ENCLOSURE_2_QASP_Example.pdf

RFP NNG16557109R

ENCLOSURE 2

GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

PLAN

FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND

TECHNICAL SERVICES III (FaCETS III)

CONTRACT NO. TBD

12 APRIL 2016

FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES III

(FaCETS III)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to define the overall approach the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) intends to use to monitor and survey Contractor performance under the Facilities Construction, Engineering and Technical Services III (FaCETS III) Contract No. TBD. This Firm-

Fixed-Price Hybrid Core/Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract provides integrated institutional support services to GSFC. The scope of work is a multitude of services associated with facilities design and construction and other related technical services for GSFC. The facilities design and construction work in this contract can be described as new construction, modification, or rehabilitation of facilities, varying from routine general construction to installation of complex special test or laboratory systems.

It may include work on building interiors and exteriors, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, environmental, and fire protection

(detection and suppression). It may also include civil site work and both underground and surface site utility system work.

In addition to providing design and construction support services to GSFC Greenbelt, the

FaCETS III contract will provide ongoing Information Resources (IR) services facilities software applications support personnel to maintain facilities and utilities information at

Greenbelt and Wallops. The software applications used include Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD), Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and Computer Aided

Facilities Management (CAFM) applications. Building and site modifications are captured through the creation and ongoing maintenance of CADD, GIS, and CAFM models. Code 220, Facilities Management Division, uses these three software applications to assist in the design, construction, and reporting of the Goddard facilities.

The QASP is a Government-developed surveillance tool prepared in accordance with

FAR 46.601 and NFS 1846.401. It is not part of the contract, per NFS 1846.401(a)(iii), but provided to the Contractor for informational purposes only.

1.2 Scope

This QASP has been developed to evaluate Contractor actions while implementing the

Attachment A, Statement of Work (SOW). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring Contractor performance, services, processes, and products provided under this FaCETS III contract. This QASP defines the process the

Government expects to follow to obtain data, evaluate the Contractor, and determine if contract performance conforms to contract requirements. The Contractor, and not the

Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved. In this contract the quality control program is the driver for product quality.

The Contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a “self-correcting” contract is to ensure that the quality control program approved at the beginning of the contract provides the measures needed to lead the Contractor to success. Once the quality control program is approved, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document will ensure a robust quality assurance program.

This plan is applicable to all services performed or products provided by the FaCETS III

Contractor(s). Throughout this QASP, the term “Contractor” is used. In terms of this plan, it should be known that unless explicitly stated, the term “Contractor” is applicable to both the FaCETS III Contractor and any and all of its subcontractors.

2.0 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

There exists a wide-ranging spectrum associated with surveillance, ranging from oversight to insight. The strategy and approach to surveillance by the GSFC for the

FaCETS III contract, as detailed in this plan, is one that concentrates primarily on insight as opposed to oversight. However, NASA reserves the right to initiate additional surveillance activities (insight or oversight) on an ‘as-needed’ basis, based upon circumstances and data collected (adverse trends, negative data points, lack of corrective action, etc.) via the surveillance activities defined in this plan.

2.1 Surveillance Strategies

Insight

Insight is an assurance process that uses performance requirements and if definable, performance metrics to ensure process capability, product quality and end-item effectiveness. Insight relies on gathering a minimum set of product or process data that provides adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process. The data may be acquired from Contractor records, usually in a non-intrusive parallel method.

Insight as applied to this contract will result in lower levels of Government surveillance and allow the Contractor to assume increased responsibility and accountability for the integrity of processes. Insight will rely heavily on evaluating planned contract deliverables, performance standards, and existing Contractor procedures and working documents, if available.

Oversight

Oversight as applied to this contract will result in higher levels of Government surveillance. The Government will gather information pertaining to the Contractor's process through involvement and/or inspection in the process and will monitor the process itself. The Government's involvement in the Contractor's performance, through oversight, will be determined necessary by the Contracting Officer's Representative

(COR).

The Government may use a variety of surveillance methods to evaluate the Contractor's performance. Government surveillance will be conducted on a non-interference basis and in a manner that will not unduly delay work being performed by the Contractor.

2.2 Surveillance Team

All surveillance activities will be implemented using NASA and NASA support-contractor personnel, a delegated agency (e.g., Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA)), and/or a surveillance support). The surveillance team may be composed of:

GSFC Procurement Personnel (i.e., Contracting Officer (CO), Contract Specialist)

GSFC’s Program Personnel (i.e., COR, Task Monitor(s) and Code 220 Information

Resources Management and Program Analyst(s))

GSFC Safety, Health and Security Personnel (both physical and Information

Technology (IT) Security)

GSFC Quality Assurance Contractor

The FaCETS III CO is responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, issuing task orders, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships.

The CO will also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

The FaCETS III COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his/her authorized technical representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates Contractor performance, serves as the primary interface for the Contractor and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments, authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf, or in any way direct the Contractor to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Any changes that the

Contractor deems may affect the contract or task order price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR’s limitations of authority are contained in the

NASA Form 1634, COR Delegation.

2.3 Communications

Monthly Performance reviews

Electronic mail

Informal Discussions

Other communication methods, as required

2.4 Evaluation and Reporting

Monthly Reports

Monthly Contractor performance metrics

Inspection of deliverable items

2.5 Work Review and Performance Monitoring

The Government will evaluate the Contractor's accomplishment of the technical objectives through the following:

Continuous evaluation of Evaluation Criteria in Appendix 1 of this QASP.

Monthly meetings with the Contractor to review progress and identify problems.

Preparation and submission of Contractor Performance Annual Reporting System

(CPARS) reports.

Conduct inspection and acceptance of the Contractor's deliverable items.

Review Contractor's safety procedures and performance.

Validate that Contractor is performing according to the required contractual plans

(e.g. testing, integration, quality assurance, etc.) by physical inspection, review of submitted reports, and meetings with the contract manager.

The surveillance team will make a physical inspection of the Contractor's onsite work area quarterly. In addition, the COR may make informal inspections, as required. These inspections are made to assure compliance with NASA and

GSFC onsite regulations and procedures.

All onsite Contractor employees have a GSFC Personal Identity Verification

(PIV) card (badge).

The names and locations (buildings/room numbers) of the Contractor employees match their monthly onsite Personnel Identity Verification (PIV) Report.

The Contractor employees are aware that the use of Government telephones is for official business only.

The Contractor employees are following the proper Checkout Procedures when leaving GSFC (e.g., returning PIV card (badges)). The PIV data forms will be checked against the monthly Onsite Reports to identify exiting employees.

The Contractor employees are aware of the NASA and GSFC IT Security compliance requirements.

Validate that all Installation-Accountable Government Property (IAGP) is being properly utilized and maintained.

2.6 Record Keeping and Documentation

The COR is responsible for maintaining accurate and complete records of the

Contractor’s performance. The COR is responsible for collecting the performance evaluation documentation and maintaining any other material that reflects the quality of the Contractor performance. Even though the Contractor is responsible for ensuring performance compliance under their quality control requirements, the Government will give the Contractor prompt notice of defects observed by the COR and Task Monitor(s).

This does not imply that the Government is obligated to carry out quality control inspections for the Contractor, but that on discovering a problem, the Government will inform the Contractor in detail of the incident. COR will keep CO informed of any issues brought to the attention of the Contractor by the COR.

If performance issues arise, they will be discussed immediately between the CO, COR, and Contractor. Action plans will be developed and resolutions tracked for closure by the

Contractor and Government.

During the course of the contract, the COR shall retain a copy of all surveillance documentation. At the end of the surveillance period, these records shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer for inclusion in the contract file. However, when a specific service or deliverable item becomes unsatisfactory during a surveillance period, a copy of the documentation supporting the unsatisfactory performance shall be forwarded to the

Contracting Officer for action between the Government (CO and COR) and Contractor.

2.7 Contract Administration

Contractor maintains effective communication within its own organization, including subcontractors. Problems, technical issues, and programmatic changes are promptly communicated to all concerned. Prime Contractor communication with subcontractors is seamless and transparent to the customer.

3.0 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE

The Contractor's performance in all of the areas listed above and in Appendix 1 below will be monitored to assure that ineffective or wasteful methods are not being used. As required by FAR 42.1502 and GPR 5100.2, Supplier Performance Evaluations, the CO, in collaboration with the COR, will annually complete a Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, which will also be reviewed by the

Contractor, and become a part of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS). In the event of a finding that will require immediate attention, the COR will notify the CO of the situation for necessary action. The Contractor will be required to submit a written response and any corrective action steps needed.

4.0 SUMMARY

This Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan describes the approach GSFC intends to use to monitor the FaCETS III contract and assure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. GSFC anticipates using an insight surveillance approach. The goal is to balance the level of Government surveillance with the perceived impacts and risks of mission failure.

Contracting Officer’s Representative Signature

Contracting Officer Signature

APPENDIX 1: Performance Evaluation Criteria

Contents and Contract Monitor/Monitoring System Designation

Part Section Contract Monitor/ Monitoring System

Table – Contract Monitors -

Table – Contract Monitoring Systems -

I. Introduction -

II. Roles and Responsibilities -

III. Individual Performance Areas and Evaluation Criteria -

Contract Project Management -

1. Overall Safety Practices (Safety) TMs, Code 360 Safety Officer, NMIS, and SHEtrak

2. Performance Measurement and Control Plan Monthly Reports

(Quality)

COR and CO

3. Interface with Government and Other Contractors (Business

Relations)

TMs and COR

4. Subcontractor Management (Quality) QA Contractor & TMs

5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals (Small Business

Utilization)

CO

6. Staffing and Skills Enhancement (Quality) TMs and M&P Analysts

7. Overall Customer Service (Business Relations) QA Contractor & TMs and FaCETS

Contractor Surveys

Planning Services -

1. Program Schedule Adherence

(Schedule)

TMs and MAXIMO and Government task order management system

2. Customer Interface (Business Relations) QA Contractor & TMs and FaCETS

Contractor Surveys

Architect-Engineering Services -

1. Design Schedule Adherence (Schedule) TMs and MAXIMO and Government task order management system

2. Work Quality (Quality) QA Contractor & TMs

3. Design to Budget (Quality) TMs

4. Estimating Accuracy (Quality) TMs

5. Construction Support (Quality) QA Contractor & TMs

6. Group Participation (Business Relations) TMs and COR

Information Resources Services -

1. Systems Security (Quality) M&P Analysts

2. Customer Service (Business Relations) M&P Analysts

3. Systems Availability (Quality) M&P Analysts

4. Data Accessibility (Quality) M&P Analysts

5. Database Development and Maintenance (Quality) M&P Analysts

6. Drawing Updates (Quality M&P Analysts

Construction Services -

1. Construction Schedule Adherence (Schedule) QA Contractor & TMs and MAXIMO and Government task order management system

2. Construction Quality (Quality) QA Contractor & TMs

IV. Overall Evaluation in the Areas of Quality, Schedule, Business

Relations, Small Business Utilization, and Safety

Determined from Individual Ratings

Contract Monitors, Monitoring Systems, and Acronyms are defined in the tables and appropriate sections below.

Individual Performance Areas and Evaluation Criteria

Contract Project Management

1. Overall Safety Practices (Safety). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor has complied with the requirements of the

Contractor’s approved Safety and Health Plan and given priority to safety awareness;

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordable safety incidents and lost work time will be considered. Data compiled in the NASA SHEtrak and NMIS systems will be utilized in determining Contractor performance.

Exceptional – Contractor management ensured that safety awareness was a top priority and that safety requirements were fulfilled in all areas of work. There were no recordable safety incidents or other safety related problems. The Contractor's safety program was proactive.

Very Good – Contractor management ensured that safety awareness was a top priority and that safety requirements were fulfilled in all areas of work. There were one or two minor recordable safety incidents or other safety related problems. Any recordable safety incidents were properly reported and documented and the Contractor immediately implemented corrective action. The

Contractor's safety program was proactive.

Satisfactory – Contractor management emphasized safety awareness and met all contract safety requirements. There were three recordable safety incidents or other safety related problems. Any recordable safety incidents were properly reported and documented and the Contractor implemented corrective action within a reasonable period. The Contractor's safety program was proactive.

Marginal – There were four or five recordable safety incidents or other safety related problems.

Recordable safety incidents were properly reported and documented and the Contractor implemented corrective action within a reasonable period.

Unsatisfactory – There were more than five safety incidents or other safety related problems under the contract; or Contractor did not report incidents in a timely manner; or Contractor response was inadequate.

Contract Monitors

CO Contracting Officer

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

TM Task Monitor – Government Task Monitor (Code 221 Planner or Code 224 Project Manager)

M&P Analyst Code 220 Information Resources Management and Program Analyst

Code 360 Safety

Officer

Code 360 Safety and Health Division Government or Contract Employee

QA Contractor Contractor Providing Quality Assurance and Coordination Services Under Contract

#NNG14516306R

Contract Monitoring Systems

NMIS NASA Mishap Information System – system for capturing mishaps, close calls, and hazards

SHEtrak Safety, Health, and Environmental Tracking System – program used to input and track safety, health, and environmental findings

MAXIMO Maximo Asset Management – database used to manage workorders and projects

Government task order management system

Application used for the paperless processing and management of Government task orders and modifications from initiation by the Task Monitor to award to the Contractor

CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System – application used to document

Contractor performance information

2. Performance Measurement and Control (PMC) Plan Monthly Reports (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which it successfully implemented its approved PMC Plan and provided required information in its monthly reports.

Exceptional – The Contractor has fully implemented its approved PMC Plan to measure and track all required performance data and has used this information to correct any areas of substandard performance. All monthly reports were provided to the Government and were of high quality and contained all necessary and relevant information needed to evaluate performance.

Very Good – The Contractor has implemented its approved PMC Plan to measure and track 95% of the required performance data and has used this information to correct 95% areas of substandard performance. All monthly reports were provided to the Government and were of high quality and contained 95% of the necessary information needed to evaluate performance.

Satisfactory – The Contractor has implemented its approved PMC Plan to measure and track 75% of the performance data but used this information to correct 75% of areas of substandard performance. All monthly reports were provided to the Government and contained 75% of the information needed to evaluate performance.

Marginal – The Contractor has implemented only a portion of its approved PMC Plan to measure and track required performance data and has used this information to correct 60% of areas of substandard performance. All monthly reports were provided to the Government but contained

60% of the necessary information needed to evaluate performance.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor has not implemented its approved PMC Plan, all monthly reports were not provided to the Government, or reports had no useful information needed to evaluate performance.

3. Interface with Government and Other Contractors (Business Relations). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the quality of its interaction with

Government and other contractors and how well the Contractor partners with them.

Exceptional – The Contractor interacts in an exemplary manner with the Government and other

Contractors, and partners on all issues to reach easy resolutions.

Very Good – The Contractor interacts very well and partners with the Government and other

Contractors on 95% issues to reach resolution.

Satisfactory – The Contractor interacts well with the Government and other Contractors with few instances of not partnering to reach resolution.

Marginal – The Contractor interacts in a less than satisfactory manner and partners with the

Government and other Contractors to reach resolution on only some issues.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor interacts poorly and does not partner well with the Government and other Contractors to resolve issues.

4. Subcontractor Management (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which it effectively manages its subcontractors.

Exceptional – Subcontractor performance is exemplary in all technical areas.

Very Good – Few problems encountered with subcontractor performance and were easily resolved; problems did not affect contract performance.

Satisfactory – Some problems with subcontractor performance and 95% were easily resolved;

problems did not affect contract performance.

Marginal – Numerous problems with subcontractor performance; some not easily resolved;

problems only minimally affected contract performance, if at all.

Unsatisfactory – Numerous problems with subcontractor performance; many were not easily resolved; problems affected contract performance.

5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals (Small Business Utilization). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area for the Contract Year rating period to assess how well it is meeting the contract's Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan goals.

Exceptional – The Contractor exceeded its overall SB Subcontracting Plan Goals and met or exceeded its SB Subcontracting Plan Goals in 96% to 100% of the individual categories.

Very Good – The Contractor met its overall SB Subcontracting Plan Goals and was within 10% of meeting its SB Subcontracting Plan Goals in 90% to 95% individual categories.

Satisfactory – The Contractor was within 10% of meeting its overall SB Subcontracting Plan

Goals and was within 20% of meeting its SB Subcontracting Plan Goals in 95% individual categories.

Marginal – The Contractor was within 11% to 20% of meeting its overall SB Subcontracting Plan

Goals and was within 35% of meeting its SB Subcontracting Plan Goals in 95% individual categories.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor not within 20% of meeting its overall SB Subcontracting Plan

Goals or was not within 35% of meeting its SB Subcontracting Plan Goals in 95% individual categories.

6. Staffing and Skills Enhancement (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which it is providing qualified personnel to accomplish the contract requirements and the degree to which it is providing training to maintain and improve their work skills.

Exceptional – All of the Contractor's personnel are fully qualified to meet the Government’s requirements, completed all required Government training, and exceeded completion of training required to be fully licensed/certified to perform the work of their positions.

Very Good – All of the Contractor's personnel are fully qualified to meet the Government's requirements, completed all required Government training, and met completion of training required to be fully licensed/certified to perform the work of their positions.

Satisfactory – All of the Contractor's personnel are fully qualified to meet the Government's requirements and completed all required Government training.

Marginal – Most of the Contractor's personnel are fully qualified to meet the Government's requirements. In instances where the Contractor's personnel were not fully qualified to meet the

Government's requirements, there was no negative effect on contract performance.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor's personnel frequently lacked the qualifications or knowledge to meet the Government’s requirements and this negatively affected contract performance.

7. Overall Customer Service (Business Relations). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which it encourages and fosters a positive customer service attitude in its organization. Ratings will be determined through written feedback from Customers in response to surveys distributed by the Contractor, either by e-mail or hardcopy as described in the Contractor’s PMC Plan.

Exceptional – Contractor employees display a positive customer service attitude at all times, no reported occurrences of Contractor employees having a negative customer service attitude.

Very Good – Contractor employees display a positive customer service attitude, with less than three reported occurrences of Contractor employees having less than a positive customer service attitude, with no negative impact on FMD.

Satisfactory – Contractor employees display a positive customer service attitude with three to five reported occurrences of Contractor employees having less than a positive customer service attitude, with no negative impact on FMD.

Marginal – Contractor employees display a positive customer service attitude with more than five reported occurrences of Contractor employees having less than a positive customer service attitude had only minimal negative impact on FMD.

Unsatisfactory – More than five reported occurrences of Contractor employees having a negative customer service attitude; such occurrences had a negative impact on FMD.

Planning Services

1. Program Schedule Adherence (Schedule). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which it completes scopes, budgets, schedules, and other project management tasks on or before established completion dates.

Exceptional – 96% to 100% of scopes/budgets/schedules for each program were completed by the established due dates.

Very Good – 91% to 95% of the scopes/budgets/schedules for each program were completed by the established due dates and none were more than 5 calendar days late.

Satisfactory – 81% to 90% of the scopes/budgets/schedules for each program were completed by the established due dates and no more than 20% were more than 10 calendar days late.

Marginal – 70% to 80% of the scopes/budgets/schedules for each program were completed by the established due dates and no more than 25% were more than 15 calendar days late.

Unsatisfactory – Fewer than 70% of the scopes/budgets/schedules for each program were completed by the established due dates or more than 25% were more than 15 calendar days late.

2. Customer Interface (Business Relations). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor's program management staff interacts with customers in a timely, professional and courteous manner. Ratings will be determined through written feedback from Customers in response to surveys distributed by the

Contractor, either by e-mail or hardcopy as described in the Contractor’s PMC Plan.

Exceptional – The Contractor interacted with customers in an exemplary manner. The Contractor treated customers with respect, provided accurate and timely information, responded to e-mail and telephone status requests within two work days, and displayed a highly motivated positive attitude toward the work received. There were no negative customer feedback responses in writing.

Very Good – The Contractor interacted very well with customers. The Contractor treated customers with respect, provided accurate and timely information, responded to e-mail and telephone status requests within three work days, and displayed a positive attitude toward the work received. There were less than five negative customer feedback responses in writing.

Satisfactory – The Contractor interacted well with customers. The Contractor treated customers with respect, provided accurate and timely information, responded to e-mail and telephone status requests within four work days, and displayed a positive attitude toward the work received. There were five to six negative customer feedback responses in writing.

Marginal – The Contractor interacted well with customers. The Contractor treated customers with respect, provided accurate and timely information, responded to e-mail and telephone status requests within five work days (three to five requests were forwarded by customers to the

Government for response), and displayed a positive attitude toward the work received. There were seven to eight negative customer feedback responses in writing.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor did not interact well with customers. There was at least one reported instance, in writing, where the Contractor did not treat one or more customers with respect or did not provide information. There was at least one reported instance where the

Contractor did not respond to e-mail or telephone status requests within five working days and more than five status requests were forwarded by customers to the Government for response.

There at least one reported instance, in writing, where the Contractor displayed a negative attitude toward work received. There were more than eight negative customer feedback responses in writing.

Architect-Engineering Services

1. Design Schedule Adherence (Schedule). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor completes designs and other engineering tasks on or before contractual or other established completion dates. Interim milestones will be considered.

Exceptional – The Contractor completed 96% to 100% of the designs on or before established due dates and none were more than 5 calendar days late; consistently met interim milestones. Any late designs did not adversely affect the mission.

Very Good – The Contractor completed 91% to 95% of the designs by the established due dates and none were more than 10 calendar days late; on average, interim milestones were met. Any late designs did not adversely affect the mission.

Satisfactory – The Contractor completed 81% to 90% of the designs by the established due dates and none were more than 15 calendar days late; on average, interim milestones were met. Any late designs did not adversely affect the mission.

Marginal – The Contractor completed 70% to 80% or more of the designs by the established due dates and none were more than 20 calendar days late; on average, interim milestones were met.

Late designs adversely affected the mission.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor completed fewer than 70% of the designs by the established due dates. Interim milestones were regularly missed. Late designs adversely affected the mission.

2. Work Quality (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor completes designs and other engineering efforts in conformance with the FMD Standard Reference Document, Architectural-Engineering

Specification, CADD Manual, GSFC Construction Specifications and all applicable engineering standards and codes.

Exceptional – Less than 5% "accepted" Comments at milestone reviews; all addressed adequately.

No construction modifications necessary due to Contractor errors/omissions.

Very Good – 6% to 10% "accepted" comments at milestone reviews; all addressed adequately. No construction modifications necessary due to Contractor errors/omissions.

Satisfactory – 11% to 20% "accepted" comments at milestone reviews; 95% addressed adequately.

One or two construction modifications necessary due to Contractor errors/omissions.

Marginal – 21% to 30% "accepted" comments at milestone reviews; 905% addressed adequately.

Three construction modifications necessary due to Contractor errors/omissions.

Unsatisfactory – More than 30% "accepted" comments at milestone reviews. Work was not in compliance with standards. More than three construction modifications necessary due to

Contractor errors/omissions.

3. Design to Budget (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor completes designs within the project budget

(construction price compared to 35% design engineering estimate for construction).

Exceptional – 96% to 100% of design engineering estimates are within 5% of the construction price.

Very Good – 91% to 95% of design engineering estimates are within 5% of the construction price and none are more than 10% greater than the construction price.

Satisfactory – 81% to 90% of design engineering estimates are within 10% of the construction price and none are more than 20% greater than the construction price.

Marginal – 71% to 80% of design engineering estimates are within 20% of the construction price and none are more than 30% greater than the construction price.

Unsatisfactory – Less than 70% of design engineering estimates are more than 20% greater than the construction price or some are more than 30% greater than the construction price.

4. Estimating Accuracy (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the accuracy of the Contractor's A-E engineering estimates, including those established by the Government and validated/accepted by the Contractor.

Exceptional – 96% to 100% of final engineering estimates are within 5% of the construction price.

Very Good – 91% to 95% of final engineering estimates are within 5% of the construction price and none are more than 10% greater than the construction price.

Satisfactory – 81% to 90% of final engineering estimates are within 10% of the construction price and none are more than 20% greater than the construction price.

Marginal – 70% to 80% of final engineering estimates are within 20% of the construction price and none are more than 30% greater than the construction price.

Unsatisfactory – Less than 70% of final engineering estimates are more than 20% greater than the construction price or some are more than 30% greater than the construction price.

5. Construction Support (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the effectiveness of the Contractor's A-E support during the construction phase of projects, which includes the timeliness and adequacy of submittal/shop drawing reviews, RFI responses, and design modifications.

Exceptional – 96% to 100% of reviews/responses/modifications completed on time; all addressed adequately.

Very Good – 91% to 95% of reviews/responses/modifications completed on time; all addressed adequately.

Satisfactory – 81% to 90% of reviews/responses/modifications completed on time; 90% addressed adequately.

Marginal – 70% to 80% of % reviews/responses/modifications completed on time; 80% addressed adequately.

Unsatisfactory – Less than 70% reviews/responses/modifications not completed on time; under

80% addressed adequately.

6. Group Participation (Business Relations). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor's A-E staff attends and participates in relevant meetings and work groups.

Exceptional – 96% to 100% of % A-E attendance and participation.

Very Good – 91% to 95% of A-E attendance and participation.

Satisfactory – 81% to 90% of A-E attendance and participation.

Marginal – 70% to 80% of A-E attendance and participation.

Unsatisfactory – Less than 70% A-E attendance and participation.

Information Resources Services

1. Systems Security (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the Contractor's systems security tracking, administration, and any needed remediation, in accordance with NASA GSFC standards and procedures.

Exceptional – No security breaches occur on FMD systems and protective software patches are applied immediately to every FMD hardware component at the time of the patch availability or instruction.

Very Good – One or two security breach occurred on FMD systems within a six-month period. Protective software patches are applied to every FMD hardware component within 24 hours of the patch availability or instruction.

Satisfactory – Three or four security breaches occurred on FMD systems within a six-month period. Protective software patches are applied to every FMD hardware component within three days of the patch availability or instruction.

Marginal – Between five and ten security breaches occurred on FMD systems within a six-month period. Protective software patches are applied to every FMD hardware component within five days of the patch availability or instruction.

Unsatisfactory – More than ten security breaches occurred on FMD systems within a six-month period. Protective software patches are applied to every FMD hardware component more than five days of the patch availability or instruction.

2. Customer Service (Business Relations). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the Contractor's prompt, courteous, professional response to requests for information media (e.g., CAD plots, electronic bid sets, copies, scans) and application assistance, and, when tasked, provides prompt, effective user training for new applications and system hardware or software components.

Exceptional – No negative customer feedback responses in writing. Training materials and instruction are provided within 2 weeks of the implementation of major changes in software or applications.

Very Good – Five or less negative customer feedback responses in writing. Training materials and instruction are provided within 2 weeks of the implementation of major changes in software or applications.

Satisfactory – Six to ten negative customer feedback responses in writing. Training materials and instruction are provided within 4 weeks of the implementation of major changes in software or applications.

Marginal – Eleven to twenty negative customer feedback responses in writing. Training materials and instruction are provided within 4 weeks of the implementation of major changes in the software or applications.

Unsatisfactory – More than twenty negative customer feedback responses in writing or training materials and instruction are provided more than 4 weeks after implementation of major changes in software or applications.

3. Systems Availability (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor maximized uptime for all systems during

Center core work hours (9:00AM – 3:00PM). Systems administration duties are accomplished with minimal impact to the user community.

Exceptional - All major hardware systems (servers, engineering printers & plotters) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of FaCETS Contractor is not counted). New hardware components have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours, within 7 days of approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts are in force.

Very Good - All major hardware systems (servers, engineering printers & plotters) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of FaCETS contractor is not counted). New hardware components have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours, within 8 – 15 days after approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts are in force.

Satisfactory - All major hardware systems (servers, engineering printers & plotters) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of FaCETS contractor is not counted). New hardware components have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours, within 15 – 30 days after approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts are in force.

Marginal - Major hardware systems (servers, engineering printers & plotters) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of FaCETS contractor is not counted). New hardware components have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours more than 30 days after approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts are in force.

Unsatisfactory - Major hardware systems (servers, engineering printers & plotters) were not available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of FaCETS contractor is not counted). New hardware components have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours more than 30 days after approved schedule. Not all applicable licenses and support contracts are in force.

4. Data Accessibility (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor ensured timely on-line accessibility of facilities data.

Exceptional - All major software systems (MAXIMO, CAFM, GIS, Primavera Contract Manager, EDMS, CADD) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of the FaCETS contractor is not counted).

Software and applications updates have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours within 7 days of approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts and appropriate user access levels are in force.

Very Good - All major software systems (MAXIMO, CAFM, GIS, Primavera Contract Manager, EDMS , CADD) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of the FaCETS contractor is not counted).

Software and applications updates have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours within 8 – 15 days of approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts, and appropriate user access levels are in force.

Satisfactory - All major software systems (MAXIMO, CAFM, GIS, Primavera Contract Manager, EDMS, CADD) were available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of the FaCETS contractor is not counted).

Software and applications updates have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours within 16 – 20 days of approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts, and appropriate user access levels are in force.

Marginal - Major software systems (MAXIMO, CAFM, GIS, Primavera Contract Manager, EDMS , CADD ) are usually available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of the FaCETS contractor is not counted).

Software and applications updates have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours more than 21 to 30 days after approved schedule. All applicable licenses and support contracts, and appropriate user access levels are in force

Unsatisfactory - Major software systems (MAXIMO, CAFM, GIS, Primavera Contract Manager, EDMS, CADD) were not available for general use during the core work hours (downtime due to network or other systems not under the control of the FaCETS contractor is not counted).

Software and applications updates have been configured, tested, and brought on-line during non-core hours more than 30 days after approved schedule. Not all applicable licenses and support contracts, and appropriate user access levels are in force.

5. Database Development and Maintenance (Quality). The Government will evaluate the

Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor provided effective, professional programming, tools for data gathering and verification, training, and upkeep for specified custom applications used in the Division.

Exceptional - Users report that all seven applications, tools, or training met the intended purpose.

Very Good - Users report that six applications, tools, or training met the intended purpose.

Satisfactory - Users report five applications, tools, or training met the intended purpose.

Marginal - Users report four applications, tools, or training met the intended purpose.

Unsatisfactory - Users report that three or less applications, tools, or training met the intended purpose.

7. Drawing Updates (Quality). The government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor incorporates government approved as-built drawings into the building, site, and schematic as-built models within the following time periods.

For projects with the following construction value:

o Less than $100K = 30 calendar days;

o $100K - $499K = 45 calendar days;

o Greater than $500K = 60 calendar days.

These durations are tracked from the date that the approved as-builts are received from the construction contractor.

Exceptional – As-built updates are incorporated on time and include all relevant information, as specified in the CADD Manual. All building as-built drawings, models, schematics, and database changes are fully up to date prior to the specified time periods.

Very Good – As-built updates incorporated include all relevant information, as specified in the

CADD Manual. 95% of building as-built drawings, models, schematics and database changes have been completed within the specified time periods.

Satisfactory – As-built updates incorporated include relevant information as specified in the

CADD Manual. 90% of building as-built drawings, models, schematics and database changes have been completed within 1 week past the specified time periods.

Marginal – As-built updates incorporated include relevant information as specified in the CADD

Manual. 85% of building as-built drawings, models, schematics and database changes have been completed within 2 weeks past the specified time periods.

Unsatisfactory – As-built updates incorporated have missing information as specified in the

CADD Manual. 80% or less building as-built drawings, models, schematics and database changes have been completed more than 2 weeks past the specified time periods.

Construction Services

1. Construction Schedule Adherence (Schedule). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor submits Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build task plans in a timely fashion and completes construction task orders on or before contractual or other established completion dates.

Exceptional – The Contractor completed 96% to 100% of construction task orders on or before the established completion dates. Early completions substantially aided the mission. The Contractor submitted 96% to 100% of task plans within the contractually required time and none were late.

Very Good – The Contractor completed 91% to 95% of construction task orders on or before the established completion dates and any that were completed late were not late by more than 10% of the task order performance period. Early completions aided the mission, and any late completions did not adversely affect the mission. The Contractor submitted 91% to 95% of task plans within the contractually required time, and none were submitted more than 10 calendar days late.

Satisfactory – The Contractor completed 81% to 90% of construction task orders on or before the established completion dates and any that were completed late were not late by more than 15% of the task order performance period. Early completions aided the mission, and any late completions did not adversely affect the mission. The Contractor submitted 81% to 90% of task plans within the contractually required time, and none were submitted more than 20 calendar days late.

Marginal – The Contractor completed 20% to 25% of construction task orders late and none were late by more than 20% of the task order performance period and did not adversely affect the mission. The Contractor submitted 20% to 25% of task plans within the contractually required time, and none were submitted more than 20 calendar days late.

Unsatisfactory – The Contractor completed more than 25% of construction task orders late, and some were later than 20% beyond the task order performance period. Late completions adversely affected the mission. Task plans were regularly submitted more than 20 calendar days late.

2. Construction Quality (Quality). The Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance in this area to assess the degree to which the Contractor submits timely task plans and completes construction task orders on or before contractual or other established completion dates. Each task order includes a drawing set which together with the Goddard Construction Specifications establishes the expected quality of work. Workmanship and conformance to the drawings and specifications will be monitored continually.