&EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
           OHice of
           Sohd Waste and
           Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9242.3^)5

TITLE: Rem II Contract Award Fee Performance Evaluation
              APPROVAL DATE:  07/25/84

              EFFECTIVE DATE:  07/25/84

              ORIGINATING OFFICE. OERR/

              Q FINAL

              C DRAFT

               STATUS:


              REFERENCE (other documents):
  OS WER      OS WER     OS WER
VE    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   D

-------
03/19/87       United States Environmental Protection Agency
                      Washington, D.C. 20460
 EPA  OSWER Directive Initiation Request
                                                          1. Directive Number

                                                             9242.3-05
                             2. Originator Information
 Name of Contact Person
    KASCHAK
                          Mall Code
Office
  OERR/HSCD
Telephone Number
 382-2348
 3. Title
      REM  II  CONTRACT AWARD FEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
      PLAN
 4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)

  REM II award fee procedures are essentially the
  same as the revised REM/FIT procedures.  The one
  exception  is the'need for each Region to assess
  the contractor's regional management  activities.
  Specific procedures and  review schedules are
  described  in the Plan.  (7/84, 50 pp)         ;
 5. Keywords

    SUPERFUND,  CERCLA, REMEDIAL PLANNING,  REM II CONTRACT, CONTRACTOR
    PERFORMANCE EVALUATION,  ETC.
6a. Does this Directive Superoede Previous Dlrectlve(9)?|   | yes  |  X|  NO      What directive (number, title)
 b. Does it Supplement Previous Directives^)?
                                    yes
       No    What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level

    A-SlgnedbyAA/DAA
                      B - Signed by Office Director
      C- For Review & Comment
          In Development
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
                                                        Date
9. Name and Title of Approving Official

    WYER
                                                        Date

                                                         07/25/86
       OSWER           OSWER             OSWER
                DIRECTIVE        DIRECTIVE

-------
                                                         OSWER Directive Ql.42.3-

            REM II CONTRACT AWARD FEE PERFORMANCE  EVALUATION  PLAN

                                July 25,  1984
    The contract officially entitled "Performance of RemediaTT^esponse
Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," commonly known as
"REM  II-," was awarded to Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. with an effective date
of June 1, 1984, under Contract No. 68-01-6939.  The contract includes a
provision which enables the Agency to provide the Contractor with an incen-
tive  in the form of an earned financial reward based upon an evaluation of
the Contractor's performance.

    The "REM II" contractor is eligible to earn profit or fee in each of the
performance evaluation categories equal to a percentage of the total esti-
mated cost of the contract, according to the fee structure shown in
Exhibit 1.  A brief description of the basis for award of each component of
the fee structure is provided below.

         Base or "fixed"  fee -- the base fee compensates the Contractor for
         risk.   Based upon final negotiation of the contract, the base fee
         amount does not  vary with performance.  The Contractor will include
         amounts for base fee on monthly vouchers based upon incurred costs.

         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,
         based  upon an evaluation by  EPA of the Contractor's performance.
         The  award fee seeks to motivate the Contractor to provide excel-
         lence  in performance of activities evaluated both collectively and
         individually, in areas such  as quality,  timeliness, ingenuity and
         cost effectiveness.   Determination of the award fee will be made .in
         two  "phases". Phase I will  be for the evaluation of performance on
         a collective or  "contract-wide"  basis that will be conducted on a
         regular,  trimester performance evaluation period.  The Phase II
         award  fee determination will  be made based upon an evaluation com-
         pleted  at the conclusion of  each individual  work assignment.

-------
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   I/)
                                               EXHIBIT  1

                                    REM  II  Contract  Fee  Structure
                                                 70

                                                 O
                                                 _J.

                                                 rt>
                                                 o
                                                                                                    0>
      Performance
      Evaluation
                                      Base
Fee by Type (Percent)

                   Award
           Phase I
Phase II
             Total
I
INJ
      National Program
      Management Office (NPMO)

             Prime Contractor          3%
             Subcontractors            2%
      Remedial Work Assignments

             LOE & Expenses (For       3.5%
             both Prime Contractor
             and Prime Team Members)

             Subcontracting Pool       2%
             7%
             3%
             3%
             2%
   NA*
   NA
   3.5%
   1%
10%
 5%
10%
 5%
      *NA — Not applicable

-------
                                                         OSWER Directive 
-------
                       EXHIBIT2
OVERVIEW OF' REM II" CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
         EVALUATION PLAN ORGANIZATION
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                 CO
73

O

-1

O
                                                                                                                  0>
                       WACR •  WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT
                       SIR - SUMMARY EVAIUA1ION HIPOHt
                       CHP - COMMIINIIY RELAIIONS PIAM
                       TOS - TECHNICAI OVIRSIGHT b SUPPORT
                       PfB - PIHHIHMANCt EVA1UAIION BOARD
                       flH - PEHFOPMANCE EVENT REPOHT
                       PCMO -  PHOCUHEMENI b CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
                       (DO - Itt OEIERMINATIONOFflCIAt

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive

         EPA Summary Evaluation Report (SER)
         EPA Performance Event Report (PER)
         EPA Work Assignment Completion Report (WACR).

Once completed, these reports will be transmitted by the REM II RPO to the-
Headquarters Project Officer who will serve as the Evaluation Coordinator.
Following Headquarters review, these reports will be assembled into a pack-
age to be presented to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) for award fee
determination.

    The remainder of this section focuses on the completion of the three
forms mentioned above, which together comprise the EPA Regional office's
input to the performance evaluation process.  Reporting responsibilities,
reporting frequencies, and completion instructions are outlined for each of
the forms.

    1.1  Completion of the EPA Summary Evaluation Report (SER)

         The SER (see Exhibit 3)  will be used by REM II RPOs  to evaluate the
    Contractor's performance in two evaluation categories,  which include:

              Regional  Program Management [i.e.,  as a component of the NPMO
              evaluation category]

              Overall  Regional  Technical  Performance [i.e., performance of
              remedial  work  assignments  evaluated collectively].

    At  the  end  of  each performance evaluation period,  the REM II  RPO will
    complete and submit to the HQ Evaluation Coordinator at a minimum,  two
    SERs  —  one SER for overall  regional  technical  performance and one SER
    for regional program management.   The SER will  also be  used to report  on
    smaller  projects initiated  under  generic work assignments for community
    relations  plan (CRP)  development  and  implementation; and  technical  over-
    sight and  support  (TOS)  projects.  Accordingly, REM RPOs  must also com-
    plete and  submit,  as  necessary, one  SER that  evaluates  the Contractor's
    performance on all  CRP efforts completed during the evaluation period

                                    -5-

-------
OSWER  Directive
                                            EXHIBIT 3
                                        REM II CONTRACT
                             EPA SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
 CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
CONTRACT NO.
          EPA REGION
                                            CONTRACTOR REGIONAL MANAGER (Name and Phone No.)
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY:
 D OVERALL REGIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
 D REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (REM II ONLY)
 D COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS (CRPt)
 D TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT & SUPPORT (TOS)
RPO (Name and Phone No.)
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD

    FROM:                    TO:
 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

    D OUTSTANDING   D EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
           5                   4
  D SATISFACTORY
         3
D MARGINAL
     2
D UNSATISFACTORY
        1
 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE: (List on a separate page if necessary. Wot* Assignments covered by this report).
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS:
                       RPO SIGNATURE
                              DATE
                                             -6-

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive Q^4^.

 and one SER for all  70S  projects  completed  during  the  evaluation
 period.  The REM II  RPO  should check  the  appropriate box  under the block
 labeled "Performance Evaluation Category" to  indicate  the category of
 Contractor  performance being evaluated  in the report.   Performance in
 each of these areas  will be evaluated once  every four  months, or on a
 trimester basis.   (Appendix A provides  a  plan calendar  for the duration
 of the  contract  period of performance).

      To assist  in  completing the  SERs,  each Regional office should
 develop its  own  internal mechanism for  periodic tracking and reporting
 of Contractor performance on work assignments during the trimester
 period.   One  suggested technique  would  consist of RSPOs completing
 either  or both Part  I and Part II of  the  existing  Performance Event
 Report  (PER)  and submitting it to the REM RPO prior'to  the end of the
 period.   This procedure might also facilitate the completion of PERs for
 work  assignments where performance is less than satisfactory, as ex-
 plained  in the next  paragraph.

     Along with the  SER,  the RPO/RSPO will be required  to complete a PER
 for each  work assignment or area of performance in which the Regional
 office  deems that the Contractor's performance has been less than satis-
 factory.  A PER is shown in Exhibit 4,  and is identical to the form cur-
 rently  used for the  REM/FIT zone contracts.   The PER for reporting less
 than satisfactory performance on an individual work assignment will
 serve as  the Region's primary vehicle for impacting the fee awarded for
 ongoing projects, and provide a valuable input for the PEB in its deter-
mination  of the final amount of the Phase I  award fee to be made to the
 Contractor.   If a PER is  going to be submitted,  the RPO should notify
the Contractor RPM concerning the deficiencies in performance so that
 the Contractor has the opportunity to explain any extenuating circum-
 stances which may be relevant to the subject evaluation.  Also,  this
will allow the Contractor to take appropriate corrective actions.
 Examples  of a completed SER and PER are shown in Appendix B.

     As was  shown in Exhibit 2,  the Contractor may also submit self-
evaluation SERs for the evaluation categories.  The Contractor will
 submit copies of the SERs both to the REM II RPO and HQ Evaluation
                                -7-

-------
OSWER  Directive #242.
                                                      EXHIBIT 4
AWARD FEE PERFORMANCE EVENT REPORT
PART 1: EVENT DESCRIPTION AND OVERALL EVALUATION
CONTRACT NO.
REPORTING ELEMENT
CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR EVAL. REPORT
FILED- O YES D NO
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY
CONTRACTOR CONTACT PHONE NO.
TOO OR WA NO.
DATES OF REPORTED EVENT
FROM: TO:
NO. OF HOURS TOTAL COST
PERFORMANCE MONITOR PHONE NO.
  DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE EVENT
OVERALL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION





PROJECT PLANNING *
TECHNICAL COMPETENCE &
INNOVATION
SCHEDULE & COST CONTROL
REPORTING
RESOURCE UTILIZATION 	
EFFORT 	
* INDIVIDUAL RATINGS FROM
PART II (E.G.. 5-1)
OATE FIT- OR REM RPQ SIGNATURE OVERALL RATING
  HO FIT- OR REM-OPO'S ASSESSMENT & CERTIFICATION
  OATE
                              HQ FIT- OR REM-OPO SIGNATURE
RATING
                                                         -8-

-------
  EXHIBIT4
(CONTINUED)
OSWER Directive
AWARD FEE PERFORMANCE EVENT REPORT
PART II. EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORE SHEET
CONTRACT NO. . CONTRACTOR TDD OH WA NO.
REPORTING ELEMENT DATES OF REPORTED EVENT
FROM: TO:
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY NO. OF HOURS TOTAL COST
CONTRACTOR CONTRACT PHONE NO.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
PROJECT PLANNING
- ORGANIZING (E.G.. WORK PLAN
DEVELOPMENT. DATA REVIEW)
- SCHEDULING
- BUDGETING
TECHNICAL COMPETENCE & INNOVATION
- EFFECTIVENESS OF ANALYSES
- MEET PLAN GOALS
- SUPPORT COE. STATE. ENFORC.
- ADHERE TO REGS, ft PROCEDURES
- APPROACH CREATIVITY/INGENUITY
- EXPERT TESTIMONY
SCHEDULE & COST CONTROL
- BUDGET IHOURS & COST) MAINTENANCE
- PRIORITY/SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS
- COST MINIMIZATION
REPORTING
- TIMELINESS OF DELIVERABLES
- CLARITY
- THOROUGHNESS
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
- STAFFING
- SUBCONTRACTING
- EQUIPMENT. TRAVEL. ETC.
EFFORT
- RESPONSIVENESS
- MOBILIZATION
- OAY-TO-DAY
- SPECIAL SITUATIONS (E.G.. AOVERSEJ
DANGEROUS CONDITIONS)
RATING
5
A
3
2
1

5
4
3
2


5
4
3
2
1

5
4
3
2


5
4
3
2
1

5
4
3
2
1

PERFORMANCE MONITOR PHONE NO.
SUPPORTING COMMENTS






      -9-

-------
OSWER Directive
                        ' 5"
          Coordinator.  (NOTE;   The SER  form shown  in  Exhibit  3  will  be  appro-
          priately altered to reflect  that  the report  originated from the Contrac-
          tor, that is, change  title of  form ["Contractor"  in  lieu of "EPA"] and
          change signature blocks  [e.g.,  "Regional  Program  Manager"  in lieu of
          "RPO"]).

               In general, the  SER form  is  self-explanatory in terms  of  the infor-
          mation required  for completing  each block.   The purpose of  the SER is to
          obtain the REM II RPO's  overall evaluation of  the Contractor's perfor-
          mance in each category from  as  broad a  perspective as  possible.  The REM
          II  RPO should utilize the descriptions  of the  evaluation categories and
          criteria and rating guidelines  outlined in Section 3 of this plan to
          formulate his/her evaluation.   The evaluation  should be concise and pro-
          vide only information which  delineates  performance highlights, signifi-
          cant events,  and strengths and  weaknesses occurring during  the period
          that support the overall  evaluation.  As  such, the SER -should be useful
          in  identifying recurring  difficulties or  trends which  need  to be dis-
          cussed with  the  Contractor.  The  SER for  overall  regional technical per-
          formance should  also  list on the  form or  on  attached pages,  the indivi-
          dual  work assignments  or  projects  that  have  been  considered  for the
          subject  evaluation.

          1.2   Completion  of  the EPA Work Assignment Completion  Report (WACR)

               A WACR  (See  Exhibit  5) will be  prepared for  every work  assignment
          (WA)  upon completion of the project(s)  specified  in the WA Statement of
         Work.  The WACR  is  a threa page form.   Page  1 encompasses the body of
         the  performance  report and will be presented to the PEB.  Page 2 pro-
         vides  a  worksheet for summarizing the cost and schedule information
         associated with  completion of the work  assignment.  This page should be
         submitted  to Headquarters along with Page 1  of the WACR.  Page 3 pro-
         vides  an  additional worksheet to assist the  performance monitor develop
         his/her  review and evaluation,  drawing  on the category descriptions,
         evaluation criteria, and rating guidelines contained in Section 3 of
         this  plan.  This page  should be retained -in  the Region's files.
                                         -10-

-------
                                                                                     Directive
                                                    EXHIBIT 5
                                                                                                     PAGE 1 CF 3
                             EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
  1.  CONTRACT NO.
2.  WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.
3.  EPA REGION
  4.  CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTORIS)
                   5. CONTRACTOR SITE MANAGER IName and Phone No.l
                                                           6.  RSPO IName and Phone No.l
                                                           7.  WORK LOCATION iSite Name & State)
  8. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE SCOPE OF WORK:
  9.  DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE:
  10. UNUSUAL PROBLEMS/OCCURRENCES AFFECTING CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE:
 11. PHASE I AVAILABLE
                     12.  PHASE I PAID
                                          13.  PHASE II AVAILABLE
                        14. PHASE II AWARD RECOMMENDED?

                            D YES    RECOMMENDED SIZE: ,

                            LH NO
                                                                                                    (0-100%)
 15.  STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR PHASE II AWARD: (Additional pages may i»e attached if neccessary)
 RSPO
           Signature and Date
                                      REM RPO
          Signature and Date
                                      HQ EVALUATION COORDINATOR
        Signature and Date
Distribution:
 HQ Evaluation Coordinator (Original)
 Contracting Otticar ICopvl
 REM RPO iCoovl
               -11-

-------
OSWER Directive
                                                       EXHIBITS
                                                    (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                            PAGE 2 of 3
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
CONTRACT NO. WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. EPA REGION
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST INFORMATION WORKSHEET
APPROVED WORK PLAN
AND
WA AMENDMENT
DATES

WORK PLAN APPROVAL DATE
Amendment 1
Amendment 2
Amendment 3












TOTAL PLANNED COST
TOTAL ACTUAL COST
VARIANCE
LOE&
EXPENSE
COST




SUBCON-
TRACTING
POOL
COST




TOTAL
PLANNED
COST




PLANNED
COMPLETION
DATE




ACTUAL
COMPLETION
DATE


%mm%

OittnDution:
 HQ Evaluation Coordinator (Original)
 Contracting Orticar iCopyl
 REM «PO ICOBVI
 HSPO iCoovl
 Contractor ICoovl
-12-

-------
                                              EXHIBIT 5
                                            (CONTINUED)
                                                                           OSWER Directive
                                                                                               PAGE 3 of 3
                       EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
 CONTRACT NO.
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.
   EPA REGION
 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA RATING WORKSHEET
          PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
      RATING
SUPPORTING COMMENTS
 PROJECT PLANNING
 - ORGANIZING (E.G.. WORK PLAN
   DEVELOPMENT. DATA REVIEW)
 - SCHEDULING
 - BUDGETING
            .5

            .4

            _3

            .2
 TECHNICAL COMPETENCE & INNOVATION
 - EFFECTIVENESS OF ANALYSES
 - MEET PLAN GOALS
 - ADHERE TO REGS. & PROCEDURES
 - APPROACH CREATIVITY/INGENUITY
 - SUPPORT COE, STATE. ENFORCEMENT
 - EXPERT TESTIMONY
SCHEDULE & COST CONTROL
- BUDGET (HOURS & COST) MAINTENANCE
- PRIORITY/SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS
- COST MINIMIZATION
REPORTING
- TIMELINESS OF DELIVERABLES
- CLARITY
- THOROUGHNESS
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
- STAFFING
- SUBCONTRACTING
- EQUIPMENT. TRAVEL. ETC.
EFFORT
- RESPONSIVENESS
- MOBILIZATION
- DAY-TO-DAY
- SPECIAL SITUATIONS (E.G.. ADVERSE/
  DANGEROUS CONDITIONS)
Distribution:
 HO Eviiunion CoorSin«tor (Original)
 Contracting Otticir iCoDYl
 REM RPO iCopyl
 RSPO iCoovi
 Contractor (Copy!
             -13-

-------
OSWER Directive
               A work assignment  will  be  considered  "complete" upon approval of
          the final  deliverable by  the RSPO  and receipt of the final  invoice for
          the work assignment.  (A  final  invoice and work assignment  closeout form
          will usually be  received  by  the RSPO within 60 days of project comple-
          tion).   WACRS will  be prepared  by  EPA RSPOs or other appropriate EPA
          personnel  (e.g.,  enforcement or community relations staff)  who were
          responsible for  monitoring the  activities performed by the  Contractor or
          subcontractors.   The WACRs will be forwarded to the REM  II  RPO for re-
          view and approval.  All WACRs received by the REM  II RPO prior to the
          cut-off date for  the evaluation period will be included with the SERs
          (see previous Section 1.1) and  submitted to the HQ Evaluation Coordi-
          nator at the end  of the period.  The REM II contractor will also com-
          plete WACRs  (appropriately altering the title and signature blocks of
          the  form)  and submit these to the  RSPO.

               The WACRs should provide a concise review of the Contractor's pro-
          ject performance  that can be used  by EPA regional and Headquarters per-
          sonnel  to  identify  trends or recurring difficulties relating to the
          conduct  of remedial response activities, and provide the Contractor with
          feedback concerning performance areas requiring improvement.  Completion
          of the form  is generally self-explanatory, with the label for each block
          specifying the required information.   In describing and evaluating the
          Contractor's  performance in Blocks 9, 10, and 15 the RSPO should refer
          to the cost  and schedule information worksheet (Page 2 of the WACR) and
          describe any  deviations in performance from the approved or as amended
          work  plan.  More  specifically, the RSPO's description and evaluation of
          the  Contractor's  performance should succinctly highlight areas such as:

                   Project planning including the development of work plans, pro-
                   ject cost estimates and schedules,  and screening  for organiza-
                   tional  conflicts of interest

                   Technical performance including development of alternative
                   courses of action,  thoroughness of analyses, ingenuity, and
                   adherence to Agency, State and other Federal and  local
                   standards

                                         -14-

-------
                                                          nirect.ivp
           Schedule and  cost  control  including  ability  to  minimize  costs,
           maintain planned budgets  and  schedules,  and  adjust  priorities
           or schedules

           Reporting  including  timeliness, thoroughness  and clarity of
           deliver ables

           Resource utilization and effort including ability to obtain
           subcontractors  and Contractor responsiveness.

 In  discussing these  areas, the RSPO  should refer to the performance
 evaluation criteria  and rating guidelines discussed in Section 3 of this
 plan.  A  completed example of  a WACR is shown  in Appendix B.

      In addition to providing  REM II contract management personnel with
 a vehicle for conducting  regular Contractor reviews, the WACR will also
 be  used to recommend the  Contractor for a Phase II award fee  amount.  As
 described in the introduction,  the REM II contract includes a provision
 enabling  the Agency to provide  the Contractor with a Phase II award fee
 amount for satisfactory, exceeded expectations and outstanding perfor-
 mance of  remedial work assignments.   Phase II award fee recommendations
 may be made by RSPOs and REM II RPOs by completing Blocks 14  and 15 on
 page  1 of the WACR.

     Recommendations should be made based on a determination that the
 Contractor's performance has met or surpassed established "performance
 targets."*  All  projects,  upon completion, should be recommended for a
"Performance targets" that the REM II contractor must meet are sum-
marized in (a) the contract Statement of Work and (b) the contract terms
and conditions.  Contractor performance that meets the terms of the con-
tract and requirements of the Statement of Work [as translated into work
assignments and the approved work plan] is mandatory and represents the
minimum level of performance the government will accept as satisfactory.
                                -15-

-------
OSWER Directive #24-2-3 ~5
        Phase II award provided this basic criterion has been satisfied.   EPA
        personnel responsible for management of the  REM II  contract should re-
        commend Phase II award amounts that are consistent  with the quality of
        the Contractor's performance.

             Phase II award fee recommendations may  be made for an amount  rang-
        ing from 0-100 percent of the  total Phase  II award  fee available for the
        work assignment.  RSPOs should use the  following guidelines* for deter-
        mining the amount [of the Phase II award fee available for the  work
        assignment] to be recommended  for  award:

                  Less than "satisfactory" performance         0 percent
                  "Satisfactory"  performance:                0-30 percent**
                  "Exceeded expectations:"                  31-65 percent
                  "Outstanding"  performance:                66-100 percent.

        All  recommendations must  be  clearly supported,  citing specific  examples
        where the Contractor's  performance was  above satisfactory.   Additional
        support  documents may be  attached  as  appropriate.

             Each Region should  implement  procedures to track and record perfor-
        mance on work assignments  to ensure an  equitable evaluation on  the
        WACR. This is particularly  important to ensure continuity when the RSPO
        is  changed  during the course of the project.
   *   Additional  guidelines for recommending percentages of the  award fees
       made  available for each of the composite groups consisting of:  1)
       community relations plan (CRP) projects; and 2) technical  oversight and
       support  (TOS) projects, will follow those developed for the NPMO
       performance evaluation category.
   **  For example, satisfactory performance by the Contractor will warrant
       payment  to  the Contractor of the base and Phase I award fee negotiated
       for the  remedial work assignments performance evaluation category, and
       an award amount ranging from 0-30 percent of the Phase II  amount
       available for the work assignment.
                                       -16-

-------
                                                         OSWER  Directive  
-------
                                                   OSWER Directive

 2.1   Performance  Information Coordination:  The Headquarters Evaluation
      Coordinator

      Within  EPA Headquarters, the REM  II contract Project Officer will
 be responsible for organizing and overseeing the award fee performance
 evaluation process, serving as the Headquarters Evaluation Coordinator.
 The  HQ  Evaluation Coordinator's primary responsibility includes coordi-
 nation  and presentation of a performance evaluation package to the PEB.
 In addition, the HQ Evaluation Coordinator will prepare the nationwide
 SERs for  the program management and overall technical performance eval-
 uation  categories as part of the package submitted to the PEB.

      The  remainder of this discussion will focus on the preparation of
 the  PEB evaluation package, which will dominate the efforts performed by
 the  Evaluation Coordinator.

      Based upon the SERs for regional program management, overall
 regional  technical performance, CRPs and TOSs received from the EPA
 regional  offices,  the Evaluation Coordinator will prepare composite SERs
 for  each  evaluation area.   The Evaluation Coordinator will also include
 an SER with his/her own evaluation of the performance of the NPMO and
 any  work  performed to directly support the EPA Headquarters program
 offices.  In addition,  the Evaluation Coordinator will include on the
 NPMO  SER  an assessment of the Contractor's performance in meeting the
 objectives established in the EPA approved Contractor subcontracting
 plan  that was negotiated as part of the REM II contract.   The Evaluation
 Coordinator will  also obtain and submit SERs completed by the Contract-
 ing Officer (CO)  as part of the PEB package.

     The Evaluation Coordinator will  review any WACRs submitted by the
Regions during the performance evaluation period.   For those WACRs con-
taining recommendations for Phase II  award fee amounts,  the Evaluation
Coordinator can review the basis and  completeness of the support for
 such a recommendation.   If more information is needed, the Evaluation
Coordinator may contact the Regional  office (e.g.,  RPO or RSPO) concern-
                                -18-

-------
                                                 OSWER Directive
 ing questions  or  more  support  required  to  substantiate the Phase  II
 award fee  recommendation.   The Evaluation  Coordinator can also provide
 comments and recommendations on a separate page concerning his/her in-
 dividual evaluation  of the  Contractor's performance for the project
 under consideration, and attach these comments to the WACR.

      The Evaluation  Coordinator will be responsible for preparing and
 presenting  all material (e.g.,  SERs and any WACRs) required by the PEB
 to  make its assessment of the  Contractor's performance in the form of a
 PEB evaluation package.  In addition to the SERs and WACRs, the PEB
 package will also contain tables presenting the information as shown in
 Exhibit 6 and Exhibit  7.  Exhibit 6 will be prepared and submitted by
 the Contractor to the  Evaluation Coordinator at the end of each perfor-
 mance  evaluation period.  The  table will be used to determine the Phase
 I award fee available  for the  period.  Exhibit 7 will be prepared by the
 HQ  Evaluation Coordinator to present the Phase II award fee allocation
 matrix and summarize the evaluations made by the Regions, Contractor, HQ
 and  the PEB.  The material will be organized in such a manner as to en-
 able  it to be used both as the  PEB's agenda, and as the complete docu-
 mentation package which will support the PEB's fee recommendation.  The
 PEB evaluation package will be organized into separate sections for each
 performance evaluation category.

     The entire PEB evaluation package must be sent to the PEB members
 at  least 5 work days prior to convening the PEB review, as indicated in
the plan calendar contained in Appendix A.
                     - '£':" .
2.2  Evaluation of Performance;  The PEB Review

     The PEB will  perform an in-depth review of information contained in
the performance evaluation package to arrive at the recommended award
fee.  The PEB shall  consist of a chairman,  an executive secretary and
approximately 7 board members all appointed by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Administration from within the ranks of the Agency.
                                -19-

-------
                                                                 EXHIFWfe

                                                    PHASE I AWARD FEE ALLOCATION MATRIX
                                                                 (In Thousands)
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
-

SITE NAME AND ACTIVITY

WORK ASSIGNMENT BUDGET
APPROVED
WA
COST1

PHASE 1
AWARD
FEE

PHASE II
AWARD
FEE

CUMULATIVE
COST
•
PHASE 1
AVAILABLE

PHASE 1
AWARDED

AWARD FEE AVAILABLE
FOR PERIOD
COSTS
FOR
PERIOD

PHASE 1
AWARD
FEE

o
oo
                                                                                                                                                 •yo
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                 -j
                                                                                                                                                 ro
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                 <
                                                                                                                                                 0>
                                                                                                                                                 V\
o
i
      1 AN CI ASTERISK NEXT TO A COST FIGURE INDICATES
       THAT THE APPROVED WORK PLAN COST MAS BEEN
       MODIFIED THROUGH AN APPROVED AMENDMENT TO
       THE WORK ASSIGNMENT

-------
            WHIBIT 7

PHASE II AWARD FEE ALLOCATION MATRIX
            (In Thousands)
1
fM
1






WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER








SITE NAME AND ACTIVITY








PHASE II
POOL
AVAILABLE








SIZE OF RECOMMENDED PHASE II AWARD
10-100 PERCENT)
CONTRAC-
TOR








REGION








HO








PEB
"







COMMENTS











O
GO
E:
rn
TO
o
ft)
o
ri-
0>
Ni
Oo

-------
OSWER Directive 9 2.4-2. • 3'jT

             The PEB members will determine fees to be awarded according to the
        award fee allocation matrices describing the Phase I and II award fees
        available for the subject evaluation period and on a cumulative basis
        for the contract.  Completed examples of the  Phase I and Phase II award
        fee allocation matrices are shown in Appendix B.

             Following the PEB meeting at which the award fee recommendation is
        reached, the Executive Secretary will prepare a Performance Evaluation
        Report which will be the official record of the PEB meeting and forward
        this to the Contracting Officer.  The Contracting Officer will  prepare  a
        letter for signature by the Fee Determination Official  (FDD)  informing
        the Contractor's general management of the amount and basis of  the fee
        award.  The FDD will review the performance evaluation  and the  fee re-
        commendation made by the PEB and make a final determination of  fee.
        Following concurrence by the FDO, the award fee will be made to the
        Contractor by the award officer.

    3.   PERFORMANCE  EVALUATION CATEGORIES,  CRITERIA,  AND  RATING GUIDELINES

        In  order to  evaluate the REM II contractor's  performance,  two evaluation
    categories and  a set of  evaluation criteria have  been developed.  In addi-
    tion, a five point rating system and a  set of rating  guidelines to  match
    evaluation criteria  with ratings have also been established.   This  section
    highlights these components  of  the plan by:

            Defining each of the performance evaluation  categories

            Outlining the evaluation  criteria to be  used to complete the SERs
            and WACRs

            Describing  rating  guidelines for scoring each of the  criteria.

    The  section  will  also highlight  specific  examples of  Contractor performance
    that may warrant consideration  for an award  amount from the Phase II  award
    fee  pool.
                                        -22-

-------
                                                OSWER Directive
 3.1   Performance  Evaluation  Categories
     The  REM  II contractor's performance will be evaluated on the basis
of  its  ability to provide the necessary personnel, services, equipment
and materials to support the remedial program in various performance
categories that correspond to the organization of contract resources.
The evaluation categories cover the two main organization components of
the 'contract:

          National Program Management Office (NPMO)

          Remedial Work Assignments (evaluated collectively and
          individually).

A description of the basis for evaluating each category is provided
below.

          National  Program Management Office (NPMO) (e.g.,  program
          management)
       \j
          Performance in the program management evaluation category will
          be completed on a nationwide basis, relying on input from each
          of the EPA regional  offices and Headquarters review of the
          NPMO.   Program management constitutes technical,  management,
          administrative, and  clerical activities performed by the Con-
          tractor in order to  ensure:

               Quality control /assurance  of all  work performed under the
               contract including data management

               Personnel management including staffing, recruiting,
               training, and mobilization

              Adherence to  standard  Agency and other Federal  procedures
               and  guidelines  (e.g.,  security,  health and safety, and
               enforcement/legal)

                                -23-

-------
OSWER Directive 
-------
                                              OSWER Directive 9142.3">

           is rated as satisfactory, generally will warrant payment to
           the Contractor of the entire amount of the Phase I award fee
           pool available for the trimester period.  However, the PEB can
           adjust the actual amount of Phase I fee  awarded as appropriate
           to reflect reports of less than satisfactory performance on
           individual work assignments.  The HQ Project Officer is re-
           sponsible for completing an SER for the  entire contract in
           this subcategory, based on SERs submitted by each Region,
           which evaluate overall technical performance on a Regional
           basis.

           Technical performance of the prime contractor, prime contrac-
           tor team members, and any subcontractors procurred, will also
           be evaluated at the completion of project('s) specified in work
           assignments.  RSPOs, REM II RPOs and other performance moni-
           tors will prepare a WACR for every work  assignment.  Based on
           a determination that the Contractor's performance has met or
           surpassed established performance targets, the Contractor may
           be recommended for an award ranging from 0-100 percent of the
           Phase II award fee pool  available for the work assignment.
           Phase II award fee pools will be calculated for each remedial
           work assignment each trimester according to the fee structure
           that was presented in Exhibit 1.  Phase II award fees will  be
           accumulated for the project and held in reserve, pending com-
           pletion of all projects  specified in the work assignment.
          Final  determination of any award in this subcategory will be
          made by the PEB.   Guidelines for determining the amount of the
          Phase II award fee to be recommended were set forth under
          Section 1.2.

3.2  Performance Evaluation Criteria

     The performance  evaluation criteria that have been developed for
the REM II contract are  presented  in Exhibit 8.  The evaluation criteria
are generic and  were  developed to  provide a uniform basis to evaluate
                                -25-

-------
OSWER Directive 9142. 3~&

                                        EXHIBITS

                            Performance Evaluation  Criteria


     PROJECT PLANNING

             • Development of plans (e.g., work plans,  National  and Regional
              Management Plans, etc.)

              Development of project cost estimates and schedules

              Screening for organizational conflicts of interest

              Elimination of duplicative efforts

              Scheduling and budgeting multiple  projects within cost and  priority
              requirements.

     TECHNICAL  COMPETENCE AND INNOVATION

              Effectiveness  and thoroughness  of  analyses

              Meet plan goals and objectives

             Development of alternatives and implementation of courses of action

             Adherence to Agency and other Federal  regulations,  procedures, and
              guidelines (e.g., health and safety,  chain-of custody/document con-
             trol,  CERCLA and RCRA  regulations,  subcontracting,  etc.)

             Provision of technical  support  to  U.S. Army COE,  states, and other
             Agency or Federal offices
                                         -26-

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive ^242. 3'5"
                                  EXHIBIT 8
                                (CONTINUED)
EFFORT

         Responsiveness
         Preparedness  and  mobilization  of  resources for contract and
         assignments

         Regularity and  effectiveness of day-to-day support/communication
         with regional/headquarters  personnel and other organizations and
         individuals involved with site

         Performance in  special  situations  (e.g., adverse/dangerous condi-
         tions or  expedited time frames).
                                   -28-

-------
OSWER Directive
            any work  performed  by  the  Contractor, regardless of the performance
            evaluation  category under  which the work may be grouped.  However, be-
            cause  work  within the  performance evaluation categories differs, the
            application of the  evaluation criteria will also necessarily vary.

                For  example, the  evaluation criteria "project planning" can be
            applied straight-forwardly with respect to work performed in the techni-
            cal .performance of  the remedial work assignments category (i.e., the
            Contractor's ability to develop a well thought-out plan in response to a
            work assignment).  On the other hand, for work performed in the NPMO
            category, the project planning criteria would apply to the Contractor's
            ability to  develop Regional Management Plans or the coordination of work
            among the various Contractor Regional management offices.

                Another example is the application of the "schedule/cost control"
           criteria.   For remedial planning work, the schedule/cost control cri-
           teria would apply to the Contractor's ability to adhere to budgets/
           schedules for discrete tasks, projects or activities,  while for program
           management, the criteria would apply to the Contractor's ability to meet
           projected costs for  the overall  contract or the NPMO.

                Similar examples can be cited  for each of the criteria with respect
           to the different  types  of work that must be performed  under the con-
           tract.   The primary  distinction  in  the application of  the criteria de-
           pends whether or  not the work involves a discrete  task or overall  man-
           agement of various organizational components of the contract.   The
           application of the criteria is the  responsibility  of the individual  per-
           formance monitors and must be reviewed by the  Regional and  Headquarters
           officials  responsible for coordinating the performance evaluation
           process.

           3.3  Performance  Evaluation Rating  Guidelines

                On both the  SER and the WACR forms,  certain portions of these forms
           require the evaluator to rate the Contractor's  performance  in terms  of
           the evaluation  criteria (individually or collectively) according to  the
           following  scale:
                                           -29-

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive #2^2-3 ' l>

                         "5"  -  Outstanding
                         "4"  -  Exceeded expectations
                         "3"  -  Satisfactory
                         "2"  -  Marginal
                         "1"  -  Unsatisfactory

     Exhibit  9  provides example rating guidelines that can be used by evalua-
     tors  (e.g.,  HQ  Project Officer, REM II RPOs, RSPOs) to score their
     evaluation of the Contractor's performance in terms of the evaluation
     criteria.

          Additional guidelines for evaluating the Contractor's technical
     performance  on  remedial  work assignments have also been developed to
     assist RSPOs and Contractor personnel complete WACRs and are shown in
     Exhibit  10.  These guidelines, taken together with the evaluation cri-
     teria listed in Exhibit  8  and the rating guidelines in Exhibit 9, should
     aid the  evaluator in determining whether or not the Contractor's techni-
     cal performance on remedial work assignments warrants recommendation for
     a Phase  II award fee.
Final determination of any fee awarded from either the Phase I or Phase II
award fee pools will be at the discretion of the PEB.
                                    -30-

-------
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                  EXHIBIT 9
                                             RATING GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

RATING
6
OUT8TANDINO
4
EXCEEDED
EXPECTATIONS ,
3
SATISFACTORY
2
MARGINAL
1
UNSATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PROJECT PLANNING
Ensures thai cost/time b
mininitfed ID moat technical
direction specifications
"Fast tacking" CM stream
load approaciie* Nupkmien
lad a* necessary
Provide* (or significant
cost/time savings and con
oka adequate approaches to
address iequiromanc> con
tained inWA
Adequate «o meet re
quiiamanO specified in
Stulementfs) ol work, and
goab and objectives ol the
program andloi conduct
requirements
Work assignment or connact
specifications no! compkilety
addressed
Cost and/or time ilis|m>nor
tioneta to required level ul
•Hurt
Inconect identification
ol requirements nouded to
meet SOW
Inadequate sr.tieikile to
provide quality product nr
service
TECHNICAL COMPETENCE
AND INNOVA1 ION
Innovative technical .solution
append
Results may establish slaw
ul OKI ait approach lu
addruss problarria
Mbt tiriynal eatabttshed
obiective*
fkiaiiry we* above average
ol experience with similar
type conDuctora over past
two yean
Quality win avecaije ol e«
periunce witfl sinular type
cuniiaciore over past two
yoaik
Ouirbly vwus buMiw ovuruye
ol e«|icrium:e vuidi similar
IY|MI c«Miuat:tORk ovur past
two years
lai:k ol lecliriiiiiil L«HII
|M!lunUntce ewnleill ill iuiy ol
impr tui:luuc.il or nhHUHie
iiiunl area* iMl«lii^st»l
SCHEDULE AND COST
CONTROL
Original schedule mat in
spite ol mapr oiwralional im
IMtdiiiieiitt
Services completBd ahead ol
schedule at a reduced cost
to the Government ttian
onginuiy estimated
Original schedule met in
spito ol minor operational im
pediments
Services completed on
schedule at a reduced cost
ID die Government
Original schedule, met
Cost was reasonable con
sidering scope of effort
Original scliadule skped
widHMil adequate wtuning or
fislilicatiori
Available cost savings not
biken advantage ol
Activities completed so late
as to liave resulted in loss ol
utility or negatively impacted
IHiMjram
REPORTING
Reports provide such insight
into key problems end poten
tiul sokiuurn as to serve as
naster plan lor corrective ac-
tion
No rewrite ol report required
by EPA personnel
Al reports are ol
consistent high quality
both in content and
presentation
No rewrite ol report
required by EPA personnel
All required reports were
delivered on time and with
contents as specified
V
Required reports wet*
delivered within 1 5 days
alter due data but wrdioul
adequate pjsliftcation or
wuining
Contents ol report not as
specified
Required reports delivered
more Ilian one week late
widioiii adequate juslilica
tion or waminij
Contents ot report, nwule
i|uala to permit inter)" el-mon
of prolikims or actions
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
All ol the contractor
resources ere applied to
mlnimue costs and lime.
while enhancing overal work
quality
One or a lew ol the connec-
tor resources are uotiied etfV
cxmdy. resulting in cost 01
time savings anil providing
specified quality al work
Staffing, subcontracting.
equ^iment and oilier
resource* (e.g.. navel ad*
quataly uutued 10 meet pro-
isct and connect n>
quirements
One or a lew ol connector
resources are not used eftV
ciandy. lesutling in cost over-
nms and time delays
Consistent poor ot*»abon ol
resources wliich hinders the
ii«)lenientut>on of the pro
gram
EFFORT
Conngency plans etwaye
developed
Response action* taken In
extreme weather conditions
or high risk areas
Personal effort wel beyond
contract requirements
Appropriate resource atoce-
•on to counter operational
invedimanti
Responsive to minor changes
in scope ol work and priority
adjustments
Resources mohitirad in sum
ciem time to meet
established budgetischedule
Regular communication and
interaction with Agency
personnel
Effort was below average ol
experience with simitar type
contractors over the lest two
years under similar cir-
cumstances
Ad hoc requests and opera-
tional inyiedimeitta un
wldreued: and adequate
wenting or justification was
not provided or wus un
acceptable
73
O
_j.
0>
O
(-+
<
ID
I
oo

-------
                                                            ExTTT§iT 10

                                       ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR RECOMMENDING CONTRACTOR'S
                                          TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE FOR PHASE II AWARD FEES
I
CO
IN)
EXAMPLE  GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING "PERFORMANCE
          OR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE THRESHOLDS] ;

         Adhering to all Agency health, safety and
         quality assurance procedures

         Submitting all cost control and other technical
         and/or progress reports on time with contents
         as specified

         Mobilizing resources  to meet established budgets/
         schedules

         Developing work plans which are adequate to  meet
         the goals and objectives of the work assignment
         Statement of Work

         Adequately utilizing  staffing, subcontracting,
         equipment and other resources  to  meet project
         requirements

         Completing all required activities  specified in
         in the work assignment according  to the original
         schedule and within the required  completion  date.
EXAMPLE GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING THAT "PERFORMANCE
TARGETS" HAVE BEEN SURPASSED (e.g.. DETERMINING~ABOVE
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE)!

           Preparation of work plans that ensure that
           cost/time is minimized  (e.g., overtime
           hours needed to implement the project are
           kept to a minimum) and/or the objectives of
           the project are met at  a reduced cost or
           shorter schedule than estimated in the work
           assignment.

           The original schedule specified in the work
           assignment was met in spite of major
           operational impediments; services were
           completed ahead of schedule without
           increased costs to the  Government; costs
           of completing  the services were greater
           than 5 percent below the work assignment
           ceiling amount or approved ceiling
           modifications  and cost  savings weie greater
           than the amount recommended  for the
           Phase II award.

           Services were  provided  in extremely adverse
           weather conditions or high risk situations;
           personal effort was well beyond contract
           requirements;  responsive to  both major and
           minor changes  in the scope of work.

           Contractor developed services that
           established state-of-the-art approaches to
           address problems; developed  procedures that
           reduce exposure of on-site personnel  to
           hazardous substances and/or  contamination
           of the surrounding community; effectively
           developed contingency plans  or fall-back
           strategies.

           All of the contractor resources were
           applied to minimize costs and time, while
           enhancing overall work  quality.

           Contractor's efforts lead to a general
           enhancement of the state-of-technology in
           responding to  and mitigating adverse
           effects due to hazardous substance releases,
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                 -Cs

-------
OSWER Directive $1.41.. 3~
                              APPENDIX A

                  Performance Evaluation Plan Calendar
   Performance Evaluation Period 1

   Performance Evaluation Period
   Cut-off  Date  for Contractor
   Activities  to be Considered for
   Subject  Evaluation Period

   Last Day EPA  SERs and WACRs
   Accepted by REM II RPO

   Regional Performance Evaluation
   Package  Due to Headquarters Project
   Officer

   Headquarters  Performance Evaluation
   Package  Due to PEB

   PEB  Review  Meeting

   Letter to Contractor-Award
   Notification

   Performance Evaluation Period 2

   Performance Evaluation Period
  Cut-off Date for Contractor
  Activities to be Considered for
  Subject Evaluation Period

  Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
  Accepted by REM II RPO

  Regional Performance Evaluation
  Package Due to Headquarters Project
  Officer

  Headquarters Performance Evaluation
  Package Due to PEB

  PEB Review Meeting

  Letter to Contractor-Award
  Notification
            Date

Friday, June 1, 1984 -
Wednesday, October 31, 1984

Tuesday, October 16, 1984
Monday, October 29, 1984


Monday, November 5, 1984



Friday, November 16, 1984


Thursday, November 29, 1984

Thursday, December 13, 1984
Thursday, November 1, 1984 •
Thursday, February 28, 1985

Friday, February 15, 1985
Tuesday, February 26, 1985


Tuesday, March 5, 1985



Friday, March 15, 1985


Tuesday, March 26, 1985

Tuesday, April 9, 1985
                                 A-l

-------
                                             OSWER Directive 924-2.3
 Performance Evaluation Period  3

 Performance Evaluation Period
 Cut-off Date for Contractor
 Activities to be Considered  for
 Subject Evaluation Period

 Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
 Accepted by REM  II RPO

 Regional Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to Headquarters  Project
 Officer

 Headquarters Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to PEB

 PEB  Review Meeting

 Letter  to Contractor-Award
 Notification

 Performance Evaluation Period 4

 Performance Evaluation Period
Cut-off Date for Contractor
Activities to be Considered for
Subject Evaluation Period

Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
Accepted by REM II RPO

Regional Performance Evaluation
Package Due to Headquarters Project
Officer

Headquarters Performance Evaluation
Package Due to PEB

PEB Review Meeting

Letter to Contractor-Award
Notification
 Friday, March  1, 1985 -
 Sunday, June 30, 1985

 Monday, June 17, 1985
 Thursday, June 27, 1985


 Tuesday, July 9, 1985



 Friday, July 19, 1985


 Tuesday, July 30, 1985

 Tuesday, August 13, 1985
Monday, July 1, 1985 -
Thursday, October 31, 1985

Wednesday, October 16, 1985
Tuesday, October 29, 1985


Tuessday, November 5, 1985



Monday, November 18, 1985


Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Tuesday, December 17, 1985
                               A-2

-------
OSWER Directive
                  . 3 "if
 Performance Evaluation Period  5

 Performance Evaluation Period
 Cut-off Date for Contractor
 Activities to be Considered  for
 Subject Evaluation Period

 Last Day EPA SERs and  WACRs
 Accepted by REM II RPO

 Regional Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to Headquarters  Project
 Officer

 Headquarters Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to PEB

 PEB  Review Meeting

 Letter  to Contractor-Award
 Notification

 Performance Evaluation Period 6

 Performance Evaluation Period
Cut-off Date for Contractor
Activities to be Considered for
Subject Evaluation Period

Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
Accepted by REM II RPO

Regional Performance Evaluation
Package Due to Headquarters Project
Officer

Headquarters Performance Evaluation
Package Due to PEB

PEB Review Meeting

Letter to Contractor-Award
Notification
                                       Friday,  November  1, 1985 -
                                       Friday,  February  28, 1986

                                       Monday,  February  17, 1986
                                      Wednesday,  February 26, 1986


                                      Wednesday,  March 5, 1986



                                      Friday, March 14, 1986


                                      Tuesday, March 25, 1986

                                      Tuesday, April 8, 1986
                                      Saturday, March 1, 1986
                                      Monday, June 30, 1986

                                      Monday, June 16, 1986
                                      Friday, June 27, 1986


                                      Tuesday, July 8, 1986



                                      Friday, July 18, 1986


                                      Tuesday, July 29, 1986

                                      Tuesday, August 12, 1986
                                A-3

-------
                                            OSWER Directive
 Performance Evaluation Period  7

 Performance Evaluation Period
 Cut-off Date for Contractor
 Activities to be Considered  for
 Subject Evaluation Period

 Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
 Accepted by REM II RPO

 Regional Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to Headquarters  Project
 Officer

 Headquarters Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to PEB

 PEB  Review Meeting

 Letter  to Contractor-Award
 Notification

 Performance Evaluation Period 8

 Performance Evaluation Period
Cut-off Date for Contractor
Activities  to be Considered for
Subject Evaluation Period

Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
Accepted by REM II RPO

Regional Performance Evaluation
Package Due to Headquarters Project
Officer

Headquarters Performance Evaluation
Package Due to PEB

PEB Review Meeting

Letter to Contractor-Award
Notification
 Tuesday,  July 1,  1986  -
 Friday,  October  31,  1986

 Thursday,  October 16,  1986
 Wednesday,  October  29, 1986


 Wednesday,  November  5, 1986



 Monday, November  17, 1986


 Tuesday, December 2, 1986

 Tuesday, December 16, 1986
Saturday, November 1, 1986 -
Saturday, February 28, 1987

Monday, February 16, 1987
Thursday, February 26, 1987


Thursday, March 5, 1987



Monday. March 16. 1987


Thursday, March 26, 1987

Thursday, April 9, 1987
                               A-4

-------
-OSWER Directive
 Performance Evaluation Period 9

 Performance Evaluation Period
 Cut-off Date for Contractor
 Activities to be Considered  for
 Subject Evaluation Period

 Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
 Accepted by REM II RPO

 Regional Performance  Evaluation
 Package Due to Headquarters  Project
 Officer

 Headquarters Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to PEB

 PEB  Review Meeting

 Letter  to Contractor-Award
 Notification

 Performance Evaluation Period 10

 Performance Evaluation Period
Cut-off Date  for Contractor
Activities  to be Considered for
Subject Evaluation Period

Last Day EPA  SERs and WACRs
Accepted by REM II RPO

Regional Performance Evaluation
Package Due to Headquarters Project
Officer

Headquarters  Performance Evaluation
Package Due to PEB

PEB Review Meeting

Letter to Contractor-Award
Notification
 Sunday,  March 1,  1987  •
 Tuesday, June 30,  1987

 Tuesday, June 16,  1987
 Friday,  June  26,  1987


 Thursday,  July 9,  1987



 Monday,  July  20,  1987


 Thursday,  July 30, 1987

 Thursday,  August  13, 1987
Wednesday,  July  1, 1987 -
Saturday, October 31, 1987

Friday, October  16, 1987
Wednesday, October 28, 1987


Wednesday, November 4, 1987



Monday, November 16, 1987


Thursday, December 3, 1987

Thursday, December 17, 1987
                                A-5

-------
                                             OSWER Directive
 Performance Evaluation Period  11

 Performance Evaluation Period
 Cut-off Date for Contractor
 Activities to be Considered  for
 Subject Evaluation Period

 Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
 Accepted by REM II RPO

 Regional Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to Headquarters  Project
 Officer

 Headquarters Performance Evaluation
 Package Due to PEB

 PEB  Review Meeting

 Letter  to Contractor-Award
 Notification

 Performance Evaluation Period 12

 Performance Evaluation Period
Cut-off Date  for Contractor
Activities to be Considered for
Subject Evaluation Period

Last Day EPA SERs and WACRs
Accepted by REM II RPO

Regional Performance Evaluation
Package Due to Headquarters Project
Officer

Headquarters Performance Evaluation
Package Due to PEB

PEB Review Meeting

Letter to Contractor-Award
Notification
 Sunday,  November  1,  1987  •
 Monday,  February  29,  1988

 Monday,  February  15,  1988
 Friday,  February  26, 1988


 Friday,  March  4,  1988



 Tuesday, March  15, 1988


 Tuesday, March  29, 1988

 Tuesday, April  12, 1988
Tuesday, March 1, 1988
Tuesday, May 31, 1988

Monday, May 16, 1988
Friday, May 27, 1988


Tuesday, June 7, 1988



Monday, June 20, 1988


Thursday, June 30, 1988

Thursday, July 14, 1988
                               A-6

-------
OSWER Directive
                                    APPENDIX B
                               Completed Examples of
                            Performance  Evaluation Forms
                                 and  Report Formats
                       Summary  Evaluation Report  (SER)

                       Performance  Event Report (PER)

                       Work Assignment Completion Report (WACR)

                       Phase  I  Award Fee Allocation Matrix

                       Phase  II Award Fee Allocation Matrix

-------
                                         EXAMPLE
                       OSWER Directive
                                                                                                 Page 1 of 2
                               EPA SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTORIS)
WASTEBUSTERa INC
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY:
X OVERALL REGIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
D REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (REM II ONLY)
D COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS (CRPs)
D TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT ft SUPPORT (TOS)
CONTRACT NO.
68-01-9999
EPA REGION
III
CONTRACTOR REGIONAL MANAGER (Name and Phone No.)
Robert Davis (215) 588-5598
RPO (Name and Phone No. )
Jerry Salvato FTS
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
FROM: 11/1/84
597-9492
TO: 2/28/85
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:


    D OUTSTANDING  C EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS

            5                     4
X SATISFACTORY   D MARGINAL   D UNSATISFACTORY

        3                2                1
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE: (List on a separate page if necessary. Work Assignments covered by this report}.

The subject evaluation includes an assessment of the Contractor's performance on seven (7) work assignments (WAs) that
are listed in attached Table 1. Of the seven WAs listed, two (2) WAs were initiated and one WA was completed during the

period. A WACR is included  in the Regional package for the Dillon Dump RI/FS, which was completed December 7. In
addition to these projects, three (3) RI/FS and one (1) IRM WA are still underway. Overall, technical performance on these

WAs has been noted as  "satisfactory" or "exceeded expectations" with the exception of the IRM at the A&A Fabricators

site. A separate  PER is included for this WA.
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS:

STRENGTHS
  • Preparation, processing and approval of work plans continues to be accomplished with no delays, thus expediting
    project initiation.                 , -e ••'

  • RI/FS work assignments for Site X, I-Beam and Town Dump are being carried out at an accelerated pace at the
    Region's request, despite setbacks experienced due to time delays and lapses in data analysis, validation, and
    turnaround time.                     .'

  • Initiation of technical/enforcement support for Bosco Industries required immediate involvement in intense ongoing
    litigations and negotiations with responsible parties: contractor not only readily adjusted to the environment but also.
    first approach developed was amenable to all panics, requiring only minor fine-tuning.

WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS
  • Cost minimization on the part of Wastebusters in carrying out the work assignment is not always evident; particular
    attention should be paid to reviewing existing BOAs for drum removal and disposal subcontractors.

  • Contractor needs to improve capability for ensuring that all  reports, both project tracking and deliverables. are in
    format as specified and delivered on time.
                        RPO SIGNATURE
                               DATE

-------
OSWER Directive 92.4-2.3'$'
                                TABLE 1

                   Remedial Planning Work Assignments
                   Performance Evaluation Period No. 2
                   November 1, 1984 • February 28, 1985
WA
Number
11.3L38.0
14.3L60.1
16.3L40.2
17.3W41.1
18.3M12.0
19.3L06.0
20.3V27.0
Site Name
& Activity
Site X, RI/FS
Chem City, NJ
I-Beam, Inc., RI/FS
Madison, PA
Dillon Dump, RI/FS
Richmond, VA
A&A Fabricators, IRM
Hanover, WV
Waste All Inc., FS
Upstate, NJ
Town Dump, RI/FS
Springville, MD
Bosco Industries, ES
Start
Date
12/22/83
6/4/84
2/15/84
7/18/84
9/27/84
11/30/84
1/10/85
Completion
Date
Active
Active
12/7/84
Active
Active
Active
Active
                   Cedar, PA

-------
                                          EXAMPLE
                                                                             OSWER  Directive
EPA SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
CONTRACTOR/ SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
WASTEBUSTERS. INC.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY:
H OVERALL REGIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
i_ REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (REM II ONLY)
S COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS (CRPs)
X TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT & SUPPORT (TOS)
CONTRACT NO.
68-01-9999
EPA REGION
III
CONTRACTOR REGIONAL MANAGER (Name and Phone No.>
Robert Davis (215) 588-5598
RPO (Name and Phone No. I
Jerry Salvato
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
FROM: 11/1/84
FTS 597-9492
TO: 2/28/85
 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

    X OUTSTANDING  ~ EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS     C SATISFACTORY   C MARGINAL
            5                      4                       32
    UNSATISFACTORY
           1
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE: (List on a separate page if necessary, Work Assignments covered by this report}.

 The subject evaluation provides a combined assessment of the Contractor's performance on three (3) community relation
 plan (CRP) projects and three (3) technical oversight and support (TOS) projects. The projects under consideration are
 listed in Table 2. All work on both the CRP and TOS projects was completed as of the end of the performance evaluation
 period. As indicated above, the Contractor's performance in both areas has been rated "outstanding." A brief description
 of the activities under consideration is given below:
  •  Completion and execution of three comprehensive CRPs including one for an RI/FS, one  for a state-lead  RI/FS. and a
     revised CRP for a remedial design and construction project
  •  Evaluation of proposed sampling plan for Shore Terminal. Inc
  •  Review of feasibility study/conceptional design prepared by West Virginia DER  for CoalTrans site
  •  Provision  of technical assistance to monitor voluntary cleanup at Delaware Canal site
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS:
STRENGTHS
  *  Wastebusters continues to prepare CRPs and conduct community relations assessments that are extremely innovative.
    custom-tailored, and include an excellent mix of community relations techniques (e.g.. briefings, public meetings, site
    tours, workshops, etc); CRP for state-lead RI/FS for Chemclean site was cited in a letter from the Governor of West
    Virginia as "a job well done."
  •  Wastebusters continues to assemble teams quickly, and obtain expertise from outside sources as appropriate to
    provide technical oversight and support; Wastebusters technical support in monitoring RI/FS and cleanup at Delaware
    Canal included  a number of prompt responses to requests on "an as needed basis" usually within  hours or days:
    quick-turnaround sampling and analysts was particularly noteworthy.
  •  Wastebusters has done an outstanding job of utilizing resources to meet Region's changing priorities, avoiding delays
    and meeting deadlines; Contractor staff exhibits a  high degree of professionalism, dedication and sensitivity to the
    importance of all work assigned.
                         RPO SIGNATURE
DATE

-------
                                OSWER Directive
               TABLE 2

         CRP and TOS Projects
   Performance Evaluation Period No. 2
  November 1, 1984 - February 28, 1985
WA
Number
21.3V06.0
22.3V47.0
24.3V19.0
10.3V43.0
15.3V58.0
7.3V33.0
Site Name
& Activity
Town Dump (CRP)
Springville, MD
Chemclean Corp. (CRP)
Elkins, WV
Falls Road (CRP)
Concord, PA
Shore Terminal, Inc. (TOS)
Edison, NJ
CoalTrans (TOS)
Cornersburg, MD
Delaware Canal (TOS)
Start
Date
11/30/84
10/15/84
9/31/84
12/8/84
11/1/84
1/15/85
Completion
Date
1/31/85
1/7/85
12/1/84
12/22/84
11/30/84
2/15/85
Wilmington, DE

-------
  OSWER Directive f242.3~
                                          EXAMPLE
EPA SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTORS)
WASTEBUSTERS, INC
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY:
Li OVERALL REGIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
2 REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (REM II ONLY)
LJ COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS (CRPs)
d TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT & SUPPORT (TOS)
CONTRACT NO.
68-01-9999
EPA REGION
III
CONTRACTOR REGIONAL MANAGER (Name and Phone No. 1
Robert Davis (215) 588-5598
RPO \Name and Phone No. i
Jerry Salvato
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
FROM- "/1/84
FTS 597-9492
T0: 2/28/85
 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:


     LJ OUTSTANDING   C EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS

             5                     4
SATISFACTORY   G MARGINAL   C UNSATISFACTORY

      3               2                 1
 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE: (Lisr on a separate page if necessary. Work Assignments covered by this report}.

 The Regional Program Management evaluation category focuses on Wastebusters' performance of management and
 administrative activities at the regional level with respect to:

   •  Scheduling, coordinating, and supervising the execution of all work assignments

   •  Estimating resource requirements, preparing regional work plans, staffing, recruiting and training
   •  Ensuring quality control  of all work and reviewing project deliverables

   •  Administering regional management controls for schedule and cost control, technical/financial progress reporting, and
     general, non-project specific problem solving

   •  Communicating and coordinating with EPA RPO, RSPOs and other Federal (e.g., USAGE), state and contractor
     personnel.

 With contract initiation and mobilization completed and evaluated last period, this evaluation encompasses a  review of the
 first full period where the Contractor's regional program management has concentrated almost entirely on the execution of
 remedial planning WAs. During the period, thirteen (13) projects were either active or completed including: 4 RI/FSs; 3
 CRPs: 3 TOSs; 1 FS: 1 IRM; and 1 ES.
 STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS:

STRENGTHS
  • Wastebusters has done an excellent job in utilizing their remedial response forecasting and resource scheduling &
    allocation systems to staff assignments and maximize the accuracy of the estimates contained in the regional work
    plan.
  • Wastebusters has done a good job in obtaining regional, state and local input into the development of a regional
    subcontractor source list that will be included as part of the contract-wide subcontracting plan. This effort was taken
    as a direct result of the problems encountered in obtaining subcontractors for the A&A Fabricators IRM project,
  • Wastebusters designed and initiated a program support project, aimed at building an automated data base of
    applicable regulations of states and municipalities within the region, that will enhance both EPA's and  the Contractor's
    ability to anticipate institutional items such as permit requirements and make appropriate allowances in planning
    documents.

WEAKNESSES/NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS
  • Although schedules are always met and deliverables are provided on time, report quality has been noted to be
    substandard on a few occassions, requiring EPA personnel to provide extensive editorial comments. The quality of
    both project deliverables and regional technicaVfinancial reports needs to be improved.
  • Wastebusters has had significant justifiable cost increases on two WAs without providing adequate lead time to EPA
    to process  the necessary WA amendment, thus causing slight delays in the project schedules. Regional manager
    should begin meeting with RPO/RSPOs on a biweekly or weekly basis, if necessary, rather than on a monthly basis, in
    order to enable such problems to be surfaced as early as possible.
                         RPO SIGNATURE
                             DATE

-------
EXAMPLE
OSWER Directive

CONTRACT NO.
68-01-9999
REPORTING ELEMENT
Region III
AWARD FEE PERFORMANCE EVENT REPORT
PART 1: EVENT DESCRIPTION AND OVERALL EVALUATION
CONTRACTOR TOO OR WA NO.
WASTEBUSTERS, INC 17.3W41.1
CONTRACTOR EVAL. REPORT DATES OF REPORTED EVENT
PLED- Q YES 1ST NO FROM: 11/1/84 TO: 2'28/85
^' ^
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CATEGORY NO. OF HOURS TOTAL COST
Overall Regional Technical Performance 7000 S250K
CONTRACTOR CONTACT
Frank Howard
PHONE NO. PERFORMANCE MONITOR PHONE NO.
(215) 933-6283 Bill Russell FTS 597-8132
DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE EVENT
Completion of an IRM at A&A Fabricators site which included solicitation, selection and approval of subcontractors for
removing 500 drums: conduct of a limited Rl/FS: procurement of necessary permits and rights-of-way: and provision for
project management and overall supervision of project completion.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Considerable delays in schedule have been experienced because of
miscommunication between prime and subcontractors. Contractor site manager
has been busy with other projects and has had relatively little time to devote to
A&A Fabricators. Contractor has been inflexible and unresponsive in its
approach to securing subcontractors) to handle drum removal and disposal.
Contractor oversight of State regulation caused delay in obtaining necessary
permits.
- "* " .
DATE
2/15/85
PROJECT PLANNING 2*
TECHNICAL COMPETENCE &
INNOVATION 3
SCHEDULE & COST CONTROL J? 	
REPORTING _! 	
o
"FSOURCE UTILIZATION .,
EFFORT 2
* INDIVIDUAL RATINGS FROM
PART II (E.G.. 5-11
FIT- OR REM RPO SIGNATURE OVERALL RATING
2
HQ FIT OR REM-OPO'S ASSESSMENT & CERTIFICATION
DATE
40 FIT- OR REM-DPO SIGNATURE RATING

-------
OSWER  Directive
                            . -3 "
EXAMPLE
                                                                                                     PAGE 1 OF 3
                             EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
   1.  CONTRACT NO.
               68-01-9999
                                         2.  WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.
                                                     16.3L40.2
                                                                              3. EPA REGION
                                                   III
  4. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTORIS)

                WASTEBUSTERS. INC
                                                            5. CONTRACTOR SITE MANAGER IName and Phone No.l
                                                                    Jill Barber       (215) 951-4755
                                                           6. RSPO IName 3r.d Phone No.l
                                                                   Tracy Miller     FTS  597-9818
                                                           7. WORK LOCATION /Site Name & Sratel
                                                                      Dillon Dump, Richmond, VA
  8. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE SCOPE OF WORK:
  The objective in completing the RI/FS for Dillon Dump was to identify remedial options available for the site, evaluate
  these options using technical and environmental factors, and recommend the most cost-effective and viable alternative for
  the site.
  9.  DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE:
  Wastebusters effectively analyzed the existing data associated with Dillon Dump and produced a clear, well-integrated
  work plan which integrated all work activities. Wastebusters responded to difficulties in investigation activities by
  implementing major alterations to their sampling plan. State-of-the-art procedures were developed in response to
  geophysical characteristics of the site to reduce contamination of the surrounding environment. Wastebusters responded
  quickly and effectively to the need for upscaled community relations.
  10. UNUSUAL PROBLEMS OCCURRENCES AFFECTING CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE:
  A free-flowing aquifer revealing groundwater contamination was defined and a direct relationship was established to Dillon
  Dump which required major sampling plan modification by Wastebusters (See WA Amendment, 5/31/84, on next page).
  With initiation of sampling in June, the magnitude of this problem became more clearly defined, requiring the Contractor
  to obtain a subcontractor for  increased sampling/analysis effort. (See WA Amendment, 7/2/84, on next page).
 11. PHASE I'AVAILABLE
      515.0GG
                     12.  PHASE I PAID
                            Sli.500'
                                          13.  PHASE II AVAILABLE
       319,500
14. PHASE II AWARD RECOMMENDED'
    B3 YES     RECOMMENDED SIZE:
    U NO
                                                                                                      55
                                                                                                     (0-100aol
 15.  STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR PHASE II AWARD: /Additional pages may be attached if neccessaryt
 Wastebusters maintained a high degree of quality with respect to technical and project management as well as
 professionalism throughout the duration of the project. The RI/FS was completed ahead of schedule and within the
 approved budget, despite major operational impediments (e.g.. free-flowing aquifer). Contractor expedited solicitation.
 selection, and approval of contractor to handle increased scope of sampling and analysis required to complete RI/FS.
 Contractor also did an excellent job of involving local government officials and citizens in a proactive community relations
 effort that involved not only public meetings but also open workshops and site visits to explain technical aspects of the
 project The Contractor's performance on this assignment is clearly in the "exceeded expectations" rating category and is
 recommended for an award of 55 percent of the Phase II award  fee available for the WA.
 RSPO
           Signature and Date
                                      REM RPO
                                                   Signature and Date
                                                                               HQ EVALUATION COORDINATOR
                                             Signature and Date
Distribution
 HQ Evaluation Coordinate* tOriginan
 Contracting Officer (Copy)
 REM RPO ICODVI
                                                      'Does not include any Phase I Award that may be made this period

-------
                          EXAMPLE
                                              OSWER Directive
                                                            PAGE 2 of 3
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
CONTRACT NO. WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. EPA REGION
68-01-9999 16.3L40.2 III
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST INFORMATION WORKSHEET
APPROVED WORK PLAN
AND
WA AMENDMENT
DATES
. 2/15/84
WORK PLAN APPROVAL DATE
5/31/84
Amendment 1
7/2/84
Amendment 2
Amendment 3












TOTAL PLANNED COST
TOTAL ACTUAL COST
VARIANCE
LOEEr
EXPENSE
COST
300
100
50
450
450
•0-
SUBCON-
TRACTING
POOL
COST
75
50
25
150
150
•0-
TOTAL
PLANNED
COST
375
150
75
600
600
-0-
PLANNED
COMPLETION
DATE
2/1/85



ACTUAL
COMPLETION
DATE
12/7/84



O'Str.Dut'O"
 HQ Evaiu
   BPO -CCOV
   -Coov
   cio< Coov

-------
 OSWER Directive  9Z42.3  5
                                            EXAMPLE
                                                                                                   PAGE 3o13
                         EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT COMPLETION REPORT (WACR)
  CONTRACT NO.
                68-01-9999
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.
           16.3L40.2
                   EPA REGION
                                III
  PERFORMANCE CRITERIA RATING WORKSHEET
          PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
      RATING
                SUPPORTING COMMENTS
 PROJECT PLANNING
 - ORGANIZING (E.G.. WORK PLAN
   DEVELOPMENT. DATA REVIEW!
 - SCHEDULING
 - BUDGETING
                   Project goals were effectively met with respect to budget
                   and project time frame. Work plan developed reflected the
                   flexibility required to be responsive to changes in
                   priorities.
 TECHNICAL COMPETENCE & INNOVATION
   EFFECTIVENESS OF ANALYSES
   MEET PLAN GOALS
   ADHERE TO REGS. & PROCEDURES
   APPROACH CREATIVITY/INGENUITY
   SUPPORT COE. STATE. ENFORCEMENT
   EXPEHT TESTIMONY
            _4
            .3
            .2
             1
State-of-the-art procedures were developed in response to
sampling and monitoring the underlying aquifers and to
inhibit further contamination. Technical input was of a
high quality.
  CHEDULE & COST CONTROL
 - BUDGET 
-------
 CONTRACTOR:
     PERIOD:
WASTEBUSTERS. INC.

11/1/84-2/28/85
PHASE I AWARD FEE ALLOCATION MATRIX
           (In Thousands)
                                                                                           EXAMPLE
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
11.3L38.0
14.3L60.1
16.3L40.2
17.3W41.1
18.3M120
19.3L06.0
20.3V27.0
SITE NAME AND ACTIVITY
Site X, RI/FS
1 Beam. Inc.. RI/FS
Dillon Dump. RI/FS
A&A Fabricators. IRM
Waste All. Inc.. FS
Town Dump, RI/FS
Bosco Industries, ES
TOTAL
WORK ASSIGNMENT BUDGET
APPROVED
WA
COST1
350
400*
600*
250'
300
800
200
&>
2900.0
PHASE 1
AWARD
FEE
9.5
10.0
15.0
3.5
9.0
22.0
6.0
75.0
PHASE II
AWARD
FEE
12.5
13.0
19.5
4.0
12.0
29.0
8.0
98.0
CUMULATIVE
COST
300
300
450
30
70
—
tf&
1150.0
PHASE 1
AVAILABLE
8.5
7.0
11.5
0.9
2.1
—
tfc
30.0
PHASE 1
AWARDED
8.5
6.8
11.5
0.5
2.1
—
fr
29.4
AWARD FEE AVAILABLE
FOR PERIOD
COSTS
FOR
PERIOD
30
50
150
40
50
30
20
370.0
PHASE 1
AWARD
FEE
0.9
0.7
3.5
1.2
1.5
0.9
0.6
9.3
• AN CI ASTERISK NEXT TO A COST FIGURE INDICATES
 THAT THE APPROVED WORK PLAN COST HAS UF.EN
 MODIFIED THROUGH AN APPROVED AMENDMENT TO
 THE WORK ASSIGNMENT

-------
CONTRACTOR:
         WASTEBUSTERS. INC.
    PERIOD: H/l/84-2/28/85
PHASE II AWARD FEE ALLOCATION MATRIX

         (In Thousands)
EXAMPLE
                                                             o
                                                             CO

WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
16.3L40.2


SITE NAME AND ACTIVITY
Dillon Dump. RI/FS
?tf
TOTAL

PHASE II
POOL
AVAILABLE
19.5
ytf

SIZE OF RECOMMENDED PHASE II AWARD
(0-100 PERCENTI
CONTRAC-
TOR
65%
&>

REGION
55%
e^

HO
55%
^

PEB

v\ct


COMMENTS
Phase II Pool reflects two approved
modifications to WA cost ceiling.



-------