ComputerPerformanceEvaluationPlanSept2008.pdf

N02-CO-

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AT FREDERICK

PERFORMANCE BASED AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

COMPUTER AND STATISTICAL SUPPORT CONTRACT

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 26, 2008

Kristin L. Komschlies, Ph.D. Date Project Officer

Don C. Wheatley Date Chief Contracting Officer

N02-CO-

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AT FREDERICK

PERFORMANCE BASED AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

COMPUTER AND STATISTICAL SUPPORT CONTRACT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This plan sets forth measurable performance requirements, standards, quality expectations and general procedures for the determination of the amount of fee to be paid the Contractor under Contract No. N02-CO-_______. This Plan and any subsequent revision hereto will be effective upon approval by the Project Officer and the Contracting Officer.

The Performance Based Award Fee Evaluation will be conducted using a web based Contractor Performance Assessment System.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The flow of information in the performance based award fee evaluation process is depicted in a chart in Exhibit 1. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated in accordance with a Performance Rating System which is set forth in Exhibit 2. Technical and Management areas will be evaluated considering the factors described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this document.

An evaluation schedule is provided in Exhibit 3 and performance metrics are outlined in Exhibit 4.

Individuals with evaluation responsibilities are identified below.

2.1 Performance Monitors – General Contractor Performance

All users of computer and statistical related services may function as Performance Monitors. This includes Government personnel, and any other personnel who may require the services provided under Contract N02-CO- _______, including employees of the Operational and Technical Support Contractor, Scientific Library Contractor, and Animal Production Contractors.

It does not include employees of the Computer and Statistical Support

Contractor or any affiliates or subcontractors of the Computer and Statistical Support Contractor.

2.2 Coordinators

Management Technical

Ms. Patricia White, OD Dr. Janelle Cortner, CCR, OD

2.3 Performance Evaluation Board

Kristin L. Komschlies, Ph.D., Office of Scientific Operations, OD, NCI-Frederick (Chairperson, nonvoting)

Dr. David Goldstein, OD Dr. Bruce Shapiro, CCR Dr. Larry Keefer, CCR Dr. Steven Creekmore, DCTD BRB Ms. Lori Holliday, OM Mr. Donald Harne, OD Ms. Janet Salter, OD, NCI-Frederick, Executive Secretary, (nonvoting):

2.4 Fee Determination Official

Mr. Don C. Wheatley, MOSB, NCI-Frederick

3.0 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Performance Monitors

Performance Monitors will evaluate the Contractor’s performance on a six-month basis. Performance Monitors shall evaluate the quality and efficiency of the Contractor’s performance in providing computer and statistical support to the NCI-Frederick community. Performance Monitors should use, but not be limited by, those elements of Parts 4.2 and 4.3 of this Plan, as appropriate, when making their evaluation. Each Performance Monitor is encouraged to comment on technical performance and management performance of the Contractor. Comments on technical performance and management performance will be reported separately via the web based Contractor Performance Assessment System. The Performance Monitor Report format may be viewed on the web based Contractor Performance Assessment System.

Additionally, the monitors will express evaluation results as an adjectival/numerical rating derived from the rating system set forth in Exhibit 2. When applicable, the report should cite examples of both above and below standard Contractor performance. Web based reports should be submitted to the appropriate Coordinator in accordance with the time schedule set forth in Exhibit 3. Particularly important or urgent criticism should be reported to the Project Officer/Contracting Officer immediately and not delayed until the end of the reporting period, so that performance deficiencies can be discussed with the Contractor without delay in order to permit prompt correction. In the interest of fairness, the Contractor must be extended the opportunity to address such criticisms when they occur. The Contractor’s performance in resolving such problems will be considered in the evaluation.

If the Contractor’s overall performance during the reporting period exceeded or was below standard, the Performance Monitor should cite specific examples in the comment section of the web site and recommend an appropriate adjectival/numerical rating (see Exhibit 2).

In making an evaluation, the Performance Monitor should consider standard performance to represent the quality/level of contract performance that is required by the contract. Well-documented Performance Monitor reports are an essential element in determining how well the Contractor is performing. It is, therefore, extremely important that the reports FULLY describe all circumstances of either a positive or negative nature associated with performance of the Contractor during the period.

3.2 Coordinators

Coordinators perform the first level of review of Performance Monitor evaluations of Contractor performance. As such, they must provide an overview which is not available to any one Performance Monitor. This condition imposes upon the Coordinators a requirement that they not simply receive and consolidate the Performance Monitor reports, but that they also make an overall assessment of Contractor performance.

Coordinators may request supplemental data from the Contractor to aid them in their evaluation. Coordinators are strongly encouraged to meet with the Contractor to discuss evaluation reports.

Coordinators will review, evaluate, consolidate, and augment Performance Monitor reports within their area of responsibility on an annual basis. The principal duties of a Coordinator are:

a. To prepare a comprehensive report at the end of each evaluation period, summarizing the performance during the annual period (see schedule in Exhibit 3 herein). The Coordinator will use the adjectival/numerical ratings of the electronic monitor reports to determine a recommended percentage rating FOR NCI INFORMATION ONLY, and include this percentage rating in the award fee system; this rating should not be included in the coordinator report.

In each case, the Coordinator will forward the report to the NCI Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will furnish copies of each report to the Contractor, the Chairperson of the Performance Evaluation Board, and to other personnel on a need-to-know basis.

b. To identify achievements and investigate deficiencies in Contractor performance through discussions with the relevant parties.

Coordinators are encouraged to meet with the Contractor, and discuss instances of deficient performance not only with the Contractor, but also with the monitor who provided the monitor report. In the development of their report, Coordinators should make the following distinctions:

• Distinguish major issues and minor issues. A major issue should be considered as an issue that substantially impacts (positively or negatively) overall performance. A minor issue is one that is worthy of praise or is noted for improvement, but overall did not substantially or significantly affect total overall contractor performance. It is also important to note that Coordinator’s role is only to identify and investigate deficiencies, not resolve them;

however, the Coordinator should contact the Project Officer/Assistant Project Officer/Contracting Officer if they feel there is a specific issue that should be addressed immediately.

• Address unresolved/unproven allegations neutrally. From time to time an allegation will be raised and there is not enough time to fully investigate the allegation prior to the award fee board meeting.

In these instances, the Coordinator should mention the allegation in the coordinator report. However, it should be noted that the allegation is unproven/unresolved and the Board will be instructed NOT to vote on the issue during the evaluation. The Coordinator will carry over the issue into their Coordinator report for the NEXT evaluation period, and the issue will be discussed and factored into the score at that time.

c. To make a brief oral presentation of the evaluation, if requested by the

Performance Evaluation Board. Such oral summary shall be limited to areas addressed in the written report. No additional areas of concern shall be introduced. Therefore, it is imperative that the written report encompass all valid areas of strength, weakness and/or concerns for the period being reported. The rationale for this is that the Contractor would not have an opportunity to present its position regarding these previously undisclosed areas of weakness and/or concern to the Board prior to their voting.

3.3 Performance Evaluation Board

The second level of review occurs at formal meetings of the Performance Evaluation Board. Board members are selected for their managerial and technical cognizance of NCI requirements as they relate to the contract.

A quorum (at least four voting members) must be present for the conduct of any Board responsibilities. No proxy votes will be accepted.

Substitutions will be permitted for members unable to attend, subject to Chairperson approval. Only those in attendance will be permitted to vote.

Board members may not serve as coordinators on a full time basis. In the event a coordinator is unable to attend the meeting, a board member may present a coordinator report so long as the report was authorized by the full time coordinator.

At the end of each evaluation period, the Board will:

a. Prior to the Board meeting, review Coordinator reports.

b. Prior to the Board meeting, review Contractor’s Contract Performance

Status Report.

c. At the Board meeting, assess the Contractor’s overall performance using this Performance Based Award Fee Evaluation Plan and giving consideration to only to performance data reported in the Contractor’s Goals and Objectives Statement (section 5.1), Contractor’s Performance Status Report (section 5.2), the Contractor’s Response to Deficiencies (section 5.3), the Contractor’s presentation to the Board (section 5.4), the Coordinators’ Reports (section 3.2.b.), and the Coordinators’ oral presentations (section 3.2.d). The Board may not introduce new issues, even if from personal experience, during the course of the meeting. The Board may also consider remarks made by the Chairperson and Fee Determination Official or persons asked to comment by the Chairperson or Award Fee Determination Official that would further clarify specific matters identified in the aforementioned reports and presentations.

d. At the Board meeting, assign percentage ratings to each area of evaluation in accordance with the Performance Rating System (see Exhibit 2).

e. At the Board meeting, hear an oral presentation (limited to 20 minutes) by the Contractor at their discretion, and consider any additional information the Contractor wishes to contribute, as appropriate.

f. At the Board meeting, hear an oral presentation by each Coordinator and review/discuss, if appropriate, Coordinator evaluation findings, ratings, and values.

g. Following the Board meeting, be available to discuss evaluation findings with the Contractor.

3.4 Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Board

a. The Chairperson is responsible for selecting Performance Evaluation Board members to participate in the evaluation process and shall obtain the concurrence of the employee’s supervisor and the Contracting Officer in their selection.

b. The Chairperson distributes the reports to the members of the

Performance Evaluation Board.

c. The Chairperson conducts the meeting and, at its conclusion, provides an oral summary of results to the Contractor’s representative, if present. The oral summary will include a clear and concise list of the significant positive accomplishments, as well as the deficiencies and concerns raised by the board that had an impact on the Contractor’s rating. The accomplishments and deficiencies/concerns will be presented to the Contractor by the Chairperson at the end of the Board meeting. The Government intends to provide a written transcript of this summary to the Contractor within seven (7) days of the board meeting.

d. The Chairperson conducts the meeting and, at its conclusion, provides an oral summary of results to the Contractor’s representative, if present. Board members who wish to provide comments to the Contractor do so at the invitation of the Chairperson.

e. The Chairperson is responsible for review and concurrence with the

Memorandum of Evaluation Results prepared by the Executive Secretary to assure it sets forth an accurate representation of meeting proceedings that will constitute a basis for the recommended score.

f. Based on the Board’s evaluation, the Chairperson provides the recommended fee amount, along with the Memorandum of Evaluation results, and total score received (including both technical and management areas) to the Fee Determination Official via the Contracting Officer.

3.5 Contracting Officer

To assist the Coordinators with the development of their report, the Contracting Officer will provide a copy of the Memorandum of Evaluation Results from the prior award fee period to the Coordinators.

Based on the Board’s recommendation, the Contracting Officer verifies the actual fee proposed and prepares and transmits a Findings and Determination to the Fee Determination Official for approval and signature, together with the recommended fee amount, the Memorandum of Evaluation Results, and total score received.

In accordance with the schedule provided in Exhibit 3, the Contracting Officer also submits the Coordinators’ reports to the Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Board, for dissemination to the Board. In addition, the Contracting Officer submits the Coordinators’ report (with scores deleted) to the Contractor.

3.6 Fee Determinaton Official

The Fee Determination Official determines the amount of fee earned by the Contractor during the period under evaluation based upon the recommendation of the Performance Evaluation Board and all other relevant factors.

4.0 EVALUATION AND RATING OF CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 General

Comments will be solicited from Performance Monitors every six months but the evaluation of contractor performance will be conducted on annual basis. Evaluation of both technical and management performance must be based on the Contractor’s performance requirements set forth in the contract. Technical requirements are primarily described in the Statement of Work and in the performance goals and objectives submitted by the Contractor. Contractor performance shall be rated in accordance with the system set forth in Exhibit 2. Where and when appropriate, specific performance evaluation criteria objectives/goals may be mutually agreed to by the Contractor and the Government. The evaluation criteria set forth in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below are indicative of the areas to be evaluated.

Typical evaluation considerations are listed for guidance purposes only;

they do not represent a complete basis for assessment of performance within the major evaluation areas.

Also, the use of Contractor proposals and reports to compare planned accomplishments to actual accomplishments is urged in evaluating Contractor performance.

4.2 Technical Performance – 70%

It is recognized that some of the tasks to be performed are difficult to evaluate with complete objectivity. Consideration of the factors set forth below should assist the Performance Monitors and Coordinators in making a comprehensive assessment of Contractor performance. The applicability and relative importance of these factors to a particular performance area must be determined by the cognizant Performance Monitor and/or Coordinator. The factors to be considered are:

a. Statistical Services

Have biostatistical and biomathematical consultation and collaboration, data analysis, and mathematical modeling services been provided in a timely fashion with adequate supporting documentation to investigators as requested?

b. Microcomputer Support

Was the microcomputer support provided in a prompt fashion? Was the matter resolved expediently? Was the technician responsive to the problem and thorough in resolving the matter? Was an explanation of the problem provided to the end-user to mitigate the problem from re-occuring?

c. Systems Administration and Operations

Was the local area network administered to ensure continued seamless operation? Has system management and operational support responded to all system administration and operations issues in a timely manner so that disruptions to day-to-day operations are minimized to the maximum extent practicable? What continued steps have been taken to ensure the continued reliability of the local area network and systems upon which the NCI-Frederick is dependent?

d. Web Design & Development

Are web site design and developments occurring in the timeframes specified by the end-user? Has the web design and development team worked with the end-user to ensure the end product meets the requirements stated by the end-user? Is the web design and development team responsive to changes necessary to the web design after implementation?

e. Scientific Applications

Has the design and development of custom software solutions been timely and met the needs of the end-user? Has the designer worked with the end-user to ensure the end design includes all functionality as needed? Is the design team responsive to requests for changes to the design requirements throughout the design process? Is continued support provided after implementation of the custom software solution?

f. Business and Facility Support Systems

Is operation of business and facility support systems seamless and disruptions to the day to day operations of NCI-Frederick minimized to the maximum extent practicable? Are implementations of new systems seamless and minimally disruptive? Is the necessary support provided for the operation of new systems? Is the enhancement of systems accomplished with consideration of input of the end-user?

g. Computer Training and Education

Is the training lab utilized to the maximum practicable extent for the benefit of all at NCI-Frederick? Are the courses offered accessible and relevant? Are the training computers used in such a fashion to facilitate ease of instruction and ease of use by various instructors? Is the training lab schedule up to date?

h. Metrics

Has the Contractor met the technical performance metrics outlined in Exhibit 4 during the evaluation period?

4.3 Management Performance – 30%

Overall management performance of the administrative as well as technical areas will be evaluated initially by the NCI Performance Monitors and Coordinators. The following are representative factors to be utilized in this evaluation process.

a. General Management/Goals & Objectives

This area of management concerns effectiveness of Contractor performance related to overall planning, coordination, and implementation of management functions including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: Are lines of authority and responsibility clearly established throughout the Contractor’s organization? Are areas of Contractor-Contractor and Contractor-NCI/NIH interface identified and enforced? Does Contractor management recognize potential and acute problems and effectively prevent or solve them? Is the Contractor responsive to emergency situations? Are initiatives that are furnished by NCI or that arise from within the Contractor’s organization promptly acknowledged and executed? Does the Contractor demonstrate initiative and capability in recommending and activating alternatives or changes in functioning elements of the computer support area to assure smooth, efficient, fully accountable and maximally economical operation?

Has the Contractor complied with the terms and conditions of the contract, such as those required on interface matters, advance understandings and applicable indirect cost provisions? Are reports and other data required by the contract being submitted in an accurate and timely fashion? Are plans and/or proposals for implementation of work developed in a comprehensive and timely manner? Are NCI/NIH and Contractor personnel kept abreast of new and/or ongoing requirements and developments?

Has the Contractor made significant measurable progress towards accomplishment of the Goals outlined in the Goals and Objectives Statement? What successes and gains of economy or efficiency were realized in the accomplishment of these goals? If goals were not realized, has the Contractor provided sufficient explanation as to why the goals were not achieved? Has the Contractor striven to suggest and implement goals that promote increased efficiency and innovation where possible?

b. Communications

Are appropriate NCI/NIH and Contractor personnel promptly informed of problems as they occur or as they are anticipated? Is interface with other Contractors and Government staff being managed adequately?

c. Personnel

Is the best possible use being made of personnel and physical resources to achieve the greatest productivity and economy? Where applicable, are projected levels of effort being achieved on schedule?

Does the professional and technical staff utilize space, equipment, materials and supplies and available resources with maximum effectiveness and economy? Is the Contractor staffing its organization with qualified personnel in accordance with an acceptable staffing plan based upon normal attrition/vacancies, etc.? Is appropriate consideration given to local and minority hiring? Are employees receiving the orientation and training required for them to become productive workers?

d. Cost Management

Are the Contractor’s cost estimates reasonably close to actuals? Are significant deviations explained and properly justified? Has the Contractor endeavored to reduce costs wherever and whenever possible without sacrificing the required quality of the products/services being provided? Is the Contractor performing adequate internal audits, and satisfactorily implementing the results thereof?

e. Metrics

Has the Contractor met the management performance metrics outlined in Exhibit 4 during the evaluation period?

5.0 CONTRACTOR

5.1 Contractor Goals and Objectives Statement

The Contractor should provide a Goals and Objectives Statement for each evaluation period. The Goals and Objectives Statement will outline the Contractor’s performance goals and objectives for the upcoming evaluation period. The Statement should include at least one significant goal for both the technical and the management performance evaluation areas, and at least one of these goals will include an innovation aimed at creating increased efficiencies, economies, or customer service.

Wherever possible, goals should address performance weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the coordinator reports for the prior evaluation period. The due date for the Statement will allow for the Contractor to review the Coordinator reports and develop goals or objectives pertaining to weaknesses identified in the reports to be utilized for the upcoming evaluation period. The Statement shall not exceed five (5) pages in length. A draft Goals and Objectives Statement will be submitted by the Contractor no later than two weeks after the start of the evaluation period.

A revised Goals and Objectives Statement will be submitted by the Contractor no later than two weeks after the date of the Performance Evaluation Board Meeting. The revised will be reviewed by the Project Officer and the Contracting Officer and if necessary, additions or revisions will be suggested. Any additions and/or revisions to the revised Statement will be adopted and incorporated by mutual agreement between the

Contractor, Project Officer, and Contracting Officer. A final Goals and Objectives Statement, which incorporates any suggested additions and/or revisions, will be submitted by the Contractor, signed and approved by the Project Officer and Contracting Officer, and then entered into the award fee system by the Management Operations and Support Branch. Once entered in the system the Statement will be available for viewing by Coordinators and Board members for the upcoming award fee period.

5.2 Contractor Performance Status Report

The Contractor should submit a report assessing its performance for each annual evaluation period. This report should not be more than twenty

(20) pages in length. Such report should consist of events of significance considered necessary in evaluating the Contractor’s performance.

Routine, normal or expected performance aspects shall be excluded. The report should not contain performance events that did not occur during the period under evaluation.

The report should also address the stated goals and objectives from the Contractor Goals and Objectives Statement for the evaluation period, and should discuss how those goals and objectives were reached. An explanation should also be provided for any goals and objectives the Contractor failed to reach.

The Contractor Performance Status Report should follow the outline of Section 4.1 through 4.3 of this Plan.

This report shall be entered into the web based Contractor Performance Assessment System by the date shown on Exhibit 3 of this Plan. The Performance Evaluation Board members will access the report through the web site. The Contracting Officer will provide copies to other NCI- Frederick management personnel on a need-to-know basis.

5.3 Response to Deficiencies

Within 2 working days after receipt of the Coordinators’ reports, the Contractor may, at its discretion, provide a written response to the Contracting Officer addressing any deficiencies contained therein.

5.4 Presentation to the Board

The Contractor, at its option, may designate one individual to make a brief (not to exceed 20 minutes) presentation to the Board at the beginning of the meeting. The presentation should be limited to providing the Board with information that is relevant to the evaluation. If the Contractor intends to make such a presentation, it should be scheduled with the Performance Evaluation Board Chairperson in advance of the meeting.

5.5 Board Meeting Results

At the conclusion of each meeting, the Contractor, at its option, may return for a summary of results.

EXHIBIT 1

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FLOW CHART

Performance Evaluation

Board (through the Chairperson)

Fee

Determination Official

Contracting Officer

Discussion of Board Findings and

Fee Recommendation

Contracting Officer

Coordinators s

Contractor Input (Verbal)

Contractor Performance Status Report and Coordinators’ Reports

Supplemental Data and Verbal Input (if requested by Coordinator)

Contractor

P

Monitors’ Report Coordinators’ Report e

Board Findings and Fee

Recommendation rformance Monitors

Comments re: Coordinator Report Coordinators’ Report

Contractor Performance Status Report and Goals &

Objectives Statement

Notice of Fee Notice of Fee

EXHIBIT 2

PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

PERCENT OF FEE

EARNED

Outstanding

Performance greatly exceeds average, with no noticeable or remarkable elements which need improvement. Contractor has conceived and reduced to actual use, novel or innovative technical and/or administrative policies and procedures that result in great benefit to the Government.

96-100

Excellent

Performance substantially exceeds average, with a few, relatively minor, elements for improvement.

91-95

Good

Performance exceeds average. Although there may be several elements for improvement, these are more than offset by better performance in other elements.

81-90

Average

Overall performance is average. Any below average performance in some elements has been offset by above average performance in other elements.

71-80

Fair

Performance is slightly below average;

there are elements of better performance, but these are not significant enough to offset below average performance in other elements.

61-70

Poor

Performance is below average by a substantial margin; and there are many elements for improvement that are not offset by better performance in other elements.

51-60

Unacceptable

Performance is unacceptable.

Improvement in overall contract performance is required to avoid possible termination action.

50 and below

EXHIBIT 3

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCHEDULE

Evaluation Periods September 26, 2008 - September 25, 2009 September 26, 2009 - September 25, 2010

Item Period Due Date

Contractor Goals and Objective Statement

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

Draft – Within two weeks of the start of the evaluation period Revised - Within two weeks of the date of the Performance Evaluation Board Meeting

Performance Monitor Report to Coordinator

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

October 9, 2009 October 8, 2010

Contractor Performance Status Report to Contracting Officer

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

October 9, 2009 October 8, 2010

Coordinators’ Reports to Contracting Officer

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

October 30, 2009 October 29, 2010

Coordinator Report to Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Board, and Contractor

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

November 6, 2009 November 5, 2010

Performance Evaluation Board Meeting

9/26/08 – 9/25/09 9/26/09 – 9/25/10

Week of Nov 9-13, 2009 Week of Nov 8-12, 2010

EXHIBIT 4

PERFORMANCE METRICS

MANAGEMENT

METRIC STANDARD ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

Contract Management, Cost Management

Contractor maintains high level of quality assurance and responsiveness to CO/PO.

Contractor contacts CO/PO immediately with problems, as appropriate. Contractor remains within or below cost estimates, notifies CO/PO immediately of any budget issue.

CO/PO has no more than 3 valid complaints in 6 month period;

minimal CO/PO intervention required; no more than 1 invoice per 6 month period requiring suspension or disallowance due to mistakes, incompleteness or other; No more than 3 working day delay in responding to CO/PO deadlines.

CO/PO Monitoring -including monthly reports, final reports, invoices, and customer communications.

TECHNICAL

METRIC STANDARD ACCEPTABLE QUALITY

LEVEL

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

Microcomputer Support

Contractor shall provide support for software and hardware products.

Enterprise issues – ASAP w/ minimal disruption to activities.

Urgent - <2 working days – 95% ASAP – 5 days – 95% Normal – 7 days – 95% Setup – 5 days – 90% Informational – 5 days – 95%

Customer feedback and Contract performance status report.

Application Programming Development and Support Services

Contractor shall be responsible for the design, development, documentation, implementation, maintenance and enhancement of the integrated, online computer systems that comprise NCI- Frederick’s Management Information Systems.

Any activities will occur w/ minimal down time.

90% of systems installed will operate properly w/ minimal programming, installation or integration problems.

95% of data transferred to new systems suffers no conversion errors and is usable when new systems are made available.

100% of systems installed and tested will meet security requirements.

Customer feedback, technical reports, and contract performance status report.

Statistical services Contractor shall provide statistical services to NCI-Frederick investigators.

All requests for statistical services will have an initial response within 48 hours.

Timelines and milestones for statistical work will be established within 5 working days of the original request.

Milestones will be consistently met w/ 48 hrs. advanced notice to investigators if a milestone will not be met.

Customer feedback and contract performance status report.

TECHNICAL

METRIC STANDARD ACCEPTABLE QUALITY

LEVEL

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

Scientific programming

Contractor shall provide programming support specific to the databases, spreadsheets, word processing packages, and Internet programs in general use at NCI-Frederick. This includes programming of laboratory equipment also.

All requests for programming support will be responded to within 48 hrs.

Requests of a certain size, as determined by the contractor, require a project plan with milestones.

Milestones will be consistently met w/ 48 hrs. advanced notice to investigators if a milestone will not be met.

Customer feedback and contract performance status report.

Internet support

Contractor shall be responsible for developing and maintaining Internet web sites that facilitate NCI-Frederick communications activities and provide information to external parties.

All requests for programming support will be responded to within 48 hrs.

Requests of a certain size, as determined by the contractor, require a project plan with milestones.

Milestones will be consistently met w/ 48 hrs. advanced notice to investigators if a milestone will not be met.

Customer feedback and contract performance status report.

PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM