Log HOUSE Section E 18AUGUST2017 TRACKED CHANGES.pdf

Section E

E-1

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section E.1 Introduction and Purpose

E.1.1 Introduction E.1.12 Purpose

Section E.2 Overview and Scope

E.2.1 Overview E.2.2 Performance Requirement PEP Matrix

E.2.2.1 Performance Areas E.2.2.2 Performance Requirement

E.2.3 Evaluation Procedures

E.3 Roles and Responsibilities

E.3.1 Contracting Officer (CO) E.3.12 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) E.3.3 Technical Monitor TM E.3.4 Contractor

Section E.4 Methods of Surveillance

E.4.1 Inspection E.4.2 Database and Reports Analysis E.4.3 Progress and Status Meetings E.4.4 Other Monitoring Techniques

Section E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

E.5.1 Performance Criteria E.5.1.1 Ratings

E.5.2 Rating Determination

E-2

E.5.3 Surveillance Outcomes E.5.4E.5.3.1 Contractor Notification of Surveillance Outcomes E.5.43.2 Nonconforming Outcomes E.5.43.3 Discrepancy Report

Section E.6 Calculating the CPARS Performance Area Rating

E.6.1 CPARS Rating Category E.6.42 In-Process Task Order or Contract Year Scores E.6.53 Termination for Default

Section E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge CPARS Rating

Section E.8 Performance Incentive

E.8.1 Basis and Funding for Performance Positive and Negative Incentives E.8.2 Method of Incentive CLIN Award/Payment E.8.3 Examples

E.8.3.1 Example One ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX 1: UTPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTTION C.2.3)

APPENDIX 1.1: SINGLE HAUL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 1.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 1.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 1.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 1.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 1.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX42

APPENDIX 1.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 1.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 2: SIPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.3)

APPENDIX 2.1: SINGLE SITE INSPECTION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 2.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 2.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 32.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 32.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 2.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX45

E-3

APPENDIX 2.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 2.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3: HIPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.4)

APPENDIX 3.1: SINGLE INSTALLATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 3.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX49

APPENDIX 3.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 3.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4: UMPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.5)

APPENDIX 4.1: SINGLE UNIT MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 4.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX52

APPENDIX 4.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 4.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5: UDPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.6.2 AND C.6.3)

APPENDIX 5.1: SINGLE DEACTIVATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 5.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX55

APPENDIX 5.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 5.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6: URPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTIONS C.6.4, C.6.5 and C.6.6)

E-4

APPENDIX 6.1: UNIT REPOSITIONING, RELOCATION OR REINSTALLATION PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 6.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX58

APPENDIX 6.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 6.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7: CPEPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.7)

APPENDIX 7.1: SINGLE COMERCIAL PARK EXPANSION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 59

APPENDIX 7.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX60

APPENDIX 7.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 7.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8: GSCPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.8)

APPENDIX 8.1: GROUP SITE CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 8.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX62

APPENDIX 8.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 8.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 9: GSMPA DATA COLLECTION (SECTION C.9)

APPENDIX 9.1: GROUP SITE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 9.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 9.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

E-5

APPENDIX 9.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 9.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 9.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX64

APPENDIX 9.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 9.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10: TOMPA DATA COLLECTION

APPENDIX 10.1: TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 10.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX 66

APPENDIX 10.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 10.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11: CMPA DATA COLLECTION

APPENDIX 11.1: CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 11.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11.3: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11.4: COST PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11.5: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11.6: UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX 71

APPENDIX 11.7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

APPENDIX 11.8: OTHER AREAS PERFORMANCE AREA MATRIX

E-6

Section E.1 Introduction and Purpose

E.1.1 Introduction

Due to the critical nature of this contract in providing assistance to disaster survivors and in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.15, FEMA will monitor and evaluate contractor performance to ensure that services and supplies are rendered thoroughly, completely and expeditiously with minimal setbacks. The role of the Government is to perform quality assurance to ensure that contract and task order (TO) requirements are appropriately achieved. FEMA’s approach to fulfilling its role is documented in FEMA’s Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP).

This Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) has been developed to support the requirements set forth in the Log HOUSE contract.

FEMA has developed the PEP to work in conjunction with the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Contractors will be rated annually in CPARS for their performance on the contract for the base year and any option years that FEMA executes. Contractors will be evaluated rated on all task orders TOs. The Contractors contractors will be evaluated rated on the quality of the work performed; compliance with the schedule requirements; the contractor’s ability to control costs, and the contractor’s ability to manage the contract and task orders TOs. Specific areas where technical performance requirements are defined are in Section C: the The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Section F: Deliverables and Performance.

Due to the critical nature of this contract in providing assistance to disaster survivors and in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.11, FEMA will monitor and evaluate contractor performance to ensure that services and supplies are rendered thoroughly, completely and expeditiously with minimal setbacks. The role of the Government is to perform quality assurance to ensure that contract and task order (TO) requirements are appropriately achieved.

E.1.12 Purpose

The purpose of this PEP is to document procedures, guidelines, and evaluation criteria the Government will use to monitor, evaluate, and ensure the contractor provides appropriate technical performance and quality service in a timely manner that is consistent with the objectives, mission, and performance requirements in Section C: the PWS and Section F: Deliverables and Performance.

Section E.2 Overview and Scope

E.2.1 Overview

The PEP provides details of how the Government intends to monitor, evaluate and measure contractor performance for the base contract and all related TOs in accordance with Section C: the PWS. Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s

E-7

Quality Control Plan (QCP) will ensure the delivery of timely and effective service and achieve the results specified in Section C and Section F.

E.2.2 Performance Requirement PEP Matrix The FEMA Performance Requirement PEP Matrix will identify performance areas for work being performed by the contractor. The Matrix can be located on page 147 thru 150 of section C of the solicitation.

E.2.2.1 Performance Areas

The Performance Areas will be are identified by the type of work performed. The Performance Areas associated with this contract are as follows:

• Unit Transportation Performance Area (UTPA)

• Site Inspection Performance Area (SIPA)

• Haul and Install Performance Area (HIPA)

• Unit Maintenance Performance Area (UMPA)

• Unit Deactivation Performance Area (UDPA)

• Unit Repositioning, Relocation or Reinstallation Performance Area (URPA)

• Commercial Park Expansion Performance Area (CPEPA)

• Contract Management Performance Area (CMPA)

• Group Site Construction Performance Area (GSCPA)

• Group Site Maintenance Performance Area (GSMPA)

• Task Order Management Performance Area (TOMPA)

• Contract Management Performance Area (CMPA)

E-8

The process for assessing contractor performance in each of the Performance Areas above are attached as separate appendices.

Contractors will only be evaluated on the Performance Areas that are applicable to the task order TO.

For example if: If a contractor is tasked with only the installation of an MHU, the contractor will be evaluated for the HIPA Performance Areas but not UMPA or UDPA. Conversely, if the contractor performs maintenance and deactivation but not installation, they will be evaluated for the UMPA and UDPA Performance Areas only.

TOMPA applies to all Task OrdersTOs. CMPA is designed to evaluate the contractor’s overall annual performance. CMPA incorporates the contractor’s performance for non-MHU related task order TO activities, the contractor’s management of the contract, and is based on the average for any MHU related task orders TOs awarded.

E.2.2.2 Performance Requirement

The ratings for FEMA rates the Performance Areas are organized such that they parallel using the CPARS rating categories in order to maintain the clear connection between the rating categories and the ratings awarded. The following rating categories are contained within CPARS:

• Quality

• Schedule

• Cost Control

• Management

• Small Business Utilization

• Regulatory Compliance

• Other Areas

Figure E.2-1: CPARS

E-9

FEMA will only use the applicable rating categories. For example,: The Regulatory Compliance category will not be used for tasks that are not subject to regulation. Each rating category will be used to evaluate the Performance Areas as follows:

Quality:

• Product Performance Relative to Contract’s Performance Parameters

• Performance in Terms of Contract’s Quality Objectives

• Use Quantitative Indicators Wherever Possible

• Contractor’s Management of the Quality Control Program

• Quality of the Work or Service

Schedule

• Timeliness of Delivery

• Timely Completion of Contract/Order

• Milestones

• Timely Completion of Administrative Requirements

Cost Control

• Forecasting Cost

• Managing Cost

• Controlling Cost

• Overrun/Underrun

Management

• Integration and Coordination of Activity

• Problem Identification

• Corrective Action Plans

• Reasonable and Cooperative Behavior

E-10

• Customer Satisfaction

• Subcontract Management

• Program Management

• Management of Key Personnel

Small Business Utilization

• Compliance with Terms and Conditions for Small Business Participation

• Achievement of Small Business Subcontracting Goals

• Good Faith Effort to Meet Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Regulatory Compliance

• Compliance with Regulations and Codes

• Financial

• Environmental

• Labor

• Safety

• Reporting Requirements

Other Ratings Categories rating categories will be identified on an as-needed basis.

E.2.3 Evaluation Procedures

Assessments for contractor performance will be documented using the procedures defined in the attached appendices and a final contractor rating will be determined.

E.3 Roles and Responsibilities

The Government and contractor responsibilities for quality assurance are as follows:

E.3.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

E-11

The Contracting Officer (CO) ensures performance of all requirements of the base contract and all awarded TOs to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and/or the TO. The CO safeguards the interests of the Government in the contractual relationship. The CO will receive all discrepancy reports and forward them to executive management of the contractor for action. The CO may monitor, perform surveillance, and evaluate the contractor’s performance at any time during the life of the contract and/or TO.

E.3.12 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is the individual responsible at a specific disaster for performing inspections and recommending acceptance or rejection of contractor performance against all contract/TO requirements to the CO. The COR will serve as a designated Government government representative for monitoring, surveillance, evaluating and performing quality assurance activities for the contract and task ordersTOs. The COR ensures that contractor quality, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and performance is monitored, assessed, recorded, and documented. The COR responsibilities are contained in the written Letter of Designation from the CO. The COR is responsible for reporting a status on all assigned TOs to the CO.

The COR is responsible for the following activities:

• Inspection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services and assignment of performance scores.

• Consolidating the reports from inspections performed by TMs Technical Monitors (when present) and summarizing their findings into an overall performance report and performance score for the CO.

• Recommending acceptance or rejection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services.

• Assisting the CO in evaluating the contractor's response to a rejection notification.

• Maintaining and securing a comprehensive TO file until the completion of the TO, at which point the file will be forwarded to the

CO.

• Establishing and maintaining regular and ongoing communication with the CO regarding contractor performance including status, relevant information, and reports.

E-12

E.3.3 Technical Monitor TM

The Technical Monitor (TM) assists the COR in observing the progress of the contractor’s performance, completes checklists and logs as prescribed in the PEP and reports findings to the COR in a timely, complete, and impartial manner. The TM also assists the COR in monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor. The TM will document all observations and provide a copy to the COR.

E.3.4 Contractor

The contractor must develop a Quality Control Plan (QCP), subject to CO and COR approval, that sets forth procedures and responsibilities for ensuring high-quality work and adequately addressing and supporting the mission requirements, objectives, and schedules in the most cost-efficient manner. See Section F: Deliveries or Performance, Section F.6, #2.

Section E.4 Methods of Surveillance

The Government will use, at its discretion, the appropriate method for surveillance. The following are examples of the types of surveillance that the Government may use uses.

E.4.1 Inspection

When this type of surveillance is used, the COR or TM shall monitor, survey, and evaluate the contractor’s performance when the contractor performs a task associated with the task order. TO. This method provides the best indication of contractor performance and is the most thoroughly documented basis for taking contract payment actions.

This is an inspection method whereby all tasks are monitored. This method provides the best indication of contractor performance and the most thoroughly documented basis for taking contract payment actions. One-hundred percent (100%) inspection is preferred when the requirements are so critical that non-performance would pose a direct risk to the safety of personnel or property, or when the work occurs infrequently and the output quantity is small. Inspecting smaller percentages can be acceptable as long as the frequency of inspection increases and the sample size selected for inspection is representative of 100% of the units being inspected.

E.4.2 Database and Reports Analysis

E-13

The COR shall perform 100% inspection of all the reports received. and routinely inspect the contents of databases used—if any—to capture contractor performance. If the reports and/or databases identify any trends, issues, or information that could negatively impact the mission, the contractor may need to perform additional analysis.

This method of surveillance allows the COR or TM to evaluate the outputs or reports through the use of management information systems. When using generated reports that indicate a possible performance or quality concern, the COR will use other methods to confirm quality, quantity, and/or investigate problem areas.

E.4.3 Progress and Status Meetings

Progress or status meetings shall be held as required with the contractor and determined as required by the COR. These meetings will allow the COR and contractor the opportunity to review and discuss any and all issues related to the execution of the TO. The contractor shall be responsible for submitting minutes of the meeting to the COR within five days after meeting.

E.4.4 Other Monitoring Techniques

The task order TO will indicate how the Government will monitor various aspects of the task order. Monitoring TO. In addition to inspection, database and report analysis, and progress and status meetings, other monitoring techniques to may be utilized are used such as:

• Direct observation

• Site visits

• Conducting meetings

• Onsite visits and other personal Personal observations

• Phone calls

• Reviewing Contractor reports

• Reviewing Contractor requests

E-14

• Contacting other Government agencies

• Reviewing and tracking management systems

Section E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

E.5.1 Performance Criteria

Results of surveillance activities will be documented using the criteria noted below. Services shall ordinarily not be accepted before completion of Government contract quality assurance actions (FAR Part 46.5). Most task ordersTOs awarded shall will be evaluated utilizing task order using TO specific information. All ratings assigned by the COR will be supported with formal documentation.

E.5.1.1 Ratings

Contractor performance for each will be evaluated by aggregating the rating category’s requirements within each Performance Area into a final sub-tab score.

E.5.1.1.1 Sub-Tab CPARS Ratings

The rating categories final score entered into CPARS will use the definitions provided in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 for all rating categories that are not related to small business utilization. Ratings for small business utilization are defined in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1. For contractor performance or task ordersTOs that extend beyond a single rating period, FEMA may use a plus or minus sign to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend that is notable but insufficient to change the rating. FEMA will use N/A (not applicable) if a rating category is not going to be applied to a particular Performance Area.

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business) – Table 42-1

Table E.5-1: Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business)

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business) – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 CPARS Rating Definition Note

E-15

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

E-16

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.

A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business) –Table 42-2

E-17

Table E.5-2: Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business)

E-18

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Utilization of Small Business) – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-2 CPARS Rating Definition Note Exceptional Exceeded all negotiated subcontracting goals or exceeded at least one goal and met all of the other negotiated subcontracting goals for the current period. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB).

Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Ensure that small businesses are given meaningful, innovative work directly related to the project, rather than peripheral work, such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

E-19

Very Good Met all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the traditional socio-economic categories (SB, SDB and WOSB) and met at least one of the other socio-economic goals (HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB) for the current period. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB.

Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program.

Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. Ensure that small businesses are given meaningful, innovative work directly related to the project, rather than peripheral work, such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have

E-20

FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements.

Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do

so. Required a corrective action plan.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency.

E-21

Unsatisfactory Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization.

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 actions taken by the government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages - Subcontracting Plan.

E.5.1.1.2 Performance Area Ratings

For ease of discussion, FEMA will provide both written FEMA textual scores (e.g., Outstanding, Exceeds Expectation, etc.) and numeric scores (e.g., 5, 4, etc.) for each Performance Area. Numeric scores are defined during the rating of the individual Performance Area; however, the written score definition and descriptions are provided here. The written score for the performance areas, while similar to the rating descriptions, do not correlate directly to the sub-rating text descriptions. Each Performance Areas has area specific definitions for each rating level. Each Performance Area’s written rating has an assigned point value that will be used to calculate the numeric rating. The FEMA textual score definition and descriptions are provided here.

E-22

The FEMA textual scores, while similar to the CPARS rating descriptions, are tailored to reflect the characteristics of FEMA’s unique mission. Also, each Performance Area has area-specific definitions for each rating level. Each Performance Area textual rating has an assigned point value that will be used to calculate the numeric rating. The FEMA textual scores, point value and related CPARs rating description are compared below.

Table E.5-3: FEMA and CPARS Rating Comparison

FEMA and CPARS Comparison FEMA Rating FEMA Point Value CPARS Rating Outstanding 3.51 – 4.00 Exceptional Exceeds Expectation 2.76 – 3.50 Very Good Meets Expectation 1.51 – 2.75 Satisfactory Below Expectation 0.51 – 1.50 Marginal Unacceptable 0.00 – 0.50 Unsatisfactory

E.5.1.1.2.1 Outstanding Rating (O)

Outstanding (O)The is the highest rating that can be given for an individual Performance Area. This rating is worth four (4) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the CPARS rating category.

E.5.1.1.2.2 Exceeds Expectations Rating (EE)

Exceeds Expectation (EE) This is the second highest rating that can be given for an individual Performance Area. This rating indicates that though the contractor exceeded the requirements; however,, the performance did not meet the requirements definition for an outstanding O rating. This The EE rating is worth three (3) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

E.5.1.1.2.3 Meets Expectations (ME)

This Meets Expectation (ME) is the rating is given when the Performance Area score indicates that the expectation requirements for the Performance Area have been met. This rating is worth two (2) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

E-23

E.5.1.1.2.4 Below Expectations Rating (BE)

This The Below Expectations (BE) rating is given when the requirements of the Performance Area is are not met as described in the contract; however. However, the contractor’s performance for the area overall has not fallen to the level of unacceptable. This rating is worth one (1) point for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

E.5.1.1.2.5 Unacceptable Rating (U)

The Unacceptable (U) means that the performance in this area does not meet the requirements of the contract and is therefore is unacceptable. This rating is worth zero (0) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

E.5.1.1.3 Unused Categories

Any unused categories shall will not be rated and shall will not be used as part of the any calculations.

E.5.2 Rating Determination

The COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance for each applicable Performance Area as is described in the Performance Area Matrices contained the appendices. The evaluations in each of the Performance Areas use one or more of the following terms. The ratings for each individual Performance Area will be aggregated into the rating category as described in Appendix 10, TOMPA.

Specific examples from the individual Performance Areas will be used to justify any rating that is above or below Satisfactory. To the extent possible, the Government has made the individual criteria as quantitative as possible to reduce the level of subjectivity in the evaluation process.

Table E.5-4: Evaluation Terms

Clock-Stop Days Days where the work on the task could not be performed due to delays beyond the Contractor's control.

Findings The CORs determination of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance recorded as either “Yes” or “No”.

E-24

Though the COR may ascribe a negative finding to any performance outside of requirements, a finding of "No" is typically reserved for failure to deliver or a late / incomplete delivery rendering the deliverable obsolete.

Escalations When the Contractor requires FEMA to resolve an issue within the Contractor’s control in order to complete a task.

Escalations are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

Exceptions Events where the Contractor's performance was delayed or undermined by circumstances beyond the Contractor's control.

Exceptions are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

Points A point is awarded for each “Yes” finding.

Points are typically used in the Quality, Schedule and Management Performance Area Matrices.

The ratings for each individual Performance Area will be aggregated into the rating category as described in Appendix 10, TOMPA.

Specific examples from the individual Performance Areas will be used to justify any rating that is above or below Satisfactory. a rating of ME. To the extent possible, the Government has made the individual criteria as quantitative as possible to reduce the level of subjectivity in the evaluation process.

Prime contractors are responsible for the performance of subcontractors at all levels. A Prime contractor is defined as the contractor who has the awarded contract relationship with FEMA. Subcontractors are defined as any contractor who is working on the contract at any level but does not have a direct contract with FEMA.

The Government is also aware that many task orders TOs require substantial coordination efforts with County, City, State, and Federal agencies and agency personnel over whom the contractor has no control and who may have different priorities than FEMA

E-25 contractors. Wherever possible, the COR will note mitigating circumstances that are outside the contractor’s control when making evaluations.

Where applicable, the COR will use a specific quality assurance checklist and/or worksheet to monitor contractor performance of associated requirements. During a performance period, multiple checklists may be used to document findings and these will form the basis of the rating the contractor will receive.

E.5.3 Surveillance Outcomes

The results of surveillance activities will be documented to determine the contractor’s performance.

E.5.4 Response to Surveillance Outcomes

E.5.4E.5.3.1 Contractor Notification of Surveillance Outcomes

The COR will inform the contractor of a potentially unsatisfactory performance by issuing a Discrepancy Report ((“DR) (”, See Section J, Attachment J.50) as soon as the discrepancy is noted. The contractor shall initial and date the Task Order TO and/or Work Order DR form. The contractor’s initials and date signifies acknowledgement of receipt of the form and does not indicate that the contractor agrees with the discrepancy.

If the contractor disputes the results of the evaluation, the COR shall arrange for a meeting with the CO, in person or by telephone conference, to attempt to resolve the matter. The COR shall provide the form and written narrative to substantiate the findings to the

CO.

E.5.43.2 Nonconforming Outcomes

When nonconforming supplies or services are identified, the CO shall give the contractor an opportunity to correct or replace the nonconforming supplies or services when this can be accomplished within the required delivery schedule. Unless the contract specifies otherwise, correction or replacement will be without additional cost to the Government.

E-26

Nonconforming outcomes occur when a contractor delivers goods or services that are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, task order TO or any modification thereof. If the nonconformance is major or critical, the COR may not accept the supply or service.

For a minor nonconformance, the COR may recommend the following to the CO:

1. Accept and have the contractor repair/replace/repeat the service at no additional cost to the Government.

2. Accept at price reduction.

3. Reject.

The COR does not have the authority to approve any of the above courses of action. When the CO approves a recommendation to accept at price reduction, the recommended value may be used to determine an equitable adjustment for nonconforming services for fixed price TOs. When the CO approves a recommendation to reject, the CO will provide a notice of rejection to the contractor that includes the reasons for rejection.

For supplies and services with minor nonconformance, the CO can consider identifying the value of the individual work requirements or tasks that may be subject to a price or fee reduction. This value may be used to determine an equitable adjustment for nonconforming services for fixed price task orders.

The CO will provide a notice of rejection to the contractor, including the reasons for rejection.

E.5.43.3 Discrepancy Report

A Discrepancy Report (See Section J, Attachment J.50) can be initiated by the COR at any time during the evaluation period when the results of an evaluation show unsatisfactory or marginal performance for the period being monitored, or when the contractor is performing below the acceptable performance level (APL).

If the COR determines that the performance is unsatisfactory, the following steps will be followed:

1. The COR discusses the potential issue with the Contractor Field Task Order TO Manager (FTOM) and provides a DR.

E-27

2. The COR evaluates the information and notifies the CO of concurrence or non-concurrence.

Upon receipt of the contractor’s response, the CO, in consultation with the COR, must evaluate the contractor’s response and take appropriate action.

Section E.6 Calculating the CPARS Performance Area Rating

E.6.1 CPARS Rating Category

The Rating rating categories for CPARS are calculated based on an average of the FEMA point values for individual Performance Areas contained within a rating category. Only Performance Areas that are used will be included in the calculation in the calculation for the rating category.

E.6.2 Performance Area Aggregation into Rating Category Score

For example, the table below shows the Performance Areas for the Cost Control rating category. The task order being evaluated is for the installation, maintenance and deactivation of MHUs and the expansion of three (3) commercial parks. The table shows which Performance Areas will be used in the calculation of the score.

E.6.2.1 Performance Area Aggregation into Rating Category Score Example

Used in Task Order Cost Control Rating Category Score

3 UTPA N/A

4 SIPA N/A

4 HIPA N/A

4 UMPA N/A

N/A UDPA N/A

N/A URPA N/A

N/A CPEPA Cost Performance Area Matrix 4 N/A N/A

E-28

N/A GSCPA N/A

GSMPA N/A

TOMPA - Cost Performance Area Matrix 3

CMPA- N/A

Using the scores in the above table with the Rating Category numeric score calculation, the score is calculated to be:

E.6.3 Conversion of Numeric Sub-Tab Score to Sub-Tab Adjectival Rating

CPARS requires the use of an adjectival rating for each rating category. Rating category numeric scores do not need to be rounded as the conversion from numeric to adjectival will be based on a numeric range for each adjectival sub-tab rating.

The table below will be used to convert the numeric sub-tab score into a sub-tab adjectival rating.

Range Lower Limit Range Upper Limit Resulting Rating

Greater than or equal to 3.5 Less than or equal to 4 Exceptional

Greater than or equal to 2.75 Less than 3.5 Very Good

Greater than or equal to 1.5 Less than 2.75 Satisfactory

Greater than or equal to 0.5 Less than 1.5 Marginal

Greater than or equal to 0 Less than 0.5 Unsatisfactory

E-29

Note: A contractor will never receive a score greater than four (4) or less than zero (0).j

The CO/CR may use the information from individual Performance Areas to assist in the justification of rating category rankings that are above or below the satisfactory level rating.

E.6.42 In-Process Task Order or Contract Year Scores

From time to time, it may be necessary to generate a CPARS rating for a TO before it is closed. In such cases, the CO will establish a timeframe upon which the interim CPARS rating will be based; and only the documented performance during that timeframe will be used in generating the CPARS rating. Interim CPARS ratings for TOs are replaced with final TO CPARS ratings once they become available.

Similarly, CPARS ratings may be required to be generated at the conclusion of a contract year regardless if one or more TOs are still in-progress. In such cases, all TOs closed within the contract year—regardless of when they began—will be used. Also, interim TO ratings will be generated for TOs that are still open at the end of the contract year; and the interim TO ratings will be averaged with the closed TO ratings to generate the CPARS rating.

E.6.53 Termination for Default

If the contractor is terminated for default, the Final Contractor Rating will automatically be Unsatisfactory.

Section E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge CPARS Rating

FEMA will use a sample ranging from five percent (5%) to one hundred percent (100%) when calculating the individual performance areas Performance Areas that are aggregated into the contractor’s CPARS sub-tab ratings.

While FEMA does not anticipate a challenge to the sub-tab rating, the Agency has included a process by which the contractor may challenge the sub –tab rating. If the contractor chooses to challenge any or all of the sub-tab ratings, the contractor may do so by using a one hundred percent (100%) sample of all of the work orders for each applicable performance area. Performance Area. It is the contractor’s burden to provide the data analysis in a report to the COR. The challenge report shall be written so that it can be clearly understood.

E-30

Section E.8 Performance Incentive

This section is written in accordance with FAR Sub-Part 16.4-Incentive Contracts. Performance Incentives will only be used for TOs related to field operations. All contractors, no matter what award type, are eligible to receive performance incentives.

PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES ARE NOT A MANDATORY PART OF THIS CONTRACT AND WILL NOT BE INCLUDED

IN ANY TASK ORDER WITHOUT THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO-STEP PROCESS.

The two-step process for including performance incentives is as follows:

1. Step One- As part of the TO Proposal Process, FEMA will announce if the TO is being considered for the inclusion of performance incentives.

2. Step Two- The contractor notifies FEMA if they would like the performance incentive to be included in the TO when FEMA notifies the contractor that they have received the TO award.

Performance incentive will not affect the TO proposal process.

If performance incentives are used, the contractor is only guaranteed payment of ninety (90) percent of applicable CLINs, prior to the performance review.

E.8.1 Basis and Funding for Performance Positive and Negative Incentives

If incentives are used, the positive incentive can equal up to ten percent (10%) of the TO award not including travel or other TO management expenses, such as FTOM labor. The negative incentive can equal a reduction of up to ten percent (10%) of the TO award, not including travel or other TO management expenses. Determination of the increase or decrease in the dollar amount of the incentive is based on the performance ratings that the contractor receives.

Specifically, for each TO that includes incentives, FEMA will add a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) titled “FEMA incentive”, which will contain ten percent (10%) of the total non-FTOM TO value. In addition, the price that the contractor charges FEMA for each non-FTOM CLIN will be reduced by ten percent (10%); and the sum of those reductions will be placed in a separate CLIN titled “contractor incentive”.

Both the FEMA incentive CLIN and the contractor incentive CLIN will be divided into sub-CLINs, one each corresponding to the seven (7) rating categoies that are included in CPARS (e.g., Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, etc.). For both the FEMA incentive

E-31

CLIN and the contractor incentive CLIN, funds will be equally allocated into the rating category sub-CLINs that are applicable to the TO. Based on the Performance Area ratings, FEMA will pay the contractor none, some or all of either or both CLINs.

E.8.2 Method of Incentive CLIN Award/Payment

Formulas:

Total Contract Award = Billable Prior to Performance Review + Contractor Incentive Reserve

Billable Prior to Performance Review = 90% of Total Contract Award

Contractor Incentive Reserve = 10% of Total Contract Award

FEMA Incentive Reserve = 10% of Total Contract Award

Billable Prior to Performance Review + All Incentive Reserves = Total Contract Award + FEMA Incentive Reserve

Table E.8-1: Allocation of FEMA Incentive and Contractor Incentive CLINs

Allocation of FEMA Incentive and Contractor Incentive CLINs FEMA Rating FEMA Incentive sub-CLIN Contractor Incentive sub-CLIN

Outstanding 100% 100% Exceeds Expectations 50% 100% Meets Expectations 0 100% Below Expectations 0 50% Unacceptable 0 0

E.8.3 Examples

E.8.3.1 Basic Task Order Award Example

E-32

1. The rating categories used for the task order are Quality, Schedule, Cost Control and Management. Each rating category will be given equal weight, which will be 25% of the positive incentive awarded or negative incentive deducted.

2. The total value of the non-FTOM CLINs is $1,000,000

3. The FEMA incentive CLIN will have a funding allocation of $100,000 (i.e., 10% of the total value of the non-FTOM CLINs)

a. FEMA incentive sub-CLIN Quality will have $25,000

b. FEMA incentive sub-CLIN Schedule will have $25,000

c. FEMA incentive sub-CLIN Cost Control will have $25,000

d. FEMA incentive sub-CLIN Management will have $25,000

4. The contractor incentive CLIN will also have a funding allocation of $100,000

a. Contractor incentive sub-CLIN Quality will have $25,000

b. Contractor incentive sub-CLIN Schedule will have $25,000

c. Contractor incentive sub-CLIN Cost Control will have $25,000

d. Contractor incentive sub-CLIN Management will have $25,000

5. The contractor receives the following ratings:

Table E.8-2: Example Ratings

Rating Category FEMA Rating Quality Outstanding Schedule Exceeds Expectations Cost Control Meets Expectations Management Unacceptable

E-33

6. Allocate the incentives

Table E.8-3: Example Incentives

CLIN Sub-CLIN Maximum

Value

FEMA

Rating

Incentive Percentage

Incentive Value

FEMA

Incentive Quality $25,000 O 100% $25,000

Schedule $25,000 EE 50% $12,500 Cost Control $25,000 ME 0% $0 Management $25,000 U 0% $0

Subtotal $37,500 Contractor Incentive Quality $25,000 O 100% $25,000

Schedule $25,000 EE 100% $25,000 Cost Control $25,000 ME 100% $25,000 Management $25,000 U 0% $0

Subtotal $75,000

7. Contractor has received invoice payments of $900,000. Based on the above table the contractor would receive an additional payment of $112,500:

a. $37,500 from the FEMA Incentive CLIN

b. $75,000 from the Contractor Incentive CLIN

c. Contractor’s total payment for TO is $1,012,500 ($1,000,000 TO Award + $12,500 incentive bonus)

E.8.3.2 Per Unit Task Order Award Example

Assume the following CLIN tables:

Task Order Proposal

E-34

CLIN

Number *

CLIN Name Unit Price/ month

Contractor Incentive Reserve (10% of unit price)

Contractor Invoice Amount (per unit)

Quantity

(FEMA

estimate)

Contractor Incentive (Contractor Reserve x Quantity

Invoice Amount for Work Performed (Contractor Invoice Amt. x Quantity

A Site Inspection $100 $10 $90 200 $2,000 $18,000

B MHU

Installation $1000 $100 $900 100 $10,000 $90,000

C Monthly MHU Maintenance

$10 $1 $9 2500 $2,500 $22,500

D Contractor Field Task Order Management

(FTOM)

$5,000 N/A $5,000 12 $0 $60,000

E Total Contractor Incentive Contribution (from CLINs A – C not including CLIN D – FTOM)

$14,500

F Total Government Incentive Contribution (matches Contractor Contribution)

$14,500

Total Award Pool $29,000

* The CLIN Numbers used in the example are for illustration purposes…