A01.13_Attachment_4_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf

NAVFAC / USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form PPQ -0 (9/30/11)

APPENDIX 15-1, Page 4 of 7 01 November 2014

UAI VERSION 3

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

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

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

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

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

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

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

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE requests that the client completes this questionnaire and submits directly back to the offeror.

The offeror will submit the completed questionnaire to USACE with their proposal, and may duplicate this questionnaire for future submission on USACE solicitations. Clients are highly encouraged to submit questionnaires directly to the offeror. However, questionnaires may be submitted directly to USACE. Please contact the offeror for USACE POC information. The Government reserves the right to verify any and all information on this form.

Basis for Settlement of Proposals

Actual costs will be used to determine equipment costs for a settlement proposal submitted on the total cost basis under FAR 49.206-2(b). In evaluating a terminations settlement proposal using the total cost basis, the following principles will be applied to determine allowable equipment costs:

(1) Actual costs for each piece of equipment, or groups of similar serial or series equipment, need not be available in the contractor's accounting records to determine total actual equipment costs.

(2) If equipment costs have been allocated to a contract using predetermined rates, those charges will be adjusted to actual costs.

(3) Recorded job costs adjusted for unallowable expenses will be used to determine equipment operating expenses.

(4) Ownership costs (depreciation) will be determined using the contractor's depreciation schedule (subject to the provisions of FAR 31.205-11).

(5) License, taxes, storage and insurance costs are normally recovered as an indirect expense and unless the contractor charges these costs directly to contracts, they will be recovered through the indirect expense rate.

(End of clause)

UAI APPENDIX 1-4

*Can be used for Peer Reviews under $50M conducted at the District/Center

PHASE I (SOLICITATION REVIEW)

Solicitation Number: __________________ Date(s) Reviewed: _____________________

Project: _____________________________ Estimated Dollar Value: _______________

This toolkit is provided for use by the BOB or KO Peer for performing independent Solicitation Review, as well as a self-check by the Contract Specialist. This toolkit is not to be considered an all-inclusive listing, some items do not apply to all requirements, and additions/deletions may be required by changes to regulations and/or in support of local or unique requirements.

Areas highlighted in pink are key focus items for these compliance reviews. Items highlighted in green are information to assist all in understanding the key areas of organizational focus.

The complete solicitation file will be provided as part of the local agency independent review which is to be done prior to forwarding the key documents below for PARC or HCA level Peer Review.

Key Documents for Phase I (Solicitation) Review: Planning Documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Acquisition Plan), Solicitation, PWS, IGE or 1391 (if MILCON), QASP, SSA Appointment, and SSP. These documents should be provided to reviewers in advance IAW instructions established for the Peer Review Process to expedite this process.

Objective of Phase I (Solicitation) Review: Review is intended to compare approved planning documents with the RFP and SSP to ensure consistency and fulfillment of intended/approved acquisition approach.

SOLICITATION REVIEW TOOLKIT

Yes

No

N/A

Remarks

Files Review

a. Are there any missing documents?

b. Are documents misfiled?

Legal Findings

a. Has agency-level legal sufficiency been obtained for the acquisition documents for Peer Review (RFP, SSP) to this point?

b. Have the legal comments been incorporated?

Additional comments concerning findings:

PRE-SOLICITATION AND PLANNING

Evidence of Requirement

a. Draft or Final (if available) SOW/PWS/Specifications/1391 (If MILCON) or IGE (If received)

b. Draft QASP/PRS (if service)

c. Request for Civilian Hire or Service Contract Approval

Evidence of Availability of Funding

a. Will appropriate funds be available to cover the contract requirements? (FAR 32.703)

b. If funds are not available, is the subject to availability of funds (SAF) statement and clause(s) included? (FAR 52.232-18)

c. MATOC/SATOC – Is there evidence the minimum guarantee is provided for?

Focus of Review: Does the file include evidence of the requirement and funding to proceed with efforts toward the requirement/engage industry as follows?

Market Research (FAR 10)

a. Is there evidence of outreach to small business (SB) (Dynamic SB search, sources sought synopsis, and/or Industry Day Conference if held)?

b. Is there evidence/backup documentation to support Market

Research Report?

SB Coordination

DD Form 2579 (DFARS 219.5 and AFARS 5119)

Focus of Review:

- Is the market research driving the strategy fully described, documented, in compliance with AFARS 5110.002(b) and adequate to support the acquisition approach?

- Has appropriate exploration/consideration of all known/reported Small Business capabilities for set-asides been given?

Acquisition Strategy (Services only)

a. Includes Market Research Data in Memorandum to File/Report format (AFARS 5110.002(b))

b. Includes Bundling Analysis (FAR 7.105(b )(1) & FAR 7.107)

c. Includes strategic sourcing and spend analysis as applicable (Section 807 of FY08 NDAA)

ASSP (Services >$250M)

Briefings to Army Director of OSBP and DASA(P) (filed with approval memo of Acquisition Strategy)

Approved Acquisition Plan (FAR 7.1, DFARS 207.1, AFARS 5107.1)

Have acquisition milestones been established for this requirement and included in the Acquisition Plan?

Focus of Review:

- Is the acquisition approach based on sound business principles that achieve program objectives and support appropriate cost, schedule, and performance incentives and penalties?

- Are the milestone dates included realistic and take into consideration all actions/tasks/documentation required?

REQUIRED PRE-SOLICITATION DOCUMENTATION

Approved D&F (as applicable to requirement, list not all inclusive)

a. D&F

1. Contract Type (Over $100M all types)

1. Additional D&F for Cost and Incentive(FAR 16.4)

1. Additional D&F for T&M & Labor Hours (FAR 16.103(d))

1. Equipment Lease vs Purchase. If requirement is to be leased, lease vs purchase analysis has been performed (if 18 months or more)? (DFARS 207.470(a) (FAR 7.4 if >$1M)

1. Commercial Determination (FAR 12, DASA(P) Policy Alert 12-66)

1. Personal/Professional Services (DFARS 237.104)

1. Undefinitized Contract Action-Certification of Urgency (DFARS 217.74)

1. Warranties (FAR 46.7)

1. Construction Warranty (FAR 36)

1. Liquidated Damages (FAR 36.206)

1. Use of Multi-Years (DFARS 17.103-1)

1. Use of Options (FAR 17.202(a))

1. Use and Evaluation of Options (FAR 17.206)

1. Buy American Act (FAR 25)

1. Consolidation of Contract Requirements (DFARS 207.170; DASA(P) PARC Policy Alert 14-12 Threshold is exceeding $2M)

1. Awarding a SATOC >$103M (FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(i)-(iii), DFARS 216.504))

1. KO SATOC Justification Memo (FAR 16)

1. Approval for Nonperformance-Based Services Contracts (DFARS 237.170-2)

1. Business Case Analysis for Agency-Wide Contracts (DASA(P) Policy Alert 12-09)

b. Justification of Procurement Method (FAR 15)

c. Certification for Non-DOD Contract Use (FAR 17.5 & 17.78)

Focus of Review: Are all appropriate/required documentation for this acquisition included and signed by the correct approving official?

Use of Competitive Procedures (FAR 15)

Synopsis (FAR 5.101 & 5.2 or Waiver)

Use of Non-Competitive Procedures (FAR 6)

a. Notice of Intent Synopsis

b. J&A for Other Than Full and Open Competition (FAR 6.3, AFARS 5153.9005)

c. Has KO thoroughly documented determination of exception to synopsis used under FAR 5.202?

d. Evidence of Public Disclosure (FAR 6.3)

Focus of Review:

- Are opportunities for competitive procedures maximized? Requirements clearly defined, strategically determined, represent only the bonafide technical requirements and provide for maximum competition?

- If this is not possible, are appropriate actions/documentation for noncompetitive procedures evident?

Construction Contract Requirements

Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability (BCOES) Compliance Certification (Construction Only) (ER 415-1-11)

Focus of Review: Has a finalized BCOES been posted to the file for this acquisition?

SOLICITATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

RFP/Solicitation

a. CLIN Structure

Focus of Review: Is the CLIN structure logical and clearly linked to the PWS/SOW in accordance with DFARS?

b. Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) (See DFARS - http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/232_70.htm)

Focus of Review: Are WAWF/invoicing instructions provided to the extent applicable to the acquisition?

c. Sections L&M (Construction #00 22 10, 00 22 20, 00 22 11)

Focus of Review:

- Are the evaluation criteria consistent with those indicated in the SSP?

- If a full-trade off source selection, does the evaluation identify and prioritize specific tradeoffs or performance thresholds for which the Government is willing to pay more? Is it clear from the evaluation criteria what the offeror would provide that the Government would constitute more advantageous?

- Includes oral presentations and sample tasks when necessary?

- If most probable cost (MPC) is being evaluated – is it only for the basic contract? Are the options being evaluated by applying escalation factors?

- Intent to award without discussions is clearly defined? Intent to determine competitive range is clearly defined?

Are minimum thresholds and maximum performance objectives clearly defined?

- Is the RFP consistent between the PWS/ Statement of Objectives (SOO)/SOW, the SSP, and Sections L and M?

Special Requirements

a. Government Furnished Property (FAR 45)

Focus of Review: If GFP/GFE is offered, is it listed, is it justified and used appropriately (FAR 45.302) and does the RFP include the appropriate completed clauses?

b. Security Requirements DD254 (FAR 4.403 & AFARS 5104.403)

Focus of Review: Was a DD254 completed and incorporated into the RFP, if applicable?

c. CMR

Focus of Review: Are the CMR requirements included in the PWS?

b. Consistency between RFP and Acquisition Strategy/Plans

Focus of Review:

- Does the RFP accurately reflect the acquisition strategy and or acquisition plan?

- Do the structure and provisions facilitate a meeting of the minds between Government and industry as to the process, nature and intent of the acquisition i.e., draft RFP/Industry Day with consideration and incorporation of industry comments?

Location-Related Performance

a. Is the required DBA Insurance requirements contract language included in the RFP? (If OCONUS performance is contemplated)

b. IAW PIL 2008-05-01, is the required Synchronized Pre-deployment Operational Tasker (SPOT) Requirements contract language included in the solicitation RFP? (If performance in Iraq or Afghanistan (CENTCOM AOR) contemplated IAW DoD Instruction 3020.41)

c. Is the Theater Business Clearance information incorporated in Section H of the RFP? (If performance in Iraq or Afghanistan (CENTCOM AOR) contemplated IAW DoD Instruction 3020.41)

Focus of Review: Has the above been included for any RFP where OCONUS performance is contemplated?

Service Contracts Requirements

a. PWS

Focus of Review:

- Is the requirement suitable for a Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA). FAR 37.6, OFPP Memo dtd 7/2/2006, DoD Guidebook for Performance Based Service Acquisitions dtd 2000

- Is the PWS or SOO written in terms of “what” rather than “how” the work is to be accomplished?

- Is the PWS written in such a manner that would preclude a personal service-type contract?

b. Wage Determination SF 98/98A (FAR 22.404-2)

Focus of Review: Have the appropriate Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Rates been incorporated into the RFP?

c. PRS

Focus of Review:

- Are the appropriate performance incentives in the solicitation to include the PRS and or award/ incentive fee arrangements, if applicable developed and in the file?

- Are measurable performance standards incorporated at the contract level?

d. QASP

Focus of Review:

-Is there a QASP in the file (required for all service contracts over $2500)?

-Are surveillance plans fully described with clearly identified measures, standards, and corrective actions and sufficient given cost, schedule, and performance risks? .

SSP

a. Overall SSP/Task/Delivery Order SSP

Focus of Review:

- Is the SSP IAW the AS3?

- Has the SSP been approved by the SSA and posted to the file? (Mandatory prior to release of solicitation? IAW FAR 15.303)

b. Evaluation Criteria

Focus of Review:

- Are evaluation criteria appropriate (i.e. limited key discriminators based on risk analysis; linked to key program requirements; include price or cost, quality, past performance, and extent of SB participation) in order to select the best value contractor?

- Are requirements stated in certain terms such that the evaluators will be able to assess whether the offeror meets or exceeds a particular outcome?

- Are the criteria defined so that they are finite, measurable in readily understood quantitative or qualitative terms, and prioritized?

- Described in sufficient detail to communicate how the proposals will be evaluated and ratings determined?

SST

a. SSA

Focus of Review: SSA is appropriate given level and complexity of the acquisition and appointed by the appropriate authority IAW UAI 15.300-100? (if valued at $500M or greater – DASA(P) PARC Policyt Alert 14-30)

b. SST

Focus of Review: SSO (SSAC, Senior Procurement Advisors, SSEB Chair, Factor Chairs) are appropriate given level and complexity of the acquisition and appointed by the appropriate authority IAW UAI 15.300-100 and AS3?

PHASE II (PRE-AWARD)

Solicitation & Contract Number: __________________________________ Date(s) Reviewed: ____________

Project: _____________________________ Estimated Dollar Value: _______________

This toolkit is provided for use by the BOB or KO Peer for performing independent Solicitation Review, as well as a self-check by the Contract Specialist. This toolkit is not to be considered an all-inclusive listing, some items do not apply to all requirements, and additions/deletions may be required by changes to regulations and/or in support of local or unique requirements.

Areas highlighted in pink are key focus items for these compliance reviews. Items highlighted in green are information to assist all in understanding the key areas of organizational focus.

The complete solicitation file will be provided as part of the local agency independent review which is to be done prior to forwarding the key documents below for PARC or HCA level Peer Review.

Key Documents for Phase II (Pre-Award) Review: Conformed Solicitation, SSEB Summary Report(s), SSAC Memoranda/resolution, SSA Briefings, Competitive Range Determination, POM, PNM, draft contract award document. These documents should be provided to reviewers in advance IAW instructions established for the Peer Review Process to expedite this process.

Objective of Phase II (Pre-Award) Review: Review is intended to track to soundness/completeness of documentation, process, and events leading up the competitive range determination and in support of the contract award decision (prior to award).

PRE-AWARD TOOLKIT

Yes

No

N/A

Remarks

Files

a. Are there any missing documents?

b. Are documents misfiled?

Legal Findings

a. Has local agency legal sufficiency been obtained for proposed contract awards (throughout the source selection evaluation; e.g. competitive range/POM/PNM/unsuccessful offeror letters etc)?

b. Have the legal comments been incorporated?

Additional comments concerning findings:

SOLICITATION

Solicitation and Amendments

- Focus of Review:

Does the contract file contain a copy of the final solicitation and amendments (conformed) and does the solicitation still track back to the approved Acquisition Plan?

- Do amendments include documentation as to why and where changes were made to the RFP (including questions from Industry)?

Proposal Receipt/Screening (includes Task/Delivery Order Proposals)

a. Was there a late proposal received and if so is the disposition of same documented? (FAR 15.208(b)(1) & FAR 15.208(h))

b. If a late proposal was received, was the offeror notified promptly and proposal held unopened, unless opened for identification, until after award and then retained with other unsuccessful proposals?

c. Bid Bonds submitted with proposal – If required

EVALUATION

SST

Focus of Review:

- Are appointment letters for the SSA, SSAC, SSEB and other technical members in the file?

- Are the personnel appointed as SST members the same as those listed in the SSP and participating in the evaluation?

- Have all participants completed a non-disclosure form/financial interest statements?

Proposal Evaluations

Focus of Review:

- Was the source selection evaluation conducted IAW the UAI 15.300-100 and AS3, the SSP and the criteria in the solicitation?

- Overall Evaluation: Is the SSEB evaluation fully documented? Were evaluation findings handled fairly/consistently across all proposals – i.e., what is identified as a “significant weakness” in one proposal is identified in that same manner in others?

- Past Performance: Has the Government demonstrated due diligence in pursuing Past Performance Information (PPI) in the absence of CPARS data on Offerors vs assigning a rating of neutral or “unknown” and considered any information that was “close at hand” (i.e. all available information), while allowing Offerors to respond to any negative PPI as appropriate during clarifications and/or discussions?

- Cost/Price Analysis: Is there clear evidence of adequate cost/price analysis and price reasonableness determination? Assessment of risk in determining contractor profit (weighted guidelines DD Form 1547 utilized IAW FAR 15.404).

- Discussion of how GFP/GFE affected price?

- Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data (if required) obtained and documented in file; TINA waivers under exceptional circumstances exemption granted IAW criteria at DFARS 215.403-1(c)(4)?

- If cost and pricing data are required and KO cannot determine price reasonableness, has field pricing support been requested IAW FAR 15.404-2?

- For cost reimbursement, was cost realism assessment performed to determine MPC?

- SB Participation: Does proposal support USACE SB goals? Is there rationale for proposed SB participation? What is the extent of commitment to use SB. Has the past performance in utilization of SB concerns been considered?

SSAC and SSA Briefings

Focus of Review:

- Has the SSAC been briefed on the important details of the evaluation? (if applicable)

- Are the SSAC recommendations clearly documented and resolved by the KO/SSEB Chair prior to briefing the SSA? (if applicable)

- Is the SSA briefing documented and concurrence on the evaluation gained?

Award Without Discussions

Focus of Review: Is there an opportunity to make award without discussions and is it supported and documented? (FAR 52.215-1)

Business Clearance (Award Without Discussions)

Combined POM(PNO)/PNM or SSDD

Focus of Review: Has a combined POM/PNM or SSDD demonstrating how the Government’s objectives were met without discussions been written and placed in the file?

Competitive Range Determination and PreAward Debriefings

Focus of Review:

- Is the competitive range determination substantiated and clearly documented by properly applying all factors stated in the solicitation?

- Has the SSA approved the competitive range?

- Were offerors eliminated from the competitive range notified promptly and preaward debriefings conducted for requesting offerors and same documented for the record (FAR 15.505)

Or Has the KO established rationale for delaying debriefings IAW FAR 15.505(b)?

Business Clearance (With Discussions) POM

a. Has the POM been approved by the KO? (AFARS 5115.406-1)

1. As a minimum, does the POM contain all data required by (AFARS 5115.406-1(B)) and in the proper format?

c. Does the POM accurately reflect the evaluation results and Items For Negotiation (IFNs) identified as part of the evaluation?

Focus of Review: The pre-negotiation objectives are clearly stated, approved at the appropriate level, and documented within the POM prior to entering negotiations/discussions.

Exchanges, Communications and Discussions

Focus of Review:

- Have exchanges, communications and discussions been appropriately documented? (FAR 15.306)

- Do discussion letters accurately reflect evaluation results and at a minimum, provide significant weaknesses, deficiencies and adverse past performance information? (FAR 15.306(d))

Unsuccessful Offerors

Unsuccessful Offeror Letters reflects an accurate record of rationale for non-selection? (FAR 15.503; FAR 8, FAR 16)

Negotiations

Meaningful discussions held with all offerors in competitive range?

Request for Revised/Final Proposals

a. Negotiations closed by KO?

b. Revised/Final Proposals requested?

Revised/Final Proposal Evaluation

Focus of Review:

- Was the source selection evaluation conducted IAW the UAI 15.300-100 and the AS3, the SSP, and the criteria in the solicitation?

- Overall Evaluation

Does the SSEB evaluation focus on the revised areas of the proposal in context and is it documented appropriately? Were evaluation findings handled fairly/consistently across all proposals – i.e., what is identified as a “significant weakness” in one proposal is identified in that same manner in others.

- Cost/Price Analysis: Have DCAA Audit Reports been received/ comments or findings been resolved?

- Subcontracting Plans evaluated/approved IAW AFARS Appendix AA and include eSRS requirement.

Business Clearance (With Discussions) PNM

a. Has the PNM been approved at the appropriate level?

b. Has the KO determined that the award price is fair and reasonable and been documented? (FAR 15.4)

Focus of Review:

- Is the PNM structured in such a manner that would allow any reviewer to track cost/price elements from the negotiation objectives through the final negotiated outcome? (AFARS 5115.406-3)

- Does the PNM address all the significant issues contained in the POM?

- Does the PNM clearly articulate the outcome of negotiations and how the Government’s objectives achieved and documented in revised/final proposals, or compromise/agreements made during the process?

SSAC and SSA Briefings

Focus of Review:

- Has the SSAC been briefed on the important details of the evaluation? (if applicable)

- Are the SSAC recommendations clearly documented and resolved by the KOr/SSEB Chair prior to briefing the SSA? (if applicable)

- Is the SSA briefing documented and concurrence on the evaluation gained?

SSA Decision

Focus of Review:

- Was the SSA decision derived from conduct of the source selection, based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation and is fully documented? (AS3, FAR 15.308)

- Is the resulting business arrangement in the best interest of the Government?

CONTRACT AWARD(S) AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Contract Award(s)

Focus of Review:

- Proposed contract reflects fair and proper application of source selection criteria and outcome of negotiations/sole source process?

- Is legally supportable, and represents a meeting of the minds between the Government and the successful offeror(s)?

- CLIN/SLIN/ELIN (DFARS 204) structure adequately describes the quantity, unity of measure, and unit cost and sets a distinct period of performance?

- Appropriate terms and conditions incorporated?

- Subcontracting Plans incorporated into contracts with large businesses at Section J?

Responsibility Determination

a. EEO Clearance(s)? (FAR 22.805)

b. DCAA Financial Capability Audit reports received? (if applicable)

c. Determination of Responsibility? (FAR 9.105-2).

COR Requirements

COR Nomination Letter(s), Appointment Letter & COR Training Certificate(s)? (PIL 2012-06-R1)

Focus of Review: Has a COR been appointed in writing and evidence of requisite training posted to the file?

Other Supporting Documentation

a. Congressional Notification prepared? (DFARS 205.303 & AFARS 5105.303)

b. System for Award Management (SAM) Verification Completed for Contractor Registration?

c. Certificate of competency, if required?

d. IGE (validation of cost/price ceiling)?

e. For CPAF contract vehicles, has an AFDO been delegated and appointed? (FAR 16.405-2, DFARS 216.405-2, PGI 216.405-2, PIL 2011-10-R1, AFARS 5116.405-2))

f. For CPAF contract vehicles has an Award Fee Plan been created and placed in the file? (FAR 16.405-2, DFARS 216.405-2, PGI 216.405-2, AFARS 5116.405-2)

g. Contract Administration Plan (as applicable)? (FAR 42)

h. Performance & Payment Bonds - If required (if a true seed Task Order will be issued at time of MATOC award), will the appropriate bonds be requested in the requisite amounts for Task Order awardee prior to NTP? (DFARS 228.201)

i. Approved Subcontracting Plan posted in the file?

Protests

Were there any pre-award protests, and if so were they resolved? (FAR 15.507 and FAR 33)

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF QUANTUM MERUIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF:

CONTRACTOR:

DESCRIPTION:

DATE OF OCCURRENCE:

COMMITTING ACTIVITY:

PART I – DESCRIPTION OF COMMITMENT AND CONTRACTING OFFICER REVIEW

AUTHORITY: Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5101.602.3; HQ DOC Policy Alert 14-0006

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy regarding payment for work performed, if found to be contracts implied‐in‐fact, may properly be considered under the theory of quantum meruit and payment authorized by the Contracting Officer under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims settlement authority. Additionally, in accordance with internal USACE policy, approval authorities for these actions are set at the same levels prescribed for the ratification of unauthorized commitments as set forth in the AFARS Part 5101.602‐3. The Chief of Contracting is the approval authority for requests for payment of $10,000 or less, and the PARC is the approval authority for payment request of $100,000 or less. The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) is the approval authority for payment requests above $100,000. Accordingly, the ‘quantum meruit’ determination relating to this contract action will be approved by [Insert Name of Approval Authority].

PART I – SECTION A – COMMITMENT CIRCUMSTANCES

(Completed by Contracting Officer who signed the invalid contract action.)

( Elements that must be addressed are 1) the goods or services would have been a permissible procurement had correct procedures been followed; 2) the Government (has already) received and accepted a benefit; 3) the contractor acted in good faith; and 4) the amount to be authorized represents the reasonable value of the benefit received)

1. EXPLAIN WHY THE GOODS OR SERVICES WOULD HAVE BEEN A PERMISSIBLE PROCUREMENT HAD NORMAL PROCUREMENT/CORRECT PROCEDURES BEEN FOLLOWED

2. DESCRIBE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT (HAS ALREADY) RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED A BENEFIT

3. DESCRIBE WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR ACTED IN GOOD FAITH

PART I – SECTION A – COMMITMENT CIRCUMSTANCES Cont’d

4. DESCRIBE WHETHER THE AMOUNT TO BE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTS THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT RECEIVED AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AT TIME OF COMMMITMENT

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR NON-RATIFIABLE/QUANTUM MERIUT ACT

SIGNATURE

DATE

PART I – SECTION B – CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE QUANTUM MERUIT DETERMINATION

1. CONCUR WITH QUANTUM MERUIT DETERMINATION:

2. VERIFY ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF DOCUMENTATION

To the best of my knowledge, the documentation presented on this form is accurate and complete.

3. DESCRIBE ANY DISCIPLINARY/NON-DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN

(include a description of any administrative action [to be] taken under DA PAM 27-18 for military; members or Chapter 751, Federal personnel Manual and Civilian Personnel Regulation; 700 for civilian personnel; or other applicable authority or furnish an explanation of why action was considered necessary.)

4. DESCRIBE ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF NON-RATIFIABLE/QUANTUM MERIUT ACT

5. DO NOT CONCUR WITH QUANTUM MERUIT DETERMINATION:

6. EXPLAIN NONCONCURRENCE:

TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF THE APPLICABLE CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE

SIGNATURE

DATE

PART II – SECTION A – LEGAL REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE

Concur with Chief of the Contracting Office’s recommendation to approve quantum meriut for subject action

Non-concur with recommended action:

Explain:

TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF LEGAL ADVISOR

SIGNATURE

DATE

PART III – SECTION A – SUBMITTAL OF QUANTUM MERIUT TO APPROVAL AUTHORITY

HIGHER THAN CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE

(Completed by Chief of the Contracting Office)

TO: PARC or HCA

The attached package is forwarded for your review and recommendation for further action.

TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE

SIGNATURE

DATE

PART III – SECTION B – APPROVAL AUTHORITY REVIEW

(Completed by the PARC or HCA)

I have reviewed the circumstances, facts and action taken concerning the unauthorized procurement and I concur with further processing of the quantum meriut by the Chief of the Contracting Office.

I have reviewed the circumstances, facts and action taken concerning the unauthorized procurement and I do not concur that this action should be further processed of the quantum meriut by the Chief of the Contracting Office. Action should be returned to the Office for:

Further documentation of circumstances.

Payment to vendor by individual making unauthorized commitment.

Further documentation of corrective action(s) taken.

Other (explain):

Forward to Chief of the Contracting Office with a Copy to the Contracting Officer

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVAL AUTHORITY

SIGNATURE

DATE

Determination & Findings

Certification of Requirements for the

Proper Use of Non-DoD Contracts – Assisted Acquisition

SUBJECT: Certification for the assisted acquisition of (insert supplies or services to be acquired).

1. References:

a. Memorandum, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, January 18, 2008, subject: Interagency Acquisition.

b. Memorandum, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition Logistics and Technology (ASA(AL&T)), July 12, 2005, subject: Proper Use of Non-Department of Defense (Non-DoD) Contracts.

2. This certification relates to an “assisted acquisition” under the Army Policy referenced above.

An “assisted acquisition” is a contract awarded or a task or delivery order placed on behalf of DoD by a non-DoD agency.

3. This memorandum documents that the use of a Non-DoD contract vehicle for the acquisition described herein is in the Government’s best interest. In accordance with the procedures established in the above references, this document has been prepared by the requiring official/project manager, with the assistance and written coordination of the contracting officer, the funds certifying official, legal counsel, and approved by (Insert the contracting approving official title, dependent on the dollar threshold – see UAI Matrix). It is executed by the written certification of the head of the requiring activity at the O6/GS-15 level.

Findings

4. Requirement Information:

a. Description of services/supplies: (Describe the supplies or services needed, to include the delivery schedule/period of performance and price.)

b. Non-DoD Contracting Agency: (Add information here.)

c. Point of Contact at Non-DoD Contracting Agency: (Include the name, phone number, and email address of the non-DoD Contracting Officer assigned to the non-DoD contract.)

d. Non-DoD Contract Number: (If known.)

5. I certify that the proposed use of this non-DoD contract is in the best interest of the Army considering the following factors:

a. Availability of a suitable DoD contract vehicle. (Explain why a DoD contract is not suitable for this acquisition. Include a description of the market research that was conducted in order to make this determination. Market research should include a review of the National Interagency Contract Directory – www.contractdirectory.gov, a review of your district’s contract vehicles, and a review of other districts’ contract vehicles – https://swdweb.swf.usace.army.mil/Contracting/CurrentIDIQContracts.cfm.)

b. Ability to satisfy customer requirements. (Explain how the order will satisfy customer requirements.)

c. Delivery schedule. (Explain how the order will satisfy delivery schedule requirements.)

d. Cost effectiveness, price (including discounts and fees charged by contract holder).

(Explain why the assisted acquisition is cost effective and why the price is reasonable.)

e. Contract administration (including ability to provide contract oversight). (Explain the plan for contract administration, to include oversight of contract performance/delivery.)

f. Socio-economic opportunities (e.g., small business (SB), HUBZone, small disadvantaged business, service disabled veteran owned SB). (Describe the consideration of socio-economic opportunities.)

g. Comparative costs of using a DoD, as opposed to a non-DoD, contractual instrument – to include administrative fees charged by the non-DoD agency. (Explain the cost comparison.)

h. Other applicable considerations. (Describe any other considerations supporting the use of a non-DoD contract).

i. I have verified that a written interagency agreement has been approved at the Senior Executive Service, Flag, or General Officer level.

j. I have verified that the non-DoD agency has certified that it will comply with applicable procurement requirements for FY (fill in year), as required by FAR 17.703.

k. (Include this paragraph for Economy Act transactions only): This action is under the authority of the Economy Act, and the procedures under FAR 17.502-2 and DoD FMR Vol. 11A, Ch. 3 will be followed and an Economy Act D&F approved by an individual no lower than the Senior Executive Service, Flag, or General Officer level. (If already approved, attach copy.)

Determination:

6. Based on the above findings, I determine and certify that:

a. The order is in the best interests of the Army.

b. The supplies and/or services to be provided are within the scope of the non-DoD contract identified above.

c. The proposed funding is appropriate for the procurement and is being used in a manner consistent with any appropriation limitations.

d. All unique terms, conditions, and requirements will be incorporated into the order or contract, as…