AM_0002.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

The above numbered solicitation is hereby amendment to add the evaluation criterias, make changes to the Performance Work Statement, and extend the proposal due date as listed on the atttached document.

The proposal due date is established as 24 Aug 2010 at 11:00A.M CST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 65

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Aug-2010

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 W912P8-10-R-0069

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jul-2010

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 X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Aug-2010

CODE

USACE, CONTRACTING DIVISION

ATTN: CEMVN-CT, ROOM 172

7400 LEAKE AVE.

NEW ORLEANS LA 70118-3651

W912P8 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P8-10-R-0069

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The below changes are incorporated into Section C of the Performance Work Statement, please make the adjustments as shown:

ATTACHEMENT

1. Section C, C-2 Specific Tasks

2.1 The contractor must have a stable skilled work force...

2. Section C, C-3 Requirements/Performance Standards

3.1.2.1 COMPANY/CONTRACTOR ..........The company must have a stable skilled work force...

3.1.6 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT - The contractor must provide a suitable shop......The contractor’s facility must

3.1.6.1 The contractor’s shop

3.1.6.2 Location - The contractor’s shop

3.1.6.3 .......The offeror’s shop

3. Section L Chapter 1 - Company Qualifications and Quality Control Plan.

.......Offeror must submit documentation, including resumes and certificates of its daily operated, skilled work force, SECTION M has been ADDED and will be used to evaluate proposals.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1. Basis For Contract Award.

a. For a proposal to result in an awardable contract, the proposal must at least meet all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all required certifications and documentations. An assessment will be made of each offeror’s proposal in the areas of Technical Approach and Key Personnel, (non-cost evaluation factors) Past Performance, and Price. Note: It is the Government’s intent to award this contract without discussions.

b. Technical Acceptable Performance Price Trade-Off (TAPPT). This acquisition will utilize TAPPT technique to make a best value award decision. This process permits tradeoffs among price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Price may be traded off, against the non-cost factors. Subjective judgment is implicit throughout the process. The application of TAPPT techniques in contract award and selection and approval process is as follows:

1. A rating will be made on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, will be considered for award.

2. All technically acceptable proposals will receive a performance rating of Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Neutral, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.

3. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price, and award to a higher priced offeror with a better past performance assessment rating.

The Source Selection Authority shall make an assessment of the price proposed and the past performance assessment rating assigned to determine the best value for the government.

M-2. Evaluation Factors: Each offeror’s proposal and other information will be evaluated against the following evaluation factors:

a. Technical Approach and Key Personnel

b. Past Performance

c. Price

All offeror’s being considered for award must be technically acceptable for price trade-off to occur. Technical Approach and Past Performance when combined are equal to price.

M-3. Factor and Rating Techniques:

A. Technical Acceptability: The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine technical acceptability/unacceptability.

An acceptable technical approach is one that fully supports the needs and objectives defined in the Performance Work Statement. Emphasis will be placed on the achievement of technical capabilities without risking timely accomplishment of assignments. The technical proposal should include each of the following sub-factors:

1. COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS AND QUALITY CONTROL PLAN: The proposal must demonstrate (with supported documents, resumes, certificates, etc.) that the company possesses the experience, knowledge, skilled craftsmen, supervisors, personnel and ability as well as a quality control plan that is adequate to be successful in the performance of this scope of work. Additionally, the company must have a structure (company flowchart, etc.) adequate to manage the contract and quality control, including effective relationships of direct accountability for the PWS.

2. FACILITY & EQUIPMENT: It is preferred that the contractor own a machine shop.

However, if the contractor does not own its own machine shop, the contractor must submit with their proposal a written agreement with full access to utilize a facility equipped with a machine shop, which meets all requirements listed below and must be located within 100 mile radius of New Orleans district office, to provide the capability, functionality, and adequacy required to perform the specified scope of work.

Additionally, the government must make a pre-award visit to the required machine shop and determine, by inspection, that the shop is adequate and acceptable. An adequate and acceptable shop is one that meets the following requirements:

a. Possesses the capacity, tooling, and security to work on equipment, components, and parts of the size, weight, complexity, and material compositions as those that will be worked under the PWS, in accordance with sections 3.1.6 of the PWS. Physical inspection, conducted by the Government, will be used to determine that the shop is adequate as to these requirements. At a minimum, the machine shop will have the following list of equipment (reproduced here from section 3.1.6):

* Engine lathes or other types of lathe. Lathes must be able to machine shaft(s) up to a maximum length of 30 feet, and up to a maximum diameter of 30 inches.

* Horizontal and vertical boring mills. Vertical mills must be able to machine or bore up to a diameter of 60 inches.

* Minimum 50 tons capacity hydraulic press or other equivalent types of press.

* Bolt threading machine ¼ inch to 2 inches.

* Hand Screw Machine – 14 inches to 16 ½” inches

* Automatic Screw Machine

* Drill press - radial capacity up to 4 feet.

* Planers – Table, Open Side - Various sizes

* Plate rollers – Various sizes

* Automatic band saws – Various sizes.

* Pipe benders – Various sizes.

* Portable boring equipment for field repairs – Capacity up to 24 inches diameter.

* Welding machines with SMAW/MIG/TIG capabilities (ex: Big Blue Miller Diesel welding machines, Teledyne Telarc Diesel welder, etc.).

* Diesel driven air compressors – Various sizes (ex. Atlas 375 CFM, Sullair 750 CFM).

* Minimum of two (2) fork lifts with 15,000 lbs capacity each (combined capacity of 30,000 lbs).

* Overhead cranes with lifting capacity up to fifteen (15) tons.

* Minimum of 600 square feet of free “indoor” storage space.

b. Is adequate if staffed with trades adequately experienced to perform the PWS on equipment, parts, and components that will be worked under this PWS as defined in sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.6. A review of the resumes and other documentation required by sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, which determine that inside machinists and supervisors meet the requirements of those sections is necessary for this requirement to be deemed adequate.

c. Furthermore, the shop must possess the means to load and unload equipment, parts, and components transported to the machine shop in accordance with section 3.1.6.

Government inspection will determine that the shop is acceptable in regards to this requirement.

The Technical proposal will be rated as follows:

OVERALL TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing qualification may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

B. Past Performance Factor: The offeror’s and proposed team member/subcontractor’s Past Performance will be evaluated through the accomplishment of a confidence assessment rating based on assessing past performance.

1. This factor identifies and reviews relevant present and past performance, and then makes an overall assessment of the government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform this contract. The government may utilize information from sources within and outside the government and is not limited only to those references provided by the offeror.

2. In evaluating past performance, the government will focus on the offeror’s performance record as it is relevant to all requirements of this solicitation. The government will consider the relevancy, recency, and the size and complexity of the past performance relative to this solicitation’s requirements. More recent and relevant performance of an offeror will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than a less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral rating. Likewise, a more relevant favorable past performance record may receive a higher rating than a less relevant record of favorable past performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a neutral rating on past performance.

3. In order to assign the risk rating, the Government will first review the past performance ratings from the questionnaire, references and all performance related considerations discussed above. The Government will determine the degree of relevance and recency of past performance information gathered.

4. The following definitions will apply to Solicitation Addendum L & M

a. Experience is the level of knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed that are necessary for the successful accomplishment of work or tasks specified in the Performance Work Statement. Experience is gained through learning and direct practice over time.

b. Relevant Experience – relevant experience is management, technical, and organizational experience which derives its value from work that is substantially the same in scope, complexity, and skill requirements as the work in this performance work statement and from its relationship to the value inherent in recency. The relevance of experience is viewed from the breadth of the experience (type of work and magnitude) which may be best determined from the scope of work of contracts performed and the size and complexity of the work.

Because experience comes from a variety of work, which may have varying degrees of transferability to the work to be performed under this PWS, the degree to which experience is relevant to the work influences the degree of performance confidence/risk. Relevant experience is the baseline from which the extent of transferability of experience to the PWS may increase or decrease as a result of the breadth, depth, and type of past work.

c. Recent Experience (Recency) – recent experience is experience for which time and changes in technology have not diminished the value of the direct application of the offeror’s skills and abilities to this PWS through such effects as obsolescence; changing requirements of certification; entrophy of skills, abilities, and knowledge; changes in methods and skills which are significantly different than those derived from past performance; or any other time related influence determined to devalue experience over time. Recent experience is viewed from the depth (amount of years performing and learning) and represents the baseline value around which the value of the experience may increase or decrease with the effect of time.

5. For the purpose of assigning a risk rating to past performance, the degree of relevance will be determined and its impact on risk will be considered in assigning the rating.

Degrees of relevance will be applied in accordance with the following matrix:

DEGREE DEFINITION

Fully relevant Substantially the same. KSA’s (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities) are 100% transferable and adequate for the scope of work, e.g. hopper dredge repair vs hopper dredge repair.

Closely relevant Very similar work. KSA’s are transferable with only minor gaps in knowledge or ability, e.g. marine and dredge vs hopper dredge. Most skills and abilities are transferable but some knowledge does not or a slight knowledge gap exists.

Relevant Similar work and magnitude related directly enough that many skills and abilities are transferable but there is an increased knowledge gap, e.g. cruise ship repair vs submarine repair. Dredge ship repair vs cargo ship repair.

Not relevant There is little or no relationship between the type or magnitude of work to form the basis for successful transferability of KSA’s, e.g. highway construction vs high rise building construction. Aircraft maintenance vs ship repair. Boat building vs hopper dredge ship repair.

6. For the purpose of assigning a risk factor to past performance, the degree of recency of the relevant past performance will be determined. Degrees of recency will be applied in accordance with the following: Experience that was gained from the date of solicitation continuously back for five years (2005) is defined as recent experience.

Experience that was acquired before the first year of required experience going back to 2000 for an additional five years (2005-2000) is considered Less Recent. Experience that was gained prior to August 2000 is considered Not Recent. Where the requirement calls for “recent” experience, the experience must not be Greeter than ten years to meet the requirement.

7. During evaluations, the Government will assign each proposal one of the following overall past performance assessment ratings:

OVERALL PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Neutral No Performance record is identifiable.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

PROPOSAL RISK RATING:

Low Risk= Proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Moderate Risk= Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increasing in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably minimize difficulties.

High Risk = Approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Proposal contains statements regarding indemnification.

Low ___________

Moderate________

High___________

Comments:____________________________________________________________________

C. Price Factor:

The proposal pricing in Section B – Schedule of supplies/services, shall be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness as described under FAR 15.404-1(b). If unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be explained. The price factor will not be rated.

Addendum: FAR 52.212-1 (c) – The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART 1: INSTRUCTIONS. The company who has provided your name is participating in a Request for Proposal (RFP) with US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District for professional hopper dredge ship maintenance and repair services. We would greatly appreciate you taking the time to complete this form.

Please provide an honest assessment and immediately return to the following address or fax not later than Aug. 24, 2010

This completed form is to be provided directly to the address below:

US Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Bennetta Hamilton (CEMVN-CT-P) PO Box 60267 New Orleans, LA. 70160-0267 Commercial: (504) 862-1079 Fax: (504) 862-2892

PART 2: GENERAL INFORMATION.

a. Company's Name and Address (Contractor and/or subcontractor being evaluated)

NOTE: offerer fill out before forwarding

2. Respondent Organization Name and Address

3. a. Evaluator’s Name __________________________________________________

b. Evaluator’s involvement with contractor: ____________________________________

c. Title/Telephone Number:_________________________________________________

4. Contract Number _____________________________________________________________

5. Contract Value (Basic and Options) ______________________________________________

6. Award Date ________________________________________________________________

7. Contract or Task Order Completion Date (Include extensions): ________________________

8. Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) ___________________________________________ Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)________________________________________ Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF)_______________________________________ Other (Please Specify)_____________________________________________ Note: If an award fee contract, please provide a synopsis of available award fee pool and percentage of that pool awarded the contractor each evaluation period over the life of the contract.

9. Brief description of YOUR contract requirements including type of work, trades involved, type of vessel, degree of self direction:

10. Additional data:

a. Approximate number of repair orders performed under this contract

b. Approximate value of work serviced by this contract

11. Type and extent of any subcontracting support:

12. How was the quality of work produced by field service machinists and welders?

PART THREE: PERFORMANCE RATING. Please summarize performance in each of the rating factors. Determine the rating that most nearly represents your experience with this company and indicate your assessment by placing the appropriate rating in the space provided.

Please include descriptive comments to supplement ratings provided.

Ratings are defined below and should be used as a reference in assessing performance.

Rating “E” for Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’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 were highly effective.

Rating “G” for Very Good – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’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.

Rating “S” for Satisfactory – Performance meets 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.

Rating “M” for 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.

Rating “U” for 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 action appear or were ineffective.

Rating "N/A" for Not Applicable - was not required to perform in this area.

____1. Preparation, use and quality of contractor’s internal Quality Control plan/program in identifying, correcting, and preventing problems.

____2. Were the safety rules, regulations and practices properly followed?

____3. How many accident/incident reports were filed for the duration of the contract?

____4. Was there an unusually high turnaround rate in management employees?

____5. Did the work teams report on time with proper working equipment?

____6. Was the contractor able to consistently maintain a qualified and experienced workforce to perform necessary services?

___7. Did the contractor respond timely and effectively to unexpected changes and emergency requirements?

___8. Did the contractor respond timely and effectively in resolving poor performance problems associated with its employees?

___9. How would you rate contractor’s adherence to contract/delivery schedules?

___10. Were reports & documentation submitted timely and in a professional manner?

___11. Prompt response to technical direction & change orders?

___12. Timely responses to resolving problems?

___13. How well suited was the contractor’s machine shop adequate for the size and complexity of work required?

___14. How was the quality of work produced by the machine shop?

COMMENTS:

___15. Effectiveness of Project Manager

___16. Effectiveness of Management/Field Supervision.

___17. Recruiting, training and retention of staff maintained to service contract at required levels of performance ___a. Recruiting, training and retention of staff considered a management problem ___b. Recruiting, training and retention of staff considered a regional problem

___18. The problem, if any, experienced with recruiting, training and retention was in the staffing area(s) of _______________________________________________________________

___19. The specific issues surrounding problems experienced with recruiting, training, and retention were__________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS:

Would you award another contract to this company? Why?

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (PRO AND CON)

PART FOUR: EVALUATOR'S CERTIFICATION:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM IS ACCURATE AND

COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Signature of Evaluator Date

Title of Evaluator

APPENDIX D

TECHNICAL EVALUATION WORKSHEETS

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Request for Proposal W912P8-10-R-0069

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

RFP No. W912P8-10-R-0069

EVALUATOR'S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES: PROPOSAL REFERENCES:

FACTOR: VOLUME/PARAGRAPH: 1 (TECHNICAL)

SUBFACTOR: PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

Insert appropriate rating from applicable rating scale; e.g., Exceptional (Blue) Very Good (Green) Satisfactory (Yellow) Marginal (Orange) Unsatisfactory (Red)

Evaluator's Rating: (Merit/Risk)

Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

Discussions: Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

RATIONAL: Include supporting rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation standards and ratings definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. Also include any items for negotiations. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final (FD). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES/SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES/DEFICIENCIES::

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES:

UNCERTAINTIES:

ITEMS FOR NEGOTIATIONS (IFNs):

The Technical proposal will be rated as follows:

OVERALL TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing qualification may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, extreme doubt

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Request for Proposal W912P8-10-R-0069

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

RFP No. W912P8-10-R-0069

EVALUATOR'S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES: PROPOSAL REFERENCES:

FACTOR: VOLUME/PARAGRAPH: 2 (PAST PERFORMANCE)

SUBFACTOR: PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

Insert appropriate rating from applicable rating scale; e.g., Exceptional (Blue) Very Good (Green) Satisfactory (Yellow) Marginal (Orange) Unsatisfactory (Red) Neutral/Unknown

Evaluator's Rating: (Merit/Risk)

Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

Discussions: Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/Date: Team Leader Initials/Date:

RATIONAL: Include supporting rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation standards and ratings definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. Also include any items for negotiations. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final (FD). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES/SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES/DEFICIENCIES::

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES:

UNCERTAINTIES:

ITEMS FOR NEGOTIATIONS (IFNs):

The Past Performance proposal will be rated as follows:

OVERALL PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform

Neutral

No Past Performance record is identifiable

PROPOSAL RISK RATING:

Low Risk= Proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Moderate Risk= Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increasing in cost, or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably minimize difficulties.

High Risk = Approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Proposal contains statements regarding indemnification.

Low ___________

Moderate________

High___________

Comments:____________________________________________________________________

CONSENSUS COMMENTS

SOLICITATION W912P8-10-R-0069

OFFEROR:

WEAKNESSES:

APPENDIX E

Adjectival Rating Scheme

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND KEY PERSONNEL

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing qualification may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s technical proposal, extreme doubt

APPENDIX E

Adjectival Rating Scheme

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Exceptional Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Very Good Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Marginal Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirement if the experience is appropriately recent and relevant.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform

Neutral

No Past Performance record is identifiable

END OF SUMMARY CHANGES