.S. Means break-outs, non-prices items(3 sub quotes),profit, and field office overhead(FOOH) break out etc.) Offeror's proposal shall meet the requirements as stated in Schedule A: Notes To Offeror.

5.1.1 Offerors shall apply their proposed Area Coefficient for the SAMPLE project and their proposed Home Office Overhead for the base period to the project.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Offerors will be evaluated on the technical approach in determining a price proposal utilizing the applicable Construction Specification Institute (CSI) numbers and appropriate quantities from R.S. Means. Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they understand the required application of the proposed coefficient and mark-ups. As they apply to the SAMPLE

PROJECT.

5.2.2 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's overall quantitative approach for logic and reasonability. The Offeror will also be evaluated on how well defined,and clear their supported approach to the SAMPLE project is conducted.

Factor 2: Technical Approach

Table 3. Combined technical/risk ratings.

Adjectival Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Definition of risk terms.

Adjectival Rating Definition Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is equal in importance to Factor 2.

FACTOR 2 TECHNICAL APPROACH. This factor is equal in importance to Factor 1.

Factor1 and Factor 2 combined are significantly more important than Price.

7. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

7.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g.

past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

7.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor.

7.3 The final ratings on individual factors will be provided to the Source Selection

Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently and exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will be awarded the contract.

8. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

9. RESTRICTIONS. Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

10. PRICE.

10.1 Price will not be rated, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the best value decision for award of any resultant contract.

Coefficients for firm-fixed price type task orders shall be proposed and submitted on the Task Order Pricing Schedule shown in Schedule A of the solicitation.

10.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed on Schedule A in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in this analysis. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

10.3 The Government shall use the total evaluated price from Schedule A as the evaluated price for making the best value decision.

11. BASIS FOR AWARD

11.1 Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria and responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

11.2 In order to determine which proposal represents the best value, a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this RFP will be conducted, and in turn, the Government will compare proposals to one another. The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government.

11.3 The successful Offeror, if any, will be awarded a SATOC with a maximum quantity of $49 Million and a $2,500.00 guaranteed minimum for the base ordering period.

11.4 The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest reasonably priced Offeror. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

11.5 Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

ATTACHMENT 1

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

W912HN-19-R-4003

General Roofing SATOC

1. Name of Firm: Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing CPARS, PIPRS):

Tax ID#:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. 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).

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate: Negotiator's Address: Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator's E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 2

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

SUMMARY SHEET

General Roofing

Single Award Task Order (SATOC)

{Adobe fill-able format available for this Summary Sheet as a separate attachment)

The Offeror's proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet at a minimum shall include the following: 1) Project name; 2) Team member submitting the project;

3) Construction percent completed at the time of the solicitation; and 4) Scheduled completion date.

No.

Project Name

Contractor

Contract No.

Construction % Completion at Time of

Solicitation

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

ATTACHMENT 3

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)

{Adobe fill-able format available for this questionnaire as a separate attachment)

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

Percent of project work performed (by Contractor):

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

Joint Venture Other (Explain)

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 modi/ications, i/ applicable): Explain Differences (see previous page):

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 6-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client's role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client's Signature:

NOTE: USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS

ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR.

HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE

CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES

THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE

(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

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

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)

b) Rate the contractor's use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

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)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

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?

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

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

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

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

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

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)

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.)

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).

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

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.

Please provide responses to the questions above (i/ 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):

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE

CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE

(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.

(End of Summary of Changes)