BPA Attachment V - EDOS_Award Term Plan.pdf

Award Term Plan – BPA Attachment V Internal Revenue Service

IRS

ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

OPERATIONS SERVICES (EDOS)

Contract Number: TBD

Award Term Plan

Date: TBD Contract #:

Record of Changes

Date

Version

Reference (Table, Figure, or Paragraph)

A=Add M=Modify D=Delete

Brief Description of Change

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Purpose

4. Objectives………

5. Award Term Organization ……………………

5.1 Organization

5.1.1 Award Term Determination Official

5.1.2 Award Term Evaluation Board

5.2 Duties of the Team

5.2.1 Responsibilities

6.0 Award Term Evaluation Methodology

6.1 Performance Evaluation Ratings………………………………………………………….…...7

6.2 Performance Grading Scale

6.2.1 Technical Performance

6.2.2 Management Performance

6.2.3 Cost Control

6.2.4 Scoring for Award Term Eligibility:

6.2.5 Award Term Determination Method………………………………………………………..12

6.3 Performance Evaluation Periods……………………………………………………………...12

7.0 Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………….12

7.1 Step-by-Step Procedures for Award Term Evaluation Periods………………………….……12

8.0 Terms and Conditions……………………………………………

1.0 INTRODUCTION. This Award Term Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”) serves as the charter which will be used to evaluate the Contractor's performance of work required by this contract and to determine whether the performance award term (hereinafter referred to as the “award term” or “term”) will be granted. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires top-level performance to meet program requirements. Hence, this performance plan is designed to provide an additional incentive to the Contractor for outstanding quality performance that will benefit the IRS.

The intent of this plan is to establish procedures for the evaluation of Contractor performance by furnishing guidelines and procedures for: (1) evaluating the Contractor's performance during evaluation periods as referenced in paragraph 6.3 and the contract; and (2) furnishing sufficient data to enable the Award Term Determination Official (ATDO) to determine whether the award term will be granted.

2.0 BACKGROUND. “Award term contract” is a non-monetary type of incentive contract that enables a contractor to become eligible for one or more award terms under a contract by achieving prescribed performance objectives and measures (e.g., acceptable quality levels (AQL)) which demonstrate contractor performance as having exceeded Government expectations during an established evaluation period.

“Award term” is an additional period of performance defined in the contract that is available for possible award to a contractor based on the achievement of prescribed performance objectives and measures which demonstrated the contractor’s performance as having exceeded Government expectations during an established evaluation period.

Enterprise Development Operations Services (EDOS) has a period of performance (POP) of a one-year (12 month) base period, four one-year (12 months each) option periods (exercised at the government’s discretion in accordance with FAR 52.217-9), and two potential award terms (12 months each). The ordering period of the contract is potentially 5 years and may extend up to 7 years if both award term years are earned.

3.0 PURPOSE. This plan and contract terms and conditions specified in the contract shall serve as a guide to IRS personnel directly involved in the evaluation of Contractor performance for purposes of determining the contractor’s eligibility to be awarded an award term under this contract.

4.0 OBJECTIVES. The objective of this performance award term feature is to incentivize Contractor performance in the areas delineated in paragraph 6.0. Therefore, the Contractor should emphasize these areas in its performance of this contract.

5.0 AWARD TERM ORGANIZATION.

5.1 Organization. The organization of the Award Term Team is described in the following paragraphs.

5.1.1 Award Term Determination Official (ATDO). The ATDO is TBD, Branch Chief- Office of Information Technology Acquisition/ Corporate Support Branch or his/her designee.

5.1.2 Award Term Evaluation Board (ATEB). The Applications Development (AD) office will appoint a team to assist in evaluating the Contractor's performance. The team members will ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the Contractor's performance for the period being evaluated. The Team Chairman may also use non-voting advisors as necessary. The ATEB will consist of members from the following IRS Information Technology (IT) organization:

• Chairperson - Applications Development Director representative

• Member 1 - Compliance Domain Director representative

• Member 2 - Corporate Data Domain Director representative

• Member 3 - Customer Service Domain Director representative

• Member 4 - Data Delivery Services Domain Director representative

• Member 5 - Delivery Management & Quality Assurance Domain Director representative

• Member 6 - Identity & Access Management Domain Director representative

• Member 7 - Internal Management Domain Director representative

• Member 8 - Submission Processing Domain Director representative

• Member 9 - Submission Processing Domain Director representative

• Advisor(s) - Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or other SMEs as needed.

The ATDO or ATEB chairperson may designate substitutions to the above identified ATEB as may be necessary without prior notice to the Contractor. The ATEB will make his/her recommendation to the ATDO, who will then forward the final decision to the Contracting Officer (CO) for review and concurrence.

5.2 Duties of the Team. The duties of the team are as follows:

5.2.1 Responsibilities

The ATDO is responsible for:

1) Approving the award-term plan and the evaluation factors and scoring methodology.

2) Reviewing the recommendations of the ATEB, considering all pertinent data and determining whether a term is awarded, or no change is made; and forwarding the decision to the CO for concurrence and implementation. The CO advises the Contractor in writing of annual evaluation results and award term decision and documents the basis for the decision.

The ATEB Chairperson is responsible for:

1) Selecting members of the ATEB.

2) Leading the ATEB meetings, to include developing a consensus evaluation and in resolving significant differences in ratings upon reaching a final consensus.

3) Provides summary documentation to the ATDO on the Contractor’s overall performance and award term recommendation.

4) Recommends changes to the Award Term Plan.

5) May provide feedback to the Contractor in order to focus the Contractor on areas that would lead to improved performance in subsequent periods.

The ATEB Members are responsible for:

1) Evaluating the Contractor’s overall performance for the award term period using report data on Contractor’s achievements as defined, measured and periodically reported in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); the Contractor’s self-assessment, if any; and other pertinent information.

2) Arriving at an award term recommendation to be presented to the ATAO.

3) Recommending changes to the Award Term plan.

4) Prepare the evaluation report and accompanying narrative justification.

The CO is responsible for:

1) Acting as liaison between the Contractor and the Government.

2) Transmitting correspondence to the Contractor.

3) Executing the contract modification, exercising the term, if earned by the Contractor.

4) Notifying the Contractor in writing of any approved changes to the Award Term plan.

5) Attending ATEB meetings and providing contractual guidance and input to the members.

6) Recommending changes to the Award Term plan.

7) Maintains documentation related to the award term as part of the official contract file.

6.0 AWARD TERM EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.

a. General. Evaluation criteria and rating/performance standards are described below. Evaluation criteria and their relative weights may change during the life of the contract at the Government’s discretion but will be communicated to the Contractor.

b. Categories. The contractor’s performance will be rated in the categories of Technical, Management, and Cost using the criteria described below:

• Technical performance in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), performance will be evaluated at the task order level taking into consideration the Contractor’s ability to meet or exceed the Performance Standards in the QASP required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 37.6 and the Technical sub-factors, such as quality, timeliness, and gained efficiencies. The QASP shall incorporate, at a minimum, the baseline performance metrics relating to on time delivery, within scope, and meeting requirements performance objectives, which apply to each task order.

• Management performance will be evaluated with respect to the Contractor’s ability to maintain an open, collaborative, and productive relationship with the Government that accomplishes the Management sub-factors objectives in a timely and efficient manner, such as reducing cycle time.

• Cost performance, will evaluate the efficacy of the Contractor’s ability to contain cost and achieve the Cost sub-factors, and cost/price control efforts.

6.1 PEFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS. Evaluation of the Contractor’s performance will result in one of four ratings, Exceptional, Very Good, Good or Unsatisfactory, as described below.

The contractor’s performance will be reviewed annually before each option period is exercised. As it relates to the award term years, the contractor will be eligible to earn the 1st Award Term Year with an evaluation of Exceptional or Very Good for services provided in Option Year 3. The contractor will be eligible to earn the 2nd Award Term Year with an evaluation of Exceptional or Very Good for services provided in Option Year 4. Unsatisfactory performance will result in the Contractor receiving a negative input to the CPARS for the period evaluated; further, an unsatisfactory rating on any assessment may result in termination of the agreement.

Exceptional: Totally responsive, flexible, and proactive to changes in direction and adapting resources to successfully deal with the changes. Project organization consistently assures on time or early responses to all deadlines. No adverse effect on productivity, performance delivery or cost.

Total Score between 9-10

Very Good: Very responsive and flexible to changes in direction and adapting resources to successfully deal with the changes. Project organization assures on time responses to short fuse deadlines in almost all cases. Rarely is there an adverse effect on productivity, performance delivery or cost. Total Score between 7-8

Good: Met contract requirements. Adjusts easily to changes on many occasions. Little adverse effect on productivity, performance, delivery or cost. Total Score between 5-6

Unsatisfactory: Does not meet contract requirements. Scores below 4

6.2 PERFORMANCE GRADING SCALE

The ATEB shall use the following general guidelines in determining the award term ratings:

Factors Weight

Section

Technical Performance

40%

6.2.1

Management Performance

40%

6.2.2

Cost Control

20% 6.2.3

6.2.1 Technical Performance

Factor Weight: 40%

Description of Factor: For the annual evaluation period, the Contractor's technical performance will be assessed to determine if the work that has been performed meets the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), including a variety of sub-factors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

1. Technical Requirements – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing effective and efficient performance-based services to meet the technical requirements and schedules as described in the PWS. This includes a subjective assessment of the quality of performance-based services provided, i.e., accuracy of contractor performance in providing services, the timely completion of key milestones and tasks identified, and anticipating and resolving problems; recovery from delays; reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes; and the quality and timeliness of all technical reports and other required deliverables. The Government will make evaluations only on services that have been requested or ordered.

2. Risk Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing risk analysis; its ability to develop and carry out plans for risk mitigation; its ability to track risks and its implementation of mitigation plans; and its ability to assure that risk information is communicated among all levels of a program/project.

3. Innovation and Transformative Technology – Such as automated testing approaches that will save time, improve performance, and reduce programmatic cost. Streamlining processing and software development approached to eliminate redundancies, improve code quality and delivery times.

Reduce dead code and inefficient code architecture to facilitate improved performance.

4. Reduced time in P1/P2 Trouble Ticket responsiveness, maintaining a less than 48 hr. response time in ticket resolution.

5. Thoroughness - The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish overall requirements within schedule and budget.

6.2.2 Management Performance

Factor Weight: 40%

Description of Factor: Management is the manner in which the Contractor implements contract provisions. It includes personnel, inter-organizational interfaces, workflow, property and material controls, and contract management. For each semi-annual evaluation period, business management performance is broadly assessed in meeting the business management requirements for the overall contract, including a variety of sub-factors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

1. Contract Administration and Compliance – The Contractor will be evaluated on the overall administration of the contract. This will include accuracy and timeliness of all reporting requirements, timeliness of special project proposals, subcontract consent documentation and proposal submissions, overall compliance with all terms and conditions of the contract, and responsiveness to contract issues.

2. Customer Service – The Contractor will be evaluated on the ability to establish and maintain professional communications between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be measured through the number of customer complaints received monthly while executing tasks during a given period of performance.

3. Responsiveness of Upper Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which corporate staffing, strategies, policies, plans, procedures, and actions provide an effective context for the successful performance of the contract and its subcontracts. This includes effective and timely management actions in relationships or interfaces with all major team organizations.

4. Personnel Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient performance-based services; and the extent to which the Contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and cost-effective contract performance.

5. Communications – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing good communication within its organization and the Government and whether all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.

6.2.3 Cost Control

Factor Weight: 20%

Description of Factor: Cost Control is the manner in which the contractor controls costs and manages financial resources. Cost Control includes the measure of the contractor's success in controlling actual costs against the negotiated estimated cost of all active task orders.

The cost control shall be based on how the Contractor's (and subcontractors) actual accrued costs, contained in the monthly financial reports, compare to the negotiated estimated cost of all work performed within an evaluation period. The analysis of negotiated cost control will also consider changes in support requirements, changed statutory requirements, and/or changes beyond the Contractor’s control, which impact performance costs, including a variety of sub-factors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

1. Financial Reporting – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which financial reports are accurate, timely and complete; and the extent to which financial systems are responsive to special analyses or quickly adjusted because of contract changes or program events.

2. Timeliness and Accuracy – When submitting invoices for processing, any required correction to an invoice should be minor in nature and made expeditiously. If corrections are required, the amount of time the contractor takes to make the correction and the number of corrections will be factored into the contractor’s performance.

3. Transparency and Clarity – Timely reporting of contract burn rate against funding received as well as funding still needed for any outstanding funding amounts against the overall contract value amount. These reports can be based on projections and/or after invoicing, whichever facilitates the timeliness and clarity the government needs to understand the state and health of the overall Task Order levels. Success is measured against avoiding any need for having to receive any Authority To Proceed (a CR can create and exception to this), and last minute/no notice funding allocations required to avoid a “stop work”.

4. Vendor Pass-Through Savings - The contractor will be transparent with any pass-through savings they receive from their vendors/subcontractors, allowing visibility to all costs associated with the transaction and a clear delineation of savings achieved during any given billing period.

6.2.4 Scoring for Award Term Eligibility:

To be eligible for the award term, the evaluation team’s consensus scoring as discussed in section

6.1 shall result in an overall rating of EXCEPTIONAL or VERY GOOD. The Contractor’s performance will be scored with respect to each of the three categories, as described above in Section 6.0(b) in combination with the below scoring method with a scale from 0 - 10:

(1) Technical – Score is 0 - 10 and is determined by applying the degrees of success and associated rating criteria as shown in Section 6.2 above.

Note: A score of 0 will result if the percentage of QASP performance objectives met is 95% or below.

(2) Management – Score is 0 - 10 and is determined by applying the degrees of success and associated rating criteria as shown in Section 6.2 above.

(3) Cost - Score is 0 - 10 and is determined by applying the degrees of success and associated rating criteria as shown in Section 6.2 above.

6.2.5 Award Term Determination Method (Category Score # (0-10) multiplied by Weight% equals Total Score).

The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated with respect to the categories and weights shown below. Scores will be multiplied by their respective weightings and totaled. The total score will be rounded to the nearest integer value.

Category Score Weight Totals

(1) Technical ______ 40% = ______

(2) Management ______ 40% = ______

(3) Cost ______ 20% = ______

Total Score: ______ 100% = ______ (award term score)

The combined score, for purposes of establishing the performance evaluation rating (section 6.1) of the Award Term Plan that is available for the period, is calculated by adding the totals for each of the three categories.

Weights may be revised at the discretion of the ATDO. Prior to the start of a new award term rating period, the contractor will be notified as to any changes in the above stated weights.

6.3 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIODS. Evaluation areas for each performance evaluation period, as identified in paragraph 6.0 of this plan, will be reviewed for annual performance evaluations commencing 12 months after the start of the contract as part of the regular Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) process. Performance reviews that are tied to Award Term Plan evaluation reviews will be held in conjunction with regular contract CPARS reviews and in accordance with the terms specified in section 7 of this Plan.

There are two Award Term evaluation periods:

A. Interim Evaluations. Interim evaluations may be conducted within 6 months after the completion of the contractor’s annual year’s performance, or at other times at the discretion of the CO. Contractor self-assessments are not required for interim evaluations but may be submitted at the Contractor’s discretion.

B. Formal Award Term Evaluations. The first formal AT evaluation will be conducted after

Option Year 3 is complete and based on performance during Option Year 3. A second formal Award Term Evaluation will be conducted after Option Year 4. A determination of Exceptional or Very Good performance will result in the Contractor earning one 12-month award term to be exercised unilaterally by the Contracting Officer at the end of the contract’s final period of performance. A Good or less rating on performance evaluations will result in no change to the POP terms of the contract and award terms will not be eligible. Accordingly, the term of this contract may range from one year (if no option years are exercised) to 7 years (if Contractor performance warrants exercise of all options and the Contractor earns the maximum amount (2) Award Term extensions).

The ATEB will meet with the Chairperson and conduct the evaluation based on the periodic reports documenting the Contractor’s alignment with standards outlined in the QASP, previous interim evaluation reports, the Contractor’s written self-assessment (and briefing, if presented), and information from other relevant sources.

7.0 PROCEDURES

7.1 Step-by-Step Procedures for Award Term Evaluation Periods

Step 1. Interim Evaluation. The ATEB will meet with the Chairperson and conduct the evaluation based on the periodic reports documenting the Contractor’s achievements in aligning with standards in the QASP, the Contractor’s written self-assessment (if applicable), briefing (if presented), and information from other relevant sources. The ATEB Chairperson will submit Interim Evaluation “Award Term Evaluation Forms” (of the members) to the CO; the CO may provide the summary report to the Contractor and use any information gathered to put in CPARS. Proposed changes to the award term plan may be raised at this point. The CO will notify the Contractor, via written notification and/or verbally, at any evaluation time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern. Evaluations will be completed in 30 calendar days and completed worksheets will be submitted to the Team Chairman, who in turn will submit to the ATDO and CO.

Step 2. Formal Evaluation. The Contractor shall submit a written self-assessment to the CO within 5 calendar days (official work duty days) after any initial award term evaluation period has been initiated. It shall contain a brief written documentation (maximum 15 pages) of exceptional work performed in any of the criteria stated in the Plan. At the discretion of the ATDO, the Contractor may also be invited to present a briefing to the ATEB/ATDO in order to answer questions regarding the self-assessment.

The ATEB Chairperson will conduct the evaluation, prepare a written memorandum to summarize the ATEB findings and document the rationale for the award term recommendation, and brief the recommendation to the ATDO no later than 15 calendar days. The Team shall review all evaluation material along with supporting documentation and may call additional technical and management advisors to provide supporting information as required. They will form a consensus evaluation of Contractor performance using the factors set forth in the plan and with supporting justifications present it to the ATDO for final decision on the Contractor performance rating. After receipt of the recommendation, the ATDO will make a final award term decision within 15 calendar days and forward the summary of the Contractor’s performance assessment and final decision to the CO for review and concurrence.

A determination rating of Exceptional or Very Good performance will result in the Contractor earning one 12-month award term to be exercised unilaterally by the Contracting Officer at the end of the contract’s final period of performance. All evaluation activities need to be completed at a point earlier than 31 calendar days after the end of each period being evaluated in order for the evaluation decision to be made and announced no later than 60 days after the period being evaluated.

Step 3. No later than 10 calendar days after the ATDO receives the Team’s recommendations, the ATDO shall determine the Contractor's evaluation rating for the period. A summary narrative report highlighting Contractor strengths and weaknesses shall be prepared into a decision memorandum.

Within 5 calendar days after receipt of the ATDO’s decision memorandum, the CO will notify the Contractor in writing of the award term decision and provide an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance as measured against the Plans evaluation criteria.

Step 4. The Contracting Officer shall provide the ATDO’s notice or announcement to the Contractor of the evaluation rating assigned. The notice shall be forwarded to the Contractor and all discussions resolved and a written notification of the award term entitlement shall serve as official notification (see 6.3 B above) not later than 45 days after the end of the applicable evaluation period.

Step 5. Prior to commencement of work under an award term year, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor in writing of the intent to award the additional Award Term Year.

In addition to the award term evaluations, the ATDO will also consider, when making the award term decision, the annual Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARS) that was completed or is in the process of being completed on the Contractor. Any inconsistencies between the award term evaluation and the CPARS shall be addressed in the ATDO’s narrative report and decision regarding the award term.

8.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Award Term Plan.

(a) Award term plan. The EDOS BPA will include award term incentives, which establishes how the Government will monitor and assess the Contractor’s performance during the performance of the contract and, together with paragraph (b) below, serves as the basis for the Government’s award term determinations. The award term plan may be revised only by a bilateral modification to the contract.

(b) Performance. Contractor performance will be monitored and assessed by the Government based on the defined performance objectives and measures that are described in the award term plan. These performance objectives and measures provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the performance to be achieved by the Contractor to become eligible for award term. To be eligible for an award term—

(1) The Contractor’s performance must demonstrate performance that is above and beyond Government expectations in terms of what is considered acceptable/satisfactory performance under the contract;

(2) The Contractor must not be listed in the System for Award Management (SAM) with active exclusions;

(3) The Government must have funds available;

(4) The Government must have a need for the service; and

(5) The award term is separately priced in the contract and was prior to award of the contract evaluated and considered by the Government during the source selection process.

(c) Post-award.

(1) Award terms may be unilaterally cancelled or not awarded by the Government prior to the start of an award term at no cost to the Government. The CO shall notify the contractor of the Government’s determination and include within the notification the reasons why the award term is being canceled/not awarded as well as whether any remaining award term for which the Contractor remains otherwise eligible are affected.

(2) The Government’s determination not to award or to cancel an award term for any of the reasons set forth in the Plan shall not be considered either a termination for convenience or termination for default and shall not entitle the Contractor to any termination settlement or any other compensation.

(3) The contractor has the unilateral right to decline the Government’s determination to award an award term. The contractor shall notify the CO of its decision to decline an award term within five days of receipt of the Government’s notification that the contractor is eligible to receive an award term. The contractor’s decision to decline an award term may impact its ability to earn any remaining award terms based on the terms of the contract.

(4) If award terms were used with options and either of the events described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) above occur, a CO shall consider the Government’s next steps and the impact, if any, such events have on the Government’s ability to exercise any remaining options (see FAR subpart 17.2) and the various periods of performances described in the contract. For example, the CO may need to modify the contract in order adjust both the contract period performance and period of performance for each remaining award term and option in order to reflect an award term not being exercised. Alternatively, the CO may determine the Government no longer has a need for the requirement therefore the contract can be allowed to expire.

(5) Award Term Change Procedures. Either the Government or the Contractor may propose changes to this award-term plan. The Government may make unilateral changes to the plan for evaluation periods that have not already begun. The CO will provide written notification of plan changes to the Contractor prior to the changes taking effect. If the revision was executed within thirty (30) days of its start date, the revised award term plan shall not take effect until the next evaluation period.

ATTACHMENT 1: Calendar for Award Term Activities (2023)

TBD Interim Evaluation: Evaluating POP (OY3 from TBD)

This is not meant to be a complete POP eval. This is meant to follow the procedures and let the Contractor know what to expect (feedback is provided to Contractor by CO). This is optional. This is the Contractor’s as well as the Gov'ts opportunity to suggest and make changes to the plan before the formal eval. Complete ATEB report by TBD (30 calendar days). Interim Evaluation can be used for CPARS of OY3.

TBD Request Contractor's self assessment of OY 3. Due in 5 working days TBD Optional face to face to discuss self assessment TBD Formal eval begins.

TBD Consensus eval report with supporting documentation provided to CO/ATDO TBD ATDO provides final decision to CO

TBD Brief summary narrative report highlighting strengths and weaknesses prepared into decision memo

TBD CO provides decision memo to Contractor and modification is issued

ATTACHMENT 2 —SAMPLE CONTRACTOR

AWARD TERM EVALUATION FORM

Contract No TBD PREPARED BY: Value of Contract: $2.6B dollars

Estimated Labor Hours (if applicable)

PERFORMANCE PERIOD BEING EVALUATED:

Award Term Scores EVALUATION FACTORS3 Exceptional

9-10 Very Good

7-8 Good

5-6 Unsatisfactory

0-4 TOTAL SCORE (of 3 factors) is______

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE

COST CONTROL

*COMMENTS (note any weaknesses or strengths in the contractor’s performance, quality of work received by the IRS and contractor’s management of resources (including costs in labor hours or reimbursable charges))

Signature of Evaluator Date

Exceptional