540R92607
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM MANAGEMENT
FROM: &*« Stutz, Head
Super fund/RCRA Headquarters Contract Operations
Branch, Placement Section
TO: Attached Addressees
SUBJECT: Review and Comment on Project Officer Planning Guide
for New Contract Acquisitions
The attached Planning Guide is our attempt at providing
information, not only to the project offices, but to anyone
requiring information on the contract pre-avard process. We have
tried to keep the booklet as simple and easy to comprehend as
possible and have included many samples and examples.
Please help us create the best possible product by reviewing
and commenting on this booklet. If you have better examples or
samples send them with your comments. If you have some good
ideas on how to improve the guide please let us know. The point
is that we cannot improve the product or correct mistakes without
your help. So please take a few minutes to look through the
guide and give us your thoughts.
Send your critiques to Tom caffrey (PM-214F), or call on
(202)260-9258. Your comments are requested by April 10, 1992.
Thanks for your help.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
- 2 -
List of Addressees for PO Planning Guide:
Cheryl Barton, OS-305
Phil Osbourne, PM-214F
Louise Senzel, PM-214F
Mark Thomas, PM-214F
Doug Ruby, OS-305
Kent Anderson, OS-323W
Carlos Lago, os>341
Kathy seikel, PM-219
MaryJo Blumenfeld, PM-214F
Nancy Deck, OS-Blow
Dale Roberson, PM-214F
Marian Cooper, PM-214F
Jordan Strauss, PM-214F
Tom O'Connell, PM-214F
Bruce Bakaysa, PM-214F
Hilary Kelly, Region 1
Ted Riverso, Region 2
Frank Snock, Region 3
Jane Singley, Region 4
Pat Bamford, Region 5
Bruce Shirley, Region 6
Alma Eaves, Region 7
Martha Kicodemus, Region 8
Tom Warner, Region 9
Jonell Allamano, Region 10
Billie Perry, O8-520
Scott Fredericks, OS-220W
Linda Kutcher, os-520
Betty Vac Epps, 08-240
Karen Ellenburger, 08-42OW
Joan Barnes, OS-240
-------
PRQJ
540R92607
PLANNING
GUI
FOR NE(i)
CONTRACT
mSITIONS
Superfund/RCRA
Headquarters Contract Operations Branch
Placement Section r T r; ~
r-; * ny
cc:
O-
-------
CONTENTS
v^,1*^! J. J. 1 /I I ± \^s
i. The Pre-Acquisition Process
2. Acquisition Request Package
3. The Statement of Work
4
Technical Evaluation Criteria
5
Technical Evaluation Process
6. The acquisition Process Outline
-------
-------
PRE-ACQUISITION PROCESS
We, in PCMD, have discovered that on* of the major stumbling
blocks to the procurement process has b«en the differences between
the Program's and PCKD's perceived acquisition start dates. In the
past, the Program would put together an acquisition package, send
it through their review cycle and then to PCKD. PCMD reviews it
and would send it back as not acceptable for one reason or another.
Tempers flare and the beginning of a beautiful relationship is
formed. We now hate each other.
This pre-acquisition process is designed to eliminate these
problems forever. We will contact the Program Office three months
in advance of the one year expiration date to sit down with the
PO's and go over all of the requirements necessary for a good
acquisition request package. This includes review of the statement
of Work (SOW) and evaluation criteria and help with any
documentation needed to initiate a smooth procurement. If the
problems are ironed out before the review cycle begins we all start
on the same schedule. It further allows PCMD to begin to assemble
file information well in advance of the formal procurement package.
Perhaps the most important aspects of the pre-acquisition
process can be simply broken into three distinct categories:
- NOTIFICATION
- ASSISTANCE
- COMMUNICATIONS
NOTIFICATION
PCMD monitors the progression of all current contracts and is
aware of the recompete dates for incumbent contracts. A simplified
tracking system has been developed to identify time lines for
potential contract recompetes. (see Attachment) It is PCMD'a
intention to inform the various project offices fifteen months in
advance of th* contract expiration date to allow ample time for
contract award. This allows a three month pre-acquisition cycle
and a on* year buffer for contract award.
For expected new contract actions it is necessary to allow at
least fifteen months advanced notice from an anticipated due date
for placing of the acquisition. Th* pre-acquisition process is
decidedly mor* important in new requirements (as opposed to
incumbent procurements) because everything is accomplished from
scratch. PCMD should b* notified as soon as the perceived
contractual need is recognised.
-------
ASSISTANCE
Things Chang*. The Statement of Work (sow), evaluation
criteria, and other documentary naada change over the life of a
contract. PCMD is available to assist in any way possible to help
provide an adequate acquisition request package (AH). We would
like to work with you before the AR package begins its journey
through the review cycle. This allo * few, if any, changes by the
time the package arrives at PCMD. : allows PCKD and the program
office to be on the same milestone timeframe at the beginning of
the pre-solieitation process.
PCMD would like to promote a teamwork atmosphere with the
Program from the very beginning of the procurement process.
Therefore, by alleviating the potential problems at the inception
of the requirement we create an atmosphere of mutual trust.
COMMUNICATIONS
The key to any successful endeavor is free and open
communications. PCMD will strive to keep program officials
apprised of developments throughout the procurement process. We
will accomplish this through telephone calls on a weekly basis,
meetings when necessary, and maybe an occasional lunch date. The
point is, we MUST keep the lines of communication open to obtain
the support necessary to accomplish a quick and efficient
acquisition.
-------
HOIILOAD PLAI
Office of (lasts Prcgrais Inforceient
Cottmt I Contractor Contract Title
Vibe
Reject Officer C.O.
Jipires Plissi;! PR ?*c?ipt
68-WO-OOC6
68-M1-OOC7
Office of
Contract 1
58-H9-OC11
68-»9-OC28
SHS-5C3C
68-K9-OC4C
M-W-OGU
88-S5-OC58
fiS-jjQ-!1'1*:?
56-BS-OG72
68-U9-M81
6!-HS""?5
5MS-M91
5J-a:-CGCS
58-110-0025
RR-i(.'-rifi"
R?.iir..i(i"a
68-1C-X32
68-WC-003S
M-HC-9C42
Office of
Contract 1
68-K8-0082
65-10-0015
68-10-0024
68-UO-0030
Booz Allen
DPEi
Solid Haste
Contrsctcr
» 1 Tfl
Lahat-Asderson
1C?
A.!, [earcey
PEC
?ersar
Radiat
Radiai
1C?
Ubat-Anderson
SA:C
1C?
SAIC
S''C
SyiJFW:.-.
Booz-Allea
1C!
Underground Storage
extractor
ICF
8IE
1C?
lancy Los
f-.:.». hforceieat Support - flQ
Tech Eaforceient Support - H9
C:s'.ra:t Title
SCM SiC 1 A Division
!:forutioa Kaigt. for RCRJ
RCSA-'CSSCLA P.ee. I iiple. Support
Ha? ¥aa*P i^"yj ^rf^ I-*! vi^tw1-"*
USi . P3£.CM.L.~u V. Ik, flb \ , Ju^-yv, b
Kaz. Saste/HSliA Corr. Act. Prov./OSK
Treaties! 4 Tech. for Haz, Haste
Refs. tc nisi. Risks to Public
Irea'je:*. 4 Tech. fcr HJZ. Haate
Regs. Ha:. Haste
Preparation Supp. for OS'» Sec.
Ba:ard:as N'aste Variance Support
Eup;. fcr Saigt. RCEA Eeglted. Waste
Analytical Support for OSK
Rsstri^tioss Rule I Listi'-gs Support
iiai. I Solid iiaste UDdelisg Support
Health 4 Scologicil Assess. Sstp.
ECM/C1SCU Hotline
P.CRA Ha^ardou! Waste Prograi Supp.
Tath
Contract Title
DOS! Icoictics Contract
Prevent 1 Detect Reles. Dngrd. Tanks
Tech. Prog, t Inititutiotal Assist.
OUST Birketiif Contract
112.
J44.
Talse
t!.
13.
$27,
$25.
$14,
»7
$16,
$14.
$1.
$9,
tie.
$19,
$13,
$3,
$8,
$17,
$11,
Vahe
$5,
$5,
$9,
$3,
S3!
24"
217
532
586
096
597
483
IV
906
111
4'3
331
599
'53
33 1
513
103
339
535
698
715
753
973
,052
,917
,101
,075
,845
.425
,470
,031
v*.
,110
,668
,832
.148
,873
,433
,345
,303
.327
,614
.225
,769
,106
,282
,416
225, GOO
800,000
Hours
110,110
27.303
73,350
420,000
420,000
222,000
'35,000
222.000
270,000
49,500
180,000
300,003
360,000
241,000
63,000
150,000
517,600
254.400
Hours
90,000
105,000
153,000
60,000
Billie Perry
Harlene Leiro
Project Officer
Gail Haneen
lent Anderson
Carlos Lagos
Gail Haisefi
Allen Pearce
Angela Hilkes
Angela Nilkes
Angela Kiikes
David Levy
Lynn Hansen
V'endel Siser
Doug Ruby
lent Anderson
loria Hughes
Icna ikghes
loru Hughes
The a BcKaauB
Hendel Hiser
Project Officer
Stepha. Bergian
?iEay bur
Deb. Rutherford
Deb. Rutherford
David Leotta
David Leotta
C.O.
Carlton Chase
Eath. Houaeian
lath. Houseian
Carlton Chase
Carlton Chase
David Natson
David Natscj
David iataon
David Hitsoa
Carlton Chase
Carlton Chase
Carlton Chase
[ath. Houseian
[ath. Kouseiai
David latson
Carlton Chase
lath. Houseian
Carlton Chase
C.O.
Eath. Bouseian
[ath. Hcasetan
David Katson
David Watson
P/5/35
2/21/96
Ijr.ifes
9/30/92
4/30/93
4/30/32
3/31/33
3/31/93
6/30/92
7/5/92
7/19/92
6/31/92
9/30/94
9/30 '93
12/31/92
6/30/93
6/30/94
S/3C/33
7/25/33
9/3C/95
9/3C'94
Iipires
9/30/92
2/28/33
5/24/93
6/30/93
3/5 '34
11/21/34
Pl»v«
6/30/91
1/30/92
1/3C/S2
12/31/31
12/31/91
3/30/91
4/5/91
4/19/91
5/31/31
6/30/93
6/30/92
9/31/51
3/30/92
3/30/S3
6/3C'32
4/26/92
6/30/94
6/3C/93
Planning
6/30/51
11/28/31
2/24 '32
3/30/92
6/5/34
2/21/35
PS Receipt
3/30/91
4/30/92
4/30/31
3/31/92
3/31/92
6/30/91
7/5/91
7/13/91
8/31/91
9/30/S3
9/3C/9!
12/31/31
6/30/S:
6/30 'S3
3/30^32
7/25/52
9/30/94
3/30:93
?> Receipt
9/30/91
2/28/92
5 '24 '92
6/30/92
-------
CQUJ3J7JOJ J
N^r ^^-* >«X J ^ J J J^«^J J
-------
PROCUREMENT REQUEST PACKAGE
II. Development of the Procurement Request Package
The next phase in the presolicitation process is the preparation
and submission of the procurement request package. The Program
Official is responsible for providing a complete and acceptable
package to the Procurement Official. Chapter two of the Contracts
Management Manual and chapter four of the Project Officer's
Handbook provide further guidance on the preparation of the
procurement request package.
To make it easier to understand the type of documents that are
needed, think of the contents of the procurement request package as
separated into two categories, standard and optional documentation.
Standard documentation is usually prepared for all procurements
without exception, although, there are exceptions with dollar
thresholds that determine the need for the respective document
(Standard documents are highlighted below). On the other hand, the
preparation of optional documentation is dependant more on the
specific requirements of the procurement, for example if we furnish
equipment, or need an advisory and assistance contract, etc.. The
procurement request package contains the following:
1. 32-point Procurement Request Rationale Checklist
2. Planning Purchase Request (EPA 1900-8)
3. Procurement Abstract
4. Statement or Scope of Work
5. Quality Assurance Review Form
6. Recommended Sources List
7. Independent Government Estimate
8. Labor definition Requirement
9. Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Selection
10. Technical Evaluation Criteria
11. Government Furnished Property Description
12. Justification of Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)
(Non-Competitive Procurement)
13. Determination & Findings (D&F) to provide full and open
competition after exclusion of sources (see FAR 6.2)
14. Advisory and Assistance Services Certificate
15. Justification of Need (Data Requirements, e.g. Government
furnished property, reporting requirements)
16. Selection of Review Board (Award Fee)
17. Award Fee Plan (Only for Award Fee Contract)
18. Project Officer Certification Form
19. Discussion of Controls for Sensitive Contracting
20. Procurement Integrity certifications
21. Justification for Contract Period of Performance Exceeding
36 Months
22. Justification for Contract Option Quantities Exceeding 50%
of the Base Quantity
-------
1. The 32 Point Rationale Checklist
The 32 point rational checklist contains the basic information
needed for the procurement. It provides the fundamental
documentation that the procurement official requires to
successfully and effectively place a contract. The checklist must
be completed by the PO for all procurements over $10,000 unless the
CO has determined otherwise, or if the procurement utilizes the
small purchases procedures. The questions are fairly straight
forward. If you are unsure of how to answer a particular question,
the best advise is to contact the responsible CO or section head
from PCMD. The form to be used is provided in this booklet under
Tab A for your convenience. The procurement rational checklist is
also contained in the CMM and PO handbook.
One area of note when filling out the checklist is the question
regarding Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). This
question has broad application incorporating potential COIs that
may exist for Agency personnel and the contracting community. As
you may already know, Conflicts of Interest (COI) is an issue that
is becoming increasingly sensitive with EPA. The reason for this
is, in part, the exponential growth of Superfund programs as well
as the increase in the number of firms entering the environmental
field working for both the government and commercial industry.
With regard to commercial industry, in answering the OCI question
the PO must take into consideration the potential for COI for
particular segments of the contracting community if they were to
propose on the solicitation. For example, if the program requires
support with developing regulations governing Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities (HWMF), then the PO should identify in the
checklist that there is a potential for an OCI with HWMFs
performing the Statement of Work (SOW) and provide an attachment
describing the reasons why. This is to let us know, in PCMD, that
special provisions may be necessary to incorporate into the RFP to
mitigate and avoid COI on the acquisition.
Another area regarding COI that has become and will continue to
grow in importance, is the potential for OCI regarding Response
Action Contractors (RAC). The Agency is concerned that RACs might
be performing support work of a regulatory development nature,
particularly policy support type assistance, that could impact RAC
type activities somewhere down the line. The COI is that a RAC
contractor might be able to influence regulations or policy to
financially benefit themselves in the field or that a RAC might
have access to competitors' confidential business information
(CBI). If a COI is clearly identified for RACs on your
acquisition, then a formal RAC restriction determination must be
-------
completed by the CO. This determination will be based on the
technical information provided by your program office regarding the
activities involved. The CO will need comprehensive information
from your office that may require a significant effort to produce.
The OCI and RAC issues are tough calls to make and will
definitely require discussions with the CO so you don't need to
figure this out on your own. The resolution of these issues could
take some time, which makes it all the more imperative that the PO
contact the CO or responsible section head as early as possible in
the pre acquisition planning phase. We need to resolve the OCI and
RAC issues as fast as possible so that the award of the contract
does not become prolonged.
See tab A for samples of the 32 point checklist.
2. Planning Purchase Recnjest fEPA1900-8)
The planning purchase request is an EPAAR requirement. It is
used for planning purposes and does not commit funds. However, the
purchase request must provide the estimated dollar value of the
procurement and must be signed by all the required officials as if
it were committing funds. Further, another purpose for the
planning purchase request is that it is a show of "good faith" that
funding is available upon contract award. Please refer to the PO
handbook for the appropriate signatory authorities. An example of
a Planning PR is provided in this booklet under Tab B for your
convenience.
3. Procurement Abstract (PA)
The procurement abstract is the basis for the procurement
synopsis contained in the Commerce Business Daily. It should
contain the office to be supported, a brief statement of the type
of work required, and the desired qualifications of a contractor so
that the contracting community has enough information to decide if
they are qualified to pursue the RFP. Example are provided in this
booklet under TAB C,
4. Statement of Work (SOVn
For further information on the SOW, please refer to the
respective section in this booklet.
-------
5. Quality Assurance Review Form fQARF)
The QARF is a requirement of EPAAR, Subpart 1546,201. The PO
is responsible for obtaining a signed QARF from the QA Officer
assigned to monitor the PO's program. It is important to note that
the QA Officer shall be a member of the TEP when the QA
requirements are applicable to the procurement and the potential
value is over $500,000. An example is provided in this booklet
under Tab D.
A QARF is required for all procurements over $25,000 with
accounting and appropriations data that fall within the following
object classifications:
(i) 25.32 Research and Development Contracts
(ii) 25.35 Program Contracts
(iii) 25.47 Occupational Health Monitoring
(iv) 25.49 Occupational Health and Safety Other
(v) 26.01 Laboratory Supplies
(vi) 31.01 Scientific and Technical Equipment
Additional information is provided in the CMM chapter 2 if needed.
6. pef^flnnended Sources List fRSL)
The RSL is a list containing the names of contractors that, in
the PO's professional judgement or experience and from sources
identified through the Office of Small Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, possess the relevant capabilities to perform the
resultant contract. There is no standard form to follow. The list
contains the names and addresses of the contractors. An example is
provided in this booklet under Tab E.
7. Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
The IGE must be developed without any contractor assistance.
The IGE is the government's best estimate for the realistic cost of
the project. The IGE should contain the rationale as to how the
estimate was developed/ whether it was based on historical costs to
date or current cost of similar efforts of the same size and scope,
etc. The IGE describes the labor hours required by category
(Professional level/P-level) within the base and optional periods,
the travel costs anticipated, and Other Direct Costs (ODC) such as
equipment, consultants, or computer time. It is important to
provide estimates of the ODC and Travel costs as part of the IGE.
These figures may be provided in the solicitation which the
contractors may use in their proposals. An example of the IGE is
provided in this booklet under Tab F.
-------
8. Labor Definition Requirement (LDR)
Labor definitions are usually boiler plate language (standard)
generated by PCMD's APDS system. The definitions describe the
level of technical ability required for each of the Professional
Levels 1 thru 4, respectively, and technical levels as well. If
your procurement requires the services of technical personnel that
differ from the boiler plate, then you must provide the description
of the technical capabilities needed. Examples are provided in
this booklet under Tab G.
9. Technical Evaluation Panel Selection (TEPS)
The Source Selection.Official (SSO) appoints the TEP. As part
of this process, the program office makes recommendations to the
SSO on the TEP members through memorandum. The TEP can be of any
size desired. Through experience, it is recommended that the TEP
contain the least amount of members practicable and consist of an
odd number of members (3 is the minimum allowed). This is for two
reasons, 1) large groups take more time to assemble and schedule
meetings, and 2} the odd number helps to facilitate reaching
consensus on scoring the proposals (this is not to be misconstrued
as averaging contractor scores which is not permissible). As per
EPAAR 1515.612, the PO is appointed the chairperson with at least
two other members with technical knowledge of the acquisition. For
procurements with a potential value of $500,000 or less, the PO may
be the only member of the TEP. All TEP members should have
relevant knowledge and/or expertise of the types of services or
assistance required by the solicitation. This is crucial to the
integrity of the evaluation process, ensuring competent and equal
treatment of each offerers proposal. The PO should forward the
names and relevant experience of the individuals selected in a
memorandum to the SSO for appointment. This must accompany the
acquisition request package. The RFP cannot be released until the
TEP selection document has been signed. An example of a TEP
appointment memorandum is provided under Tab H.
It should be noted that TEP members are involved in the
competitive procurement process from start to finish. TEP members
play an IMPORTANT and NECESSARY role in the procurement process and
need to devote a lot of time to the process in order for it to be
successful. Panel members need to be aware of this commitment
prior to serving on a panel.
10. Technical Evaluation Criteria (TEC)
For further information on the TEC, please refer to chapter
four in this booklet.
-------
11. Government Furnished Property Description (GTP)
There are no helpful hints we can supply you with for
prepar r GFP description document. In the spirit of not
duplic _ng effort, please refer to chapter 3, section H-3.106-16
of the Project Officer Handbook and chapter 5 of the contracts
Management Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of the
GFP process.
12. Justification of Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)
Non-Competitive Procurement
Not competing a procurement in the open market is a very
sensitive matter. Procurements should be awarded on a competitive
basis in all practicable instances. However, there are times when
full competition is not possible. The FAR part 6.302 provides for
7 circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
They are:
(i) Only one responsible source and no other supplies or
services will satisfy agency requirements.
(ii) Unusual and compelling urgency.
(iii) Industrial mobilization; or engineering, development, or
research capability.
(iv) International agreement.
(v) Authorized or required by statute.
(vi) National security.
(vii) Public interest.
If your reason for not competing the acquisition is not
contained in list above, then there is no justification to do so.
The lack of planning for future contracts is not considered to 'be
an acceptable reason. It is important to be aware of the time it
takes to place a contract and to plan accordingly. Sorry to sound
so bureaucratic, but our hands are essentially tied as contracts
personnel in this arena.
So as not to duplicate effort, please refer to the PO handbook
which contains an adequately detailed section on the preparation of
the JOFOC (called JNCP in the handbook). Because non-competitive
procurements are a rare alternative in awarding contracts, it is a
must to first contact the CO and discuss the rationale for
procuring on a non-competitive basis. The CO will be able to
provide you with direction and guidance on the need and development
of the JOFOC. This will speed up the acquisition process and help
eliminate wasted effort. An outline and example are provided in
this booklet under attachment I.
-------
13. Determination & Findings to provide full and open competition
after exclusion^ of sources (see FAR 6.2)
This is a very rare document within EPA. Only in very unique
circumstances would a source be excluded from competition under the
guidelines set in the FAR. This D&F is not related to set-asides
for small businesses and labor surplus area acquisitions The best
advice we can offer is that you should thoroughly discuss this with
the CO before taking action because of the unique aspect of this
action.
14. Advisory and Assistance Services Certificate
Advisory and Assistance contracts have become very common
within EPA. It should be relatively easy to obtain an example or
two from fellow POs. However, as always, please call up the
responsible CO and section head and discuss the requirement before
deciding on what direction to go.
Advisory and Assistance services means services to support or
improve agency policy development, decision making, management, and
administration, or to support or improve the operation of
management systems. These services consist of 1} Individual
experts and consultants, 2) Studies, analyses, and evaluations, 3)
Management and professional support services, and 4) Engineering
and technical service. The FAR subpart 37.2 provides further
information on the types of activities that are considered advisory
and assistance.
Once everyone has agreed that the requirement falls under the
advisory and assistance umbrella and is over one million dollars,
you need to prepare an advisory and assistance certification that
is approved one level above the requesting office, which would be
the Assistant Administrator for OSWER (to use OSW as an example).
The certificate includes the following information: 1) A statement
that certifies that the requirement is an advisory and assistance
procurement as defined, and 2) justification of need and
certification that the effort does not unnecessarily duplicate
previously performed work. An example is provided in this booklet
under Tab J.
In addition to this certification, it is required that for
contracts over one million dollars, the requirement must be
approved by the Assistant Administrator for the Administration and
Resources Management (OARM) (per contracts Management Manual
Chapter 2). This request for approval must first be routed through
the Director's office for PCMD. Please note that the procurement
package containing the certification must be sent to the section
head of the contracts branch first, we will then forward the
-------
certification to the Division Director's Office. Otherwise, if the
package goes to the Director's office first, it will only be
forwarded to our office for processing and valuable tine will have
been wasted. Further, it is important to know that this
certification will be delayed by the AA's office for OARM unless
PCMD has provided their required concurrences. An example is
provided in this booklet under Tab K.
15. Justification of Need (Government Furnished Property)
There are no helpful hints we can supply you with for
preparing the justification of need document. The best source for
information is chapter 3, section M-3.106-16(h) of the Project
Officer handbook.
16. Selection of Performance Evaluation Board (Award Fee)
This document is required only when an award fee contract type
is anticipated. Otherwise you can ignore this section entirely.
The members of the Performance Evaluation Board are selected by the
Responsible Associate Director (RAD) in conjunction with the
responsible program office. As designated by EPAAR 1516.404-276,
the chairperson of the PEB shall be the division director of the
respective program office. The chairperson appoints the Evaluation
Coordinator and Executive Secretary. The chairperson's selections
should be made by memorandum to the HCA (us) . The head of the
contracting activity (HCA) makes the formal appointment of the PEB
through memorandum. This formal appointment must be made before
the solicitation can be issued.
17. Award Fee Plan fOnlv for Award Fee Contracts)
The award fee plan outlines the process of how the contractor
will be evaluated to determine the amount of award fee earned. The
EPA utilizes a standard 01, 2, 3, 4, 5 rating scale to ensure a
consistent bases for rating contractor performance. Although, the
rating scale,1 thru 5, is standard, the critical elements which the
rating scale measure are not standard and may be customized to best
fit the contractual needs. The award fee plan does not need to be
created from scratch. There are existing plans within your office
or ours that may be used, at least as a basis to start from. Once
again, contact the CO to discuss the requirements of the
procurement to determine if an award fee type contract is even
appropriate. Remember, it is the CO's determination on the type of
contract vehicle that makes the most sense to meet your specific
needs. An example is provided in this booklet under Tab L.
-------
18, Project Officer Certification Form
The responsible Project Officer for the procurement must be
certified as a Project Officer. The PO's ability is limited to
contract dollar amounts by experience, barring any waivers. This
certification process is delineated in chapter 7 of the Contracts
Management Manual. To be certified, the Project Officer must
complete two courses, the Basic Project Officer Training course and
Contracts Administration course. Certification is requested
through EPA form 1900-65 (6-85) DESIGNATION AND APPOINTMENT OF
PROJECT OFFICER/WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER/DELIVERY ORDER OFFICER and
sent to the Contracting Officer for approval. This form must
accompany the procurement request package. An example is provided
in this booklet under Tab M.
19. Discussion of Controls for Sensitive Contracting
Certain activities when performed under EPA contracts may
place the Agency in a vulnerable or sensitive position if adequate
controls are not implemented. A listing of these sensitive areas
and a more detailed explanation may be found in the Contracts
Management Manual, Chapter 2, Attachment C.
20. Procurement Integrity Certifications
As per FAR clause 52-203-8 Requirement for Certification
of Procurement Integrity, an authorized Agency official
contributing to a specific Agency need or requirement by
procurement shall provide a certification of procurement integrity
to the Contracting Officer. The actions prompting necessity for the
certification are listed as follows:
(1) Drafting a specific statement of Work (SOW)
(2) Review and approval of specifications;
(3) Development of procurement request package;
(4) Preparation or issuance of solicitation;
(5) Evaluation of bids or proposals;
(6) Selection of Sources;
(7) Conduct negotiations; or
(8) Review and approval of the award of a contract.
An example of the certification is provided under Tab N.
-------
21. Justification for Contract Period of Performance Exceeding
36 Months
If the Project office anticipates a contract period of
performance exceeding 36 months, a written justification must be
forwarded with the acquisition request package. EPAAR 1517.202(b)
requires approval, by the Chief of the Contracting Office, prior to
the release of the solicitation. The justification must include a
detailed rationale for the increase. For example, if the effort is
considered long term and disruption of the contract would, in some
way, be detrimental to the Agency then this would constitute a
viable reason to extend the period of performance. If you have
questions regarding this area contact the cognizant Contracting
Officer.
22. Justification for Contract Option Quantities Exceeding
50% of the Base Quantity
The Contracting Officer is responsible for justifying, to the
Head of the Contracting A tivity, the rationale for contract option
quantities in excess of 50% of the base quantity. Consequently, the
information must ultimately be obtained from the Project Office. It
is a Project Office responsibility to adequately estimate the
amount of effort necessary to complete a specific contract. When
labor in excess of 50% of the base quantity is offered, PCMD
immediately questions the validity of the government estimate.
However, a legitimate reason for the increase might include the
fact that the intended work is such that no specific measurement
can be made to gauge future work and an increase in the base is the
only way to insure contract coverage. In any event, a justification
by the Project Office will be necessary if an increase over 50% of
the base quantity is anticipated.
-------
™>—" K WwXwffltr^t TK^^M .""-JvivSvX
\ \v!*Ti,Y.vw!vi I KKWWWW^ff&v *• ^C? '• i'.—^LJP?!^Wi''
w*»fMai JKTOototSs >'Ii5iM
W^OS'A ^^feS^-^^CZ^i^Wx
V^tJpY
||v|^[
.v.v/.vf.v.v.v.vr.v.Y.v.v.v.Y.v.vr.v.v.v.vTvffv.v.v^^^ '\\'
KYKvMKv^:v>:tfivXvyv^ '
jmttttMSW*^^
issmm^^
-------
PROCUREMENT REQUEST RATIONALE CHECKLIST
(to be submitted with EPA Forms 1900-8 and 1900-8A)
Item 1: The title of this procurement is
Itea 2: This procurement request package contains the following
documents. (Check all applicable boxes and attached documents as
appropriate.)
See Attachment I
Check
Description
EPA Form 1900-8
Procurement Abstract
Statement or Scope of Work
Concise Technical Proposal
Instructions
Competitive Technical Evaluation
Criteria
Justification for other Than Full
and Open Competition (JOFOC)
D&F to provide full and open
competition after exclusion of
source (see FAR 6.2)
Justification for Advisory and
Assistance Services
Justification of Need (Government
Furnished Property (GFP)/
Equipment)
Quality Assurance (QA) Review Form
Recommended Sources List
Reports Description
Government-Furnished Property
Description
Discussion of controls for
sensitive contracting
-------
Discussion of how procurement fits
into overall contracting strategy
{if required)
Item 3: This procurement [ ] involves/ [ ] does not involve
advisory and assistance services (AAS) or sensitive contracting areas,
[If such services are involved, attach a copy of the justification
required by Chapter 2 of the Contracts Management Manual (the original
should be forwarded in accordance with Chapter 2). See Figure 2-2 for
the required approvals. For both AAS and sensitive contracting areas,
attach a discussion of how the procurement fits into your overall
contracting strategy.]
Item 4: This procurement [ ] involves/ [ ] does not involve legal
analysis. I [ ]have/ [ ]have not discussed this procurement with the
Office of General Counsel which [ ]concurs/ [ Jdoes not concur with
proceeding with this procurement
Item 5: I [ ] anticipate or have knowledge of/ [ ] do not anticipate
or have any knowledge of organizational conflict of interests issues
related to this procurement. (If affirmative, describe conflict in an
attachment.}
Item C: Listed below are special EPA employee(s) who are or will be
participating in EPA's processing or managing of this procurement,
together with a list of their non-Government employers. Check here
none [ ].
EPA Special Employees Non-Government Employer
Ites 7: This procurement [ ] is/ [ ] is not based on an Unsolicited
Proposal.
Item 8: (RESERVED)
Itea 9: The name of the proposed Project Officer is
. He/she [ ] has/ [ ] has nc been
certified as an EPA Project Officer.
Item 10: I [ ] recommend/ [ ] do not recommend prospective sources
for this procurement. (If sources are recommended, list in an
attachment.)
-------
Item 11: This procurement anticipates [ ] a new contract award/
[ ] an additional work modification to existing contract
no. . it also anticipates that it will be processed as a
[ ] competitive procurement/ [ ] other than full and open
competition, [Note: If other than full and open competition is
recommended; (a) attach appropriate justification as described in Part
1506 of the EPA Acquisition Regulation. Also see sample format (Figure
4). Attach the Project Officer's Certification that the data provided
in the justification is accurate and complete.]
Item 12: This proposed procurement is appropriate for [ ] total small
business set-aside/ [ ] total small business/labor surplus area
(SB/LSA) set-aside; or [ ] partial SB/LSA set-aside; [ 3 partial SB
set-aside; [ ] 8(a) set-aside; [ ] LSA set-aside; or [ ] none of the
above (check only one)-. Consult the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization for advice.
Item 13: (a) The estimated period of performance is months
after the effective date of the contract [ ] inclusive/ [ J exclusive
of submission of any final report which may be required.
(b) The schedule of deliverable items (excluding reports) is as
follows. Check here if no deliverable items are required [ ].
Delivery
Item No. Description Quantity Date
Item 14: This procurement anticipates the following options will be
needed. Check here if no options are anticipated [ ].
Description of Option T.erm of option
(Description may be indicated in a
separate attachment)
Item 15: The following reports are required (describe in an
attachment). Check here if no reports are required [ ]. For each
separate report required, describe the following:
(a) Type of report (e.g., draft, final, interim, special, etc.)
(b) Descriptive title (e.g., monthly progress report)
-------
(c) Minimum content requirements
(d) Number of copies required
(e) Distribution (with complete addresses of all recipients)
(f) Delivery schedule
(g) Number of days tha Government will have to reviews comment
approve (disapprove) and return (as appropriate)
Where specific report formats, containing the information above, are
used repetitively, "standard" formats are established or may be
established with the servicing CO. Maximum use of such standard
formats is encouraged. Examples include monthly progress reports,
financial progress reports and final reports.
Item i«: Peer review of Contractor-generated documents [ ] will be/
[ ] will not be required.
Item 17: Government property, data, or services [ ] will be
furnished/ [ J will not be furnished under this procurement. (If
furnished, describe in an attachment including quantity and date
available.)
Item 18: Budget. (An attachment may be used.)
(a) The total estimated budget for the basic effort and all options is
$ .
(b) The estimated funding for the current fiscal year is $ .
(c) The estimated total cost of Other Direct Costs is $ . (If
possible, indicate estimate of significant sub-items such as travel,
computer time, consultants, equipment and material.)
(d) For level of effort actions and other actions where hours, rather
than an end product, are to be purchased, indicate for the basic and
all option periods the number of hours required, by category, with
definitions for each category.
Item 19: This procurement [ ] is/ [ ] is not subject to the
requirements of OMB Circular A-76. (If A-76 applies, required
documentation must be provided with the PR.)
Ztea 20: This procurement [ ] requires/ f ] does not require
priority processing (a brief priority justification may be attached).
(To be completed by procurement office:)
[ ] Approved [ ] Disapproved
Date Chief, Contracting Office
-------
Item 21: This procurement [ ] will [ ] will not involve the testing
of human subjects in accordance with EPA Order 1000.17.
Item 22: This procurement [ ] does/ [ ] does not include acquisition
of membership in an association. (If membership in an association is
included, attach a certification indicating that the primary purpose of
membership is to obtain direct benefits for EPA necessary to the
accomplishment of its functions or activities.)
Iteai 23: This procurement [ ] is/ [ ] is not for leasing of motor
vehicles. (If affirmative, attach certification per FAR 8.1102).
Item 24: This procurement [ ] is /[ ] is not to be funded from r.ore
than one appropriation. (If affirmative, see Chapter 9 of this manual
and memorandum from the Comptroller and the Director, Office of
Administration on "Contracts Funded from Multiple Accounts--Procedures
for Identifying Contract Costs," May 14, 1985.)
Item 25: This procurement [ ] will/ [ ] will not involve statistical
surveys, data collection, using questionnaires, or statistical analysis
of survey data. (If affirmative, procurement office will include
instruction in solicitation for offerers to obtain the EPA Survey
Management Handbook).
I test 2f: To the best of my knowledge, the vorX specified in this
procurement action does not unnecessarily duplicate any other work
previously performed, or being performed, under my authority.
Xtea 27i To the best of my knowledge, the work specified in this
procurement action does not involve any "prohibited contracting
activities" listed in Chapter 2 of the Contracts Management Manual.
Item 2ft This procurement [ ] will/ [ ] will not involve any of the
areas requiring special contract controls listed in Chapter 2 of the
Contracts Management Manual. (If the procurement involves such areas,
a special discussion must be attached detailing proposed control
procedures to be enforced.)
Item 2f I Thif procurement ( ]doe»/ [ ]do«« not involve requirements
governed under the Federal Information Resource* Management Regulation
(FIRMR). [Note: if the r ^curement involves the FIRKR, a requirements
analysis and draft Agenc. Procurement Request (APR) should be
attached.]
Item 301 (a) The Statement of Work/Specifications involves the use of
items subject to RCRA Procurement Guidelines (see Chapter 14 of this
manual).
(Ve« ) (No )
-------
(b) if yes, the items are:
(c) The specifications for the iten(s) complie* with the
applicable RCRA Procurement Guideline.
(Yes ) (No )
(d) If no, the Project Officer-must check the appropriate
box and provide an explanation why items containing recovered materials
were not used.
the price is unreasonable;
applying minimum-content standards results in
inadequate competition;
obtaining designated items results in unusual and
unreasonable delays; or
recovered items do not meet all reasonable
performance specifications.
Explanation (this may be provided in a separate attachment)
itea 3ls The desired award date for this procurement is
Item 321 This procurement /does /does not include a
requirement for use of Government-provided in-bound and direct dial
out"bound long distance services. (If affirmative, the Statement of
Work shall require mandatory use of FTS2000 network.)
Date Signature
-------
CONTRACTS MAKAaEXINT MAJTUAL If 00 CEO 3
•/is/ii
PROCtTRZHZNT REQUEST APPROVALS
A. Designated Office Approvals.
(Note that the matrix in Part A does not restate any
approvals from Part B. Offices designated in Part A should be
consulted prior to submission of requests for approval since
authority may have been redelegated.)
Itea. Itea Required Local Required BQ
No. Description Approvals Approvals
1. All purchases, Program Office None
regardless of approvals
value (includes
all items listed
in the rest of
Part A.)
2. Equipment, supplies FMSD or equivalent None
or furniture, except field office*
for bankca d purchases
not exceeding $1,000
3. Printing; Office designated None
duplication; in Delegations
composition. Manual, No. 1-5
4. Advertisements None FMSD
for acquisition
of real property.
5. Commercial U- None FMSD
drive Credit Delegations
Card Manual, No. 1-4-A
6. Facsimile None FMSD
Equipment Delegations
Manual, No. 1-4-A
7. Communications None FMSD
Equipment Delegations Manual
utilizing the No. 1-4-A
radio frequency
spectrum
* FMSD approval is required to ensure that equipment or furniture
is not available from Agency stock or supplies are not available
from GSA or EPA Supply stores.
2-F2-1
-------
CONTRACTS
KANUAL
1900 CH<3 3
S/15/91
8,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Watercraft over
25 feet or $15,000
or aircraft of
any value
Purchase or
lease/hire for
60 or more
consecutive days of
passenger vehicles
and light duty trucks
Purchase or rental
of copying machines
and printing
equipment
Repair and improve-
ment construction
Equipment, services
for creation, organi-
zation, maintenance,
and disposition of
Agency records and
files, including
micrographic services
and systems
None
None
FKSD
Delegations Manual
No. 1-4-A
FMSD
Delegations Manual
No. 1-4-A
None
FMSD
Delegations Manual
No. 1-4-A
FMSD or EPO
(See Delegations
Manual 11-4)
Limited offices
as designated in
Delegations Manual
#1-1 (See also
Records Management
Manual)
FMSD
(For use of Building
and Facilities Funds)
None
ADP equipment, soft- None
ware maintenance and
services, including
those related to
computer-related
micrographic systems,
word processing, time-
sharing, feasibility
studies, and requirements
analy
Office of Information
Resources Management
(Delegations Manual
#1-10)
Paid advertising for
recruitment of
personnel in news-
papers and trade
journals of national
or interregional
circulation
Local personnel
office (Delegations
Manual 11-2)
None
2-T2-2
-------
CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT MAHUXL
1900 CEO 3
8/15/91
15. Collecting identical None
information or statis-
tical data from ten
or more persons
16. Protective services None
and equipment,
including guard pro-
tection security
alarms, safes, and
monitoring and detection
devices
Asst. Administrator
for Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation
(Delegations Manual
#1-22)
FMSD
(Delegations Manual
11-6)
B. Management Approvals.
The following approvals apply to all procurement requests (PRs)
except PRs to add funds to incrementally funded contracts. These
approvals are in addition to those listed in Part A above.
Item
1. Procurement requests for
Advisory and Assistance
Services.
(a) Small Purchases
(b) Other than Small
Purchases not in Excess
of $1K
Approval
Program official at least one
organizational level above
the initiating office.
When award is to be made
during the fourth fiscal
year quarter, a program
official at least two
organizational levels above
the initiating office.
Program official not below
the level of Associate,
Assistant, or Regional
Administrator, Inspector
General, or General Counsel.
2-12-3
-------
CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT MANUAL
1900 CHO 3
8/15/91
(c) Services Exceeding $1M
2. Procurement requests for
other than Advisory and
Assistance Services.
(a) Small Purchases
If the procurement request
exceeds $1M, in addition to
the approvals in (b) above,
approval is required by the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management. (Assistant
Administrator or equivalent
at HQ or the Regional
Administrator in the Regions
should make the request for
approval.) Requests in this
category must be routed
through the Director,
Procurement and Contracts
Management Division.
In accordance with program
office procedures.
(b) Other than small
purchases.
Program official designated !
the Associate, Assistant, or
Regional Administrator,
Inspector General, or Genera]
Counsel.
2-12-4
-------
CERTIFICATION TO ACCOMPANY PROCUREMENT REQUEST/RATIONALE
Section I
Project Title; Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies, Waste
Minimization, and Rulemaking Activities for the
Organic and Organic Products Industries
I have reviewed the subject Procurement Request and the
accompanying documentation and find that:
A. The proposed scope of work is central to the EPA mission
in the following ways:
The work is necessary to support EPA's solid and
hazardous waste activities, including the development and support
of regulations for hazardous treatment, storage and disposal, and
minimization of hazardous waste requiring management.
These hazardous waste activities are required b the
Resources Conservation and Recovery act, the HSWA Amendments, the
Underground Injection Control Program of the State Drinking Water
Act, the Toxic substances Control Act, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and SARA.
B. The product will be used by this program office in the
following specific ways:
The contractor will provide support to assist EPA in
developing and refining regulations and standards for the
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; performing
engineering testing and sampling and analysis; performing data
reduction and analysis and data management; and conducting a
program to encourage source reduction and recycling of wastes.
_ will as contract monitor. OSW and appropriate
decision-making official will use the resulting products.
C. The contractor's products will be delivered in time to
accomplish its purposes. During the first year, completed
contract work will provide support for on-going efforts relative
to restricting certain hazardous wastes from landfills; treatment
regulation* specific to hazardous waste streams; and the
minimization of hazardous waste. All products will b« delivered
by the contractor to EPA within the time limits set forth in each
work assignment under the level-of-ef fort contract.
-------
D. The information to be developed and the resources to be
provided by the contractor are not available in EPA. Work
assignments will be made under this contract as needs arise for
information and/or resources that are not available in EPA. It
is anticipated that such needs will arise because the resources
in EPA are inadequate for the requirements of the wor'< mandated
by Congress.
E. The work will be funded under appropriation number
and account number , Waste Management
Regulations, Guidelines and Policy.
Assistant Administrator for Office Date
of
-------
Instructions for Completing EPA Form 1 900-8
Procurement Request/Order
General:
This form is a 9-part interleaved set and is designed to be completed with an elite typewriter (1 2 pitch). The originating
office should complete all areas that apply Shaded areas are reserved for Procurement use only. After completing the
form, in accordance with the instructions below, retain the copy marked for "Originator" and send the others through
required channels.
Item:
1 thru 6 Enter the originator's name, mail code, telephone number, date of requisition, signature of originator.
and the latest date that the items can be delivered.
7 Self explanatory. Attach a justification for other than full and open competition or for sole source small
purchases.
8 thru 1 1 Enter the name, address, mail code, and telephone number. If the person is the same as the originator. '
leave blank.
12 Self explanatory. Failure to include the appropriation number, the number of the Servicing Finance
Office designated by the Financial Management Division for the accounting office which will record the
commitment and obligation, document type, document control number, account number, object class, or
dollar amount may result in the return of the request to the originator for completion of these items.
Special care should be taken to insure that all data placed in these blocks arc accurate and appear legibly
on all copies as these data will serve to record the commitment of funds as well as to eventually obligate
the funds on the contract document. Note: Item 1 2(d) should be used to denote document type (DT) code,
i.e., C = EPA prime contract, P = EPA purchase or delivery order.
1 3 If more than 1 source is suggested, attach a list of the contractor's/vendor's name, address, and point of
contact (if known) for each source.
14 Self explanatory.
1 5 For Small Purchases Only: Check one box. If "Yes" is checked.the funds certifying official must commit
sufficient funds in the Document Control Register to cover the total potential amount of the obligation.
1 6 Self explanatory.
1 7 thru 25 For procurement office use only.
26(a) Self explanatory.
26(b) The degree of detail required will vary with the cor exity of the proposed procurement. Each request
shall contain sufficient information on its face to process the request. If the proposed procurement is for
nonpersonal work or services, provide a title which specifically describes the work or services to be
procured and limit the title to sixty (60) positions, including the spaces between each word of the title for
computer input, and attach the documentation required in Chapter 2 of the Contracts Management
Manual. In other instances, describe the articled) requested in detail using manufacturer's model
number* and descriptions, if possible, and provide specification, quantity increment, delivery require-
ment, and special packaging or transportation requirements. (Use EPA Form 1900-8A, Continuation
She*, rf additional space is required.)
26(c) and Self expterujtory.
2$(d>
26(e) Enter the estimated price of the item
26 Previous edrtfensMvoMotoW. **** <* Ktfyeti4 fiptr
-------
reas are lo' gs* of orocurement office
DC 20460
AEPA
Procurement
Request/Order
John A. Ubster
3 Mil! COO*
4 Telephone Numoer
12/20/91
S Dtte Item Required
7 Recommended Procurement Method
'_J 3t*«' i"«r>
Sol* loure* jrnm jg/
8 Dejrver To ,'*"'0/»ef MIntgffi
ohn A. Ubster
9 Addrett
401 M St.. sw.. un»«h. nr
10
11 T«l«pAon« NumMr
260-1985
12 3
inafCUP
Oai)
^—^>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^ie*l«MHBaH»aM|B^B][»aHH«ilBI
D Servicing Finance Office Number
NOTE: Item 12|d) Document Type — Contract = C.
Purchase Order * "P"
FMO Use
ten t
0! Docunwn
T! Contfol Ngmb«r
id] («l 16 Hiffirti
C F30050
Accouni NumB
Object
Ci
igt'4
Amount !
Dolllfl
Certs
2TGB81A400
2535
240,000 Qp
3 Suggestec Source :\tmt. Aaortsi. ZIP Coat. Pftont' Cenltct/
1 4 Amount o* Tionev
commmtd it
G Decrease
1B For Sm44l PurcttMM Onhr Contricting Qtfio u luino-
rued to exceed the imoum shown ,n 8loci !2(^iOv 10% or
1100. whenever it lett
Dv
16. Approvmls
d. Property Man«g«m*m Offictr/DctignM
rlea Stan/ Pep. DJV.,OWPE
Funds listed m Block 12 apd Block 1 S
f Other lS(M«itvt
7 O«te of Order
Conraa Nunter
-------
' i i
! i
it
11
-------
DRAFT BOlLDt PLATE LANGUAGE FOR RFP PROCUREMENT REQUEST NARRATIVE
BPA/C-3/91
Attachment
REPORTS DESCRIPTION
The Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer one
(1) copy and to the Project Officer ( ) copies covering all
work assignments of a combined monthly technical and financial
progress report on each work assignment briefly stating the
progress made, including the percentage of work ordered and
completed during the reporting period. One copy of this report,
cover: >j only the individual work assignment., shall go to each vcrk
assignment manager. Specific discussions shall include difficulties
encountered and remedial action taken during the reporting period
and anticipated activity during the subsequent reporting period. In
addition, the report shall specify contract financial status as
follows:
(1) Cumulative costs and direct labor hours expended from the
effective date of the contract through the last day of the current
reporting period.
(2) Actual costs and direct labor hours expended during the
reporting month.
(3) Estimated costs and direct labor hours to be expended
during the next reporting period.
(4) Actual costs and direct labor hours incurred for each work
assignment issued and estimates of costs and man-hours required to
complete each work assignment. The level of detail provided in this
section must be sufficient to determine the number of hours charged
by each individual person of the contractor's team to each work
assignment. (While this level of detail is not required on the
vouchers, vouchers must be reconcilable on a monthly basis with the
financial report on each work assignment that covers the exact same
period.)
(5) A graph shall be provided using a vertical axis for
dollars and * horizontal axis for time increments that show the
actual and projected rate of expenditures against the total
estimated cost of the task.
NOTE: Sample report formats attached.
-------
DRAFT BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE FOR RFP PROCUREMENT REQUF.JT NARRATIVE
INVOICES
The Contractor and Sub-Contractor shall submit invoices on a
monthly basis.
More frequent invoicing will not be accepted, with the one
exception of special invoices for award fee payment under award
fee contracts.
The Contractor and the Sub-contractor shall provide a
complete cost breakdown each reporting period. This level of
detail is required for each individual work assignment and
totalled on a cumulative summary sheet for that invoice.
All Direct Labcr and consultant hours billed on the invoice
shall be included with the invoice on a table showing:
Professional Level (PL), individual's name, company affiliation,
individual hours charged, and work assignment total hours ,
charged.
-------
Attach.-.e-. t 11
-2-
III. TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Consultants $
Subcontractors $
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
G4A (Prime)
Sub G&A (All subs}
IV. TOTAL COSTS fNo
Base (fixed) fee
V. TOTAL COSTS PLUS FEE
Aaount Billed Cumulative Ar.
guy rent. Period to Silling lirC^t
*Sar.e level of detail is required of all subcontractors.
-------
Attachment 11
VOUCHER COST REPORT
P.EB..WO.KK ASSIGNEES; (for Prime 6 Subs*)
CONTRACT No. Voucher Date:
VOUCHER No. Billing Period:
WORK ASSIGNMENT No:
TOTAL WA BUDGET $: (from work plan)
TOTAL WA HOURS: (from work plan)
Amount Billed Cumulative A-cur.t
COSTS current period, to Billing pote
I. DIRECT LABOR
Professional Level 1 Labor S
H "2 "
H H 3 H
H ii 4 " $
Total Professional Labor S
Total Technical Labor $
Total Clerical Labor $ '
Fringe Benefits
Labor Overhead
Automation Rate
II. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Local Travel
Long Distance Travel
Per Diem or Subsistance
Total Travel
Postage/Freight
Computer
Property/Equipment
Telephone/Long Distance
Photocopying
Temporary Help
Delivery
Materials/supplies
Other Direct Expense
-------
ATTACHMENT
VOUCHER
REPORT
Voucher time period:
Payer's Narse and Address: Voucher Number:
Date Prepared:
Payee's Kane and Address: Contract Number:
WORK ASSIGNMENT No.:
List of total Labor Hours Charged by
Work Assignment, Professional Level and
Employee Name
P-Level Employee Total Total LOE/
T-Level Name Labor Hours Total Clerical
Total Professional Labor Hours:
Total Technical Labor Hours:
Total Labor Hours:
Total Hours:
NOTE: Separata itemization for each subcontractor/Consultant
-------
FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT (page 2)
TOTAL COST PLUS BASE FEE
TOTAL LOE
Total $ Remaining
Total Mrs. Remaining
$ % Complete
Mrs. I Coaplete
Work Plan Average Hourly Rate
Actual Average Hourly Rate
Est. $ for Next Period
Est. Hrs. for Next Period
(cost + fixed fee)
(total hours)
(balance of
approved budget)
(balance of
approved hours)
(I budget spent)
(% hours spent)
(from approved w?;
(from actual costs;
(costs for next
month)
(labor for next
month)
* Sy P level
-------
Attachment 10
FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT
(To be completed for each work assignrent)
Contract No.
WA No.
Period (dates covered)
T. GENERAL
Total Budget S
Total Budget Mrs.
II. DIRECT LABOR
* Total Professional L*bor S
* Total Professional Labor Mrs,
Total Technical Labor $
Total Technical Labor Mrs.
Total Clerical Labor $
Total Clerical Labor Hrs.
Fringe Benefits
Labor Overhead
Automation Rate
III. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Total Travel
Postage/Freight
Computer
Property/Equipment
Telephone/Long Distance
Photocopying
Temporary Help
Delivery
Materials/Supplies
Other Direct Expense
TOTAL OTHER DIPJECT COSTS
SUBCONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT
Subcontractor(») $
Subcontractor(«} Travel
Subcontractor(•) Hrs.
IV. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
G&A (Prise)
Sub G&A
TOTAL COSTS (No F««)
Base (fixed) fee
(continues next page)
Expenditures
Current Cum
(Explanation.;
(WP apprcv.bud)
(WP approv.hrs)
(price only)
(P1-P4 and Tot?.l)
(P1-P4 and Total)
(all levels)
(all levels)
(secretarial)
(secretarial)
(based on all above)
(based on all above)
(as negotiated and
applicable)
(details on request)
(details on request)
(computer time)
(purchased/leased)
(applicable charges)
(within limitations;
(applicable charges)
(applicable charges)
(applicable charges)
(details on request)
(total all ODCs)
(P1-P4 and Total)
(details on request;
(P1-P4 and Total)
(prime's only)
(total all subs)
(costs only
fees)
(total tat.
fee)
-------
Attac'r-.-.ent ?A
P»g* 2 of 2
MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.
LIST OF TOTAL LABOR HOURS CH>*GED
BY WORK ASSIGNMENT, PROFESSIONAL LEVEL AND EMPLOYEE NAK£
P-L»val/ Iffiployet Total Total LOE/
T-L«vtl N»m« Labor Hour* Total Clerical
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL LABOR HOURS:
TOTAL TECHNICAL LABOR HOURS:
TOTAL LABOR HOURS:
TOTAL HOURS:
-------
Page 1 of :
MONTHLY PROGRESS HEPORT
PERIOD OP
Date of Report: IPX Contract No.:
Contractor:
IPA VA Manager: EPX work Assignment No.
Prepared by:
Part I. Activities undertaken during the month.
(Provide DETAILED sujrmtry of activities, by task *.-.i
include any out-of-town trtvtl
Part II. Deliverable* submitted during tha month.
(Include draft and final submissions listed by title,
and data submitted)
Part III. Difficultiaa aneounttrad and remedial actions taken.
(DETAILED ausr..Ttry of contractor/subcontractor
difficulties and ramadial actioni takan by contractor
or EPA)
(Idantify activitias bain? hald up panding EPA
approvals, cotrjr.ants, daeisions, ate; includa dates as
appropriata)
Part IV. Activitiaa anticipated during tha next month
<, "
(DETAILED summary, including dates and titles of ar.y
daliverablas to ba completed)
(Provida an estimate of naxt nonth's hours)
*
Part V. Estimate substantial lagging costs for tha reporting
period.
(Provide DETAILS on any discrapancias and substantial
subcontractor lagging costs. Give estimate of subs'
total labor hours expended; can ba based on teltphor.b
inquiry to the sub contractor/consultant.)
(Identify prima and subcontrsctor SUBSTANTIAL
direct cost axpanditur**s, particularly travel
Part VI. Changes in persons 1, if any, assigned to Work
Assignment.
NOTE: The prime should require each subcontractor to submit
same lavel of information per work assignment and include it
backup to the print's report.
-------
-------
PROCUREMENT ABSTRACT
The purpose of this requirement is to provide a hotline that
quickly responds to questions related to the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Underground
Storage Tanks (UST), the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and the Chemical Emergency Preparedness (CEPP) Community-
Right-to-Know/Title III program. The hotline will be the mechanism
for EPA's response to inquiries from the public and regulated
community; the referral point for document availability; the
dissemination of changing information; and the primary means for
answering factual questions on EPA regulations and policies.
Hotline personnel shall interact with EPA technical personnel
and the public as well as serve Federal, State and local
governments. Hotline staff shall be required to coordinate with
EPA technical, legal and policy staff to research answers to
questions received, and to provide timely, accurate, factual,
complete and courteous responses to callers. The hotline will
maintain reference files and training programs in support of the
aforementioned programs. During the course of one year, the
Hotline will answer approximately 175,000 questions. The present
Hotline has 36 telephone lines and is operated by 35 telephone
operators/information specialists.
-------
PROCUREMENT ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste
desires to negotiate • cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to procure a
contractor with the skill and expertise currently needed by EPA
to support program initiative* in policy options analysis,
program development and implementation, data collection end
analysis, public involvement end training initiatives. This
procurement places special emphasis on the development and
implementation of closure and financial responsibility
requirements under RCRA, CERCIA and related statutes.
-------
f&S1
-------
CONTRACTS MAXAQEXXHT XAMUXL 1900 C1Q 3
QUALITY M8UHANCB REVIEW FOR EXTRAMURAL PROJECTS (CONTRACTS)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Descriptive Title: Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies, Wasc*
Minimization, and Rulemaking Activities
Sponsoring Program Office: nffifo r>f soi|dKaate s Emergency Re;
Approximate Dollar Amount: $5/500,000
Duration: 3 Years
II. This contract requires environmental measurements
x (YES) Complete fora; (NO) sign form and submit
with the procurement request.
III. Quality Assurance Requirements (Projects involving
environmental measurements):
YES NO
x_ a. Submission of a written quality assurance (QA)
program plan (commitment of the offerer's management to meet the
QA requirements of the scope of work) is to be included in the
contract proposal.
YES NO
x _ b. Submission of a written QA project plan is to be
included in the contract proposal.
YES NO
x c. A written QA project plan is required as a part of
the contract.
YES NO
x d. Performance on available audit samples or devices
shall be required as part of the evaluation criteria (see list on
the next page).
YES NO
x e. An on-site evaluation of the offerer's facilities
will be made to ensure that a QA system is operation and exhibits
the capability for successful completion of this project (see
schedu; on the next page).
YES NO
x f. QA reports will be required (see schedule on the
next page).
2-yj-i
-------
CONTRACTS MANAOZXZHT MAtfUAL 19oo
t/iS/91
IV. Determination (Projects involving environmental
measurement*)
Percentage of technical evaluation points assigned to
QA 7%
Project Officer estimate of percentage of cost allocated to
environmental measures 5%
For each parameter measured attach a summary which provides the
following information:
a. Is QC Reference sampling or device available?
b. Are there split samples for cross-comparison?
c. Is it required for pre-award?
d. Specify frequency during the contract.
QA System Audits are required: Pre-award ;
during the contract .
QA Reports are required: with Progress Reports _ ;
with the Final Report _ .
The signatures below verify that the QA requirements have been
established.
QA Officer: - -\ , • Project Officer:
Signature ' /j /signature
Date Date ^
2-13-2
-------
CONTRACTS MAHA<3EXZNT MANUAL 1900 CHQ 3
e/is/91
QUALITY AflSTOANCE REVIEW TOR EXTRAXURAL PROJECTS (CONTRACTS)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Descriptive Title:
Sponsoring Program Office:
Approximate Dollar Amount:
Duration:
II. This contract requires environmental measurements
(YES) Complete form? (NO) sign form and submit
with the procurement request.
III. Quality Assurance Requirements (Projects involving
environmental measurements):
YES NO
a. Submission of a written quality assurance (QA)
program plan (commitment of the offerer's management to meet the
QA requirements of the scope of work) is to be included in the
contract proposal.
YES NO
b. Submission of a written QA project plan is to be
included in the contract proposal.
YES NO
c. A written QA project plan is required as a part of
the contract.
YES NO
d. Performance on available audit samples or devices
shall be required as part of the evaluation criteria (see list on
the next page).
YES NO
e. An on-site evaluation of the offerorfs facilities
will be made to ensure that a QA systea is operation and exhibits
the capability for successful completion of this project (see
schedule on the next page).
YES NO
f. QA reports will be required (see schedule on the
next page).
*
2-13-1
-------
CONTRACTS KAHAQEKXHT KXNTJXL ltoo ^Q 3
8/15/91
IV. Determination (Projects involving environmental
measurements)
Percentage of technical evaluation points assigned to
QA .
Project Officer estimate of percentage of cost allocated to
environmental measures .
For each parameter measured attach a summary which provides the
following information:
a. Is QC Reference sampling or device available?
b. Are there split samples for cross-comparison?
c. Is it required for pre-award?
d. Specify frequency during the contract.
QA System Audits are required: Pre-award ;
during the contract .
QA Reports are required: with Progress Reports ;
with the Final Report .
The signatures below verify that the QA requirements have been
established.
QA Officer: Project Officer:
SignatureSignature
DateDate
2-73-2
-------
Attachment 5b
QUALIT ASSURANCE
By memoranda of May 30, 1979, and June 14, 1979, the
Administrator established the goal of the EPA Quality Assurance (QA)
Program to ensure that all environmentally related measurements
funded or mandated by EPA and interagency agreements be
scientifically valid, defensible, and of known precision and
accuracy. The term "environmental measurement" applies to
essentially any field or laboratory investigations that generate data
related to chemical, physical; or biological parameters in the
environment; determination of the presence or absence of pollutants
in vast* streams; health and ecological effects studies; clinical and
epidamiolo
-------
o Agreement to permit a QA System audit by EPA of the off«ror's
organiiation and operations at the discretion of the Project
Officer (PC). A systematic on-iite aualitativf reviev of
facilities, equipment, training, procedures, record-keeping,
data validation, data management, and reporting aspects of the
total QA system will be conducted by PO or designate. EPA
requires the avardee to submit a proposed QA project plan for
the effort required by the contract. This QA project plan
will include the QA system of proposed subcontractors. The
audits may be performed before or after contract award.
A QA project plan prepared in accordance with EPA's "Guidelines
and Specification of Preparation of Quality Assurance Project Plans"
(QAMS-005/80) (available from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161) must address the following:
1. Title page, with provision for approval signatures
2. Table of Contents
3. Project Description
4, Project Organization(s) and Responsibilities
3. QA Objectives for Measurement Data, in terms of precision,
accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and
comparability
6. Sampling Procedures
7. Sample custody
8. Calibration Procedure*, Reference*, and Frequency
9. Analytical Procedures
10. Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
11. internal. QC Check* and Frequency
15. QA Performance Audits, System Audita, and Frequency
13. QA Reports to Management
14. Preventive Maintenance
-------
15. Specific procedures to be used to routinely assess data
precision, representativeness, comparability, accuracy, and
completeness of the specific measurement parameters involved
16. Corrective Action
For work-assignment types of contracts, a basic QA project plan
will initially be prepared by the contractor to cover, in general,
the major types of tasks anticipated which involve environmental
measurements. This basic QA project plan will be approved by the PC
and QA officer. For each work assignment, the portion of the basic
QA project plan which is applicable will be identified and amended or
revised, as necessary, and will be approved before measurements are
initiated. As a minimum, the procedures to be used to assess data
precision, accuracy, and completeness must be specified.
The offerer will include in the proposal, as part of the project
plan, the following information concerning management of the QA
program for the projects:
1. A statement of policy concerning the organization's
commitment to implement a QA program to assure generation of
measurement data of adequate quality to meet contract
requirements.
2. An organization chart showing the position of one QA person
within the organization. It is highly desirable that the QA
person be. independent of the functional group* which
generate measurement data.
Quality Assurance checks will be conducted periodically during
contract performance by EPA through the use of control check
samples. These control check samples will be labeled similarly to
the regular field samples. Control check samples will contain one or
more of ths substances suspected of being in the test sample.
Compliant performance is dsfined as that which yields correct
identification and measured concentrations which are within the range
-------
of one-half-to-tvo times the true concentration. Contaminants to b*
measured may include, but are not limited to, the chemicals listed in
40 CFR 261.33 (•) and (f) and chemicals listed in Appendix vui of 40
CFK 261.
-------
-------
SOURCES
Competitive bidding procedures are recommended to eliminate
the potential for conflict of interest. No contractor will be
considered who ovns or operates a hazardous waste management
facility. Potential contractor* who should receive a Request for
Proposals should include but not be limited to:
1) A.T. Kearney
225 Reinekers Lane
Alexandria, VA 22314
2} SAIC
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
3) NUS
910 Clopper Road
P.O. Box 6032
Gaithersburg, MD 20677-0902
4) McLaren-Hart
1911 North Port Myers Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
5} Dynaaec (Dynamic Bldg.)
2275 Research Blvd. (Suite 500)
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3268
6) Versar, Inc.
6800 Versar Center
Springfield, VA 22151
7) Battelle Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
8) Greenhome and O'Mara Inc.
Attn: Keith Vhiteknight
9001 Edmonton Road
Greenbelt, MD 20770
-------
-------
INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE
The estimated total cost and corresponding labor hours for the
base period and subsequent option periods of effort are listed in
the tables below. These costs and labor hours are deemed sufficient
to meet the requirements of the proposed acquisition as follow:
BASE PERIOD BASE PERIOD OPT OOANT
Hours S/Hour Total S Hours S/Hour Total S
P-4 2,000 $35. $70,000 1,000 $35. $35,000
P-3 6,000 $25. $150,000 3,000 $25. $75,000
P-2 2,000 $17. $34,000 1,000 $17. $17,000
P-l 3,000 $10. $30,000 1,500 $10. $15,000
T-2 2.000 $7. $ 14.000 1,000 $7. S 7.000
15,000 $298,000 7,000 $149,000
Overhead 100% $298,000 $149,000
ODC'S $ 30,000 $ 15,000
G&A 10% S 62.600 $ 31.300
Total Estimated Cost $688,600 $344,300
Option Period I *$721,000 *$360,500
Option Period II *$756,000 *$377,800
*These total dollar amounts reflect a 5% escalation of the base
period direct labor rates. All other rates will remain constant
throughout the life of the contract.
RATIONALE
The amount of direct labor and the relative dispersal of P-
Level amounts are derived from historical information obtained from
the current contract and the Project Officer's best estimate of
continuing and future work in this area. The current contract and
contracts utilizing similar services were examined to corroborate
the validity of the Government estimate. Further, similar
Government rates, (ie. Environmental Engineer, GS-13) were utilized
in an attempt to bolster the reasonableness of the labor estimates.
The Washington Cost Advisory organization, (WCAO) at PCMD, was
contacted for determination of a proper escalation factor necessary
to estimate the option periods. In this case 5% is deemed
acceptable. ODC and travel costs are expected to be constant at
$30,000.00 per year for the life of the contract. This figure is
approximately 5% of the base year level of effort and consistent
with historical and actual contractual information. Likewise the
estimates for Overhead and GSA are derived from current and
historical information.
-------
-------
Definitionof Labor classifications
PROFESSIONAL
(1) Level 4 - Senior Professional (Principal Managementi
The Principal Management shall have a combination of at
least eight (8) years of professional experience in the following
three areas: (1) planning, conducting, and participating in
short-term studies; (2) the design, review and evaluation of
management and administrative systems; and (3) the provision of
management support. At least some of the experience shall
include scheduling work to meet completion dates, estimating
manpower meeds and reviewing project progress and making changes
in methodology, where necessary. This individual plans,
conducts, and supervises projects of major significance,
necessitating advanced knowledge and the ability to originate and
apply new and unique methods and procedures. This person
supplies technical advice and counsel to other professionals and
generally operates with wide latitude for unreviewed action. In
addition, this individual shall have at least a masters degree in
business administration, management, public administration, or
related discipline unless the individual can meet the following
criteria for experience/qualification substitution.
Experience/Qualifications Substitutions
A bachelor's degree, plus any combination of additional
years experience and graduate level study in the proposed field
of expertise totaling two (2) years is an acceptable substitute
for a masters degree. Additional years of graduate level study
in an appropriate field will be considered equal to years of
experience on a two-for-one basis.
(2) Leva.!. 3 - Mid-Professional/Senior Analyst;^ Project
Director'
The Project Director shall have a combination of at least
three (3) yearm of professional experience in the following three
{3} areas: (1) participating in short-term studies; (2) the
design, review and evaluation of management and administrative
systems; and (3) the provision of information management policy
support. This individual receives assignments associated with
projects from the senior professional translating technical
guidance received to usable data applicable to the particular
assignment. Assignments are varied and require some originality
-------
and ingenuity. In addition, this individual shall have at least
a masters degree in the social sciences, management, business
administration, public administration, or related discipline
unless the individual can meet the following criteria for
experience/qualification substitution.
Experience/Qualifications Substitutions
A bachelor's degree, plus any combination of additional
years experience and graduate level study in the proposed field
of expertise totaling two (2) years is an acceptable substitute
for a masters degree. Additional years of graduate level study
in an appropriate field will be considered equal to years of
experience on a two-for-one basis.
(3) Leve]^2 - Junior Professional/Analyst {Assistant Project
Director)
Assistant Project Directors shall have a combination of at
least two (2) years professional experience in the following
areas: (l) participating in short-term studies; (2) the design,
review and evaluation of management and administrative systems;
and (3) the provision of information management policy support.
This individual gathers and correlates basic data and performs
routine analyses. This person shall worX on less complicated
assignments where little evaluation is required. In addition,
this individual shall have at least a bachelor's degree in the
social sciences, management or business, unless the individual
can meet the following criteria for experience/qualification
substitution.
i ications Substitutons
Any combination rf additional years of experience in the
proposed field of expertise plus full-time college level study in
the particular field totaling four (4) years will be an
acceptable substitute for a bachelor's degree. Additional years
of graduate level study in an appropriate field will be
considered equal to years of experience on a two-for-one basis.
(4) Level 1 - Junior. Associate (Telephone Operators/
Information Specialists)
Telephone Operators/Information Specialists shall have one
(1) year of experience and a bachelor's degree in the science,
technology, law, or environmental field. Specific experience on
a technical hotline may substitute for educational background.
-------
Experience/Qualifications Substitutions
Any combination of additional years of experience in the
proposed field of expertise plus full-time college level study in
the particular field totaling four (4) years will be an
acceptable substitute for a bachelor's degree. Additional years
of graduate level study in an appropriate field will be
considered equal to years of experience on a two-for-one basis.
Any specialized education, such as an internship, research
in any of the five areas specified in the Statement of Work,
and/or journal articles., etc., could substitute for actual work
experience.
-------
HHHHHHHHHHKHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHKHHHKKHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHKHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHKHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appointment of Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
Membership
FROM: John/Jane Doe, Project Officer
TO: Robert Redford, Contracting Officer
It is requested that the following personnel be approved for
inclusion to the TEP for the upcoming acquisition entitled "OSW
Hazardous Waste Treatment Support".
Bernie DuBoise:
Job Title:
Experience:
Education;
Lisa Sludge;
Job Title;
Experience;
Education:
Chairperson
Environmental Engineer
20 years of specialized experience in the
Hazardous Waste Treatment arena. 10 of those
years with the Office Of Solid Waste at EPA.
Currently a Project Officer assigned to contract
68-WO-lOOO dealing with similar task
requirements.
BS - Industrial Engineering at the University of
Virginia, MS - Engineering at MIT.
Member
Environmental Specialist
10 years of experience in solid waste treatment
of used oils and flammable liquids. Has worked in
OSW for the last 3 years on projects similar in
nature to the requested acquisition.
BS - Environmental Sciences at the University of
Maryland. MS - Environmental Engineering at Texas
A&M.
Chuck Trash: Member
Job Title: Computer Specialist
Experience: 5 years of experience at EPA in hazardous waste
computer modeling. Last three years have been
spent working on contract 68-W9-1000 involving
similar job tasks.
Education: BS - Computer Sciences at California
Polytechnical Institute.
All of the recommended TEP members have the relevant
expertise necessary to adequately evaluate proposals submitted in
response to the requirements of this acquisition. Consequently,
it is recommended that tney be approved for inclusion into the
Technical Evaluation Panel.
-------
-------
CONTRACTS KANAOEXZtfT KAtfUXL 3.900 CHQ 3
JUSTITICATIOM TOR OTEBSt TEAS FULL AMD OP EX COMPETITION
PART I - BACKGROUND
The Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition
(JOFOC) shall include the following background information:
1. Date;
2. Program Office;
3. Project Officer (Include Name, Title, Phone, E-mail
and Kail code);
4. Project Identification (Title, Contract Number);
5. Description of supplies or services required;
6. Period of Performance (Base year and Options) or
Date of Delivery;
7. Estimated Contract Amount (List cost for base year and
each option separately);
8. Proposed Contractor (Name, Address and Phone);
PART II - JUSTIFICATION
The Justification shall address the elements in FAR 6.303-
2(a)(2) through (5), (9) and (11) and EPAAR 1506.3. Identify the
authority listed in FAR 6.302 which permits other than full and
open competition. Provide specific support for the authority
used.
PART III - PROGRAM OFFICE DIVISION DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION
The JOFOC shall include a statement, signed and dated by the
Program Office Division Director, that certifies that any
supporting data which forms the basis for the JOFOC is complete
and accurate.
PART IV - CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION
The Contracting Officer's determination shall address the
elements set forth in FAR 6.303-2(a)(6), (7), (8) and (10). Each
JOFOC shall contain a certification, signed and dated by the CO,
which states the justification is accurate and complete to the
best of his/her knowledge and belief.
2-14-1
-------
CONTRACTS KAMAdKXZHT HAHUAL 1900 CHG 3
i/15/91
V - APPROVA
JOFOCs for procurements estimated at less than $100,000
shall be approved by a level higher than the CO; JOFOCs over
$100,000, but not exceeding $1,000,000, shall be approved by the
Competition Advocate; JOFOCs exceeding $1,000,000 shall be
approved by the Director, Procurement and Contracts Management
Division.
2-74-2
-------
-------
RXQUIST FOR ADVISORY AHD ASSISTANCE SERVICES
IT REQUEST CERTIFICATIQsl
Project Title: Technical, Programmatic, and Institutional
Assistance in the Implementation of Subtitle I of RCRA.
I have reviewed the subject Procurement Request and the
accompanying documentation and find that:
A. This requirement is for advisory and assistance services as
defined in Subpart 37.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAC
84 - 49. These services include assistance in the implementation
of regulations, policies, and programs related to the underground
storage tank program (Subtitle I). These services will not be
used: in performing work of a policy, decision-making, or
managerial nature which is the direct responsibility of agency
officialsi to bypass or undermine personnel ceilings, pay
limitations, or competitive employment procedures; contracted for
on a preferential basis to former Government employees; used under
any circumstances specifically to aid in influencing or enacting
legislation; or used to obtain professional or technical advice
which is readily available within the agency or another Federal
agency. The award of the contract will be through open
competition.
B. The required services Include technical assistance to EPA and
States, developing and delivering training programs, conducting
surveys, and providing general and research assistance. such
assistance is needtdby the underground storage tank program and will
not .necessarily" duplicate any previously performed work or
services.
C. This contract is scheduled for award by March 1, 1990. There
will not be any other contracts dedicated to the specific goals
contained in the specialiied scops of work in this requirement.
¥
Assistant Administrator, OSHER Date
------- OCR error (D:\Scanspot\Jobroot\ws2\90100000\tiff\9010002M.TIF): Saving image to "D:\Scanspot\Jobroot\ws2\90100000\tiff\9010002M.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
CONTRACTS MAHXGEMZMT MANUAL 1900 CHO 3
8/15/91
SAMPLE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL Of
ADVISORY AMD ASSISTANCE SERVICES
SUBJECT: Approval of Advisory and Assistance Services
FROMs (Assistant Administrator for Requesting Office)
THRUt David J. O'Connor, Director
Procurement and contracts Management Division
TOs Charles L. Grizzle, Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
I am requesting your approval of a proposed acquisition
involving advisory and assistance services as defined in Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-120. The proposed
acquisition, (insert title) , is necessary to support our program
in the following areas:
(describe briefly the services to be performed under the
proposed acquisition)
In accordance with OMB Circular A-120, I certify that the
services to be performed will not: 1) unnecessarily duplicate any
previously performed work or services; 2) be used in performing
work of a policy decision-making or managerial nature; 3) be used
to bypass or undermine personnel ceilings, pay limitations or
competitive employment procedures; 4) be contracted for on a
preferential basis to former Government employees; 5) be used
specifically to aid in influencing or enacting legislation; or 6)
be used to obtain professional or technical advice which is
readily available within the Agency or another Federal agency.
Accordingly, it is determined that the requested services are
appropriate and meet the requirements of OMB circular A-120, the
Federal Acquisition. Regulation 37.2, and applicable EPA guidance.
CONCUR
APPROVED
David J. O'Connor, Director
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Charles L. Grizzle, Assistant Administrator
for Administration and Resources Management
cc: contracting Officer
2-1-1
-------
t
-------
ATTACHMENT F
AWARD FEE PLAN
I. THE AWARD FEE PROCESS
The process consists of two evaluation periods, each lasting
for six consecutive months. The first period will begin on the
date of award of the contract. The award fee process consists of
four major steps as follows:
step 1: Performance Evaluation Reporting
Step 2: Performance Evaluation Summary Reporting
Step 3: Performance Evaluation Board Award Fee Package
Preparation
Step 4: Award Fee Determination.
These steps are described below.
Step 1; Performance Evaluation
The award fee process is initiated by the
Contractor Task Managers, who are responsible for
preparing Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) on
each work; assignment they have worked on (active
and closed) during the evaluation period. For
closed work assignments, PERs should be completed
as part of the work assignment closeout process,
rather than waiting until the end of the
evaluation period. For active work assignments,
they should be prepared at the end of the
evaluation period. All contractor PERs vast be
submitted to the Contractor Program Manager and to
the EPA Work Assignment Managers no latsr than
Day 2 of the award fee process.
Upon receiving the PERs from the Contractor Task
Manager, the Contractor Program Manager is
responsible for reviewing them for completeness
and accuracy. The Contractor Program Manager
should inform the Contractor Task Manager of any
modifications and ensure that they are made before
signing the PER. It is important that this be
done no later than Day 5 of the award fee process.
The EPA Work Assignment Managers (WAMs) are
responsible for reviewing the PERs generated by
, the Contractor Task Managers to identify
inconsistencies, discrepancies, and any other
problems that should be discussed. EPA WAMs are
-------
also responsible for preparing EPA PERs on all
work assignments (active and closed) implemented
during the evaluation period. EPA PERs must be-
completed by the WAMs and submitted to the EPA
Project Officer, along with the contractor PERs,
by Day 6 of the award fee process.
Upon receipt of the contractor's and EPAs PERs,
the EPA Project Officer is responsible for
reviewing them for completeness and accuracy.
Modifications should be made to EPA PERs, as
appropriate. The Project Officer should then sign
the EPA PERs and retain copies of both them and
the contractor PERs for historical and reference
purposes.
gtep 2; Performance Evaluation Summary Reporting
Upon receipt and review of the contractor's and
EPAs PERs, the Contractor Program Manager and the
EPA Project Officer are each responsible for
preparing Performance Evaluation Summary Reports,
one for CERCIA and one for RCRA work assignments.
Following completion of the summary reports, the
Contractor Program Manager and the EPA Project
Officer should meet to discuss the reports and any
significant problems or differences that may
exist. Change* may be made if appropriate.
Copies of these summary reports will become part
of the PEB Award Fee Package that is prepared by
the EPA Project Officer. The summary reports must
be finalized and ready for assembly into the PEB
Award Fee Package no later than Day 30 of the
award fee process.
Step 3: PEB AwardFee Package Preparation
Concurrently with preparing the CERCLA and RCRA
Performance Evaluation summary Reports, the EPA
Project Officers are responsible for preparing and
assembling the PEB Award Fee Package, which
contain* all the materials that the PEB will
review and evaluate in determining the amount of
award fee to recommend for the contractor.
Included in the package is information on the
number and types of work assignments issued during
the evaluation period, the level-of-effort (LQE)
hours expended, the amount of resources utilized
during the period, a copy of the Award Fee Summary
Chart, the EPA Project Officers Performance
Evaluation Summary Report, the Contractor Program
Manager's Performance Evaluation Summary Report,
the performance evaluation scoring ranges, a copy
of the Award Fes Plan, and ths calculation of
-------
available award fee. The PEB Award Fee Package
must be assembled and sent to the PEB by no later
than-Day 30 of the award fee process.
t
Step 4; Award fee Determination
Upon receipt of the PEB Award Fee Package, the PEB
is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the
contractor's performance. This must be completed
by Day 38 of the' award fee process.
Following conclusion of the PEB meeting, the EPA
Project Officer is responsible for preparing a
CERCLA/RCRA joint report of the PEB's findings and
recommendations. This report, which must be
completed by Day 55 of the process, will contain
evaluative assessments and ratings for both CERCLA
and RCRA.
within seven days of receiving the PEB's report,
the Headquarters TES Contracting Officer is
responsible for issuing an award fee notification
letter to the contractor. This should be done by
Day 65 of the award fee process. The contractor
should receive the notification by Day 68 of the
process. The contractor is then allowed to
invoice the award fee for payment. Costs for
award fee will remain in the "Estimated Costs
Outstanding11 portion in the monthly report until
the contractor receives the award fee
notification.
II. COORDINATION OF THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
PROCESS
This section describes the organization, roles, and
responsibilities of EPA and contractor personnel; the preparation
of PERs; the preparation and submission of Performance Evaluation
summary Reports; the preparation of the PEB Award Fee Package;
and the PEB review and evaluation of the contractor's
performance.
Organization. Roles and Responsibilities of EPA and Contractor
Personnel
Ther« are four distinct groups of EPA and contractor
personnel involved with the award fee performance evaluation
process:
EPA Work Assignment Managers
EPA Project Officers
Contractor Program Managers
Contractor Task Managers.
-------
The roles and responsibilities of each group are highlighted
below.
EPA Work Assignment Managers
EPA Work Assignment Managers are responsible for the
day-to-day monitoring of contractor performance in
implementing work assignments. They are also responsible
for preparing PERs on each work assignment that they have
worked on during the evaluation period. Details
concerning the preparation of PERs are discussed later in
this section.
EPA Proleet Officers
The EPA Project Officer is responsible for reviewing
all PERs, including those prepared by the contractor, to
ensure that they have been completed accurately and
fairly. The Project Officer must also ensure that the
performance ratings completed by the various Work
Assignment Managers are evaluated in a consistent manner
and that the ratings are supported by the accompanying
narrative justification. If there are problems with the
way in which PERs have been completed, the Project Officer
should notify the EPA Work Assignment Manager or the
Contractor Program Manager to resolve these problems. If
the rating, based on the narrative, needs to be adjusted,
the Project Officer should make the adjustment after
discussing it with the Work Assignment Manager. This
discussion is important to assure that the narrative is
accurate. If the PERs are satisfactory, the Project
Officer should assess the contractor's performance on the
work assignment and provide an overall performance rating.
The Project Officer should then sign the PERs and file -
them for historical and reference purposes.
Another responsibility of the EPA Project Officer is
the preparation of the Performance Evaluation Summary
Reports. These reports are discussed in detail later in
this section. Once completed, the Project Officer should
meet with the Contractor Program Manager to discuss the
content* of these reports and to resolve any problems or
differences that exist, close coordination with the
Contractor Program Manager is very important as a means of
ensuring that discrepancies in perceived contractor
performance are resolved satisfactorily.
Concurrent with development of the Performance
Evaluation Summary Reports, Project Officers also must
prepare the PEB Award Fee Package, which is discussed
later in this section. Following the PEB meeting, they
are responsible for preparing the joint PEB report of
findings and recommendations.
-------
Contractor Task Managers
Contractor Task Managers have equivalent
responsibilities to EPA Work Assignment Managers; that is,
they are responsible for preparing PERs on all work
assignments implemented during the evaluation period.
Contractor Program Managers
The Contractor Program Manager's responsibilities are
similar to those of the EPA Project Officer's. They
receive, review, modify, and sign contractor PERs, and
they prepare Performance Evaluation Summary Reports. They
do not, however, prepare the PEB Award Fee Package nor the
PEB report.
When problems are identified in PERs, all parties are
responsible for resolving these problems. Contractor and
EPA ratings for projects are not required to be the same.
The EPA Project Officer and the Contractor Program Manager
will review discrepancies.
Preparation of Award Fee Performance Evaluation Reports
PERs are required for all work assignments (active and
closed) implemented during the evaluation period. Both EPA (Work
Assignment Manager) and the contractor (Contractor Task Manager)
are required to complete these PERs. A copy of the PER from is
shown in Exhibit l. This same form will be used by both EPA and
the contractor. Also, it will be used for both CERCLA and RCRA
work assignments. Boxes are included at the top of the form to
designate whether it is EPA or contractor initiated and whether
it is for a CERCLA or RCRA work assignment* Boxes are also
provided to indicate which tasks and which milestones are being.
evaluated.
In using the PER form to evaluate the contractor's
performance on a work assignment, the evaluator should use the
four performance criteria listed on the PER as the basis for this
evaluation. These criteria are as follows:
Technical Competence
Schedule
. Cost Control
Management.
They were developed to provide a uniform basis by which to
evaluate any work performed by the contractor.
Next to each of the criteria on the PER is a box for
rating the contractor's performance. The ratings range from 5 to
I, and should be interpreted as follows:
-------
"5" - outstanding
"4" - Exceed Expectations
"3" - Satisfactory
"2" - Marginal
"1" - Unsatisfactory
Exhibit 2 provides example guidelines for using the rating
scale to score each of the criteria, in addition to rating each
Individual criterion/ the evaluator should also provide -
supporting comments to justify the rating given. It is very
important that these comments, particularly for criteria rated
high ("5") or low ("I"), include examples of how and whv
performance was either meritorious or deficient. Space is
provided on the PER for this purpose.
The PER also provides for an overall rating, which should
be used in lieu or an arithmetic average rating to allow the
evaluator to subjectively weigh the individual criteria with
respect to any given work assignment or work assignment task.
The evaluator must also prepare a narrative to describe the
contract's overall performance, which can be drawn from the
supporting comments made on each of the individual criteria.
Overall ratings should be provided by the EPA Project Officer and
the Contractor Program Manager, as well as the EPA Work
Assignment Manager and the Contractor Task Manager.
At the very bottom of the PER form is a signature block.
If the PER is being completed by EPA, it must be signed first by
the Work Assignment Manager and then by the Project Officer. If
it is being completed by the contractor, it must be signed first
by the Contractor Task Manager and then by the Contractor Program
Manager. Copies of all PERs must be maintained in EPA office
files.
In order to facilitate the preparation of PERs, both by
EPA and the contractor, it is suggested that they be completed as
soon as a work assignment has been closed, rather than waiting
until the award fee process begins. This will not only expedite
the preparation of PER», it will also prevent an excessive amount
of paperwork that otherwise would be necessary at the end of the
evaluation period. In addition, by completing the PER
immediately following the' completion of the work assignment, the
contract or'a performance will be fresh in the mind of the.
individual who is evaluating the work assignment. By waiting
until the end of the evaluation period, relevant information may
be forgotten or be more likely to be misinterpreted than if the
PER is filled out at the time when the work assignment is
completed.
Also, in order to reduce the amount of time and cost in
preparing PERs, it is strongly suggested that they be handwritten
rather than typed. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that
all handwriting is legible.
-------
Preparation of Performance Evaluation Summary Reports
Both EPA and- the contractor are responsible for preparing
typed Performance Evaluation Summary Reports after each
evaluation period. Two separate summary reports are
required— one for CERCLA work assignments and one for RCRA work
assignments. Copies of the forms used for these reports are
shown in Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. The same forms are used
by both EPA and contractor personnel in completing the summary
reports. Space is provided in the block at the top of each form
to indicate whether the report is that of EPA or that of the
contractor. Space is also provided for the contractor's name,
the contract number, and the evaluation period for which the
report is being prepared.
In preparing the summary reports, the EPA Project Officer
and the Contractor Program Manager should review and analyze the
individual work assignment PERs submitted to them by the EPA Work
Assignment Managers and Contractor Task Managers. Four pieces of
information need to be determined for each PER:
The work assignment number
The specific task that was evaluated
The estimated number of hours expended for the task
The numerical rating provided for the task.
The tasks identified in the PERs should correspond to those
included on the summary evaluation forms (note that CERCLA tasks
differ from RCRA tasks) .
With this information it will be possible to complete the
summary evaluation reports, including calculation of the total
number of work assignments carried out for each type of task, the
total number of estimated hours expended on each type of task,
and the average numerical rating for each type of task.
2 and 3 of the summary evaluation report (Narrative
Summary) are provided for the purpose of summarizing the
contractor1* overall strengths and weaknesses on each performance
evaluation criterion; that is, technical competence; scheduling;
cost control; and management. This narrative summary should be
prepared based on a review of each PER and an assessment of the
contractor's performance in addressing the technical, scheduling,
cost, and management requirements of each work assignment. An
overall average rating for each performance evaluation criterion
should also be calculated and entered on the form.
Once completed, the summary evaluation report should be
signed and dated. A signature block is provided on Page 3 of the
form for this purpose. The EPA Project Officer and Contractor
Program Manager are then responsible for getting together to
-------
review each other's reports and to discuss and resolve any
discrepancies, problems, or issues that exist.
After conclusion of the meeting between the EPA Project
officer and the Contractor Program Manager, the Performance
Evaluation Summary Reports should be prepared for assembly into
the PEB Award Fee Package. Preparation and assembly of the
summary reports should be accomplished no later than Day 30 of.
the award fee process. It is suggested that'in order to ensure
meeting this deadline, the EPA Project Officer and the Contractor
Program Manager begin preparing the summary reports immediately
upon receiving the individual PERs.
Preparation of PEB Award fea package.
The EPA Project Officer is responsible for preparing the
PEB Award Fee Package. - Both CERCLA and RCRA evaluation materials
are included in the package. Specific items that should be
included are as follows:
TES Summary for the Evaluation Period
Work assignments issued
LOE hours expended
TES Resource utilization
Evaluation period
Year-to-date
TES Award Fee Summary Chart
Project Officer's Performance Evaluation Summary
Report
CERCLA
RCRA
Contractor's Performance Evaluation Summary Report
- CERCLA
RCRA
TES Graphics
- Work assignments issued
Staff hours expended on work assignments for
CERCLA/RCRA
Dollars expended on work assignments for
CERCLA/RCRA
TES Performance Evaluation Scoring Ranges
-------
TES Award Fee Plan
Calculation of available award fee.
The Project Officer should ensure that the PEB package is
assembled and ready for submission to the PEB no later than Day
30 of the award fee process.
PEB Review and Evaluation
The PEB is responsible for evaluating the contractor's
performance by reviewing the materials contained in the PEB Award
Fee Package. Members of the PEB include the following: Section
Chief, Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE),
•Contracts Management Section; Section Chief, Headquarters
Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD); and an OWPE
CERCIA/RCRA Division Director.
Following PEB review and evaluation of the award fee
package, the EPA Project Officer is responsible for preparing a
report of the PEB's findings and recommendations covering both
CERCLA and RCRA activities. The report will serve as an official
record of the PEB meeting and is sent to the Headquarters TES
Contracting Officer in PCMD.
once the PEB Award Fee Package is received, the PEB will
have five days to review it and one day to evaluate the
contractor's performance by providing an overall score for each
criterion. The EPA Project officer will have six days to
complete the PEB report of findings and recommendations. This
PEB report should be sent to the Headquarters TES Contracting
Officer no later than day 55 of the award fee process.
Award Fee Notification
The TES Contracting Officer is responsible for preparing
an award fee notification letter to be sent to the contractor
explaining how much of an award fee the PEB has decided upon.
Accompanying this letter is a copy of the PEB report that
provides evaluation scores on each performance criterion and
explains why these scores were given. Once the contractor
receives this letter, the Government can be billed for the award
fee.
-------
EXHIBIT L
Wot* Assignment Perfc
i Evaluation Report*
Contractor
Region
RCRA/
CERCLA
Site/Facility
Task
Prime Contractor/
Subcontractor
Work
Assignment No.
Estimated
Hours
Evaluation Period
Milestones Evaluated
Prom:
To:
Performance
Criteria
Ptrt.
Rating
n-5)
Rating Justification
A. Technical
Tec
• E
OnginaWy at Product
Support (>. j.. Adh«nne» lo
3. Schedule
Priority A4ju*tm*fl«
C.
Co« MnfcmuDon
Pra^d
LOG
*ocm«c» a* Co* fraitalent
D. Management
• R«ioure» Utittutm
- Subaortneting • B«portng
- Equipment • QuiBy
P.C.'s (C.P.M.1)
Overall Rating
R.C.'s (R.M.'s)
Overall Rating
4. ExcMdi Expeeattem/
S.
EPA Primary Contact
Contractor Project Manager
EPA Regional Contact
Contractor Regional Manager
* This form is intended for both EPA and TES contractor use.
It should also be used for both RCRA and CERCLA assignments.
-------
EXHIBIT 2
RAliNG GUIDELINES f OH PERf OHMANCE EVALUA1ION CMTEHIA
RATING
MJ*ONMAMCt tVAlUAHQMCMIIMA
IfCIMCM
COMfHMU
•CMiOMC
COS!
MOMMtYSlS.
OUItT
C*
THC Ml MNMMCM M MMMEUMO
VftKCftflilk OOIIAAMO
OtUGMAI SOttUUtWMMtl
WnMQUUIMUMC,
KSKMSMtMU
SflMffSCOMfliUD
«KH»CAM
•ocauu
I Al A
lUMCAMIKHtUUCiUUJbl
10 TMt CMCMHMUM1HAH
OfMUMAUVtSIHAUDttASUlUM
C(MIHACIUH« i>»OMU
«CWMAU COS.I HHOKCIUMS
MHMVSWMMCK.D
NHkttM
tNUMTQUMn*
.MaOMCMMi.
EICfEMO
fWiCI ATOMS
UUMIIVWA&MIOViJkMHMif
Of tlftHtNU IMIHIMIMI
r»« CQNIIMC IONS (MM It*
PAtinnotrtitt*
MMHMCMC *Mf NMiC
MUMNHMHiSS
SiRVttSCQMHllUOMltAO
OffCMKOULf
StHVCiStOMMHtOAl A
Hi OUCi 0 OKI IO It*
GOWtJMMtNI IIWMtJHKiMAtlV
i SIMAIf O.CU6I moXCIOMS
ACCUMIfl* SMOWt&IMAItO
CO61C
CONIHAtlOHUUJHIi
SHOWN iu "rmiri eosi i
» UHCIIUNS UAMAtiCO
i>ftCIMM » HtSMtMC
MCOEI OH !•* SAWMCS
SATfefACIOftf
O tWtH*M^ NNINSMUIH
1 » « GOMIMC 1 QW *&! IWO (f MS
OHUMMSCHtDUUNASHM
SCHtDUU HMHOUI I>HQKII
AVAt Aikt CUSI SAtfMCS
NOI IMtM AMANIACC
or
POOHUHUMlMklf CU&l
VMOACMOMt
ONt UH A »t WfUJNI HAC IMU
AUUUAItl ». HtMl IMi M
CUSI OVttMMS AMU IME
OttAVS
COWY ItM^t VCII Ml MAM*
0» IMJUH UCHMKM UH
MANM^HIM M*AS
AOUHtiitO
SCKidutl: **i»«)l
1 Alt AS IO IIAVt WjK II 11
Millet* iMtllVKI
NtiiAIWIIYMfM. III!
1 HUHJIMI
AHAIt
iHtLM^iPM IUUM.I
CUblH«>«t in «.'. II 1114 It
OVtlWKKJ 1 l«IUNlltl«IUUUll|
NUI HNUWtMU
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1 of 3
PtRFORMANCI IVAUU/ ~ *>N SUMMARY REPORT
AwvdPMf& S'CCRCLA
EPA I 1 Contractor 1 1
Contract * Contractor Regions Evaluation Pencd
From: To:
Was contractor notified about evaluations on all W.A.s?
YM , „ ., Nfl ^ If not whynat?
Task Summary
CERCL>
RtSDonsibl« Party S«arch»«
Enforctmtnt Support S«n/ic«c
Htaltn/Environmtmai
As8»$«m*ma
Design of Errtorc«m«nt
Studies
£nforc«m«nt Ftasibilrty
Study
Spaoal Laboratory
S«rvicM
Rtvttw o! R*sponsibl«
Party Plant
Exptrt Consuttantsy
WitntssM
Data Manag«m«nt
Cost R«cov*ry
Fi«W Work
Policy and Program Support
Oversight of R«tpontibl«
Party Actions
Community Relations
Training /
Number of Work
Assignments
Total
Estimated Hours
(This Period)
Total
Average
Numerical Rating
•
Overall
Rating
This form is intended for both EPA and TES contractor us*.
-------
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Page 2 ol 3
Perkxmanca
Evaluation
Criteria _
Overall
Rating
Strengths
Weaknesses
A. Technical
Eltacltvanass of Analysis/
Originally of Products
Organization
Support (a.g.. Adhwenca to
nagutotioM and PracaduiM)
ThoiDughnaM
B. Schedule
. Besponsivanass (a g.. Wo*
PtanDavatopmant.
DafcMiablM)
Adhaianca to Established
Patiod ol Partotmanca
-------
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Page 3 ol 3
Performance
Evaluation
Criteria
Overall
Rating
Strengths
Weaknesses
C. Cost
. Bu
idQet Maintenance
Cod Minimization
IOE
Tnwel
Equipment
Accuracy of Cost Projections
D. Management
- Resouice iMualan
- Subcontracting
Ttaml
CoofdmabDn/Commuucalon
Reporting
Quality Asautanc*
Do Review
CZD
CZD
Date
-------
EXHIBfT 4
Page i of 3
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT*
AwvdFMforTES-RCRA
EPA 1 1 Contractor 1 1
Contract # Contractor Regions Evaluation Period •
From: To:
Was contractor notified about evaluations on all W.A.s?
Y»« . No Iir If not. why not?
Task Summary
RCRA
Inspection Activities
Sampling Activities
Record Review
Compliance Evaluation
Inspection
Comprehensive Monitoring
Evaluation
Case Development
Inspection
Facility Plan Reviews
Evaluation of Compliance
Enforcement Guidance/
Support Services
Health/Environmental
Assessment
Special laboratory
Services
Data Management
Policy and Program
Support
Training
Number ol Work
Assignments
Total
Estimated Hours
(This Period)
Total
Average
Numerical Ratirg
-
"
Overall
Rating
This form is inwnded for both EPA and TES contractor us*.
-------
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Page 2 of 3
Performance
Evdbation
Criteria
Overall
Baling
Strengths
Weaknesses
A. Technical
EitediveneM of Analytic/
Orioinalily of Products
Organization
Support (e.g.. Adherence to
fUgulrtorn end Procedures)
Thoroughness
B. Schedule
• RespomivwteM (e.g.. Work
Plan Pe^etapment.
Adherence to Established
Period of Performance
-------
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
Page 3 of 3
Performance
Evaluation
Criteria
Overall
Rating
Strengths
Weaknesses
C. Cost
Budget Maintenance
Cod Minimisation
Project
ICE
Trami
Equipment
Accuracy of Cost Piojedion*
D. Management
Resource Utilization
Travel
Coordination/Communication
Reporting
OuaMy A**uranc«
Data Review
CZ3
Date
-------
AWARD FEE AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN
Contract No. _
I. contract Award and Time Period
The contract entitled Technical Support for the Developmarn;
and Implementation of Regulatory and Nonreoulatorv Programs
for Solid & Hazardoua Waste Management; was awarded
to __________________ with an effective date
of _ under Contract No. .
•*
II. Fee: Amount and Distribution
The contract includes a provision which enables the Agency
to provide the Contractor with an incentive in the form of
an earned financial reward based upon an evaluation of
Contractor's performance. This is the award fee. The
contract also provides for a base or "fixed1* fee. A brief
description of each fee type follows:
A.
The base fee compensates the contractor for risk.
upon final negotiation of the contract, the base fee amount
does not vary with performance. The Contractor shall
include amounts for base fee on monthly vouchers based upon
incurred costs. The base fee for this contract is %.
B. Award Fee
The award fee is an award amount in addition to the base fee
that may be earned by the Contractor, in whole or in part,
upon an evaluation by EPA of the Contractor's performance.
The award fee seeks to motivate the Contractor to provide
excellence in performance of activities evaluated both
collectively and individually, in areas which include, but
are not limited to, technical quality, editorial quality,
timeliness and cost effectiveness of performance. The
amount of award fee available during a given evaluation
period is a function of the LOE hours delivered during that
period. For this contract, the award fee is %.
Contractor performance will be evaluated every _i_ months
witfe the) first evaluation period beginning at the time of
contract award.
-------
III. Definitions and Raaponsibilitjies
A. Award FM Plan; a plan developed by the P«rformanca
Evaluation Board (PEB), which identifies various categories
of-performance and clearly describes the criteria used by
th« PEB to evaluate contractor performance and the relative
weights of these criteria.
B. Award Fee Peel; that portion of the contract fee set
forth in the contract as the amount of fee available to be
awarded for contractor performance in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the award fee plan.
C. Evaluation Coordinator (EC); an Agency official
appointed to receive and assess Performance Monitor reports
and Contractor self-assessments, and to present such
Contractor performance information to the PEB. The Project
Officer shall serve in ti;is capacity.
D. Fee Pete rumination Official rFPQ)! the Chief of the
Contracting office (in most instances, the EPA Branch
Chief), who reviews the recommendations of the PEB and makes
the final determination of the award fee.
£• PEB Executive Secretary! an Agency official who
prepares the official PEB report. The Project Officer shall
serve in this capacity.
F. Performance Evaluation Board fPEBlt a board of
Government officials which performs the in-depth review of
Contractor performance and recommends an appropriate fee to
the FDO.
G. Performance Event; a discrete happening or series of
related happenings occurring during the course of
performance which indicate* or represents contractor
performance. In most instances, performance event is
equivalent to vork assignment.
H. Performance Monitor; a Government employee designated
to observe, assess, and report the performance of the
contractor on a continuous basis. Technical performance
monitors) report on the technical aspects of performance.
They are, in most instances, the work assignment managers.
Th» business performance monitor reports on business aspects
of performance and is, in most instances, the Contracting
Officer or Contract Administrator.
I. Period of Evaluation; a segment of the contract's
period of performance specified in the award fee plan which
will be evaluated by the PEB for purposes of establishing
the award fee for that period.
-------
IV. computation of Award r^j
A. The amount of the award fee available in any evaluation
p«riod is determined by applying the ratio of total award
- fee pool for the contract to the total technical labor
hours to be furnished under the contract and multiplying
this by the hours delivered.
Stated as a formula, the award fee is computed as. follows
TOTAL AWARD FEE POOL LOB HOURS DELIVERED DURING AWARD FEE POOL
TOTAL LOE HOURS X PERFORMANCE PERIOD - AVAILABLE FOR
PERIOD
B. Example;
1. Evaluation Period I:
Total LOE Hours for Baae Pertod: hrs.
Total Award Fee Pool for Total contract: $
Hours delivered during Evaluation
Period I: hrs.
hrs • $ Award Fe«
hrs available for
Period I
2. Evaluation Period lit
Total LOE Hours remaining in hrs. - hrs
Base Period: hrs.
Award Fee available after Period 1:5 -$
Hours delivered during Eval. Period IX: hrs.
hrs - $ Award Fee available
hrs for Performance
Period ZZ
-------
V. Award Fee Determination Procedure
Each work assignment is given an identification nuab«r by the
Project Officer. Each work assignment consists of one-or acre
Performance Events (PE). A performance event nay be the
entire work assignment or it may be a portion, or milestone,
of a work assignment. The PO may designate Performance
Monitors (PM) to monitor the PEs and evaluate the Contractor's
performance against the criteria described in Section VJ. if
the PO does not make this designation, the Performance Monitor
shall be the Work Assignment Manager for the Work Assignment
or Performance Event in question. The Project Officer will
serve as the general performance monitors. The contractor
assigns its own performance monitors and will submit self
evaluation performance work sheets at the end of each
evaluation period.
A. Contractor's Mqnitor'-s Reasons ibil it i«f*
o Evaluation of the Contractor's performance against the
performance criteria for each performance event
completed during the evaluation period.
o Submission of self-evaluation report to the Project
Officer with appropriate justification and
documentation within 10 days after the end of the
evaluation period.
8. EPA*a Performance Monitor's Responsibilities^
o Evaluation of the Contractor's performance against the
performance criteria for each performance event
completed during the evaluation period.
o Submission of a separate Work Assignment manager
Evaluation Report, with appropriate justifications fojr
each performance event to the Project Officer no later
than 10 days after the end of the evaluation period.
All ratings must be fully justified with a narrative
rating.
C. Evaluation Coordinator*s Responsibilities;
a Receipt and organization of Contractor Worksheets,
Performance Monitor Worksheets, and summary reports
from the PO;
•
o Explanation of any discrepancies between the EPA and
the Contractor's evaluation and recommended resolution
of such discrepancies.
o Calculation of a single performance evaluation rating
for each work assignment. This rating is a weighted
average of the ratings assigned to the five
performance criteria i.e., technical quality,
compliance with schedule, compliance with budget,
editorial quality, and communications.
-------
Issuance of a briefing package to all members of the
PCB no lat«r than 25 days after th« end of the
•valuation period. The package shall be sent to al
PEB- voting members no latar than five days before the
PEB is schadulad to meet and shall include:
1) Contractor Self-Evaluation Worksheets and
Performance Monitor Worksheets.
2) Recommend ratings for all technical criteria for
each performance event with full rationale for
recommendations where EPA/Contractor rating
discrepancies exist.
3) Table summarizing award fee percentages and
amounts received on previous evaluation periods.
4) Table summarizing ratings for all performance
events and all evaluation criteria for each
performance event as recommended by the
performance event monitor, the Contractor, and the
Project officer.
5) Amount of award fee available for the period and
recommended award fee (stated as a percentage and
also in dollars.)
Presentation of a briefing on the evaluation data to
the PCB at its meeting no latar than 30 days after the
end of the evaluation period.
Preparation of a summary report of the PEB proceedings
no later than 45 days after the end of the evaluation
period discussing the following items:
1) an overall summary of the contractor's
performance?
2) significant improvements or deficiencies in the
contractor's performance sine* the previous
•valuation period;
3) th« nature of any unresolved discrepancies/ the
resolution actions taken, and th« results;
4) an overall percentage rating based on the
composite scopes recommended by the PCB.
-------
The- Performance Evaluation Board fPEBl R««poMibili^fjir
o Receipt and review of evaluation materials forward**
by €he Evaluation Coordinator.
o M««t within 30 calendar day* of the and of the
•valuation period to review th« EC's recommended
percent and dollar amount of available award fea
earned for performance for each evaluation criteria
during the evaluation period.
o Determination of the recommended award fee to be sent
to the Fee Determination Official.
o Modification, with appropriate justification, of any
evaluation procedure or calculation.
o Revision of the Performance Evaluation Plan to
redirect performance emphasis.
o Preparation of the PEB report no later than 45 days
after the end of the evaluation period.
Responsibilities of the fee Determination Official!
o Ensure that the PEB performs its responsibilities in a
professional and timely manner and execution of the
award fee modification no later than 60 days after the
end of the evaluation period.
-------
performance ^valuation Critagia . . •
The following five performance criteria will b* used to
evaluate the contractor's performance and by the Performance
Evaluation Board to recommend the amount of award fee earned,
Technical Quality:
Compliance with Schedule: 25 %
Compliance with Budget: 20 * . '
Editorial Quality: 20 4
Communications: 10 %
The following is a brief description of the factors to be
considered when assigning a rating for each criterion:
(a) Technical Quality! the contractor is expected to
perform all work assignments in a competent and
professional manner. This criterion relates to the
manner in which the task is approached as well as to its
ultimate disposition. The following elements will be
considered in evaluating technical quality:
1) Appropriateness of technical approach;
2) Clarity and completeness off work plans;
3) Organization and utility of interim and final
products in relation to final objectives of work
assignment; .
4) Substantiation of assumptions and calculations;
5) Appropriateness of assigned contractor personnel
to accomplishment work assignment objectives;
6) Flexibility and quality of performance in
"emergency1* situations or in an environment of
fluctuating priorities;
7) Consistency in and ability to analyze and resolve
technical issues;
t) Demonstrated understanding of regulatory environ-
merit, procedural requirements, and effective
utilization of guidance materials and technical
resource documents;
9) Demonstration of originality and creativity.
-------
(b) Compliance with Schedules; This criterion addresses the
contractor's ability to deliver products on time and
implement all aspects of the project in a timely
manner. The following considerations illustrate this
criterion:
1) Delivery of intermediate and final products on
schedule;
2) Minimization of the displacement of other ongoing
projects to accommodate critical work
assignments. Effectiveness of communications to
EPA regarding 1) the impacts that new assignments
will have on meeting deadlines for ongoing work
and 2) any other schedule slippages;
3) Timeliness of submission of support data and
administrative documents such as progress,
financial, and performance event reports;
4) Assignments completed on schedule if quick
turnaround or ahead of schedule if not;
5) Adherence to established work priorities.
(c) compliance with Budget; This criterion reflects the
Contractor's ability to deliver products and services at
represented cost and to the most cost-effective means of
accomplishing a given assignment. The following
considerations illustrate this criterion:
1) Budget maintenance (hours and dollars) i.e.,
extent to which approved work plan hour and dollar
approved amounts are adhered to; - -
2) Adherence to the hourly rates bid in the
contractor's best-and-final cost proposal;
3) Cost management of subcontractors;
4) Cost minimization i.e., development of creative
approaches to problem-solving, use of existing
information and other resources to minimize
overall cost to the Agency for the accomplishment
of vork assignment objectives.
-------
(d) Editorial Quality; The contractor must communicate
effectively providing useful, concise, and substantia
accurate reports, studies, summaries, letters, .
memoranda, and other documents. The editorial quality,
such as organization, content, and presentation at
meetings is expected to meet high standards. The
quality of written and orally transmitted products of
this project reflect the contractor's representation o
EPA and affect the intended recipients' acceptance.
Typical elements of this criterion include:
1) Clarity and completeness of work plans,*
2) organization, editorial perfection, legibility,
and neatness of written or printed communications
reports;
3) Clarity and tiffectiveness of oral presentations.
(*) comnunieationa; The contractor is expected to keep EPA
appraised of its activities in a timely manner. Formal
communication channels, such as regular meetings, should
be effective and supplemented by informal and
courteey-level communication. The effectiveness of such
communication is judged by timeliness and degree of
awareness of EPA personnel of planned and ongoing
project activities and by the contractor's ability to
recognize and resolve communication problems.
-------
RATING GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
RATING
OUTSTANDING
TECHNICAL
CMAUT*
O TWDUGH BPFKHVB
DMouxnvi
UJ
O RESULTS MM ESTABLISH
STATE OF THE ART
APPROACH TO ADDRESS-
DC PROGLfMS
O SIGNIFICANTLY
ED GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
O QUALITY MS ABOVE
AVERAGE OF EXPEW-
BCB HTIH SDfllAR
TVFB OONTRACTCRS
OVBI1MBMST
HO VEABS
SOJEXlJLe
O ORIGINAL SCHHULE
MS ier mm cur-
RESPQN-
O SERVICES OMPLBTED
SIGNIFXCAKFLV
AICAD OF
O ORIGINAL SCHEHJLE
HAS »er wrm ABOVE
AVBtAGB RESPONSIVE-
O SDIVICES OQNPLEIS)
AICAD OF SCHEDULE
BUDGET
O SERVICES COMPLETED
AT A SIGNIFICANTLY
COST TO THE
THAN
ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED
BASH) ON OOKERACIQRS
O ACCURATE OOST PRD-
JBCnONS ALWAYS
HDVIDB)
O SERVICES COMPLETED
ATA REDUCED ODST TO
OS GOVEfMEMT THAN
ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED
COST PROJECTIONS
ACCURATELY SHOW
ESTIMATED COST
O CONTRACTOR EFFORTS
SHOWN TO MINIMIZE
COSTS
EDITORIAL
QUALITY
O ALL OUTPUTS OF
SUPERIOR ORGA-
NIZATION AND
MUTING
O CLEAR, CONCISE
TEXT
O MOST OUTPUTS
OF SUPERIOR
ORGANIZATION
COMMUNICATIONS
O ALWAYS COMJ-
NICATES TIMELY
Si EFFECTIVELY .
WITH PO « HAM
O MOST COMMUNI-
CATIONS ARE
TIMELY &
EFFECTIVE
O MOST PROGRESS
REPORTS ARE
VERY INFaeNA-
TTVE
O COMMUNICATES
WITH MAM AT
MINIMUM BY
BY PHONES ON
WEEKLY BASIS
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
RATING
SATISFACTORY
O QUALITY IAS AVERAGE
OP EXPERIENCE WITH
SIMILAR
TOACKBS OH*
PAST no
MARGINAL
IMSATISFAC-
TORY
QUALITY
O QUALITY WAS BELOW
AVERAGE OF EXPERIENCE
WITH SIMILAR TYPE
CONTRACTORS OVER HE
PAST TJO YEARS
o LACK OF natacAL
OQNPeKMCE EVIDENT IN
ANY Or
CAL OR
SCHEDULE
O ORIGINAL SCHEDULE
IAS MET WITH
ACCEPTABLE RESPON-
SIVENESS
O SERVICES COMPUTED
AHEAD Of SCHEDULE
o ORIGINAL SCHEDULE
WAS NOT HBT AND
LACKING
O SERVICES ODMPLBIED
BEHIND
tumour
WARNING OR JUSTI-
FICATION
O ORIGINAL SCHEDULE
IAS NOT MOT AND
RESPONSIVENESS WAS
O ACTIVITIES COMPLE-
TED SO LATE AS TO
HAVE RESULTED IN
LOSS OR NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED PROGRAM
BUDGET
o COST WAS REASONABLE
CONSIDERING SCOPE OF
EFFORT
O COST EXPENDITURE t
PROJECTIONS IN
MONTHLY REPORT RE-
FLECT PERFORMANCE
o AVAILABLE COST
SAVINGS NOT TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF
O POOR OR UNTIMELY
COST PROJECTIONS
O ACTIVITIES COMPLETED
AT RATE DWGNSISTENT
WITH THE ORIGINAL
O COST PROJECTIONS
WITH OVER BUDGET OR
UNDER EUDGETNOT
PROVIDED
EDITORIAL
QUALITY
o oumns ARE
SATISFACTORILY
ORGANIZED AND
WOTTQI
ARE OF
MARGINAL USE
DUE TO ORGANI-
ZATIONAL, WRIT-
TEN, OR PROOF-
ING DEFICIEN-
CIES
O OUTPUTS REQUIRE
RfNRmTNG OF
SANE PORTIONS
O CONSISTENTLY
POOR ORGANIZA-
TION WRITING
MAKE OUTPUTS
UNUSABLE WITH-
OUT MAJOR WORK
COMMUNICATIONS
o GENERALLY
MAINTAINS GOOD
COMMUNICATION
BY PHONE OR
o PROGRESS RE-
PORTS ARE
GENERALLY ON
TIME t ARE
INFORMATIVE
O FAILED TO KEEP
PO fc WAM IN-
FORMED OF ONE
SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEM
O PROGRESS RE-
PORTS ARE
OFTEN LATE OR
ARE SOMETIMES
NOT CLEAR
O DOES NOT MAIN-
TAIN RBGULAR
COMMUNICA-
TIONS
O FAILS 1O CON-
FINN DECISIONS
O MISUNDERSTANDS
INSTRUCTIONS
OR OBJECTIVES
o OJiSISTOfTLY
FAILS IN-
FORM I MAM
-------
Rating
Each of the performance criteria outlined above will be rated
using the following system:
A. *" Rating Ad-iactive Award F«« S'a Earned
5 Outstanding 100%
4 Exceeds Expectations 80%
3 Satisfactory 60%
2 Marginal 30%
l Unsatisfactory o%
EPA's Performance Monitors and the contractor will
independently rate each of the performance criteria on a scale
of 1 through 5 and will, in addition, provide an overall
rating for the performance event (work assignment) on the same
rating scale, taking into_account the weights assigned by the
four performance criteria'. Eifilx rating assigned to a
performance criterion shall ba fully supported bv a narrative
•Justification providing the rationale for the assigned score..
The net evaluation for the performance event shall coincide
with the weighted average of the ratings accorded the
performance criteria for that event, unless the performance
monitor can substantiate otherwise.
Attached to this Award Fee Plan is the following form that
will be used in the Award Fee Process:
{fork Assignment Performance Evaluation Worksheet
Determination of Award Fee
All of the scoring, evaluation forms, and recommendations
developed under this Award Fee will serve as tools for the Fee
Determination Official to use in making the decision for the
amount of award fee. Although the Fee Determination official
(FDO) vill strongly consider the information presented by the
PEaV it should be noted that the FOO is not bound in any way
by any of the scoring, evaluation forms, or recommendations
provided. • ,
-------
WORK ASSIGNMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION WORKSHEET
1) Contract Ko.:
2) Work Assignment No.:.
3) Evaluation Period:.
4) Project Officer (PO): Kant Anderson
5) Work Assignment Manager (WAM):
6) WA Hours Delivered this Period:
7) Total Award Fee Pool Available:
CONTRACTOR'S WAN'S RATING PC'S RECONCILED
SELF-EVALUATION RATING
CRITERION fl - 51 fl - 5) fl - 5)
Technical
Quality
Schedule
Budget
Editorial
Quality
Coaaun ications
Signature of Contractor Date
Signature of WAM Date
Signature of PO Date
;
PO's Ration*!* for Reconciliation of Discrepancies between WAN and
Contractor*
-------
CONTRACTOR AMD WAM'S RATIMC JUSTTFIgATTnn
CRITERION
Technical
Quality
(25%)
Compliance
with Schedule
(25%)
Compliance
with Budget
(20%)
Editorial
Quality
(20%)
Communications
(10%)
RATING
i
RATING JUSTIFICATION
.
-
-
-------
-------
3 EPA
Designation and Appointment of Project Officer/
Work Assignment Manager/Delivery Order Officer
(For Othtr Th»n Smttt Purchmsts)
Not*: This form it not • Contracting Officer warrant. Delivery Order Officers and Administrative Delivery
Order Officers require a warrant of Contracting Officer authority. Any request for a Delivery Order Officer
warrant must be accompanied by the additional information required in Chapter 8 of the Contracts Manage-
ment Manual.
1» Nama of Nominaa
c. Organization
ft®
to. Titi*
a. Talaprfona
f. Yaart of Convict Expananca
2. Tha nomination it for:
P^J Projact Off iear
LJ Work Ataignmant Managar
d Dalivary Ordar Officar
LJ Admim«trativa Oalivary Ordar Offiear
LJ Dahvary Ordar Projan Officar
3. Tha Nominaa HM:
a. Comptaiad tha baaw Profact Offiear Court*
b. Comptatad tha Contract Admintnratton Course
c. Incorpornad appropriata contract manaoamant
critaria in poaiiioo Oaacrtptiofl and parformanca
standard. (If eriuri» /MM net 0aan «ncarporara((
r/wy mutt Aa tnetrportitd witfttn 30 dtp* of
d. if tha nominaa ha* not oamptatad tha ttuic Pro*
tact Offiear Couma or tna Contract Adrmrut-
trition Couraa. hat a waivar or intarim
cartification boon prowdad
or t it "He." or
Yaa No
3 a
s a
a a
*n*wmr to ntm a it "No.
, Emmatad Dollar Amount of Contract Work AMio/imam. or Dalwary Ordar
. Nomination is for /Cnac* ona/.
naw contract, work aangnmant. or dalivwv ordar amrtlad
• changa m tha Projaa Offiear. Work Aaaignmam Manaoar. or Oa4i«ary Ordar Offiear on Contract No.
fit tpotictblo. f/>* work iwgnmor* n*./rfa**ary oroar /to. it.
C«rttfi cation
The undersigned nomine* and requesting official certify that the designation of this
nominee complies with the workload limitations and other requirements set forth in
Chapter 7 of the Contracts Management Manual.
6a. Signatura~of Nominaa
DuOaia
u^.
J--7 1'
?a. Signatura of Naquatiina Official
b. Nama and Titta
DEVER2AUZ BARNES, DIRECTOR
Permlte & State PrograaM Divialon
c. Data:
^rgnatura of Aflprovat Official
(Contnct*
to. Nama and Tula
c. Data;
CM form 1tOO-eS (i-M)
OHIciat Contract Pito Copy
-------
-------
PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY CERTIFICATIONS
FOR PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS
As a condition of serving as a procurement official, I
(typed or printed name)
hereby certify that I am familiar with the provisions of
subsections 27(b), (c), and (e) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 USC 423) as amended by section 814 of
Public Law 101-189. I further certify that I will not engage in
any conduct prohibited by such subsections and will report
immediately to the contracting officer any information concerning
a violation or possible violation of subsections 27 (a), (b),
(d), or (f), of the Act and applicable implementing regulations.
A written explanation of subsection 27 (a) through (f) has been
made available to me. I understand that should I leave the
Government during the conduct of a procurement for which I have
served as a procurement official, I have a continuing obligation
under section 27 not to disclose proprietary or source selection
information relating to that procurement and a requirement to so
certify.
SIGNATURE OF PROCUREMENT OFFICIAL
j
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
j
DATE
.
OFFICIAL TELEPHONE NUMBER
.
OPTIONAL FORM 33(9-90)
-------
r-
swavia rr
Of
-------
STATEMENT OP WORK
WHAT IS THE STATEMENT OF WORK?
The next phase in the presolicitation process is the
preparation and submission of the Statement of Work (SOW). The
SOW is the heart of the procurement and is one of the most
important elements of the contract. The purpose of the SOW is to
provide a detailed description of specified requirements needed
to fulfill the goals of the Agency. This is accomplished by
setting forth actual minimum requirements as opposed to the
desires of the Program Office. In order to attain these
requirements, the SOW MUST be written in a clear, unambiguous,
and precise manner.
The following elements should be incorporated in an SOW:
p. A clear and complete description of the required
objectives;
2 Background information relevant to the requirement;
o. Any special technical considerations;
o. A detailed description of technical requirements, and
o. A description of the reporting requirements and any
other deliverable items.
A METHOD OT APPROACH WHEN PIAKKIKQ THE STATEMENT OT WORK
Before writing the statement of work, it is necessary for
the writer-to arrange the facts in a rational sequence to reduce
the likelihood of error or omission. One method of achieving
this objective; im gathering data to be reviewed and making
decisions on- the data gathered.
The following are suggested steps when developing a SOW:
Step l: Identify the contract objectives, services and large
segments of the work necessary to accomplish the
mission.
Step 2: Break all major objectives and services into smaller
tasks.
-------
Step 3: Examine these tasks in terms of "input" (What is
needed), the steps required in doing the job, and
"output" (what the work will produce).
Step 4: Consider the use of facilities, equipment and material
specifying whether the Government or the contractor will
furnish the resources. In addition, special
qualifications, skills, certifications, educational
accomplishments, and experience required, by task,
should be considered before a reasonable estimate of
contract costs could be made.
Step 5: Establish performance standards by which work will
be measured.
Step 6: Review the various EPA procedures, regulations, and laws
that may have a bearing on the work to be done. These
directive documents should be screened before being
included in the SOW.
Step 7: Describe ways in which the value of each task can be
determined. Values should be placed on all tasks,
listing in descending order of importance.
THINGS TO CONSIDER WREN WRITING THE STATEMENT OF WORK
1. A SOW should be clear and accurate. Your requirement
must be described fully enough to enable the contractor to
perform satisfactorily with minimal informal direction. When
deciding "HOW KOCH" information is "ENOUGH", put yourself in the
position of a contractor qualified to fill your requirement.
Then ask yourself, "Could I do this work based on the information
provided?" Essentially, a contractor should not be made to draw
inferences about the tasks to be completed.
2. Your SOW is also the basis for preparation of offers by
prospective contractors and the evaluation of these offers by the
Government* Therefore, requirements, which are not understood in
the same way by offerers and the Government, may cause confusion
leading to communication problems, possible delays, and potential
protests.
3. A SOW must describe the Government's actual minimum
requirements. In service-type contracts, minimum requirements
cover the skills, talents and expertise needed to accomplish the
required tasks.
-------
USB OF WQRPB
The SOW >ay be read and interpreted uniformly by people with
varying backgrounds. Therefore, sows must be worded so that it
can be read and understood by legal, pricing, procurement and
contract administration, as well as technical personnel, both
contractor and Government. It is a good idea to use conventional
language to the fullest practical extent. This does not mean
that technical terminology must be eliminated, but it should be
fully explained.
A uniform understanding of the contractor's responsibilities
is necessary to administer the contract and to accept or reject
the end product. All requirements where compliance or
performance is binding on the contractor must be expressed in
mandatory language and must be easily distinguishable from
general or background information. For example. The words
"shall", "may", "should" and "will" have specific meanings.
"Shall" is imperative or mandatory; "should" and "may"
permissible or optional. "Will" is generally only used to
express a declaration or purpose on the part of the Government as
"the Government will provide "
Keep in mind that the contractor's performance is evaluated
against the mandatory requirements of the SOW. Therefore, your
choice of words determines whether or not the contractor is or is
not in compliance.
When composing the statement of work, remember that the SOW
becomes a part of the contract and is a contractually binding
document on both the contractor and the Government. Since
written words translate into cost and profit, every word will be
scrutinized, and, if possible, interpreted to the contractor's.'
advantage. The writer of the SOW must define and express each
requirement so that the contractor's advantage does not become
the government's disadvantage.
Style. Style is described as a method of expressing ideas
in phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. Technical style is the way
the writer assembles the technical information into an exact
statement of facts. SOW style revolves around the necessity for
technical accuracy. The writer must strive to include all the
essential information in the simplest presentation.
Language. The language in a SOW must be exact and concise.
Every effort must be made to use the simplest words, phrases, and
sentences possible, so that anyone who reads the SOW can
understand its meaning, and avoid the risk of misinterpretation.
-------
Ambiguity. Perhaps one of the biggest causes of
disagreement in a SOW results from the use of indefinite,
ambiguous terms, and words with a double-meaning. If ambiguity
is present, a court generally holds the party that drew up the
contract responsible. Since the government writes its contracts,
it is responsible for any ambiguity that may arise.
Misused Words and Phrases. Often the writer inadvertently
changes an intended meaning in the SOW through the misuse of
certain words and phrases. The following are designed to
eliminate some of the misuse:
(a) Use of "shall" and "vill". The term "shall" is used to
specify that a provision is binding. The word "will" is used to
express declaration of future action on the part of the
contractor.
(b) Use the emphatic form of the verb. That is, tell the
contractors they must or must not do something. The emphatic
form of the verb will insure that the contractors are given
directions, not suggestions.
(c) Do not use "any,11 "either,'* "and/or." These words imply
a choice that the contractor may take, it is better to avoid
them unless a choice is to be made. The word "both" can often be
substituted for those words.
(d) The use of pronouns is usually regarded as dangerous in
the SOW. It is better to repeat the noun and avoid
misinterpretation.
(e) Consistent terminology. The same words and phrases
must be used throughout the SOW. This is especially true when
referring to technical terms and items.
(f) When numerals are used on the drawing and
illustrations, use them in the SOW, rather than spelling out the
number.
Spelling. Most words have only one acceptable spelling;
however, in the English language there are words that can be
spelled several ways. To avoid misunderstanding, adopt the
standard spelling.
Punctuation. To keep the SOW clear, use simple, short, and
concise sentences, so that only the minimum punctuation is
needed. A well-planned word order require a minimum of
punctuation. A rule for the writer should be: When extreme
punctuation is necessary, rewrite the sentence.
-------
Abbreviation*. For the writer, abbreviations serve as a form
of shorthand. Abbreviations can make complex terms easy and
precise. However, many misunderstandings also arise from the use.
of abbreviations because the reader is not always familiar with
them. The first time an abbreviation is used in text, show it in
parenthesis () immediately after the spelled-out word or phrase.
This readily defines the abbreviation for further use.
sentences. Clarity should be the writer's major concern.
The writer must try to construct logical sentences that are exact
and concise. It is better to eliminate a long and involved
sentence by rearranging it into two or three short, simple
sentences limited to a single idea or thought. Good writing of
any type is dependent upon natural order. The word order of a
sentence tells the reader the function of each word in the
sentence. The simple sentences in a SOW are based on the
traditional order of subject-verb-complement or object.
Paragraphs. Use a paragraph to state a single idea and
elaborate on it. Although it may appear anywhere, it should
usually be at the beginning so that the reader can grasp it
immediately. The topic sentence is the framework to which other
sentences are added to develop and support the original idea. The
ideal length of a paragraph will vary; however, it is generally
accepted that the maximum should be from 80 to 100 words.
-------
HOW CHECKLIST
APPLY THIS TEST TO YOUR SOW
1. Is the contract-desired output expressed in clear, simple,
concise, and legally enforceable terms?
2. Was a format used that presented the specified tasks in
an easily understood manner?
3. Were determinations 'made as to what exhibits will help
convey to the contractor the job that needs to be done?
4. Is it sufficiently specific to permit a prospective
contractor to identify the manpower and resources
necessary to accomplish the job?
5. Are any references applicable? Fully or partially? If so,
are they properly cited, and do they conform to the
requirements of the work description?
6. Is general information separated from direction so that
background information, suggested procedures are clearly
distinguishable from the contractor's responsibilities?
7, Are sentences written so that there are not questions of
whether the contractor is to be obligated? That is, "the
contractor shall do this work", not "this work will be
required1*?
8. Are specific duties of the contractor stated in such a
way that he knows what is required and his compliance
with the requirements can be measured?
9. Can the contractor's progress be measured to insure
compliance with the SOW intent?
-------
ATTACHMENT A
PA01 1
JANUARY Iff0
STATEKEHT OF WORK
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this requirement is to provide a hotline that
quickly responds to questions related to the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Underground
Storage Tanks (UST), the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and the Chemical Emergency Preparedness (CEPP) Community-
Right-to-Know/Title III program. The hotline will be the
mechanism for EPA's response to inquiries from the public and
regulated community; the referral point for document
availability; the dissemination of changing information; and the
primary means for answering factual questions on EPA regulation*
and policies.
Hotline personnel shall interact with EPA technical
personnel and the public as well as serve Federal, State and
local governments. Hotline staff shall be required to coordinate
with EPA technical, legal and policy staff to research answers to
questions received, and to provide timely, accurate, factual,
complete and courteous responses to callers. The hotline will
maintain reference files and training programs in support of the
aforementioned programs. During the course of one year, the
Hotline will answer approximately 175,000 questions. The present
Hotline has 36 telephone lines and is operated by 35 telephone
operators/information specialists.
I. GENERAL OPERATIONS
The contractor shall operate the RCRA/Superfund Industrial
Assistance^and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know .
Information^Hotlines Monday through Friday, from the hours of
8:30 A.M. t*»>7i30sP.M., Eastern Standard time, excluding Federal
holiday* an* any other days the EPA is closed. The contractor
shall make arrangements to respond to all callers as efficiently
as possible. Hotline telephones lines shall not be shut down for
any reason other than fire alarm, without prior approval of the
Project Officer or the Contracting Officer. Deviations from this
schedule shall be approved, in writing, by the Project Officer
prior to action. The Project Director, or his designee, shall be
on duty during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and shall, if
necessary, answer the hotline telephone.
-------
ATTACHMBIT &
PAQB 2
JANUARY 1100
The contractor shall be responsible for implementing, updating
and maintaining an automated documents list, which shall contain'
relevant and current RCRA, UST, CERCLA, Superfund and CEPP
documents, incorporating the EPA Library publications in order to
accurately accommodate telephone and written document requests.
The contractor shall maintain automated mailing lists at EPA's
request.
The contractor shall be responsible for updating and
maintaining the manual information/reference library which is the
primary source of factual information to respond to questions.
The contractor shall refer callers with misdirected, legal or
highly technical questions to the appropriate EPA staff, state.
Federal agencies or other Hotlines as necessary. Prior to an EPA
referral, the contractor shall attempt to obtain the accurate,
factual answer for the caller. Any legal and/or highly technical
question that cannot be readily answered from the information/
reference library shall be referred to the appropriate EPA
personnel for response. The contractor shall not provide an
answer to these .questions until a written response is received
from the appropriate EPA personnel.
ZZ. PERSOHNEL
The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining adequate
qualified staffing at all times to answers the telephones. The
contractor shall be required to replace personnel (either
temporary or permanent) with persons with comparable
qualifications and are approved by the Project Officer.
All hotline personnel shall be required to identify themselves
as contractor personnel when answering the telephone.
ZZX. TACILITIBfl AVD EQUIP
The contractor shall be required to provide the facility to
house the hotline.
The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining a
telephone system that will facilitate all callers to the hotline.
This telephone system should be in place and operational within
forty-five (45) calendar days, but not to exceed sixty (60)
calendar days, after contract award as precipitated by the
telephone company.
-------
ATTACHMENT &
PAGE 3
JANUARY 1990
XT. TRAINING OF PERSONNEL
The contractor shall be required to train telephone
operators/information specialists to answer RCRA, CERCLA, UST,
SARA and Title III questions from industry; Federal State and
local governments; and the general public. Telephone operators/
information specialists shall be required to attend briefings by
EPA personnel on new regulations and policies to ensure accurate,
factual and consistent hotline responses.
Training modules will be provided by the government (listed
in ATTACHMENT E). The Contractor shall be required to update
these modules on an on-going basis for the telephone operators/
information specialists' use. The contractors shall instruct the
telephone operators/information specialist on how to use the
training modules.
t
y. TASKS
The contractor shall provide the following types of tasks
for the general operation of the hotline.
1. The contractor shall meet with the Project Officers on
an as-needed basis to resolve questions, issues and problems
relevant to the operation of the hotline and to ensure an
appropriate information exchange.
2. The contractor shall prepare weekly memoranda for the
Project Officers that highlight current topics as reflected by
questions to the hotline.
3. The contractor shall prepare caller-trends, analyses,
and reports on RCRA, CERCLA, UST, and Title III calls as
requested by the Project Officers.
4. The contractor shall maintain logbooks that record the
date of the call; subject matter of questions; and the response
given. Tb« information recorded by the contractor shall be
incorporated into the monthly hotline report; based on the most
frequently asked questions, and factual responses provided by the
hotline staff. The monthly hotline report shall also list the
total number of calls received for each specific statutory/policy
area.
-------
ATTAcmcnrr A
PAGE 4
JANUARY IftflO
The monthly hotline report shall include a list of specific
documents and their availability to the public and industry as
well as notifications and summaries of the Federal Register
Notices.
5. The contractor shall assist EPA in the development and
preparation of form letters for dissemination in response to
written questions for documents by the public and industry.
6. The contractor shall provide a verbal description of the
overall operation of the* hotline to the RCRA Orientation Trainee
sessions, on a as needed basis. This verbal description will
familiarize EPA employees on how the hotline operates, the number
of calls received and the frequency of similar questions that are
asked in any given program area.
7. The contractor shall distribute documents to various
recipients as determined and directed by the Project Officer.
-------
TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. REFERENCE: FAR 15.605
EPAAR 1515.605
2. PURPOSEJ
o Serves as foundation upon which award will be made;
o Standard used to measure if and how well a technical
proposal meets the requirements of the RFP;
o Serves as a means for determining which technical proposal
received is most advantageous to the Government.
3. BASIC REQUIREMENTS!
o Evaluation Plan must be established before RFP is issued and
must be adhered to during the evaluation p cess;
o AJLL evaluation criteria and their relative importance (may
be expressed as numerical weights) must be disclosed in the
RFP.
4. TECHNICAL CRITERIA:
o Should be tailored to the specific procurement rather than
to a standard format. Determine what factors are important
and are directly relevant to your procurement;
o Limit the number developed to the minimum needed to properly
discriminate between the relative merit of proposals;
o Must relate directly to contract objective; correlate to
Statement of Work.
5. PRICE OR ESTIMATED COST FACTORS:
o Estimated Cost or Price must be an evaluation factor in
every source selection;
o In awarding cost-reimbursement contracts, proposed costs are
estimates and should not necessarily be controlling.
6. EXAMPLE: Technical Approach
Personnel
Corporate Experience
Management Plan
Estimated Cost or Price (Not normally a weighted
factor)
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. RE7KRZHCB
FAR 15.605 and EPAAR 1515.605 provides guidance with respect
to the area of evaluation criteria. Please refer to these
reference cites for further information.
2. PURPOSE
The basic function of technical evaluation criteria is to help
determine in the most objective and fair method possible, which
technical proposal received in response to a solicitation best
meets the requirements of the solicitation and is most advantageous
to the Government.
3. BASIC REQUIREMENTS
The evaluation criteria should be tailored to the specific
procurement rather than to a standard format. There are, however,
certain considerations that are common to most competitively
negotiated procurements which should be addressed during
solicitation preparation in order to avoid problems during
negotiations. These are:
a. The evaluation criteria must be established before
issuance of the solicitation and must be adhered to during the
evaluation process. Changes to the evaluation procedures after
receipt of proposals can be construed as favoring one offerer over
another, threaten the integrity of the procurement, and
consequently lead to protests and delays in contract award. It is
a poor practice which should be avoided except under the most
compelling circumstances.
b. The development of evaluation criteria is essentially the
construction of a standard against which each proposal will be
measured. It should be stressed that competing proposals are not
rated against each other, but against the Government standard —the
evaluation criteria.
c. All evaluation factors used must be stated ' in the
solicitation. The relative importance of each evaluation factor
must be indicated also. One way to do this is by specifying the
numeric weight associated with each factor. The weighting of the
criteria should reflect, as accurately as possible, the relative
importance of the evaluation criterion. For example, if the
requirement calls for heavy emphasis on certain technical
expertise, then a "Key Personnel" criterion may be the most
critical factor for successful completion of the effort.
Therefore, this element should be more heavily weighted.
-------
4. TBCHinCAL CRITERIA
The selection of technical evaluation factors must be directly
related to the specific procurement. In other words, the technical
evaluation factors selected must bear relevance to the Statement of
Work, which describes the work/ tasks the contractor is required to
perform. The factors selected should be those that allow the
evaluator to determine, based upon the proposal submitted, how well
the contractor understands the Government's requirements and the
degree of confidence that the contractor can successfully meet the
Government ' s requirements .
The number of evaluation criteria developed should be the
minimum needed to properly discriminate between the relative merit
of proposals. Use of a large number of criteria can mathematically
dilute the evaluations during scoring to the point where any
proposal can achieve a reasonably high score, but actually be poor
in one or more extremely important factors. Usually a reduction of
factors can be achieved by using only factors that are mutually
exclusive of each other or do not correlate with one another. If
one factor correlates or is dependent upon another, then use one or
the other, but not both. Also, a large number of criteria will
make the evaluation process extremely difficult, especially where
numerous proposals have been received. Keep in mind that, later
during the evaluation process, a write-up (narrative) for each
criterion or subcriterion must be provided a» part of the Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) Report that will be submitted to the
Contracting Officer.
5. PRICE OR ESTIMATED COST FACTORS
In a technical competition, price or estimated cost is not as
important a consideration as the contractor's technical ability to
perform the work. However, it still is an important factor that
must be an taken into consideration in the source selection
process.
In awarding cost-reimbursement contracts, proposed costs are
only estimates and not absolute figures; therefore, they should not
necessarily be controlling.
^ note that the language to describe price or estimated
cost factors as an evaluation factor is very rarely drafted by the
program office. Program office input may be required in instances
where price or estimated cost will be a numerically-weighted
evaluation factor but, for all intent and purposes, the program
office is not required to develop documentation to describe the
evaluation scheme with respect to price or estimated cost.
-------
6. EXAMPLE
Factors relating to the manner of performance may include:'
a. Technical Approach
This factor refers to the merit of the contractor's
proposed method for accomplishing the technical objectives/
requirements of the contract. The appropriateness of the plan for
successful completion of the work, including the techniques,
processes, and tests that the offerer plans to use, should be
examined. This may include how the contractor will use his
resources for the work. The offerer's grasp of the difficulties
and problems involved in performing a particular job reflect on his
understanding and ability to perform that job well.
NOTE: To demonstrate the offerer's understanding of the technical
scope of the issues and tasks to be undertaken in the proposed
contract, the Technical Approach criterion may be divided into two
subparts. The first part may ask the offeror to describe his
technical approach for fulfilling the overall requirements
specified in the Statement of Work. In the second part, the
offeror would be required to participate in a simulation exercise
to further demonstrate his abilities. The offeror would be
furnished a sample work assignment and would be requested to
describe his philosphy and proposed (specific) technical approach
for accomplishing it. The scenario covered by the sample work
assignment should be representative of the type of work the
contractor would be asked to provide during contract performance.
The use of a sample work assignment is usually a good idea as it
would give a good indication of how the contractor would perform
under the actual contract.
b. Corporate Experience
This factor refers to the firm's technical as well as
management experience and ability that are relevant to the
requirements of the RFP. It measures the extent of the offerer's
past and current experience in performing similar work. This
factor should serve as an indicator of the offerer's ability to
successfully perform. However, be careful not to attach too great
an importance (weight) on this criterion since, by doing so, can
result in a small "close-group" of contractors. Generally, no more
than 15% of the total points available should be assigned to this
criterion. Consistent high ratings to the more experienced
contractors can stifle competition by consistently eliminating the
less experienced.
-------
c. Management PJ.an
This factor refers to the merit of the offerer's plan for
managing the project and related contract administration. Among
other factors in this regard, it may be pertinent to evaluate the
degree to which the offerer's management plan has established well-
defined lines of authority, responsibility and communication.
Other areas that may be evaluated include how swiftly the
organization can respond to technical changes and to mobilize arid
resolve problems; how well the offerer's management techniques can
be expected to identify performance problems at an early stage and
to help work around subcontractor delays and similar problems.
d. Personnel
This factor refers to the availability, competency,
pertinent education, and related experience of a firm's technical
personnel. The experience and ability of key technical and support
personnel are important factors in successful performance of a
contract. In judging the competence of the offerer's technical and
project management personnel, it is relevant to evaluate the degree
to which the proposal demonstrates that the offerer has a sound and
thorough understanding of the problems involved in the work to be
contracted. One of the most valuable ways of gaining insight into
an offerer's understanding of what a job really involves is to find
out how he examines its components, how he delineates the tasks and
what personnel he proposes to assign to performing the various
segments or aspects of the work. If an offerer proposes to assign
inadequate numbers of personnel for accomplishing the work in the
required time, the offerer's understanding of the work and ability
to perform it satisfactorily should be questioned. Generally, the
Government should establish minimum qualification standards in the
solicitation to provide a common base for evaluation.
7. SCORESHEETS
Scoresheets are forms used during the evaluation process for
recording the evaluator's scores and narratives applicable for the
proposals received in response to the solicitation. Scoresheets
shall contain the same evaluation criteria and subcriteria as
stated in the* R7P. Scoresheet examples are included in Attachment
A.
8. BCORMft-STANDARDS
i.
Scoring standards establish the grading scale that will be
employed during the evaluation process. Each score on the scale
must be defined. At other agencies, the Program Office develops
the scoring standards with the assistance of the Procurement
Office; however, the requirement for developing standards is not
necessary at the EPA. The EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR)
furnishes a standard scoring plan that must be utilized for
evaluating technical proposals. The scoring plan is based on a 0 -
5 point scale. Refer to EPAAR 1515.608 for additional guidance.
-------
TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
POINTS
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE 2SL
a. Enforcement Experience (10)
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent of . •
their demonstrated relevant enforcement-related
experience. The offerer should describe experience
concentrating on the specific elements outlined in
the SOW. Offerers will be evaluated according to
their capability and experience as indicated by
their completed and current projects related to
enforcement guidance development, program
implementation and evaluation; and according to
their capability and experience in conducting
enforcement programs of similar type, scope, and
complexity as outlined in the SOW.
b. Management Experience (10)
The offeror will be evaluated on the extent of their
management experience anticipating or resolving
potential problems during contract performance and
in managing large dollar, highly complex, multi-tasked,
multi-disciplinary contracts.
2. Personnel 39
a. Experience. Qualifications and Availability of Key
Personnel (20)
The Key Personnel will be evaluated on the extent to
which they are senior people with appropriate
credentials; knowledgeable about environmental
enforcement programs; capable of providing expert
testimony, project management and review, and have
substantive knowledge within their issue area; and
are available to work on this contract.
b. Experience. Qualifications and Availability of
Project Group (10)
The Project Group's ability to successfully manage
and complete work assignments for the CERCL& and RCRA
enforcement programs will be evaluated based on their
demonstrated experience, academic qualifications,
training, availability/percentage of time dedicated to
this contract, accomplishments, and knowledge of
enforcement issues under environmental statutes,
including consideration of the group's composition,
position within the overall organization, and
experience to resolve expected problems.
-------
3. Technical Approach
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement programs and the requirements of these programs;
and an understanding of and the ability to perform the tasks listed
in the SOW for each of the following areas:
(1) State Enforcement Programs (3)
(2) Federal Facility Response Actions (3)
(3) RCRA/CERCLA Relationship and Other Cross
Program Issues (4)
(4) CERCLA and RCRA General Enforcement Support (4)
(5) Cost Recovery (3)
(6) Program Management and Support (3)
4. Sample Work Plan " 10
The offerer will be evaluated on their response to the
Sample Work Assignment attached to the RFP as Attachment B.
The Sample Work Plan will be evaluated according to the
following criteria:
a. Soundness of Technical Approach and Understanding
of Problems Associated with the Task (4)
b. Adequacy of Project Staffing and Management Plan (3)
c. Degree to which proposed schedule is realistic and
comprehensive within a multi-task and short lead-time
tasking environment (3)
5. Management Plan 20
The offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which
their proposed organizational mechanisms can successfully
fulfill the requirements of the contract.
a. Organization and Resources (4)
The offerer's effectiveness to successfully manage
this effort will be evaluated in terms of the
clarity of lines of authority and communication
between staff and management; the adequacy and
appropriateness of corporate management's plans for
identifying and addressing any problems that might
arise; the degree to which the roles and responsi-
bilities of staff and management are defined; and
the level of integration of staff, subcontractors
and field offices.
-------
b. Coat Forecasting and Tracking (4)
Ability to show how costs in the monthly report will
reflect up-to-date information will be evaluated
including consideration of monthly billing cycles,
accuracy of cost projections and ad-hoc reporting
capability.
c. Management Control (4)
The quality and effectiveness of the offerer's
management information system to maintain management
control of the contract including tracking the
progress of work assignments, providing tools for
effective management, such as a deliverables tickler
system, performing overall cost analysis of types of
assignments, etc'., will be evaluated. Further, the
ability to ensure security and integrity of enforce-
ment related records, how work assignments will be
reviewed and distributed in a timely manner, and how
conflict of interest checks will be made, shall also
be evaluated.
d. Equipment and Additional Personnel (3)
(1) Equipment (1)
The demonstrated availability, or ability to obtain
relevant equipment, vehicles, and supplies sufficient
for the scope of work will be evaluated. This will
include acquisition, disposition, and maintenance
procedures .
(2) Personnel (2)
The ability to recruit and maintain staffing levels,
including acquisition of non-team subcontractors,
required under the contract will be evaluated.
e . Responsiveness (3 )
ability of the offerer to provide quick turnaround
response to EPA Headquarters' needs will be evaluated.
Consideration will be given to the location of your
project team and all offices to be used for this
contract.
f. Quality Assurance Plan (2)
Demonstration of how quality assurance/quality control
procedures will yield products of high quality will be
evaluated including the frequency and types of audits
and internal control checks.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS RFP W902295-E2
Reviewer: Company: Date:.
Score:
CRITERIA
A. Corporate Experience 130 Points
Offerers will be evaluated on the extent of their corporate
technical experience that is relevant to their understanding of the
objectives of the RFP. Further, the offerer will be evaluated on
the extent of the experience of their corporate general management
in managing large dollar, highly complex, multi-tasked, multi-
disciplinary contracts and resolving the kinds of problems that can
be expected to occur during the performance of this contract. The
offerer should provide a list of relate contracts performed and
their value, size and term.
Narrative:
Interrocratories:
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS RFP W902295-E2
Reviewer: Company: Date:.
Score:
CRITERIA
B. Personnel Qualifications 400 Points
2. Experience Qualifications, and-Commitment of Project Group
(270 points)
a. Knowledge of engineering and cost analysis and environmental
measurements. (90 points).
Narrative;
Interrogatories;
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS RFP W902295-E2
Reviewer: Company: Date:.
Score:
CRITERIA
•c-
C. Technical Approach 380 Points
1. Technical Approach (250 points) - NOTE: There are two (2)
proposed projects in the Sample Work Assignment, each worth 125
points with respect to this element.
a. Data needed and how it will be gathered (50 points)
Narrative;
Interrogatories;
-------
ATTACHMENT A
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS RPP W902295-E2
Reviewer: Company: Date:.
Score:
CRITERIA
D. Management Plan , 90 Points
1. Organization and Resources (40 points)
The effectiveness of the overall management plan to successfully
manage this effort will be evaluated, taking into consideration the
organization, lines of authority and integration and management of
subcontractors (if any).
Narrative:
Interrogatories;
-------
TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
PROCESS
-------
The technical •valuation process is the most important
function served by the project office. The evaluation process
demands impartial objectivity, expertise, rational judgement, and
impeccable integrity. If any of these need* are lacking the
results oould be protests, delay of award, or in extreme
circumstances, court appearances.
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) should ideally consist of
between three to five representatives. The panel should consist of
an odd number for the purpose of facilitating the consensus
process. It has been PCMD's experience that the larger the panel,
the more difficult it is to reach consensus. Further, when dealing
with a larger panel, it is difficult to assemble everyone at the
same time due to schedule conflicts. Therefore, the larger the
panel, the longer it takes to reach consensus.
The panel should expect to expend about two weeks of effort to
evaluate the proposals. This will vary, however, depending on the
number of proposals received. The recommended members of the panel
should be submitted by memorandum at the time the Acquisition
Request package is received in PCMD (See chapter 2, Tab R). PCMD
will contact the TEP chairperson approximately two months in
advance of the proposals being received and confirm a block of time
that the panels' services will be needed. It is important that the
project office set aside the time for this process as to forestall
any delays. The project office management should be advised that
certain individuals will be needed on a full time basis for the
period of time necessary to evaluate the proposals. Zt is also
suggested that the evaluations be conducted away from normal
working conditions so that everyday distractions (telephone calls,
impatient supervisors, or irate girl/boy friends and spouses) do
not deter the evaluation process.
Zf PCMD and the Project Office work in concert with one another
the process can be a worthwhile and rewarding experience. Veil...
maybe we'll at least get to know each other and respect one
anothers' positions at the EPA.
Evaluating Proposals
When the- proposals arrive at PCKD, the contract specialist
will open all proposals received, "on time*', and create an abstract
of bids. This is a logging-in function to be contained in the
contract file. The cost proposals will be extracted and the
technical proposals will then be distributed to the panel members
for evaluation. The process takes place when the contracting
Officer/Specialist formally delivers the proposals to the TEP and
briefs the TEP on the proper procedures for handling and evaluating
the proposals*
-------
The evaluation scoresheots (See Chapter 4, Attachment l)
should be prepared by the project office prior to the beginning of
the evaluations. The best course of action is to include a copy
with the Acquisition Request (AR) package so that the contracting
officer or Specialist may review before hand.
Ground Rules:
- Contractor identities, and proposal contents must be treated
with the utmost discretion to avoid compromising evaluation results
or leading to unfair advantage.
- TEP members shall not discuss any aspects of the proceedings
with anyone outside the TEP. If there ie any question in your mind
regarding who has a "need to know*1 contact the Contracting Officer.
- Refer any attempted communications by contractors to the
Contracting Officer.
- If any additional information is needed, it shall be
requested through the contracting Officer in the form of
interrogatories.
Each member of the TBP shall independently evaluate and score
each offer. Upon conclusion of the individual evaluations, the
group will convene to develop a panel consensus score for each
proposal. The TEP chairperson shall moderate this discussion and is
responsible for developing the consensus. Averaging of scores is
NOT permitted. (Examples of GOOD and BAD Score sheets, and a full
sample consensus evaluation package included as Attachment 1)
For the consensus summary (See attachment 2) a strong detailed
written narrative must be provided for each individual scoring
element fully supporting the rating assigned* It is imperative that
the narrative correlate precisely with the score given. A separate
discussion must be written for each proposal that summarises the
relative strengths and weaknesses of the offerer in each of the
major criteria. Upon completion of the consensus summary a
Technical Evaluation Panel Report (See attachment 3), will be
submitted to the Contracting Officer with each individual on the
panel committing their signature to the report to attests its
validity.
-------
Conflicts of Interest
A signed Statement of Conflict of Interest (See Attachment 4)
for each member of the panel should accompany the consensus report..
This certifies that no apparent conflict of interest exists in
evaluating the proposals. An example of this Bight be if one of the
panel members has a spouse working for one of the offerers. An
apparent conflict Bust be brought to the attention of the
contracting Officer immediately so that a determination of the
status of a particular panel aember can be Bade. The statement also
contains a separate area to identify any potential or actual
conflict of interest which Bay result in contracting with any of
the offerers.
NOTE: A sample summary of the reports is found in Attachment 5
-------
CONSENSUS BCORB SHEETS
TEP NANS: OFFEROR;
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
a. Enforcement Experience . 10 Points
The offeror will be evaluated on the extent of their
demonstrated relevant enforcement-related experience. The
offerer should describe experience concentrating on the specific
elements outlined in the SOW. Offerers will be evaluated
according to their capability and experience, as indicated by
their completed and current projects related to enforcement
guidance development, program implementation and evaluation; and
according to their capability and experience in conducting
enforcement programs of a similar type, scope, and complexity as
outlined in the sow.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 10 Total:
-------
_ CONSENSUS 8CORB SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
b. Management ffjfperienoe 10
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent of tbair
g«a«at «zp«ri«ao« anticipating or r*>olving potential
problaa* during contract p«rformano« and in managing largo
dollar, highly eoaplox, Bulti-taakad, multi-disciplinary
contract*.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES i
Score: Height: 10 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
2. PERSONNEL TOTAL POINTS 30
a. Experience. Qualification* and Availability of Key
Personnel 20 Points
The Key Personnel will be evaluated on the extent to which
they are senior p«opl« with appropriate oredsntials; know-
l«dg«mbl« about «nvironM«ntal «nforo«H«nt programs; capable of
providing «zpart testimony, project management and review/ and
have substantive knowledge within their issue area; and are
available to work on this contract.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 20 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS 8CORB 8HBBTS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
2. PERSONNEL TOTAL POINTS 30
b. Experience. Qua 1 if ioations and Ava,Ha,bllity of Project
Group 10 Points
The Project Group's ability to successfully manage and
couplet* vork assignments for the CERCLA and RCRA enforcement
programs will be evaluated based on their demonstrated
experience, academic qualifications, training, availability/
percentage of time dedicated to this contract, accomplishments,
and knowledge of enforcement issues under environmental statutes,
including consideration of the group's composition, position
within the overall organisation, and experience to resolve
expected problems.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 10 Total:
-------
. CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 20
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement programs and the requirements of these programs;
and an understanding of and the ability to perform the tasks
listed in the SOW for each of the following areas:
3.1 State Enforcement Programs 3 Points
STRENGTHS: ' Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weights 03 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TIP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 20
The offerer will be evaluated oa the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement programs and the requirements of these programs;
aad aa understanding of aad the ability to perform the tasks
listed ia the BOW for each of the following areass
3.2 rederal Facility Response Actions 3 Points
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 03 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 20
The off*ror will be evaluated on the extant to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement programs and the requirements of these programs;
and an understanding of and the ability to perform the tasks
listed in the SOW for each of the following areas:
3.3 RCRA/CERCLA Relationship and Other cross Program
issues 4 Points
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Total:
-------
8
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: ' OFPEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 20
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement program* aad the requirements of these programs;
and aa understanding of aad th« ability to perform the taeke
lilted ia the SOW for each of the following areaes
3.4 CERCLA/RCRA Oeaeral Enforcement support 4 Poiats
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Total;
-------
COM8EH8U8 SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAMES __ OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 20
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement programs and the requirements of these programs;
and an understanding of and the ability to perform the tasks
listed in the sow for each of the following areas:
3.5 cost Recovery 3 Points
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 03 Total:
-------
COMSEHSD8 SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: ^^_____^ OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH TOTAL POINTS 30
The offerer will be evaluated OB the extent to which
they demonstrate a thorough understanding of environmental
enforcement prograas and th* r«quix«a«nt« of th«»« programs;
and an under*tanding of and the ability to parfora th« tasks
listad in th« SOW for «aeh of th« following aroast
3.6 Program Management and Support 3 Points
STRENGTHS: - Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: Q3 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORB SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
4. SAMPLE WORK PLAN TOTAL POINTS 10
The offerer will be evaluated on their response to the
Sample work Assignment attached to the RFP as Attachment B.
Th« Saapl* Work Plan will b« «valuat«d according to tha
following critariat
a. Soundnasa of Tachnical Approach and Understanding
of Problaas Associatad with tha Task 4 Points
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Total:
-------
COVBEM808 8CORB 8KBBT8
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
4. SAMPLE WORK PLAN TOTAL POINTS 10
The offerer will be evaluated on their response to the
Sample Work Assignment attached to the RYP as Attaohaant B.
Th« Sample Work Plan will be evaluated according to the
following criteria:
b. Adeo^iacy of Project Staffing and Management
Plan 3 Pointa
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 03 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
4. SAMPLE WORK PLAN TOTAL POINTS 10
The offerer will be evaluated on their response to the
Sample work Assignment attached to the RFP as Attachment 6.
The Sample Work Plan will be evaluated according to the
following criteria:
c. Degree to which proposed schedule is realistic and
comprehensive within a multi-task and short lead-time
tasking environment 3 points
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 03 Total:
-------
. _ COHSEMSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP HAMS: __ OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
The off*rer will be evaluated on the extent to which their
proposed organisational mechanisms can successfully fulfill th«
r*quirm«Bt» of th« ooatraet.
4 Points
Th« offazor'a •ff*otiy«n*B« to •ueeasBfully manag* this
•ffort vill b« avaluatsd in tazas of th« clarity of liaas of
authority and ooomuaioation b«tv««n staff and management; tha
adaquaoy and appropriatanass of corporate managamant's plans for
identifying and addressing any problems that might arise; the
degree to vhioh the roles and responsibilities of staff and
management are defined; and the level of integration of staff,
subcontractors and field offices.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Total!
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
b. Cost Fotfgaatj.no and Tracking 4 Points
The offerer** ability to show how cost* in th« monthly report
will reflect up-to-date information vill be evaluated including
consideration of monthly billing cycles, accuracy of cost
projections and ad-hoc reporting capability.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Total!
-------
COMSEHSU8 8CORB SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
o. Managfpjtnt Control 4 Point*
The quality and effectiveness of the offerer's management
information system to maintain management control of the contract
including tracking the progress of work assignments, providing
tools for effective management, such a* a dalivarables ticklar
systam, performing overall cost analysis of types of assignments,
etc. will be evaluated. Further, the ability to ensure security
and integrity of enforcement related records, how work assign-
ments will be reviewed and distributed in a timely manner, and
bow conflict of interest checks will be made, will also be
evaluated.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 04 Totals
-------
CONSENSUS BCOR1 SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
i
d. Equipment and Additional Parsonnal
(1) Equipment 1 Point
Tha deaonstratad availability/ or ability to obtain
relevant equipment/ vaniolas/ and suppli«» suffieiant for th«
scop* of vork will b« «valuat»d. This will include acquisition,
disposition/ and aaintanane* prooaduras.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 01 Total:
-------
TEP NAME:
CONSENSUS 8COBB 8ESBT8
OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
(2) ftrffrnffiti 2 Points
Tli* ability to recruit and maintain staffing levels,
including acquisition of non-taaa subcontractors, required undar
tbe contract vill ba avaluatad.
STRENGTHS:
Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score:
Weight:
02
Total:
-------
CONSENSUS 8CORB SHEETS
TEP NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
•• Responsiveness 3 Points
The ability of the offerer to provide quick turnaround
response to EPA Headquarters' needs will be evaluated.
Consideration will be given to the location of your project team
and all offices to be used for this contract.
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 03 Total:
-------
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
TEF NAME: OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN TOTAL POINTS 20
f * Quality Asa^rin?^ Plan 2 Point*
Demonstration of hov quality a**uranea/quality control
procedure* will yield products of high quality will be evaluated
including the frequency and type* of audit* and internal control
check* .
STRENGTHS: Page No.
WEAKNESSES:
INTERROGATORIES:
Score: Weight: 02 Total:
-------
TEP KAMI:
CONSENSUS SCORE SHEETS
OFFEROR:
ATTACHMENT
CRITERIA
NO.
l.a.
l.b.
2. a.
2.b.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4. a.
4.b.
4.C.
5. a.
5.b.
5.C.
S.d.l
5.d.2
5.e.
5.f.
Total
Value Key:
B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP
(VALUE)
?CQRJE X WEIGHT. - TOTAL
10
19
20
10
03
03
04
94
Q?
03
04
03
9?
04
94
04
01
02
9?
93
100
5/0 - 100% 3.5 - 79% 1.9 - 20%
4.5 - 90% 3.0 - 60%
4.9 - 80% 2.0 = 40%
-------
EXAMPLE
TEP NAME:
ATTACHMENT
CRITERIA
NO.
l.a.
l.b.
2. a.
2.b.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4. a.
4.b.
4,c.
5. a.
5.b.
S.c.
S.d.l
5.d.2
5.e.
5.f.
Total
Value Key:
.CONSENSUS SCORB SHEBTfl
OFFEROR:
B - TECHNICAL
(VALUE)
SCORE
3
5
4
4.5
2
3
3.S
3
1
3
4
5
5
3.5
5
3
3
4
4.5
4
5.0 - 100%
4.5 - 90%
4.0 - 80%
EVALUATION
X
(60%)
(100%)
(80%)
(90%)
(40%)
(60%)
(70%)
(60%)
(20%)
(60%)
(80%)
(100%)
(100%)
(70%)
(100%)
(60%)
(60%)
(80%)
(90%)
(80%)
3.5 - 70%
3.0 » 60%
2.0 - 40%
CRITERIA RFP
WEIGHT . m
10
10
20
10
03
o?
94
04
Q3
03
Q4
Q?
03
04
04
04
W
02
Q?
02
100
1.0 - 20%
TOTAL , •
6.0
10.0
16.0
9.0
1.2
1.8
2.8
2.4
0.6
1.8
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.8
4.0
2.4
0.6
If6
2.7
1,6
76.5
-------
GOOD GOOD GOOD INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS GOOD GOOD GOOD
TEP NAME: Sheila Kellv OFFEROR: UBSTER. INC-
ATTACHMENT A - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP WOOOOOO-El
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
a. enforcement Experience - 10 Points
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent of their demon-
strated relevant enforcement-related experience. The offeror
should describe experience concentrating on the specific elements
outlined in the SOW. offerers will be evaluated according to their
capability and experience/ as indicated by their completed and
current projects related to enforcement guidance development,
program implementation • and evaluation; and according to their
capability and experience in conducting enforcement programs of a
similar type, scope/ and complexity as outlined in the SOW.
STRENGTHSi Page Mo.
UBSTER, Inc. has extensive experience in supporting almost all
areas of EPA activity. They demonstrated excellent experience in
areas of developing enforcement documents and cost recovery
actions, citing several very good examples (Pgs. 7-10). They show
strong experience in policy and information areas, and regulatory
document development. They provided many examples of documents
they assisted in developing which were clear, concise and well-
written {Pgs. 20-45). They also show strong experience in the
areas of training and database development. UBSTER listed over 100
different examples of training courses they developed and presented
for EPA and other agencies (Pgs. 51-55). They demonstrated their
experience in RAC Indemnification issues, as well as experience in
most levels of specific environmental enforcement issues. Their
exhibits (Exhibit B/Pages 35-65) indicate over 200 projects and
activities of large dollar value that demonstrate considerable
expertise and experience in all of the specific elements outlined
in the SOW.
WEAKNESSES i UBSTER did not address, or indicate, any experience in
the areas of administrative orders/consent decrees and administra-
tive, civil and criminal actions. In addition, it was difficult to
evaluate their experience in the areas of work plan, RI/FS and RODS
since they were not mentioned in their proposal.
INTERROGATORIES* l. Please clarify your experience in the areas
of administrative orders/consent decrees and administrative, civil
and criminal actions.
2. Please clarify your experience in the areas of work plan RI/FS
and ROD development.
Score: A Weight: 10 Total: _S
-------
GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: Shefla Kelly OFFEROR: UBSTER. INC.
ATTACHMENT A - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP WOOOOOO-E1
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
b. Management Experience 10 Points
The offerer will be evaluated on the extent of their management
experience anticipating or resolving potential problems during
contract performance and in managing large dollar, highly complex,
multi-tasked, multi-disciplinary contracts.
STRENGTHSt Page No.
UBSTER illustrated in their proposal an excellent contingency plan
to address problems as they arise (Page 26) and they have several
checkpoints built into their plan to prevent problems. UBSTER
demonstrated they could respond to EPA problems, i.e. a staff
member worked around the clock for two months to provide analytical
and reporting support for a Congressional hearing on the adequacy
of the RCRA groundwater monitoring program at land disposal
facilities. UBSTER clearly demonstrated experience in resolving
management problems on short notice and for those requiring
critical actions (Page 44). UBSTER recognized and emphasized the
importance of extensive communications with EPA personnel at all
levels and outlined a complete, effective communications network in
their proposal (Page 56).
UBSTER demonstrated superior experience by indicating prior
contracts where they have successfully managed large, multi-
disciplinary contracts. These contracts include the $60 M EPA
Technical Enforcement Support contract, DOE's $2.5 billion
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project and $900 M Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action Program (Page 19). In addition, UBSTER,
Inc. has supported OSW, OERR and OWPE since the passage of RCRA in
1976 and CERCLA in 1980. -They have been involved with all of these
programs on activities including regulatory development and program
enforcement (Pgs. 20-25). They are currently managing 35 large
dollar EPAv contracts in the areas of Superfund and RCRA. (Exhibit
A/Pg. IOC)* They have over 40 years of experience with Federal
contracts for various other agencies.
WEAKNESSESi None were identified.
INTERROGATORIES* None were identified.
Score: 5. Weight: 10 Total: _lfi
-------
BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: Sheila Kellv OFFEROR: UBSTER. INC.
ATTACHMENT A - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP WOOOOOO-E1
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
a. Enforcement Experience 10 points
The offerer will be evaluated OB the extent of their demon-
strated relevant enforcement-related experience. The offerer
should describe experience concentrating on the specific elements
outlined in the SOW. Offerors will be evaluated according to their
capability and experience, as indicated by their completed and
current projects related to enforcement guidance development,
program implementation and evaluation; and according to their
capability and experience in conducting enforcement programs of a
similar type, scope, and complexity as outlined in the sow.
STRENGTHSt Page Ho.
UBSTER, Inc. has demonstrated good experience. Their proposal was
well written. They appeared to understand most of the Statement of
Work. They were strong in some areas and weak in others.
WEAKNESSESS
UBSTER, Inc. did not show any experience in seven out of the 11
areas outlined in the SOW.
INTERROGATORIESI
1. Please clarify your experience in the areas outlined in the
Statement of Work.
Score: 4.5 Weight: 10 Total:
-------
BAD BAD BAD BIO BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEETS
TEP NAME: Sheila Kellv OFFEROR: UBSTER. INC.
ATTACHMENT A - TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP WOOOOOQ-E1
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE TOTAL 20 POINTS
b* Management Experience 10 Point•
The of feror will be evaluated on the extent of their management
experience anticipating or resolving potential problems during
contract performance and in managing large dollar, highly complex,
multi-tasked, multi-disciplinary contracts.
STRENGTHS: Page Mo.
UBSTER, Inc. has lots of real good experience. Their write-up in
this area was strong. They included many exhibits and graphs
illustrating their experience. UBSTER, Inc. has managed a lot of
contracts for the private sector. They indicated in their proposal
that they can resolve problems. They know how to get the job done.
WEAKNESSESI
UBSTER, Inc. has no EPA contracts.
INTERROGATORIESI
1. Do you have any EPA contracts?
Score: 2. Weight: 10 Total: 10
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 - Technical Evaluation summary (CONSENSUS)
Offerer: UBSTER. Inc. _
1. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
UBSTER, Inc. has extensive experience in supporting almost all
areas of EPA activity. They demonstrated excellent experience in
areas of developing enforcement documents and cost recovery
actions. They show strong experience in policy and information
areas, and regulatory document development. They also show strong
experience in the areas of training and database development.
They demonstrated their experience in RAC Indemnification issues,
as well as experience in most levels of specific environmental
enforcement issues.
UBSTER did not address, or indicate, any experience in the areas of
administrative orders /consent decrees and administrative, civil and
criminal actions. In.. addition, it was difficult to evaluate their
experience in the areas of work plan, RI/FS and RODS since they
were not mentioned in their proposal.
UBSTER demonstrated superior experience by indicating prior
contracts where they have successfully managed large, multi-
disciplinary contracts. UBSTER, Inc. has supported OSW, OERR and
OWPE since the passage of RCRA in 1976 and CERCLA in 1980. They
have been involved with all of these programs on activities
including regulatory development and program enforcement. They are
currently managing 35 large dollar EPA contracts in the areas of
Super fund and RCRA. They have over 40 years of experience with
Federal contracts for various other agencies.
UBSTER clearly demonstrated experience in resolving management
problems on short notice and for those requiring critical actions.
UBSTER recognized and emphasized the importance of extensive
communications with EPA personnel at all levels and outlined a
complete, effective communications network in their proposal.
2 • PB
Summary of Strengths /Weaknesses for this element.
3. TECHNICAL APPROACH
Summary of Strengths /Weaknesses for this element.
4. SAMPLE WORK PLAN
Summary of Strengths/Weaknesses for this element.
5. MANAGEMENT PLAN
Summary of strengths /Weaknesses for this element.
-------
ATTACH!!** (3) .
EXHIBIT A - FORMAT TOR THE TIP REPORT - CHAIRPERSON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT! Technical Evaluation Panel Report on-Proposals
submitted under RFP W
FROM: j , chairperson
Technical Evaluation Panel
Office of
TOi , Contracting Officer
RCRA/Enforcement Branch (PM-214-F)
A. introduction
In this section, describe when the panel met; that the
(Contracting Officer's name) from PCMD briefed
the panel on , 199_; how long you met; who the panel
members are; refer to an attachment containing all the disclosure
statements; etc. Also state that no panel members had a conflict
of interest in this section.
B. Background (Make the felloving statement)
The proposals received were evaluated in accordance with
the evaluation criteria contained in the subject RFP and pursuant
to EPAAR 1515.6.
C. Individual Technical Evaluations
Indicate that attached to this report as Attachment A
are the individual score sheets of each TEP member for each
proposal.
D. Consensus Technical Evaluations
Refer to Attachment B (Consensus Score Sheets) and what
it represents. The consensus should include a detailed narrative
on all of the technical evaluation criteria elements.
B. Technical Evaluation Summary (CONSEM8U8)
Refer to Attachment C (see Example) that provides the 1
1/2-2 page summary of each offerers major strengths and
weaknesses for the MAJOR criteria elements (i.e.. Experience, Key
Personnel, Management Plan etc.). This summary is for the
CONSENSUS report only and need not be done on an individual
basis.
-------
r. overview
The following is a summary of the results of the TEP
evaluation:
Insert Attachment D Matrix
Q. Certifications
Attachment E - Certificate for Conflict of Interest
Attachment F - Certification for the Unauthorized
Disclosure of Procurement Information
Attachment 6 - Procurement Integrity Certification.
R. Attachments
List your Attachments
I. CONSENSUS Signature Page
Add the signature sheet, with original signatures, for
each consensus report (see below).
CONSENSUS REPORT SIGNATURE PAGE
Date , Chairperson
Date
Date
Date
-------
ATTACHMENT (4)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Statement of Conflict of Interest; Solicitation No.
W100000-E1
FROM: John Doe, Contracting Officer
Superfund/RCRA Headquarters
Contract Operations Branch
Placement Section
TO: Technical Evaluation Panel Members
To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor any member of my
family have direct financial or employment interest in any of the
firms submitting proposals for consideration and evaluation,
which conflicts substantially or appears to conflict
substantially with my duties as a member of the Technical
Evaluation Panel.
In the event that I later become aware of such a conflict of
interest, I agree to disqualify myself and report this to the
Chairperson of my panel and to abide by any instructions which
he/she may give in this matter.
SIGNATURE DATE
Do you believe that there is any potential or actual conflict of
interest which may result in contracting with any of the
offerers?
YES NO
If yes, explain:
-------
ATTACHMENT (3)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Evaluation Panel Report on RFP w
FROM: , Contracting Officer
RCRA/Enforcement Branch (PM-214-F)
TOi Technical Evaluation Panel Members
The following are guidelines on how to prepare your Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) Report on the subject RFP. It is very
important that you follow the format provided in EXHIBIT A -
FORMAT FOR THE TBP REPORT - CHAIRPERSON for the final report and
follow the directions listed below. Your report must include,
as a minimum, the following elements:
A. Individual Panel Member Reports.
This part of the report shall include the individual
score sheets with detailed notes from each TEP member covering
each criterion for each offerer. The notes must discuss the
relative strengths, weaknesses, risks associated with each offer,
etc. In evaluating the strengths and weaknesses, and in
developing narratives and interrogatories, reference proposal
page numbers whenever possible.
Detailed narrative descriptions MUST fully support the
scores given. If you score a 2, you must clearly describe all
deficiencies and/or omissions in each offerer's proposal. A
perfect score of 5 MUST also have a strong detailed narrative to
support such a score. You MUST state WHY and/or HOW the offerer
received the score given.
Attachment A includes the individual score sheets that
you are to use during the evaluation process. Each member must
read each proposal in its entirety and must independently
evaluate and score each proposal. Please note that each member
must sign his'/her individual score sheets. A matrix depicting
the individual scores for each criteria is included in Attachment
A.
B. Consensus Report
After the individual scores are completed, the panel members
should fully discuss their findings and provide a detailed
consensus report. This report will be prepared by the TEP
Chairperson and should include, as a minimum, the following
information:.
-------
l. consensus Members score Sheets
This part of the report shall include the consensus
score sheets with detailed notes from the consensus discussion of
the TEP covering each criterion for each offeror. The notes must
discuss the relative strengths, weaknesses, risks associated with
each offer, etc. In evaluating the strengths and weaknesses, and
in developing narratives and interrogatories, reference proposal
page numbers whenever possible.
Detailed narrative descriptions MUST fully support the
scores given. If you score a 2, you must clearly describe all
deficiencies and/or omissions in each offerer's proposal, a
perfect score of 5 MUST also have a strong detailed narrative to
support such a score. You MUST state WHY and/or HOW the offeror
received the score given.
Attachment B includes the consensus score sheets that
you are to use during the consensus process. The TEP Chairperson
is responsible for compiling the consensus scores and narrative
and for facilitating the consensus process. It is recommended
that the panel members share the responsibility of recording the
consensus notes and narrative during the process in order to
assist the Chairperson. Please note that each member must sign
the consensus signature summary page attached to the back of the
consensus report (EXHIBIT A). A matrix depicting the consensus
scores for each criteria is included in Attachment B.
Both the individual scores with narrative and the consensus
scores with narrative become part of the official contract file.
2. Technical Evaluation Summary (CONSENSUS)
This section includes a narrative summary of each
offerer's overall technical standing as decided and discussed by
the panel. It should be approximately 11/2-2 pages in length
(for each offeror) and should highlight the overall strengths and
weaknesses of each offeror in each of the major evaluation
criteria areas i.e., Corporate Experience, Personnel, Technical
Approach, Sample Work Plan, and Management Plan. Attachment C
includes the. format that should be used. This summary is
prepared by the Chairperson but is developed through consensus
discussions- of the entire panel.
3. Summary Technical score Matrix
Attachment D includes a summary matrix which includes
all offerers and their scores for the major criteria.
-------
4. Interrogator!**
When offerer's proposals contain deficiencies,
ambiguities, and/or suspected mistakes, etc., you are required to
formulate questions for offerors whose proposals make the
competitive range. Therefore, during the evaluation process,
members of the panel should write down questions for each
offerer, if applicable. The chairperson will consolidate and
record interrogatories for the consensus report based on the full
panels discussion. You MUST provide questions for any factors
scored less than adequate i.e., less than a 3.
Questions should be stated in such a manner to avoid
technical leveling or leading the offeror into a specific
direction. The questions should be used to clarify information
contained in the proposal and/or request information that should
have been provided but was omitted.
5. Panel Contents/Other Factors
The report should indicate in this section which
offerers are considered "technically acceptable" and those that -
are "technically unacceptable".
The panel can include any other pertinent information
or comments in this section. If for example an offerer's
proposal was severely deficient, or if there is a conflict on
interest, it should be noted here.
6. Each member must sign and return the following
eertifieationst
o Certification for Conflict of Interest
o Certificate for Unauthorized Disclosure of
Procurement Information
o Procurement Integrity Certification
-------
TIPS - SUGGESTIONS - DOS AND DON'T*
(OR EVBRYTHINd YOU NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT TBP REPORTS
BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK)
o Always keep in mind the end result: Complete, detailed
consensus report. In order to achieve this, your individual
evaluation must be complete.
o Your evaluation must be supported by a strong detailed narrative
which is consistent with scores. Do not use phrases such as "looks
good to me" or "strong write-up in this area."
o Support the statements you make in your narratives by providing
examples right out of the proposals. Ask yourself WHY and/or SOW
an offeror fulfilled or met the evaluation criteria elements.
EXAMPLE:
Statement: The offeror demonstrated excellent experience in
managing large dollar, highly complex, multi-tasked
contracts.
WHY/HOW: The offeror cited over 200 prior contracts that they
have successfully managed. These contracts include the
$60 M EPA Technical Enforcement Support contract, DOE's
$2.5 billion Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project and
$900 M Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program.
The offeror has over 40 years of experience with
Federal contracts from many different agencies spanning
many program areas including Superfund and RCRA
Enforcement.
o Write up your narratives FIRST then assign that criterion-a
numerical score. You will find it easier to score once you have
read over what you have written*
o Do NOT reiterate the technical evaluation criteria elements.
EXAMPLE: under CORPORATE EXPERIENCE you would NOT say "The offeror
has demonstrated relevant enforcement related experience." Once
again, HOW did they demonstrate that experience?
o Do not downgrade a proposal because it did not address something
we never asked for in the RFP.
o In evaluating strengths and weaknesses, and in developing
narratives and interrogatories, reference proposal pages whenever
possible.
o Do not infer prior knowledge of a company into the evaluation,
i.e., "I know they can do it, but they didn't say so". Be like a
judge; look only at the written evidence.
-------
o Avoid "reading into" or "reading out of" any portion of the
offer a meaning other than the exact language appearing in the
offer. If a clarification is needed, prepare an interrogatory
addressing it.
o Avoid the tendency to interpret the meaning of the offerer's
proposal when the writing is ambiguous. You can always clarify
ambiguities with an interrogatory.
o Recognize that the assignment of a score to an element or
subelament is subjective and based upon your best reasoned
judgement.
o Recognize that offerers often use "catch phrases11, "buzz words",
and semi-legalistic phraseology which may indicate a less than
thorough understanding of the solicitation.
o Recognize the substantive quality of the proposal and do not
be influenced by form, format or method of presentation. Look for
content.
o Recognize flattery on the part of the offerer.
o It is recommended that the Chairperson direct the panel members
to read the proposals in different order, i.e. panel member 1 would
start with proposal from XYZ and panel member 2 would start with
proposal from ABC and panel member 3 would start with proposal from
UBSTER etc.
o Avoid forming "first impressions" of an offer that might tend to
influence the score assigned.
o Do NOT compare proposals to one another. Each proposal stands
on its own merit, and is evaluated strictly in accordance with the
RFP technical evaluation criteria.
o Advise the contracting officer if any proposals are totally
unacceptable and would require a major rewrite.
INTERROGATORIES
o Your interrogatories should be in the form of questions, not
suggestion*. Don't slip into the mode of telling an offerer how
you would like to see the proposal.
o Do NOT ask an offerer to address something that we never asked
for in the RFP.
o Recognize ambiguities, inconsistencies, errors, omissions,
irregularities, and deficiencies that can affect the scoring.
These should be recorded on the individual/consensus evaluation
sheets under weaknesses. These will result in interrogatories.
-------
o . Questions should be stated in such a manner to avoid technical
leveling (i.e., helping an offeror to bring its proposal up to the
level of other proposals through successive rounds of discussion,
such as by pointing out weaknesses resulting from the offerer's
lack of diligence, competence, or inventiveness in preparing the
proposal).
o Questions should be stated in such a manner, to avoid technical
transfusion (i.e., Government disclosure of technical information
pertaining to a proposal that results in improvement of a competing
proposal).
CONSENSUS
o Individual scores should NOT be totaled and averaged to reach a
consensus score.
o The consensus process is NOT a democracy where the majority
rules. No member can be "out-voted". Consensus means the
"collective opinion" of all members of the panel. Remember, by
signing the consensus report, you agree with the final report.
o During the consensus process, it is recommended that panel
members take turns recording the consensus narratives, scores and
discussion to help assist the chairperson. The chairperson is
responsible for consolidating all comments into the final report
but that person is also needed to facilitate the process itself.
It is also recommended that after consensus is reached on a
particular criterion, that the recorder repeat the narrative
recorded to make sure he/she has captured accurately, the narrative
and interrogatories discussed and agreed to by the group.
-------
N
©UTUN
-------
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCESS
KEY: RLUE - no
MED- PCMO
.OFFICE
DECISION IUOC
TO ACQUIRE
CONTRACTUAL
[SERVICES
PCMD CONFIRMS HMD OF
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
MTM SMALL nSMVANTAM
MSRC3S COOHOMATOII
PCMD FINALIZES
MCKET, PURUSHES
REQUIREMENT MCOMMERCI
•USWESS DAILV(CRD)
r NECESSARY, raw
QUESTIONS. PROVBES
AND CONDUCTS PRE-PROPOSAL
1 WHO RECEIVES
.J^M PMWAttAt * rvrjtUftMfvAt
^^
CONTMCT SKCUUSTfCSV
CONTRACTRM OFFKXR(CO)
MEET WITH TECHMCAL
r*.
TEP MEMBERS
EVALUATE MOTOSALS
MDMDUAUV
-*
TEP MEMKR3 MEET
TO REACH CONSENSUS
SCORES FOR EACH
PROPOSAL
TEP CHAIRMAN WRfTES-tIP
CONSENSUS SCORES ALOW)
WITH JUSTnCATKm FOR
SCORES. FOR EACH PROPOSAL
TEP CHAIRMAN
UPTO CS/CO
d/CO
REVIEWS
PACKET
(seo«s)
|*NO COST) LOCS M
EVALUATION PAKEt(TtP)
AND PROVDO TECHUCAL
SCCININ OF PROPOSAL
CS/CO PRELMNAM.V
CVAUMTECOST
PROPOSALS
TO VASHRWrON COST
ADVISORY ORQAMZATMNCVCAO]
FOR FORMAL REVKW
CS/CO CHECK PROPOSALS
VARfTES IMFORIIATION
PROVBED RY COKPAMY
COHPETITIVE RANOE
OCTERMINED
AND APPROVED
PCHD MFORHS
COyFAWESNOI
M COMPETITIVE
RANGE
CS SEMDS
WTERJMMATOMS
TOCOMPANCS
WTHH lUMPlllllVI
RANOE
CS/CO RECEIVES
RESPONSES RASED
ON QUESTIONS
ASKED; PROVIDE
TO TEP
TEPMEMRERS
SCORE RESPONSES
•KNVKMMU.Y
CS/CO RECEIVES AUDIT
REPORTS FROM WCAO AND
WRITES THE PREKCOOTIATION
MEMO (NECOTIATION ORJECTTVE
FOR EACH COMPANY IN
COMPETITIVE RANGE
DISCUSSIONS ARE HELD
WTTH ALL COMPANIES
M COHPETITIVE RANOE
AND REST AND FINAL
OFFERS (RAFO'S)
REQUESTED
CS/CO RECEIVEsL__ifc
•AFO'S ^_ I ^
CO AND TEP CHAIRMAN
UNSUCCESSFUL
OFFERORa. UPON
THEM REQUEST
* INCLUDES! - STATEMENT OF WORK
- DESIGNATED TECHNICAL EVALUATION BOARD MEMRERS AND CHAIRMAN
- DESIGNATED PROJECT OFFICER
- PROCUREMENT ARSTRACTS AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
- PROCUREMENT REQUEST RATIONALE CHECKLIST
- PLANNING PURCHASE REQUISITION (PR) - EPA FORM ItOO-R
- TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION
- AWARD FEE PLAN, r NECESSARY
- QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) REVIEW FORM. F NECESSARY
- QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, r NECESSARY
- CERTFKATION TO ACCOMPANY PROCUREMENT REQUEST
- SAMPLE WORK ASSIGNMENT
- LEVD.-OF-EFFORT MATRIX
*• RKLUDESl -
- PREPARATION Of PRDJMINARY ANALYTICAL COST EVALUATION
REPORT (PACER)
- RUSMESS EVALUATION PANEL REPORT (REP)
------- |