RFP 70FB8025R00000001 Attachment 3 SECTION E PEP 20240925.pdf

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

Table of Contents

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

Table of Revisions ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Section E.1 Introduction and Purpose Section E.2 Overview and Scope Section E.3 Roles and Responsibilities Section E.4 Methods of Surveillance Section E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation Section E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge Rating

APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 1.1: Quality Performance Area Matrix

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 2.1: Schedule Performance Matrix

APPENDIX 2.2: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

APPENDIX 3: MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 3.1: Management Performance Area Matrix

APPENDIX 3.2: MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE COMPUTATION

Section E.1 Introduction and Purpose

E.1.1 Introduction

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

The government’s approach to fulfilling its role is documented in the government’s Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP).

This PEP has been developed to support the requirements set forth in the Log HOUSE contract.

The government has developed the PEP to work in conjunction with the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Contractors will be rated annually in CPARS for their performance on the contract for the base year and any option years that the government executes. Contractors will be rated on all TOs. The contractors will be rated on the quality of the work performed; compliance with the schedule requirements; the contractor’s ability to control costs and the contractor’s ability to manage the contract and TOs.

Specific areas where technical performance requirements are defined are in Section C: The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Section F: Deliverables and Performance.

E.1.2 Purpose

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

Deliverables and Performance.

Section E.2 Overview and Scope

E.2.1 Overview

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

the PWS. Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) will ensure the delivery of timely and effective service and achieve the results specified in Section C and Section F.

E.2.2 Performance

E.2.2.1 Performance Areas

The Performance Areas are identified by the type of work performed. The government will use the appropriate and applicable performance areas when evaluating a Contractor’s performance.

Appropriate and Applicable Performance areas are directly related to the requirements of a Task Order. If the Contractor does not have work in a specific Performance Area, the government will not evaluate performance in that Performance Area. The Performance Areas associated with this contract are as follows:

• Unit Transportation Performance Area (UTPA)

• Site Inspection Performance Area (SIPA)

• Haul and Install Performance Area (HIPA)

• Unit Maintenance Performance Area (UMPA)

• Unit Deactivation Performance Area (UDPA)

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

• Commercial Park Expansion Performance Area (CPEPA)

• Contract Management Performance Area (CMPA)

• Group Site Construction Performance Area (GSCPA)

• Group Site Maintenance Performance Area (GSMPA)

• Task Order Management Performance Area (TOMPA)

• Contract Management Performance Area (CMPA)

The process for assessing contractor performance in each of the Performance Areas above are attached as separate appendices. Contractors will only be evaluated on the Performance Areas that are applicable to the TO.

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

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

E.2.2.2 Performance Requirement

The government rates the Performance Areas using the CPARS rating categories. The following rating categories are contained within CPARS:

• Quality

• Schedule

• Management

• Cost Control

• Small Business Utilization

• Regulatory Compliance

• Other Areas

Figure E.2-1: CPARS

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

Quality

Product Performance Relative to Contract’s Performance Parameters

Performance in Terms of Contract’s Quality Objectives

Use Quantitative Indicators Wherever Possible

Contractor’s Management of the Quality Control Program

Quality of the Work or Service

Schedule

Timeliness of Delivery

Timely Completion of Contract/Order

Milestones Timely Completion of Administrative Requirements

Management

Integration and Coordination of Activity Problem Identification

Corrective Action Plans

Reasonable and Cooperative Behavior

Customer Satisfaction

Subcontract Management

Program Management

Management of Key Personnel

Cost Control

Forecasting Cost

Managing Cost

Controlling Cost

Overrun/ underrun

Small Business Utilization

Compliance with Terms and Conditions for Small Business Participation

Achievement of Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Good Faith Effort to Meet Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Regulatory Compliance

Compliance with Regulations and Codes

Financial

Environmental

Labor

Safety

Reporting Requirements

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

E.2.3 Evaluation Procedures

Assessments for contractor performance will be documented using the procedures defined in the attached appendices.

Section E.3 Roles and Responsibilities

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

E.3.1 Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer (CO) ensures performance of all requirements of the base contract and

TOs to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and/or the TO. The CO safeguards the interests of the Government in the contractual relationship. The CO will receive all discrepancy reports and forward them to executive management of the contractor for action.

The CO may monitor, perform surveillance, and evaluate the contractor’s performance at any time during the life of the contract and/or TO.

E.3.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative

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

The COR is responsible for the following activities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

E.3.3 Technical Monitor

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

E.3.4 Contractor

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

Section E.4 Methods of Surveillance

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

E.4.1 Inspection

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

One hundred percent (100%) inspection is preferred when the requirements are so critical that non-performance would pose a direct risk to the safety of personnel or property, or when the work occurs infrequently, and the output quantity is small. Inspecting smaller percentages can be acceptable as long as the frequency of inspection increases, and the sample size selected for inspection is representative of 100% of the units being inspected.

E.4.2 Database and Reports Analysis

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

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

E.4.3 Progress and Status Meetings

Progress or status meetings shall be held with the contractor as required by the COR. These meetings will allow the COR and contractor the opportunity to review and discuss any and all issues related to the execution of the TO.

E.4.4 Other Monitoring Techniques

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

• Site visits

• Personal observations

• Phone calls

• Contractor requests

• Contacting other Government agencies

Section E.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

E.5.1 Performance Criteria

Results of surveillance activities will be documented using the criteria noted below. Services shall ordinarily not be accepted before completion of Government contract quality assurance actions (FAR Part 46.5). Most TOs awarded will be evaluated using TO specific information.

All ratings assigned by the COR will be supported with formal documentation.

E.5.1.1 Ratings

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

E.5.1.1.1 CPARS Ratings

The CPARS rating will use the definitions provided in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 for all rating categories. The CPARS rating will take into account the Contractors scores in Performance Areas. However, other factors may be taken into account by the government when providing a CPARS rating. Ratings for small business utilization are defined in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1.

For Contractor performance or TOs that extend beyond a single rating period, the government may include an indication of whether the Contractors performance is better or worse than the previous period. The government may also indicate if there is a trend in Contractor performance over multiple CPARS reporting periods.

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

Evaluation Ratings Definitions (Excluding Utilization of Small Business) – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1 CPARS Rating Definition Note Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. Ensure that small businesses are given meaningful, innovative work directly related to the project, rather than peripheral work, such as cleaning offices, supplies, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB.

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

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

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

landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements.

Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate

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

or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do

so. Required a corrective action plan.

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

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

A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages - Subcontracting Plan.

E.5.1.1.2 Performance Area Ratings

The government will use the performance area ratings to inform a Contractor’s CPARs ratings.

However, the performance area ratings are not the only component of a Contractor’s CPAR rating.

The government will provide both the government textual scores (e.g., Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, etc.) and numeric scores (e.g., 4, 3, 2, etc.) for each Performance Area. Numeric scores are defined during the rating of the individual Performance Area. The government textual score definition and descriptions are provided here.

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

CPARS rating will be determined based on surveillance and review of all contractor tasks required by contract which includes but is not limited to tasks rated via the textual and numeric scores noted in this section.

The government textual scores and point values are noted below.

Table E.5-3: Government Textual and Point Value Rating Comparison

Government Point Value Government Textual Rating

3.51 – 4.00 Exceptional

2.76 – 3.50 Very Good

1.51 – 2.75 Satisfactory

0.51 – 1.50 Marginal

0.00 – 0.50 Unsatisfactory

E.5.1.1.2.1 Exceptional (EX)

The highest rating that can be given for an individual performance area. This rating is worth three and fifty-one hundredths (3.51) to four (4) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.2 Very Good

This is the second highest rating that can be given for an individual performance area. This rating indicates that the contractor exceeded the requirements; however, performance did not meet the requirements for an exceptional rating. This rating is worth two and seventy-six (2.76) to three and five tenths (3.5) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.3 Satisfactory (S)

This rating is given when the performance area score indicates that the expectation for the performance area have been met. This rating is worth one and fifty-one hundredths (1.51) to two and seventy-five hundredths (2.75) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.4 Marginal (M)

This rating is given when the performance area is not met as described in the contract; however, the contractor’s performance for the area overall has not fallen to the level of unacceptable. This rating is worth fifty- one hundredths (.51) to one and five tenths (1.5) point for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.2.5 Unsatisfactory (U)

The performance in this area does not meet the requirements of the contract and therefore is unacceptable.

This rating is worth five tenths (.5) to zero (0) points for the performance area when the performance areas are aggregated into the sub-tab rating.

E.5.1.1.3 Unused Categories

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

E.5.2 Rating Determination

The COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance for each applicable Performance Area as is described in the Performance Area Matrices contained the appendices. The evaluations in each of the Performance Areas use one or more of the following terms.

Table E.5-4: Evaluation Terms

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

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

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

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

Escalations are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

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

Exceptions are typically used in the Cost Performance Area Matrix.

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

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

The ratings for each individual Performance Area will be aggregated into the rating category as described in Appendix 1, Quality. Specific examples from the individual Performance Areas will be used to justify any rating that is above or below a rating of Satisfactory (S). To the extent possible, the Government has made the individual criteria as quantitative as possible to reduce the level of subjectivity in the evaluation process.

Prime contractors are responsible for the performance of subcontractors at all levels. A Prime contractor is defined as the contractor who has the relationship with the government.

Subcontractors are defined as any contractor who is working on the contract at any level but does not have a direct contract with the government.

The Government is aware that many TOs require substantial coordination efforts with County, City, State, and Federal agency personnel over whom the contractor has no control and who may have different priorities than the government contractors. Wherever possible, the COR will note mitigating circumstances that are outside the contractor’s control when making evaluations.

E.5.3 Surveillance Outcomes

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

E.5.3.1 Contractor Notification of Surveillance Outcomes

The COR will inform the contractor of a potentially unsatisfactory performance by issuing a Discrepancy Report (See Section J, Attachment 2502) as soon as the discrepancy is noted. The contractor shall initial and date the TO and/or Work Order DR form. The contractor’s initials and date signify acknowledgement of receipt of the form and does not indicate that the contractor agrees with the discrepancy.

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

E.5.3.2 Nonconforming Outcomes

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

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

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

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

2. Accept at price reduction.

3. Reject.

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

E.5.3.3 Discrepancy Report

A Discrepancy Report (See Section J, Attachment 2505) can be initiated by the COR at any time during the evaluation period when the results of an evaluation show unsatisfactory or marginal performance for the period being monitored, or when the contractor is performing below the acceptable performance level.

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

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

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

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

Section E.7 Contractor’s Process to Challenge Rating

The government will use a sample ranging from five percent (5%) to one hundred percent (100%) when calculating the individual Performance Areas that are aggregated into the contractor’s ratings.

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

END OF SECTION E

APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSESSMENT BY PERFORMANCE AREA

APPENDIX 1.1: Quality Performance Area Matrix

Quality Performance Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

SIPA-Q#1

Private/Commercial SFIR Quality

CLIN0003AA(MH/PM)

CLIN0003AB(TT)

SFIR Quality means that all documents required to complete a SFIR package are included and complete when the SFIR package is reviewed. Site drawing is complete with all items noted in contract. SFIR is also reviewed for accuracy based on actual field conditions during QA site visit.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

The government will conduct a survey (Section J, Attachment 1205) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

SIPA-Q#2

Private/Commercial SFIR Accuracy

CLIN0003AA(MH/PM)

CLIN0003AB(TT)

SFIR Quality means that all documents required to complete a SFIR package are included and complete when the SFIR package is reviewed. Site drawing is complete with all items noted in contract. SFIR is also reviewed for accuracy based on actual field conditions during QA site visit.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

The government will conduct a survey (Section J, Attachment 1205) to evaluate this category.

Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

HIPA-Q#1 TTHU

Installation Quality

CLIN0004AA(MH/PM)

CLIN0004AB(TT)

TTHU Installation Quality is defined as the TTHU is ready to be received by the government from the Contractor for, and turned over to, a disaster survivor for immediate occupancy with little to no repair issues. The government representative will conduct a RFO inspection to determine if the TTHU is Ready for Occupancy.

Quality is rated by the total number attempts made by contractor for successful RFO and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

The government will conduct a survey (Section J, Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

Attachment 1309) to evaluate this category.

Note: If an TTHU must be relocated or repositioned, the criteria for TTHU Installation and TTHU Deactivation Quality will be used to monitor performance.

UMPA-Q#1 TTHU

Maintenance Customer Satisfaction

CLIN0005AC

Includes QA of routine maintenance, emergency maintenance and preventive maintenance inspections.

QA will assess the workmanship and professionalism of the Contractor’s staff when conducting maintenance of any type.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

The government will conduct a survey (Section J, Attachment 1509) by contacting applicant and/or other adults licensed into unit to evaluate this category.

For the purposes of customer satisfaction, Contractor staff, contracted staff and/or subcontractor staff who perform maintenance on TTHUs are considered direct employees of the Contractor.

Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75 Marginal: .51- 1.5 Unsatisfactory: 0.0- .50

UDPA-Q#1 TTHU

Deactivation Quality - Site

CLIN0006AC

CLIN0006AD

TTHU Deactivation Quality - Site is defined as an TTHU that has been removed from the installation site and the site has been rendered safe and secure.

Quality is rated by the total number attempts made by contractor for successful site deactivation and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

The government will conduct a survey (Section J, Attachment 1706) to evaluate this category.

Note: If a TTHU has to be relocated or

Exceptional: 3.51-4 Very Good: 2.76- 3.50 Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

repositioned, the criteria for TTHU Installation and TTHU Deactivation Quality-Site will be used to monitor performance.

UDPA-Q#2 TTHU

Deactivation Quality - Unit

CLIN0006AC

CLIN0006AD

TTHU Deactivation Quality - Unit is defined as the condition that the TTHU is in when it is returned to staging:

Inventory of personal property has been completed and personal property has been properly secured (if applicable), Securing all items (e.g., furniture and appliances, etc.) within the TTHU for transportation, Cleaning of the interior of the TTHU to the deactivation standard.

URPA-Q#1 TTHU

Repositioning Quality

CLIN0006AJ

CLIN0006AK

If an TTHU has to be repositioned, the criteria for TTHU Deactivation Quality-Site and TTHU Installation Quality will be used to calculate the score for this performance area.

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

URPA-Q#2 TTHU

Relocation Quality

CLIN0006AH

CLIN0006AI

If an TTHU has to be relocated, the criteria for

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

URPA#16 TTHU

Reinstall (Swap) Quality

CLIN0006AL

CLIN0006AM

If a TTHU has to be reinstalled, the criteria for

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

CPEPA-Q#1

Commercial Park Expansion Site Assessment, Tier 1 (SAT1) Quality

Site Assessment, Tier 1 Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT1 Quality means that all documents required to complete a SAT1 package are included when the SAT1 package is reviewed.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

CPEPA-Q#3

Commercial Park Expansion Site Assessment, Tier 2 (SAT2) Quality

CLIN 0007BA

Site Assessment, Tier 2 Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT2 Quality means that all documents required to complete a SAT2 package are included when the SAT2 package is reviewed.

Quality is rated by contractual questions and questions rating enhanced quality. Score is an aggregate of questions with a maximum score of 4.

Satisfactory: 1.51- 2.75

CPEPA-Q#5

Expansion Conceptual Design (CD) Quality

CLIN 0007AH

Conceptual Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

CD Quality means that all documents that are required to complete a CD package are included when the CD package is reviewed.

Major CD Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a definable feature or not including an aerial photo or preliminary cost estimate. A Major CD discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor CD Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a non-definable feature or another minor component as determined by the COR. A Minor CD discrepancy provides 1 Quality Error Point.

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

CPEPA-Q#6

Commercial Park Expansion Fifty Percent Design (50D) Quality

CLIN 0007AJ

Fifty Percent Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

50D Quality means that all documents required to complete a 50D package are included when the 50D package is reviewed.

Major 50D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a definable feature or other submittal as determined by the COR. A Major 50D discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor 50D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a non-definable feature or other minor component as determined by the COR. For example, missing a code requirement. A Minor 50D discrepancy provides 1 Quality Error Point.

CPEPA-Q#7

Commercial Park One Expansion Hundred Percent Design (100D) Quality

CLIN 0007AL

One Hundred Percent Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

100D Quality means that all documents required to complete a 100D package are included when the 100D package is reviewed.

Major 100D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a required submittal, code requirement, or requiring significant comments be incorporated after the 99 percent. A Major 100D discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor 100D Quality discrepancy is defined as all documents are present but with minor errors as determined by the COR. A Minor 100D discrepancy provides 1 Error Point.

CPEPA-Q#8

Expansion Construction Completion Quality

CLIN 0007AN

Construction Completion Quality means that all construction is completed as required in the contract.

Deliverable:

A fully functional site ready for TTHU installation.

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

Manufacturer’s materials and manuals on any features such as lift stations.

As-Built Drawings.

Major Construction Complete Quality deficiency is defined as failure to complete construction of a definable feature or a non-functioning critical system such as water, power, sewer, roadways, and site drainage. A Major Construction Complete Quality deficiency provides 6 Deficiency Points.

Minor Construction Complete Quality deficiency is defined as all other deficiencies that do not impede TTHU installation as determined by the COR. A Minor Construction Complete Quality deficiency provides 1 Deficiency Point.

GSCPA-Q#1 Group Site Construction Site Assessment, Tier 1 (SAT1) Quality

CLIN 0008AA

Site Assessment, Tier 1 Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT1 Quality means that all documents required to complete a SAT1 package are included when the SAT1 package is reviewed.

Major SAT1 Quality discrepancy is defined as missing key documents for quality as determined by the COR (e.g., missing map, right of entry form, site diagram, photographs, etc.) A Major SAT1 discrepancy results in 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor SAT1 Quality discrepancy is defined as all documents being present but with minor errors as determined by the COR (e.g. date is illegible, zip code is not included, signature is unreadable). A Minor SAT1 Discrepancy results in 1 Quality Error Point.

GSCPA-Q#2 Group Site Construction Site Assessment, Tier 1 (SAT1) Accuracy

CLIN 0008AA

Site Assessment, Tier 1 Accuracy shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT1 Accuracy means that when the SAT1 is reviewed against actual field conditions it is accurate.

Major SAT1 Accuracy discrepancy is defined as inaccurate critical information for accuracy. A

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

Major SAT1 discrepancy results in 4 Accuracy Error Points.

Minor SAT1 Accuracy discrepancy is defined as missing non-critical information. A Minor SAT1 discrepancy results in 1 Accuracy Error Point.

Critical information is defined as information that would change the recommendation from feasible to infeasible or vice versa.

GSCPA-Q#3 Group

Assessment, Tier 2 (SAT2) Quality

CLIN 0008AD

Site Assessment, Tier 2 Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT2 Quality means that all documents required to complete a SAT2 package are included when the SAT2 package is reviewed.

Major SAT2 Quality discrepancy is defined as missing key documents for quality as determined by the COR (e.g., missing map, right of entry form, site diagram, photographs, etc.). A Major SAT2 discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor SAT2 Quality discrepancy is defined as all documents are present but with minor errors as determined by the COR (e.g. date is illegible, zip code is not included, signature is unreadable). A Minor SAT2 discrepancy provides 1 Quality Error Point.

GSCPA-Q#4 Group

Assessment, Tier 2 (SAT2) Accuracy

CLIN 0008AD

Site Assessment, Tier 2 Accuracy shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

SAT2 Accuracy means that when the SAT2 is reviewed against actual field conditions it is accurate.

Major SAT2 Accuracy discrepancy is defined as inaccurate critical information for accuracy. A Major SAT2 discrepancy provides 4 Accuracy Error Points.

Minor SAT2 discrepancy is defined as all

Outstanding:

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

documents are present but with minor errors. A Minor SAT2 discrepancy provides 1 Accuracy Error Point.

Critical information is defined as information that would change the recommendation from feasible to infeasible or vice versa.

GSCPA-Q#5 Group Site Construction Conceptual Design (CD) Quality

CLIN 0008AH

Conceptual Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

CD Quality means that all documents that are required to complete a CD package are included when the CD package is reviewed.

Major CD Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a definable feature or not including an aerial photo or preliminary cost estimate. A Major CD discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor CD Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a non-definable feature or another minor component. A Minor CD discrepancy provides 1 Quality Error Point.

GSCPA-Q#6 Group Site Construction Fifty Percent Design (50D) Quality

CLIN 008AJ

Fifty Percent Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

50D Quality means that all documents required to complete a 50D package are included when the 50D package is reviewed.

Major 50D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a definable feature or other submittal as determined by the COR. A Major 50D discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor 50D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a non-definable feature or other minor component as determined by the COR. For example, missing a code requirement. A Minor 50D discrepancy provides 1 Quality Error Point.

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

GSCPA-Q#7 Group Site Construction One Hundred Percent Design (100D) Quality

CLIN 0008AL

One Hundred Percent Design Quality shall be completed as specified in Sections C and F.

100D Quality means that all documents required to complete a 100D package are included when the 100D package is reviewed.

Major 100D Quality discrepancy is defined as missing a required submittal, code requirement, or requiring significant comments be incorporated after the 99 percent. Price estimate is off 10% of final construction price. A Major 100D discrepancy provides 4 Quality Error Points.

Minor 100D Quality discrepancy is defined as all documents are present but with minor errors as determined by the COR. Price estimate is off 7% of final construction price. A Minor 100D discrepancy provides 1 Error Point.

GSCPA-Q#8 Group

Completion Quality

CLIN 0008AN

Construction Completion Quality means that all construction is completed as required in the contract.

Deliverable:

A fully functional site ready for TTHU installation.

Manufacturer’s materials and manuals on any features such as lift stations.

As-Built Drawings.

Major deficiency is defined as failure to complete construction of a definable feature or a non-functioning critical system such as water, power, sewer, roadways, and site drainage. A Major deficiency provides 6 Deficiency Points.

Minor deficiency is defined as all other deficiencies that do not impede TTHU installation as determined by the COR. A Minor deficiency provides 1 Deficiency Point.

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

GSMPA-Q#1 Group Site Maintenance Preventive

Group Site Maintenance Preventive evaluates the contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract.

Areas:

The ability to comply with laws and hygiene norms

The ability to contain emergencies – provide a prompt response to accidents/incidents/emergencies

The ability to conduct preventive maintenance of the group site

The ability to provide and control mandatory services including the control of the volume/quantity of services provided by the contractor or subcontractors and suppliers

The ability to maintain a clean environment within the group site

The quality management system for preventive maintenance

Level I- Level I issues are minor issues. A Level 1 Issue is equivalent to 1 issue point.

Level II - Level II issues require rework or the performance of additional tasks, these issues do not represent a safety hazard or does not make an area of the group site unusable. A Level II issue is equivalent to 2 issue points.

Level III – Level III issues represent a safety hazard and/or may lead to a temporary closure or the inability to use an area of the group site. A Level III issue is equivalent to 3 issue points.

GSMPA-Q#2 Group Site Maintenance Correctional

Group Site Maintenance Correctional evaluates the contractor’s ability to correct non-preventive maintenance activities.

Areas:

The contractor’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

The ability to perform correctional maintenance that complies with laws and regulations when something on the group site is not compliant.

The ability to effectively correct issues resulting from non-preventive maintenance.

The ability of the contractor to perform and maintain a quality management system for correctional maintenance.

Level I - Level I issues are minor issues.

A Level I issue is equivalent to 1 issue point.

Level II – Level II issues require rework or the performance of additional tasks; these issues do not represent a safety hazard or does not make an area of the group site unusable. A Level II issue is equivalent to 2 issue points.

Level III – Level III issues represent a safety hazard and/or may lead to a temporary closure or the inability to use an area of the group site. A Level III issue is equivalent to 3 issue points.

CMPA-Q#1

Contract Management Quality

Performance for Contract Management Quality is defined as the number of instances where the CO must intervene to correct the Contractor. This can be done by issuing a formal written notice or by involving the CO.

CMPA-Q#2

Overall Task Order Performance

This criterion includes an average of the scores of all task orders completed during the contract year (See Ratings Calculation, Appendix 8).

APPENDIX 1.2: QUALITY PERFORMANCE AREA COMPUTATION

Area

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT STANDARD

CMPA-Q#3

Construction/ Installation Life-Cycle Quality

This performance area is designed to allow the government to provide a performance rating for a contractor who has completed a task order, but the government continues to use the results of the contractor’s services. This rating will be an annual rating for the base period of the contract as well as any option years executed. The term contract year is the period of either the base year or the option year.

The C/ILCPA Calculation is based on the performance of contractors work overtime for items such as work…