Attachment_C.6_Performance_Standards.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Actuarial Techology Support Services (ATSS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 16PBGC19R0007
- Issued by
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
About this file
This document contains performance standards for a federal contract supporting actuarial technology services. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation seeks to issue an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract for Actuarial Technology Support Services to support its Office of Information Technology. The base period of performance is one year with nine one-year option periods. Key performance standards include maintaining adequate staffing levels and skillsets to perform required activities, tracking and reporting on all performance standards monthly, and improving system performance and reducing costs annually. Deliverables must be thorough, accurate, and on schedule, and change requests will follow a four-step review process. Response time for urgent service desk tickets must be within one business hour for 95% of tickets.
Attachment C.6 Performance Standards
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Tier | PWS Section | Category | Performance Requirement | Performance Requirement | Performance Standard = Exceptional AQL = Acceptable/Yes No = Unacceptable | Monitoring Method | Frequency |
| Program | Program Management | Management | Staffing | Staffing resources are deployed (and redeployed as necessary) to ensure adequate personnel and skill levels are available to perform all required activities. |
All personnel have requisite skillsets and qualifications.
| All personnel meet established clearance requirements. | Yes/No | COR review and customer feedback | Periodic | |||||
| Program | Program Management | Management | Service Level Monitoring | All performance standards included in the PWS are tracked and performance levels are reported to the COR and in the PMR on a monthly basis. | Yes/No | 100% COR review/inspection | Monthly | |
| Program | Program Management | Management | Program Effectiveness and Efficiency | Overall performance of systems improves each year and costs decrease |
Note: COR and Contractor will agree on requirements that are to be kept out of this performance standard calculation due to government decisions so these do not affect contractor’s performance.
| Yes/No | COR inspection of performance standards reports | Annually | ||
| Program | Program Management | Management | Smooth Transition | The service provider shall be 75% staffed no later than 30 days after the kickoff meeting and 100% staffed by 60 days . |
Key Personnel shall be 100% staffed at transition start.
| Yes/No unless prior COR approval | COR inInspection | At 30 days and at 60 days | |||||
| Program | Program Management | Management | Deliverables | All documents and deliverables are thorough, complete, comprehensive, free from error, and comply with all templates and other guidance. | No deviation without prior COR approval. | COR Inspection | Periodic |
| Program | Program Management | Management | Deliverables | All SOPs and artifacts are reviewed and revised every 4 months or more frequently as needed. | No deviation without prior COR approval. | COR Inspection | Periodic |
| Program | Program Management | Management | Deliverables | Reported data is presented in a manner that facilitates rapid and clear understanding. | No deviation. | COR Inspection | Periodic |
| Program | Program Management | Management | Deliverables | All deliverables are verifiable by examining underlying data. | No deviation. | COR Inspection | Periodic |
| Program | Program Management | Schedule | Deliverables | All deliverables meet the schedule or are delivered sooner. | No more than 2 are late per release. No more than 2 are late per month for other deliverables. | COR Inspection | Every release or quaterly. |
| System | Operations - Tier 3 | Schedule | Ticket aging | Actively managing backlog of open tickets pending resolution. Must report to business stakeholders (IPT) for status. | Exceptional: Weekly review and report |
Acceptable: Monthly review and report Unacceptable: Less often than monthly (quarterly)
| HP Qc/service now (System Health Dashboard) | Monthly | ||||||
| System | PM - | Management | Change Request | Four step high-level process: 1. Intake/record CR, 2. Analysis of LOE of CR, 3. Triage of CRs, 4. Handoff to Fed PM for inclusion in CCB meetings. | Y/N | HP QC/Service Now/SBM | Monthly |
| System | Execution - Req Anal | Schedule | Response time to Service Desk (SD) tickets | Response within 1 hour (from when assigned to the team) for urgent tickets. | Exceptional: ≥ 95% of tickets are responded to in 1 business hours |
Acceptable: >= 85% and <95%of tickets are responded to in 1 business hours
| Unacceptable: < 85% of tickets are responded to in 1 business hours for urgent tickets | HP QC/Service Now (system Health Dashboard) | Bi-Weekly | ||||
| System | Operations - Tier 3 | Schedule | Response time to SD tickets | Response within 3 hours (from when assigned to the team) for non-urgent tickets | Exceptional: ≥ 95% of tickets are responded to in 3 business hours |
Acceptable: >= 85% and <95%of tickets are responded to in 3 business hours
| Unacceptable: < 85% of tickets are responded to in 3 business hours for urgent tickets | HP QC/Service Now (system Health Dashboard) | Bi-Weekly | ||||||
| System | Operations - COOP | Management | COOP support | Provide sufficient on-call and/or on-site support (as requested) for annual COOP testing events. (If COOP is applicable to the application) | Yes/No | Yearly COOP | Yearly | |
| System | PM - Documentation | Management | Documentation (timely) | Required documents, in accordance with ITSLCM (e.g., meeting agendas/materials/minutes, PMR, project and system documentation) | Yes/No | Determined by document type | Monthly (also Determined by document type) | |
| System | Operations - Tier 3 | Schedule | Resolve the ticket | Average urgent ticket resolution time is less than or equal to 1 business days. Resolution means the issue has been fixed or provided a workaround, or the issue has been created as a CR and will be tracked | Exceptional: Average ticket resolution time is less than or equal to 1 business day |
Acceptable: Average ticket resolution time is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 2 business days
| Unacceptable: Average resolution time is greater than 2 business days. | HP Qc/service now (System Health Dashboard) | Bi-Weekly | ||||
| System | Operations - Tier 3 | Schedule | Resolve the ticket | Average non-urgent ticket resolution time is less than or equal to 2 business days. Resolution means the issue has been fixed or provided a workaround, or the issue has been created as a CR and will be tracked | Exceptional: Average ticket resolution time is less than or equal 2 business day |
Acceptable: Average ticket resolution time greater than 2 and less than or equal to 4 business days.
| Unacceptable: Average resolution time is greater than 4 business days. | HP Qc/service now (System Health Dashboard) | Bi-Weekly | |||
| System | Execution - Release Mgt Csat | Customer Satisfaction | Internal Surveys | Survey after every release or quaterly: 1) Usability of the system (eg. Ease of navigation, availability of on-line help, clear and appropriate error messages; did these things improve or degrade?) |
2) How well business needs were met by the release
3) Quality of training provided for the release]
4) System performance (eg. is it the same or better than before the release?) Exceptional: Average score at or above 3.6 Acceptable: Average score between 2.6 and 3.5 Unacceptable: Average score below 2.6
| Review surveys | Every release or quaterly. | |||
| System | Execution - | Customer Satisfaction | User friendly | Is the system user friendly, adequate hints built in the application, Proper error message displayed. |
| Exceptional: Average score at or above 3.6 |
(out of 4) Acceptable: Average score between 2.6 and 3.6 (out of 4)
| Unacceptable: Average score below 2.6 (out of 4) | Surveys | Every release or quaterly. | ||||||
| System | Execution - Testing | Regulatory Compliance | Infrastructure (EOSL sustainability) | Include Infrastructure Roadmap Efforts into our testing and remediation plans for our specific application. | Yes/No | ITIOD road map | Semi-Annual | |
| System | Execution - Release Mgt | Regulatory Compliance | Sustainability Roadmap | Sustainability roadmaps are integrated into release planning. | Sustainability roadmap is included in CIO/CXO Briefing | Monthly Briefing | Monthly | |
| System | Execution - Testing | Regulatory Compliance | Sustainability Roadmap | Establish Sustainability Roadmap for all of the technical stack and tools that the system is sitting on. | Sustainability roadmap is included in CIO/CXO Briefing | Monthly Briefing | Monthly | |
| System | PM - Compliance | |||||||
| Regulatory Compliance | ITSCLM compliance | All IT |
programs will comply with PBGC’s ITSLCM, including control gates, IT standards, and artifacts.
| Yes/No | PM Review | On-Going | |||
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Quality | Acceptance variance points (AVP) | Calculated as accepted points/completed points | Exceptional: >= 0.98 |
Acceptable: = 0.90 - 0.97
| Not Acceptable: <= 0.89 | Iteration closeout report presented to PBGC upon iteration completion | Upon iteration completion | ||||
| Project | Execution | Quality | Post Production High Defect Count | Measure the quality of code deployed to production based on high severity defects (with no workarounds) logged after a release. | Acceptable: 0 high defects |
Unacceptable: 1 or more high defects
| Track the number of high severity production issues recorded in HP QC that are related to the implemented requirements deployed into the production environment in the latest application release | Monthly | |||||||
| Project | PM - Documentation | Quality | Documented requirements met | Released product meets documented requirements | Yes/No | Closure of all scoped release items (i.e. no defered items, no items with defects deferred) | Monthly | |
| Project | Execution - Deployment | Quality | Successful deployment of defect free code | Successful code deployment with no urgent fix releases required to address issues introduced with the release. | Acceptable: No urgent fix releases within 45 calendar days of deployment to production | |||
| Unacceptable: One or more urgent fix releases within 45 calendar days of deployment to production | Number of urgent release RFCs requested within 45 calendar days of deployment to production | Monthly | ||||||
| Project | Execution - Testing | Quality | Performance testing | Test plan for each release identifies release items that require performance testing and provides high level description of performance test required. | Acceptable: Appropriate performance testing is planned and executed as part of release. | |||
| Unacceptable: Performance testing not addressed in test plan. | Review of documented test plan and test results. | Per Release | ||||||
| Project | Execution - Testing | Quality | Regression testing | Test plan for each release will address regression testing and provide a high level description or list of the components to be regression tested. | Acceptable: Appropriate regression testing is planned and executed as part of release. | |||
| Unacceptable: Regression testing not addressed in test plan. | Review of documented test plan and test results. | Per Release | ||||||
| Project | PM - Waterfall projects | Schedule | Schedule Performance Index (SPI) | Projects measured within an acceptable range | Exceptional: Between .96 and 1.04 |
Acceptable: Between .90 and .96 OR between 1.04 and 1.10
| Unacceptable: Less than or equal to .90 or greater than or equal to 1.10 | Periodic review of EVM reports (P3M) | Monthly | ||||
| Project | Execuction - Training | Schedule | Timely training | Training provided when release includes changes or enhancements that directly impact internal user experience. | Acceptable: Training provided within 20 business days prior to production deployment or further in advance with approval from business owner. | |
| Unacceptable: Training not provided prior to production deployment | Training sign-in or registration report. | Per Release | ||||
| Project | Execution - Release Mgt | Schedule | Baseline/Rebaseline | Release are delivered on time and within cost per the original baseline. | Exceptional: No rebaseline required |
Acceptable: 1 rebaseline required
| Unacceptable: more than 1 rebaseline required | Review of baseline history in P3M. | At end of release | ||||
| Project | PM - | Schedule | Project Milestones | Meaningful Milestones are met 100% of the time (ie. Baselined cost loaded schedule, Approved Requirements doc, Approved Design doc, Approved test results, Training coducted, Deploy to Prod, Lessons Learned complete | Exceptional: 100% of milestones are met on time |
Acceptable: 95-99% of milestones are met on time
| Unacceptable: <95% of milestones are met on time | COR Review of P3M schedule | evaluate progress toward completion monthly (waterfall), At end of each sprint (Agile) Final reporting end of release | ||
| Project | PM - Cost - Waterfall projects | |||
| Cost | Cost Performance Index (CPI) | Projects are measured within an acceptable range within cost | Exceptional: Between .96 and 1.04 |
Acceptable: Between .90 and .96 OR between 1.04 and 1.10
| Unacceptable: Less than or equal to .90 or greater than or equal to 1.10 | Periodic review of EVM reports (P3M) | Monthly | ||||||
| Project | PM - Cost | Cost | Within cost | Project is delivered at or below cost | Yes/No | COR Review | Monthly | |
| Project | PM - Documentation | Management | Documentation (timely) | Required documents, in accordance with ITSLCM (e.g., meeting agendas/materials/minutes, PMR, project and system documentation) | Timely: Yes, | |||
| not timely: No | PM Review | Periodic | ||||||
| Project | PM - | Management | Program and project management plans (issue, escalation, communications plans) | All program and project management plans are adheared to. | ||||
| All project plans include a communications plan | Acceptable: Project has/adheres to Pgm/PM plans Unacceptable: Project does not have/adhere to plans | COR review | Periodic | |||||
| Program | PM - Compliance | Regulatory Compliance | Adhering to the OIT risk management process (see PPL) | The project adheres to the OIT Risk Management process | Yes/No | PM review | Periodic | |
| Program | PM - Compliance | Management | Contract administration | Adherence to terms and conditions of contract, including key personnel changes, corrective action plans, timeliness of submitting invoices to PBGC | Yes/No | COR Surveillance | monthly (invoices), quarterly for other administration | |
| Project | Execution - Training | Customer Satisfaction | Quality of training | Customer Satisfaction with Training. | Survey results. |
4/4 Exceptional, 3/4 Acceptable,
| 2/4 (and below) unacceptable | PM Review/post-training survey results | Post training | ||||
| Project/System | Operations - Tier 3 | Customer Satisfaction | Complaints/spike in tickets/calls | Limit Spike in calls/ tickets (complaints) based on normal threshold of calls/tickets/complaints | Exceptional = No spike; |
Acceptable = %5 above average,
| Unacceptable = 10% above average, | Review of tickets | |||||||
| Call log reports | Monthly | |||||||
| Project | PM - Compliance | Regulatory Compliance | ITSCLM compliance | Every project shall comply with ITSLCM | Yes/No | PM review | Periodic | |
| Project | Execution - Testing | Quality | UAT Defect Escape Rate | Measure percentage of defects discovered in UAT as a percentage of all UAT and SIT defects found in the release. | Exceptional: <= 15% |
Acceptable: >15% and <= 35%
| Unacceptable: >35% | Review of defects captured in defect repository. | Monthly | ||||
| Project | Operations - Tickets | Quality | UAT High Defect Count | Measure the quality of code deployed to UAT environment based on the percentage of high severity defects found in UAT in relation to the number of test scripts executed in UAT | Exceptional: <= 10% |
Acceptable: >10% <= 20%
| Unacceptable: >20% | Review of defects captured in defect repository. | Monthly | ||||
| System | Operations - Tickets | Quality | Production Ticket Root Cause Analysis rate | Measure the percentage of production tickets with associated root cause analysis findings logged as PTR/SCRs so that effective prioritization of corrective action can be made based on the highest impact. Metric formula: Total # production tickets with associated PTR/SCR/Total qualifying production tickets. | Exceptional: >= 75% |
Acceptable: <75% >= 25%
| Unacceptable: <25% | Review of production tickets. | Quarterly. | ||||
| System | Operations - Tier 3 | Quality | System Performance: Unplanned Application Outage or Degradation in Application Performance or Fault preventing Application Use (per occurrence) | Resolve issue or provide workaround within 1 business day (12 business hours) | Exceptional: Outage resolution time is less than 4 business hours |
Acceptable: Outage resolution time is within 1 business day.
| Unacceptable: Outage resolution time is greater than 1 business day. | Review of production tickets | Monthly | ||||
| Project | PM - Documentation | Schedule | Timeliness of deliverables | Project artifacts and management deliverables meet delivery timelines as agreed to with the COR. | Exceptional: 100% of deliverables meet delivery timeline |
Acceptable: less than 100% and greater than or equal to 90% of deliverables meet delivery timeline
| Not Acceptable: Less than 90% of deliverables meet delivery timeline | Review of deliverable received against milestone delivery date in project schedule. | Monthly | ||||
| Project | PM - Documentation | Quality | Maintenance of system documentation | System documents reflect release in production. | Exceptional: 100% compliance |
Acceptable: 95-99% compliance
| Unacceptable: Less than 95% compliance | Review of project artifacts as linked on the P3M Document Dashboard | Per Release | ||||
| Project | PM - | Quality | Capture of Lessons Learned | Lessons learned are discovered and captured throughout the project lifecycle. | Exceptional: 2 or more lessons documented |
Acceptable: 1 improvement documented
| Unacceptable: 0 improvements documented | Review of P3M lessons learned captured | Monthly | ||||
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Quality | Acceptance Variance Story Count (AVS) | Calculated as Accepted Count /Completed Story Count | Exceptional: >= 0.98 |
Acceptable: = 0.90 - 0.97
| Not Acceptable: <= 0.89 | Iteration Closeout Report presented to PBGC upon iteration completion | Upon iteration completion | ||||
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Quality | Defect Density (DD) | Calculated as Total number of defects captured in each sprint | Exceptional: >= 0.98 |
Acceptable: = 0.90 - 0.97
| Not Acceptable: <= 0.89 | Iteration Closeout Report presented to PBGC upon iteration completion | Upon iteration completion | ||||||
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Quality | Quality – Interim | Deliver quality software meeting the business need. | 94% of Sprint Backlog items, on average, are accepted at the end of the Sprint. | Sprint Demo / Sprint Summary Report | Upon iteration completion | |
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Quality | Conduct testing of the developed software | Test cases for the developed requirements along with an updated Requirements Traceability Matrix are built in Quality Center by iteration. Quality center shows a completed testing at the end of each iteration with all defects addressed. The Deployment guide is built by the end of each sprint for deployment into ITC if required | Acceptable: 100% compliance on the building of test cases in Quality Center and the updated RTM document. No Show stopper, High or Medium defects for the software developed at the end of the iteration | Quality Center Reports. Updated RTM and Deployment Guide documents on SharePoint | Per Release | |
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Schedule | Effectiveness – Scope | Complete Agile development activities according to the Release Plan that includes prioritized release backlog, number of Sprints with durations, ITC & UAT testing activities and release activities | Acceptable: Complete the identified number of Sprints in the allocated schedule. | Inspection of PBGC's Project Management application system of record | Upon iteration completion | |
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Management | Analyze and document the detailed requirements from the Options Analysis output (functional and non-functional) for the software developed at the end of each iteration | A complete requirements backlog is created at the end of iteration Zero for the phase. At the end of each iteration, the detailed requirements document is updated to reflect the components built during the iteration and approved by the Product Owner | Acceptable: 100% compliance | Requirements document with the detailed requirements of the sprint fully documented and approved by the Federal PM and PBGC department product owner at the end of each iteration | Upon iteration completion | |
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Customer Satisfaction | Effectiveness | Release meets desired business value. | Acceptable: 94% of the initial release backlog is delivered in release | Inspection of Release Plan and iteration Demo / iteration Summary Reports | Per Release | |
| Project (AGILE) | Execution - | Regulatory Compliance | Develop / Configure Solution | The software is developed, configured and deployed in the CDE-T and CDE-I environments in accordance with the ITSLCM System Development standard, Data standard, IT Software Services Standard, Information System Connection standard, System Protection Standard, and Access Control Standard. | Acceptable: 100% compliance. Any issues identified are corrected in the following development iteration | Working software as required by the product owner and Federal PM and determined in the Sprint backlog is deployed and available in the CDE-T and CDE-I environments | Per Release |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .