Section_M_Revised.pdf

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

The following solicitation provisions are included in the solicitation at Section M, Evaluation Factors.

Section M presents the following information to offerors:

- the basis for award, including evaluation and selection procedures;

- factors, submission requirements and evaluation criteria for each factor;

- overall ratings for the technical factors;

- explanation of price/technical trade off; and

- relative importance of the factors.

The forms referenced in the submission requirements are included in this section of the Source Selection Plan.

Solicitation Section M – Evaluation Factors

M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS. The technical factors being evaluated are listed below. All offeror’s proposals will be evaluated for technical quality and assigned an adjectival rating based upon the criteria set forth herein. Past Performance will be assigned a Performance confidence assessment.

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Management and Technical Approach

An unacceptable rating in one or more of any of the technical evaluation factors may result in an overall rating of unacceptable.

Proposals that do not meet the minimum criteria for Factor 1, Corporate Experience, will not be evaluated any further and will not be eligible for award.

FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Offerors shall demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar contracts using the provided Attachment, CORPORATE EXPERIENCE CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEETS”. Contracts will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in nature, size, scope, and complexity as the work required by this solicitation.

Contracts which do not meet the minimum criteria stated below SHALL NOT be considered for award.

Minimum Criteria:

(1) Contracts submitted by the Offeror shall have a total contract value of no less than $1.5 million ($1,500,000.00) per year.

(2) Completed contracts submitted by the Offeror shall have a completion date within 3 years prior to the date of this solicitation.

(3) Contracts in progress submitted by the Offeror shall have been awarded a minimum 1 year prior to the date of this solicitation.

The information presented in the Offeror’s submittal, together with that from other sources available to the Government, will comprise the input for evaluation of this factor.

1. Corporate Experience Submission Requirements.

a. Offerors shall submit at least three (3), but no more than five (5), Contract Information Sheets for contracts that are similar to this solicitation in regards to the type of inspections, maintenance, and repair services expected as well as providing these service at multiple locations. See attached Sample Contract Information Sheet provided at the end of this Section for project data to be included.

b. For the purpose of this RFP, if the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contract Team Arrangement, as defined as below, each company shall list contract examples. The experience of individuals will not be credited under this factor.

c. Contractor Team Arrangements

1. Recognition of Contractor Teams. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, it is Government 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 and sub-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. 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. In the case of prime-sub teams, 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, 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.

2. Team Agreement. The team agreement submitted with the proposal will govern the performance of the work by the team. The agreement must address the following items: identification of team members, a full delineation of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement. In the case of Joint Ventures or other partnerships seeking award to the team as a prime contractor, the agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party. In the case of a prime-sub team, 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.

Contractor teams should not submit an agreement in their proposal that is subject to substantive revision because the agreement will be part of the evaluation process. The timely submission of the executed teaming agreement prior to award shall be a precondition to a finding of responsibility. In the case of prime-sub teams, any resulting subcontract(s) may not deviate from the substantive provisions of the teaming agreement.

3. Restriction on Substitution. Regardless of any provision to the contrary in a team or subcontract agreement, all members of a recognized team arrangement are bound to perform any resulting contract and options by means of the same team. 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. The failure of the Offeror to perform with one or more subcontractors on a recognized team may be grounds for termination for default.

2. Corporate Experience Evaluation Criteria.

a. The Government will evaluate the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s corporate experience on projects that were similar in nature, size, scope, and complexity as the work required by this RFP. Completed CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEETS shall be used as a basis to begin the evaluation of this factor. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance of the submitted information concerning a company that is part of a Contract Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. The Government may place greater importance on contracts performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy of the contract. Federal Government contract experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience.

b. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or by contacting owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

c. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

d. If the Offeror cannot provide information meeting the minimum criteria, the Offeror will not be considered for the solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of past performance on relevant contracts of similar scope, complexity and size in performing work suitable for this requirement using the Past Performance Information sheet (Attachment 3) provided at the end of this Section. Past performance information submitted under this factor shall be include the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Experience.

1. Past Performance Submission Requirements.

a. The contractor shall complete and provide a Past Performance Information Sheet on three (3) contracts, but no more than five (5) contracts. The submission of each Past Performance Information Sheet shall not exceed two pages. The Offeror shall provide clear and adequate information in response to the past performance elements identified on the Attachment. Past performance information submitted under this factor shall include the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Experience. Include Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) performance evaluation ratings, if available. For projects which were performed for other government entities, 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. 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.

b. The offeror shall complete Part 1 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) and email/mail the questionnaire to at least two (2) points of contact (POCs) per contract including the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQ should 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 should 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 date specified in the “Instructions to Offerors” section of the solicitation. 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. 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. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Questionnaire rests solely with the Offeror and shall not be delegated to any subcontractors, team contractors, or joint venture partners.

d. Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of the proposed subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors’ past performance evaluation with the offeror during any discussions. The Government will verify/ validate information on both prime and subcontractors that an offeror provides in its proposal. It is the offeror’s responsibility to contact each reference to: 1) obtain authorization to release the information identified in the past performance submission and 2) provide authorization to the references to release performance information to the Government.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. Other Sources. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include but are not limited to: PPIRS, other Government sources, and telephone interviews with organizations or individuals familiar with the Offeror’s performance. PPIRS ratings on all relevant contracts submitted by the Offeror under Factor 1 as well as up to 10 PPIRS ratings on contracts considered relevant in accordance with Factor 1 will be considered.

2. Past Performance Evaluation Criteria.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example contracts identified by the Offeror and submitted on the Past Performance Information Sheets, the Past Performance Questionnaire, any additional information received from references, and PPIRS. 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 present an impact on the rating to be assessed.

b. To be deemed relevant, projects must comply with criteria specified herein. Contracts will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in nature, size, scope, and complexity as the work required by this solicitation. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government places higher value on projects for which successful performance can be validated by means other than the offeror’s self-assessment such as through independent telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, PPIRS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references or personal knowledge.

c. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the elements listed below:

1. Quality of Services. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the quality of the actual services undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

2. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the completion of projects within the scheduled completion times.

3. Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

4. Subcontractor Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to effective management of subcontractors on past projects.

5. Safety. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the contractor’s safety program or efforts.

d. 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)). Therefore, under the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings, the offeror will receive an Unknown or Neutral Confidence Rating.

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management and technical effectiveness by considering the Offeror’s understanding and capability of successfully managing the project to completion. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate its understanding of current industry standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

Factor 3 will be evaluated as an overall factor with no sub factors. The following elements will be evaluated:

1. Management Approach Submission Requirements

a. The Offeror shall submit a Management Plan showing how the Offeror will control the performance of work provided under the project. The plan shall address the offeror’s ability to inspect, repair and monitor the equipment and systems required by the RFP. The plan shall also include discussion of the offeror’s quality control in performance of the requirements described on the RFP and performance during weekdays, weekends, and holidays when applicable. The Management Plan shall include key subcontractors and the extent of their role with respect to this project. For each subcontractor, the prime contractor’s experience working with that sub should be indicated and the subs past experience in work similar in nature to the project being evaluated should be submitted. Only one subcontractor will be identified for each major portion of work. It is advantageous to the Government for reoccurring services to be performed by the prime contractor.

Consideration to this approach will be factored into the management plan evaluation. The Management Plan shall include addressing the following items.

1. Organizational Chart. Include an organizational chart that demonstrates the relationships and interaction between each of the key personnel and contractual arrangements between prime and proposed subcontractors

2. Explain how incoming work will be received, assigned to an employee or subcontractor and scheduled.

3. Explain how personnel will have the necessary training and certification to accomplish the specialty work requirements specified in Annex 1502000 (e.g., HVAC, fire protection, VTE, WHE, back flow preventers).

4. Explain how training and certification will be maintained current.

b. Project Key Personnel: Provide the names, condensed resumes, and levels of responsibility of the principal managers and technical personnel who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day activities.

Include, as a minimum the following:

Project Manager

Quality Control Manager

1. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant part in any of the project examples cited. If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes of the alternative professionals in each assignment.

2. Key personnel shall have 5 years minimum experience fulfilling similar roles on other inspection, maintenance and repair contracts of total contract value of no less than $1.5 million ($1,500,000.00) per year.

2. Technical Approach Submission Requirements

a. The Offeror shall submit a maintenance plan for the following components demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of current industry standards for maintaining facility equipment.

1. Chiller, air cooled, 70 tons, Trane, Model RTAA0704XQ01A3D0B

2. Air compressor, rotary, Ingersoll Rand, Model UP6-15C-150

3. Bridge Crane, 7-1/2 tons, Florida Handling System, Serial Number C6433

3. Management and Technical Approach Evaluation Criteria.

The Government will evaluate and rate the Offeror’s management and technical effectiveness based on its demonstration of its understanding of current industry standards, policies, procedures, and processes utilized in accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement. The Management Plan will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s management effectiveness and control of project requirements. The Government will evaluate and rate the Project Key Personnel identified. The resumes and levels of responsibility of the principal managers, technical personnel who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day activities will be evaluated. Data should indicate whether each individual has had a significant part in any of the project examples cited. If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, the names and resumes of the alternative professionals for each assignment will be evaluated.

The Technical Approach will be evaluated based on the offer’s understanding of the maintenance requirements of the components listed as defined by current industry standards.

M.3. TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS. Technical factors will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions. Evaluators will apply the appropriate adjective to each criterion rated. The evaluator’s narrative explanation must clearly establish that the Offeror’s submittal meets the definitions established below. As each criteria is evaluated an assessment of Technical Risk will be also be made. Technical Risk relates to the assessment of an Offeror's present and past work and accomplishments to determine the Offeror's ability to successfully perform as required.

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 performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

M.4. FACTOR 4 – PRICE. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness, reasonableness, and the Offeror's understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Additionally, all offers may be analyzed for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR clause 15.505-1. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in making this determination.

Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair, unreasonable, or unrealistic will be rendered ineligible for award.

a. Price/Technical Tradeoff Analysis: Trade off analysis will be performed upon completion of the technical and price evaluations of the final revised proposals if discussions are necessary, or after evaluation of the initial proposals if discussions are not necessary. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make a source selection decision based on the proposal that offers the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offer where the decision is consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors and the SSA determines that the technical superiority outweighs the price difference.

M.5. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS. Factor 2 Past Performance is more important than Factor 1 Corporate Experience, and Factor 3 Management Technical Approach. However, the price evaluation becomes more significant as the technical evaluations become similar. All non-cost factors together are approximately equal to price.

M.6. BASIS FOR AWARD:

a. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the task order RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness and technical acceptability. Therefore, they will first be compared to the solicitation requirements.

b. In order to determine which proposal(s) represent the best value, the Government will then compare proposals to one another. The Government will award a Task Order to the Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal for the Task Order contains the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government. Best value will be determined by a comparative assessment of proposals against all criteria in this RFP.

c. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer(s). The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

d. 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 2

VOLUME II – TAB G

CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET

RFP W912HP-13-R-0019

MARFORRES SOUTHEAST REGION

FACILITY MAINTENANCE SERVICES

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

Contract Title:

Description of Requirement:

Location:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

List date of completion or percent completion if underway:

Address of project(s):

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, etc.):

General characteristics:

Total cost:

Project Relevance:

ATTACHMENT 3

VOLUME II – TAB H

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET

RFP W912HP-13-R-0019

MARFORRES SOUTHEAST REGION

FACILITY MAINTENANCE SERVICES

FACTOR 2: OFFEROR PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

1. On an attached sheet, provide information for three (3) to five (5) contracts completed, or substantially completed in the past five years, of similar scope and complexity to this solicitation to be used for reference and evaluation purposes and provide a questionnaire to the Point of Contact for each project listed. These should be the same contracts for which questionnaires have been provided to the Procurement Point of Contact. If the offeror is made up of separate companies that have combined for this solicitation, then this item must be completed twice (once for each company), for a maximum of ten projects. For each project provide the information shown. Failure to provide this information at a minimum may result in lower ratings.

For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Address of building(s):

Contract number:

If applicable, Task Order number:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Date of Award:

Status: Active _________ (provide percent complete) Complete __________ (provide completion date)

Total cost:

Total cost of all modifications:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project:

List the relevant criteria associated with this project in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2:

For each project provide the following assessment:

QUALITY OF SERVICES:

Describe your company’s performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

Describe your company’s timeliness of performance in the following areas:

Was the contract completed ahead of schedule or on time, if not why?

Were liquidated damages assessed, if so provide an explanation?

Did the award amount or delivery schedule change, if so why?

If any issues were identified, how were they resolved?

If a problem surfaced, what actions were taken to fix it?

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

Describe your company’s assessment of the customer’s satisfaction in relation to Quality, Cost, and Schedule.

SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT:

Describe your company’s assessment of how well subcontractors, suppliers, and the labor force were managed and coordinated?

What was the relationship between your company and subcontractors?

Did the subcontractors perform the bulk of the effort or just add breadth or depth on particular technical areas?

SAFETY:

Describe your company’s assessment in complying with safety standards and the effectiveness of your company’s safety program.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

Describe your company’s assessment on any weak/strong points identified throughout the project?

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation.

OTHER POINTS OF CONTACT:

On a separate sheet, provide the name, title, Government agency or commercial organization, email address and phone number of three current or previous Points of Contact. Persons identified should be able to confirm your company’s assessment of this project and be able to answer any other questions the Government might have about the performance of this project.

Name: ______________________________________________________

Title: _______________________________________________________

Organization: ________________________________________________

Email address:________________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________________________

Organization: ________________________________________________

Organization: ________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT 4: VOLUME II TAB H – 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: 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 impaced 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):