ATTACHMENT G - QASP.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Worcester Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) VA Central Western Mass Healthcare System (VA CWM HCS) Initial Outfitting, Transition & Activation Contract

Date: May 17, 2021

, Contracting Officer Brian McLain

Alternate Contracting Officer Representative Worcester CBOC – CWM HCS

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

For: Worcester CBOC Initial Outfitting, Transition & Activation (IOT&A) Contract Contract Number: Blank until contract award Contract Description: The Contractor shall conduct all necessary IOT&A activities in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor shall provide professional services to include all labor, materials, transportation, and equipment to conduct and provide support services to accomplish the PWS tasks. The types of services represented under this PWS include:

1. Comprehensive Project Management Support Services

2. Relocation and Installation Services

3. Warehousing and Warehousing Management Services

4. Installation Planning and Implementation Services for New F&E

5. Activation Planning and Implementation Services Support for IT

6. Biomedical Equipment Support Planning and Implementation Services

7. Housekeeping – Optional Task

8. Final Turnover, Close-Out, and Post Occupancy Evaluation Services – Optional Task Contractor’s Name: Blank until contract award

1. Purpose As required by FAR 37.6 and 46.401, this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to monitor Contractor services performed under this contract. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS, the Quality Control Plan, and to ensure that the Government receives the level of services ordered.

This QASP addresses the following:

1. What will be monitored?

2. How monitoring will take place?

3. Who will conduct the monitoring?

4. How will monitoring efforts and results will be documented?

This QASP does not detail how the Contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the Contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the Contractor. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the Contractor and Government officials responsible for surveillance activities. The Government can change the method of surveillance of at any time. The signatures on the cover page signify both the Government and Contractor have read, understand, and accept the surveillance terms set forth in the QASP.

1.1 Performance Management Approach

The PWS sets forth “what” service is required as well as the performance standards associated with that task, as opposed to “how” the Contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the Worcester, MA CBOC to monitor the Contractor’s performance and ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved.

Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates to what extent the expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the Contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. Required processes are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus by the Government provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.2 Performance Management Strategy

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own Quality Control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by subcontractors. The Contractor’s QC program will set forth the procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The Contractor will implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative.

The Government representative(s) will monitor performance by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against performance standards. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively. The Contractor will be monitored and assessed throughout the period of performance of the contract as to either meeting or not meeting the performance thresholds stated in the Performance Metrics Section of the PWS. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform quarterly assessments. The Performance Based Service Assessment Survey, or other method, may be used to document this assessment. When a Contractor performance issue occurs, the COR will notify the VA Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Officer (CO). The COR/CO will engage the Contractor PM to resolve the discrepancy.

1.2.1 Performance Feedback:

At the end of each assessment period, the assessment will be reviewed by the PM and CO. The COR/CO will notify the Contractor of the results no later than 15 working days after the end of the assessment period.

2. Government Roles and Responsibilities The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

a. CO - The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO: , Contracting Officer Organization: Department of Veterans Affairs, PCAC

b. COR - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a QA file. This file shall contain all quality assessment reports. The COR must also notify the CO and Contractor of any performance deficiencies in writing or by e-mail, and submit requests for corrective action to the CO. The COR must also inspect and accept Contractor services at the completion of each contract payment period, usually monthly. The COR will certify services actually received unless the CO retains the authority for acceptance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Brian McLain, VA CWM HCS Assigned Alternate COR: Suzanne M. Krafft, VA CWM HCS

c. Other Key Government Personnel – TBD

3. Contractor Representatives

a. Project Manager – To be completed at award

b. Other Contractor Personnel – To be completed at award; if any (name and title)

4. Performance Metrics and Performance Standards/Acceptable Quality Levels The Performance Metrics for tasks and deliverables, as well as the applicable performance standards/Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) are outlined in the PWS. Performance Standards/AQLs define required performance for specific tasks. Surveillance metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and AQL. The AQLs are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed. Incentives and disincentives for meeting an AQL are outlined below. The Government may utilize the Performance Based Service Assessment Survey, provided at the end of this document, or other method to compare Contractor performance to the AQL.

Consistent with FAR Part 12 and FAR 46.407, the AQL may trigger payment deductions to be determined by the CO, and in certain cases, negotiations with the Contractor. In addition, the AQL is also the threshold below which other contract actions will be taken (cure notices, show cause letters, termination, etc.) as deemed appropriate by the CO. Failure to meet contractual obligations would also reflect poorly on Past Performance Evaluations. In short, it is a

Government QA tool to determine when performance is acceptable and when performance needs improvement and/or further contract administrative actions.

5. Methods of QA Surveillance Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use any or several of the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP.

13. 100% Inspection (evaluates all outcomes)

- Each quarter, the COR shall review the Contractor’s performance/generated documentation and document your results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

14. Random Sample

· Each quarter, the COR shall review a random sampling of the Contractor’s performance/generated documentation and document your results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

15. Validated Customer Complaint

· Any customer observing unacceptable services, either incomplete or not performed, for any of the listed objectives in the PWS should immediately contact the COR and complete a Customer Complaint Form (CCR) included in this document. The COR must evaluate the complaints on a case-by-case basis and determine if the complaint is contractually valid. If valid, the CCR will then be submitted to the Contractor for corrective action (CA).

· If the Contractor refuses to acknowledge the complaint, the COR shall annotate on the CCR the Contractor's representative's name, as well as the date and time of notification. The CCR shall then be submitted to the CO for arbitration. When the Contractor documents the CA proposed to correct observed defects (if possible) and prevent future defects, the COR will evaluate the proposed CA and forward the record to the CO for final dispensation. The CO will, in turn, send copies of dispositioned CCRs to the COR and the Contractor for their records. If the complaint is not received on a CCR, the COR will complete a CCR and require the complainant to sign the form. If needed, the COR will contact the complainant to determine the validity of the complaint using the applicable PWS requirement.

· If any Government action or lack of action caused unacceptable performance, the complaint is not valid. The COR will document the invalid complaint and keep for their records.

16. Validated Below Average AQL in a Specific Area

· Each quarter, the COR shall review the Contractor’s performance/generated documentation corresponding to a validated inability to perform in accordance with the AQL in a specific area and document your results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

6. Incentives The incentive for the Contractor to meet contractual requirements is to prevent rework that would be at their own expense. Work that meets or exceeds the standards will be reflected on the annual performance review.

7. Disincentives The disincentive for the Contractor would be the potential negative Past Performance Evaluations generated and used for future Government requirements.

8. Documenting Performance

a. Acceptable Performance The Government shall document acceptable performance accordingly on the included Quality Assurance Monitoring Form. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action.

b. Unacceptable performance When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the Contractor. This will always be in writing although when circumstances necessitate immediate verbal communication, that communication will be followed in writing. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR’s QA file.

When the CO determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR), included at the end of this document, and present it to the Contractor's PM.

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing to the CO. The CAR will state how long after receipt the Contractor has to complete CA. The CAR will also specify if the Contractor is required to prepare a CA plan to document how the Contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The Government shall review the Contractor's CA plan to determine acceptability.

Any CARs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO.

8.1 Definition of Major and Minor Discrepancies

If the COR documents unacceptable performance via a CAR, the COR must label the defect as Major or Minor, depending on the severity and impact of the defect.

8.1.1. Major Findings

Major findings are contract non-conformances which are considered critical or major. IAW FAR 46.101, a major non-conformance means a non-conformance, other than critical, that is likely to result in failure or reduce the usability of the services for their intended purpose. A critical non-conformance means a non-conformance that is likely to result in a hazardous or unsafe condition for individuals using, maintaining, or depending upon the services; or is likely to prevent performance of a vital agency mission. If at any time COR identifies a condition as having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity, such as those stated below, the COR shall document their findings and notify the CO immediately in writing (email is acceptable).

A. Contractor failure to meet a performance threshold.

B. Failure to provide adequate CA to prevent reoccurrence of Government identified findings.

C. Failure to provide CA to deficiencies identified by the Contractor within a prescribed suspense period.

D. Any failure to adhere to security and/or safety regulations that results in a security or safety incident.

8.1.2. Minor Finding

IAW FAR 46.101, a minor non-conformance means a non-conformance that is not likely to materially reduce the usability of the services for their intended purpose or is a departure from established standards having little bearing on the effective use or operation of the services. When the COR identifies a minor finding, the COR shall document the findings, but is not required to notify the CO. However, if the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that a major finding is occurring, or has occurred, because the Contractor has not taken proper steps to prevent recurrence. In this case, the COR shall notify the CO in writing (email is acceptable).

9. Frequency of Measurement

a. Frequency of Measurement: During contract performance, the COR will periodically analyze whether the negotiated frequency of surveillance is appropriate for the work being performed.

b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings: The COR shall meet with the Contractor quarterly to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment to the CO.

10. Quality of submission The quality of submission should also be considered. Error rates or resubmits for content flaws would be the measures associated with these standards. Examples of standards include:

Accuracy - Work products shall be accurate in presentation, technical content, and adhere to accepted elements of style.

Clarity - Work products shall be clear and concise. Any/All diagrams shall be easy to understand and be relevant to the supporting narrative.

Consistency to Requirements - All work products must satisfy the requirements of this PWS.

File Editing - All text and diagrammatic files shall be editable by the VA in Windows-based or Adobe environments/platforms.

Format - Follow specified VA directives or manuals and/or best business practices.

Presentations - Presentations shall be clear, concise, executive-focused, and written in plain, clear English with minimal jargon, understandable by lay persons. The quality of deliverables directly contributes to organizational communications.

Project Plan - Project Plans shall be comprehensive; recognize and address authority, perceptions, and concerns of stakeholders; incorporate scope of requisite requirements across the organization and/or agency.

Reports - There shall be no omissions in reports, documents or functional requirements.

Publications and other documents - Deliverables shall be in formats appropriate to target audiences; user friendly, clear, thorough and comprehensive.

Meeting facilitation - Pre-meeting preparations and logistics; smooth meeting operations; comprehensive post-meeting summaries to include but not limited to: minutes, action items, attendees, program objectives, milestones, and major decision points.

Analyses and Assessments - Analyses and assessments are performed with accuracy, completeness and adherence to industry best practices.

Obtain stakeholder input - Deliverables shall consist of the timely implementation of input mechanisms and shall consist of an accurate and comprehensive synthesis of results and recommendations. Integration of relevant stakeholder input documented for deliverable.

The following rating definitions can be used as a guide when completing the Performance Based Service Assessment:

List of Attachments:

a. Performance Based Service Assessment

b. Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

c. Corrective Action Report and Instructions

d. Customer Complaint Record

e. Sample COR Quarterly Contractor Evaluation Report Annual Contractor Performance Evaluation Report

PERFORMANCE BASED SERVICE ASSESSMENT

CONTRACT NUMBER/ TITLE:

PERIOD COVERED:

Place an X in the appropriate response

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ASSESSMENT

Excellent Very

Satisfactory

Good

A. MEETING TECHNICAL NEEDS:

1. What level of understanding does the Contractor have of my technical needs and my mission requirements?

2. What level of efficiency and effectiveness does the Contractor demonstrate in meeting my requirements?

3. Overall, how well does the Contractor meet my technical needs and mission requirements?

4. Overall, the quality of the products/services provided are

B. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE:

1. How well does the Contractor meet my established milestones and project dates?

2. How timely are products, reports, and invoices completed, reviewed, and delivered?

3. How would you assess the reasonableness of cost of the services being provided and the accuracy of submitted invoice?

4. How well does the Contractor notify me in advance about potential milestones and scheduling problems so that I have enough time to correct them?

C. PROJECT STAFFING

1. How current is the expertise of those Contractors performing requested tasks?

2. Do Contractor personnel possess the necessary knowledge, skills and ability to accomplish assigned tasks?

3. Are the staffing levels assigned by Contractor appropriate for accomplishing the mission?

D. VALUE OF THE CONTRACTOR:

1. How would you assess the value of the services provided by the Contractor?

2. How do you rate the quality of the products delivered by the Contractor?

3. What overall rating would you give to the Contractor's performance?

** Ratings for a Performance Standard are calculated by adding the individual scores under a Performance Standard and dividing it by the number of sub-standards under that Performance Standard.

***Poor and Below Satisfactory ratings must be explained in Section II (Narrative Clarification) below. Must be supportive and objective

II NARRATIVE/CLARIFICATION (USE ADDITIONAL SPACE AS REQUIRED)

Typed Name and Title of Government Project Lead/ Date

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

· Random Sampling

· 100% Inspection

· Validated Below Average AQL in a Specific Area

· Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

· Monthly ☐ Quarterly ☐ As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: %

Service Provider’s Performance (Check):

· Meets Standards ☐ Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: DATE:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the Contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. 1 PERSONNEL (COR)

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

Continuation Sheet (Number to correspond with applicable Item Number on reverse)

Corrective Action Report (CAR) Instructions

Block 1. Enter Contractor Name.

Block 2. Enter Contract Number.

Block 3. Enter Contract Name or Type of Services.

Block 4. Enter Functional Area of the Contract.

Block 5. Enter the assigned suspense date given the Contractor to provide a response to the CAR. A date must be entered for a Major CAR. A date is optional at the discretion of the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) initiating the CAR if the finding is Minor.

Block 6. All CARs will be tracked with a Control Number. The functional commander/functional director is the Issuing Authority for his/her contract Quality Assurance Evaluators (CORs) generating CARs. By providing the control number to the COR originating the CAR, the Issuing Authority demonstrates concurrence with the finding. The control number will be made up of the first two letters of the name of the site or contract, the last two digits of the calendar year, and a three digit number starting with 001 and progressing upward throughout the calendar year (e.g., WP04-001).

Block 7.

1. Check the block that indicates whether the identified deficiency is assigned as a Major or Minor finding. See Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), paragraph 6.1.4, for the definitions of Major and Minor findings and associated explanations.

2. Finding: Clearly state the details of the finding followed by a reference to the stated contractual requirement. The reference must state the portion of the contract, part, section, paragraph and subparagraph and must make a complete brief quotation of the contract reference.

3. State the impact that the finding has or could have on the accomplishment of the mission that the contract provides.

4. When determining how long to give the Contractor to respond to the identified finding, the normal is 10 working days. The suspense date should reflect this unless the finding requires a greater amount of time to come to solution. Major findings require a Contractor response. Minor findings may require a Contractor response at the discretion of the COR initiating the CAR and/or the Issuing Authority.

Blocks 8 and 9. Contract CORs initiating a CAR must sign in Block 8 and the Issuing Authority signs in Block 9. Each annotates the date at the time of signature.

Block 10. Upon review of the Contractor’s reply, the originator of the CAR will enter comments regarding acceptance or rejection of the Contractor’s response. This block may also contain any comments regarding follow-on inspections conducted or needed at a later date to validate that the finding has not reoccurred.

Block 11. The COR selects Accept or Reject after reviewing the Contractor’s response.

Block 12. The COR enters a close date after advising the Issuing Authority that the Contractor’s response is acceptable and the Issuing Authority concurs. The Issuing Authority will then forward the closed CAR to the Contractor and report accordingly in the monthly Certificate of Service (COS) or other applicable contracting officer services report. This routing remains the same if the Contractor response is unacceptable and the CAR remains open until an acceptable response is received except that the Issuing Authority forwards the open CAR back to the Contractor for additional information.

Continuation Sheet. The Continuation Sheet is to be used to expand on any information that will not fit in the applicable numbered block.

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

SAMPLE COR QUARTERLY CONTRACTOR EVALUATION REPORT

COST / PER UNITS DELIVERED OF SERVICES DURING REPORTING PERIOD:

Quarterly Review of Contractor Payments, obligations and remaining balances on purchase orders to ensure obligation of money keeps pace with actual usage. Information can be obtained from https://vaww.ipps.fsc.va.gov/prweb/PRWebLDAP1. PLEASE ATTACH INVOICES FROM WEB SITE WITH DATES OF SERVICES

TOTAL $ invoices for period (attach invoices) TOTAL $ not invoiced for services received

COMPLETE AND ATTACH INVOICE AUDIT SUMMARY

1. WAS THE CUSTOMER SERVICE/PATIENT SATISFACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCOPE OF WORK?

[ ] Yes [ ] No - Describe any deficiencies:

Has the Contractor met the expectations for access and timeliness of services to meet patient care needs? (e.g. turnaround time for routine vs. emergent services; turnaround time for reports of patient care services, etc.)

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments:

Have there been any patient safety reports from the Contractor that have documented injury or harm to our patients?

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments:

Have any VA patients filed any malpractice claims against the Contractor?

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments:

VHAPM

Part801.603-70

COR

SOP

Revision

Original Date: 05/20/2011

Revision

Date:

10/01/2016 Page of

Have any patients filed complaints regarding dissatisfaction with care provided by the Contractor?

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments:

2. WERE THE CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES/PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCOPE OF WORK?

Have there been any concerns related to the quality of services being provided by the Contractor?

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments: _

Has the Contractor complied with documentation requirements as defined in the contract?

[ ] YES [ ] NO Comments:

3. CONTRACTOR FOLLOWED CONTRACT SCHEDULE REPORTING (I.E. TIMELY AND CORRECT INVOICING MATCHING COR RECORDKEEPING, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, PROGRESS SCHEDULE, PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE, ETC.)

4. HAVE YOU, AS COR, PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE CONTRACTOR?

[ ] Yes [ ] No - Describe why not:

5. STATE ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ATTENTION.

6. QUARTERLY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR / SUB-CONTRACTOR TRAINING (ATTACHMENT B). DUE QUARTERLY

COR Comments

Were comments, correspondence, or any additional information provided to the contracting office during this rating period? Yes No

By signing below, you are certifying that: you have copies of all contract documents required to fulfill your duties, have been briefed and understand the authority (and limits of authority) given you, have received responses to any question or concern given to the contracting officer, have notified the contracting officer of any information that impacts the performance of this contract and understand any pending requirements and related due dates for procurement information in the upcoming quarter:

Name and title of rating COR:

COR Signature Date:

CO Comments

CO Signature Date:

ANNUAL CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT

NOTE: COR TO FILL THIS REPORT OUT AT END OF EACH CONTRACT YEAR

Contract Data:

Country:

State:

Zip Code:

Evaluating Organization:

Actual Completion Date:

Contract Effort Description:

Ratings Summarize Contractor performance and check the number which corresponds to the rating for each rating category (See attached Rating Guidelines).

Exceptional Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Quality of Product or Service Government Comments for Quality of Product or Service:

VHAPM

Part801.603-70

COR

SOP

Revision

Original Date: 05/20/2011

Revision

Date:

10/01/2016 Page of

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Schedule (Rating and Comments for Schedule are not required if contract type is Fixed-Price) Government Comments for Schedule:

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Cost Control (Rating and Comments for Cost Control are not required if contract type is Fixed-Price) Government Comments for Cost Control:

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Business Relations Government Comments for Business Relations:

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Management

Utilization of Small Business (See Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business)

Exceptional Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )**Note: This rating includes the Contractor’s use of Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory )Regulatory Compliance for Construction and Architect-Engineering Contracts Only

Additional Information:

Subcontracts Are subcontracts involved? Yes No (Check one) Government Comment on subcontracts:

Contractor Key Personnel Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator (name):

Government Comment on Contractor Manager/Principal Investigator:

Contractor Key Person (name):

Government Comment on Contractor Key Person:

Contractor Key Person (name):

Government Comment on Contractor Key Person:

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Did the Contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, reporting and other aspects of the plan? _Yes _No _N/A (Check one)

If this is a bundled contract, did the Contractor meet the goals and objectives for small business participation?

_Yes _No _N/A (Check one)

Government Comments on Small Business Subcontracting Plan:

Small Disadvantaged Business Goals

Did the Contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, monetary targets for SDB participation, and required notifications? _Yes _No _N/A (Check one)

Government Comments on Small Disadvantaged Business Goals:

Customer Satisfaction

Is/was the Contractor committed to customer satisfaction?

_Yes

_No (Check one)

Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?

REPORT ONLY

_Yes

_No (Check one) – FINAL

Government Comments on Customer Satisfaction:

RECOMMENDATION: Given what I know today about the Contractor’s ability to execute what they promised in their proposal, I award to them today given that I had a choice.

SIGNATURE, TITLE DATE

Rating Guidelines:

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business)

Contractor was 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.

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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order.

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/order.

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).

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).

NOTE 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to change the evaluation status.

NOTE 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business)

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/order, 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 in an accurate and timely manner.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was 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, landscaping, etc.

There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Damages-Subcontracting Plan.

NOTE 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to change evaluation status.

NOTE 2: Generally, zero percent is not a goal unless the Contracting Officer determined when negotiating the subcontracting plan that no subcontracting opportunities exist in a particular socio-economic category. In such cases, the Contractor shall be considered to have met the goal for any socio-economic category where the goal negotiated in the plan was zero.

image1.jpeg