B.08.03 Amendment 0002 Update to Evaluation factors 06192020.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

Amendment to update information in the Evaluation Factors

See Summary of Changes, page 4 highlited sections

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Jun-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 W912HP20R3001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jun-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, 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 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

19-Jun-2020

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON

DISTRICT, CONTRACTING DIVISION

69-A HAGOOD AVENUE

CHARLESTON SC 29403

W912HP 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HP20R3001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor.

The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically-rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

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 C of this section. Evaluators will ensure Offerors complied with all submission requirements set forth in the “Proposal Submission,” paragraph D of this section.

The non-price and price factors are as follows:

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. An unacceptable evaluation for any one of these factors will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Factor 2: Understanding of the Work Factor 3: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR. The purpose of the price factor is to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The price factor will be evaluated differently than the non-price factors, and is subject to Contract Pricing policies as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.4.

Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors (Factors 1 - 3), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 4). In addition, NON-PRICE FACTORS 1 (Corporate Relevent Specialized Experience), 2 (Understanding of the Work), and 3 (Past Performance) are of equal importance.

Concurrent with or upon completing the evaluation of all non-price proposals, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will, in accordance with the provisions of this RFP and applicable acquisition regulations, evaluate price. In the event that discussions are determined necessary, the PCO will conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. In determining the competitive range, the Government will include analysis of the non-price and price proposals of Offerors. Upon conclusion of discussions, the PCO will request final proposal revisions and may, upon receipt of final proposal revisions, proceed to award a contract without further discussions or notice.

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:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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, the duration of the agreement, and the percentage of the participants, specifically, the percentage of the controlling party). 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 joint venture, the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement, which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture, and submit evidence or confirm that the JV submitted its paperwork to its local

Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. The agreement must indicate the percentages of the participants, in particular the percent of the controlling party.

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. 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. Note: Only a Contracting Officer can approve such a change after contract award.

c. For proposed teaming arrangements, the contractually-responsible managing partner in a JV relationship or the Prime Contractor in a Prime-Subcontractor teaming arrangement shall by capable of providing the facilities preventive maintenance and facilities repair work primarily required by this solicitation.

3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. For evaluation purposes, the definition of a 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 or a Prime-Subcontractor team, the contract must have been awarded to support the requirements of paragraph 3.d below to either member of the JV or either member of the Prime-Subcontractor team as the prime contractor.

b. The contract was completed no earlier than three (3) calendar years before the closing date of this RFP or has been ongoing for at least one (1) year before the closing date of this RFP.

c. A contract of no less than $500,000 per year. The Government will not permit multiple projects, such as individual task orders from different contracts, to be combined to meet the miniumum value of $500,000 per year.

d. Contracts are primarily for the maintenance of electrical, mechanical, and control systems with at least one of the contracts fundamentally for vehicle wash systems preventative maintenance and vehicle wash system repair and upgrade work.

e. 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 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 a minimum of three

(3) projects but no more than five (5) projects meeting the criteria in Paragraph C.3. RELEVANT CONTRACTS. Offerors shall complete and provide a Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet for each relevant contract; refer to Appendix D2. The Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Data Sheet shall not exceed 2 pages per contract.

For Offerors submitting as a Teaming Arrangement, each firm/contractor in the Teaming Arrangement, whether JV or Prime-Subcontractor shall submit a minimum of one (1) project, to be included in the project submittals required above. In all cases, if more than five (5) projects total are submitted, the Government will only review the first 5 projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

The Government’s experience evaluation will be an assessment of whether the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under the RFP (i.e., Facilities Support Services). This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances presented in the Offeror’s proposal. Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract as defined above. Each contract submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to confirm its relevancy.

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater depth and breadth of experience in work involving:

(i) performance of minor construction including paving (concrete pads) and utilities installation

(ii) performance spanning a large geographical area (i.e., multiple states)

(iii) performance cleaning sediment retention components (sediment pits, sand-oil interceptors, etc) in accordance with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations

(iv) the same type equipment identified in Section C1502000, Facility Investment

(v) install and maintain digital control and telemetry systems

For the experience evaluation, Offerors will be rated utilizing the following chart:

NON-PRICED COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness.

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.

b. Factor 2, Understanding of the Work.

Evaluators will determine whether the Offeror’s submission for this factor demonstrates a thorough understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement.

The proposal submission for this factor shall include a brief narrative (conceptual work plan) that clearly demonstrates an understanding of requirements of the solicitation. The narrative shall not exceed 25 pages. The narrative may utilize charts, tables, sketches and maps as needed to make the work approach understandable. The narrative shall address and contain a description of the following items.

Facility Investment (Planned Maintenance). The Offeror will describe their approach to perform planned maintenance required by the scope of this contract, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Sediment Removal Protocols. The Offeror will describe their approach to perform sediment removal from sediment retention components including what steps will be taken to minimize waste disposal.

Service Calls. The Offeror will describe their approach to performing routine and emergency service calls, including meeting emergency response time requirements, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Inspection, Testing and Certification services. The Offeror will describe their approach to perform inspection, testing and certification services required by the scope of this contract, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

IDIQ. How the Offeror will perform IDIQ work that includes vehicle wash systems repair, restoration and modernization work, including what work will be performed by the Offeror’s in-house personnel, what work will be performed by subcontractors and the geographic location of in-house personnel and subcontractors.

Subcontractor Approach and Management. The Offeror will describe how subcontractors are managed by the Offeror. The Offeror shall discuss how subcontract relationships are structured to assure proper balance and flow-down of contract requirements, duties, responsibilities and properly balanced and proportioned risk management. The Offeror shall discuss how non-performance by subcontractors is handled by the Offeror.

Organizational Chart: The Offeror will provide an organizational chart that identifies key personnel and individuals on the project team that show clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication between corporate staff, key on-site staff, and the prime/subcontractor interface, to include the staffing for both urgent and emergency service calls as well as typical day to day operations. The flow of authority should be logical and demonstrate how the responsibilities associated with the work will be assigned, and how the geographic location of proposed personnel for the multiple geographic sites will impact operation of the project.

Resumes. The Offerer will provide resumes of key personal (see Annex 0200000).

The difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with the work and how the Offeror will minimize these risks, this shall also address how the Offeror will meet the Transition Phase/startup plan requirements.

Planning and Scheduling. The Offeror will describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan and manage assigned PM and IDIQ work, including internal procedures for scheduling and managing work, best utilization of manpower leveling of resouces, while minimizing time growth or ‘schedule creep.”

Quality Control. The Offeror will describe the quality control management approach, including the proposed quality control organization and proposed staffing plan. The Offeror shall provide specific information on how the Offeror will manage PM, service calls, and task orders and coordinate schedules to facilitate more efficient Government reviews. The Offeror shall provide information on how the Offeror will handle internal and external requests for information, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation.

Safety and Health. The Offeror will describe the Offeror’s safety and health approach and capabilities to maintain safety and health throughout design and construction. The discussion should address the Offeror’s understanding of, familiarity with and intended use of the USACE Safety and Health Manual, EM 385-1-1. The Offeror shall describe the proposed safety and health organization, including the staffing plan and how these resources will develop and manage specific safety and health plans under this contract.

For the Understanding of the Work evaluation, Offeror’s will be rated utilizing the chart provided below:

NON-PRICED COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness.

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.

c. Factor 3: Past Performance.

The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined below in (c)(i)). 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. Key focus areas will include the following (see Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ)):

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

This subjective assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance.

Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms from Appendix D3 on the same contracts submitted for consideration under Factor 1, Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience. This information sheet shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1-4 of the provided Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ, Appendix D3) and have the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative responsible for the past/current contract complete the remainder of the PPQ. Offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail 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 e-mail no later than the closing date of this RFP. 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. 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.

*NOTE: In evaluating Past Performance, the Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including Past Performance Information related to contracts not submitted for consideration under Factor 1. 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 major 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, the evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. 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)).

(i) Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following:similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and 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.

(ii) Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information on how well the Offeror performed on past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

5. PRICE FACTOR

a. Price will not be rated, but will be evaluated as to its fairness and reasonableness. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Section 00 00 10, Contract Line Item Schedule. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received for the contract. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to determine fairness and reasonableness, as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. 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 or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

b. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced Offeror.

APPENDIX D1:

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

NOTE TO OFFERORS

This OFFEROR PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY 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. CCASS INDENTIFICATION FOR OFFEROR

4. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

5. CAGE CODE:

6. Tax ID#

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:

APPENDIX D2:

CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DATA SHEET

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

On an attached sheet, provide the following information for relevant contracts to be used for reference and evaluation purposes:

Project Title:

Location:

Award Date:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. Prime Contractor, subcontractor, etc:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Performance period (month/year start to month/year end and # of years complete if underway):

Address of project:

Address and telephone number of owner:

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

General description of project (narrative):

How this project is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation, i.e., how this project performed Service Calls (routine, urgent and/or emergency); developed and implemented a Preventative Maintenance Program; provided Inspection, Testing and Certification services and performed IDIQ work to include facility repair, restoration and/or modernization work. Address how the equipment/systems in this project are similar to the equipment/systems that are included in this solicitation (narrative):

Cost/Price Data (must clearly indicate yearly price information):

Initial Award / Year 2 / Year 3/ etc:

Modifications:

Total cost:

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation, as well as a Point of Contact (Name, organization, email, phone number) for each terminated project.

APPENDIX D3:

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

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 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):

APPENDIX E:

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs)

1. In the competitive procurement, your job is not to get the contractor to submit the best possible proposal. Your job is to evaluate the proposal submitted; obtain additional information (through the SSEB Chairperson/PCO) from the contractor when needed to perform this process; document your evaluation/assessment; and evaluate/assess the Final Revised Proposal (if any) including responses to the evaluation notices. The Government’s obligation during discussions is to call the contractor’s attention to all deficiencies and uncertainties.

2. ENs are also required for the purposes of other exchanges with Offerors, such as clarifications and/or debriefings to unsuccessful Offerors. ENs are required to document all deficiencies and uncertainties and will be used should clarifications and/or debriefings be necessary.

3. Always reference the RFP, proposal and prior related ENs when writing a notice. This provides an excellent method of tracking the finding.

4. Do not use adjectives (e.g. poor) which require some comparison to an unknown standard in order to establish the meaning of the objective.

5. Remember to write the ENs so that, to the extent possible, contracting and legal can understand them as well as the Offeror.

6. If the RFP establishes a firm requirement, the Offeror’s proposal must not deviate from the requirement. In writing a deficiency EN, reference the RFP requirement, Offeror’s proposal (if appropriate) and state that Offeror has failed to comply with a firm requirement of the RFP.

7. If the RFP does not establish a firm requirement, you may not suggest or imply ways to improve the proposal. You should identify significant weaknesses and weaknesses and explain why the Government considers it to be a weakness. Include reference to the proposal and RFP (if appropriate).

8. If you believe the Government’s PWS/requirement is in error or deficient, do not attempt to get the Offerors to cure it in their proposal by an EN. Instead, bring it to the attention of the SSEB Chairperson or PCO immediately.

9. For ENs, do not discuss the impact to the Government should the proposal be accepted. Such qualifications are for internal Government evaluations. The purpose of the EN is to call the Offeror’s attention to the finding. The degree of impact should only be identified in your evaluation report.

10. Whenever possible write the EN in an unclassified form. This can be done by referencing classified information in the RFP or proposal.

APPENDIX F1:

EVALUATION NOTICE (EN) FORM - CLARIFICATION

OFFEROR: _____________________________________________

EN NUMBER: _________________ DATE: _________________________

1. RFP AND PROPOSAL REFERENCES (Cite page and paragraph numbers)

a. RFP:

b. PROPOSAL:

2. REASON FOR SUBMISSION:

(Specify type of finding. See Section IV of this document for definitions.)

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

APPENDIX F2:

EVALUATION NOTICE (EN) FORM - DISCUSSION

OFFEROR: _____________________________________________

EN NUMBER: _________________ DATE: _________________________

1. RFP AND PROPOSAL REFERENCES (Cite page and paragraph numbers)

a. RFP:

b. PROPOSAL:

2. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: (Specify type of finding. See Section IV of this document for definitions.)

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

(End of Summary of Changes)