Atch_2_QASP_FA5613-13-R-0001_MC T_Final.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

MEDICAL CODING & TRAINING SUPPORT

AT

UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE (USAFE)

MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES

FA5613-13-R-0001

HQ USAFE/SG

04 February 2013

MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAM REVIEW & ACCEPTANCE.

Multi-Functional Team (MFT) member’s signatures below indicate their review and acceptance of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for HQ USAFE/SG, Medical Coding & Training Support Service Contract. These signatures indicate coordination on this QASP at the time of development and will remain in effect until the plan is changed. The inclusion of alternates and successors to these below-named individuals is effected automatically upon their assumption of duties.

BENJAMIN WOOD, CIV, USAFE CONS SPECIALIZED/LGCD Date Contract Specialist (CS)

JUSTIN TRUITT, CIV, USAFE CONS SPECIALIZED/LGCD Date Contracting Officer (CO)

PAULA J. HULL, CIV, 700 CONS/LGCP Date Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

CRYSTAL KLETTE, SSgt, USAFE 31 MDSS/SGST, (AVIANO) Date Primary Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

TEDDY AUWAE, CIV, 48 MDSS/SGST, (LAKENHEATH) Date Alternate Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

STEPHEN LARSEN, CIV, AFMOA/SGHC Date COR Supervisor

TIMOTHY MIDDLETON, LT COL, HQ USAFE SG/SGS Date COR Supervisor (Alternate)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page

1. Overview 4

2. Description of Services 4

3. Objectives 4

4. MFT Results 4

5. MFT Roles and Responsibilities 4

6. MFT Management Approach 6

7. Performance Assessment Approach 6

8. Performance Objectives 7

9. Performance Assessment Documentation 9

10. Reporting Requirements 11

11. Certification of Services 11

12. Corrective Action Report (CAR) & Log 12

13. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Checklist 14

14. CPARS Definitions 17

15. Customer Complaint Record and Customer Feedback Log 18

16. Initial Contract Performance Review 20

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 Purpose. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed and will be implemented in accordance with (IAW) Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5346.103, Contracting Office Responsibilities guidelines. This plan will be used by the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to ensure contractor compliance on the HQ USAFE/SG, Medical Coding and Training Support Service Contract. This plan will focus on the level of performance required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS), not the methodology or process.

1.2 Intent. The intent of this plan is to rely on the Contractor’s quality control, thus changing the Government’s role from “oversight” to “insight”. Performance Objectives (POs) will be periodically monitored and the quality program evaluated but the Contractor is left as free as possible to develop the most efficient methodology to meet and exceed the required thresholds of service.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

2.1 Scope of Work. The contract will provide contractor non-personal services in support of HQ USAFE/SG. The contractor shall provide all management, supervision, necessary equipment and supplies, and trained personnel, except for those identified in paragraph 8 of the PWS. The Contractor shall provide non-personal services to perform outpatient record coding, inpatient record coding, ambulatory procedure coding, and related medical record functions covering a wide range of medical specialties for the specific Medical Treatment Facility (MTF). These services are considered to be non-mission essential. The CORs are located at the MTFs onsite at Aviano, Incerlik and Lakenheath.

SECTION I. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

3. OBJECTIVE. This QASP is designed to provide the COR an effective systematic surveillance method for each item listed on the Services Summary (SS). The goal of PBSA is to design mission support strategies that obtain higher levels of contractor performance, foster synergistic partnerships, accommodate changing or unforeseen mission needs, and leverage commercial best practices. These support strategies align mission performance needs with performance-based work statements and acquisition approaches designed to deliver the desired mission support results.

4. MFT RESULTS. The results in managing this acquisition through this QASP are to provide internal and external customers with quality customer support and services that are delivered on time in support of the various missions.

5. MFT ROLES & RESPONSBILITIES. The following Government officials will participate in performance management of the contractor. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

5.1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR): Individuals designated to perform quality assessment functions, and manage performance IAW the QASP. They serve as on-site technical managers assessing contractor performance against contract performance thresholds. Personnel in this area may have different titles, but most often they will be referred to as COR. They are responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on contractor compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. These individuals will have primary responsibility for completing quality assurance checklists that will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor's performance. The COR will maintain monthly surveillance documentation, notify the COR Supervisor of any significant performance deficiencies and recommend improvements to the QASP and PWS throughout the life of the acquisition. The COR will provide a report to the COR Supervisor of surveillance performed and results at least monthly. The COR will monitor contractor property control.

5.2. The Contracting Officer (CO): The CO has overall responsibility for oversight of the contractor's performance. The CO will also be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor's performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control; reviewing the COR assessment of the contractor's performance; and resolving all differences between the COR version and the contractor's version of events. The CO is the only person with the authority to direct the contractor in the performance of their duties under the contract and to make interpretations of and changes to the contract.

5.3. COR Supervisor duties include:

5.3.1 Identifying mission essential services, to include developing the necessary documents IAW DODI 1100.22, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix.

5.3.2. Assigning primary and alternate CORs unless another Quality Assurance organization or method can satisfy performance assessment requirements (e.g., Program Management Office).

5.3.3. Reviewing contractor performance documentation, prepared by CORs, on a regular basis to ensure performance is compatible with contract and mission objectives while supporting a higher level of contractor performance, and fostering synergistic partnerships.

5.3.4. Reviewing the PWS and QASP annually and coordinating any changes with the contracting squadron.

5.4. The Contracting Squadron Commander’s duties include:

5.4.1. Serving as the Business Advisor to senior leadership.

5.4.2. Providing the health of services acquisition to senior leadership annually; providing annual execution review reports on services acquisitions to the MAJCOM for consolidation. Subjects may include the effectiveness of the performance assessment and performance management of the service acquisition; the effectiveness of performance objectives, contract cost changes, acquisition planning, strategic sourcing issues, and the centralized MFT; and the effectiveness of the MFT and senior leadership business objectives.

5.4.3. Making sure the MFT exercises acquisition authorities and responsibilities according to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).

5.5. The Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC): The QAPC develops, manages and implements the base Quality Assurance Program; supports the MFT in the development of contract requirements ensuring requirements are clearly stated and enforceable; aids in development of the SS and QASP and provides training to COR Supervisors, CORs, and others that interact with this contract as needed.

5.6. The Contract Specialist (CS): The CS is the contracting office’s focal point for issues regarding the contract. The CS prepares and processes modifications to the contract, assists the CO in ensuring contractor performance meets contract standards, and records and transcribes minutes for meetings. The CS shall inspect the CORs QASP files at least yearly to ensure documentation is maintained.

6. MFT MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO VALIDATE THE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.

6.1. Program reviews with MFT members will address funding status, contract progress, rationale for any contemplated changes, COR oversight, contract compliance, and overall customer satisfaction. MFT meetings will be held annually and when required thereafter.

6.2 Annual execution review reports and annual briefings to the commander on the health of services contracts will also be used as a management tool to assess and validate the objectives and goals identified as part of the QASP.

6.3. The actions listed in 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 will assist the MFT in assessing contractor performance and validating that the performance metrics align with the performance-based work statement and overall mission support objectives. The MFT meets at least annually with contractor counterparts to review and discuss performance. Monthly updates may be provided to the contractor to keep them aware of performance data.

SECTION 2. CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT APPROACH

7.1. Purpose. This section details the method(s) used to verify contractor compliance with PWS requirements. The key elements of this process are the contractor's quality program and Government identified performance objectives. The performance objectives from paragraph 8 of this QASP dictate the minimum inspection requirements COR must accomplish on a periodic basis. This QASP provides the procedures on how to conduct the evaluations for performance objectives and how to document them in a correct and effective manner.

7.2. Performance Assessment Approach. To facilitate the performance assessment of the contractor's quality program, COR will verify contractor compliance with designated performance objectives. The intent of the performance assessment approach is to gain confidence in the contractor’s ability to provide satisfactory services and then adjusting the level of performance assessment to a point that maintains confidence. This performance assessment approach is subject to change based on the contractor’s performance.

7.2.1. Review of the Contractor's Quality Control Plan and quality control records will ensure contractor compliance with the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan in pursuit and fulfillment of the contract's quality requirements.

7.2.2. Review of all deliverables for accuracy, quality and timeliness IAW the SS will be accomplished. Specific deliverables include, but are not limited to:

7.2.3. Daily interaction with the Contractor will serve to ensure understanding of the internal and external customer initiatives outlined in the PWS.

7.3. Customer Complaints. When customer complaints are to be used as a method of Performance assessment, the COR will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of any negative comments received.

7.3.1. If the COR determines that the negative comment is not valid, the customer will be informed of the reason(s) why and carry on further correspondence if necessary. The complaint will be closed on the feedback log.

7.3.2. For validated negative comments, the COR will notify the contractor to allow the opportunity for investigation, comment and any corrective action. The COR will refer to the procedures in paragraph 9 to determine whether it is necessary to initiate a Corrective Action Report (CAR) and coordinate with the COR Supervisor and CO on any CAR. If acceptable action is taken by the contractor, the complaint is closed on the log. If unacceptable action is taken or the complaint cannot be resolved at the COR level, it will be elevated to the CO for final resolution.

7.3.3. The COR will also notify the customer of the corrective action taken by the contractor, if applicable.

7.3.4. The COR, with assistance from the COR Supervisor, will conduct trend analysis, as required, of validated negative comments.

7.4. Annual Review. The COR must review QASP performance objectives, assess their applicability and recommend the addition or subtraction of performance objectives as conditions warrant to the MFT or CO through the COR Supervisor. This review must be accomplished annually as a minimum.

7.5. Combating Trafficking In Persons (CTIP): The COR will ensure the contractor complies with FAR Clause 52.222-50, “Combating Trafficking in Persons (Feb 2009)”, Alternate 1, and any future updated to this clause and report any violations to the Contracting Officer.

8. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

8.1. Performance Objectives. The following is a list of the contractual performance objectives to be validated by COR. Each performance objective includes a Government-determined performance threshold and the method that is used to perform the verification. The performance objectives in this paragraph represent the minimum items that must have performance assessment accomplished on a periodic basis. Any performance assessment of PWS requirements not required by the QASP must still be documented in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Checklist as described in paragraph 9.1.

8.2. Services Summary:

SS TABLE

· Three (3) working days for ER, billable, outpatient encounters

· Fifteen (15) calendar days for APV encounters

· Thirty (30) calendar days for inpatient dispositions

· Daily for Inpatient Rounds No more than three (3) instances of not meeting the timeliness metric per item in a reporting month.

8.3. Assessment Method. The methods of surveillance identified in the “Assessment Method” column indicate the Government’s primary approach to quality assurance and assessment for the given performance objectives. Each of these methods is subject to change unilaterally by the Government, without notice to the contractor and without the necessity of a contract modification. The contractor’s performance may be monitored using any of the following methods: meetings or conferences with the contractor; periodic assessment/inspection, customer feedback, third party audits or assessments, random surveillance or other.

8.4. Re-Performance. If any of the services performed do not conform to contract requirements, the Government may require the contractor to perform the services again in conformity with the contract requirements at no additional cost to the Government. The COR will document the conformity and forward it to the CO. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government will:

8.4.1. Require the contractor to take all avenues of corrective action(s) to ensure adherence to the contract.

8.4.2. Reduce contract price to reflect the value of sub-standard performance.

9. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION.

9.1. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Checklist. COR must document performance as it is accomplished IAW the assessment method and frequency as it relates to the performance thresholds set forth in the QASP. The COR will document results on the QASP Checklist. Both the COR and the COR Supervisor will sign and date the document. The COR will forward the completed documentation to the CS and CO by the fifth working day of the following month to document the previous month’s performance. A performance assessment will be documented at least monthly on a bilateral checklist, signed by the COR and the contractor Site Lead Manager. The QASP Checklist is an official Government record of inspections of the performance objectives and other inspection items contained in this QASP.

9.1.1. The QASP Checklist is locally developed; see paragraph 13 for sample.

9.1.2. Completed QASP Checklists will be maintained in the COR’s performance assessment folder until such time as they are stored in the contract performance assessment file. At the completion of the contract, the COR will contact the CO for disposition instructions of the performance assessment records. The QASP Checklists can be maintained in soft-copy form as long as there is ample backup to preclude loss of data.

9.2. Deficiency Reporting. When performance is determined less than satisfactory, the COR must inform the contractor's on-site representative that performance is unacceptable and document the finding on a Corrective Action Report (CAR). If evidence is shown where the contractor's quality control program has already documented the deficiency and timely corrective action is working the problem, a CAR may not need to be issued. The COR would then evaluate and document the contractor's action in correcting the cited deficiency and assure effective and timely corrective action is being obtained. The COR will also coordinate the deficiency report through the COR Supervisor to the CO and retain a copy in the official file.

9.2.1. Corrective Action Report (CAR); see paragraph 12 for sample. Used by the COR to document findings observed during checklist completion. A finding is any SS or non-SS item that has less than satisfactory performance. A CAR can also be used by the CO for any discrepancies on a contract issue.

9.2.2. The COR is responsible for initiating the CAR. If there are other questions as to how the CAR is completed, the COR should consult the CS or CO. The COR must forward a copy of the initiated CAR to the CS and CO. For a contractual discrepancy, the CO will initiate the CAR.

9.2.3. The COR will elevate any CARs that cannot be resolved with the contractor to the CO for resolution.

9.2.4. If the contractor receives a CAR over the course of the CPARs rating period, a determination will be made by the CO whether to include the negative performance data in that year’s CPAR.

9.2.5. Categories of Findings. A finding is any Government-identified noncompliance with contract requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place or was not performed to the quality or timeliness standard required by the contract or task order. A finding can be categorized as either major or minor. Findings will be documented on a CAR and must also be tracked in an activity log. Major/Minor Findings are defined as follows:

9.2.5.1. Major Finding. A conclusion that identifies a condition having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity under review such as:

9.2.5.1.1. Failure to meet a Performance Threshold.

9.2.5.1.2. Significant mission degradation in any contracted function.

9.2.5.1.3. A situation that is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals (or any other Government resource) coming into contact with the work.

9.2.5.1.4. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to preclude reoccurrence of Government identified findings.

9.2.5.1.5. Failure to provide corrective action to deficiencies identified by the Contractor within a prescribed suspense period.

9.2.5.1.6. Any failure to adhere to security regulations that results in a security incident.

9.2.5.2. Minor Finding. A departure from established standards which has little bearing on service provided. 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 quality system has not acted to prevent recurrence. In this case, the minor finding should be elevated to the level of a major finding and a new CAR initiated.

9.3. The COR is required to upload all documentation required (training certificates, monthly reports, etc.) into the Department of Defense (DoD) Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool. The CORT Tool manages OCR nominations and approvals and provides monthly status report tracking.

9.4. Timely Feedback to the Contractor. CORs will provide timely feedback regarding any deficiencies or substandard work for contractor corrective action. In addition, any correspondence with regard to deficiencies identified during contract performance shall be identified in the QASP Checklist and forwarded to the CS and CO.

9.5. Joint Surveillance. Periodically the CS and/or the QAPC may accompany the COR during inspections. This is to ensure the COR is performing surveillance in accordance with this QASP.

10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

10.1. COR Inputs to the COR Supervisor. The COR is required to report detailed results of performance objective verifications to the COR Supervisor on a monthly basis. The COR will compile inputs in the QASP Checklist that includes an overall performance rating configured to correspond to the ratings used to complete CPARS assessments. The QASP Checklist will also include deficiencies identified during the period, along with COR comments as necessary. In addition, the COR will identify those areas where the contractor has exceeded the minimum requirements of the PWS and their resultant benefit to the Government. Both the COR and Contractor Site Lead Manager shall sign the monthly checklist to ensure bilateral understanding of results/rating.

10.2. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Items that are surveyed IAW this QASP should be reviewed and considered as supporting documentation to the CPARS. The COR who is performing the performance assessment should keep in mind that details of the inspections from the QASP Checklist can be used to this purpose. The inclusion of more detailed documentation of inspection results would be very helpful to the MFT that develops the CPARS. A CPAR will be accomplished annually (at the end of each performance period) on this contract.

10.3. Initial Contract Performance Review. Within thirty days after contractor assumes full performance responsibilities an initial performance review will be conducted. Assessment Criteria for the review can be found in the document listed in paragraph 16. The review will result in one of the following assessment values:

Rating

place.

*Any red assessment shall include the Government proposed actions with respect to the failing contractor.

11. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICES. Certification of services is performed by the COR via the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system. At the end of each billing period, the contractor inputs invoice information into WAWF. WAWF automatically notifies the COR via email of pending invoice. The COR accesses, within 7 calendar days, WAWF in order to verify accuracy of contractor’s data. If data is correct, the services are received and accepted by the COR and the invoice is processed for payment by Defense Finance Accounting System (DFAS). If errors are encountered in contractor’s invoice, the COR consults with the contractor to mutually rectify data. If the contractor disagrees with the COR, the issue is forwarded to the CO for resolution. Additionally, any invoice discrepancy that affects the terms and conditions and /or price of the contract must be brought to the attention of the CO.

12. Corrective Action Report:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If More Space is Needed Use Reverse and Identify By Number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. 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. CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

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

11. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE

|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR) LOG

Issued Issued To Issued From Nonconformance Details Response Date CAR Closed Date Closed-Out Verification

13. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP) CHECKLIST

The QASP Checklist is a sample of items requiring documentation during monthly contractor performance assessments.

CONTACT NUMBER: FA5613-13-R-0001

TASK TITLE: Medical Coding & Training Support Observation Period:

Location of Performance:

1. Compliance with PWS SS item (1), Submit reports/deliverables:

2. Compliance with PWS SS item (2), Code and enter applicable data:

3. Compliance with PWS SS item (3), Code with accuracy:

4. Compliance with PWS SS item (4), Conduct Training:

5. Compliance with PWS SS item (6), Retrieve documentation (paper or electronic) for the AFMOA Audit encounters and forward (through secure electronic transmission or other mechanism) to AFMOA or designated office for independent review, auditing activities:

6. Overall contractor performance for the month of _______________(MMM/YYYY) was:

7. General/Other Comments:

COR Signature Block Date

Contractor receipt acknowledged, signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement:

Contractor Site Lead Manager Signature Block Date

14. CPARS Rating Criteria Definitions

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.

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.

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. Per DOD policy, 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.

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).

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).

15. Customer Feedback Log and Customer Complaint Record

( Y/N )

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

16. Initial Contract Performance Review*

Contractor:

Contract Number:

Description of Services:

The Multi Functional Team (MFT) will accomplish initial performance review within 30 calendar days after the contractor has assumed full performance responsibilities (i.e. after completion of transition/mobilization) to ensure the contractor has successfully started performance, completed transition, is fully operational, and is within the estimated cost, schedule, and performance parameters of the contract using the assessment values below.

Assessment values:

Green--No issues.

Yellow--Issue(s) but contractor has an adequate mitigation or corrective action plan in place.

Red--Issue(s) with inadequate or no contractor‘s mitigation or corrective action plan. Any red assessment shall include the government proposed actions with respect to the failing contractor.

For acquisitions greater than or equal to $100 million, results of the initial performance review shall be reported by plain text email or other expedient means to the AFPEO/CM. Negative variations in cost, schedule, staffing and or performance shall be reported with an assessment of the root causes and corrective action plan.

1. Technical. Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, safety, or health standards).

Assessment values and comments:

1. Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the contractor against contract requirements, task orders, milestones, delivery schedule, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).

1. Cost. Assess the contractor’s ability to remain within cost. (i.e. cost performance will be reported only if other than Firm Fixed Price). The assessment will include a discussion of the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost, as applicable.

1. Management/Performance. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction and management of subcontracts including progress on small business subcontracting goals.

1. Staffing. Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting and replacing when necessary, personnel.

1. Special Interest Items. (if applicable) Assess any significant modification to the contract made since contract award.

Comments:

*The SDO may waive the initial evaluation for contractors that have continued performance under a successor contract award (prior incumbent), or for contractors which have otherwise demonstrated full compliance with contract start-up. Separate initial contract performance is not required when they would duplicate reviews held and reported under Award fee or Award Term Plan provisions image1.jpeg