Project Performance Evaluations
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Project Performance Evaluations

on

  • 335 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
335
Views on SlideShare
335
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Project Performance Evaluations Project Performance Evaluations Document Transcript

  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (WHEN COMPLETED) 1. CONTRACT NUMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION W9127N12C0005 NA (CONSTRUCTION) 2. DUNS NUMBER 060693512 IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete Part III - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse. PART I - GENERAL CONTRACT DATA3. TYPE OF EVALUATION (X one) 4. TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT INTERIM (List Percentage ________%) FINAL AMENDED X5. CONTRACTOR(Name, Address, and ZIP code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one) J.E. MCAMIS, INC. SEALED BID NEGOTIATED 45 JAN COURT, SUITE 160 X CHICO b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one) CA 95928 X FIRM FIXED PRICE COST REIMBURSEMENT NAICS Code: 237990 OTHER (Specify)7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORKBonneville Lock and Dam Spillway Stilling Basin Rock Removal, Multnomah County, OregonBonneville Lock & DamRemoval and disposal of approximately 500 CY of rock from the concrete ogee sections andfrom the midst of the concrete baffle blocks on the spillway tailrace apron. Gradationvaried from half inch pebbles to five foot boulders.8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING9% Diving Service a.AMOUNT OF BASIC b.TOTAL AMOUNT OF c.LIQUIDATED d.NET AMOUNT PAID9. FISCAL DATA CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS DAMAGES ASSESSED CONTRACTOR $770,294 $59,944 $0 $806,336 a.DATE OF AWARD b.ORIGINAL CONTRACT c.REVISED CONTRACT d.DATE WORK10. SIGNIFICANT`` DATES COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED 02/06/2012 03/31/2012 03/31/2012 03/08/2012 PART II - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block) X OUTSTANDING ABOVE AVERAGE SATISFACTORY MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in item 20 on reverse)12. EVALUATED BYa. ORGANIZATION ((Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - OFFICE PORTLAND 971-227-1724 DISTRICTc. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATEJOHN D. CANNONENGINEERING TECH13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BYa. ORGANIZATION ((Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)DD FORM 2626, JUN 94 USAPPC V1.01 EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSA-IRSM 6/94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (WHEN COMPLETED) CONTRACT NUMBER PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS W9127N12C0005 NA N/A = NOT APPLICABLE O = OUTSTANDING A = ABOVE AVERAGE S = SATISFACTORY M = MARGINAL U = UNSATISFACTORY15.QUALITY CONTROL N/A O A S M U 16.EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT N/A O A S M Ua. QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP X a. COOPERATION AND RESPONSIVENESS Xb. ADEQUACY OF THE CQC PLAN X b. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES /c. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CQC X PERSONNEL X PLAN c. COORDINATION AND CONTROL OFd. QUALITY OF QC X SUBCONTRACTORS X DOCUMENTATION d. ADEQUACY OF SITE CLEAN-UP Xe. STORAGE OF MATERIALS X e. EFFECTIVENESS OF JOB-SITEf. ADEQUACY OF MATERIALS X SUPERVISION Xg. ADEQUACY OF SUBMITTALS X f. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS ANDh. ADEQUACY OF QC TESTING X REGULATIONS Xi. ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILTS X g. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Xj. USE OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS X h. REVIEW/RESOLUTION OFk. IDENTIFICATION / CORRECTION X SUBCONTRACTORS ISSUES X OF DEFICIENT WORK IN A TIMELY i. IMPLEMENTATION OF MANNER SUBCONTRACTING PLAN X17.TIMELY PERFORMANCE 18.COMPLIANCE WITH LABORa. ADEQUACY OF INITIAL PROGRESS X STANDARDS SCHEDULE a. CORRECTION OF NOTED DEFICIENCIES Xb. ADHERENCE TO APPROVED X b. PAYROLLS PROPERLY COMPLETED SCHEDULE AND SUBMITTED Xc. RESOLUTION OF DELAYS X c. COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LAWSd. SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED X AND REGULATIONS WITH SPECIFIC ATTENTION OF THE DAVIS-BACON DOCUMENTATION X ACT AND EEO REQUIREMENTSe. COMPLETION OF PUNCHLIST X 19.COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY ITEMS STANDARDSf. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND X a. ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PLAN X REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES b. IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY PLAN Xg. WARRANTY RESPONSE X c. CORRECTION OF NOTED DEFICIENCIES X20.REMARKS (Explanation of unsatisfactory evaluation is required. Other comments are optional. Provide facts concerning specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in sufficient detail to assist contracting officers in determining the contractors responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.) EVALUATOR REMARKS: Quality of Workmanship: The contractors workmanship was excellent. All work was performed in a thorough and careful manner. Although the contract allowed all material 3 inches or smaller to remain, all material down to -inch gravel size was removed; this significantly improved the efficiency of their operation and reduced future exposure to the concrete structure. Adequacy of the CQC Plan: exceeded contract requirements; only minor corrections were necessary after the initial submission. Adequacy of Submittals: The CQC plan like other submittals was very well organized, presented in clear, concise, easy to follow packages requiring little or no corrections; they demonstrated McAmis thoroughly understood the contract requirements and addressed all aspects of work effectively. Adequacy of QC testing: A final walk-through was conducted in each spill bay to verify everything larger than 3 inches had been removed. The Contractor and the diving crew ensured that each bay was cleared in accordance with the contract prior to asking the Government for a final inspection; no final inspections needed to be re-done. Identification/Correction of Deficient Work in a Timely Manner: If a deficiency was noted, the contractors project manager, safety officer and QC staff made corrections quickly and without any hesitation. They were very proactive during the entire contract. Cooperation and Responsiveness: All members of the contractors staff were cooperative and responsive to the Corps of Engineers. Their Project Manager was readily available 24/7. The CEs Hazardous Energy Control Program lock-out system was being implemented at the same time site work began. The unique challenges in meeting the CEs protocols for the lock-out system as applied to floating plant and dive operations was a success due in large part to the professional and proactive manner in which the contractor conducted themselves in complying with the new system. Management of Resources/Personnel: J.E. McAmis exhibited excellent resource management. Adequate numbers of appropriately skilled personnel were assigned to efficiently execute the work; and equipment was maintained in top condition to eliminate breakdowns during the critical work window. They utilized very competent and diligent employees and subcontractors and quickly addressed any performance issues with their employees. This contract had a very short work window prior to spill season at Bonneville Dam; McAmis managed all resources and personnel to ensure the job was completed early and above expectations.DD FORM 2626, JUN 94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (WHEN COMPLETED) CONTRACT NUMBER PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS W9127N12C0005 NA Coordination and Control of Subcontractors: The contractor insured their subcontractors did not circumvent the established line of communications. The subcontractors reported to the prime contractors QC staff; any subcontractor deficiencies were quickly corrected. McAmis diving subcontractor, Cascade Diving, was very professional; they worked together as a well organized and efficient team which ensured that the contract was completed ahead of schedule. Adequacy of Site Clean-Up: J.E. McAmis maintained a very clean work-site including spotless floating plant equipment. The contractors diligence in this area was a contributing factor to the contractors excellent safety and environmental record on this project. Effectiveness of Job-Site Supervision: The job-site supervision by the contractor was maintained by the project manager, the QC manager, the job superintendent and the safety officer. The constant coordination among these individuals resulted in excellent job-site supervision. Having the project manager, safety officer and QC manager on-site every day throughout the course of project insured that the contract specifications were met with no recordable incidents or accidents. Compliance with Laws and Regulations: All contractor and subcontractors worked diligently to ensure all laws and regulations were met. Contractor and sub-contractor held daily meetings on the crew boat prior to the start of work to ensure that all everyone on the team (prime and sub) was on the same page. Review/Resolution of subcontracting issues: Having the Project manager and the Dive Supervisor on board daily, ensured there were no subcontractor issues. All communications between McAmis and Cascade diving were done professionally and daily. Adequacy of initial progress schedule: McAmis submitted a schedule that exceeds the contract requirements. The schedule showed all work activities in adequate detail prior to the start of work to demonstrate the work could be done within the work window allowed, utilizing the crews and equipment they had proposed. Resolution of delays: J.E. McAmis project manager and QC manager worked diligently to ensure their schedule and sub contractors schedule stayed on track 7 days a week. Additional rock was found in two bays; McAmis was able to adjust their work schedule to accommodate removal of the added rock as well as accommodate work by other contractors in the project work area. With work area adjustments and additional rock removal, they still completed all work 3 weeks ahead of schedule. Submission of required documentation: Contractor submitted all required safety, diving and other contract required documentation ahead of schedule and complete the first time. Completion of punch list items: J.E. McAmis was very willing and quick to respond to all safety deficiencies and work area cleanup that was required by contract. Submission of updated and revised progress schedule: This contract was completed in 10 days, during this quick contract the contractor kept Government personnel updated daily (at times hourly). With another contractor working within the same area at the same time, the schedule was changing daily and the contractor updated daily to ensure contract compliance. Adequacy of Safety Plan: The safety plan was thorough and complete. The contractor carefully developed a plan that would prevent accidents, and provide quick response in the event of an accident. Implementation of Safety Plan: Safety was fully supported from top management down to all crew and sub-contractors; a critical factor in implementing a successful safety program. The Contractor always talked safety first, then production. They continually updated their safety program to ensure safety on the project, and the safety record shows this; the contract was 12 hour/day, 7 day/week without any recordable incidents. Correction of noted deficiencies: All safety deficiencies and concerns that were brought up on site were corrected immediately.]DD FORM 2626, JUN 94
  • - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY J SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2 101 and 3.104 1. CONTRACT NUMBER W9127N09C0026 PERFORMANCE EVALUA1"ION (CONSTRUCTION) 2. CEC NUMBER 060693512 IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete Part III • Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse. PART I • GENERAL CONTRACT DATAM E OF EVALUATION (X one) nRMINATED FOR DEFAULT INTERIM (Ust percentage 1Qg %)5. CONTRACTOR (Name, Address, and ZIP Code) rxlFINAL I I AMENDED 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one)J.E. MCAMIS, INC.621 COUNTRY DRIVECHICO !xl SEALED BID ..e-J NEGOTIATEDCA 95928USANAICS Code: 237990 M b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one) FIRM FIXED PRICE OTHER (Specify) [=:J COST REIMBURSEMENT7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OFWORKColumbia River Channel Improvrnents (CRCI) Columbia River, Rock Removal 2009Columbia River, Columbia County, Saint Helens, ORAnd Clark County, Cowlitz County, WAColumbia River, Columbia County, Saint Helens, OR and Clark8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING29% Dredging8% Specialities 9. FISCAL DATA ... a. AMOUNT OF BASIC CONTRACT $54,175,699 b. TOTAL AMOUNT OF MODIFICATIONS $2,292,261 c. UQUIDATED DAMAGES ASSESSED d. NET AMOUNT PAID CONTRACTOR $56,216,718 10. SIGNIFICANT DATES ... a. DATE OF AWARD 07/16/2009 b. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE 12/31/2010 c. REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE 12/31/2010 d. DATEWORK ACCEPTED 11/03/2010 PART 11- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR 12. EVALUATED BY n 11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block)~ OUTSTANDING ABOVE AVERAGE n SATISFACTORY n MARGINAL n UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in Item 20 on reverse) a. ORGANIZATION {Name and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) : CORPS OF ENGINEERS 206-595-5338 c. NAME ANDTIT1.E d. SIGNATURE e. DATE JONES SIDNEY //Electronically Signed!! RESIDENT ENGINEER 12/28/2010 13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY a. ORGANIZATION {Name and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) USACE, PORTLAND 503-492-3570, x222 c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE J. REED MCDOWELL !/Electronically Signed!! ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER 01/14/2011 14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.) DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSAIIRMS 6·94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 PART III • EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTSNJA = NOT APPUCABLE 0 = OUTSTANDING A = ABOVE AVERAGE S = SATISFACTORY M = MARGINAL x e. COMPLETION OF PUNCHLIST x ITEMS f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND x REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES20. REMARKS (Explanation of unsatisfactory evaluation is required. Other comments are optional. Provide facts concerning specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in sufficient detail to assist contracting officers in determining the contractors responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)Small Business UtilizationDoes this contract include a subcontracting plan? YesIs small business subcontracting under this contract included in a comprehensive sma11 business subcontracting plan? YesIs smaIl business subcontracting under this contract included in a commercia] small business subcontracting plan? YesDate of last Individual Subcontracting Report (lSR) I Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR): 09/30nOlOEVALUATOR REMARKS; Quality of Workmanship: The contractors workmanship was excellent.All work was performed in a thorough and careful manner. An example of this was during the blasting and dredging of blasted material. The contractor rarely had to return to an acceptance area to re-dredge a high spot. In most cases the government post-dredge survey revealed an acceptance area clean to the minimum depth. Adequacy of the CQC Plan: J.E. McAmis submitted an extensive CQC plan. The CQC plan (per contract requirement) included a large and comprehensive blasting plan. The CQC plan met contract requirements and very few corrections were necessary after the initial submission. Identification/Correction of Deficient Work in a Timely Manner: Any time a deficiency was noted, the contractors project manager, safety officer and QC staff corrected the deficiency quickly. Cooperation and Responsiveness: All members of the contractors staff were cooperative and responsive to the Corps of Engineers. In particular, the project manager was very available 24/7 and cooperated with the Corps of Engineers personnel. No request for equitable adjustment was requested. All modifications were settled promptly and fairly Management of Resources/Personnel: J.E. McAmis exhibited excellent management practices in the way they managed their resources and personnel. They maintained their equipment in a manner that prevented breakdowns during critical time periods. They hired competent and diligent employees and quickly addressed any performance issues with their employees. DD FORM 2626 (BACK), JUN 94
  • FOR OFACIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 20. REMARKS ( ... continued) They spent nearly $lM replacing all hydraulic hoses on their excavator to avoid downtime and oil spills. This was done even when hoses were not ready to be replaced. Coordination and Control of Subcontractors: The contractor insured that subcontractors did not circumvent the established line of communications. The subcontractors reported to the prime contractors QC staff; any subcontractor deficiencies were quickly corrected. Adequacy of Site Clean-Up: J.E. McAmis maintained an extremely clean work-site and equipment. The contractors diligence in this area was a contributing factor to the contractors excellent safety and environmental record on this project. Effectiveness of Job-Site Supervision: The job-site supervision by the contractor was maintained by the project manager, the QC manager, the job superintendent and the safety officer. The excellent coordination among these individuals resulted in excellent job-site supervision. Having the project manager, safety officer and QC manager on-site daily throughout the course of project insured that the contract specifications were met with no lost time accidents. Professional Conduct: All contractor employees and sub contract employees were professional on a daily basis, as this job worked on a 24/7 basis working holidays and weekends to ensure project was completed on time. During blasting operation all project personnel had a positive attitude even in severe weather conditions.Adherence to approved schedule: J.E. McAmis project manager and QC manager worked diligently to ensure their schedule and sub contractors schedule stayed on track through the holidays when the project encountered additional rock area. Their willingness to! change their schedules around the holidays ensured that the project was completed well ahead of schedule. J.E. McAmis completed this difficult project over two months ahead of schedule. Outstanding. Resolution of delays: When concerns about sub-contractor scheduled completion, prime contractor held weekly meetings to address scheduled completion, subcontractor plan for additional dredges, and prime contractors dredge staying local to ensure the project was completed on schedule. Prime contractors management personnel ensured that the contract was completed well ahead of schedule. Completion of punchlist items: J.E. McAmis was very willing and quick to respond to all safety deficiencies and work area cleanup that was required by contract. Corrections of noted deficiencies: Contractor payrolls were submitted on time and accurate week after week. When there were minor deficiencies noted, the contractor quickly corrected the deficiencies. Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention of the Davis-Bacon Act and EEO requirements: All payrolls were accurately paid and processed per the Davis bacon wage decision. There were many different zones and classification to meet the federal wage decision in the contract. J.E. McAmis payrolls were correct week after week with very few changes made to their original plan. They met difficult environmental criteria while using explosives in the river. They exceeded the criteria to protect biological fish species and the environment. Adequacy of Safety Plan: The safety plan was thorough and complete. The contractor carefully developed a plan that would prevent accidents. unnecessary accidents and provide quick response to un-preventable accidents. Implementation of Safety Plan: From the contractors home office all the way down to the deck hands. the safety plan was carefully followed. J.E. McAmis was constantly updating their safety program to ensure safety on the project. This contract was a 24 hour a day 7 day a week project in the toughest weather months du~ to wo~k windows. while.working around hazardous materials. tough stretches of the r~ver. w~thout any lost t~me or recordable injuries. Correction of noted deficiencies: All safety deficiencies and concerns that were brought up on site were corrected immediately. The onsite crews for the contractor and subcontractor were involved from day one with the safety plan. J.E. McAmis and crew worked diligently to ensure there were no recordable accidents on this project. CONTRACTOR REMARKS: All the Portland District representatives working on this project deserve an overall rating of Outstanding. CONCURRENCE: I concur with this evaluation. DD FORM 2626 (CONTINUED), JUN 94 3
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.10420. REMARKS ( ... continued)CONTRACTOR NAME: PATTY GILLETTTITLE: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORPHONE: 5308915061DATE: 01/13/2011REVIEWER REMARKS: This evaluation has been reviewed and validated. DO FORM 2626 (CONTINUED), JUN 94 4
  • . FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2 101 and 3.104 . 1. CONTRACT NUMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DACW1703COOO4 (CONSTRUCTION) 2. CEC NUMBER INCOMPLETE-REVIEWED 060693512 IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete Part III - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse. PART I • GENERAL CONTRACT DATAM E OF EVAlUATION (X one) ~RMINATED FOR DEFAULT INTERIM (list peroentsge %) rxlFlNAL I IAMENDED5. CONTRACTOR (Nartle, Address, and ZIP Code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one)J. E. MCAMIS , INC.621 COUNTRY DRIVECHICO !Xl SEAlED BID I INEGOTIATEDCA 95928 lone) IUSANAICS Code: 000000 r=q- b. TYPE OF CONTRACT FIRM FIXED ~RlCE OTHER lSpecIfy) COST REIMBURSEMENT7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OFWORKRestoration of the submerged shallow water habitat for fisheries and wildlife. Excavateand remove dredged material deposits, construction of an exterior reef stabilizatinbreakwater, clearing and chipping of exotic vegetation.Palm Beach County, Florida8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTINGPile, Dock, Bridge - 6%Concrete, CUrb, Pavers - 1.4%Clearing - 1. 2%Landscaping, Irrigation - 1%9. FISCAL DATA .... a. AMOUNT OF BASIC CONTRACT $25,765,270 b. TOTAL AMOUNT OF MODIFICATIONS $5,306,383 c. UQUIDATED DAMAGES ASSESSED d. NET AMOUNT PAID CONTRACTOR $31,071,55310. SIGNIFICANT DATES .... a. DATE OF AWARD 02/26/2003 b. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE OS/29/2006 c. REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE 07/28/2006 d. DATEWORK ACCEPTED 07/08/2005 PART II • PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORn11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block) OUTSTANDING12. EVALUATED BY r:l ABOVE AVERAGE n SATISFACTORY 0 MARGINAL n UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in Item 20 on reverse) a. ORGANIZATION (Nama and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - OFFICE WEST PALM RESIDENT OFFICE 561-472-3513 c. NAME ANDnn.E d. SIGNATURE e. DATEWALTER D. WOOD, P.E. //E1ectronically Signed//RESIDENT ENGINEER 04/29/200913. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY a. ORGANIZATION (Nartle and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) c. NAME ANDnTLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSAtlRMS 6-94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 3.104 PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTSNlA = NOT APPUCABLE 0:: OUTSTANDING A:: ABOVE AVERAGE S = SATISFACTORY M = MARGINAL U • UNSATISFACTORY b. PAYROLLS PROPERLY COMPLETED AND SUBMITIED C. .I...."Vlr·LI...."L•.., AND REGULATIONS WITH SPECIFIC x ATIENTION TO THE DAVIS-BACON e. COMPLETION OF PUNCHLIST x ITEMS f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND x REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES20. REMARKS (Explsnation of unsatisfacfoty evaluation is required. comments are optional. facts concerning specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in sufficient detail to assist contracting officers in detarmining the contractors responsibility. Continue on sepamte sheet(s). If needed.) Small Business UtilizationDoes this contract include a subcontract!ng plan? NoIs small business subcontracting under this contract included in a comprehensive small business subcontracting plan? NIAIs small business subcon~ under this contract included in a commercial small business subcontracting plan? N/ADate oflast Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) t Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR): NtAEVALUATOR REMARKS: 15e. The contractor stored the majority of the materials for thisproject (limestone and granite stone) within close proximity of the Area Office and theproject site for easy quality and quantity inspections.15k. The "Y" groin was originally constructed by a subcontractor and was determined to bedeficient. The contractor took it upon himself to dismantle and re-construct thisfeature of work with quality results.16a. The contractor worked around two potential costly delays. Florida Power and Light (FPL) was supposed to re-Iocate a power line on Peanut Island prior to start of work.FPL failed to perform this task and the contractor worked around the power lines ratherthan go on standby until they were re-Iocated. During the Lake worth WetlandRestoration, the contractor encountered a "mud wave" while constructing the Snook Islands. The contractor elected to continue working while a determination was made as to the contractual liability of the situation, rather than stand by for a determination. 16g. The contractor worked closely with the Corps and customerS in making sure thevegetation/landscaping on Peanut Island and Lake Worth Wetland Restoration was to the satisfaction of the customer. The contractor also worked closely with the customer onperforming hurricane damage modifications which included beach sand placement and dredging of shoaled areas. 16h. See 15k. 17b. The contractor was substantially complete 12 months ahead of the contract completion DD FORM 2626 (BACK). JUN 94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SSLEcnON INFORMAnON - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.1048. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING ( ... continued)Fencing - 0.5%Electrical - 0.41%20. REMARKS ( ... continued)date. 17c. See 16a. The contractor worked around these potential delay issues which potentially could have cost the Government a considerable amount of money. CONTRACTOR REMARKS: Complex project with multiple design changes. Contractor was able to resolve and negotiate issues with SFAO to complete project ahead of schedule. CONCURRENCE: I concur with this evaluation. CONTRACTOR NAME: PATTY GILLETT TITLE: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PHONE: 5308915061 DATE: 05/06/2009 00 FORM 2626 (CONTINUED). JUN 94 3
  • · FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 and 3 104 1. CONTRACT NUMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION W91.2EP04C0031. (CONSTRUCTION) 2. CEC NUMBER 0606935J.2 IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete Part III - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse.n OF EVALlIATION (X one) INTERIM (Ust 97 %) PART 1- GENERAL CONTRACT DATA r-lFiNAL [!JAMENDED MRMINATED FOR DEFAULT 5. CONTRACToR (Name, Address. and ZIP Code)J.E. MCAMIS, INC. 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one)62J. COUNTRY DRIVECHICOCALIFORNIA 95928 !Xl SEALED BID r=J NEGOTIATED b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one)USANAICS Code: 237990 t!:( FIRM FIXED PRICE OTHER~Speclfy) c::J COST REIMBURSEMENT7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORK114182 Canaveral Harbor North JettyThis project consists of sand-tightening and raising a portion of the existing northjetty to an elevation varying between +10 to +12 feet MLW. In addition, the jetty will beextended 300 feet to the east at an elevation of +7.5 feet MLW with sand-tightening tofurther improve its sand impounding capability. The method of construction will includeplacement of additional armor, core and bedding stone with a composite geogrid/geotextilebarrier to assure sand-tightening along the existing jetty portion. The 300-footextension will be sand-tightened with an internal steel sheetpile core. Magnitude of ~C<lIltinued8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACnNG0 subcontracted. a. AMOUNT OF BASIC b. TOTAL AMOUNT OF c. UQUIDATED d. NET AMOUNT PAID9. FISCAL DATA ~ CONTRACT $3,479,950 MODIFICATIONS $3,180,331 DAMAGES ASSESSED CONTRACToR $6,660,28J. a. DATE OF AWARD b. ORIGINAL CONTRACT c. REVISED CONTRACT d. DATEWORK10. SIGNIFICANT DATES ~ J.0/08/2004 COMPLETION DATE 04/25/2005 COMPLETION DATE 12/0J./2005 ACCEPTED J.2/0J./2005 PART n- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORn11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block) OUTSTANDING12. EVALUATED BY r:l ABOVE AVERAGE n SATISFACTORY n MARGINAL n UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in Item 20 on reverse) a. ORGANIZATION (Name and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER(lncIt.KIe ARIa Code)USACE, 4070 BOULBVlUID CENTER DRIVE, JACKSONVILLE , FL 32207 904-232-2086 c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE •• DATERUSS TOLLE //Electronically Signed//AREA ENGINEER 11/25/200813. EVALlIATION REVIEWED BY a. ORGANIZATION (Name and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include AnIa Code)SAD REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER 904-232 3972 c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE •• DATEGRISSELLE GONZALEZ //Electronically Signed//CONTRACTING OFFICER 02/19/200914. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSAIIRMS 6-94
  • FOR ONLY I SOURCE INFORMATION. SEE 2.101 and 3.104 PART III ~ EVALUAnON OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTSNlA • NOT APPUCABLE O· OUTSTANDING A. ABOVE AVERAGE S. SAnSFACTORY M. MARGINAL x e. COMPLETION OF PUNCHLIST x ITEMS f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND x REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES20. REMARKS (Explanation of unsatisfactory evaluation is required. Other comments are optional. Provide facts concfJming specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in suft1clent detail to assist contracting officers in determining the contractors responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)Small Business UtilizationDoes this contract include a subcon~ plan? N/AIs small business subcontracting under thiS contract included in a comprehensive smaIl business subcontracting plan? N/AIs small business subcontJ.:8Cting under this contract included in a commercial smaIl business subeontmcting plan? N/ADate oflast Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) I SUmmary Subcontracting Report (SSR): NIAEVALUATOR REMARKS: Contractor provided on time, informative CQC reporting in a clear and concise format. Contractor properly segregated rock and materials onsite in a well organized and accessible fashion. Rock, sheetpile and geotextile material used of the highest quality. Contractor took painstaking efforts in establishing specified neatline of rock and made considerable efforts in reduction of voids in rock placement. Despite numerous obstacles to this project by the Permitting officials of Canaveral National Seashore, contractor persevered and was able to secure required permits in a relatively timely manner. Contractor kept sufficient workforce onsite at all times to address workloads and was properly manned with skilled members to address all contract requirements. Site was left in a pristine condition with contractor providing cleanup efforts that exceeded site condition upon original start. CQC was onsite daily and was observed overseeing work efforts personally at all times. Contractor addressed impacts and delays in a courteous fashion and endeavored to resolve conflicts in a professional and expedient manner Contractor provided timely, accurate and properly formatted payroll documentation supported by COE labor interviews and payroll checks. Contractor paid wages in accordance with specified overtime requirements and upheld laws DO FORM 2626 (BACK), JUN 94
  • FOR OffiCIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.1047. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORK ( ... continued) construction is between $1,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00. The performance period will be 150 calendar days from notice to proceed. Canaveral Harbor, Florida 20. REMARKS ( ... continued)regarding workplace discrimination with respect to payment to workers. Despite working in an environment with numerous marine as well as land based hazards, contractor maintained an accident free operation in which safety was of paramount importance. A deficiency checklist was maintained onsite with all deficiencies addressed in a timely and efficient manner. CONTRACTOR REMARKS: Very professional staff. Several months passed while working on issues which was frustrating at times, but when all was said and done we worked together and resolved remaining issues. CONCURRENCE: I concur with this evaluation. CONTRACTOR NAME: PATTY GILLETT TITLE: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PHONE: 530-891-5061 DATE: 12/08/2008 REVIEWER REMARKS: I concur with Evaluator and Contractor Rep comments. DO FORM 2626 (CONTINUED). JUN 94 3
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2101 and 3104 1. CONTRACTNUMSER W9127N07COOO9 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION) 2. CEC NUMBER 060693512 IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete Part III - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse. PART I - GENERAL CONTRACT DATAn E OF EVALUATION (X one) ~RMINATED FOR DEFAULT INTERIM (Ust percentage 96 %) lXlFINAL r1AMENDED5. CONTRACTOR (Name, Address, and ZiP Code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X ane)J.E. MCAMIS, INC.621 COUNTRY DRIVECHICO iii SEALED BID r I NEGOTIATEDCA 95928 b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X ane)USA ~ FIRM FIXED PRICE c=:J COST REIMBURSEMENTNAICS Code: 237990 OTHER (Specify) 7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OFWORK Consolidated Material Removal, Columbia River Channel Improvement Project (RM 104+20 to 105+25) . Dredged consolidated material using a barge-mounted hydraulic excavator dipper dredge. Material dredged by prime contractor was predominantly gravel. Gravel was generally cobble-size, but included some boulders up to 10-ft diameter. Material dredged by prime contractor was deposited in-water using bottom-dumping scows. 8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING 12% Dredging Subcontractor dredged overlying strata of sand with clamshell bucket and transported material using flat-deck barges to private upland disposal site. a. AMOUNT OF BASIC b. TOTAL AMOUNT OF c. UQUIDATED d. NET AMOUNT PAID ~ CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS DAMAGES ASSESSED CONTRACTOR 9. FISCAL DATA $9,591,021 $9,813,000 $79,278 a. DATE OF AWARD b. ORIGINAL CONTRACT c. RenSEDCONTRACT d. DATEWORK ~ 10. SIGNIFICANT COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED DATES 04/20/2007 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 02/20/2008 PART" - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR ~ OUTSTANDING n 11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block) ABOVE AVERAGE n SATISFACTORY n MARGINAL n UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in Item 20 on reverse) 12. EVALUATED BY a. ORGANIZATION (Name and Address (Include ZIP Code» b. TELEPHONE NUMBER(/ncJuda Area Code) 503-661-2420 us ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1060 NW CORPORATE DR., TROUTDALE, OR 97060 d. SIGNATURE e. DATE c. NAME AND TITLE JEFFREY S. EDWARDS, F. G. FE/QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE 03/23/2008 13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area a. ORGANIZATION (Name and Address (Include ZIP ,Code» Code) 503-492-3570 x222 USACE PORTLAND d. SIGNATURE e. DATE c. NAME AND TITLE J. REED MCDOWELL ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER 03/26/2008 14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSA/lRMS&.94 DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG)
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE INFORMA110N -SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTSNIA =NOT APPUCABLE 0 = OUTSTANDING A = ABOVE AVERAGE S = SATISFACTORY M = MARGINAL h. REVIEW/RESOLUTION OF SUBCONTRACTORS ISSUES i. IMPLEMENTATION OF x SUBCONTRACTING PLAN b. PAYROLLS PROPERLY COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED C. l klM,#1 I,"N, >t- AND REGULATIONS WITH SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE DAVIS-BACON e. COMPLETION OF -U!IIuMLlI" x ITEMS f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND x REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES20. REMARKS (Explanation of unsatisfactory evaluation is required. Other comments are optional. Provide facts concerning specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in sufficient detail to assist contracting oftic:ers in determining the contractors responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)EVALUATOR REMARKS: Contractor did an outstanding job dredging material to the requireddepth and finished approximately two months ahead of contract completion date. Contractorproficiently operated equipment in a variety of conditions, and was able to dredge avariety of consolidated material including boulders up to lO-ft in diameter. Thehydraulic equipment utilized by the Contractor was in excellent condition and perfectlysuited for the work.Contractor maintained quality control on a regular basis using hydrosurveys which matchedup with Government hydrosurveys very closely. Contractor also conducted more frequent hydrosurveys when nearing completion of an acceptance area to ensure the area was dredged clean required grade. Quality control reports, including water monitoring reports, were submitted in a timely manner. Contractor was very responsive when quality deficiencies were encountered and corrected deficiencies in a timely manner. Contractor regularly updated schedules and was cooperative in working around shipping traffic and able to maintain schedule. Contractor kept supervision staff at adequate levels throughout contract, and supervisors communicated well with Corps personnel, including management participation in partnering process. Supervisors and workers conducted themselves in a professional manner at all times. Contractor emphasized safety with weekly safety meetings and completed work without any lost time accidents. Contractor maintained full time SSHO coverage. CONTRACTOR REMARKS; The Portland District deserves an overall rating of Outstanding also. Very professional, receptive and responsive. DO FORM 2626 (BACK), JUN 94
  • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.10420. REMARKS ( ... continued) CONCURRENCE: I concur with this evaluation. CONTRACTOR NAME: PATTY GILLETT TITLE: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PHONE: 530-891-5061 DATE: 03/26/2008 REVIEWER REMARKS: Evaluation validated. DO FORM 2626 (CONTINUED). JUN 94 3
  • R~r~l/J:"n FOR IAI wu:: ONLY (WHEN COMPLETED) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 1. CONTRACT NUMBER JUl 1 9 2007 W9l2PL07COOO5 NA ()~~Ir~ ()~ (CONSTRUCTION) 2. DUNS NUMBER 060693512 J. {;.,~!~ sure to complete Part 11/ - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse. PART 1- GENERAL CONTRACT DATA3. TYPE OF EVALUATION (X one)h INTERIM (List Percentage %) !xl FINAL nAMENDED 4. TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT 05. CONTRACTOR (Name, Address, and ZIP code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one) J.E. McAmis, Inc. 621 Country Drive Chico Iil SEALED BID n NEGOTIATED I b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one) CA 95928 NAICS Code: 237990 X I-- ­ FIRM FIXED PRICE . D COST REIMBURSEMENT OTHER (Specify)7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORKMaintenance Dredging in Marina del Rey, California.Marina del Rey, CA8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING0% subcontracted. a.AMOUNT OF BASIC b.TOTAL AMOUNT OF c.LIQUIDATED d.NET AMOUNT PAID9. FISCAL DATA CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS DAMAGES ASSESSED CONTRACTOR $2,398,750 -$28,212 $0 $2,370,438 a.DATE OF AWARD b.ORlGINAL CONTRACT c.REVISED CONTRACT d.DATEWORK10. SIGNIFICANT DATES COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED 11/30/2006 03/28/2007 03/2812007 03115/2007 PART 11- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block)~ OUTSTANDING r--l ABOVE AVERAGE r--l SATISFACTORY nMARGINAL r--l UNSATISFACTORY (Explain in item 20 on reverse)12. EVALUATED BYa. ORGANIZATION «Name and Address (Include Zip Code) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) .S Arm Corps of Engineers - Office Los Angeles ( 626) 401-4084 PrO] ect fHce6c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e.DATEStanley Fujimoto.Contracting Officer Representative ~-C-~ 5),/ 0 713. EVALUATION REVIEWED BYa. ORGANIZATION «Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e.DATE14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 USAPPC V1.01 EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSA-IRSM 6/94
  • PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS FOR ()FIOU:IAI USE ONI V MlHEN COMPLETEDl I CONTRACT NUMBER W912PL07COOOS NA N/A NOT APPLICABLE 0 OUTSTANDING A - ABOVE AVERAGE S - SATISFACTORY M=MARGINAL U = UNSATISFACTORY1S.QUALITY CONTROL N/A O.A S M U 16.EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT N/A 0 A S M Ua. QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP X a. COOPERATION AND RESPONSIVENESS Xb. ADEQUACY OF THE CQC PLAN X b. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES I X PERSONNEL Xc. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CQC PLAN c. COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF X SUBCONTRACTORS Xd. QUALITY OF QC DOCUMENTATION d. ADEQUACY OF SITE CLEAN-UP Xe. STORAGE OF MATERIALS X e. EFFECTIVENESS OF JOB-SITE X SUPERVISION Xf. ADEQUACY OF MATERIALSI g. ADEQUACY OF SUBMITIALS X f. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND X REGULATIONS Xh. ADEQUACY OF QC TESTINGi. ADEQUACY OF AS-BUlLTS X I Q. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT XIi. USE OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS X h. REVIEWIRESOLUTION OF X SUBCONTRACTORS ISSUES Xk. IDENTIFICATION I CORRECTION OF DEFICIENT WORK IN A TIMELY i. IMPLEMENTATION OF MANNER SUBCONTRACTING PLAN X17.TIMELY PERFORMANCE IS.COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR X STANDARDSa. ADEQUACY OF INITIAL PROGRESS SCHEDULE a. CORRECTION OF NOTED DEFICIENCIES X b. ADHERENCE TO APPROVED X b. PAYROLLS PROPERLY COMPLETED SCHEDULE AND SUBMITIED X c. RESOLUTION OF DELAYS X c. COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LAWS X AND REGULATIONS WITH SPECIFIC d. SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED ATrENTION OF THE DAVIS-BACON DOCUMENTATION ACT AND EEO REQUIREMENTS X e. COMPLETION OF PUNCHLIST X 19.COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY ITEMS STANDARDS f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND X a. ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PLAN X REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES b. IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY PLAN XI Q. WARRANTY RESPONSE X c. CORRECTION OF NOTED DEFICIENCIES X 20.REMARKS (Explanation of unsatisfactory evaluation is required. Other comments are optional. Provide facts concerning specific events or actions to justify the evaluation. These data must be in sufficient detail to assist contracting officers in determining the contractors responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s). if needed.) EVALUATOR REMARKS: 1. Contractor utilized modern, state of the art equipment so work was performed in a clean, concise manner. 2. Local Sponsor was very demanding and contractor went well out of their way to accommodate numerous requests/demands from the Local Sponsor. These requests were related to land use, water/dock use, ferrying Local Sponsor reps all around the job and the equipment, etc. Contractor was already complying with contract requirements but the Local Sponsor made stricter demands. 3. Contractors equipment met Federal air quality standards, but local air quality board had stricter standards. Contractor made changes to exhaust system, at a substantial cost, to accoITIDodate the air q~ality board. These shanges created down time for the equipment. The contractor 4. The s~ecifications allowed different methods to perform the work. ~lanned t e work and chose the method that minimized the impact to local community. . Contractors paperwork was always current, somethin~ you dont see very often. 6. Contractor finished on time, despite down time crea ed by local air quality board and bothersome demands from Local Sponsor. 7. Contractor kept detailed records of work completed and shared this information freely with USACE. Contractor modified original format of these records to accommodate USACE information needs. DD FORM 2626, JUN 94