-------
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.
-------