ML20248B201

Mod 21,increasing Funding & Incorporating New Award Fee Plan,To Operation of Ctr for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses - Federally Funded R&D Ctr

ML20248B201
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1989
From:	Chatten R, Mace M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
To:
Shared Package
ML20248B197	List: ML20248B195 ML20248B201
References
CON-NRC-02-88-005, CON-NRC-2-88-5 NUDOCS 8906080288
Download: ML20248B201 (22)

Text

!

1. CONT RACT 80 COOC PAGE OF PAGLS

%- 9M,ENDMENT OF SOLICITATION / MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT I l 2 __

6. PROJECT NO. (1/tpphcabaci

3. LF FECi s V E DAT E 4. REQUISIT40N/ PURCHASE REQ. MO.

2. AMENOMENT /MOOlf tCAT 40N NO.

l* p (twenty-one) April 24, 1989 .

3,

7. AOM4N451 ERCO OY (8r other then firm 6) l .

. a sssuto ev U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission Division of Contracts & Property Management Washington, D.C. 20555 g 9A. AMLNOMENT Of: SOLICtT AT TON NO.

8. NAMC Afd O A004C55 OF CONT R A C TOR (No.. so r cet counf y. Bicle and Elf Code /

Southwest.ResearCh Institute so.oAicorafirEueti 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio,' Texas 78284 3oA. MODIF 8 CAT AON OF CONT R ACT/OROCI NO.

X NRC-02-88-005 .

Jou. OATLO (SEE JTEM JJJ 10/15/87 CODE- lF ACILITY CODE - *

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF sot fCITATIONS is extended, - is not ex-The above nutr'aered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers ..

tencied. g .

Of fers must ack nowledy receipt of this amendment' prior to the hour and date specified in thed solicitation h copy or as of the amended, oIIci ;

copies of the amendment (b) Sy acknowledging receipt of this amen ment on eac (a) oy compteting items 8 and 15.and returning .

submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes e reference to the solicitation and amendment num MENT TO DE RECEIVED AT TH . PLACE DESIGf4ATED FOR THE RECEIPT O C

letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to @e solicitation end this amendment, and is received prio

12. ACCOUNi tr4G AND APPROPRIATION OAT A (1/ recurred /

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS / ORDERS.

IT MODIFIESTHE CONTRACT / ORDER NO. ASOESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(Specify authonry/ THC CHANGES SET FORTH $N BTEM 24 ARE MAOC QN THE CON.

g A. T Hab CHANGE OROL4 tS ISSUED PU4$UANT To: .~.- ..%

TR AC1 ORDER NO. IN IT EM loa.

i ffice, D.THC ADOVC NUMBERED Cor4 TRACT /OROCft IS MOOfff EO TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such .

appropriation date. etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 34, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.3o3(b). _

C. THl5 $UPPLCMLNT AL AGREEMLf4T 15 CNT ERCO INTO PUR5UANT TO AUT HORIT Y OF s X Changee Clause - FAR 52.243-2 ..

0. OTHL% (Spectly type of mods /scation and authorsty) ..

3 _. copics td.tt issuing Of fice.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor O is not. E :s required to sign this document and return h ( ible.)

i 1 A. OCSC* tap 180N OF AMCNOMCNT/MODIF ICAT SON (Organued by UCIsechan headints,includsng nohcitatson/ con rec SEE ATTACHED .

e 8906000200 890531 gy0Nh5 g PNV r ie., cocumeni ,eie,encee in ,iem SA o, toa. ,s ne,etoro,e enang.a.,em, -e ins unc ,,n9 a ino (o rar E = cept as e,o..eea ne,een. as i te,,as enc, conoi .ons o ano eveeci. .- g 4,A, N AM L AND T 41 LL 06 CQN T H ACl eNG Obric 4 (Type or pon ri 15A. NAML AND 18 T LL ( r SK.r40R (73 pc or pnnij f

bortE. Cha ten, C.P.M.

Mary H. Mace

, D( ', tracts / 3 3C O Art siGNc0 ,au. UN<T e.o sT Au s u Acco.c A 2<.c OArtsictu u_ _ _ ,

m. is . ;

i s'  ;

' * ./ N r ,

_ ' l( y s

&_ n: s..>n eu r m un . s n > 5,yy,gg 9,

/l//)Gnar. con /fi.nsuu.a.

- t onv a STANDARO 00RfA 30 4 NLV. An en 30105 P.e so bc a t,y C S A N h54o on Is7t0)o r Au (44 Cr'o) g3 N 3 P4tvlOUS C0:T 8074 ONU$ AOLL

f. ..

Y .

NRC-02-88-005 Modi fication No. 21 Page 2 of 2 The purpose of this modification'is to: (1) increase the amounts authorized for the "High-Level Waste" Operations Plan and the " Transportation Risk" Sub-Element, and (2) delete the Award Fee Determination Plan dated March 1989-and add the Award Fee Determination Plan dated April'1989 which reflects the award fee pool for the third evaluation period.

Subsection B.2 - Consideration and Oblication Paragraph E. is revised as follows:

E. Under High-Level Waste delete the amount of "$5,201,585" and insert the_ amount of "$6,011,909". Under Transportation delete

.the amount of "$319,251" and insert the amount of "$474,438".

Section J - List of Attachments - Attachment 18 is revised as follows:

Attachment' Number Title 18 Award Fee Determination Plan dated March 1989 is hereby. deleted in its entirety and replaced by the attached Award Fee Determination Plan dated April 1989 All other terms and conditions of the contract remain unchanged..

i

. _ _ _ _ _ _ --____-___- - _ - i

ATTACliMENT 18 AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PLAN FOR CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15, 1988 THROUGH OCTOBER 14, 1989 i

APRIL 1989 l

4 9

CPAF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORTING REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCEDURE Award Fee Determination Report .

CONTRACT FEE DETERM] NATION OFFICIAL (FDO) 1 Award Fee Recommendation ,

Performance 5 valuation Board Report I

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION -

BOARD (FEB)

Monthly Reports

~~-

CONTRACTING '-

0FFICER l CONTRACTOR c ._.

I EVALUATION COORDINATOR I ~~

~

Self-Assessment Report ' -

Monthly Reports 4

Performance Monitors .

I

AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PLAN FOR CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15, 1988 THROUGH OCTOBER 14, 1989 Contents krt A. Introduction B. Organization Structure for Award Fee Administration C. Evaluation Requirements D. Methods for Determining Award Fee E. Change in Plan Coverage l

t

A. Purpose

1. The purpose of the Award Fee is to stimulate management actions which will motivate Center staff to strive for excellence in the overall performance of the Center, under the contractually non-competitive environment of an FFRDC. NRC interests are best served when the Center's performance is such that NRC can award the maximum fee.

Therefore, any award of less than maximum fee shall be accompanied by a list of specific problems that require successful corrective action by Center Management in order to attain award of the maximum fee.

B. Introduction

1. This plan covers the administration of the award fee provisions of Contract No. NRC-02-88-005 with Southwest Research Institute for the evaluation period October 15, 1988 through October 14, 1989.

2. The following matters, among others, are covered in the contract.

a. The contractor is required to establish a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the operation of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA).

b. The award fee pool is $536,323 through October 14, 1989.

c. The estimated cost and award fee pool are subject to equitable adjustments on account of changes or other contract modifications.

d. The award fee earned and payable will be determined as specified elsewhere in this plan by the Fee Determination Offibial (FDO) in accb'r dance with this plan. The FD0 is Robert M. Bernero, or his designee.

e. Award fee determinations are not subject to the Disputes clause of the contract.

3. This award fee is provided for the establishment and maintenance of a high level of technical expertise for effective performance of functions for the NRC related to the NWPA waste management program.. This award fee plan affords the contractor an opportunity to earn increased fee commensurate with the achievement of optimum performance in pursuit of contract objectives and goals. Optimum performance is not necessarily equated with the highest level of performance achievable in all

l l

1 1 .

l incentive areas. Ratner, it represents the most favorable degree of performance obtainable considering the achievement of contract objectives in light of the complexities of the tasks, the difficulties of the schedules agreed upon, and the contractor's most effective utilization of available resources. The constraints beyond the Center's control shall be considered.

l C. Organization Structure for Award Fee Administration The following organizational structure is established for ac. ministering the award fee provisions of the contract.

1-. Fee Determination Official (FDO)

a. The FD0 is Robert M. Bernero, or his designee.

b. Primary FD0 responsibilities are:

(1) Determining the award fee earned and payable for each evaluation period as addressed in Part D.

(2) Changing the matters covered in this plan as addressed in Part E, as appropriate.

-2. Performance Evaluation Board (PEB)

a. The Chairman of the PEB will be:

Jesse L. Funches The PEB will consist of the following members:

Robert E. Browning Charles E. MacDonald Timothy F. Hagan Mel Silberberg Advisors: Donald F. Hassell Evaluation Coordinator: Barbara Stiltenpole  ;

b. The Chairman may recommend the appointment of non-voting members to assist the Board in performing its functions.

- ._ __ _m._m._ __ __.___ ____.--___ - ..-__

w. ---,7_-------.----,..- .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - . . - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - . . - r -- - - , - - - ---

V i

r .

F .

J

c. Primary responsibilities of the Board are: }

(1) Conducting ongoing evaluations of contractor performance-

'and the submission of a Performance Evaluation .;

Board Report (PEBR) to the FD0 covering the Board's i j

findings and recommendations for each evaluation period, as addressed in Part D. l

'l (2) Considering proposed changes in this plan and recommending those it determines appropriate for adoption by the FDO, as addressed in Part E.

= 3. Performance Monitors (PM)

a. PMs will be all Program Element and Sub-Element Managers, the l Deputy Program Manager and the Contracting Officer.  !

i

b. 'Each PM will be responsible for complying with the General ,

Instructions: for- Performance Monitors, Attachment D-1, and I any specific instructions'of the PEB. Chairman as addressed in Part,D. Primary PM responsibilities .are:

(1) Monito' ring, evaluating and assessing contractor performance in assigned areas.  !

1 (2) Periodically preparing a Performance Monitor Report (PMR) for the PEB, as appropriate.

(3) Recommending appropriate changes in this plar'r for consideration, as addressed in Part E.

l l

l l

1 1

I l .

C. Evaluation Requirements i

The applicable evaluation requirements are attached as indicated below:

Requirement Attachment C-1

1. Evaluation Periods and Maximum l Available Award Fee for Each C-2

2. Evaluation Criteria for Year 2 Performance 1

C-3

3. Grading Table The weights indicated in Attachment C-2 and the grading table under Attachment C-3 are quantifying devices whose sole purpose is to provide guidance to NRC in the form of a general indication of the amount of award fee earned. In no way will they be used to impute an arithmetical precision to any judgmental determination of the contractor's overall performance and the amount of award fee earned.

C-4

4. Award Fee Schedule l

D. Method for Determining Award Fee A determination of the award fee earned for each evaluation period will be made promptly by the FD0 after the end of the period. The method to be followed in monitoring, evaluating and assessing contractor performance during the period as well as for determining the award fee earned, is described below.

1. The FD0 will designate the Performance Monitors. Duties and responsibilities of PMs will be in addition to, or an extension of, regular responsibilities.

2. The PEB Chairman will require that each PM receives the following:

o A copy of the contract and all modifications from the Contracting Officer.

o Appropriate orientation and guidance from the Contracting Officer.

o A copy of this plan along with any changes made in accordance with Part E.

o Specific instructions applicable to PM assigned performance areas.

3. PMs will monitor, evaluate and assess contractor performance in accordance with the General Instructions for Performance Monitors, Attachment 0-1, and the specific instructions and guidance furnished by the PEB Chairman.

4. PMs will submit monthly Performance Monitor Reports (PMRs) to the Evaluation Coordinator and, if required, make verbal presentations to the PEB.

5. As appropriate, the PEB Chairman will request and obtain performance information from other units or personnel normally involved in observing contractor performance.

}

6. Periodically, the PEB will consider PMRs and other performance information it obtains and discuss the reports and information with PMs or other personnel, as appropriate.

~ __ .

S I

l

'7. . After-the end of each evaluation period, the contractor shall ,

submit to the Contracting Officer and the Evaluation Coordinator a l written self-assessment of its performance during the evaluation period including the amount of award fee it feels it has earned.

After receipt of the contractor's self-assessment report,.the contractor may be required to meet with the PEB to discuss overall performance during the period. As requested by the PEB Chairman, PMs and other personnel involved in performance ' evaluations will attend the meetings and participate in discussions.

8. Af ter any such meeting with the contractor, the PEB will consider matters presented. by the contractor and establish its findings and recommendations to be included in the PEBR.

9. The PEB Chairman will prepare the PEBR for the period and submit it to the FD0 for use in determining the award fee earned. The report will include a recommended award fee with supporting documentation. Prior to submitting the PEBR, the Chairman will discuss the PEB recommendation with the contractor and shall

' afford the contractor the opportunity to present any additional-information for the FD0's consideration. When submitting the report, the Chairman will inform the FD0 whether or not the contractor desires to present any matters to the FD0 before the award fee determination is made.

10. The FD0 will consider the PEBR and discuss it with the PEB Chairman or other personnel, as appropriate. If requested by the contractor, or if the FD0 considers it appropriate, the FD0 will meet with the contractor for discussions. If requested by the FDO, the PEB Chairman and any other personnel involved in performance evaluation may be required to attend the meeting with the contractor.

11.. The FD0 will determine the amount of award fee earned during the period. The amount determined will not result solely from mathematical summing, averaging or the application of a formula.

The FD0's determination of the amount of award fee earned and the basis for this determination will be stated in the Award Fee Determination Report (AFDR). The report will be signed by the F00 and given to the contractor for attachment to its voucher requesting payment of the award fee.

1 l p-j .

I 2

)

E. Changes In Plan Coverage 4

1. Right to Make Changes l The Center will be provided an opportunity to review all NRC proposed changes to the AFDP. Further, the Center may recommend l l

changes to the proposed AFDP and the NRC is obliged to consider.  !

the Center's proposed changes. However, when the Center and the NRC cannot agree on any proposed change the matter will be All final changes will referred to the FD0 for a final decision.

be made by formal modification to the contract.

2. Method of Changing Plan Coverage  :

The method to be followed for changing plan coverage is described below. i

a. Personnel involved ie the administration of the award fee provisions of.the contract are encouraged to recommend .j changes in plan coverage with a view toward changing i management emphasis, motivating higher performance levels, or improving the award fee determination process. Recommended changes should be sent to the PEB for consideration and drafting.

b. The PEB will coordinate proposed changes with the contractor. .i

c. Prior to the er,d of each evaluation period, the PEB will submit changes applicable to the next evaluation period for approval by the FD0 with appropriate comments and l

fastification. \

1 I

1 i

l

a . .

ATTACHMENT C-1 TO AFDP CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE EVALUATION PERIODS AND MAXIMUM AVAILABLE AWARD FEE FOR EACH Evaluation Period Maximum Available Duration Endino Award Fee No.

6 months April 14, 1988 $102,009 1

October 14, 1988 $158,444 2 6 months 6 months April 14, 1989 $275,870 3

4 6 months October 14, 1989 TBD

{

ll l-L

' ATTACHMENT C-2 TO AFDP FOR l CONTRACT NO NRC-02-88-005'WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

-EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR YEAR TWO PERFORMANCE AREA WEIGHT 100

1. Technical and Staffing (A) Technical - 35 Points The extent to which the contractor provides sustained high quality technical assistance and research in support of the NRC high-level waste program. The functioning of the Center shall be consistent with;the direction provided by the NRC Contracting Officer and the approved operations plans and the guidance provided by the NRC CNWRA Program Manager. Determining factors shall include:

(1) Thoroughness and Accuracy of Work The extent to which the contractor submits technical work products which are thorough, accurate and meet the contractual specification for the deliverable.

(2) Technical Independence and Initiative The extent to which the contractor's technical efforts exhibit independence and initiative in implementing the approved operations plans and recommending activities that need to be undertaken by the NRC to meet its responsibilities.

(3) Clarity and Conciseness The extent to which the contractor consistently submits work products that are clear and provide an adequate technical basis for NRC staff use.

(4) Timeliness The extent to which the Center consistently submits work products on time. The degree to which delays are caused by k circumstances beyond the Center's control shall be considered.

.. l 3 ;

y ,

1 (5) Complexity Consideration will be given to the technical difficulty and l schedule requirement.

(B)' Staffing - 15. points The extent to which the contractor has successfully imp?emented its proposed staffing plan, including provisions for th: key personnel, in a timely manner, enabling the Center to function to fulfill its mission.- The following items will be considered:

(1) The quality and timeliness of the Center's development of a written " staffing plan".

(2) Ability to attract and retain high quality personnel in accordance with the Center's staffing plan. Consideration will be given to difficulty in acquiring personnel because of unique circumstances (for example, an unexpected high demand for certain disciplines).

(3) Effectiveness in assigning qualified personnel to accomplish work in approved operations plans and long term program objectives which are the basis of the staffing plan.

2. Management - 35 Points The extent to which the contractor continues to develop the Center in accordance with requirements to bring the Center to " full capability" by the end of the. third contract year. The extent to which the contractor effectively manages the program to establish appropriate priorities and perfcrm assigned tasks in a timely manner based on the direction provided by the NRC Contracting Officer, approved Operations Plans and efficient utilization of available resources.

(A) Develop / Implement Appropriate Procedures / Practices (1) The extent to which the contractor develops and implements administrative and management procedures and practices needed to successfully operate a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, e.g., conflict of interest procedures.

(2) The extent to which the Center develops, maintains and implements an ef.fective QA program.

i

?

L

e. .

9 (B) Management Independence and Initiative The extent lto which the contractor demonstrates-management independence and initiative in. developing, proposing and implementing (after NRC approval) plans'and procedures for eliminating existing and potential impediments to the work flow-process. The extent'to which the contractor acts independently to expedite the flow of work under the control of its organization and follows up to ensure information required from outside sources is obtained in a timely manner. . The extent to which the

~

contractor analyzes problems and proposes measures to correct them.

(C) Establish Facilities The extent to which the contractor establishes in a timely and cost-effective manner the research facilities, equipment and computer facilities to meet NRC requirements, t

(D) Effectiveness of Liaison Effort The extent to which the Center provides effective liaison with the NRC; current contractors where technology transfer has been directed; and others to effectively manage the program and to facilitate the development of technical products while at the same time assuring that approved milestones are not impacted.

l-l (E) Ability to Adjust to Changing Needs The extent to which the contractor exh'ibits the ability to adjust to the changing needs of the NRC. This shall take into account:

assignment of priorities of work; management of available time, personnel and fiscal resources; long-term goals; and responsiveness to changing priorities, program direction, program focus, and resultant impact including budgetary estimates.

3. Cost Control and Contract Administration - 15 Points The extent to which the contractor coaducts the work in a cost effective manner and the extent to which it has effected cost controls necessary to insure technical work products are completed within established limitations. The following items will be considered under this criteria:

I - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

u

w.  : 't 9.

(A) Cost Estimation and Control (1) The extent-to which the Contractor develops detailed and reasonable cost estimates for performance of work. Also, the extent to which the Contractor substantiates all cost-r estimates and/ or proposed revisions.

(2) The extent to which the contractor performs work within the original cost estimates, if revisions to work requirements are necessary evaluation will be based on revised estimates agreed upon.

1 1

(3) The accuracy and timeliness of information provided by the Center's integrated budgeting and cost reporting system in compliance with contract requirements.

I (B) Effectiveness of Contractor's Performance in the Area of Contract Administration, including:

subcontracts

.(1) The extent to which the Center assures that:

are negotiated, documented and administered in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations; subcontractor approval requests are submitted in a timely manner including

. copies of all task directives issued and modifications to subcontracts

.(2) quality and timeliness of: required administrative notifications such as limitation of funds notification; submission of reports such as periodic progress reports and

(

I subcontracting plan reports.

(3) the review and execution of contract modifications which shall be accomplished within two weeks from the date of transmittal. When the Center takes exception to the terms of the modification, negotiations between the Center and the Contracting Officer shall be initiated within the said two week period.

(4) ef festiveness of liaison with the Contracting Officer in all aspects of contract administration (5) the extent to which the Center provides accurate and timely information on conflict of interest issues

_ _ _ ______ _= D

1

\

l .

ATTACHMENT C-3 GRADING TABLE PROPOSED EVALUATION GRADES Purpose The purpose of the Award Fee is to stimulate management actions which will motivate Center staff to strive for excellence in the overall performance of the Center, under the contractually non-competitive environment of an FFRDC. NRC interests are best served when the Center's performance is such that NRC can award the maximum fee. Therefore, any award of less than maximum fee shall be accompanied by a list of specific problems that require successful corrective action by Center Management in order to attain award of the maximum fee.

%=

~. .

A PROPOSED EVALUATION GRADES Adjective Grade Numerical Grade Definition Excellent 90 to 100 Overall performance of contract requirement is consistently outstanding and represents the very best which can be expected from the Center giving due consideration to complexity of the task and constraints (cost /

schedule) imposed by NRC. This grade represents a practical goal, to be awarded for a degree of performance which is real and attainable, not theoretical.

Above Average 80 to 90 The contractor's performance has met or exceeded most expectations set forth in the contract. Areas of deficiencies are few and overall are considered relatively insignificant.

Contractor shows initiative in executing the job and in making improvements. The degree to which the contractor meets or exceeds schedules, achieves objectives, eliminates areas of deficiency identified ir. the evaluation period, etc.,

will be considered.

f Sati sf actory 70 to 80 The contractor's performance has met most needs, schedules, and expectations set forth in the contract. Areas of deficiencies are more frequent than in the criteria above, but are offset by areas of excellent or superior performance such that net effect on overall program was negligible.

Fair 60 to 70 Contractor's performance has not met contract requirements on numerous occasions. Areas of deficiency have had some adverse impact on the program (cost, schedule and/or J

performance). This rating constitutes a warning to the contractor that its performance borders on an unsatisfactory rating.

l.

Unsatisfactory Below 60 Number end significance of deficiencies are such that the contractor's overall*

performance is unsatisfactory.

i

I l

i i

1 i

C-4 AWARD FEE SCHEDULE CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Award Fee Schedule Based on the evaluation scale, The base fee for this contract shall be 0%.

the fee awarded shall be as follows:

Performance Rating Fee Awarded >

Excellent 7% but not more than 8%

j Above Average 6% but less than 7%

4 Satisfactory 3% but less than 6%

Fair 1% but less than 3%

Unsati sfactory 0%

Use of Award Fer for Center Independent Research and Development (IR&D)

Fee Awarded Maximum % of Fee set Aside for Center IR&D 35%

i 8%

' 30%

7%

25%

, 6%

20% ,

5% l i 15%

4%

0% 4 3% or less 1

{.

l i

l l

Kz .

ATTACHMENT D-I TO AFDP FOR .

CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORS

a. PMs will conduct all assessments in an open, objective and cooperative spirit so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. This will enhance contractor receipt of information from which to. plan improvements in performance. Positive performance accomplishments should be emphasized just as readily as negative ones.

b. After an assessment, the PM will discuss the results with appropriate PEB personnel, noting any observed deficiencies and/or accompanying recommendations. This is not to be confused with the duties and responsibilities of the CNWRA Program Manager, Program Element Managers and Sub-Element Managers, whose responsibility it is to bring problems

" to the immediate ettention of the Contracting Officer. After reviewing the PM-reports, the PEB will' afford the contractor an opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings to correct or resolve deficiencies.

When evaluating the Contractor's performance for purposes of award fee determination, the PM's shall not discuss their findings with the Contractor.

c. PMs must remember that contacts and visits with' contractor personnel are to be accomplished within the context of official contractual relationships- .

PMs will avoid any activity or association which might cause, or give the appearance of causing, a conflict of interest.

t 1

d. PM discussions with contractor personnel are not to be used to instruct, to direct, to supervise, or as an attempt to control these personnel in the performance of the contract. The role of.the PM is to provide technical direction, monitor, assess and evaluate the contractor's performance against the contract requirements, not to manage the contractor's effort.

_ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _-