RFP Attachment B - NFIP Direct QASP.pdf

ATTACHMENT B

Federal Insurance & Mitigation Administration NFIP Direct

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

U.S Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Insurance Directorate 400 C Street

Washington, DC

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3. QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

4. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

5. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVELS

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

7. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

8. INSPECTION OF DELIVERABLES

9. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Appendix A: Performance Requirements Summary Table

Appendix B: Customer Service Feedback Investigation Form

Appendix C: Document Processing Performance Report ……………………………………………………. 17

Appendix D: Task Order Performance Evaluation Form

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 3 of 16

1. INTRODUCTION

The Government’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is based on the premise that the service provider, and not the Government, is responsible for the day-to-day performance of the work and all the management and quality control actions required to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the

Government in quality assurance is to ensure performance standards are achieved and maintained through surveillance. The service provider is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions and to document its approach in a Quality Control Plan (QCP). The service provider’s

QCP, upon approval by the Government, will be made a part of the resulting contractual agreement.

This QASP is designed to provide an effective surveillance method to monitor the service provider’s performance relative to the requirements listed in the agreement. The QASP illustrates the systematic method the Government (or its designated representative) will use to evaluate the services the service provider is required to furnish.

This QASP is based on the premise that the Government must validate that the service provider is complying with Government-mandated quality standards in all aspects of the services provided.

Performance standards address all facets of operations including quality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety and health, conformance with statutory, regulatory, and policy guidance, appropriate use and care of Government furnished property, information, or facilities, data and records management, etc. Good management by the service provider and use of an approved QCP will ensure that the services are provided within acceptable quality levels.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Contracting Officer The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), the NFIP Direct Branch Chief and the Contractor. The CO will designate one full-time COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as project monitors and technical monitors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and will be identified and designated by the CO for each delivery order.

Assigned CO: Chance Caione

Organization or Agency: FEMA

Telephone: 301-447-7281

Email: chance.caione@fema.dhs.gov

Contracting Officer’s Representative The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR responsibilities are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for day to day administration of the program and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Any changes discussed by the COR that the Contractor or COR determines may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing quality assurance (QA) monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance.

Assigned COR: Liz Kirby mailto:chance.caione@fema.dhs.gov

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 4 of 16

Telephone: 202-212-1802

Email: elizabeth.kirby@fema.dhs.gov

Other Key Government Personnel Title: Freda Copeland, Chief, NFIP Direct Branch

Telephone: 202-212-1361

Email: freda.copeland@fema.dhs.gov

Title: Craig Kennedy, Chief, PM Branch

Telephone: 202-212-1760

Email: craig.kennedy@fema.dhs.gov

3. QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

As a part of its agreement with the Government, the Contractor is required to develop, implement, and maintain a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that illustrates the methods it will use to review its performance to ensure it conforms to the performance requirements (Appendix A: Performance Requirements Summary).

Such reviews are performed by the service provider in order to validate its operations and assure the

Government that the services meet the performance standards.

The Contractor’s QCP shall include monitoring methods that ensure and demonstrate its compliance with the performance standards. This includes inspection methods and schedules that are consistent with the regular reviews conducted by the Government. The reports and other results generated by the service provider’s QCP activities should be provided to the COR as requested.

The frequency and type of the service provider’s reviews should be consistent with what is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the performance standards, but no less frequent than what is described in the Government’s monitoring instrument/worksheets (See Appendix A).

The service provider is encouraged not to limit its inspection to only the processes outlined in the

Government’s standard, however, certain key documents must be provided by the Contractor to assure the

Government that the services meet the performance standards. Some of the documentation that must be generated and made available to the COR for inspection is listed below:

• QCP Reports

• Written policies and procedures to implement and assess operational requirements of the standards

• Documentation and record keeping that ensure ongoing operational compliance with the standards

(e.g.; monthly reports, quarterly reports, invoices, etc.)

• Staff training records

The list is intended as illustrative and is not all-inclusive. The service provider must develop and implement a program that addresses the specific requirement of each standard and the means it will use to document compliance.

4. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance whenever possible. The primary methods of surveillance are:

4.1 Customer Feedback:

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 5 of 16

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is to determine the level of customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer compliments and/or complaints. The COR will accept those customer compliments and complaints and investigate using the

Customer Service Feedback Investigation Form, identified in Appendix B.

Performance management drives the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems. The customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the CO and COR, as opposed to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must be set forth clearly and in writing with the detailed nature of the complaint and must be signed and forwarded to the COR.

4.2 Other Feedback:

For all activity types

The COR, or other designated representative of FEMA, will complete a performance evaluation as part of the closeout of each task order to ascertain the extent of compliance with the performance standards. The

COR, or other designated representative of FEMA, will record all findings on the Performance Evaluation

Form (Appendix C).

5. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVELS

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Appendix A, Performance Requirements Summary

Table, for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities that may be identified in a delivery order, the desired performance level may be established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance as indicated in the delivery order.

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

6.1 Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are expressed in the delivery order and are assessed using the methods of surveillance shown in Appendix A.

6.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government’s quality assurance surveillance will be reported using the specific monitoring tools identified in Section Four (4) of this QASP. The forms, when completed, will document the

Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results identified in the task order are being achieved.

7. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

7.1 Determining Performance

The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited herein to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the minimum requirements are not being met, the

Contractor may be required to develop a process improvement plan or a corrective action plan to show how and by what date the Contractor intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Any

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 6 of 16 mandatory deduction for performance requirements will be addressed in each individual delivery order. In addition, failure to meet the AQL may result in a less than favorable rating in the Contract Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) as indicated in Appendix D.

7.2 Reporting

At the end of each quarter, the Contractor shall prepare a written report for the COR and Project Manager summarizing the overall results of the Contractor’s quality management operations. This written report, which includes any of the aforementioned completed quality assurance monitoring forms, will become part of the QA documentation. The documentation will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

7.3 Reviews and Resolution

The CO, COR, or Project Manager may require the Contractor’s Program Manager, Delivery Order

Manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the quality management and performance. The CO will define a frequency of reviews with the

Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor, however, if the need arises, the

Contractor will meet with the CO as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

• Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

• Issues and concerns of both parties

• Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

• Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

• Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The CO and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the CO.

8. INSPECTION OF DELIVERABLES

All deliverables will be inspected for content, completeness, accuracy, and conformance to requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Unless specifically noted and mutually agreed upon, the Government may take up to 15 business days after receipt of the deliverable to inspect and review the deliverable, provide comments and feedback, and accept or reject the deliverable. If necessary, the Contractor may take up to 15 business days to address the comments or feedback provided by the

Government, unless specifically noted and mutually agreed upon.

9. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

The absence of any delivery order requirement from the QASP shall not detract from its enforceability to limit the rights or remedies of the Government under any other provisions of the contract, including the clauses entitled “Inspection of Services” and “Default.”

The QASP is organized in accordance with:

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 7 of 16

• Performance Area: Lists the performance area that the Government will survey.

• Performance Standard: Sets forth the required performance levels.

• Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs): AQLs for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed. Levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance.

• Method of Surveillance: Sets forth the surveillance methods the Government will use to evaluate the Contractor’s performance for the listed tasks and the level and frequency of surveillance.

• Performance Incentive/Disincentive: The Contractor’s performance will be monitored in accordance with the QASP. Deficiencies in Contractor performance will be fully and accurately documented to (1) identify the discrepancy, (2) record the steps taken to correct the discrepancy, and (3) detail the outcomes and disposition of the deficiency. Likewise, successful or exceptional performance will be recorded in the COR file. Appropriate actions will be taken to document accurate Contractor performance (i.e., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS). The Government will make determinations regarding incentives and disincentives based on performance measurement data, detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary below, and notify the Contractor of those decisions. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes to their processes and practices to ensure they are performing the contract requirement at an appropriate level, as noted in the standards.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 8 of 16

Appendix A: Performance Requirements Summary

Performance

Area

Performance

Standard

Acceptable Quality

Level (AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

Incentive /

Disincentive

Timeliness Application

Processing completed within 7 business days.

Average Application

Processing shall be no more than 7 business days, including no more than an average of 3 requests for information back to the applicant.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Renewal Processing completed within 3 business days.

Average Renewal

Processing shall be no more than 3 business days.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

General Change

Endorsement

Processing completed within 3 business days.

Average General Change endorsement processing shall be no more than 3 business days.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Cancellation Request and Refund

Processing completed within 7 business days.

Average cancellation processing shall be no more than 7 business days.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Claims Adjustment and Examination processing completed within 45 business days from receipt of

Notice of Loss.

Average Claim Adjustment and Examination processing shall be no more than 45 business days.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Claims check mailed within 7 business days from adjustment and examination completion.

Average claim check mailing must be sent within

7 business days of receipt of signed Proof of Loss.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

1g. Integrated Flood

Insurance Claim

Office (IFICO) in place 72 hours from

COR notification.

IFICO in place 72 hours from COR notification.

Establish, manage, and operate a Flood Insurance

Claim Office (FICO) at disaster locations as set forth in delivery orders.

Contractor performance tracking report receipt and

FEMA verification.

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 9 of 16

Performance

Area

Performance

Standard

Acceptable Quality

Level (AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

Incentive /

Disincentive

Immediate responses to FEMA’s requests for claims files, policyholder data, and other requests for information.

Responses to FEMA’s requests for claims files, policyholder data, and other requests for information are provided in no more than 2 business days.

Periodic surveillance:

Observation; FEMA employee feedback.

Effective use of

CPARS

Quality of

Financial

Services

Contractor receives unqualified opinion and/ or no findings or recommendations for the annual DHS NFIP financial statement audit.

Unqualified auditor’s opinion and/or no Notice of

Findings and

Recommendations (NFRs) for the financial audit.

Periodic surveillance:

Observation, Receipt and verification, -Management status reports

Frequency: Annual

Effective use of

CPARS

Quality of

Claims

Service

Satisfactory review of claims, annually.

Satisfactory review of claims with less than 10% error rate of reviewed files.

Claims Operation Review

Frequency: Annually

Effective use of

CPARS

Satisfactory review of claims, monthly.

Satisfactory review of claims with less than 10% error rate of reviewed files.

Surveillance Method:

Oversight Activity

Performed Claims

Business Review

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Quality of

Underwriting

Satisfactory review of underwriting, annually.

Satisfactory review of underwriting experience with less than 7% error rate.

Underwriting Operation

Review

Frequency: Annually

Effective use of

CPARS

Satisfactory review of underwriting, monthly.

Satisfactory review of underwriting experience with no more than 5 rating errors per policy.

Surveillance Method:

Oversight Activity

Underwriting Business

Review

Frequency: Monthly

Effective use of

CPARS

Customer

Experience and Agency

Services

Customer

Satisfaction: Highly satisfied customer review ratings.

Overall average Customer

Satisfaction survey shall not fall below 70%.

Annual customer experience surveys and focus groups to evaluate customer satisfaction and customer complaints.

Effective use of

CPARS

Customer

Communications:

Calls are resolved as efficiently and effectively as possible and fully answer the customer’s question;

Written correspondence is timely, accurate, clear,

1) 90% of calls fully and accurately respond to customer queries based on

FEMA standards and guidance.

2) 95% of written correspondence, including emails, are deemed accurate based on FEMA standards

Periodic surveillance:

customer complaints;

monitoring of customer calls; random sampling of correspondence.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 10 of 16

Performance

Area

Performance

Standard

Acceptable Quality

Level (AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

Incentive /

Disincentive and free of typographic errors.

and guidance, and free from typographical errors.

3) All voicemails and emails are responded to within 3 business days.

Call Center

Operations: No presented calls receive a busy signal; 85% of calls are answered by a live representative in the first 30 seconds;

call abandonment rate is less than 5%

1) 85% of calls are answered by a live representative in the first 30 seconds.

2) Call abandonment rate is less than 5%

Periodic surveillance of live customer calls;

Periodic surveillance of recorded customer calls;

Monthly Contractor performance tracking report receipt and FEMA verification.

Frequency: Weekly

CPARS

Quality of

Data

Meet the Pivot requirements for the quality of data and financial reconciliation.

Note: Pivot is the system of record as of 10/1/2020.

100% inspection of financial reports.

Effective use of

CPARS

Customer

Experience

Laboratory

All timelines and requirements of laboratory projects are met.

All timelines and requirements of the laboratory are met, within defined project performance requirements.

Periodic Surveillance:

Observation; Reports delivered as defined by the

Projects.

Frequency: Monthly

➢ NOTE: A satisfactory CPARS rating is considered favorable and higher ratings require better than favorable performance.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 11 of 16

Appendix B: Customer Service Feedback Investigation Form

Memorandum for: _______, Contracting Officer

Memorandum From: __________, Contractor Officer’s Representative

Date:

Subject: Customer Service Feedback Investigation

General Information

1. Contractor:

2. Contract Number:

3. Task Order Number:

4. Project Title:

5. Evaluation Date:

6. Government Evaluator Name:

7. Government Evaluator Title:

Customer Service Feedback Information

8. Name of Customer:

9. Date of Customer Service Feedback:

10. Customer Service Feedback specifics (Describe in Detail and reference task order proposal…Include any backup documentation provided by complainant.):

Contractor Response to Customer Service Feedback

11. Narrative of Contractor Response:

Government Analysis of Customer Service Feedback

12. Is Government surveillance investigation necessary? _______

(If so, complete questions 13 – 17.)

13. Surveillance Type:

14. Date of Surveillance:

15. Narrative of Performance during Survey Period:

16. Government Evaluation of Contractor Response/Resolution:

17. Recommended Government Action:

By signing below, the COR confirms the information contained herein for the Contracting Officer.

COR Signature Date

Printed Name – FEMA COR

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 12 of 16

Appendix C: Document Processing Performance Report

XXXXX YEAR

Selected Service

Performance Area Standard Requirement Actual

(SSPA)

(SSPA1) – Timeliness 1a.Application avg. 7 bus days ___ days

1b. Renewals avg. 3 bus days ___ days

1c. Endorsements avg. 3 bus days ___ days

1d. Cancellations avg. 10 bus days ___ days

Claims

Total Claims processed <=45 Days Total Claims processed >45 Days

Percent Claims processed <= 45 %

Claims average processing days days (45 days = Std)

VIP Inquiries

Total

<= 3 business days =

> 3 business days =

VIP Inquiry performance = 100%

Performance Standard = 3 days = %

Complex Inquiries

<= 10 business days =

> 10 business days =

Complex inquiry = 100%

Performance Standard = 10 days = ___%

Simple Inquiries

<= 5 business days =

>= 5 business days =

Simple Inquiry Performance = %

Performance Standard = 5 days = %

PREPARED BY: DATE: ______

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 13 of 16

Appendix D: Task Order Performance Evaluation Form

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Contractor

Contract Number

Project Title Task Order Number Not Applicable

Evaluation Date

FEMA COR

FEMA PM

Contractor TOM

Period of Performance through start date end date

PURPOSE OF PROJECT (This should be taken from PWS):

* All ratings must include supporting comments.

Upon opening this document you will need to disable the security warning by clicking on the OPTIONS button at the top of the document. When the Security Alert-Macro Warning comes up, select the Help protect me from unknown content (recommended) option. This will allow you to make changes to the document.

To complete this form, fill out each of the five following evaluation comments and the rating recommendations section. For each evaluation factor, select the appropriate rating from the drop-down menu in the left column. In the right column provide supporting comments that substantiate that rating. The evaluation comments must directly apply to the performance requirements in the agreed upon proposal. These comments are required in order for the evaluation to be accepted for review by the Contracting Officers

Representative.

QUALITY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE

(use below requirements guidelines for quality rating)

Exceptional No quality issues; Performance is “Outstanding”; Deliverables are precedent-setting;

Reports are concise, thorough, and easy to understand; Deliverables document innovative or creative approaches; The explanation must include an example of a significant event that lead to the rating; No weaknesses were noted.

Very Good Minimal quality issues; More than one performance work statement revision required;

Technical analysis incomplete; A few recommendations not accepted; Reports adequately written, need minimal rework; Data accurate; The explanation must include an example of what was done to meet the requirements and what was done to exceed them in some “minor” way; No significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory Meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement; If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction and that the correction was done.

Marginal Numerous quality issues; Technical Analysis marginally effective but not fully implemented; Recommendations marginally effective; Reports marginally effective;

Some data flawed; The explanation must include what was done poorly or incorrectly.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 14 of 16

Unsatisfactory Serious quality issues; Technical analysis incomplete; Recommendations ineffective;

Reports not usable; Some data flawed; Reports poorly written, not usable, and ineffective; The explanation must include an example of what was not done correctly and that it was not corrected or repeated; The explanation must state what magnitude of the Contractor’s failure to the Government was addressed.

Quality of Product or Service Evaluation Comments

(select a rating)

COST CONTROL/EFFICIENCY

Exceptional No cost issues; Work assignment completed within budget in spite of extraordinary circumstances; Significant cost avoidance measures implemented with excellent documentation; Cost avoidance measures exemplary; The explanation must include an example of a significant event that lead to the rating; No weaknesses were noted.

Very Good Rare cost issues; Rare failure to provide satisfactory documentation for cost increase;

Cost avoidance efforts are demonstrated; The explanation must include an example of what was done to meet the requirements and what was done to exceed them in some

“minor” way; No significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory Met the requirements of the agreed too cost schedule; If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction and that the correction was done.

Marginal Numerous cost issues; Costs not adequately managed; Management of costs ineffective;

Failure to provide satisfactory documentation for cost increases; The explanation must include what was done poorly or incorrectly.

Unsatisfactory Cost issues; Failure to manage costs; Budgets exceeded without adequate warning or justification; Failure to provide documentation for cost increases; Requirements for additional funding to complete the project; The explanation must include an example of what was not done correctly and that it was not corrected or repeated; The explanation must state what magnitude of the Contractor’s failure to the Government was addressed.

Neutral Rating of neutral is used for fixed price projects.

Cost Control/Efficiency Evaluation Comments

SCHEDULE

Exceptional No timeliness issues; All deliverables submitted ahead of schedule; Precedent-setting creative and innovation means to shorten timeframes; Proactive in identifying issues and in responding to project demands; The explanation must include an example of a significant event that lead to the rating; No weaknesses were noted.

Very Good Rare timeliness issues; All deliverables are submitted on time; Adequate documentation for requests to extend due dates; Efforts taken to reduce time well documented;

Consistent response to issues and requests; The explanation must include an example of what was done to meet the requirements and what was done to exceed them in some

“minor” way; No significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory Meets the Schedule agreed upon in the Performance Work Statement; If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction and that the correction was done.

Marginal Numerous schedule issues; Slippage of schedule without justification or warning;

Frequent failure to provide satisfactory documentation for requests to extend due dates;

The explanation must include what was done poorly or incorrectly.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 15 of 16

Unsatisfactory Serious timeliness issues; Frequent slippage of schedule without adequate warning or justification; Frequent requests to extend due dates as a result of Contractor caused issues; Failure to respond to issues and requests; The explanation must include an example of what was not done correctly and that it was not corrected or repeated; The explanation must state what magnitude of the Contractor’s failure to the Government was addressed.

Schedule Evaluation Comments

BUSINESS RELATIONS (Contract Requirements)

Exceptional No business relations issues; Excellent balance of staff; Proactive communications;

Identify solutions as problems are identified; Outstanding selection and management of staff and subcontractors; Exceptional partnering with HMTAP partners; The explanation must include an example of a significant event that lead to the rating; No weaknesses were noted.

Very Good Rare business relations issues; Appropriate assignment of personnel; Successful identification and resolution of issues; Maintenance of regular communication;

Responsive and thorough dealings with all aspects of the program; Effective monitoring of subcontractors; Effective partnering with HMTAP partners; The explanation must include an example of what was done to meet the requirements and what was done to exceed them in some “minor” way; No significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory Met contract requirements; If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction and that the correction was done.

Marginal Numerous negative business relation issues; Assignment of Marginally effective;

Utilization of resources marginally effective; Communication protocol not fully implemented; Implementation of contract requirements marginally effective;

Management of subcontractors marginally effective; The explanation must include what was done poorly or incorrectly.

Unsatisfactory Significant negative business relations issues; Failure to assign appropriate personnel;

Poor utilization of resources; Failure to maintain regular communication;

Implementation of contract requirements ineffective; Failure to manage subcontractors;

Failure to partner with HMTAP partners; The explanation must include an example of what was not done correctly and that it was not corrected or repeated; The explanation must state what magnitude of the Contractor’s failure to the Government was addressed.

Business Relations Evaluation Comments

MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL

Excellent No management of key personnel issues; Contractor performed excellent in selecting, retaining, supporting, and when necessary, replacing, key personnel; key staff exceeded the required contract qualifications for the position; if a key person did not perform well, the Contractor quickly corrected this; if a replacement of key person was necessary, the replacement exceeded the required contract qualifications; The explanation must include an example of a significant event that lead to the rating; No weaknesses were noted.

Procurement Sensitive Information - See FAR 3.104, Page 16 of 16

Very Good Rare management of key personnel issues; Contractor performed satisfactory in selecting, retaining, supporting, and when necessary, replacing key personnel; key staff met the required contract qualifications for the position; if the key person did not perform well, the Contractor corrected this; if a replacement of key person was necessary, the replacement met the required contract qualifications; The explanation must include an example of what was done to meet the requirements and what was done to exceed them in some “minor” way; No significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory Key personnel defined in project work statement executed the work or if a replacement was required they fully met the contract requirements; If a correction was required, the explanation should include examples of what was done that needed correction and that the correction was done.

Marginal Numerous management issues of key personnel; Contractor had numerous issues with selecting, retaining, supporting, and when necessary replacing key personnel; If a replacement of key personnel was required they marginally met the contract requirements; The explanation must include what was done poorly or incorrectly.

Unsatisfactory Serious management of key personnel issues; Agreed upon key personnel did not perform tasks; Contractor failed in selecting, retaining, supporting, and when necessary, replacing, key personnel; key staff did not met the required contract qualifications for the position; if the key person did not perform well, the Contractor did not correct this; if a replacement of key person was necessary, the replacement did not meet the required contract qualifications; The explanation must include an example of what was not done correctly and that it was not corrected or repeated; The explanation must state what magnitude of the Contractor’s failure to the Government was addressed.

Management of Key Personnel Evaluation Comments

CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE

Were “Official” corrective actions required?* (If yes, corrective action documents must be attached)

Yes if yes, continue to answer the questions below.

No