PWS Appendix Inspection and Acceptance.pdf

[Type here]

Appendix G

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

Table of Contents

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 Introduction and Purpose E.2 Overview and Scope E.3 Roles and Responsibilities E.4 Methods of Surveillance E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge Rating

APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 1.1: Quality Performance Area Matrix

APPENDIX 1.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA COMPUTATION

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 2.1: Schedule Performance Matrix

APPENDIX 2.2: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

APPENDIX 3: MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 3.1: Management Performance Area Matrix

APPENDIX 3.2: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

E.1 Introduction and Purpose

E.1.1 Introduction

Due to the critical nature of this contract in providing assistance to disaster survivors and in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.15, FEMA will monitor and evaluate contractor performance to ensure that services and supplies are rendered thoroughly, completely, and expeditiously with minimal setbacks. The role of the Government is to perform quality assurance to ensure that contract and task order (TO) requirements are appropriately achieved. FEMA’s approach to fulfilling its role is documented in FEMA’s Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP).

This PEP has been developed to support the requirements set forth in the Alternative Transportable Temporary Housing Unit (ATTHU) Comprehensive Maintenance contract. FEMA has developed the PEP to work in conjunction with the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Contractors will be rated annually in CPARS for their performance on the contract for the base year and any option years that FEMA executes. Contractors will be rated on all TOs. The contractors will be rated on the quality of the work performed; compliance with the schedule requirements; the contractor’s ability to control costs; and the contractor’s ability to manage the contract and TOs. Specific areas where technical performance requirements are defined are in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Appendix F: Deliverables and Performance.

E.1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this PEP is to document procedures, guidelines, and evaluation criteria the Government will use to monitor, evaluate, and ensure the contractor provides appropriate technical performance and quality service in a timely manner that is consistent with the objectives, mission, and performance requirements in the PWS and Appendix F: Deliverables and Performance.

E.2 Overview and Scope

E.2.1 Overview

The PEP provides details of how the Government intends to monitor, evaluate and measure contractor performance for the base contract in accordance with the PWS.

Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) will ensure the delivery of timely and effective service and achieve the results specified in PWS and Appendix G

E.2.2 Performance

E.2.2.1 Performance Areas

The Performance Areas are identified by the type of work performed. The Performance Areas associated with this contract are as follows:

• Unit Maintenance Performance Area (UMPA)

• Contract Management Performance Area (CMPA)

• Group Site Maintenance Performance Area (GSMPA)

• Task Order Management Performance Area (TOMPA)

The process for assessing contractor performance in each of the Performance Areas above are attached as separate appendices. Contractors will only be evaluated on the Performance Areas that are applicable to the PWS.

TOMPA applies to all TOs. CMPA is designed to evaluate the contractor’s overall annual performance. CMPA incorporates the contractor’s performance for non-ATTHU related Contract activities, the contractor’s management of the contract, and is based on the average for any ATTHU related TOs awarded.

E.2.2.2 Performance Requirement FEMA rates the Performance Areas using the CPARS rating categories. The following rating categories are contained within

CPARS:

• Quality

• Schedule

• Management

• Cost Control

• Small Business Utilization

• Regulatory Compliance

• Other Areas

Figure E.2-1: CPARS

FEMA will only use the applicable rating categories. For example: The Regulatory Compliance category will not be used for tasks that are not subject to regulation. Each rating category will be used to evaluate the Performance Areas as follows:

Quality

• Product Performance Relative to Contract’s Performance Parameters

• Performance in Terms of Contract’s Quality Objectives

• Use Quantitative Indicators Wherever Possible

• Contractor’s Management of the Quality Control Program

• Quality of the Work or Service

Schedule

• Timeliness of Delivery

• Timely Completion of Contract/Order

• Milestones

• Timely Completion of Administrative Requirements

Management

• Integration and Coordination of Activity

• Problem Identification

• Corrective Action Plans

• Reasonable and Cooperative Behavior

• Customer Satisfaction

• Subcontract Management

• Program Management

• Management of Key Personnel

Cost Control

• Forecasting Cost

• Managing Cost

• Controlling Cost

• Overrun/ underrun

Small Business Utilization

• Compliance with Terms and Conditions for Small Business Participation

• Achievement of Small Business Subcontracting Goals

• Good Faith Effort to Meet Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Regulatory Compliance

• Compliance with Regulations and Codes

• Financial

• Environmental

• Labor

• Safety

• Reporting Requirements

Other rating categories will be identified on an as-needed basis.

E.2.3 Evaluation Procedures

Assessments for contractor performance will be documented using the procedures defined in the attached appendices.

E.3 Roles and Responsibilities

The Government and contractor responsibilities for quality assurance are as follows:

E.3.1 Contracting Officer The Contracting Officer (CO) ensures performance of all requirements of the base contract and TOs to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and/or the TO. The CO safeguards the interests of the Government in the contractual relationship. The CO will receive all discrepancy reports and forward them to the executive management of the contractor for action. The CO may monitor, perform surveillance, and evaluate the contractor’s performance at any time during the life of the contract and/or TO.

E.3.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is the individual responsible at a specific disaster for performing inspections and recommending acceptance or rejection of contractor performance against all contract/TO requirements to the CO. The COR will serve as a designated government representative for monitoring, surveillance, evaluating and performing quality assurance activities for the contract and TOs. The COR ensures that contractor quality, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and performance are monitored, assessed, recorded, and documented. The COR responsibilities are contained in the written Letter of Designation from the CO. The COR is responsible for reporting a status on all assigned TOs to the CO.

The COR is responsible for the following activities:

• Inspection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services and assignment of performance scores.

• Consolidating the reports from inspections performed by Technical Monitors (when present) and summarizing their findings into an overall performance report and performance score for the CO.

• Recommending acceptance or rejection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services.

• Assisting the CO in evaluating the contractor's response to a rejection notification.

• Maintaining and securing a comprehensive TO file until the completion of the TO, at which point the file will be forwarded to the CO.

• Establishing and maintaining regular and ongoing communication with the CO regarding contractor performance including status, relevant information, and reports.

E.3.3 Technical Monitor

The Technical Monitor (TM) assists the COR in observing the progress of the contractor’s performance, completes checklists and logs as prescribed in the PEP and reports findings to the COR in a timely, complete, and impartial manner. The TM assists the COR in monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor. The TM will document all observations and provide a copy to the COR.

E.3.4 Contractor

The contractor must develop a Quality Control Plan (QCP), subject to CO and COR approval, that sets forth procedures and responsibilities for ensuring high-quality work and adequately addressing and supporting the mission requirements, objectives, and schedules in the most cost-efficient manner. See Appendix F: Deliveries or Performance.

E.4 Methods of Surveillance

The Government will use, at its discretion, the appropriate method for surveillance. The following are examples of the types of surveillance that the Government uses.

E.4.1 Inspection

When this type of surveillance is used, the COR or TM shall monitor, survey, and evaluate the contractor’s performance when the contractor performs a task associated with the TO. This method provides the best indication of contractor performance and is the most thoroughly documented basis for taking contract payment actions.

One hundred percent (100%) inspection is preferred when the requirements are so critical that non-performance would pose a direct risk to the safety of personnel or property, or when the work occurs infrequently, and the output quantity is small. Inspecting smaller percentages can be acceptable if the frequency of inspection increases, and the sample size selected for inspection is representative of 100% of the units being inspected.

E.4.2 Database and Reports Analysis

The COR shall perform 100% inspection of the reports received and routinely inspect the contents of databases used—if any—to capture contractor performance. If the reports and/or databases identify any trends, issues, or information that could negatively impact the mission, the contractor may need to perform additional analysis.

This surveillance method allows the COR or TM to evaluate the outputs or reports through management information systems. When using generated reports that indicate a possible performance or quality concern, the COR will use other methods to confirm quality, quantity, and/or investigate problem areas.

E.4.3 Progress and Status Meetings Progress or status meetings shall be held with the contractor as required by the COR. These meetings will allow the COR and contractor the opportunity to review and discuss any and all issues related to the execution of the TO.

E.4.4 Other Monitoring Techniques

The TO will indicate how the Government will monitor various aspects of the TO. In addition to inspection, database and report analysis, and progress and status meetings, other monitoring techniques may be used such as:

• Site visits

• Personal observations

• Phone calls

• Contractor requests

• Contacting other Government agencies

E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

E.5.1 Performance Criteria

Results of surveillance activities will be documented using the criteria noted below. Services shall ordinarily not be accepted before completion of Government contract quality assurance actions (FAR Part 46.5). Most TOs awarded will be evaluated using TO specific information.

All ratings assigned by the COR will be supported with formal documentation.

E.5.1.1 Ratings

Contractor performance for each will be evaluated by aggregating the rating category’s requirements within each Performance Area into a final score.

E.5.1.1.1 CPARS Ratings

The final score entered into CPARS will use the definitions provided in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 for all rating categories that are not related to small business utilization. Ratings for small business utilization are defined in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1. For contractor performance or TOs that extend beyond a single rating period, FEMA may use a plus or minus sign to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend that is notable but insufficient to change the rating. FEMA will use N/A (not applicable) if a rating category is not going to be applied to a particular Performance Area.

Table E.5-1: Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business)

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business) – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 CPARS Rating Definition Note Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a severe problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a severe problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.

A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Table E.5-2: Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business)

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business) – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-2 CPARS Rating Definition Note Exceptional Exceeded all negotiated subcontracting goals or exceeded at least one goal and met all the other negotiated subcontracting goals for the current period. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small, disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB).

Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports accurately and timely.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Ensure that small businesses are given meaningful, innovative work directly related to the project, rather than peripheral work, such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Met all the negotiated subcontracting goals in the traditional socio-economic categories (SB, SDB and WOSB) and met at least one of the other goals (HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB) for the current period.

Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. Ensure that small businesses are given meaningful, innovative work directly related to the project, rather than peripheral work, such as cleaning offices, supplies, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB.

Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program.

Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports accurately and timely.

landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements.

Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency.

or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do

so. Required a corrective action plan.

Unsatisfactory Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization.

A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages - Subcontracting Plan.

E.5.1.1.2 Performance Area Ratings

FEMA will use the performance area ratings to inform a Contractor’s CPARs ratings. However, the performance area ratings are not the only component of a Contractor’s CPAR rating.

FEMA will provide both FEMA textual scores (e.g., Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, etc.)

and numeric scores (e.g., 4, 3, 2, etc.) for each Performance Area. Numeric scores are defined during the rating of the individual Performance Area. The FEMA textual score definition and descriptions are provided here.

The FEMA textual scores, while similar to the CPARS rating descriptions, are tailored to reflect the characteristics of FEMA’s unique mission. Also, each Performance Area has area-specific definitions for each rating level. Each Performance Area textual rating has an assigned point value used to calculate the numeric rating.

CPARS rating will be determined based on surveillance and review of all contractor tasks required by contract which includes but is not limited to tasks rated via the textual and numeric scores noted in this section.

The FEMA textual scores and point values are noted below.

Table E.5-3: FEMA Textual and Point Value Rating Comparison

FEMA Point Value FEMA Textual Rating

3.51 – 4.00 Exceptional

2.76 – 3.50 Very Good

1.51 – 2.75 Satisfactory

0.51 – 1.50 Marginal

0.00 – 0.50 Unsatisfactory

E.5.1.1.2.1 Exceptional (EX)

The highest rating that can be given for an individual performance area. This rating is worth three and fifty-one hundredths (3.51) to four (4) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.2 Very Good

This is the second highest rating that can be given for an individual performance area. This rating indicates that the contractor exceeded the requirements; however, performance did not meet the requirements for an exceptional rating. This rating is worth two and seventy-six (2.76) to three and five tenths (3.5) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.3 Satisfactory (S)

This rating is given when the performance area score indicates that the expectation for the performance area has been met. This rating is worth one and fifty-one hundredths (1.51) to two and seventy-five hundredths (2.75) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.4 Marginal (M)

This rating is given when the performance area is not met as described in the contract; however, the contractor’s performance for the area overall has not fallen to the level of unacceptable. This rating is worth fifty- one hundredths (.51) to one and five tenths (1.5) point for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.5 Unsatisfactory (U)

The performance in this area does not meet contract requirements and is unacceptable. This rating is worth five tenths (.5) to zero (0) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.3 Unused Categories

Any unused categories shall not be rated and will not be used as part of any calculations.

E.5.2 Rating Determination

The COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance for each applicable Performance Area as is described in the Performance Area Matrices contained the appendices. The evaluations in each of the Performance Areas use one or more of the following terms.

Table E.5-4: Evaluation Terms

Findings The CORs determination of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance recorded as either “Yes” or “No”.

Though the COR may ascribe a negative finding to any performance outside of requirements, a finding of "No" is typically reserved for failure to deliver or a late / incomplete delivery rendering the deliverable obsolete.

Escalations When the Contractor's performance requires FEMA to resolve an issue within the Contractor’s control in order to complete a task.

Escalations are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

Exceptions Events where the Contractor's performance was delayed or undermined by circumstances beyond the Contractor's control.

Exceptions are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

Points A point is awarded for each “Yes” finding.

Points are typically used in the Quality, Schedule and Management Performance Area Matrices.

The ratings for each individual Performance Area will be aggregated into the rating category as described in Appendix 1, Quality. Specific examples from the individual Performance Areas will be used to justify any rating that is above or below a rating of ME. To the extent possible, the Government has made the individual criteria as quantitative as possible to reduce the level of subjectivity in the evaluation process.

Prime contractors are responsible for the performance of subcontractors at all levels. A Prime contractor is defined as the contractor who has the relationship with FEMA. Subcontractors are defined as any contractor who is working on the contract at any level but does not have a direct contract with FEMA.

The Government is aware that many TOs require substantial coordination efforts with County, City, State, and Federal agency personnel over whom the contractor has no control and who may have different priorities than FEMA contractors. Wherever possible, the COR will note mitigating circumstances that are outside the contractor’s control when making evaluations.

E.5.3 Surveillance Outcomes

The results of surveillance activities will be documented to determine the contractor’s performance.

E.5.3.1 Contractor Notification of Surveillance Outcomes

The CO/COR will inform the contractor of a potentially unsatisfactory performance by issuing a Discrepancy Report (See Appendix H, Attachment 2502) as soon as the discrepancy is noted.

The contractor shall initial and date the TO and/or Work Order DR form. The contractor’s initials and date signify acknowledgement of receipt of the form and does not indicate that the contractor agrees with the discrepancy.

If the contractor disputes the results of the evaluation, the CO/COR shall arrange for a meeting with the CO, in person or by telephone conference, to attempt to resolve the matter. The CO/COR shall provide the form and written narrative to substantiate the findings to the CO.

E.5.3.2 Nonconforming Outcomes

When nonconforming supplies or services are identified, the CO shall give the contractor an opportunity to correct or replace the nonconforming supplies or services when this can be accomplished within the required delivery schedule. Unless the contract specifies otherwise, correction or replacement will be without additional cost to the Government.

Nonconforming outcomes occur when a contractor delivers goods or services not in compliance with the contract's terms and conditions, TO or any modification thereof. If the nonconformance is major or critical, the CO/COR may not accept the supply or service.

For a minor nonconformance, the CO/COR may recommend the following to the CO:

1. Accept and have the contractor repair/replace/repeat the service at no additional cost to the Government.

2. Accept at price reduction.

3. Reject.

The COR does not have the authority to approve any of the above courses of action. When the CO approves a recommendation to accept at price reduction, the recommended value may be used to determine an equitable adjustment for nonconforming services for fixed price TOs. When the CO approves a recommendation to reject, the CO/COR will provide a notice of rejection to the contractor that includes the reasons for rejection.

E.5.3.3 Discrepancy Report

A Discrepancy Report (See Appendix H,Attachment 2505) can be initiated by the CO/COR at any time during the evaluation period when the results of an evaluation show unsatisfactory or marginal performance for the period being monitored, or when the contractor is performing below the acceptable performance level.

If the CO/COR determines that the performance is unsatisfactory, the following steps will be followed:

1. The CO/COR discusses the potential issue with the Contractor Field TO Manager (FTOM) and provides a DR.

2. The COR evaluates the information and notifies the CO of concurrence or non-concurrence.

Upon receipt of the contractor’s response, the CO, in consultation with the COR, must evaluate the contractor’s response and take appropriate action.

E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge Rating

FEMA will use a sample ranging from five percent (5%) to one hundred percent (100%) when calculating the individual Performance Areas that are aggregated into the contractor’s ratings.

While FEMA does not anticipate a challenge to the rating, the Agency has included a process by which the contractor may challenge the rating. If the contractor chooses to challenge any or all the ratings, the contractor may do so by using a one hundred percent (100%) sample of all the work orders for each applicable Performance Area. It is the contractor’s burden to provide the data analysis in a report to the COR. The challenge report shall be written so that it can be clearly understood.

APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 1.1: Quality Performance Area Matrix

Quality Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

UMPA-Q#1 ATTHU

Comprehensive Maintenance Customer Satisfaction

Includes QA of routine maintenance, emergency maintenance and preventive maintenance inspections.

QA will assess the workmanship and professionalism of the Contractor’s staff when conducting maintenance of any type.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1509) by contacting applicant and/or other adults licensed into the unit to evaluate this category.

For the purposes of customer satisfaction, Contractor staff, contracted staff and/or subcontractor staff who perform maintenance on ATTHUs are considered direct employees of the Contractor. For customer satisfaction, Contractor staff, contracted staff and/or subcontractor staff who perform maintenance on ATTHUs are considered direct employees of the Contractor.

Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

GSMPA-Q#1 Group Site Maintenance Preventive

Group Site Maintenance Preventive evaluates the contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract.

Areas:

• The ability to comply with laws and hygiene norms

• The ability to contain emergencies – provide a prompt response to accidents/incidents/emergencies

• The ability to conduct preventive maintenance of the group site

• The ability to provide and control mandatory services including the

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

Quality Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD control of the volume/quantity of services provided by the contractor or subcontractors and suppliers

• The ability to maintain a clean environment within the group site

• The quality management system for preventive maintenance

Level I- Level I issues are minor issues. A Level 1 Issue is equivalent to 1 issue point.

Level II - Level II issues require rework or the performance of additional tasks, these issues do not represent a safety hazard or do not make an area of the group site unusable. A Level II issue is equivalent to 2 issue points.

Level III – Level III issues represent a safety hazard and/or may lead to a temporary closure or the inability to use an area of the group site.

A Level III issue is equivalent to 3 issue points.

Site Assessment, Tier 1 Quality shall be completed as specified in F.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

GSMPA-Q#2 Group Site Maintenance Correctional

Group Site Maintenance Correctional evaluates the contractor’s ability to correct non-preventive maintenance activities.

Areas:

• The contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract

• The ability to perform correctional maintenance that complies with laws and regulations when something on the group site is not compliant.

• The ability to effectively correct issues resulting from non-preventive maintenance.

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

Quality Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

• The ability of the contractor to perform and maintain a quality management system for correctional maintenance.

Level I - Level I issues are minor issues.

A Level I issue is equivalent to 1 issue point.

Level II – Level II issues require rework or the performance of additional tasks; these issues do not represent a safety hazard or do not make an area of the group site unusable. A Level II issue is equivalent to 2 issue points.

Level III – Level III issues represent a safety hazard and/or may lead to a temporary closure or the inability to use an area of the group site.

A Level III issue is equivalent to 3 issue points.

Site Assessment, Tier 2 Quality shall be completed as specified in Appendix F.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

CMPA-Q#1

Contract Management

CLIN 0007AH

Performance for Contract Management Quality is defined as the number of instances where the CO must intervene to correct the Contractor.

This can be done by issuing a formal written notice or by involving the CO.

CMPA-Q#2

Overall Task Order Performance

CLIN 0007AJ

This criterion includes an average of the scores of all task orders completed during the contract year (See Ratings Calculation, Appendix 8).

CMPA-Q#3 Quality

CLIN 0007AL

This performance area is designed to allow FEMA to provide a performance rating for a contractor who has completed a task order, but FEMA continues to use the results of the contractor’s services. This rating will be an annual rating for the base period of the contract

Quality Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD as well as any option years executed. The term contract year is the period of either the base year or the option year. The term contract year is the period of the base year or option year.

The Calculation is based on the performance of contractors working overtime for items such as work done to repair an ATTHU or perform major maintenance. C/ILCPA will be used to evaluate issues that occur during FEMA’s operation/use of the item. For example, if a contractor replaced a set of stairs with an ADA ramp for ATTHU access/egress and the ADA ramp begin to deteriorate while in use by FEMA or need to be rebuilt that is a C/ILCPA issue even if it occurs after the task order has expired. Another example would be if a Group site road repair was done by a contractor and needs to be redone or experiences failure requiring additional maintenance due to poor repair issues. The C/ILCPA score (if applicable) will be incorporated into the contractor’s annual performance as part of the annual evaluation that the CO and COR provide to the contractor performance system.

GSMPA-Q#1 Group Site

Preventive

Group Site Maintenance Preventive evaluates the contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract.

Areas:

• The ability to comply with laws and hygiene norms

• The ability to contain emergencies – provide a prompt response to accidents/incidents/emergencies

• The ability to conduct preventive maintenance of the group site

• The ability to provide and control mandatory services including the control of the volume/quantity of services provided by the contractor or subcontractors and suppliers

Quality Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

• The ability to maintain a clean environment within the group site

• The quality management system for preventive maintenance

Level I- Level I issues are minor issues. A Level 1 Issue is equivalent to 1 issue point.

Level II - Level II issues require rework or the performance of additional tasks, these issues do not represent a safety hazard or do not make an area of the group site unusable. A Level II issue is equivalent to 2 issue points.

Level III – Level III issues represent a safety hazard and/or may lead to a temporary closure or the inability to use an area of the group site.

A Level III issue is equivalent to 3 issue points.

GSMPA-Q#2 Group Site Maintenance Correctional

Group Site Maintenance Correctional evaluates the contractor’s ability to correct non-preventive maintenance activities.

Areas:

• The contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract

• The ability to perform correctional maintenance that complies with laws and regulations when something on the group site is not compliant.

• The ability to effectively correct issues resulting from non-preventive maintenance.

• The ability of the contractor to perform and maintain a quality management system for correctional maintenance.

Osborne, Andrew Appendix 2.1 Schedule Performance Matrix.. Remove Major and Minor repairs from under Performance Requirement

Osborne, Andrew Remove

APPENDIX 1.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA COMPUTATION

The COR averages the points earned for each task performed in each performance area. Compare the resulting average to the Quality Performance Area Matrix below.

Table A1-3: FEMA Textual and Point Value Rating Comparison

FEMA Point Value FEMA Textual Rating

3.51 – 4.00 Exceptional

2.76 – 3.50 Very Good

1.51 – 2.75 Satisfactory

0.51 – 1.50 Marginal

0.00 – 0.50 Unsatisfactory

END OF APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 2.1: Schedule Performance Matrix

Schedule Performance Area PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

UMPA-S#1

ATTHU

Timeliness

ATTHU Maintenance shall be conducted as specified in PWS and Appendix F.

Timeliness will be evaluated by category:

• Emergency Maintenance Repair

• Routine Repair

Percentage of total tasks completed in specified time within the rating period.

TOPA-S#1 Task Order Management Performance (Documentation) Timeliness

Task Order Management Performance (Documentation) Timeliness requires the Contractor to provide all required reports and information within the specified timelines as defined in Appendix F: Deliveries or Performance.

Percentage of total tasks completed in specified time within the rating period.

APPENDIX 2.2: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

Calculate the percentage of each task completed within specified timeframes for each performance area. Compare the resulting percentage to the Schedule Performance Area Matrix below.

Table A2-3: Schedule Performance Area Matrix

FEMA Textual Rating Percentage of On Time Completions Exceptional 95%- 100% Very Good 93%- 94% Satisfactory 91%- 92% Marginal 89%- 90% Unsatisfactory less than 89%

END OF APPENDIX 2

HSFE80-17-R-0005 Appendix E

VERSION AC NOVEMBER 14, 2017

E-29

APPENDIX 3: MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 3.1: Management Performance Area Matrix

Management Performance Area Performance Requirement Standard

Quality Control- Field and Administrative Tasks

Field tasks- Maintenance, etc.

Administrative tasks- Reports, Emails, Status Updates, etc.

Contractor demonstrates quality control by submitting satisfactory products on first attempt on most occasions.

Management is rated by calculating the number of less than satisfactory submissions per rating period.

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of less than satisfactory submission Very Good: 1-3 occasions of less than satisfactory submission Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of less than satisfactory submission Marginal: 6-10 occasions of less than satisfactory submission Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of less than satisfactory submission

Quality Control Plan The contractor demonstrates a quality control plan by identifying delays and deficiencies and resolving them without intervention from the government on most occasions.

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of government intervention per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of intervention Very Good: 1-3 occasions of intervention Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of intervention Marginal: 6-10 occasions of intervention Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of intervention

Timely Reports & Status Updates- Scheduled or Ad Hoc

Contactor submits scheduled and ad hoc reports and status updates without prompting.

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of government prompting per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of prompting Very Good: 1-3 occasions of prompting Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of prompting Marginal: 6-10 occasions of prompting Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of prompting

E-30

Communications- Responsiveness

Contractors reply timely and appropriately to requests from COR

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of government prompting per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of prompting Very Good: 1-3 occasions of prompting Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of prompting Marginal: 6-10 occasions of prompting Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of prompting

Permitting & Inspection Process

The contractor demonstrates understanding of the permitting and inspections process and executes without prompting from government or requesting intervention as needed on most occasions.

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of government intervention per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of prompting Very Good: 1-3 occasions of prompting Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of prompting Marginal: 6-10 occasions of prompting Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of prompting

Safety Contractor planned and executed all tasks in a safe manner without government intervention.

Demonstrated by adherence to applicable OSHA standards.

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of safety incidents per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: No serious safety incidents and no other than serious safety incidents Very Good: No serious safety incidents and 1 other-than-serious safety incident Satisfactory: No serious safety incidents and 2 other-than-serious safety incidents Marginal: 1 serious safety incidents or 3- 4 other-than-serious safety incidents) Unsatisfactory: 2 serious safety incidents or 5 or more other-than serious safety incidents

Financial Management Contractor demonstrates financial management without intervention from government. Actions resulted in no impact to project quality, schedule, or cost.

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of government intervention per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: 1 major action or cumulative minor actions resulting in significant positive impact Very Good: 1-3 actions resulted in nominal positive impact Satisfactory: No major issues or 1-3 minor issues resulting in no impact Marginal: 1 major issue or 1-3 minor issues resulting in significant negative impact Unsatisfactory: More than 1 major issue or more than 3 minor issues resulting in significant negative impact

Cost Proposals Contractor provided quality CPs by submitting satisfactory products to FEMA on first attempt and within agreed timeframes

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of less than satisfactory submission and timeliness submissions

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of less than satisfactory submission Very Good: 1-3 occasions of less than satisfactory submission Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of less than satisfactory submission Marginal: 6-10 occasions of less than satisfactory submission

E-31 per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of less than satisfactory submission

Exceptional: Zero (0) occasions of late submission Very Good: 1-3 occasions of late submission Satisfactory: 4-5 occasions of late submission Marginal: 6-10 occasions of late submission Unsatisfactory: More than 10 occasions of late submission

Invoicing

Routine- Monthly

Final invoice

Contractor submitted a complete and error free invoice for all charges during billing period with limited government intervention (draft reviews) and within the contractual timeframe

Management is rated by calculating the occasions of less than satisfactory submission and timeliness of submissions per rating period

FEMA will conduct a survey (Appendix H, Attachment 1007) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: Zero (0) draft reviews Very Good: 1 draft review Satisfactory: 2 draft reviews Marginal: 3 draft reviews Unsatisfactory: 4 or more draft reviews

Exceptional: submittal 8 or more days before contractual timeframe Very Good: submittal 5-7 days before contractual timeframe Satisfactory: submittal within contractual deadline of one calendar month of end of service period Marginal: submittal 5-7 days after contractual timeframe Unsatisfactory: submittal 8 or more days after contractual timeframe

E-32

APPENDIX 3.2: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

The CO/COR reviews all contractor submissions and government documentation for each performance area during the rating period.

CO/COR provides textual score, based on total number of documented government interventions, government prompting, contractor safety incidents, contractor financial actions and timeliness of submissions, as written in Appendix 3.1: Management Performance Area Matrix.

END OF APPENDIX

E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge Rating