W912QR25R0019 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

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 15

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912QR25R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Sep-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

29-Oct-2025

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE

600 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PLACE

ROOM 821

LOUISVILLE KY 40202-2239

W912QR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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:

AMENDMENT 0002

FY25 SDVOSB MATOC

W912QR25R0019

Amendment 0002

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Evaluation Criteria Section 00 22 12 Paragraph 5.1.7 has been revised as follows:

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

Proposal due date remains 31 October 2025 at 1300PM ET.

-End of changes-

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 12

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to target seven (7) Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) contractors for a Design Bid Build (DBB) Firm Fixed Price Indefinite- Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Pool for projects within the Louisville District Area of Responsibility to support the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force partners, U.S. Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserves.

1.2 The sample project has an estimated cost range between $5,000,000.00 and $10,000,000.00.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 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 electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation. Please follow the instructions precisely as proposals must complete the upload no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442. NOTE:

The Louisville District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.3 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 electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation.

2.4 The complete Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

*NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab 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) may not be evaluated.

2.5 Volume II shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions in Section 00 21 00 of the solicitation and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule 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: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. The Government comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals (Volume I) 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.

3.2 The evaluation process consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility review, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance/Review: The Government will conduct an initial review to determine whether the offeror has submitted a complete and compliant proposal.

Offeror proposal compliance will not be evaluated by the government, but the proposal compliance review will verify RFP compliance and whether the offeror submitted all proposal data requested in Volume I. Proposals which do not include the information required for Volume I, consequently, may be deemed ineligible for award, and may not be further evaluated.

3.2.2 Non-Price Evaluation: The Government will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals. Factor I – Past Performance will be rated using Tables 1 and 2 below. The rating will be based on overall confidence in performance, with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience and the quality of the offeror’s performance. Factor II – Technical Approach will be rated using Table 3 below.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Part

15.404 independent of the Past Performance and Technical evaluations. Price will be evaluated based on the proposed binding rates and the proposed price of the Sample Task Order. Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Proposed pricing will be checked for unbalanced line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately such that no line item is overstated or understated. The Government will also confirm that the proposed binding rates are priced into the Sample Task Order.

Proposals that do not utilize the proposed binding rates will be considered deficient.

3.2.4 Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting

Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of non-price proposals.. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 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.

4.2 Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance 1st

4.3 Volume I – Factor II – Technical Approach 2nd

4.4 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information (Sealed Envelope)

Tab A Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedule 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 l 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 demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I: Past Performance

5.1 Submission Requirements:

5.1.1 Provide descriptions of up to three (3) projects substantially completed within the last five (5) years (from the solicitation issue date), that are similar to this sample project in size, scope and complexity, where the interested firm served as the prime contractor. Projects completed more than five (5) years before the solicitation issue date may be considered, however, could be evaluated as less relevant.

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 and it is considered ready for its intended use. 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.

5.1.2 Projects considered similar in size are a minimum of 5,000 square feet. This square footage may be a combination of multiple facilities, provided all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in scope and complexity to this project shall be Design/Bid/Build projects for renovation or new construction of warehouses, office/administrative spaces, research laboratories, vehicle maintenance facilities, storage facilities, hangars, infrastructure additions/improvements, dining facilities, data centers, airfield replacement, secure rooms, or minor repair projects.

5.1.4 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 15% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

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

a) Demonstrated new construction and/or renovation successfully performed for USACE.

b) Design-Bid-Build projects that are considered to be more complex including, but not limited to, research laboratories, data centers, secure rooms that are ICD 705 compliant, or ISO 5 and 6 clean rooms.

c) Demonstrated experience in successfully completing projects within the Louisville District Area of Responsibility (AOR).

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 in square feet, differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation if the project includes both

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

f) Customer Primary Point of Contact (POC) and alternate POC (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address)

******** AMENDMENT 0002*******************************************************

5.1.7 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these non-federal 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. A PPQ should only be provided for non-federal projects and must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submision and not sent directly to the agency for reference. For each project, the offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s respective corrective action.

**********************AMENDMENT 0002****************************************

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 The Government 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 Government 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 The Government 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Offerors submitting past performance projects which have been assigned ratings in CPARS should include the record as part of their submission so that the Government may assess the quality of their performance as part of the overall confidence assessment. 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 Government will review all past performance information collected and 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 Government will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessment table above, based on the Government’s assessment of (1) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

*******AMENDMENT 0001*********************************************************

6.0 Volume I – Factor II: Technical Approach

6.1 Submission Requirements:

6.1.1 Provide a technical approach narrative for the overall MATOC as well as the sample project that describes how your labor, resources, designers, subcontractors, and material suppliers will be managed, supervised, coordinated, and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Additionally, the

Technical Approach shall explain how you plan to execute multiple simultaneous or concurrent task orders in varying locations throughout the area of responsibility. For the sample project, your Technical Approach should also specifically address the following:

Identify significant areas of risk and provide your plan for mitigating risk during task order performance.

Describe your process for managing, coordinating, and tracking changes that arise during task order performance.

Provide an organizational chart showing home office support, on-site management, and the responsible chain of command. JV offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart.

NOTE: There is a page limit of ten (10) pages, using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides, for the Technical Approach Factor, excluding the organizational chart.

**********AMENDMENT 0001************************************************

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Technical Approach narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the work required by task orders and the involvement the contractor will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed during construction. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of task order execution requirements and provide a detailed approach for successfully managing multiple task orders simultaneously may be rated more favorably by the Government.

The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities, and strengths for successfully managing the sample project.

7.0 Volume II - Price and Proforma Information

7.1 Tab A - Standard Form 1442 and Price Breakout Schedules

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442 and Section 00 10 00, Price Breakout Schedules (Binding Rate Schedule and CLIN Schedule). Both forms are included in section 00 10 00 of the Solicitation. The Sample Task Order price proposal shall provide documentation confirming use of the proposed Binding Rates. Additional cost information is NOT required at this time and should NOT be submitted.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

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

Price will be evaluated using each Offeror’s Binding Rates (base plus options) and the total price from the Price Breakout Schedule of the Sample Task Order. When combined, the Binding Rates and the Sample Task Order pricing make up the total evaluated price.

The Government will evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15.404. Price will be evaluated for completeness, fairness, and reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Proposed pricing will be checked for unbalanced line items. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately such that no line item is overstated or understated. The Government will analyze the price reasonableness of the binding hourly rates submitted, for all five years of the ordering period. The binding rates proposed must be used in establishing the Sample Task Order Price proposed.

The Government will analyze the Offeror-derived price proposal breakdown to confirm that the Sample Task Order utilizes the same critical key personnel/job titles at the same binding rates submitted by the Offeror. Proposals that do not utilize the binding rates proposed to calculate the price for the Sample Task Order will be considered unawardable.

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 Responsibility 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 a single project as well as aggregate projects. Include the name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's bonding company.

7.3.2 Responsibility 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

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

7.4.2 Responsibility 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.

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.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

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)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

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)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

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)

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

W912QR25R0019

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability, or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets, and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

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

Yes No

e) If 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):

(End of Summary of Changes)