N40085-13-R-3314-PAP_AND_FAP.pdf

PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT

PLAN

CNRMA

ANNEX 0401060

SECURITY OPERATIONS

CONTRACT NO. N40085-13-R-3314

Performance Assessment Plan Contents

1. Performance Assessment Plan

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

1.3 Safety

1.4 Submittals

1.5 Methods of Assessment (MOA)

1.6 Quality Management System (QMS)

1.7 Assessment Procedures

1.7.1 Functional Assessment Plans

1.7.2 Levels of Assessment…………………………………………………………………..4

1.7.3 Performance Assessment Process

1.7.4 Contract Payment Withholding

1.7.5 Assessment Summary and Evaluation Procedures

1.8 Summary

2. Attachments

Attachment A: Customer Complaint Record ............................................................................. A-1

Attachment B: Performance Assessment Rating Criteria (PARC) .............................................B-1

Attachment C: Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)..................................................................C-1

Attachment D: Navy Terms........................................................................................................ D-1

Attachment E: Functional Assessment Plans (FAPs) .................................................................E-1

1. Performance Assessment Plan

1.1 Introduction

The PAP establishes provisions for the Regional Grandfathered Security Guard Services contract for Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic (CNRMA). The PAP describes the methodology for assessing the Contractor’s performance that will be used to provide Contractor feedback, update Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), and support the

Navy’s decisions concerning award options. The PAP includes applicable Functional

Assessment Plans (FAPs) and associated Performance Assessment Worksheets (PAWs) to document and report Government observations and rate Contractor performance. The

Government’s role is to assess the Contractor’s work against measurable performance standards.

The Contractor’s role is to ensure its quality through successful implementation of its quality management system (QMS). The Government PAP is intended to ensure payments are made only for services that comply with contract requirements.

The Government’s relationship with the Contractors should be one that promotes a strong and positive business alliance to achieve mutually beneficial goals, such as timely delivery and acceptance of high-quality services, through the use of efficient business practices. It is essential that the Government and Contractor work together as a team to communicate expectations, agree on common goals, develop a common understanding of measurable standards, and identify and address problems early in the contract to achieve desirable outcomes.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

The Government’s key roles and responsibilities for performance assessment are as follows:

Performance Assessment Representative (PAR). An individual who is delegated, in writing, by the Contracting Officer (KO) to review submittals, periodically assess and document

Contractor performance, evaluate the Contractor’s QMS, keep current records of performance issues and results, and communicate findings as necessary with the individual’s activity supervisor, the Regional Senior Performance Assessment Representative (SPAR), the KO, and the Contractor as applicable.

Contracting Officer (KO). The KO has the contracting authority to award and administer the contract.

Regional Senior Performance Assessment Representative (SPAR). The regional SPAR is a

CNRMA representative appointed by the KO, in writing, to provide day-to-day technical oversight of the regional security contract, serving as liaison between the activity and the KO.

SPAR duties include reviewing performance work statements (PWS) and PAPs, assisting in the development of Government estimates, assisting with pre-bid or pre-proposal conferences, assisting the Contracting Officer in negotiations, monitoring the Contractor's performance through the efforts of PARs, advising the KO of unsatisfactory or non-performed work, reviewing the PAR documentation for certification of Contractors’ invoices to ensure withholdings and liquidated damages are legitimate, accurate and assessed when appropriate, and making recommendations regarding issuing Contract Discrepancy Reports (CDRs). The

SPAR validates the PARs’ performance assessment reports and submits a validated, consolidated report to the PAB for consideration during the award option determination process. The SPAR is also the Chairperson of the Performance Assessment Board.

Performance Assessment Board (PAB). The PAB is comprised of key technical and administrative personnel appointed in writing by the KO. The PAB will convene no less than semi-annually to review Contractor performance documentation and prepare and forward a summary report of findings and recommendations to the KO.

1.3 Safety

a. Whenever the PAR observes situations where the methods being used by the

Contractor create imminent danger (possible loss of life or serious bodily injury, and/or loss of or damage to Government property) the contractor (employees) will be instructed to stop work immediately.

b. If the situation is immediately corrected by the contractor employees (don safety apparel, display danger signs, etc.) the PAR may allow the work to resume.

c. If the situation is more complex, it may be necessary for the PAR to notify his/her supervisor and Safety Officer. After instructing that the work be stopped, the PAR shall notify his/her supervisor so that he/she may visit the worksite, assess the situation and take appropriate action. The PAR shall remain on site until his/her supervisor and/or Safety Officer arrives. The supervisor will notify the Contractor’s representative and advise to correct the safety violations. The supervisor will inspect the worksite with the PAR and/or the Safety

Officer to ensure that the imminent danger no longer exists so that work may resume.

d. No matter how complex the safety violations, the PAR will prepare a report of the situation and notify his/her supervisor immediately anytime work is ordered stopped.

e. If the contractor’s employees should refuse to stop work, the PAR should immediately inform his/her supervisor who may call in base security to force work stoppage.

1.4 Submittals

The PAR should review reports and other submittals identified in Section F of the contract specifications to ensure they comply with applicable requirements and specifications.

1.5 Methods of Assessment (MOA)

The PAR will periodically assess services for conformance to contract performance objectives and standards using the following MOAs:

Periodic Sampling (PS)

Validated Customer Complaints (VCC)

Unscheduled Visits (UV)

Periodic Sampling (PS): The PAR will establish a pre-determined plan for inspecting part of the work, using subjective judgment to determine which work occurrences to inspect and the frequency of the inspections. If consistently applied month to month, PS will reveal trends in the Contractor’s performance.

Selecting a sample size for PS is subjective; the sample size is arbitrarily determined. In order to provide consistent surveillance and provide a basis for comparing performance trends, a consistent method of selecting the samples is required. The criteria for selection of the sample from the population must be documented in the FAP and applied consistently from one assessment period (i.e. a month) to the next. If there is no consistency, trends in the

Contractor’s performance cannot be verified.

Validated Customer Complaints: This method, when handled properly, can supplement the use of PS. In some situations, it may even be used as the primary method of monitoring

Contractor performance. This method consists of customers observing defects in the services they expect to receive and reporting these defects to the PAR. To be a valid method, all such alleged defects must be examined by the PAR within a reasonable time (depends on nature of service) and determined to be a true defect.

The PAR should develop detailed procedures for validating each complaint, including points of contact with each customer, and specific steps the customers should follow in identifying and reporting performance deficiencies. VCCs are particularly effective when used to inspect contract requirements in which the customer has personal interest or is in close, daily contact with the provided service(s). Upon receipt of a complaint, the PAR will initiate a Customer

Complaint Form to record receipt of the complaint and to document the subsequent complaint validation. An example form is provided in this plan. If the complaint is valid, the PAR will complete the form, notify the Contractor, if rework or other action is appropriate, document the results of any required Contractor actions, sign the form, and forward it to his/her supervisor. The Customer Complaint Form provided in Attachment A will be used to both record and validate the complaints.

Unscheduled Visits: This is an unplanned inspection, usually carried out in conjunction with inspections of other performance objectives or in an impromptu fashion on the way to or from another commitment. For example, a PAR may be monitoring entry control point operations.

Incident to that inspection, he/she may notice and document another service that fails to meet specific standards. This constitutes an unscheduled inspection. It is seldom used as a primary method of assessment. Decisions on what to inspect are usually arbitrary; they are made simply “because you are there”. Consider UVs as a supplement to other assessment methods.

The MOAs used for assessment of each performance objective and standard are identified in each FAP.

1.6 Contractor Quality Management System (QMS)

When the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance reveals that the quality management efforts are not effective in ensuring performance objectives and standards are achieved, further action is required. When deficiencies are noted, the PAR will conduct a review of the Contractor’s quality control (QC) records and quality assurance (QA) process for the work item(s) to determine if the Contractor is aware of the deficient service and if corrective action is underway. The purpose of this review is to validate the accuracy and effectiveness of the Contractor’s QMS.

For QMS to be considered acceptable, the Contractor must demonstrate to the Government, through quality assurance process and QC corrective and preventive actions, that the risk of failure to meet performance standards has been satisfactorily mitigated.

1.7 Performance Assessment Procedures

1.7.1 Functional Assessment Plans

A FAP should be prepared for each contract performance objective, indicating the contract performance requirements, the MOA, how many and which specific instances of service will be selected for assessment, instructions on how to choose the service locations for assessment, specific assessment instructions unique to the provided service, and how the assessment results will be analyzed and reported. Ideally, the FAP should be prepared by the person who wrote the contract specification. In the event that is not the case, either the SPAR or PAR shall be responsible for FAP development.

1.7.2 Level of Assessment

The PAR uses a tiered approach that facilitates use of limited installation resources to focus on those items that require more attention while properly managing overall performance risk. The

PAR will periodically assess services for conformance to contract performance objectives and standards. Assessments will normally start at Assessment Level 1 (AL 1), which is equivalent to the highest appropriate Spec Item Number, e.g., 3.1 Entry Control Point Services. When the

Contractor’s performance is unsatisfactory for one or more performance standards, PAR will access at the next lower assessment level (AL 2), equivalent to the next lowest Spec item

Number, e.g. 3.1.2 Vehicle Inspections, may be required. If there are still performance deficiencies involving lower Spec Item Numbers, then AL3 should be conducted until the

Contractor’s performance improves. Conversely, as performance improves, the PAR should return to the higher ALs, minimizing the labor effort, while maintaining an appropriate assessment to the quality of the contract performance. FAPs have been developed for AL 1 and

AL 2.

1.7.3 Performance Assessment Process

The PAR should review and understand the contract requirements, performance objectives, and standards, as well as the Contractor’s technical proposal, QMS (including QA processes such as

ISO 9001 and QC Plan), work schedules, and submittals. The PAR should develop a Periodic assessment schedule based upon factors such as selected MOAs, the Contractor’s work schedule, the amount of services provided, and local priorities and conditions.

Performance Assessment includes the following steps:

Step 1 – Monitor Performance. The PAR will periodically observe Contractor performance of each contract performance objective as follows:

Develop a Periodic monitoring schedule based on directions provided in the appropriate

FAP.

Determine the level of Contractor performance by assigning an appropriate assessment rating score to each PA Checklist Item as follows:

Performance

Rating

Performance

Score

Performance Rating Evaluation Criteria (PREC)

Exceptional 9.1 – 10 No deficiency of any type, quality control is effectively employed; Government receives the full or greater value of the provided service.

Very Good 8.1 – 9 Meets all performance standards. Acceptable qualifications of contractor personnel. The few deficiencies noted have no impact on actual performance and are immediately corrected.

Satisfactory 7.1 – 8 Any deficiencies are very minor and do not detract from the Contractor’s mission. Acceptable qualifications of guards and other personnel. If required, all deficiencies are immediately corrected.

Marginal 6.1 – 7 Questionable qualifications of contractor personnel; no major performance deficiencies. If required, all deficiencies are corrected within the allowable rework period.

Unsatisfactory 0 – 6 Personnel are obviously not qualified; performance deficiencies render the service unusable; deficiencies cannot be corrected by rework.

Notice the above scoring criteria allow the PAR to assign a performance score that acknowledges performance “above and beyond”. As shown below, a “7” is essentially a satisfactory score as regards to meeting the performance standards, a rating that would indicate full contract payment is appropriate. Determining at what point the Contractor’s performance is completely unsatisfactory (1) will be a judgment call; this will vary by the type of service. It will depend on the PAR’s determination of value the Government received from the partially provided service. For consistency, where more than one PAR is rating the same service, they should develop a consensus on the rating judgment.

Step 2 – Document Observations. The PAR concurrently documents results of all observations in Step 2 using the performance documentation format provided in the FAP.

Document instances of value-added performance that exceed contract performance standards and negative performance that fails to meet contract performance standards, with supporting narrative. If the Contractor’s performance at assessment level (AL) 1 is rated “Marginal” or

“Unsatisfactory”, or shows a consistent downward trend, the PAR should assess the

Contractor’s performance at a lower level, e.g., “drill down” to AL 2. As the Contractor’s performance improves, the PAR can return to the AL 1 level. Where Validated Customer

Complaints are used as an MOA, all such alleged defects must be examined by the PAR within a reasonable time and determined to be a defect. The PAR will validate each customer complaint as soon as practicable after receipt to verify that the specified performance standards were not achieved.

Step 3 – Liaison. The PAR and SPAR will conduct discussions with the Contractor and

KO regarding performance discrepancies and negative performance trends to:

Identify corrective actions the Contractor is taking for specific discrepancies.

Identify any QMS changes the Contractor is implementing to preclude systemic problems, avoid repeat discrepancies, and regain QC.

Step 4 – Government Action. The SPAR will assist the KO in determining appropriate consideration for instances of Contractor non-conformance using the appropriate ELINS and methods of determining the value of non-performed services. Liquidated damages (LDs) may also be included. The PAR will assist the SPAR in preparing a Contract Discrepancy Report

(CDR), as required. Refer to Attachment C.

Step 5 – PAB Documentation. The SPAR collects, reviews, and summarizes PAR’s information for the PAB including:

Performance documentation

Validated customer complaints

Performance trend data

Preventive and corrective actions

Step 6 – PAB Evaluation. The PAB will convene as required to review and evaluate

Contractor performance. The SPAR will present the Monthly Performance Assessment

Summary (MPAS), refer to the FAPs in Attachment F. The PAB shall review the MPAS and determine the overall monthly performance rating using the Performance Assessment Rating

Criteria (PARC). The PAB will submit a report to the KO.

Step 7 – Feeder Reports. The PAB rating from Step 6 shall be provided to the KO for purposes of:

Updating the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS)

Issuing contract modification for non-conforming services

1.7.4 Contract Payment Withholding

The value the Government loses due to unsatisfactory Contractor performance may be withheld from the contract payment. As there is some associated government administrative effort involved in withholding payment, the PAR should consider the cost to the Government of such contract actions to the value of non-provided service. Any such withholding should be based only on the PAR performance documentation, tied to the specific value of the service in question. Ideally, this value should be determined from the contract exhibit line item number

(ELIN). When developing the FAP, the developer will assign a value to each performance objective’s performance standard. These values should sum to 100% for the performance objective. The percentage assigned to a performance standard indicates that standard in relation to the total ELIN identified value of the performance objective. At the conclusion of the evaluation period, the PAR will determine the average performance standard rating for the period. If the rating indicates a sufficient value of unsatisfactory service, that value is typically determined by multiplying average performance standard rating (expressed as a percentage), times the number of assessment services, times the performance objective’s unit price. Each

FAP will provide the procedure to determine the withholding value. If appropriate, the PAR will include the recommended contract payment withholdings in the monthly performance reports.

Note that payment withholding calculations must consider that “7”, as discussed above, is a fully satisfactory performance rating as regards to meeting the performance standards.

Therefore, the payment calculation procedures included in the FAPs take this into account when calculating the percentage of work that was rated “unsatisfactory”.

1.7.5 Assessment Summary and Evaluation Procedures

The SPAR will collect, review, and evaluate the results of all performance assessments including PAW documentation, validated customer complaints, customer evaluations, trend data, and Contractor QMS corrective and preventive actions. The SPAR summarizes PA information and recommended actions on the MPAS. Copies of completed PAWs, VCCs, Customer Evaluation forms, recommended contract payment withholdings, and other assessment documentation should be attached to the MPAS.

The PA information should also be used as part of the validation of the Contractor’s monthly invoice amount. The PAR and SPAR will determine the value of the estimated damages to the

Government for non-conforming or non-performed work and recommend to the KO the appropriate withholding, including LDs. Documentation must be provided to support the reduced value of services and/or the estimated cost and related profit to correct deficiencies and complete unfinished work.

1.8 Summary

The PAP is based on the premise that the Contractor is responsible for managing and ensuring that his/her contract performance meets the terms of the contract. The PAP facilitates consistent and effective PA to assess overall compliance with performance objectives and standards and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the Contractor’s QMS. The Government will evaluate

Contractor performance through appropriate assessment methods to ensure payments are made only for services that comply with contract requirements. This PAP is a “living” document that will be revised or modified as circumstances warrant.

A-1 Attachment A

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

CONTRACT NO: N40085-13-R-3314

DATE/TIME RECEIVED:

RECEIVED BY:

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION: INDIVIDUAL:

PHONE:

LOCATION:

SPEC ITEM: TITLE:

DETAILS OF COMPLAINT:

COMMENTS:

Complaint Validation: Valid Non-valid

PAR (signature): DATE:

CONTRACTOR (signature): DATE:

REWORK: Acceptable Unacceptable N/A

QMS EVALUATION: (Document effectiveness of contractor’s QMS to detect/correct negative performance and reverse trends)

QMS RATING:

Acceptable

Unacceptable

N/A

B-1 Attachment B

Performance Assessment Rating Criteria (PARC)

Exceptional:

The Contractor demonstrates a high level of performance and quality that meets all and exceeds most performance objectives and standards. There are little or no minor performance inconsistencies, all of which have been corrected/resolved. All work is performed in a timely manner.

Very Good:

The Contractor demonstrates a high level of performance and quality that meets all and exceeds some performance objectives and standards. Some minor performance inconsistencies occurred, all of which have been corrected/resolved. Vast majority of work is performed in a timely manner.

Satisfactory:

The Contractor demonstrates a level of performance and quality that meets all performance objectives and standards. There have been some performance inconsistencies, but no potential degrading of security operations.

Marginal:

The Contractor demonstrates a level of performance and quality that meets most but not all performance objectives and standards. Periodic input required from the Government is required to initiate corrective action. There is a potential degrading of security operations.

Unsatisfactory:

The Contractor demonstrates a level of performance and quality that fails to meet many performance objectives and standards and/or those that have a substantial impact on quality. The Contractor’s performance is inadequate or inferior with an excessive number of inconsistencies. Substantial input is required from the Government to acquire corrective actions. Without Government intervention, security operations could have been degraded.

D-1 Attachment D

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT

1. CONTRACT NUMBER

N40085-13-R-3314

GOVERNMENT ACTION

2. TO (Contractor and Manager Name) 3. FROM (Name of Government Representative)

4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM

5. CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED (Date, Time, Contact Name)

6. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER 7. DATE

CONTRACTOR ACTION

8. TO (Contracting Officer) 9. FROM (Contractor)

10. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE (Cause, corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

11. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 12. DATE

GOVERNMENT CLOSE OUT

13. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION (Acceptance, partial acceptance. Attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

14. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Payment deduction, cure notice, show cause, other.)

15. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER 16. DATE

17. SIGNATURE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL 18. DATE

D-1 Attachment D

NAVY TERMS

Assessment

Contract Discrepancy Report

Contractor

Functional Assessment Plan

Government Representative

Method of Assessment

Monthly Performance Assessment Report (MPAS)

Performance Assessment Rating

Performance Assessment Representative (PAR)

Performance Assessment Worksheet (PAW)

Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Periodic Sampling

Specification Item (Spec Item) Number

Unscheduled Visits

E-1 Attachment E

FUNCTIONAL

PLANS

CNRMA

ANNEX 0401060

SECURITY OPERATIONS

CONTRACT NO. N40085-13-R-3314

E-2

Functional Assessment Plan Contents

FAP 0401060-1 - Security Operations Services ....................................................................E-3

FAP 0401060-2 - Entry Control Point Services ....................................................................E-8

FAP 0401060-3 - Vehicle Inspections ...................................................................................E-14

FAP 0401060-4 - Roving Guard Services .............................................................................E-20

FAP 0401060-5 - Building Checks........................................................................................E-26

FAP 0401060-6 - Contract Employee Suitability ..................................................................E-30

FAP 0401060-7 - IDIQ Services............................................................................................E-32

AL-1 Monthly Performance Assessment Summary Report ..................................................E-35

AL-2 Monthly Performance Assessment Summary Report ..................................................E-37

E-3

AL 1 Assessment Level

Annex 0401060 - Security Operations

FAP 0401060-1 - Security Operations Services

Spec Item

Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Weighting

MOA

AL

AL

3 The Contractor shall provide security operations to ensure security and safety for personnel, property, facilities, and assets.

1. Security Operations are performed per

Section J-0401060 and Federal, state, local statutes’ DoD and DoN regulations, instructions and directives.

2. Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel.

PS

VCC

UV

QC

QA

1. Sample Size.

Normal: One assessment per day

Reduced: One assessment per week

2. Sample Selection Procedures. Randomly select the assessment locations for the evaluation period. Vary the assessments to cover each type of service at least once during the month. Record the assessment schedule using the attached Monthly Assessment Schedule.

3. Assessment Procedures. The PAR will use the assessment Checklist Form to record the field performance observations. Rate all performance standards, indicating in the space marked "comments" the reason for ratings less than “7”; enter the assessment findings in the Inspection Results. If appropriate, notify the Contractor of unsatisfactory performance that can be corrected by rework.

a. Prior to the assessment visit, the PAR will review the applicable post order and SOP governing the operation of the selected service.

b. During the site visits, validate contract employee is capable of performing the assigned duties, is appropriately uniformed and equipped, and appears to be performing in a satisfactory manner. Use the following evaluation criteria to assess the quality of security service:

(1) Security Operations are performed per SOPs and Post Orders and are in compliance with statutes, DoD regulations, and DoN instructions and directives.

Score 9.1 -10 if performance complies with all post orders and SOPs with no Government assistance required; rarely fails to meet performance standards and often exceeds standards; rarely fails to meet time schedules for deliverables and often is ahead of schedule; near perfect record maintenance as set forth in statutes, regulations and instructions; can immediately and fully answer any questions concerning assigned responsibilities

Score 8.1 - 9 if performance complies with all post orders and SOPs with little Government assistance required; infrequently fails to meet performance standards and sometimes beat the standards; infrequently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables and sometimes is ahead of schedule; can fully answer, or quickly obtain, a successful response for any question concerning assigned responsibilities; few, immediately correctable, deficiencies in record maintenance.

Score 7.1 - 8 if performance complies to nearly all Post Orders and SOPs with some Government assistance; minor deficiencies in the application of procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements can be corrected in the required time; sometimes fails to meet performance standards but nothing critical; sometimes fails to meet time schedules for deliverables satisfactory responses to questions concerning assigned responsibilities require no more than 5 minutes; satisfactory record maintenance with minor discrepancies that can be immediately corrected.

E-4

Score 6.1 – 7 if performance complies with some, but not all, Post Orders and SOPs with a lot of

Government assistance required; if identified deficiencies in procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements applications that hinder successful performance take longer than the required time to correct;

frequently fails to meet performance standards; frequently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables;

satisfactory responses to questions concerning assigned responsibilities take longer than the required time;

record maintenance discrepancies require more than the allowed time to correct.

Score 0 – 6 if there is little to no compliance with post orders and SOPs; failure is virtually assured if not for Government assistance or intervention. Consistently fails to meet performance standards; consistently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables. Employee cannot resolve or correct identified deficiencies in procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements applications that hinder successful performance;

employee does not know the proper procedures, even if prompted; discrepancies in record maintenance cannot be immediately corrected. Score 0 if five or more discrepancies are noted that the employee cannot correct. Score 0 if armed guard is required and employee is not qualified, has not been recently re-qualified, or does not have the required weapon.

(2) Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel.

Score 9.1 - 10 if demonstrating superior quality of work; qualifications of guards and other personnel are superior to comparable positions in the local private sector; employee’s personal duty equipment is complete and excellently maintained; required numbers of employees are on post at the specified time with all required equipment and in complete uniform.

Score 8.1 - 9 if demonstrating a high quality of work; qualifications of guards and other personnel are better than comparable positions in the local private sector; employee’s personal duty equipment and appearance is complete and well maintained; required numbers of employees are on post at specified time with all required equipment and in proper uniform.

Score 7.1 - 8 if demonstrating an acceptable quality of work; acceptable qualifications of guards and other personnel; the general public would consider the employee’s equipment and uniform as complete or deficiencies are minor and can be immediately corrected; required number of employees are on post at specified time.

Score 6.1 - 7 if demonstrating a poor quality of work; poor qualifications of guards and other personnel;

fully understands the proper procedures when reminded. Required numbers of employees were not on post at the specified time, but this discrepancy was corrected within 5 minutes.

Score 0 - 6 if demonstrating inferior quality of work; inferior qualification of guards and other personnel;

the employee is obviously not qualified; equipment is missing or not functional and cannot be replaced within 5 minutes; required numbers of fully equipped employees are not on post at specified time and cannot be corrected within 5 minutes. Score of 0 if performance deficiencies render the provided service unusable; deficiencies cannot be corrected unless the employee is replaced, or if required numbers of fully equipped employees are not on post.

c. Indicate, as the first comment on the Checklist Form's comment field, your estimate of the number of

Contractor provided shift standing hours applicable to your assessment observations.

d. Customer Complaints. The PAR will validate each customer complaint received on the standard customer complaint form. Site visits or other appropriate validation procedures may be required to validate complaints.

e. At least monthly, the PAR will review the Contractor’s QC reports and report any lack of correlation between the PAR’s findings and the QC reports to the SPAR.

f. Rework. Rework will normally be allowed when practical, and must be completed by the Contractor within five minutes of notification.

4. Analysis of Results. At the end of the month, the PAR will print the Monthly Activity Report, compare the monthly weighted rating score to the PREC, assess the Contractor’s overall performance, recommend the level of assessment be modified accordingly, and forward the Monthly Activity Report(s) and any recommendations to the

SPAR as follows:

E-5

(1) If the monthly weighted rating score for any performance standard is less than the PREC “satisfactory” rating, continue using Periodic sampling for the coming assessment period. If the monthly weighted rating score for all performance standards are equal to or better than the PREC “satisfactory” rating, consider using reduced Periodic sampling for the coming assessment period or recommend the assessment level go to AL 1.

(2) If the monthly weighted rating score for all performance standards are less than the PREC rating of

“satisfactory”, overall performance is considered unsatisfactory, and the PAR should recommend to the SPAR that a

CDR be issued to the Contractor, or that stronger action be taken.

(3) The PAR will compare the results of his/her assessment findings to the Contractor’s QC assessment records and report to the SPAR any instances where the two assessment procedures do not reasonably agree.

E-6

MONTHLY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE

Performance Objective: 3 – Security Operation Services

SCHEDULED

DATE

SPEC ITEM

NUMBER

SHIFT

LOCATION

DAY

SWG

GRV

E-7

N40085-13-R-3314, CNRMA Security Operations

Freq:

Weekly

0401060.3 PA Checklist Method: Planned Sampling

Major Contract Requirement Performance Standard

The Contractor shall provide security operations to ensure security and safety for personnel, property, facilities, and assets.

1. Security Operations are performed per Section J-0401060-02, J-0401060-03 and Federal, state, local statutes’ DoD and DoN regulations, instructions and directives.

2. Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel per J-0401060-01.

Sample Size: Normal: 1 assessment per week

Reduced: 1 assessment bi-weekly

Sample Selection: Randomly select the assessment locations for the evaluation period. Vary the assessments to cover each type of service at least once during the month. Record the assessment schedule visits using the attached Monthly Assessment Schedule.

Checklist Items: No Yes

0 10

1 Security Operations are performed per Section J-0401060-02, J-0401060-03 and Federal, state, local statutes’ DoD and DoN regulations, instructions and directives. ______

2 Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel per J-0401060-01.

Additional Instructions:

Comments/Recommendations:

Date Inspected: Time Inspected: Acknowledged by:

Inspected by:

E-8

Functional Assessment Plan

AL 2 Assessment Level

FAP 0401060-2 - Entry Control Point Services

AL

3.1 The Contractor shall provide

entry control point services to ensure unauthorized personnel, property, equipment, vessels, or vehicles are deterred and denied facility ingress and egress.

1. Posts are effectively staffed with fully

2. Procedures required in Section J are properly employed.

3. Communication capability is properly established.

4. Standards of conduct are properly employed.

5. Personal appearance is neat; personnel properly represent the Government and present a professional image.

VCC

UV

Normal: 1 ECP assessment per week

Reduced: 1 ECP assessment per bi-weekly

2. Schedule Preparation Effort: Prior to the start of assessment, obtain the Contractor’s ECP shift schedule.

3. Sample Selection Procedures. Prior to the beginning of each assessment period, randomly select one of the ECPs from the Contractor’s shift schedule to visit each week of the forthcoming month. Allocate about a third of the visits to each shift (e.g. day, swing, and grave). Record the assessment schedule using the attached Monthly

Assessment Schedule.

4. Assessment Procedures. Use the assessment Checklist Form to record the field performance observations. Rate all performance standards, indicating in the space marked "comments" the reason for ratings less than “7”; enter the assessment findings in the Inspection Results. If appropriate, notify the Contractor of unsatisfactory performance that can be corrected by rework.

a. Make the on-site assessment any time during the shift. During the site visit, verify that the required number of qualified security personnel were on duty throughout the shift. Use the following evaluation criteria to assess the quality of security service:

(1) Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel.

Score 9.1 - 10 if demonstrating superior quality of work; qualifications of guards is superior to comparable positions in the local private sector; employee’s personal duty equipment is complete and excellently maintained; required number of employees are on post at the specified time with all required equipment and in complete uniform; guard’s personal equipment is complete and excellently maintained; fully compliant with all requirements listed on the Individual Record Assessment Form of FAP 0401060-8 - Contract

Employee Suitability.

Score 8.1 - 9 if demonstrating a high quality of work; qualifications of guards are better than comparable positions in the local private sector; if the general public would consider the guard's personal equipment is complete and excellently maintained; required numbers of employees are on post at specified times with all

E-9 required equipment and in proper uniform; fully compliant with all requirements listed on the Individual

Record Assessment Form of FAP 0401060-8 - Contract Employee Suitability.

Score 7.1 - 8 if demonstrating an acceptable quality of work; acceptable qualifications of guards; the general public would consider the guard’s equipment and uniform is complete or deficiencies are minor and can be immediately corrected; required numbers of guards are on post at specified times with all required equipment and in proper uniform; fully compliant with all requirements listed on the Individual Record

Assessment Form of FAP 0401060-8 - Contract Employee Suitability.

Score 6.1 - 7 if demonstrating poor quality of work or poor qualifications of guards; the guard's personal equipment deficiencies that are noticeable to the public are minor and can be corrected within 5 minutes;

fully understood the proper procedures when reminded; fully compliant with all requirements listed on the

Individual Record Assessment Form of FAP 0401060-8 - Contract Employee Suitability.

Score 0 - 6 if demonstrating inferior quality of work; inferior qualification of guards; performance deficiencies may render the ECP unusable; the guard's personal equipment deficiencies that are noticeable to the public are minor and cannot be corrected within 5 minutes; if the guard is not fully compliant with all requirements listed on the Individual Record Assessment Form of FAP 0401060-8 - Contract Employee

Suitability.

(2) Procedures required in Section J are properly employed.

Score 9.1 - 10 if performance complies with all post orders and SOPs for ECP operation with no

Government assistance required; rarely fails to meet performance standards and often exceeds standards;

rarely fails to meet time schedules for deliverables and often is ahead of schedule; maintained records meet all requirements as set for in statutes, regulations and instructions; fully qualified on all required weapons;

can immediately and fully answer any questions concerning ECP operation; near perfect record and pass down log maintenance.

Score 8.1 - 9 if performance complies with all post orders and SOPs for ECP operation with little

Government assistance; infrequently fails to meet performance standards and sometimes beat the standards;

infrequently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables and sometimes is ahead of schedule; qualified on assigned weapon; can fully answer, or quickly obtain, a successful response for any question concerning assigned ECP post operation; few, immediately correctable, deficiencies in record and pass down log maintenance.

Score 7.1 - 8 if performance complies to nearly all post orders and SOPs for ECP operation with some

Government assistance; sometimes fails to meet performance standards but nothing critical; sometimes fails to meet time schedules for deliverables; qualified on assigned weapon; minor deficiencies in the application of procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements can be corrected the required time;

satisfactory responses to questions concerning assigned responsibilities are provided within the required time; satisfactory record maintenance with minor discrepancies that can be immediately corrected.

Score 6.1 – 7 if performance complies with some, but not all, post orders and SOPs for ECP operation with a lot of Government assistance required; frequently fails to meet performance standards; frequently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables; qualified on assigned weapon; if identified deficiencies in procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements applications that hinder successful performance take longer than the required time to correct; satisfactory responses to questions concerning assigned responsibilities take longer than the required time; record maintenance discrepancies require more than the allowed time to correct.

Score 0 – 6 if there is little to no compliance with ECP post orders and SOPs; consistently fails to meet performance standards; consistently fails to meet time schedules for deliverables; failure is virtually assured if not for Government assistance or intervention. Employee cannot resolve or correct identified deficiencies in procedures, SOPs, and higher authority requirements applications that hinder successful performance; employee does not know the proper procedures, even if prompted; discrepancies in record maintenance can not be immediately corrected. Score 0 if armed guard is required and employee is not qualified, has not been recently re-qualified, or does not have the required weapon.

(3) Communication capability is properly established.

Score 9.1 - 10 if all means of communications are fully operational and instant communication capability is available via all means of communication; communicating in full compliance with all SOPs and instructions. Vital information is immediately passed via the lines of available communication.

E-10

Score 8.1 – 9 if all means of communications are operational, and there is instant communication capability with at least one of them; employee effectively uses communication capabilities to pass information via communications lines; Vital information is promptly passed via the communication lines.

Score 7.1 - 8 if there is one means of communication available, fully functional, and instant communication capability is available; employee properly uses communications means to effectively pass information via communication lines. Any errors in communication are immediately corrected. Vital information is timely passed via the communication lines.

Score 6.1 – 7 if at least one means of communication can be established within 5 minutes, the employee properly employs the available communication capabilities and/or has developed reasonable alternatives;

any errors in communication are corrected in a minimum of reasonable time. Vital information is passed as soon as possible via the available lines of communication.

Score 0 – 6 if communication can not be established within 5 minutes, or employee cannot operate communications equipment without being instructed on-site. Employee passes incorrect information via communications lines. Score 0 if communication capability exists but inoperable due to employee negligence or if employee passes significant information erroneously and security of post or installation is

(4) Standards of conduct are properly employed.

Score 9.1 - 10 if guards are providing the best possible activity representation and customer service; portray a helpful and courteous demeanor; are highly motivated in executing their duties as evidenced by pride in their appearance, and professionalism in their conduct.

Score 8.1 – 9 if guards are providing a very good activity representation and customer service; portray a helpful and courteous demeanor; are well motivated in executing their duties as evidenced by their conduct and professionalism; any very minor deficiencies in appearance that is not apparent to the public are immediately corrected.

Score 7.1 - 8 if guards are providing an acceptable activity representation and customer service; portray a helpful and courteous demeanor; are acceptably motivated in executing their duties; any significant deficiencies in appearance that are not potentially obvious to the public can be immediately corrected.

Score 6.1 – 7 if guards are generally providing an appropriate activity representation and customer service;

for the most part are helpful and courteous; are somewhat motivated in executing their duties; significant deficiencies in bearing and behavior that are potentially obvious to the public can be corrected within 5 minutes.

Score 0 – 6 if significant deficiencies in bearing and behavior that are potentially obvious to the public cannot be corrected within 5 minutes. Score 0 if the deficiencies can only be eliminated by replacing the employee.

(5) Personal appearance is neat; personnel properly represent the Government and present a professional image.

Score 9.1 - 10 if the uniform is complete and excellently maintained; guard meets all grooming standards and presents an outstanding professional appearance.

Score 8.1 – 9 if the uniform is complete; guard meets the required grooming standards and presents a professional appearance.

Score 7.1 - 8 if the uniform is complete; guard meets the required grooming standards; any uniform or grooming deficiencies that are not obvious to the public can be immediately corrected.

Score 6.1 – 7 if uniform or grooming deficiencies that are not obvious to the public can be corrected within

5 minutes.

Score 0 – 6 if uniform or grooming deficiencies that are obvious to the public can be not be corrected within 5 minutes. Score 0 if the deficiencies can only be eliminated by replacing the guard.

b. Indicate, as the first comment on the Checklist Form's comment field, your estimate of the number of

c. Rework. Rework will normally be allowed when practical, and must be completed by the Contractor within five minutes of notification. Therefore, each assessment marked for rework must be re-inspected by the PAR to see if the work was satisfactorily completed, and appropriate notations completed on the assessment form.

E-11

d. The PAR will enter the assessment findings on the Assessment prior to the end of the month.

e. At least monthly, the PAR will review the Contractor’s QC reports and report any lack of correlation

6. Analysis of Results. At the end of the month, the PAR will print the Monthly Activity Report, compare the monthly weighted rating score to the PREC, assess the Contractor’s overall performance, recommend the level of assessment be modified accordingly, and forward the Monthly Activity Report(s) and any recommendations to the

(1) If the monthly weighted rating score for any performance standard is less than the PREC “satisfactory” rating, continue using Periodic sampling for the coming assessment period. If the monthly weighted rating score for all performance standards are equal to or better than the PREC “satisfactory” rating, consider using reduced Periodic

(2) If the monthly weighted rating score for all performance standards are less than the PREC rating of

“satisfactory”, overall performance is considered unsatisfactory, and the PAR should recommend to the SPAR that a

(3) The PAR will compare the results of his/her assessment findings to the Contractor’s QC assessment records and report to the SPAR any instances where the two assessment procedures do not reasonably agree.

(4) If recommending contract payment withholdings as part of the monthly performance evaluation, use the attached PAR Monthly Payment Analysis Report to identify the value of non-provided services. Enter the Average

Weighted Checklist Score for the month and the number of estimated observed hours in the spreadsheet.

E-12

Performance Objective: 3.1 - Entry Control Point Services

SCHEDULED

SHIFT

E-13

Freq: Weekly

0401060.3.1 PA Checklist Method: Planned Sampling

The Contractor shall provide entry control point services to ensure unauthorized personnel, property, equipment, vessels, or vehicles are deterred and denied facility ingress and egress.

1. Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel.

2. Procedures required in Section J are properly employed.

3. Communication capability is properly established.

4. Standards of conduct are properly employed.

5. Personal appearance is neat; personnel properly represent the Government and present a professional image.

Sample Size: Normal: 1 ECP assessment per week

Reduced: 1 ECP assessment bi-weekly

Sample Selection: Prior to the beginning of each assessment period, randomly select one of the patrols to visit each work day of the forthcoming month. Allocate about a third of the visits to each shift (e.g. day, swing, and grave)

1 Posts are effectively staffed with fully qualified and equipped personnel.

2 Procedures required in…