1.
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 DATA
3. TYPE OF EVALUATION (X one) 4. TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT
INTERIM (List Percentage ________%) FINAL AMENDED
X
5. 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 WORK
Bonneville Lock and Dam Spillway Stilling Basin Rock Removal, Multnomah County, Oregon
Bonneville Lock & Dam
Removal and disposal of approximately 500 CY of rock from the concrete ogee sections and
from the midst of the concrete baffle blocks on the spillway tailrace apron. Gradation
varied from half inch pebbles to five foot boulders.
8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
9% Diving Service
a.AMOUNT OF BASIC b.TOTAL AMOUNT OF c.LIQUIDATED d.NET AMOUNT PAID
9. 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 WORK
10. SIGNIFICANT`` DATES COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED
02/06/2012 03/31/2012 03/31/2012 03/08/2012
PART II - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR
11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block)
X OUTSTANDING ABOVE AVERAGE SATISFACTORY MARGINAL UNSATISFACTORY (Explain
in item 20 on reverse)
12. EVALUATED BY
a. ORGANIZATION ((Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - OFFICE PORTLAND 971-227-1724
DISTRICT
c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE
JOHN D. CANNON
ENGINEERING TECH
13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY
a. ORGANIZATION ((Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)
c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE
14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)
DD FORM 2626, JUN 94 USAPPC V1.01 EXCEPTION TO SF 1420
APPROVED BY GSA-IRSM 6/94

2.
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 = UNSATISFACTORY
15.QUALITY CONTROL N/A O A S M U 16.EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT N/A O A S M U
a. QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP X a. COOPERATION AND RESPONSIVENESS X
b. ADEQUACY OF THE CQC PLAN X b. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES /
c. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CQC X PERSONNEL X
PLAN c. COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF
d. QUALITY OF QC X SUBCONTRACTORS X
DOCUMENTATION d. ADEQUACY OF SITE CLEAN-UP X
e. STORAGE OF MATERIALS X e. EFFECTIVENESS OF JOB-SITE
f. ADEQUACY OF MATERIALS X SUPERVISION X
g. ADEQUACY OF SUBMITTALS X f. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND
h. ADEQUACY OF QC TESTING X REGULATIONS X
i. ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILTS X g. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT X
j. USE OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS X h. REVIEW/RESOLUTION OF
k. IDENTIFICATION / CORRECTION X SUBCONTRACTOR'S ISSUES X
OF DEFICIENT WORK IN A TIMELY i. IMPLEMENTATION OF
MANNER
SUBCONTRACTING PLAN X
17.TIMELY PERFORMANCE 18.COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR
a. ADEQUACY OF INITIAL PROGRESS X STANDARDS
SCHEDULE a. CORRECTION OF NOTED DEFICIENCIES X
b. ADHERENCE TO APPROVED X b. PAYROLLS PROPERLY COMPLETED
SCHEDULE AND SUBMITTED X
c. RESOLUTION OF DELAYS X c. COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LAWS
d. SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED X AND REGULATIONS WITH SPECIFIC
ATTENTION OF THE DAVIS-BACON
DOCUMENTATION X
ACT AND EEO REQUIREMENTS
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 X
g. 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
contractor's responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)
EVALUATOR REMARKS: Quality of Workmanship: The contractor's 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 contractor's 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 contractor's staff were cooperative
and responsive to the Corps of Engineers. Their Project Manager was readily available
24/7. The CE's Hazardous Energy Control Program lock-out system was being implemented at
the same time site work began. The unique challenges in meeting the CE's 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

3.
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 contractor's 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 contractor's diligence in this area was a
contributing factor to the contractor's 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

4.
-
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 DATA
M 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 DRIVE
CHICO !xl SEALED BID ..e-J NEGOTIATED
CA 95928
USA
NAICS Code: 237990 M b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one)
FIRM FIXED PRICE
OTHER (Specify)
[=:J COST REIMBURSEMENT
7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OFWORK
Columbia River Channel Improvrnents (CRCI) Columbia River, Rock Removal 2009
Columbia River, Columbia County, Saint Helens, OR
And Clark County, Cowlitz County, WA
Columbia River, Columbia County, Saint Helens, OR and Clark
8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
29% Dredging
8% 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

5.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
PART III • EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
NJA = 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 SCHEDULES
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 contractor's
responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)
Small Business Utilization
Does this contract include a subcontracting plan? Yes
Is small business subcontracting under this contract included in a comprehensive sma11 business subcontracting plan? Yes
Is smaIl business subcontracting under this contract included in a commercia] small business subcontracting plan? Yes
Date of last Individual Subcontracting Report (lSR) I Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR): 09/30nOlO
EVALUATOR REMARKS; Quality of Workmanship: The contractor's 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 contractor's project manager, safety officer and QC staff corrected the
deficiency quickly.
Cooperation and Responsiveness: All members of the contractor's 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

6.
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 contractor's 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 contractor's diligence in this area was a contributing factor to the
contractor's 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 contractor's 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

7.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
20. REMARKS ( ... continued)
CONTRACTOR NAME: PATTY GILLETT
TITLE: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
PHONE: 5308915061
DATE: 01/13/2011
REVIEWER REMARKS: This evaluation has been reviewed and validated.
DO FORM 2626 (CONTINUED), JUN 94 4

8.
.
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 DATA
M E OF EVAlUATION (X one)
~RMINATED FOR DEFAULT
INTERIM (list peroentsge %) rxlFlNAL I IAMENDED
5. CONTRACTOR (Nartle, Address, and ZIP Code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X one)
J. E. MCAMIS , INC.
621 COUNTRY DRIVE
CHICO !Xl SEAlED BID I INEGOTIATED
CA 95928 lone) I
USA
NAICS Code: 000000 r=q-
b. TYPE OF CONTRACT
FIRM FIXED ~RlCE
OTHER lSpecIfy)
COST REIMBURSEMENT
7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OFWORK
Restoration of the submerged shallow water habitat for fisheries and wildlife. Excavate
and remove dredged material deposits, construction of an exterior reef stabilizatin
breakwater, clearing and chipping of exotic vegetation.
Palm Beach County, Florida
8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
Pile, 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
$31,071,553
10. 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 CONTRACTOR
n
11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block)
OUTSTANDING
12. 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. DATE
WALTER D. WOOD, P.E. //E1ectronically Signed//
RESIDENT ENGINEER 04/29/2009
13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY
a. ORGANIZATION (Nartle and Address (Include ZIP Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area
Code)
c. NAME ANDnTLE d. SIGNATURE e. DATE
14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)
DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSAtlRMS 6-94

9.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 3.104
PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
NlA = 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 SCHEDULES
20. 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 Utilization
Does this contract include a subcontract!ng plan? No
Is small business subcontracting under this contract included in a comprehensive small business subcontracting plan? NIA
Is small business subcon~ under this contract included in a commercial small business subcontracting plan? N/A
Date oflast Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) t Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR): NtA
EVALUATOR REMARKS: 15e. The contractor stored the majority of the materials for this
project (limestone and granite stone) within close proximity of the Area Office and the
project site for easy quality and quantity inspections.
15k. The "Y" groin was originally constructed by a subcontractor and was determined to be
deficient. The contractor took it upon himself to dismantle and re-construct this
feature 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 rather
than go on standby until they were re-Iocated. During the Lake worth Wetland
Restoration, 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 the
vegetation/landscaping on Peanut Island and Lake Worth Wetland Restoration was to the
satisfaction of the customer. The contractor also worked closely with the customer on
performing 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

10.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SSLEcnON INFORMAnON - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
8. 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

11.
·
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 DRIVE
CHICO
CALIFORNIA 95928 !Xl SEALED BID r=J NEGOTIATED
b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X one)
USA
NAICS Code: 237990 t!:( FIRM FIXED PRICE
OTHER~Speclfy)
c::J COST REIMBURSEMENT
7. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORK
114182 Canaveral Harbor North Jetty
This project consists of sand-tightening and raising a portion of the existing north
jetty to an elevation varying between +10 to +12 feet MLW. In addition,
the jetty will be
extended 300 feet to the east at an elevation of +7.5 feet MLW with sand-tightening to
further improve its sand impounding capability. The method of construction will include
placement of additional armor, core and bedding stone with a composite geogrid/geotextile
barrier to assure sand-tightening along the existing jetty portion. The 300-foot
extension will be sand-tightened with an internal steel sheetpile core. Magnitude of
~C<lIltinued
8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACnNG
0 subcontracted.
a. AMOUNT OF BASIC b. TOTAL AMOUNT OF c. UQUIDATED d. NET AMOUNT PAID
9. 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. DATEWORK
10. 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 CONTRACTOR
n
11. OVERALL RATING (X appropriate block)
OUTSTANDING
12. 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 •• DATE
RUSS TOLLE //Electronically Signed//
AREA ENGINEER 11/25/2008
13. 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 •• DATE
GRISSELLE GONZALEZ //Electronically Signed//
CONTRACTING OFFICER 02/19/2009
14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)
DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 (EG) EXCEPTION TO SF 1420 APPROVED BY GSAIIRMS 6-94

12.
FOR ONLY I SOURCE INFORMATION. SEE 2.101 and 3.104
PART III ~ EVALUAnON OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
NlA • 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 SCHEDULES
20. 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 contractor's
responsibility. Continue on separate sheet(s), if needed.)
Small Business Utilization
Does this contract include a subcon~ plan? N/A
Is small business subcontracting under thiS contract included in a comprehensive smaIl business subcontracting plan? N/A
Is small business subcontJ.:8Cting under this contract included in a commercial smaIl business subeontmcting plan? N/A
Date oflast Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) I SUmmary Subcontracting Report (SSR): NIA
EVALUATOR 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

13.
FOR OffiCIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION· SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
7. 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

14.
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 DATA
n E OF EVALUATION (X one) ~RMINATED FOR DEFAULT
INTERIM (Ust percentage 96 %) lXlFINAL r1AMENDED
5. CONTRACTOR (Name, Address, and ZiP Code) 6.a. PROCUREMENT METHOD (X ane)
J.E. MCAMIS, INC.
621 COUNTRY DRIVE
CHICO iii SEALED BID r I NEGOTIATED
CA 95928 b. TYPE OF CONTRACT (X ane)
USA ~ FIRM FIXED PRICE c=:J COST REIMBURSEMENT
NAICS 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)

15.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE INFORMA110N -SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
PART III - EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
NIA =NOT APPUCABLE 0 = OUTSTANDING A = ABOVE AVERAGE S = SATISFACTORY M = MARGINAL
h. REVIEW/RESOLUTION OF
SUBCONTRACTOR'S 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!I'IuMLlI" x
ITEMS
f. SUBMISSION OF UPDATED AND x
REVISED PROGRESS SCHEDULES
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 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 required
depth and finished approximately two months ahead of contract completion date. Contractor
proficiently operated equipment in a variety of conditions, and was able to dredge a
variety of consolidated material including boulders up to lO-ft in diameter. The
hydraulic equipment utilized by the Contractor was in excellent condition and perfectly
suited for the work.
Contractor maintained quality control on a regular basis using hydrosurveys which matched
up 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

16.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
20. 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

17.
R~r~l/J:"n FOR IAI wu:: ONLY (WHEN COMPLETED)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 1. CONTRACT NUMBER
JUl 1 9 2007 W9'l2PL07COOO5 NA
()~~Ir~ ()~
(CONSTRUCTION) 2. DUNS NUMBER
060693512
J. {;.,~!~ sure to complete Part 11/ - Evaluation of Performance Elements on reverse.
PART 1- GENERAL CONTRACT DATA
3. TYPE OF EVALUATION (X one)
h INTERIM (List Percentage %) !xl FINAL nAMENDED
4. TERMINATED FOR DEFAULT
0
5. 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 WORK
Maintenance Dredging in Marina del Rey, California.
Marina del Rey, CA
8. TYPE AND PERCENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
0% subcontracted.
a.AMOUNT OF BASIC b.TOTAL AMOUNT OF c.LIQUIDATED d.NET AMOUNT PAID
9. 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.DATEWORK
10. SIGNIFICANT' DATES COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED
11/30/2006 03/28/2007 03/2812007 03115/2007
PART 11- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR
11. 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 BY
a. 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 fHce6
c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e.DATE
Stanley Fujimoto.
Contracting Officer Representative ~-C-~ 5),/ 0 7
13. EVALUATION REVIEWED BY
a. ORGANIZATION «Name and Address (Include Zip Code)) b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)
c. NAME AND TITLE d. SIGNATURE e.DATE
14. AGENCY USE (Distribution, etc.)
DO FORM 2626, JUN 94 USAPPC V1.01 EXCEPTION TO SF 1420
APPROVED BY GSA-IRSM 6/94

18.
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 = UNSATISFACTORY
1S.QUALITY CONTROL N/A O.A S M U 16.EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT N/A 0 A S M U
a. QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP X a. COOPERATION AND RESPONSIVENESS X
b. ADEQUACY OF THE CQC PLAN X b. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES I
X PERSONNEL X
c. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CQC
PLAN c. COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF
X SUBCONTRACTORS X
d. QUALITY OF QC
DOCUMENTATION d. ADEQUACY OF SITE CLEAN-UP X
e. STORAGE OF MATERIALS X e. EFFECTIVENESS OF JOB-SITE
X SUPERVISION X
f. ADEQUACY OF MATERIALS
I g. ADEQUACY OF SUBMITIALS X f. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND
X REGULATIONS X
h. ADEQUACY OF QC TESTING
i. ADEQUACY OF AS-BUlLTS X I Q. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT X
Ii. USE OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS X h. REVIEWIRESOLUTION OF
X SUBCONTRACTOR'S ISSUES X
k. IDENTIFICATION I CORRECTION
OF DEFICIENT WORK IN A TIMELY i. IMPLEMENTATION OF
MANNER SUBCONTRACTING PLAN X
17.TIMELY PERFORMANCE 'IS.COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR
X STANDARDS
a. 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 X
I 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
contractor's 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. Contractor's 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.
. Contractor's paperwork was always current, somethin~ you don't 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