J-8_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_(QASP)_3Oct17.doc

FA8075-17-R-0001 Section J, Attachment 8

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACT (IAC MAC)

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Coordination and Review:

Functional Commander/Director

Date

Contracting Officer

Date

QASP

Part 1

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

This QASP has been developed to implement Performance-Based Service Acquisitions (PBSA). It is designed to meet the needs of the organization, assess contract success, assess and document contractor performance in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement, (PWS). The QASP also provides the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) an effective and systematic surveillance method for each listed service. In addition, this QASP adheres to the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) concept. The goal of the MFT is to give all members/stakeholders the ability to maintain the highest quality representative service to our customers and propose/initiate improvements throughout the life of the contract. Under this concept, continual contract assessment will be focused on ensuring that the contract, as written, continues to meet the needs of the customer. The signatures, on the attached signature page, indicate membership in the MFT.

1. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the IAC MAC are to:

a. Draw from and build on the knowledge base of BCOs and in turn add to that knowledge base through the development and delivery of STI resulting from R&D and other R&D-related analytical services.

b. Foster a connection and engage collaboratively with IAC BCOs performing work in relevant domain areas so as to maximize utilization of BCO products and services and minimize unnecessary duplication of effort.

c. Conduct and/or support a wide range of studies, evaluations, and analysis of methods.

d. Promote standardization within the focus areas covered under this PWS in the DoD/Federal environment.

2. GOALS OF THE MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAM: The MFT should strive to achieve efficiencies in the contract performance and improved customer support. The team is composed of stakeholders in the acquisition process and is responsible for the acquisition throughout the life of the requirement. The goal of the team is to define the requirement in performance based terms, assure contractor compliance with contract requirements and ensure that the contract as written continues to meet the needs of the functional organization. In addition, another goal is implementation and execution of the acquisition strategy to ensure support of the mission. The role entails planning, programming, and budgeting for adequate funds, ensuring program execution within the approved funding, developing the milestones and managing execution to ensure the contract supports mission requirements within the approved scheduled baseline, ensuring the program maintains accountability, and planning and managing of this service.

3.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

3.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

3.1.1 Ensures acquisition processes (i.e. market research, gathering past performance information, source selection, issuing solicitations, evaluating proposals and awarding the contract) are aggressively performed.

3.1.2 Participates in MFT meetings.

3.1.3 Delegates authority for inspection and/or acceptance to COR in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Informs the contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for all COR assigned to the contract.

3.1.4 Advises the MFT.

3.1.5 Manages CORs assigned to the contract.

3.2 Functional Commander/Director (FC/FD)

3.2.1 Ensures requirements documents developed by the MFT satisfy mission requirements, are performance based, foster innovation, and define metrics. Metrics should provide meaningful measurements of the contractor progress aimed at attaining desired outcomes.

3.2.2 Identifies mission essential services and develops the necessary documents in accordance with DoDI 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix.

3.2.3 Reviews the contractor performance documentation prepared by COR on a regular basis to ensure performance is compatible with contract and mission objectives.

3.3 Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC):

3.3.1 Coordinates all aspects of the QA program.

3.3.2 Supports the MFT and attends MFT meetings, as requested.

3.3.3 Provides training to COR Management including COR Supervisor and FC/FD.

3.3.4 Provides Phase I training to CORs at CO’s direction.

3.3.5 Maintains records of QA appointments and documents all COR and COR Management training.

3.4 Contracting Officer Representative (COR):

3.4.1 Participates in MFT meetings; performs/assists in accomplishing market research, gathering past performance information, evaluating technical proposals, and preparing the PWS and QASP.

3.4.2 Performs inspections to evaluate and document the contractor’s performance; notifies the CO of any significant performance deficiencies.

3.4.3 Maintains QA documentation, and recommends changes/improvements to the contract, PWS, QASP, or other requirements throughout the life of the contract to provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

3.4.4 Review 100% of Scientific and Technical Information (STI) reports IAW the IAC PMO STI Evaluation Rubric:

3.5 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) (i.e. Legal, Finance, Small Business, and Engineering POCs: Other POCs shall assist the MFT by coordinating, reviewing and providing input as needed and by participating as members when appointed.

3.6 Contractor:

3.6.1 Complies fully with the terms and conditions of the contract.

3.6.2 Participates as a member of the MFT in the post-award management phase if requested.

3.6.3 Maintains and implements a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that compliments the QASP if requested.

3.6.4 Ensures that non-conforming contract services are identified and correct and that the QCP is revised to prevent recurrence.

3.6.5 Tenders to the Government for acceptance only those services that conform to contract requirements.

3.6.6 Recommends any changes to the contract that will provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

3.7 Multi-Functional Team (MFT): This is a customer-focused team composed of stakeholders in the acquisition process. The team promotes good business decisions to meet customer requirements, fosters partnerships with industry to ensure exchanges of information with the contractor and other business experts, develops a performance-based acquisition strategy to include performance metrics, develops PBSA requirements, and develops technical requirements and the independent government cost estimate. The team is also responsible for managing contract performance in accordance with the QASP, assessing and documenting contractor performance in accordance with the QASP, identifying opportunities to improve performance throughout the life of the contract, completing and reporting annual performance reviews in the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) as required. All members of the MFT are responsible for determining if the contract continues to support the needs of the organization and notifying the CO if it does not. In this context, members of the MFT should consider whether there are tasks covered by the contract which are no longer required, whether there are needs related to the contract’s purpose which are not covered by the contract but could or should be, and whether they have received any customer complaints regarding contract scope. After contract award, the contractor may become a member of the MFT.

3.8 Surveillance Team (SvT): The surveillance team will perform ongoing assessment of contract performance by reviewing contract data and deliverables. The surveillance team will perform the following tasks:

3.8.1 Conduct assessments of Task Order technical adequacy. Monitor and assess contract scope, technical CDRLs, and others as required.

3.8.2 Review random sampling of Scientific and Technical Information (STI) reports IAW the IAC PMO STI Evaluation Rubric:

3.8.3 Monitor and assess contractual compliance. Review CDRLs and contract deliverables to assess contract performance in the areas of schedule, budget, and contractual compliance.

4. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (CONTRACT ASSESSMENT):

4.1 Metrics:

4.1.1 Market research will be used as a tool throughout the life of the contract to ensure the most current, efficient, and effective assessment methods and techniques of the commercial marketplace are applied to the performance of services under the contract. At a minimum, market research (including an informal survey of customers) will be conducted annually prior to exercising the option for an additional performance period. The results of the market research/survey of customers will be utilized in making the decision as to whether it is appropriate and in the Government’s best interests to exercise the option. These results will be documented in the CO’s Determination and Findings (D&F) supporting option exercise if that course of action is selected.

4.1.2 MFT meetings will be scheduled throughout the life of the contract. Attendees at specific team meetings will vary based on the circumstances or issues to be covered at each meeting. Continual contract assessment will be focused on ensuring that the contract, as written, continues to meet the needs of the customer. Team members will consider whether the contract includes tasks which are no longer required; whether there are needs related to the contract’s purpose which are not covered by the contract; and whether any customer complaints regarding contract scope have been received. The success of the contract is dependent upon a combined effort of all members of the MFT.

4.1.3 All performance assessment data will be reviewed. If performance improvement is necessary, the corrective action will be requested from the contractor.

5. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:

5.1 This QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for the management and quality control actions needed to meet the standards of the contract.

5.2 Following is the approach the team will use to assess the contractor’s performance against the performance thresholds/metrics identified in the contract.

5.2.1 A Services Summary (SS) will be included in each Task Order PWS. The SS will summarize the performance standards and performance thresholds required by the Government in the contractor’s performance. These performance standards will directly relate to mission essential items. The performance thresholds briefly describe the minimum acceptable levels of service required for each standard, and are critical to mission success.

5.2.2 COR will perform QA procedures following the QASP.

5.3 INITIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW:

5.3.1 The initial evaluation of contractor performance shall take place within 30 days after the contractor assumes 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.

5.4

CPARS:

5.4.1 CPARS will be updated documenting contractor performance. The Assessing Official Representative (AOR) will be the COR; and the reviewing official will be the FC/FD. The contractor also has input prior to finalization.

5.4.2 The website for the CPARs toolkit is: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm

6. REVISIONS: Revisions are the responsibility of the MFT. The COR reviews the PWS and QASP periodically and shall provide any proposed changes to the MFT for review. Revisions to the QASP are the joint responsibility of the MFT and are only accomplished with the approval of and by the CO.

MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAM MEMBERSHIP

Solicitation/RFP/Contract Number __________________

Type of Service: _________________________________

FC/FD:

Date: __________________

Primary COR:

Contract Specialist/Administrator: __________________

QAPC:

Contractor*:

Accepted By:

Contracting Officer

*Optional - Contractor (signs after award) will have limited participation on the MFT, so as to not be involved in any inherently governmental responsibilities.

QASP

Part 2

ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT

SERVICES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY (SAS)

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE THRESHOLDS,

METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE AND REMEDIES

(FAR 52.219-16)

NOTE 1: The timeframes for re-performance should be established by the MFT, for the Services Summary items when the Performance Work Statement, (PWS) and QASP are written.

SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

CONTRACTOR’S NAME: TBD

CONTRACT NUMBER: TBD

PROJECT/SERVICE: INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER TASK ORDER

APPROVED BY:

Contracting Officer DATE

QASP

SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

1. INTRODUCTION: These Surveillance Procedures have been developed to implement Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA). They are designed to provide the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) instructions on how to perform surveillance and document findings on this contract for FA8075-17-R-0001.

1.1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR) may inspect any aspect of contractor performance at any time during the contract, whether or not it is included in the Services Assessment Summary (SAS). A format for documenting these inspections is found on page 16 of this plan.

1.2. Any nonconformance with contract requirements is a “defect”. The term “defective” is used in reference to a service output in the SS that does not meet the outputs associated with the standard.

1.3. This QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for the management and quality control actions required to meet the terms of the contract. The Performance Thresholds recognize that the contractor is not a perfect manager and that unforeseen and uncontrollable problems do occur. CORs are to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the standards.

1.4 Following is the approach the team will use to assess the contractor’s performance against the performance thresholds/metrics identified in the contract.

1.4.1 A Services Assessment Summary (SAS) will be included in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This document will summarize the performance objectives and performance thresholds required by the Government in the contractor’s performance. These performance objectives will directly relate to mission essential items. The performance thresholds briefly describe the minimum acceptable levels of services required for each objective, and are critical to mission success.

1.4.2 COR will perform quality assurance procedures contained herein.

2. PERFORM SURVEILLANCE: Four methods of surveillance are explained below.

2.1. Customer Complaint: When the customer (using activity/facility) discovers unacceptable performance or a defect in service, he/she will prepare a customer complaint form, identifying the discrepancy. The customer will keep one copy and forward a copy to the COR either manually or electronically. The COR will review the item and determine if the complaint is contractually valid. If valid it is forwarded to the contractor for corrective action (CA). Customer complaints may be submitted on the Customer Complaint Record (CCR), included herein. If a customer notifies the COR either verbally or in writing (including email) of a complaint, but does not submit a CCR, the COR will generate a CCR to document the complaint. The CCR will then be submitted to the contractor for his CA. 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 Contracting Officer (CO) for final dispensation. The CO will, in turn, send copies of dispositioned CCRs to the COR and the contractor for their records.

2.1.1. In addition, the COR or individual customers may from time to time wish to submit positive feedback about the contractor’s performance under the contract. This positive feedback may be submitted on the Customer Feedback Record (CFR), found on page 22 of this plan.

2.1.2. In the event that the COR wants feedback from every customer/service location each month, those customers with no complaints should submit their feedback on a CFR.

2.2. Periodic Surveillance: When periodic surveillance is used, inspections shall be performed at the frequency identified for each SS item, and is on other than a 100% or statistically random basis. The frequency of inspection is established (i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly) but the specific time of occurrence need not be specified. When the COR discovers unacceptable performance or a defect in service, he/she will generate a Corrective Action Report (CAR) identifying the discrepancy. The CAR will then be submitted to the contractor for CA. 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 CARs to the COR and the contractor for their records.

2.3. Random Sampling: In random sampling, the COR uses a statistically based sample pattern. When the COR discovers unacceptable performance or a defect in service, he/she will generate a CAR identifying the discrepancy. The CAR will then be submitted to the contractor for CA. 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 CARs to the COR and the contractor for their records.

2.4. 100% Surveillance: In this surveillance method, the COR inspects 100% of the work. When the COR discovers unacceptable performance or a defect in service, he/she will generate a CAR identifying the discrepancy. The CAR will then be submitted to the contractor for CA. 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 CARs to the COR and the contractor for their records.

2.5 Other notifications: This surveillance method is reserved for further amplification and typically may pertain to security (personnel, physical, or facility security) noncompliance(s).

3. INFORM CONTRACTOR’S CONTRACT MANAGER: The COR must always contact the contractor’s manager and inform him/her of any deficiency that was observed. This may be accomplished in person or electronically, but any verbal communication must be supplemented by submission of a CCR or CAR. The contractor will annotate on the report provided by the COR the CA he/she will take to correct the defect and prevent its recurrence, and will return the completed report to the COR.

4. EVALUATE CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION: After the contractor documents the proposed CA, the COR will evaluate the proposed CA and forward the record, annotated with the results of the COR evaluation, to the CO for final dispensation. The CO will determine if further actions need to be taken against the contractor, such as reductions in fee/price in accordance with the Inspection of Services clause. The CO’s disposition of the CA and proposed CA will be annotated on the record, and copies will be returned to the COR and the contractor.

5. REMEDIES FOR UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE:

5.1. In accordance with the contract Inspection of Services clause, if any of the services do not conform to contract requirements; the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. This includes but is not limited to termination of Contractor personnel and recruitment of substitute personnel that are equally qualified within established timeframes. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may:

5.1.1. Require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements; and

5.1.2. Reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed. This may include a reduction in the number of paid hours to reflect the total non-performance period.

5.1.3. If the Contractor fails to promptly perform the services again or to take the necessary action to ensure future performance is in conformity with contract requirements, the Government may:

5.1.3.1 By contract or otherwise, perform the services and charge to the Contractor any cost incurred by the Government that is directly related to the performance of such service; or

5.1.3.1.1 Decrease the invoice amount in relation to performance

5.1.3.1.2. Cure Notice

5.1.3.1.3. Show Cause Notice

5.1.3.1.4. Terminate the contract

5.1.4. The Contracting Officer will determine the action to be taken against the contractor, such as reductions in fee/price in accordance with the Inspection of Services clause. The CO’s disposition of the deficiency will be annotated on the form and the COR and contractor will be notified of action.

6. REVISION TO THE QASP: Revisions to the QASP are the joint responsibility of the MFT. This is a living document and can be changed at any time by the CO.

Method of assessment for all performance objectives will be by customer complaint.

1. METHOD OF SURVEILLANCE: Customer Complaint

2. FREQUENCY: As Required

3. PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD: See Services Assessment Summary Table, herein

4. INSPECTION PROCEDURES:

a. If the complaint is not received on a Customer Complaint Record (CCR), the COR will complete a CCR. 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 thereof was cause for the unacceptable performance, the deficiency will not be counted as a defect.

b. If the COR validates that performance was unacceptable, the complaint (deficiency) will be submitted to the contractor’s representative. Contractor will be requested to sign and date the CCR and state what Corrective Action (CA) will be taken to correct the deficiency and preclude reoccurrence. 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.

c. When the contractor documents the CA, the COR will evaluate the proposed CA and forward the record to the Contracting Officer (CO) for final dispensation. The CO will, in turn, send copies of dispositioned CCR(s) to the COR and the contractor for their records.

d. The contractor will be required to correct, if possible, all defects detected by the COR. The contractor must manage the CAs as deemed necessary to provide services in conformance with contractual requirements. If correction of the defect requires re-performance of the service, the COR shall perform re-inspection(s) to determine if the contractor adequately re-performed and service is acceptable.

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

Customer Complaint Record Template, Feb 05 (SAF/AQCP) One copy each for Complainant, COR, Contractor, and Contracting Officer

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. DEFICIENCY FORMCHECKBOX

MAJOR FORMCHECKBOX

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. COR DETERMINATION

FORMCHECKBOX

ACCEPTED FORMCHECKBOX

REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Corrective Action Report (CAR) Template, Feb 05 (SAF/AQCP)

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

Continuation Sheet

(Number to correspond with applicable Item Number on reverse)

Corrective Action Report (CAR) Template, Feb 05 (SAF/AQCP) 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.

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

DETAILS OF EVENT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMMENT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF OBSERVATION

OTHER COMMENTS OR NOTES

RECEIVED BY (NAME & DATE)

Feedback Record Template, OCT 10 (ASC/PK)…………….One copy each for Commentator, COR, Contractor, and Contracting Officer

PAGE

IAC PMO Eval of STI

IAC PMO STI EVALUATION

The Highest Performing Team

Contract #:

Task Order #:

Reviewer Name:

Reviewer Phone:

Reviewer Email:

Criteria Weight Evaluation Criteria Score 0-100 Weighted Score

Accept (100-90) Accept With Revision (89-80) Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

Research 30% • Research design is appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is adequate given nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are reasonable given the research findings. • Results are credible. • Research design is somewhat appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is somewhat adequate given the nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are marginally reasonable given the research findings. • Results are only somewhat credible. • Research design is not appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is not adequate given the nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are not reasonable given the research findings. •Results are not credible. 0 0

Organization 10% • STI ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose and objectives. • Ideas flow smoothly from one to another, and are clearly linked. • Reader can easily follow the STI line of reasoning/rationale. • STI ideas are sometimes arranged logically to support the central purpose and objectives. • Ideas are sometimes not clearly linked to each other. • For the most part, the reader can follow the STI line of reasoning/rationale. • STI ideas are not arranged logically to support the central purpose and objectives. • Ideas frequently fail to make sense together. • Reader has some difficulties following the STI line of reasoning/rationale. 0 0

Criteria Weight Evaluation Criteria Score 0-100 Weighted Score

Accept (100-90) Accept With Revision (89-80) Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

References 5% • All references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives. • Vast majority of references are scholarly and peer-reviewed. • Majority of references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. • Some references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives, but a few objectives are unsubstantiated. • Some references are scholarly and peer-reviewed, with few of marginal quality. • Some references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. • Few references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives, but some objectives are unsubstantiated. • References are mix of some scholarly and peer-reviewed, but many are of marginal quality. • Only some references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. 0 0

Readability 5% • The writing is compelling. • The writing hooks the reader and sustains interest throughout the article. •The writing is generally engaging, but has some dull spots. • The writing is focused and generally keeps the reader's attention. • The writing is generally dull and unengaging. • Though the paper has some interesting parts, the reader finds it difficult to maintain interest. 0 0

Grammar 5% • The writing has virtually no writing errors, and helps communicate the STI intended message. • The reader can easily follow the writing with virtually no effort. • The writing has occasional writing errors, but they do not represent a major distraction or obscure the STI intended message. • The reader can mostly follow the writing with minimal effort. • The writing has many errors and they represent a distraction to the STI message. • The reader can only follow the writing with a lot of effort. 0 0

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: 0

REVIEWER EVALUATION

Recommendation:

Accept (100-90)

Accept with Revision (89-80)

Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

REVIEWER REMARKS TO CONTRACTOR

Reviewer's Signature:

&"-,Bold"DAU RESEARCH PAPER EVAULATION RUBRIC

&8Form Date: 8 December 2010

IAC PMO Eval of STI

IAC PMO STI EVALUATION

The Highest Performing Team

Contract #:

Task Order #:

Reviewer Name:

Reviewer Phone:

Reviewer Email:

Criteria Weight Evaluation Criteria Score 0-100 Weighted Score

Accept (100-90) Accept With Revision (89-80) Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

Research 30% • Research design is appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is adequate given nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are reasonable given the research findings. • Results are credible. • Research design is somewhat appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is somewhat adequate given the nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are marginally reasonable given the research findings. • Results are only somewhat credible. • Research design is not appropriate to the problem being addressed. • Selection of the research population/sample is not adequate given the nature of the research. • Analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are not reasonable given the research findings. •Results are not credible. 0 0

Organization 10% • STI ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose and objectives. • Ideas flow smoothly from one to another, and are clearly linked. • Reader can easily follow the STI line of reasoning/rationale. • STI ideas are sometimes arranged logically to support the central purpose and objectives. • Ideas are sometimes not clearly linked to each other. • For the most part, the reader can follow the STI line of reasoning/rationale. • STI ideas are not arranged logically to support the central purpose and objectives. • Ideas frequently fail to make sense together. • Reader has some difficulties following the STI line of reasoning/rationale. 0 0

Criteria Weight Evaluation Criteria Score 0-100 Weighted Score

Accept (100-90) Accept With Revision (89-80) Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

References 5% • All references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives. • Vast majority of references are scholarly and peer-reviewed. • Majority of references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. • Some references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives, but a few objectives are unsubstantiated. • Some references are scholarly and peer-reviewed, with few of marginal quality. • Some references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. • Few references provide compelling evidence to support the STI objectives, but some objectives are unsubstantiated. • References are mix of some scholarly and peer-reviewed, but many are of marginal quality. • Only some references are correctly cited IAW APA or MLA guidelines. 0 0

Readability 5% • The writing is compelling. • The writing hooks the reader and sustains interest throughout the article. •The writing is generally engaging, but has some dull spots. • The writing is focused and generally keeps the reader's attention. • The writing is generally dull and unengaging. • Though the paper has some interesting parts, the reader finds it difficult to maintain interest. 0 0

Grammar 5% • The writing has virtually no writing errors, and helps communicate the STI intended message. • The reader can easily follow the writing with virtually no effort. • The writing has occasional writing errors, but they do not represent a major distraction or obscure the STI intended message. • The reader can mostly follow the writing with minimal effort. • The writing has many errors and they represent a distraction to the STI message. • The reader can only follow the writing with a lot of effort. 0 0

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: 0

REVIEWER EVALUATION

Recommendation:

Accept (100-90)

Accept with Revision (89-80)

Reject/Rewrite (Below 80)

REVIEWER REMARKS TO CONTRACTOR

Reviewer's Signature:

&"-,Bold"DAU RESEARCH PAPER EVAULATION RUBRIC

&8Form Date: 8 December 2010