For
FDH Company Performance
During the Twelve-Month Evaluation Period, Ending
September 30, 1998
Contract Number DE-ACO6-96RL13200
|
DOE
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION PLAN For FDH Company Performance During the Twelve-Month Evaluation Period, Ending September 30, 1998 Contract Number DE-ACO6-96RL13200 |
Introduction
Purpose. To provide procedures and policy, assign responsibilities for evaluating contractor performance, and determine the amount of the Management and Total Scope Performance Incentive (Mega Incentive) earned by the FDH Company.
Scope. The provisions of this plan apply to all elements of contract DE-AC06-96RL13200 with the FDH. This plan prescribes both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of contractor performance. Any fee determination made herefrom is limited to the Mega Incentive portion of the fee structure established under Modification Number M034 of contract DE-AC06-96RL13200, executed on December 23,1997.
Departmental Policy. The Department expects the Contractor to exercise due diligence in the conduct of all contract activities. The Department also expects that management systems will be in place and enforced to ensure that effective procedures are developed and implemented.
The Department expects the Contractor to perform the workscope contained within the Multi-Year Work Plans (MYWPs) and Annual Work Plans (AWPs) in a timely manner, within budget, with minimum rework, and with good quality. Proposed scope deletions or additions, and emerging issues, will be informally discussed with RL early in the decision process.
The Contractor's failure to oversee, through acts of commission or omission, the conduct of its operations and all of its employees, which potentially or actually causes property damage or loss, endangers the safety, health, or environment, or compromises the ability of the Department to carry out its mission, will be weighed heavily in the performance ratings. By the same standard, the performance ratings will not be adversely affected if the Contractor raises safety issues to the DOE-RL Manager, or his/her designee, for resolution. Furthermore, the performance ratings will not be adversely affected if the Contractor stops an activity which is deemed unsafe even though the Contractor's action may appear to be contrary to DOE direction.
Responsibilities and Procedures. The responsibilities and procedures associated with contractor performance evaluation, with regard to the Management and Total Scope Performance Incentive (Mega Incentive) are established in this plan.
| /s/ John D. Wagoner Manager |
12/23/97 Date |
1.0 REVIEW
AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACTOR'S EARNED "MEGA" FEE
1.1 Applicability
This plan provides procedures and policy and assigns responsibilities for determining the level of "Mega" Incentive performance of the FDH Company in performance of contract DE-AC06-96RL13200 during the period of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998.
1.2 Plan Relationship to Other Contract Fee Provisions
This plan does not pertain to, and is separate and distinct from, the other fee provisions of DE-AC06-96RL13200, except as indicated in the contract modification number M034, executed December 23, 1997. For example, excellent performance under the provisions of the specific objective fee items (Performance Objectives, Measures, Expectations, and associated Performance Agreements -- PAs) shall not be construed as excellent performance under the provisions of this Mega Incentive Performance Expectation Plan (PEP). Since the contractor cannot be evaluated/rewarded under both the Mega Incentive PEP and the PAs, where a PA has been established to cover a task that is also included in this Plan, the PA shall take precedence and that task effort will be evaluated under the criteria established in the PA, not under the provisions of this PEP.
1.3 Responsibilities
This Management and Total Scope Performance Incentive (Mega Incentive) PEP covers FDH performance of the authorized work in the Multi-Year Work Plans (MYWP) and Annual Work Plans (AWP) not otherwise covered by a specific Performance Expectation and will be the basis for evaluation of FDH performance in those areas. The Mega Incentive used in conjunction with objective performance measures provides flexibility to incentivize acceptable contractor performance across the total scope of the contract.
Fee Determining Official (FDO). The Manager of RL shall act as the Fee Determining Official. The FDO reviews the Mega Incentive recommendations submitted by the Fee Administration Board and makes the final determination of the amount of Mega Incentive Fee earned by and payable to FDH.
Fee Administration Board (FAB). The FAB oversees development of the Performance Expectation Plan (PEP), evaluates the contractor, and recommends the amount of Mega Incentive Fee to the FDO.
The FAB will consist of the following:
A Chair (voting) - Deputy Manager
Members (voting)
- Assistant Managers: AMF, AMW, CFO, TWRS
- Director, Office of Environment, Safety & Health
- DOE-HQ Representative - Ken Lang (FY 1998)
Advisors (non-voting)
- Chief Counsel
- Contracting Officer
- Others as requested by the Chair
The FAB may be supported as designated by the Chair.
The FAB shall monitor, review, and evaluate the contractor's performance against the criteria established in the Performance Expectation Plan (PEP), including execution of the Multi-Year Work Plans (MYWPs), Annual Work Plans (AWPs) for service/support areas and adherence to generally accepted standards of practice and standard operating procedures. The FAB will then translate its evaluations into a report for the FDO.
The FAB shall consider the observations of RL staff when preparing the FAB performance analysis. The analysis shall be documented as a Fee Administration Board Report (board report).
1.4 Performance Expectation Plan (PEP) Development
The PEP is developed and approved as the primary evaluation basis for FDH performance on the Mega Incentive. The draft PEP is developed by the RL projects and programs in consultation with their FDH and subcontractor counterparts as appropriate. The draft PEP is approved by the FAB; the FDO concurs and issues it to FDH.
Significant Evaluation Items. Each project and management/support area has identified and included in the PEP, significant objective evaluation items for the FY that do not have a specific objective fee-bearing incentive. These are identified as "**" items in this PEP. The "**" items have the following characteristics:
The FAB will consider the percentage achievement rate of the "**" PEP items as one factor in the final evaluation.
1.5 Process-Evaluation
Performance Evaluation Process. The Project Performance Area is nominally weighted 80% in the evaluation and the Overall Management and Support Performance is nominally weighted 20%. The evaluation process for each of the performance areas is as follows:
Project Performance. Each RL project manager and the facility representatives will be asked to evaluate their project performance in the evaluation areas specified in the following sections and note preliminary recommendations of noteworthy results, areas for improvement, and deficiencies. A preliminary non-numerical rating of Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Good, Excellent, or Superior will be assigned to each area and for overall performance. These preliminary recommendations will be forwarded via the appropriate chain-of-command to the FAB for consideration.
The FAB will review the preliminary draft, recommendations, and ratings, adjust them as appropriate for sitewide consistency, and assign a rating for the area, taking into consideration the project funding levels and priority.
Overall Management and Support Performance. Each RL project manager and the facility representatives will be asked for specific input in the terms of preliminary recommendations of noteworthy results, areas for improvement, or deficiencies in the evaluation areas specified in this PEP.
Each RL support area functional group will be asked for specific input in the terms of preliminary recommendations of noteworthy results, areas for improvement, or deficiencies in the area of Overall Management Performance.
Each RL support area functional group will also be asked for specific input in the terms of preliminary recommendations of noteworthy results, areas for improvement, or deficiencies in their areas of support responsibility and asked to assign a preliminary non-numerical rating of Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Good, Excellent, or Superior.
The FAB will review the preliminary draft, recommendations, and ratings, adjust them as appropriate for sitewide consistency, and assign a rating for the area, taking into consideration the overall performance of FDH and the importance and impact of the notable results and deficiencies noted. (Note that a strict percentage allocation of the nominal 20% available has not been made to the specific areas identified. The intent is to provide full contractor attention to each performance area in this category and not limit the impact of unacceptable/ exceptional performance in any one area to a very small percentage number.)
Significant Issues and Events. This evaluation category may be thought of as an adjustment factor. This category will be used to address any element(s) not adequately covered in the preceding evaluation areas. Under this category the FAB can recommend adding or subtracting Mega Incentive Fee amounts based on its determination, though in no case shall the total Mega Incentive Fee payment exceed 100% of the Mega Incentive amount.
Evaluation Period. FDH performance shall be evaluated once, at the end of the FY. However, there shall be an interim evaluation at the six-month point. The focus of the interim evaluation shall be on "course correction", though those areas where the contractor is doing well shall also be identified. The interim evaluation shall serve to notify the contractor of areas needing improvement. The interim evaluation will not be formally reviewed by the FDO. The interim evaluation may be presented in a meeting between the contractor's senior management team and the FAB. Documentation of the interim evaluation may be a report, summary of issues discussed, or meeting minutes. In addition to the meeting between the FAB and the contractor's senior management, it is expected that there be mid-year course correction meetings at the Program/Project level, between RL and contractor counterparts.
Descriptive ratings are provided as a guide to assist the overall determination process. The FAB will recommend the final rating and percentage of Mega Incentive fee for the period.
1.6 Mega Incentive Fee Determination
| Overall FDH Evaluation | Range of Mega Incentive Fee Allowable |
| Unsatisfactory | 0% |
| Marginal | 0% |
| Good | 40-79% |
| Excellent | 80-93% |
|
Superior |
94-100% |
1.6.1 Performance Evaluation Reporting
Contractor Self-Evaluation Reports. FDH shall prepare one written self-evaluation performance report. This report should be concise and address each evaluation area. The report shall be submitted to RL at the end of the rating period. It is expected that the self-evaluation report will be concise, critical, objective assessments of performance against the evaluation standards in the PEP. The self-evaluation report shall discuss major accomplishments and progress for the entire performance period. The self-evaluation report shall be submitted to RL no later than 10 working days after the end of the performance period. The report may also discuss other accomplishments deemed worthy of consideration during the period. The self-evaluation report shall include the contractor's assessment of its areas for improvement and shall include the actions planned or taken to improve these areas.
The FAB shall review FDH's self-evaluation and consider its realism as part of the FAB's evaluation of FDH's performance. The thoroughness and candor of the report will be considered by the FAB and the Fee Determining Official as an indicator of the degree to which the contractor seeks out problems and solutions and as an indicator of the contractor's understanding of site issues.
Evaluation Report. Within 26 calendar days after receipt of the Contractor's year-end self-evaluation report, the FAB shall compile a board report discussing FDH's performance. The Board report will address the overall evaluation criterion included in the PEP. The FAB will also utilize performance information (e.g., audits, appraisals, task force reports, etc.) as sources of input to its board report and will include consideration of the realism of FDH's self-evaluation when making its recommendation to the FDO.
The board report will also consider both FDH's diligence in developing written procedures for all aspects of the contractor's operation and the extent to which those procedures are adhered to by the contractor's employees.
Performance Expectation Plan Changes. The PEP may, consistent with the contract statement of work, be revised unilaterally by the Government at any time during the period of performance. Notification of such changes shall be provided to the contractor at least 30 calendar days before the change will apply, unless mutually agreed upon by both RL and the contractor.
1.6.2 Formal Recommendation to the Fee Determining Official (FDO)
The FAB shall articulate its findings and recommendation in the board report. The board report will then be submitted to the FDO. The report will include a recommended Mega Incentive Fee with supporting documentation.
1.6.3 Mega Incentive Determination
The FDO shall render a written decision on the amount of Mega Incentive Fee earned by FDH. This decision shall be based upon information contained in the board report and any information from other sources that are germane to the fee determination process. FDH will be notified of the FDO's decision within 60 days after receipt of the contractor's self-evaluation for the period (a single, annual formal evaluation and fee determination for each FY). A letter summarizing the FDO's written decision on the amount of Mega Incentive Fee established, including rationale (e.g., the board report), shall be furnished to FDH and DOE Headquarters, and constitute official issuance of the Mega Incentive determination.
2.0 MEGA
INCENTIVE PERFORMANCE AREAS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Project Performance (80%)
Each Project will be evaluated in the following areas:
The projects to be evaluated are:
2.2 Overall Management and Support Performance (20%)
Overall Management Performance - Planning, Productivity, Efficiency, Responsiveness, Rework
Support Functions Performance -
2.3 Significant Issues and Events (TBD%)
There is a broad range of contract activities which are essential to the success of Hanford but may not be adequately addressed in the MYWPs, AWPs, or the PEP. Performance in these other areas will not affect FDH's evaluation for the period in the absence of a major issue or event that has a significant positive or negative impact.
3.0
ADJECTIVE DEFINITIONS
Superior: Significantly exceeds the baseline standard of performance; achieves noteworthy results; accomplishes very difficult tasks in a timely manner. Contractor initiatives and results are evident across multiple project or program areas.
Excellent: Exceeds the baseline standard of performance; although there may be room for improvement, or deficiencies in some elements, excellent or superior performance in other elements provide overall compensation.
Good: Meets the baseline standard of performance; assigned tasks are carried out in an acceptable manner -- timely, efficiently, and economically. Deficiencies do not substantively affect overall contract performance.
Marginal: Below the baseline standard of performance; deficiencies are serious, such that prompt management attention and corrective actions are required.
Unsatisfactory: Significantly below the baseline standard of performance; deficiencies are very serious, may affect overall results, and urgently require significant senior management attention. Immediate corrective action is required.
In the DOE system, "Good Performance" is not desirable for its major contractors over the long haul. "Good Performance" recognizes that deficiencies exist and that DOE expects that these deficiencies will be corrected.
PROJECT PERFORMANCE SECTION
The Department expects the Contractor to perform the workscope contained within the Multi-Year Work Plans (MYWPs) and Annual Work Plans (AWPs) in a timely manner, within budget, with minimum rework, and with good quality. Proposed scope deletions or additions, and emerging issues, will be informally discussed with RL early in the decision process.
4.0 TANK
WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM (TWRS)
4.1 Safety and Health Performance
Expectation: Ensure that potential radioactive and hazardous material exposures to members of the public and work force are As Low As Reasonable Achievable (ALARA), and that TWRS facilities operated by the Contractor have the capabilities, consistent with the types of operations conducted, to monitor routine and non-routine releases. Ensure the Authorization Basis accurately reflects TWRS operations and activities. Make readily accessible to DOE, current versions of Authorization Basis documentation. Complete verification of controls that were retained from the Interim Safety Basis to the Basis for Interim Operation as defined in DOE/RL-97-72, Safety Evaluation Report Amendment.
Measurement criteria: Monitoring systems meet national standards and DOE requirements; unreviewed safety questions are identified, analyzed and actions taken; quality and availability of Authorization Basis documentation; and assurance that the controls were retained from the Interim Safety Basis.
4.2 Environmental Performance
Expectation: Develop a technical environmental foundation for permit negotiations with federal and state regulatory agencies. Maintain an electronic database of all regulatory requirements to assist in the TWRS Compliance Assurance Program. Integrate all environmental activities for the TWRS program including operations, safety, characterization, retrieval, disposal and privatization programs and projects.
Measurement criteria: Regulatory compliance with laws and regulations, quality and timeliness.
4.3 Training/Quality of Workforce
Expectation: Continuously develop employees to ensure quality performance from a technically competent, versatile and diverse work force. Maintain a training and qualification program for TWRS staff per Contractor procedures (WHC-IP-0842).
Measurement criteria: Qualification and certification of technical and operational staff per Contractor procedures as determined by training records.
4.4 Performance of Work (conduct of operations and maintenance, radiological control)
Expectation: Encourage employee involvement in the development of program goals, objectives, and performance measures and the identification and control of work place hazards. Utilize integrated planning for work processes to ensure consideration and balance of hazards and relative risk.
Expectation: Continue reporting and indexing conduct of operations events, including: skin and clothing contaminations, violation of procedures, training deficiencies, management problems, lockout/tagout errors, and work control errors.
Measurement criteria: The involvement of people in work planning, the quality of work plans, and continuous improvement in the conduct-of-operations indices.
4.5 Schedule Performance
Expectation: Meet all MYWP milestones and schedules not included in the Performance Agreements. Develop realistic schedules appropriate for the work activities conducted. Accelerate scheduled activities which will result in meeting key objectives earlier or will reduce mortgage costs (stretch).
Measurement criteria: Dates milestones and schedules met as compared to MYWP. Quality of schedules.
4.6 Cost Performance
Expectation: Complete work scope within budget as defined in the MYWP. Develop realistic cost estimates for work activities (neither too high or too low and with adequate detail).
Measurement criteria: The cost of completing work scope as compared to the MYWP estimated cost. The quality of new cost estimates.
4.7 Rework Required
Expectation: Perform work such that there is little or no rework required that is a result of things that are within the Contractor's control.
Measurement criteria: The amount and seriousness of rework required.
4.8 Energy Efficiency and Pollution Prevention Performance
Expectation: Identify and implement energy efficiency improvements (independent of the Johnson Controls contract effort). Identify and implement pollution prevention improvements.
Measurement criteria: The number of energy efficiency improvements implemented and the number of pollution prevention improvements funded from the pollution prevention account.
4.9 Project Management Performance
Expectation: Project managers understand, plan, manage and control their projects; provide timely, focused, project status reports and briefings; and support the DOE project managers in a cooperative manner to respond to information requests, resolve problems, etc.
Measurement criteria: The project manager's performance in conducting their projects, the quality of project reporting, and the cooperation and timeliness of the project manager in supporting the DOE project manager.
4.10 Overall Performance
Expectation: TWRS performance will be perceived by others as being good and getting better.
Measurement criteria: The perception of outside groups including: Congress, DOE-HQ, RL senior staff, Washington Department of Ecology, Hanford Advisory Board, DNFSB, and stakeholders.
4.11 Significant Evaluation Items
Expectation:
| ** | Issue a DOE reviewed and approved report on flammable gas issues in Double Contained Receiver Tanks (DCRT's) by June 23, 1998. This report is being prepared for the Contractor by PNNL. |
This shall complete a technical basis document for the flammable gas issue related to DCRT's during salt-well pumping. It will include, as an example: identification, understanding, validation, and quantification of gas carryover and release mechanisms for both dissolved and free gas; estimation of vapor-liquid equilibrium constants; identification, understanding, validation, and quantification of potential compatibility issues that could lead to gas generation; estimation of gas generation rates; simple dome space modeling to estimate resulting flammable gas concentrations; comparison to LFL estimates for mixtures of gases; and documentation sufficient to be a referenced document for safety issue resolution.
Measurement criteria: This expectation will be met when a final report, that has been reviewed and commented on by DOE and comments resolved, is submitted to DOE. The time DOE will take to review the document and the method of comment resolution shall be agreed to by DOE and the Contractor.
Expectation:
| ** | By July 1, 1998, provide RL-TWRS with an Interim Stabilization Program Restructuring Recommendation that will enable completion of the remaining TPA Milestone M-41 scope of work within the Target total provided, or within an optimized budget and schedule profile that does not exceed the Baseline total, commencing October 1, 1998. |
| ** | By May 15, 1998, provide the proposed RL "Implementing Actions" list, for RL approval. |
The Interim Stabilization Program Restructuring Recommendation shall be supported by "Implementing Actions" lists for RL, The Contractor, and The Contractor subs, and a summary "Recommendation Basis" Report that captures the operational constraints evaluated (for example, impacts on DST Waste Volumes) and provides the basis for the three "Implementing Actions" lists.
Measurement criteria: It is expected that the Contractor will perform a documented analysis of the existing Tank Farms practices used to Interim Stabilize, and then Isolate, SSTs that are included within the scope of TPA Milestone M-41. The analysis shall be the basis of an Interim Stabilization Program Restructuring Recommendation that enables the scope, schedule, and cost targets (which follow) to be achieved. A Restructuring Recommendation that does not meet the schedule and/or cost targets, but does identify a restructured program based on an optimized schedule and cost profile, which does not exceed the baseline, is a less desirable (but acceptable) alternative deliverable.
The estimated October 1,1998 Baseline data points (extracted from the Draft Path Forward Plan for TPA Milestone M-41-00, dated September 19, 1997) are:
| Scope | 26 SSTs are not yet interim stabilized. Initial startup of saltwell pumping of 24 of the 26 must be accomplished. Isolation (Intrusion Prevention) also must be completed on a total of 40 tanks. |
| Schedule | Complete all of the above scope (and the FY-98 scope) by September 30, 2003. |
| Costs | FY-99 = 10,692 K FY-00 = 10,000 K FY-01 = 10,000 K FY-02 = 10,000 K FY-03 = 5,000 K |
| (10-1-98 Baseline) | 45,692 K |
| - 4,692 K (Re-engineering efficiencies) | |
| Baseline Total | 41,000 K |
Restructuring Recommendation Target data: (assumes implementation on October 1, 1998)
| Scope | Identical to Baseline scope | |
| Schedule | identical to Baseline schedule | |
| Costs | not to exceed the per year budgets in the baseline, and | |
| Initial Startup = 700 K (average) x 24 tanks | = 16,800 K | |
| Operate to completion = 200 K (average) x 26 tanks | = 5,200 K | |
| Complete isolation = 50K (average) x 40 tanks | = 2,000 K | |
| All other costs = 250 K (average) x 40 tanks | = 10,000 K | |
| Subtotal | = 34,000 K | |
| Total additional CENRTC | = 1,000 K | |
| (10-1-98 Target Total) | = 35,000 K |
** Expectation: By August 30, 1998, prepare and issue an Annual Operational Waste Volume Projection (OWVP) report.
Measurement criteria: This report must be formally submitted by FDH and received by the appropriate RL TWRS project manager by August 30, 1998. Prior to formal submittal of the report all contractor reviews shall have occurred and comments dispositioned. Format and scope of the report shall be similar to past OWVP reports and shall include a summary recommendation regarding the construction of any new double-shell storage tanks and any appropriate measures to take in the efficient management of DST waste volumes. In addition, a special case shall be provided in the report that will identify the maximum amount of SST Saltwell Pumping activity such that new tank capacity will not be needed before FY 2002.
** Expectation: By February 17, 1998, award Tank C-106 Heel Removal Contract.
Measurement criteria: Successfully complete all activities necessary for developing and issuing the Request For Proposal (RFP) package, receiving contractor bids, reviewing and ranking bids per an established technically objective metric criteria, and award the contract to remove tank 241-C-106 residue wastes that are expected to remain after sluicing. The Contractor shall provide RL with a copy of official documentation stating, at a minimum, the award date and the name of the contractor receiving the award, no later than close of business Thursday, February 19, 1998.
Special Note: If award exceeds $10M, current contract precludes FDH award of contract, therefore, in this case, FDH shall recommend to RL awardee by February 17, 1998.
** Expectation: By September 30, 1998, demonstrate 30-day Single-Shell Tank (SST) Emergency Pumping preparation capability by: 1) update to the SST Emergency Pumping Guide by May 31, 1998, and 2) complete a Readiness Assessment confirming readiness for pumping.
** Expectation: By August 30, 1998, complete installation and signal acquisition of Tank Monitoring and Control Systems (TMACS) on five tanks (AW-102, AW-103, AW-104, AW-105, and AW-106) in AW Tank Farm.
5.0 WASTE
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
The following sections list those project and functional activities and milestones to be accomplished in FY 1998 as a basis for determining WMH performance in qualitative areas and those not otherwise covered by other incentive agreements. The activities cover all areas of WMH operation and encompass ESH and Q functions as well as projects. Performance shall be determined based on WMH's overall ability to complete the listed activities and milestones within the constraints of changing budgets, priorities, and DOE direction.
5.1 Solid Waste
Expectation: Support treatment activities using macroencapsulation technology.
5.2 Transportation & Packaging
Expectation: Nine SARP's to be reviewed, updated and revised, or canceled.
5.3 Liquid Effluents
Expectation: Maintain equipment and staff to support day shift unloading of two tankers per week and support receipt of new waste streams.
5.4 Analytical Services
Expectations:
5.5 Pollution Prevention
Expectation: Prepare the Annual Report on Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention by September 30, 1998.
5.6 Crosscutting
Expectations:
6.0 SPENT
NUCLEAR FUELS (SNF) PROJECT
Expectation: Completion of all Project Milestones
Measurement criteria: For all baselined Project milestones and above (not already covered by a Performance Agreement), 90% will be met prior to, on, or within ten days following the established milestone date (except for enforceable TPA milestones which must not be exceeded by one day).
Expectation: Improve the conduct of SNF Project operational activities by accomplishing Phases 2 and 3 of the Human Performance Improvement Plan described in DESH-9752975A R3, dated July 7, 1997
Measurement criteria:
Complete Phase 2 Administrative Program Upgrades training for the following modules: Authorization Basis, Problem Investigation Process, Management Oversight Program, Procedure Use and Compliance. Document completing the four modules by letter to the FDH Project Direction.
Complete Phase 3 SNF Project Expansion Training for additional SNF Project personnel. SNF Project will identify Project personnel for whom Phase 3 is applicable prior to initiating Phase 3. Document completing Phase 3 by letter to FDH Project Director.
FDH will perform an assessment of the improvements in performance and provide results to RL by letter. The evaluation shall include a summary of training activity concluded, and objective assessment of measurable improvement in operations activities, and a lessons learned discussion.
Expectation: Implement the Management Self Assessment Plan
Measurement criteria: Implementation will be in accordance with a formally issued MSAP schedule which will be incorporated into the Project schedule in a controlled manner.
** Expectation: Process Quality Change Control and Document Control in a Timely Fashion.
Measurement criteria: Change Requests and the Change Control process will be evaluated based upon timeliness and quality of all change control packages.
7.0 FACILITY
STABILIZATION PROJECT
Expectation: Maintain interface with Hanford Site Technical Baseline ensuring sub-project specific baselines, end points, drivers, and internal/external interdependencies are accurately reflected in the data base. Complete initial validation by January 31, 1998, and verify consistency with FY 1999 MYWP's by August 31, 1998.
7.1 324/327 Buildings
Expectation: Issue Corrective Action Plan for FEB findings within 45 days and submit to TPD/SOD for concurrence. Complete 90% of planned corrective actions scheduled for completion before 9/30/98.
Expectation: Submit Special Case Waste assessment in support of 324 closure to DOE-RL by May 15, 1998, for transmittal to Ecology by June 30, 1998, (TPA milestone).
Expectation: Complete the 324/327 RLWS Project Plan by July 30, 1998.
7.2 B-Plant / Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF)
Expectation: Operate WESF within compliance of Environmental Laws, DOT requirements, and Safety Limits.
Measurement criteria: Operate WESF from 10/1/97 through 9/30/98 without violations of Environmental Laws, DOT requirements, Operational Safety Requirements (OSR's), and Interim Operational Safety Requirements (IOSR's), related to the storage and transportation of WESF cesium and strontium capsules.
Measurement criteria: Submit RCRA Part A permit application to DOE-RL for all Hanford site cesium and strontium capsules (TPA M-92-03) in time for transmittal to the Washington Department of Ecology by December 31, 1997.
** Expectation: By December 31, 1998, complete deactivation of the B-Plant Liquid Effluent Area.
Measurement criteria: Complete all liquid effluents end points, 211-BA end points, and 211-B electrical gallery vessels end points, with completion verification sign off by the FDH and Environmental Restoration Contractor (ERC) representatives. (DOE-RL may accept end points verified by FDH but not accepted by the ERC).
7.3 Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP)
Expectation: Complete the workscope as identified in the approved Fiscal Year Program Plan, with allowances for formally approved change packages.
7.4 300 Area Fuel Supply Shutdown (FSS)
** Expectation: Complete the FSS 303K closure activities by submitting the 303K Final Report and Closure Certification.
Measurement criteria: Issue the final report for closure activities to DOE-RL by 7/31/98. This will include:
Note: This expedited closure assumes that the sampling requirements in V.14.B.H (regarding the allowance of background levels) do not apply, and that valid sampling results do not require additional clean closure field activities.
8.0 ADVANCED
REACTORS TRANSITION (ART) PROGRAM
Expectation: Implement and complete all required aspects of the ART FY-98 MYWP and approved baseline change requests. Successful MYWP execution will be based on overall management systems performance while the management and staff ensure that safety is always first. The management team will also be assessed as to its ability to maintain the condition of FFTF plant systems, equipment and personnel in such a condition as to preserve the option for reactor restart within three and one half years of a DOE-HQ decision to do so.
Measurement criteria: Evaluation for specific performance expectations include: ES&H compliance coupled with performance in conduct of operations, maintenance, and radiological controls; customer satisfaction and relations; technical performance; and cost and schedule performance.
Important work scope items to be completed as scheduled include:
| ** | 1. | Prepare and issue Revision 0 of the Technical Information Document to the DOE-RL/SPO providing results of environmental and safety analyses completed for the dual mission of tritium and medical isotope production at the FFTF. Due date is December 26, 1997. |
| ** | 2. | Conduct a detailed radiological and hazardous materials survey to characterize contamination found in the 309 Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor Fuel Transfer Pit. Issue a letter to DOE-RL/SPO documenting the completion of the characterization activities and survey results. Due date is May 1, 1998. |
| ** | 3. | Complete Standby Annual System Assessment Reports (ASARs) as required by FFTF-EI-083, "Plant Evaluation Program." All ASARs shall be compiled into a single document with an executive summary and released as an engineering supporting document. Transmit a copy of the supporting document to DOE-RL/SPO. Due date is March 31, 1998. |
| ** | 4. | Implement a pilot program of Work Process Improvements at FFTF, including a standardized prioritization process (LIPS) and a minimum of five work process improvement recommendations from the FY-97 FFTF Work Process Task Team. One of the five work processes to be piloted is the "fix-it-now" (FIN) team. Due date is January 9, 1998. |
9.0
INFRASTRUCTURE/LANDLORD/SITE SERVICES
9.1 General Guidelines:
9.2 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC)
Expectation: The Contractor shall provide support to formal requests with specific deliverables associated with the ESPC in FY 98. The expectation is that RL will provide requests for support in written form and FDH will respond within a time period agreed upon by RL and FDH.
9.3 284 East and 384 Powerhouse Shutdown
Expectation: The Contractor shall shutdown and deactivate the 284 East and 384 Powerhouse within 45 working days of receiving written direction from RL-SID to do so. The specific facilities to be shut down and subsequently deactivated include the 284 East Powerhouse and 384 Powerhouse buildings, baghouse complexes, smokestacks, coal crusher houses, coal ramps, and fuel bunkers (384 only).
Measurement Criteria: The measurement criteria for this expectation are as specified on FDH letter to RL, number FDH-9760597, dated November 12, 1997. The detailed scope, cost, and schedule will be identified in the FY 1998 MYWP.
9.4 284 Package Boiler
Expectation: The Contractor shall shutdown and deactivate the 284 Package Boiler within 21 working days of receiving written direction from RL-SID to do so. The specific facilities to be shut down and subsequently deactivated include the 284 Package Boiler building, smokestacks, and fuel oil storage tanks.
Measurement Criteria: The measurement criteria for this expectation are as specified on FDH letter to RL, number FDH-9760597, dated November 12, 1997. The detailed scope, cost, and schedule will be identified in the FY 1998 MYWP.
9.5 Electrical Utilities
Expectations: The Contractor shall reduce costs, above purchased power cost, for delivery of electrical utility service for transmission and distribution. The cost target shall be less-than-or-equal-to (<) $0.01/kilowatt hour, while maintaining a satisfactory level of system availability and reliability.
Measurement criteria: It is assumed that electrical consumption for FY 1998 will be less-than-or-equal-to FY 1997 electrical consumption. In addition, the following costs, which were not included in the average cost for delivery of electric utility service for FY 1997, shall once again not be included in the cost for FY 1998:
9.6 Occupancy
Expectation:
GSA Buildings. The Contractor shall maximize the occupancy for selected GSA leased buildings. The Contractor shall achieve an occupancy of at least 770 employees (90% occupied) by September 30, 1998, for the below identified GSA leased buildings, 2420, 2430, and 2440 Stevens Center Place, Richland, Washington.
Federal Office Building (FOB). The Contractor shall maximize the occupancy rate for all contractor-assigned space within the Federal Office Building. The contractor shall achieve an occupancy rate of 90% by September 30, 1998, for all contractor assigned space within the Federal Office Building.
DOE Owned/Commercially Leased. The Contractor shall maximize the occupancy of DOE owned/commercially leased office space. The contractor shall achieve an occupancy rate of 90% by September 30, 1998, for all DOE owned/commercially leased office locations. See list of buildings in the FY 1998 AWP. (include general purpose, programmatic, etc.) All inclusive.
Definitions:
Occupant: A physical being/person who has an assigned workstation. A person can only be counted one time for occupancy/cost per occupant performance criterion calculations.
Occupancy Rate: The number of occupants assigned to workstation space divided by the number of available workstations in that space.
9.7 Landlord Projects
Expectation: The Contractor shall achieve satisfactory cost and schedule performance for Landlord projects in the FY 1998 Landlord (WBS 1.5) MYWP.
9.8 SID PHMC Invoice/AWP/MYWP Tracking and Analysis
Expectations:
9.9 Information Resource Management
Expectations:
9.10 Information Resource Management (IRM) Service Levels
Expectation: The Contractor shall provide IRM services that meet the deliverables and requirements, performance measurements and service hours of the Service Level Agreements (SLA) that are considered an integral part of the IRM Annual Work Plan. The SLAs, for use in evaluation of this expectation were transmitted to RL by the letter dated November 18, 1997, H. J. Sterling, Jr., FDH to W. A. Rutherford, RL, Submittal of Service Level Agreements In Support Of Performance Agreement SM12.2.1, FDH-9760880. FDH integrated these SLAs into the AWP by their letter dated December 1, 1997, E. W. Penn, Jr., FDH to S. A. Sieracki, RL, Contract No. DE-AC06-RL13200 - Information Resources Management (IRM) Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Work Plans (FY 98 AWP), FDH-9760388A R2.
9.11 Real Estate and Comprehensive Planning Objectives
Expectations: The Contractor shall support DOE's real estate and comprehensive land use planning objectives.
10.0
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (HAMMER)
Expectation: Expectation: Operate the HAMMER Training and Education Center in a safe, efficient and effective manner.
Measurement criteria: In order to define the criteria and measure accomplishment of this Expectation, we have established specific milestones with concomitant deliverables in WBS #1.9 of the FDH Multi-Year Work Plan (MYWP) for FY 1998. The measurement criteria for these milestones and deliverables focus on three areas: Facility Operations, Conduct of Training Operations and Conduct of Business Operations.
MANAGEMENT AND FUNCTIONAL SUPPORT SECTION
The Department expects the Contractor to perform the workscope contained within the Multi-Year Work Plans (MYWPs) and Annual Work Plans (AWPs) in a timely manner, within budget, with minimum rework, and with good quality. Proposed scope deletions or additions, and emerging issues, will be informally discussed with RL early in the decision process.
11.0 OFFICE
OF ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (ESH)
For FY 1998, achieve the work committed to in the FY 1998 ES&H Annual Work Plan (AWP), FY 1998 HEMP Multi-Year Work Plan (MYWP), and the FY 1998 Environmental Effluent Monitoring Multi-Year Work Plan (EEM), with a high degree of technical quality and within the established schedules and budgets. Maintain compliance with applicable federal, state, and local ES&H regulations and contractual requirements, with prompt notification of conditions that could potentially cause a non-compliance and implementation of corrective actions. Represent a proactive and aggressive ES&H organization that serves as a technical and cultural mentor to FDH and all its subcontractors.
For performance of work in FY 1998, the focus in ES&H is in seven areas:
11.1 Expectations:
Integrated Environment, Safety and Health Management System: Implement the improved Automated Job Hazard Analysis and complete those activities necessary to support facility implementation of ISMS.
Radiological Controls Improvement Plan (RCIP): Complete the FY 1998 commitments in the Radiological Controls Improvement Plan.
Environmental Protection Program/Chemical Management System (CMS):
Chemical Management System: Provide highly visible leadership in the development of sitewide Integrated Chemical Management strategy through completion of FY 1998 commitments in the implementation plan as modified by project implementation plan and change requests.
Emergency Preparedness Improvement Program (EPIP): Initiate corrective action improvements in the Plutonium Reclamation Facility Corrective Action Plan.
Quality: Ensure that the quality of all PHMC products and operations meet or exceed customer expectations, as defined in the PHMC contract and work plans.
Safety Culture: Promote and advocate an environment that encourages the raising and constructive resolution of safety and health issues and is supportive of safety and health being an integral component of all work products.
Independent Assessment: Demonstrate an effective independent assessment function that is resulting in improved project/program performance.
12.0 OFFICE
OF CONCERNS, RESOURCES AND QUALITY
Expectations: Demonstrate effective management and integration of Employee Concerns Program activities in accordance with requirements of RLID 5480.29.
Measurement Criteria:
| ** | By March 15, 1998, provide a proposal on effective monitoring and integration of major subcontractors' employee concerns program activities. |
| ** | By May 1, 1998 submit a proposal on implementation of a tracking and trending program for employee concerns and implement the approved process by September 30, 1998. |
Expectations:
13.0 OFFICE
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
13.1 Hanford Site Planning and Integration
The Planning and Integration Division (PID) has included its performance expectations in the FY98 Update to the PHMC Multi Year Work Plan, 1.8.2.1.1. These expectations are further addressed in the PHMC Contract, Section C.2. and support PID's mission to assure integration and alignment of site planning, reporting, and integration functions; additionally, to ensure alignment, linkage, and traceability among the various projects for optimization of the PHMC contract.
All activities listed in the MYWP are important for the success of site integration. The more critical items that bear particular focus are: Performance Measurement and Reporting, Integrated Priority List, Multi-Year Work Plans/Annual Work Plans (AWPs), Baseline Change Request Process, Performance Reporting-Data Systems. The specifics of these expectations are included in the MYWP.
13.2 Budget
13.2.1 Budget Reports and Analysis
Expectation: Ensure Annual Work Plan (AWP) and Multi-Year Work Plan (MYWP) products reflect DOE guidance, are of a quality that does not require significant revision, and are delivered within agreed to due dates.
Measurement Criteria: Success in meeting this performance objective will be determined by completing assigned work, including the activities cited in WBS 6.1.6.5.1.3.
13.2.2 Field Budget Submission
Expectation: Ensure that all FY 2000 budget submissions, including any required supplemental schedules and narrative, effectively present and justify the funding requirements of the PHMC. In FDH's integrator role, the EM Program budget submission must reflect total integrated site-wide requirements.
Measurement Criteria: Success in meeting this performance objective will be determined as indicated in the Planning and Integration FY 1998 Multi-Year Work Plan, WBS 1.8.2.1.1.1.2.
13.3 Financial Management
The Financial Management Division (FMD) has included its FY 1998 PHMC performance expectations in the FY98 PHMC Annual Work Plan, 1MDD4B. These expectations support FMD's mission to administer the Department's financial operations and to ensure financial integrity through four HQ performance areas: financial stewardship, full partnership, customer orientation, and technology/information architecture.
While FMD believes all activities listed in the Annual Work Plan are important for the success of RL and the Contractor's financial organizations, the activities have been categorized to identify more critical items. The critical items are: Accounting System, Final Indirect Cost Rate Proposal, Rate Submittals, Corrective Action Plans, Year End Financial Statements and Closing, Audited Financial Statements, Functional Cost, and Indirect Baselines. The specifics of these expectations are included in the Annual Work Plan 1MDD4B.
FMD expects that the PHMC's products will be of an appropriate quality and submitted in a timely manner. Final products should not require significant changes or rework.
13.4 Contract Finance and Review Programs
13.4.1 Internal Audit
Expectation: Be financially in control by maintaining an effective internal audit capability to review the contractor financial activities and those of its major subcontractors.
Measurement Criteria: Internal Audit's success in meeting this performance objective will be determined by its ability to perform the required work in accordance with the FY 1998 Annual Work Plan, 1MDD1C.
13.4.2 Repeat Audit Findings
Expectation: FDH will demonstrate effective and efficient management and financial controls by correcting those external and DOE audit findings, within approved time frames, that were supported by the CO/COR.
Measurement Criteria: FDH's success in meeting this performance objective will be measured by its ability not to have any repeat Inspector General, GAO, DCAA, or DOE audit/review findings during FY 1998. An external audit finding will not be considered to be a repeat audit finding unless it previously was supported by the CO/COR and the contractor has had sufficient time to implement its approved corrective action plan.
13.5 Procurement
13.5.1 Balanced Scorecard
Expectation: FDH Contract Administration and Acquisitions organizations shall conduct an internal self-assessment in accordance with all requirements defined in the Contractor Purchasing System Performance Measurement and Performance Management Model (aka Balanced Scorecard). The objective of this self-assessment is to measure and manage performance, and drive the required improvements and system changes.
Deliverables:
| ** | FDH submits quarterly self-assessment reports for the first three quarters of FY 1998, due one month after the end of the quarter; and |
| ** | FDH submits an end of FY self-assessment report due by September 30, 1998. |
Measurement Criteria: RL will evaluate the overall effectiveness of the FDH self-assessment process, application of the results, and performance against self-assessment plan targets under this incentive.
13.5.2 ENCO Subcontract Recompete/Option Extension Process and Decision Packages
| ** | Expectation: Submit complete decision packages for the Enterprise Company subcontract recompetition/option extension, for RL review and approval by January 9, 1998, including all information requirements established in the RL approved recompetition/option extension decision process. |
14.0
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
14.1 Configuration Management
Expectation: Manage and strengthen the sitewide configuration management system for the safe and reliable operations of the projects and their facilities.
Measurement Criteria:
Deliverables:
| ** | Complete Project specific configuration management implementation plans (CMIPs), reviewed and approved by FDH for compliance with the PHMC CM requirements, by March 31, 1998. |
| ** | Establish a baseline and performance metrics system for essential drawing control for the Projects and Facilities by July 31, 1998. |
14.2 Sitewide Systems Engineering (SSE)
Expectation: Provide a high level integrated sitewide systems engineering process with technical products that support sitewide integrated technical planning at the PHMC level.
Measurement Criteria:
| ** | Load all applicable FY 1998 MYWP data into the Hanford Sitewide Technical Database (HSTD) by December 31, 1997, including current forecasts for Infrastructure, Waste, Materials, Interfaces, Analytical Support Services, etc). |
| ** | Complete a site requirements review and validation of the HSTD by December 31, 1997. |
| ** | Complete all SSE analyses by March 31, 1998. Completion shall include approval by the effected FDH Project Director and Major Subcontractor Project Manager(s) and their Chief Engineer(s). Analyses which must be completed include: Liquid Effluent Case, TWRS Case, Solid Waste Case (including the Central Waste Complex), Transition Facility Case (including 300 area facilities). Case completion will include the Science and Technology programs, and the ER Projects. |
14.3 Engineering and Construction Programs
Expectations:
15.0 HUMAN
RESOURCES/CONTRACTOR WORKFORCE PROGRAMS
Expectation: The Contractor shall conduct a benchmarking analysis of FDH PHMC Human Resources processes, using the metrics listed below, to measure the Contractor's effectiveness in aligning with the commercial marketplace.
Measurement criteria:
Expectation: The contractor shall promote a productive and harmonious relationship with the certified collective bargaining agents of the PHMC through implementing labor-management partnership initiatives as agreed to by the parties.
Measurement criteria: The number of initiatives implemented shall be divided by the number of initiatives agreed to. Excellent performance will be indicated by a 90% or higher implementation rate.
Expectation: Implement the actions designed to address the three primary issues identified in the Worker Productivity Survey, i.e., communications, management and organizational change, employing an incremental or graded approach to measure accomplishment.
Measurement Criteria:
90% = Exceeds Expectation
70% - 90% = Meets Expectations
Less than 70% = Does Not Meet Expectations
Expectation: From the staffing forecast provided by FDH Site Planning and Integration, develop a process that provides an accurate time phased approach to Staff Planning that supports resource availability requirements.
Measurement Criteria:
Expectation: By the end of the 1998 fiscal year (9/30/98), achieve the action oriented diversity commitments established in the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP).
Measurement criteria:
90% = Exceeds Expectation
70% - 90% = Meets Expectations
Less than 70% = Does Not Meet Expectations
Expectation: Develop plan to continue reduction in health care costs. The plan will encompass the following:
Measurement criteria:
Expectation: Using a graded means of measuring success, maintain beginning of FY 1998 percent of protected classes (PC) within the combination of EEO-1 categories where employment selections are not driven by seniority (officials/managers, professionals, office/clerical & technical) by the end of FY 1998, adjusted for voluntary separations.
Measurement criteria:
* PC refers to total females and to total minorities within the group.
100% = Exceeds Expectation
80% - 90% = Meets Expectations
Less than 80% = Does Not Meet Expectations
16.0
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
16.1 Expectations
Expectation: Needs Identification - Clearly defined science and technology needs statements are essential to finding solutions to meet Hanford Project needs and reduce baseline costs. The contractor shall design and implement a science and technology needs process that identifies, prioritizes, coordinates, integrates across projects, and packages site science and technology needs to a mutually agreed-upon format. The technology insertion points into project schedules will also be identified. The process will deliver (a) product(s) that effectively communicates technology needs to site projects, technology providers, and other potentially interested parties.
Expectation: Technology Deployment effectiveness - The contractor will effect increasing lifecycle cost savings (over baseline) due to technology deployment. Technology support efforts will be made available to an increasing number of Hanford organizations.
The contractor will create a system to determine lifecycle costs for Hanford environmental projects. These baseline costs will be compared with updated baseline costs after new technologies have been deployed to determine the effectiveness of technology deployment activities.
The contractor will service an increasing number of PHMC organizations with technology solutions as compared to previous years. This activity will broaden the base of technology deployment and reflect a culture change in support of thinking "outside the box" to look for better ways of doing Hanford work.
Expectation: Infrastructure - The contractor shall work to create a technology deployment environment that is driven by needs, rewards risk management and fosters market pull. In doing so, the contractor will communicate and cooperate with the appropriate National Technology Development teams through the Site Technology Coordination Group; provide active and appropriate participation in the STCG management council and subgroup meetings, providing information for STCG review in a timely manner (no less than 10 working days in advance); and coordinate and partner with other Hanford prime contractors, DOE sites, Federal agencies, support organizations (such as Environmental Technology Partnership), etc. with RL guidance.
16.2 Definitions:
Innovative Technologies: Technologies, approaches, or systems that demonstrate a significant advance in the state of the art or represent a new application of existing technology to a method or process with the result of reduced cost, schedule, and/or risk, enhanced safety, and/or increased effectiveness. A project that contains or has the potential to contain one or more of the following attributes (without adversely effecting the others) shall meet the criteria for innovative technology: minimum 25% reduction in life cycle cost, minimum 25% reduction in schedule, significant safety enhancement, and/or significant program risk reduction.
Technology Deployment: An innovative technology that has replaced the Hanford site baseline (or improved Hanford operations where a baseline is not well defined).
Technology Providers: Resources for providing technology which include (but not limited to): vendors, industry, other organizations (government and non-government), and academia.
17.0
ECONOMIC TRANSITION
Expectation: The FDH Office of Economic Transition will contribute to the diversification of the local community's economy through innovative re-use of excess or under-utilized site assets. These assets include real, personal, and intellectual property. The Contractor will also leverage the workscope of the PHMC to attract and create businesses that will locate and operate in the local community.
Measurement criteria: The FDH Office of Economic Transition will help create 75 of the FY97-98 cumulative local non-Hanford job total (500 jobs) through their activities using unneeded Project Hanford assets (buildings, equipment, technology, workscope, and any other site assets or operations as appropriate) in FY 98.
18.0
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
Expectations: As outlined in the FY 1998 Work Plan:
| ** | Complete the 1997 Hanford Site Safeguards and Security Plan (SSSP) Part I Safeguards and Security Management Reports (SSMR) (Sitewide and facility SSMR) and submit to RL for review and comment . The due date for completion of this activity is 10/31/97. |
| ** | Train, equip, and deploy Special Response Teams (SRT's) on the 12 hour shift. The due date for completion of this activity is 1/31/98. |
| ** | Acquire, train, equip, and deploy a second K-9 explosives detection team. The due date for completion of this activity is 3/31/98. |
| ** | Provide a recommendation report on the use of hand held explosive detectors at Hanford. The due date for this activity is 6/30/98. |
| ** | Submit an updated Safeguards and Security (SAS) 2006 Plan to RL. The due date for this activity is 8/1/98. |
| ** | Complete the vehicle bomb Vulnerability Analysis Report (VAR). The due date for this activity is 9/30/98. |
19.0
TECHNICAL TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION
Expectation: Ensure a Systematic Approach to Training is applied to all Hanford-specific, mandated or required by procedure, formal classroom training courses provided for Fluor Daniel Hanford and its Major Subcontractors (MSCs).
Measurement Criteria:
Expectation: Maintain a qualified and technically competent workforce.
Measurement Criteria:
Expectation: Training activities will be monitored to optimize total training costs.
Measurement Criteria: Develop and implement a procedure or process to accurately capture and track the cost of training for all Hanford employees covered by PHMC and subcontractors and ENCOs.
20.0
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
20.1 General Coordination Expectations:
20.2 Scientific and Technical Information:
21.0 OFFICE
OF CHIEF COUNSEL
21.1 Litigation Support Services
Expectation: Demonstrate effective management of outside counsel costs by complying with the Litigation Management Plan (LMP).
Measurement Criteria:
21.2 Legal Advice, Review and Compliance Strategy
Expectation: Cooperate in producing reports, documents, arguments and strategies to support objectives common to RL and FDH. Acknowledge differences openly and in a non-hostile manner.
Measurement Criteria:
21.3 Business Conduct
Expectation: Investigate, respond to and/or attempt to resolve third party complaints before forums external to the PHMC. Provide preventative guidance, counseling and training to contractor management.
Measurement Criteria: