W912QR20R0015-0001.pdf

W912QR20R0015-0001

W912QR20R0015

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

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

The following have been added by full text:

AMDT 0001 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Design/Build Full Facility Restoration

Barracks Building 5509

JBMDL, NJ

W912QR20R0015

AMENDMENT 0001

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SF1442:

A. The due date has been extended to 19 March 2020 at 1:00 PM (Eastern).

Section 00 22 16:

B. Section 00 22 16, paragraph 5.1.2 has been revised as follows:

a. Projects considered similar in size shall include a minimum of 25,000 square feet of building renovation.

WAGE RATES:

C. Section 00 73 00 – General Decision NJ20200027 (Building), Modification 0 is hereby replaced in its entirety by General Decision NJ20200027 (Building), Modification 1 (dated 31 January 2020) and must be adhered to.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00 22 16

SECTION 00 22 16

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL AND EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR PHASE ONE

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Design and Construction of a Full

Facility Restoration (FFR) project to renovate and repair Barracks Building 5509 at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in Burlington County, NJ.

1.2 This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 22 16 for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. A site visit will be held for these selected offerors following the Phase II notification. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 18, Procedures for Submittal of Offers for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.3 The target ceiling for contract award is $11,700,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project.

The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds will be available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling.

1.4 This project is subject to availability of funds; funds are not presently available. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.2 Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Place, Room 821, Louisville, KY 40202-2267 no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. Mark your proposal submission to the attention of Morgan Strong. NOTE: The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this design/build project. For Phase I, offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.4 Volume I for Phase I shall be submitted in a three-ring binder and include the following information:

• Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance o Prime Contractor o A/E Designer of Record (DOR)

• Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build

*NOTE: The complete Volume I shall be submitted in original and six (6) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information. Any specified page limits will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted that exceeds the specified limit(s) will not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted in a three-ring binder (placed in a separate envelope) and shall include the following information:

• Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442

• Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements

• Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

• Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission. Volume II shall be submitted in original and one

(1) electronic copy on CD/DVD. The paper version of the proposal shall be used for evaluation and will control any conflicts or discrepancies between the two media. Offeror is responsible for ensuring the paper copy is consistent with the electronic copy of the proposal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical (Volume I) proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a Best Value Trade-Off, as stated above.

3.2 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, and technical evaluation.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance / Responsibility Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance (Table 2), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience (Table 1) and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach for Design/Build will be rated using Table 3 below.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical proposal in their initial offer. The initial offer and subsequent Government evaluation will be the basis for the Contracting Officer’s selection of up to five (5) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II of the procurement.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance 1st

• Prime Contractor Equal to A/E DOR

• A/E DOR Equal to Prime

4.3 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach 2nd

For Design/Build

4.4 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated

Tab B Joint Venture Agreement Not Rated

Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Not Rated Proof of Financial Ability

Tab D Pre-Award Information Not Rated

4.5 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description 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.

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

TABLE 3

Technical / Risk Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Acceptable

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

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

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

4.6 Definitions

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

5. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6. 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

8. Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system.

5. Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Prime Contractor:

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially complete or completed by the Prime Contractor within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar to this project in size and scope. Projects completed more than seven (7) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Projects are considered substantially complete if enough work has been performed such that it demonstrates the ability to successfully complete all phases of the project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the project to be considered similar.

NOTE: Projects that include exclusively new construction will NOT be considered similar in size or scope to the solicited project.

AMDT 0001**********************************************************************************

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size shall include a minimum of 25,000 square feet of building renovation.

**********************************************************************************AMDT 0001

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope to this project include complete renovation of buildings similar to

Military Barracks, Dormitories, Hotels, or office / administrative facilities. Projects may also include new construction; however, project scope shall be at least 50% complete building renovation, measured in square footage. If replying with projects that are combined new and renovation construction, clearly delineate (based on square feet) the renovation versus new construction portion and percent (%) of the project.

Submitted projects must demonstrate experience with a multi-story renovation.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least fifteen (15) percent of the direct contract labor

(including testing and layout personnel), exclusive of other general conditions or field overhead personnel, material, equipment, or subcontractors to be considered similar.

5.1.5 Additional consideration may be given for projects that contain the following features:

a) Established, working relationship with the proposed DOR on prior Design/Build projects;

b) Projects that demonstrate experience with the installation of an elevator and elevator shaft in an existing facility where one did not previously exist;

c) Renovation of buildings that include similar DFAC features (e.g., kitchen & equipment, dining hall).

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a) Project Title, Location, and Contract Number/Unique Identifier;

b) Current percentage of construction complete and the date it was or will be complete

a. For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed;

c) Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility;

d) Size of the project, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both;

e) Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency by the reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

5.1.8 A/E Designer of Record (DOR):

Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects that have been constructed (i.e., construction is substantially complete) within the last seven (7) years (from the solicitation issue date) that are similar in size and scope (see paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 above). In order to be considered similar, the proposed A/E firm must have been the DOR on the submitted project. The listed design firm must be used on the project. No deviations will be permitted unless approved by the Contracting Officer. Identification of more than one (1) design firm will result in an evaluation based on the least qualified firm. Indicate any previous working relationship with the prime contractor.

5.1.9 Additional consideration may be given for the DOR projects that contain the following features:

a) Experience with Federal (e.g., DOD, NASA, USACE) Design/Build Criteria (i.e., AT/FP, UFC, Specs Intact);

b) Design of dining facility/kitchen, including necessary equipment.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (formerly known as DUNS) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed three (3).

5.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.2.1 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1 above. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table above.

5.2.2 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects.

The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references.

In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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.

5.2.3 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience. NOTE: The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach for Design/Build

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a narrative that describes the offeror’s philosophy and intended technical approach for executing design-build projects. Clearly and concisely describe the offeror’s Design-Build team, and how the team will work collaboratively to ensure timely, quality completion of the project. The Technical Approach narrative shall address the information described in paragraphs 6.1.2 – 6.1.4 below.

6.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities: Describe the roles and responsibilities of the offeror’s Design-Build team and how their resources will be utilized in order to deliver this design-build project. Describe the proposed management structure for the Design-Build team (i.e., key members), explaining how the design and construction process will be managed throughout the entirety of the project life cycle (e.g., Design, Construction, Close-out).

6.1.3 Communication Plan: Describe interactions and communications both within the Design-Build team and with the Corps of Engineers throughout the entirety of the project life cycle.

6.1.4 Quality Control: Describe the Design-Build team’s quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

• Provide specific information on how you will manage and track changes/revisions both during the design phase and construction phase of the project.

NOTE: There is a page limit of eight (8) single-sided, 8.5” x 11” pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Technical Approach for Design/Build Factor.

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.1 The Government will review and identify the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the proposal.

The Government will evaluate the proposal based on the offeror’s understanding of the USACE Design/Build process and how well it has demonstrated its ability to successfully execute design-build projects. Offerors are encouraged to tailor their proposal to demonstrate their approach for successfully completing the solicited Design/Build project.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record, construction firm, and the Government reviewers. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror demonstrates their organizational (i.e., the structure and staffing) ability to execute design/build projects, to include the integration of the design and construction firms during design and construction. Proposals demonstrating that construction personnel will be actively involved in the design process may be viewed more favorably by the SSEB. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction, as well as the strength of the offeror’s proposed approach to control and track revisions to the design. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process.

7. Volume II - Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442.

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 found in Section 00 10 00 of this solicitation.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (formally DUNS number) with the proposal.

Small business offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor-Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. Joint Venture agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

Joint Venture Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any small business-related price preference.

7.3 Tab C – Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit information showing offeror's ability to be bonded for this project. Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds.

If the offeror is a joint venture, submit this information for all joint venture members.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

B. The offeror shall submit the following information:

a) Number of years the firm has been in business

b) Name, address, and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

c) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

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. 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 rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred from which the Contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 from which the contractor had trouble overcoming and that 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 THAT 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; efforts to keep lines of communication open)

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-

E VG S M U N

up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets, and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If a Government contract, has it 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 the 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 that may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following have been modified:

WAGE RATES

"General Decision Number: NJ20200027 01/31/2020

Superseded General Decision Number: NJ20190027

State: New Jersey

Construction Type: Building

County: Burlington County in New Jersey.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include single family homes or apartments up to and including 4 stories).

Note: Under Executive Order (EO) 13658, an hourly minimum wage of $10.80 for calendar year 2020 applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2015. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must pay all workers in any classification listed on this wage determination at least $10.80 per hour (or the applicable wage rate listed on this wage determination, if it is higher) for all hours spent performing on the contract in calendar year 2020. If this contract is covered by the EO and a classification considered necessary for performance of work on the contract does not appear on this wage determination, the contractor must pay workers in that classification at least the wage rate determined through the conformance process set forth in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) (or the EO minimum wage rate,if it is higher than the conformed wage rate). The EO minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. Please note that this EO applies to the above-mentioned types of contracts entered into by the federal government that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but it does not apply to contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(2)-(60). Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date 0 01/03/2020 1 01/31/2020

ASBE0014-003 05/01/2019

BURLINGTON COUNTY (City of Beverly; Townships of Cinnaminson, Delanco, Delron, Edgewater Park, Evesham, Hainesport and Lumberton; Borough of Maple Shade; Township of Medford; Borough of Medford Lakes; Townships of Moorestown and Mt. Laurel;

Borough of Palmyra; Township of Riverside; Borough of Riverton;

Townships of Shamong, Southampton, Tabernacle, Westhampton and Willingboro)

Rates Fringes

ASBESTOS WORKER/HEAT & FROST

INSULATOR (Includes the application of all insulating materials, protective coverings, coatings and finishings to all types of mechanical systems; also, the application of firestopping material to openings and penetrations in walls, floors, ceilings and curtain walls; also, all lead abatement).......................$ 51.20 36.62

ASBE0089-003 07/01/2017

BURLINGTON COUNTY (Townships of Bordentown, Burlington, Chesterfield, Easthampton, Florence, Mansfield, Mt. Holly, New Hanover, North Hanover, Pemberton, Springfield and Woodland)

ASBESTOS WORKER/HEAT & FROST

INSULATOR ((includes the application of all insulating materials, protective coverings, coatings and finishings to all types of mechanical systems; also, the application of firestopping material to openings and penetrations in walls, floors, ceilings and curtain walls; also, all lead abatement))......................$ 42.32 33.88

PAID HOLIDAYS:

The last day prior to the Christmas and New Year's Day observed holiday: 4 hrs. pay.

BRNJ0002-013 11/01/2019

Rates Fringes

Bricklayer.....................$ 43.56 32.50

Work on high stacks: 22% per hour additional.

BRNJ0007-012 07/16/2018

Rates Fringes

Marble setter...................$ 58.91 36.47

BRNJ0007-014 07/01/2018

Rates Fringes

TERRAZZO WORKER/SETTER...........$ 55.38 35.55

BRNJ0007-017 06/04/2018

Rates Fringes

Tile finisher..................$ 40.22 27.07 Tile setter....................$ 46.56 32.69

Tile finisher:

Work grouting all epoxy: $10.00 additional per day.

CARP0006-009 11/01/2018

CARPENTER (Scaffold Builder).....$ 49.51 57%

The first sixty feet at the regular rate, 10% per hour additional for each additional fifty feet thereafter.

CARP0006-010 11/01/2018

Rates Fringes

CARPENTER

Including Acoustical Ceiling Installation, Drywall Hanging, Formwork, Batt and Blown Insulation...$ 49.51 57%

CARP0029-006 11/01/2018

Rates Fringes

Soft floor layer...............$ 49.51 57%

CARP0454-009 05/01/2016

Rates Fringes

PILEDRIVERMAN....................$ 43.95 31.32

PAID HOLIDAYS:

New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; provided that the worker works any of the three days in the five-day work week preceding the holiday and the first work day after the holiday.

CARP0715-007 05/01/2019

Rates Fringes

Millwright.....................$ 50.66 58%+0.25

Work of erection and dismantling of elevators and towers, such as concrete conveyors and temporary material elevators, scaffolding or other structures to be used as scaffolding inside or outside of buildings: the first sixty feet at the regular rate, 10% per hour additional for each additional fifty feet thereafter.

ELEC0269-017 04/01/2019

BURLINGTON COUNTY (north of a line following the west and south limits of Burlington Borough from the Delaware River, in a southeasterly direction, to the Burlington - Mt. Holly road;

then, south-southeast along the Burlington - Mt. Holly road to the town of Mt. Holly, includes Mt. Holly; then, east along the Pennsylvania Railroad to the town of New Lisbon, includes New Lisbon; then, continuing along the Pennsylvania Railroad to the Ocean County line)

Electrician and cable splicer (Includes Low Voltage Wiring)....$ 51.27 62.48%

ELEC0351-001 09/30/2019

ATLANTIC COUNTY; BURLINGTON COUNTY (south of a line following the west and south limits of Burlington Borough from the Delaware River, in a southeasterly direction, to the Burlington

- Mt. Holly road; then, south-southeast along the Burlington - Mt. Holly road to the town of Mt. Holly, does not include Mt.

Holly; then, east along the Pennsylvania Railroad to the town of New Lisbon, does not include New Lisbon; then, continuing along the Pennsylvania Railroad to the Ocean County line);

CAMDEN, CAPE MAY, CUMBERLAND, GLOUCESTER AND SALEM COUNTIES:

Electricians:

Cable splicer on lead cable.$ 46.51 72.54% + .65 Electrician and cable splicer.....................$ 47.52 79.72%+.65

ELEV0005-004 01/01/2018

Rates Fringes

Elevator mechanic..............$ 55.76 32.65

PAID HOLIDAYS:

New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

PAID VACATION:

Employer contributes 2% of basic hourly rate as vacation pay credit for 6 months to 5 years of service, and 4% for 5 years or more of service.

ENGI0825-020 07/01/2018

Rates Fringes

Power equipment operators:

GROUP 1.....................$ 51.77 30.45

GROUP 2.....................$ 50.18 30.45

GROUP 3.....................$ 48.27 30.45

GROUP 4.....................$ 46.64 30.45

GROUP 5.....................$ 44.93 30.45

Hazardous waste removal work:

Work on a state or federally designated hazardous waste site, where the worker is in direct contact with hazardous material, and when personal protective equipment is required for respiratory, skin and eye protection: 20% per hour additional.

PAID HOLIDAYS:

New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday observed, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Presidential Election Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; provided

1) that the worker works three of the preceding five work days before the holiday; or, the work day before the holiday and the work day after the holiday; and, 2) that the worker works the work day before and the work day after the holiday.

DEFINITION OF GROUPS:

GROUP 1:

Backhoe, Including Backhoe Track; Boom; Concrete Paving

Machine; Crane (all types, including overhead and straddle traveling type); Drill (down-the-hole drill, rotary drill, self-propelled hydraulic drill, self-powered drill);

Elevating Grader; Excavator; Front End Loader (5 cu. yd.

and over); Piledriver (length of boom, including length of leads, shall determine premium rate applicable); Trencher

GROUP 2:

Backhoe Loader Combo; Concrete Pumper; Grader/Blade (Finish);

Hoist; Hydraulic Crane, 10 Tons and under; Front End Loader (2 cu. yd. but less than 5 cu. yd.); Scraper; Side Boom

GROUP 3:

Asphalt Spreader; Bulldozer;Compressor(2 or 3) (in Battery) (within 100 ft.); Forklift; Front End Loader (1 cu. yd.

and over but less than 2 cu. yd.); Lull; Mechanic; Paver, Asphalt; Roller, Blacktop; Tractor;

GROUP 4:

Bobcat/Skid Loader; Compressor (Single); Farm Tractor; Front End Loader (under 1 cu. yd.); Hydroseeder; Roller, Grade;

Pump, Hydraulic

GROUP 5:

Oiler

IRON0068-011 07/01/2016

(Lumberton)

Rates Fringes

IRONWORKER

Reinforcing.................$ 44.55 20.88 Structural and Ornamental...$ 46.54 20.88

IRON0350-009 07/01/2016

BURLINGTON COUNTY (south and east of a line starting from the point on the Atlantic-Burlington county line where the Atlantic-Burlington county line crosses Route 206; then, following a line northeast through Wharton State Park to the town of Chatsworth; then, continuing along the same line, to the Burlington-Ocean county line)

Ironworkers:

Reinforcing.................$ 47.02 37.75 Structural and Ornamental...$ 48.02 37.75

IRON0399-005 07/01/2018

BURLINGTON COUNTY (north and west of a line starting from the point on the Atlantic-Burlington county line where the Atlantic-Burlington county line crosses Route 206; then, following a line northeast through Wharton State Park to the town of Chatsworth; then, continuing along the same line, to the Burlington-Ocean county line)

IRONWORKER (Structural, Reinforcing and Ornamental)......$ 49.43 29.70

LABO0008-001 05/01/2011

Asbestos Removal Laborer.........$ 28.37 21.62

The removal, abatement, enclosure and decontamination of personal protective equipment, chemical protective clothing and machinery relating to asbestos and/or toxic and hazardous waste or materials which shall include but not necessarily be limited to: the erection, moving, servicing and dismantling of all enclosures, scaffolding and barricades; the operation of all tools and equipment normally used in the removal or abatement of asbestos and toxic or hazardous waste or materials; the labeling, bagging, cartoning, crating, or other packaging of materials for disposal; the clean-up of the worksite; and all other work incidental to the removal, abatement, encapsulation, enclosure, and decontamination of asbestos and toxic or hazardous waste or materials; and, in addition, all work tasks involved in the maintenance and operation of energy resource recovery plants (co-generation plants)

LABO0222-006 07/01/2012

Rates Fringes

LABORER

MASON TENDER:

Brick/Cement/Concrete.......$ 29.85 23.07

LABO0222-008 07/01/2012

Rates Fringes

Laborers:

Asphalt Shoveler, Asphalt Spreader, Landscape Laborer, Pipelayer, Power Toole Operator and Screedman...................$ 29.35 23.07

PAIN0021-032 05/01/2017

BURLINGTON COUNTY (south of a line drawn between these cities:

Florence to Bustleton to Columbus to Jobstown to Pemberton to Ongs Hat to Chatsworth to Whiting to Pinewald to Ocean Gate to Seaside Heights)

Glazier........................$ 41.30 31.15

Work at 30 ft. above the working surface, or on a swing stage: $1.00 per hour additional.

PAIN0711-011 05/01/2017

BURLINGTON COUNTY (north of a line drawn between these cities:

Florence to Bustleton to Columbus to Jobstown to Pemberton to Ongs Hat to Chatsworth to Whiting to Pinewald to Ocean Gate to Seaside Heights)

Glazier........................$ 44.81 23.16

Work welding or using a cutting torch: $1.00 per hour additional.

Work on a swing stage scaffold; on a pipe scaffold providing the working height of the platform is 30 ft. or above; and on motorized lifts provided that the height of the lift platform is above the second floor or above thirty feet:

$1.00 per hour additional.

PAIN0711-018 05/01/2018

Rates Fringes

DRYWALL FINISHER/TAPER...........$ 39.95 23.30

PAIN0711-019 05/01/2017

Rates Fringes

PAINTER (Brush & Roller).........$ 39.25 22.66 PAINTER (Spray)..................$ 40.28 19.98

PLAS0592-036 05/01/2018

Rates Fringes

CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 42.09 32.82

PLUM0009-015 07/01/2018

BURLINGTON COUNTY (north of a line drawn from the town of Burlington City, includes Burlington City; then, along County Road Route 541 East, also known as High St., until it reaches the city of Mt. Holly, includes the city of Mt. Holly; then, along Madison Ave. in Mt. Holly to State Road Route 38 East;

then, along State Road Route 38 East until it crosses over State Road Route 206 and becomes County Road Route 530; then, along County Road Route 530 to Magnolia Road, includes Pemberton Borough; then, south on Magnolia Road in Pemberton Township to Magnolia New Lisbon Road (Route 545); then, south on Mt.