Appendix G CDRL Review Process BMT Approved 12Jan16.pdf

Appendix G

CDRL Review Process

BMT Approved

12 January 2016

2 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

CDRL Review Process

Purpose:

• The CDRL Review Process provides guidance to NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Program personnel on how to process CDRLs submitted by Service Providers.

CDRL Submission, Review, Endorsement, and Approval:

• The Service Provider uploads an electronic copy of the CDRL into the AT/FP

Ashore Remedy System which pushes the CDRL to AIM. AIM sends automatic notifications in accordance with the CDRL Reviewers Matrix.

• CDRL Reviewers are based upon the BMT approved CDRL Reviewers Matrix which is a separately maintained AT/FP Ashore Program document. CDRL

Reviewers currently include: FECTLs, Region N6, PEC, LSI, ISSE, and

Sustainment APM/COR.

• The CDRL reviewer uses the applicable Deliverable Expectation Document (DED) in the contract to review the Contractor’s CDRL submission and enters the CDRL comments into AIM and provides recommendation for Approval or Rejection.

3 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

CDRL Review Process (cont.)

• PEC performs oversight of the CDRL Review Process:

– Ensures CDRLs are received and processed on time,

– Monitors evaluation progress,

– Consolidates the review comments from the CDRL reviewers’ comments matrices, resolves issues, prepares and submits recommendation of CDRL Evaluation Report to the ACO.

– Ensures the ACO delivers the final CDRL Evaluation Report and determination.

– ACO can authorize the PEC to deliver the final CDRL Report and determination.

– Ensures the official CDRL Evaluation Report is uploaded into AIM.

– Prepares a Letter of Concern for the ACO when the Service Provider neglects to address government-provided review comments in subsequent submittals of the CDRL.

The letter should indicate that a contract milestone payment will not be paid until all comments are satisfied.

• ACO performs oversight and final approval of the CDRL Evaluation Report to be submitted to the Service

Provider:

– Receives the recommendations for CDRL approval/disapproval from the PEC.

– Sends the approved CDRL Evaluation Report and determination to the Service Provider for action.

– Sends Letter of Concern to Service Provider in the event that government review comments have not been addressed in subsequent submittals of the CDRL.

4 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC 5 August 2010

CDRL Submission, Review, Endorsement, and Approval Process N o te s S e rv ic e

P ro v id e r

(S P

P E

C

(E x e c u ti o n

S u s ta in m e n t

A P

M

(S u s ta in m e n t)

Prov ides Conc urrenc e on

Endors ement Rec om m endation

A C

O

Rec eiv es CDRL determ ination & CDRL

Ev aluation Report from AIM

Subm its CDRL to ACO and uploads into

Rem edy (Automatic noti fic ation sent to

CDRL Rev iewers)

Rev iews CDRL and enters c om m ents into AIM and prov ides rec ommendation for Approval/Rejection

C D

R L

R e v ie w e r

A007 only

CDRL

TimelineDay 0 (Working Days)

Day 0 (Working Days)

Day 15Day 14Day 13

Day 20Day 19Day 18

Rev iews c om m ents, res olv es is sues and sends rec om mendation to the ACO

Clos es the

CDRL

Work flow with Fina l

Determ ination

PEC ens ures final CDRL Ev aluation

Report in AIM

*PEC/APM may take lead on the SYSCOM executed projects.

5 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

CDRL Review Comment Classification Definitions

• CDRL review comments shall be classified as follows:

– Critical – Critical comments are those that identify:

Unapproved deviations or non-compliance with one (1) or more requirements of the Task Order (TO) (e.g., PWS, Appendix C, P-Spec). Deviations from the baseline requirements documented in the TO must be approved through the AT/FP Ashore Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process.

Technical inaccuracies that affect installation and/or testing of the equipment solution. Examples include the following: errors that will prevent/violate Certification and Accreditation (C&A) to include FRCB, PIT/PRA approval, ATO, and/or other C&A requirements, unauthorized re-use, modification, or disposal of existing equipment or facilities, and test steps that do not align with required verification methods.

– Substantive – Substantive comments are those that identify:

Sections in a CDRL appearing to be, or are potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections, or conflict with other related CDRLs submitted by the Service Provider.

Multiple inconsistencies in nomenclature, formatting, equipment locations, references, and orientation that affect the reviewer’s ability to understand the Service Provider’s intended approach.

– Administrative – Administrative comments are those that identify:

Grammatical Errors

Spelling Errors

Reference Dates/Titles

Minor formatting (e.g., outline, paragraph, tabs, font) that does not violate TO format requirements.

Organizational Symbols

6 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

Endorsement Categories for CDRL Evaluations

• Recommendations for the CDRL evaluation report shall be consolidated and submitted by the PEC to the ACO with a recommendation for endorsement in one (1) of three (3) categories:

– Approve – The document is acceptable in the current state and requires no changes by the contractor.

– Approve with Comments – The document is acceptable if and only if those comments labeled as substantive and/or administrative can be incorporated/corrected in the CDRL resubmission. Approve with Comments is intended to keep the project progressing toward the next phase while formally documenting and ensuring clarity, accuracy, and overall quality of CDRLs is achieved. Critical comments will not be included in an Approve with Comments endorsement.

– Disapprove with Comments – The document is unacceptable due critical, and/or substantive comments. A CDRL having one (1) or more critical comments shall be a Disapprove with Comments endorsement. A CDRL having 10 or more substantive comments shall also be a Disapprove with

Comments endorsement. Comments shall be labeled and classified accordingly so that comments labeled as critical are easily distinguished from others by the Reviewer.

• The PEC provides the recommendation to Approve, Approve with Comments, or Disapprove with

Comments in the Comments Section of the CDRL in AIM and as a Significant Event on the AIM Project

Page.

7 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

Service Provider’s Responsibility

• The Service Provider’s responsibility for each endorsement category shall be as follows (The ACO should review this section with the Service Provider to ensure understanding of their responsibilities in the process.):

– Approve – No action required.

– Approve with Comments –

The Service Provider shall incorporate comments and resubmit the corrected CDRL, or request a meeting with the reviewer(s) via the ACO to discuss or ask for clarification within 10 working days of the comments date.

If comment resolution is not achieved with a meeting, the Service Provider may protest any standing comments by notifying the ACO via letter requesting initiation of the Contractor Resolution Process.

Any comment not incorporated/corrected in the CDRL resubmission is considered a delinquency.

A Letter of Concern will be sent from the PEC to the ACO capturing the Service Provider’s unsatisfactory response.

The Letter of Concern may subsequently be transmitted to the Service Provider and may potentially cause a stop work situation, depending on the criticality of the persistent comments.

Contract milestone payments may also be delayed until comments are satisfied.

If sections are added, modified, and/or removed from the CDRL resubmission not resulting from a reviewer comment, the Service Provider shall submit justification for what was modified and the reason for the change.

All CDRL resubmissions shall clearly identify the changes that occur to the document (e.g., color change, italics, underline, etc.) to expedite the time required for subsequent reviews.

If all comments are incorporated/corrected, and no additional critical, substantive, or administrative comments surface in subsequent reviews, the status of the CDRL review recommendation will change to Approved.

(Government reviewers should not introduce new substantive or administrative comments on previously reviewed information unless the information is of such a nature that if left unchanged the information would adversely affect the installation, testing and final acceptance of the system.)

Not withstanding a formal protest from the Service Provider, or a letter of Concern from the ACO, the PEC and Service Provider will have 5 working days after the Service Provider resubmits the corrected CDRL to resolve issues for final approval. The resolution should be accomplished via a formal meeting or teleconference during this period.

8 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

Service Provider’s Responsibility (cont.)

• Service Provider’s responsibility for each endorsement category shall be as follows (cont.)

(The ACO should review this section with the Service Provider to ensure understanding of the process.):

– For Disapprove with Comments – The Service Provider shall resubmit the corrected CDRL, or request a meeting with the reviewers via the ACO to discuss the comments and/or ask for clarification within 10 working days of the rejection date.

If comment resolution is not achieved with a meeting, the Service Provider may protest any standing comments by notifying the ACO via letter requesting initiation of the Contractor Resolution Process.

Any comment not incorporated/corrected in the CDRL resubmission is considered a delinquency.

This results in a Letter of Concern from the PEC to the ACO capturing the Service Provider’s unsatisfactory response to government-provided review comments.

The Letter of Concern may subsequently be transmitted to the Service Provider and may potentially cause a stop work situation, depending on the criticality of the persistent comments.

Contract milestone payments may also be delayed until comments are satisfied.

If sections are added, modified, and/or removed from the CDRL resubmission not resulting from a reviewer comment, the Service Provider shall submit justification for the modification (e.g., identify what was modified and the reason for the change).

All CDRL resubmissions shall clearly identify the changes that occur to the document (e.g., color change, italics, underline, etc.) to expedite the time required for subsequent reviews.

If all comments are incorporated/corrected, and no additional critical, substantive or administrative comments surface in subsequent reviews, the status of the CDRL review recommendation will change to Approved.

(Government reviewers should not introduce new substantive or administrative comments on previously reviewed information unless the information is of such a nature that if left unchanged the information would adversely affect the installation, testing and final acceptance of the system.)

Not withstanding a formal protest from the Service Provider, or a letter of Concern from the ACO, the PEC and Service Provider will have 5 working days after the Service Provider resubmits the corrected CDRL to resolve issues for final approval. The resolution should be accomplished via a formal meeting or teleconference during this period.

9 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

CDRL Review and Recommended Endorsement

Diagram

Administrative

Substantive

Critical

Comment Classification Recommended Endorsement

Approve with

Comments

Approve

Disapprove with

Comments

No Comments

Reviews comments, resolves issues and sends

Recommendations

CDRL

Submission

≥10 comments

CDRL

Review

PEC

C D

R L

R ev ie w e r

P

EC

CDRL Reviewer

SE

R

V

IC

E P

R O

V

ID

ER

10 Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection Ashore, NAVFAC

Subsequent CDRL Review Delinquency Diagram