> Attachment A-1

New Brunswick Laboratory A-76 Competition

U.S. Department of Energy

![](media/image1.png){width="1.8145833333333334in" height="1.875in"}

**QUALITY ASSURANCE**

**SURVEILLANCE PLAN**

**U.S. Department of Energy**

**New Brunswick Laboratory**

**9800 South Cass Avenue, Building 350**

**Argonne, IL 60439**

**December 2005**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

# Table of Contents {#table-of-contents .Like-Heading-1-not-TOC}

[**Section 1:** **Introduction 2**](#introduction)

[[1.1]{.mark} [Background]{.mark} 2](#background)

[[1.2]{.mark} [Purpose]{.mark} 2](#purpose)

[[1.3]{.mark} [QASP Relation to the Contract]{.mark}
2](#qasp-relation-to-the-contract)

[[1.4]{.mark} [QASP Relation to the QCP]{.mark}
2](#qasp-relation-to-the-qcp)

[[1.5]{.mark} [Revisions to the QASP]{.mark} 2](#revisions-to-the-qasp)

[Section 2: Performance description 4](#performance-description)

[[2.1]{.mark} [Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels
(AQLs)]{.mark}
4](#performance-standards-and-acceptable-quality-levels-aqls)

[2.1.1 Allowable Deviation 4](#allowable-deviation)

[2.1.2 Substantially Complete 4](#substantially-complete)

[[2.2]{.mark} [Non-performance]{.mark} 4](#non-performance)

[2.2.1 Documentation 4](#documentation)

[2.2.2 Remedial Actions 5](#remedial-actions)

[Section 3: Roles and Responsibilities 6](#roles-and-responsibilities)

[[3.1]{.mark} [SP Responsibility]{.mark} 6](#sp-responsibility)

[[3.2]{.mark} [Government Responsibility]{.mark}
6](#government-responsibility)

[3.2.1 Contracting Officer 6](#contracting-officer)

[3.2.2 Designated Government Representative
6](#designated-government-representative)

[3.2.3 Quality Assurance Evaluators 6](#quality-assurance-evaluators)

[3.2.4 Customers 7](#customers)

[Section 4: Performing Quality Assurance
8](#performing-quality-assurance)

[[4.1]{.mark} [Surveillance Methods]{.mark} 8](#surveillance-methods)

[4.1.1 100 Percent Inspection 8](#percent-inspection)

[4.1.1.1Performance Standards and AQLs
8](#performance-standards-and-aqls)

[4.1.1.2 Evaluation Procedures 8](#evaluation-procedures)

[4.1.2 Periodic Inspection 8](#periodic-inspection)

[4.1.2.1 Application 8](#application)

[4.1.2.2 Performance Standards and AQLs
9](#performance-standards-and-aqls-1)

[4.1.2.3 Evaluation Procedures 9](#evaluation-procedures-1)

[4.1.3 Random Sampling 9](#random-sampling)

[4.1.3.1 Application 9](#application-1)

[4.1.3.2 Performance Standards and AQLs
9](#performance-standards-and-aqls-2)

[4.1.3.3 Evaluation Procedures 9](#evaluation-procedures-2)

[4.1.4 Customer Feedback 9](#customer-feedback)

[4.1.4.1 Application 10](#application-2)

[4.1.4.2 Customer Feedback Process 10](#customer-feedback-process)

[4.1.4.3 Evaluation Procedure 10](#evaluation-procedure)

[[4.2]{.mark} [Analysis and Results]{.mark} 10](#analysis-and-results)

[4.2.1 Outstanding Performance 10](#outstanding-performance)

[4.2.2 Very Good Performance 10](#__RefHeading___Toc100992815)

[4.2.3 Satisfactory Performance 10](#__RefHeading___Toc100992815)

[4.2.4 Unsatisfactory Performance 11](#satisfactory-performance)

[Appendix A: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
12](#performance-requirements-summary)

[Appendix B: SERVICE PROVIDER DISCREPANCY REPORT
24](#service-provider-discrepancy-report)

[Appendix C: CUSTOMER FEEDBACK RECORD 25](#customer-feedback-record)

[Appendix D: SAMPLING GUIDE/INSPECTION CHECKLIST
26](#sampling-guideinspection-checklist)

# Introduction {#introduction .DOE-Heading-1}

## [Background]{.mark} {#background .DOE-Heading-2}

The Department of Energy (DOE) initiated a competitive sourcing study of
the New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76. Competitive sourcing involves
a competition between Federal employees and prospective contractors to
determine who will continue providing the services under review. The
process includes the development of a solicitation, which interested
contractors respond to through formal proposals and the in‑house work
force responds to through an Agency Tender that includes a Most
Efficient Organization (MEO).

Section C of the solicitation is the Performance Work Statement (PWS),
which specifies what work is to be performed. The PWS includes, as a
technical exhibit, a Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), which
specifies how well the work is to be performed. The competition results
in a new Service Provider (SP) that shall perform the requirements
stated in the PWS and the PRS. Depending on the Performance Decision at
the conclusion of the A‑76 competition, the SP may be the MEO---composed
of federal employees---or a private sector firm.

If a contractor becomes the SP, the solicitation and the contractor's
proposal are incorporated in the contract. If the MEO becomes the SP,
the solicitation and the Agency Tender are incorporated in a Letter of
Obligation (which is similar to a contract). Throughout this Quality
Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), the term "contract" is used to mean
either contract or Letter of Obligation.

In either scenario---contract or MEO---the Government will have an
organization in place to direct the efforts of the SP, and monitor and
evaluate the performance of the SP. This organization is called the
Residual Organization.

## [Purpose]{.mark} {#purpose .DOE-Heading-2}

This QASP describes the procedures that the Quality Assurance Evaluators
(QAEs) in the Residual Organization will use to monitor the SP's
performance. It includes, as Appendix A, the PRS included in the
contract. It is important to note DOE's primary concern is with the
products and services provided by the SP and not with the procedures
used to produce them. Therefore, the QASP focuses on examining the
products and services provided by the SP and not the processes used to
produce them. It is intended that the QASP be a tool to guide the QAEs
in assessing SP performance. In some cases, specific metrics are used to
measure SP performance, in other cases subjective judgment and
evaluation by DOE personnel will be the determining criteria. This plan
describes the methodology utilized to make both quantitative and
qualitative evaluation of SP performance under the contract.

## [QASP Relation to the Contract]{.mark} {#qasp-relation-to-the-contract .DOE-Heading-2}

DOE will retain the right to change the surveillance methods and Quality
Assurance (QA) procedures, or to increase or decrease the degree of
surveillance efforts at any time necessary to assure contract
compliance. A copy of the QASP may be provided to the SP to enable the
SP to enhance its Quality Control (QC) Program, performed in accordance
with its Quality Control Plan (QCP).

## [QASP Relation to the QCP]{.mark} {#qasp-relation-to-the-qcp .DOE-Heading-2}

The QCP is a required element of the SP's technical proposal in response
to the solicitation. While the QCP represents the way in which the SP
will ensure its quality and timeliness of services, as defined in the
PWS, the QASP represents the way in which DOE will evaluate the SP's
performance. The SP's QCP and the Residual Organization's QASP should be
complementary programs that ensure successful SP performance.

## [Revisions to the QASP]{.mark} {#revisions-to-the-qasp .DOE-Heading-2}

The QASP is a tool for use in Government administration of the contract
and remains subject to revision at any time by the Government throughout
the contract performance period. Revisions to this surveillance plan are
the responsibility of the Designated Government Representative (DGR).
Changes may be made unilaterally and need not be announced to the SP;
the Government may provide informational copies to the SP if desired.

During the Phase-in Period, the SP will gradually assume responsibility
for all tasks in the PWS. It is expected that during that time, all
operational procedures and quality control measures will be tested and
implemented. As the performance period progresses, the levels of
surveillance may be altered for service areas in cases where performance
is either consistently excellent or consistently unsatisfactory. If
observations reveal consistently good performance, then the amount of
surveillance may be reduced. If observations reveal consistent
deficiencies, increased surveillance may be implemented.

# Performance description {#performance-description .DOE-Heading-1}

Performance of the SP will be monitored through various surveillance
methods described in *Section 4: Performing Quality Assurance*.
Performance data gathered will be evaluated to assess SP performance
against contract requirements.

## [Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs)]{.mark} {#performance-standards-and-acceptable-quality-levels-aqls .DOE-Heading-2}

For selected activities in the PWS, the PRS provides a performance
standard and an AQL. A performance standard is the expected level of SP
performance. An AQL defines the level of performance that is
satisfactory. Depending on the service evaluated and the evaluation
method selected, performance standards and AQLs may be stated as a
number of occurrences or as a percentage. Performance standards and AQLs
for random sampling and 100 percent inspection are generally stated as
percentages. For periodic inspections, performance standards may be
stated as either percentages or as absolute numbers.

The contract requires the SP to perform all work as specified. Any
inaccuracies or omissions in services or products are referred to as
"defects" on the part of the SP. The SP shall be held responsible for
all identified defects, and DOE may require a contractor to re-perform
the work at no cost to the government. The AQLs take into account that
in some instances an allowable level of deficiencies (deviations) is
possible while overall performance continues to meet DOE's desired level
of service.

### Allowable Deviation {#allowable-deviation .DOE-Heading-3}

The AQLs define the level or number of performance deficiencies the SP
is permitted to reach under this contract. AQLs take into account the
difference between an occasional defect and a gross number of defects.
AQLs can be expressed as a percentage of or as an absolute number (e.g.,
three per month). There may be instances where 100 percent compliance is
required, and no deviation is acceptable (e.g., where safety is
involved).

### Substantially Complete {#substantially-complete .DOE-Heading-3}

In some cases, service outputs are evaluated using subjective values
(e.g., excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory). The criteria for
acceptable performance and for defects must be defined for these service
outputs. The concept of "substantially complete" should be the basis for
inspections based on subjective scales.

Work is considered "substantially complete" where there has been no
significant departure from the terms of the contract and no omission of
essential work. In addition, the SP has performed the work required to
the best of its ability and the only variance consists of minor
omissions or deficiencies.

## [Non-performance]{.mark} {#non-performance .DOE-Heading-2}

Non-performance occurs when the SP's performance does not meet the AQL
for a given requirement. Requirements may contain multiple performance
elements, and therefore, deficiencies may occur in one or more aspects
of performance (e.g., timeliness, accuracy, completeness, etc.) or
subject areas of effort.

When surveillance indicates that the SP\'s service output is not in
compliance with the contract requirements, the QAE must determine
whether the SP or the Government caused the deficiency. If the cause of
the defect rests with the Government, corrective action must be taken
through Government channels. If the cause of the defect is due to action
or inaction by the SP, the SP is responsible for correction of the
problem at no additional expense to the Government.

### Documentation {#documentation .DOE-Heading-3}

Thorough documentation of unperformed or poorly performed work is
essential for tracking SP performance throughout the period of
performance. The QAEs, as trained inspectors, will document deficient
work by compiling facts describing the inspection methods and results. A
sample documentation reporting form is provided in *Appendix B: Contract
Discrepancy Report*. The DGR and QAEs will develop documentation to
substantiate nonconformance with the contract. The documentation,
together with any recommendations, will be forwarded to the DGR. In the
case of a contractor SP, the DGR will decide whether to elevate the
problem to the Contracting Officer (CO) for corrective action.

### Remedial Actions {#remedial-actions .DOE-Heading-3}

The Federal Acquisition Regulation allows for penalties in the event
that the SP fails to perform the required services. Penalties are
defined as those actions taken under the direction of the CO against the
SP within the general provisions of the contract for nonconformance to
the PWS and PRS.

For a contractor SP, in accordance with *FAR 52.246-6*:
*Inspection---Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour*, the Government may
require the Contractor to correct services that failed to meet contract
requirements.  The cost of correction shall be determined under the
Payments Under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts clause, but
the "hourly rate" for labor hours incurred in the replacement or
correction shall be reduced to exclude that portion of the rate
attributable to profit.  If the Contractor fails to proceed with
reasonable promptness to perform the required correction, the Government
may (i) by contract or otherwise, perform the correction, charge to the
Contractor any increased cost, or deduct such increased cost from any
amounts paid or due under the contract; or (ii) terminate the contract
for default.  The CO will determine the penalty for nonconformance based
upon his or her judgment and the severity of the nonconformance.

# Roles and Responsibilities {#roles-and-responsibilities .DOE-Heading-1}

The purpose of QA is to ensure that the customers are satisfied with the
products and services received from the SP and to ensure that the SP is
meeting its obligation to DOE. The roles and responsibilities of the
stakeholders involved in QA are described below.

## [SP Responsibility]{.mark} {#sp-responsibility .DOE-Heading-2}

The SP is responsible for delivering products or services in accordance
with the contract. The SP is responsible for implementing its QCP, which
is incorporated in the contract. The QCP describes the SP's methods for
ensuring all products and services provided under the contract meet
established performance standards and AQLs. The SP is responsible for
producing, maintaining, and providing for audit, quality control records
and reports and all records associated with the investigation and
resolution of customer complaints. The SP should appoint a single
quality control point-of-contact to act as a central recipient of
communication from the Government.

## [Government Responsibility]{.mark} {#government-responsibility .DOE-Heading-2}

This section of the QASP briefly defines the duties and responsibilities
of key Government personnel involved in contract administration and
quality assurance. The key personnel who will be responsible for QA are
the CO, the DGR, the QAEs, and the SP's customers.

### Contracting Officer {#contracting-officer .DOE-Heading-3}

When a contractor is the SP, the CO has the authority to administer the
DOE NBL contract. The CO may delegate many of the day-to-day contract
administration duties to the DGR and QAEs. However, certain contractual
actions such as negotiation and issuance of contract modifications,
resolution of SP claims and disputes, issuance of cure notices
(notification that unless unacceptable performance is corrected, the
Government may terminate the contract for default, IAW FAR 49.607),
issuance of show-cause letters (following a cure notice, requesting
facts bearing on the case), termination of the contract, and contract
close-out functions are retained by the CO. Administrative actions such
as invoice approval and issuance of Contract Discrepancy Reports may be,
and normally are, delegated by the CO to the DGR. For tasks and/or
subtasks which include incentive arrangements (award fee, shared
savings, award term, etc.), the DGR shall provide recommendations to the
CO for action. All communication regarding questions or issues related
to QA and inspection will be directed to the CO or the DGR. The CO shall
approve any revision to the QASP processes or standards.

### Designated Government Representative {#designated-government-representative .DOE-Heading-3}

The DGR, who is a federal employee within the Residual Organization, is
designated by name and/or position to act as a liaison between the
Government and the SP on all issues pertinent to the daily operation of
the Contract. The DGR represents the CO in the Contracting Officer's
Representative (COR) functions and therefore is the SP\'s initial
point-of-contact with the Government. In turn, the DGR may delegate some
of his/her responsibilities, such as supervision of the QAEs, to another
individual in the Residual Organization in order to ensure that the QA
function is properly executed. If modifications to the contract are
necessary, the DGR will assist the CO in preparing and negotiating the
modifications. If there are problems with SP performance, the DGR will
inform the SP of the problems and recommend to the CO that adverse
contractual actions are appropriate (e.g., cure notice) if the SP fails
to correct the problem. Also, the DGR must refer differences of contract
interpretation to the CO.

### Quality Assurance Evaluators {#quality-assurance-evaluators .DOE-Heading-3}

The QAEs play a key role in contract administration. They serve as the
on-site representative of the CO and the DGR. The QAEs perform the
actual contract surveillance and report to the DGR. Some of the key
contract administration duties of QAEs include, but are not limited to,
the following:

-   Perform surveillance as required by this QASP, and make
    recommendations to the DGR for issuance of Contract Discrepancy
    Reports or letters of commendation;

-   Make recommendations to the DGR for the acceptance or rejection of
    completed work and for administrative actions based on
    unsatisfactory work or non-performed work;

-   Assist the DGR in identifying necessary contract modifications;

-   Make recommendations to the DGR for changes to the QASP;

-   Assist the DGR in preparing reports of SP performance and cost.

The QAEs have only the authority delegated to them in writing by the DGR
and/or CO. They have no authority to direct or to allow the SP to
deviate from contract requirements. The QAEs also have no authority to
direct or interfere with the methods of performance by the SP or to
issue directions to any of the SP's personnel. These actions are
reserved to the CO or to the DGR.

The QAEs may use the form provided in *Appendix D: Sampling
Guide/Inspection Checklist* for each service requirement to be
inspected, or such other forms as approved by the DGR. This checklist
includes the specific tasks to be checked and whether the inspection
results in an SP rating of excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory
performance. For a contractor SP, overall guidance is also provided by
the Inspection and Acceptance clauses in the contract.

### Customers {#customers .DOE-Heading-3}

Customers are the various organizations supported by the SP. Customers
may be requested to assist the QAEs and DGR in conducting QA by
providing information on SP performance through a Customer Feedback
Program. The information gained from the Customer Feedback Program may
be used in conjunction with other methods of observation to rate the
performance of the SP.

# Performing Quality Assurance {#performing-quality-assurance .DOE-Heading-1}

## [Surveillance Methods]{.mark} {#surveillance-methods .DOE-Heading-2}

The surveillance methods used in the QA process are the Government's
tools to monitor the SP's products and services. The best means of
determining whether the SP has met all contract requirements is to
inspect the SP's service products and analyze the results. Further,
documented inspection results are an effective tool in contract
administration. Inspections either confirm the SP's successful
achievement of all performance requirements or highlight areas where
defects exist and improvements are necessary.

The surveillance methods described below include: 100 percent
inspection, periodic inspection, random sampling, and customer feedback.
The number of inspections conducted may be reduced in those instances
where the SP has established a good performance record. In cases of poor
performance, DOE may increase the level of surveillance and focus on
known problem areas. In either case, the reasons for the change in
surveillance will be documented.

### 100 Percent Inspection {#percent-inspection .DOE-Heading-3}

The 100 percent inspection method requires complete inspection of a
contract requirement and will be used for requirements that are
especially critical or where there is some reason for suspecting that
the performance standard or AQL is not being met (and therefore, should
be more closely monitored). Evaluation schedules for 100 percent
inspections will be prepared each month.

### Performance Standards and AQLs {#performance-standards-and-aqls .DOE-Heading-4}

The performance standards and AQLs may be stated as either percentages
or absolute numbers.

### Evaluation Procedures {#evaluation-procedures .DOE-Heading-4}

Observed defects for a service monitored by 100 percent inspection is
compared to the performance standard and AQL.

### Periodic Inspection {#periodic-inspection .DOE-Heading-3}

Periodic inspection provides a systematic way of looking at service
outputs and forming conclusions about the SP\'s level of performance in
accordance with a planned schedule of surveillance. Evaluation by
periodic inspection is designed to inspect some part but not all of the
products and services being monitored.

### Application {#application .DOE-Heading-4}

Specific contract requirements that are to be monitored are selected for
evaluation prior to their scheduled accomplishment. Periodic inspection
differs from random sampling in the way in which samples are selected --
periodic inspection sample selection is based on some subjective
rationale and sample sizes are usually arbitrarily determined. With this
type of evaluation, the QAEs are able to direct efforts to those areas
where inspections are most needed, and the SP knows that those areas are
more likely to be monitored than others. Periodic inspection, as
compared with random sampling, provides a less sound statistical means
of making comparisons between observed and overall performance, and the
SP\'s overall level of performance. Periodic inspection is generally
used in two ways. First, it can provide a one-time subjective evaluation
of SP performance. Second, it can be used to detect a change in the SP's
level of performance (i.e., trend analysis). This method requires that
the sample selection criteria be well documented and consistently
applied

from period to period, and that there are no other intervening factors.
The cost of periodic inspections varies with the level of inspections.
Such latitude is important to manage limited resources and focus
inspections on known or suspected problems areas.

### Performance Standards and AQLs {#performance-standards-and-aqls-1 .DOE-Heading-4}

Performance standards and AQLs are usually stated in terms of the number
of defects detected per time period (e.g., three times per month). There
is no specific relationship between sample size and performance
standard/AQL. However, when the AQL is expressed as a percentage, it is
recommended that the maximum sample size be chosen such that one defect
does not exceed the AQL.

### Evaluation Procedures {#evaluation-procedures-1 .DOE-Heading-4}

The levels of evaluation appropriate for periodic inspection are
judgmental. In order to perform trend analysis from periodic inspection,
criteria for sample selection should be applied consistently from period
to period. To ensure valid results, the QAEs will use periodic
inspection evaluation sheets and follow a detailed inspection schedule.
Schedules may be developed monthly to coincide with the SP\'s monthly
schedule of work, and regularly updated after receiving the SP\'s
definitive weekly schedule. Observed defects for services monitored by
periodic inspection will be totaled at the end of each month. For each
service, the total number of defects will be compared to the performance
standard and AQL.

### Random Sampling {#random-sampling .DOE-Heading-3}

Random sampling evaluation is a quality assurance method designed to
evaluate some, but not all, of a specific contract requirement. This
method, based on statistical principles, estimates the SP\'s overall
level of performance for a given contract requirement based on a
representative sample drawn from a population. Random Sampling is most
often used when the number of occurrences of a service is very high.

### Application {#application-1 .DOE-Heading-4}

The random sampling procedures are based on those set by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). The random sampling procedures
consider the AQL (maximum allowable deviation from the performance
standard), the level (intensity) of the evaluation effort, and the
population size. There are two ways of applying random sampling for QA
surveillance. The first is used only for performance evaluation and
allows deductions to be taken only for observed defects; the second is
random sampling for performance evaluation and deduction projection
(also called extrapolated deductions), which allows deductions against
the whole population based on the inspection of the sample. To obtain
valid results, random sampling procedures must be followed precisely.

### Performance Standards and AQLs {#performance-standards-and-aqls-2 .DOE-Heading-4}

Performance standards and AQLs may be specified as percentages or
absolute numbers.

### Evaluation Procedures {#evaluation-procedures-2 .DOE-Heading-4}

Random Sampling is based solely on a statistical analysis whereby a
conclusion is drawn about a population based on a randomly selected
sample of that population. For the conclusion to be valid, the sample
selected must be representative of the population. A truly
representative sample can be achieved by ensuring that the sample is
selected randomly and the size of the sample is sufficient. A conclusion
about SP performance can then be made based on the representative sample
drawn.

### Customer Feedback {#customer-feedback .DOE-Heading-3}

Validated customer feedback is a quality assurance method based on
customer and SP interaction. Customers continually receive the outputs
of SP performance and are in a position to evaluate the SP on a
recurring basis. Because customers have a clear stake in the quality of
SP services, they are valuable resource for the QAEs.

### Application {#application-2 .DOE-Heading-4}

Customers are made aware of contract requirements and monitor the
services provided by the SP, both positive and negative. Where there is
a case of poor performance or non-performance, customers notify the
QAEs. The QAEs then investigate the report and, if found to be valid,
document their findings. The numbers of complaints and resulting
inspections depend upon customer awareness and response. If the
complaint is valid and caused by poor performance or non-performance by
the SP, the SP must take appropriate corrective action. A valid
complaint is one in which the QAE confirms that poor performance or
non-performance violates contract requirements.

### Customer Feedback Process {#customer-feedback-process .DOE-Heading-4}

Upon contract award, the DGR should send letters to all or selected
customer points-of-contact. These letters will inform them of the need
for their active participation in the overall Quality Assurance Program.
The DGR will also provide a Customer Feedback Record (sample at
Appendix C) for the customer to use to either document performance
problems or identify when superior services are received.

The QAEs will validate the Customer Feedback Records submitted. It is
primarily the responsibility of the SP to investigate each complaint to
determine the problem. While QAEs can also investigate customer
complaints, the responsibility for initial review shall remain with the
SP. At the Government's discretion, the QAE will investigate problems
from customer groups and complaints involving major problems with
services being provided.

The SP shall take action when a Customer Feedback Record is received. If
a valid complaint exists, the SP shall re-perform the product or
service. The SP may use the complaint as an indicator that the QCP needs
improvement. Corrective actions shall be implemented to prevent the
recurrence of similar problems in the future or detect and fix such
problems before a product or service is delivered to a customer. If the
customer complaint is found to be invalid, the DGR shall educate the
customer regarding contract requirements as they pertain to the
customer's expectations.

### Evaluation Procedure  {#evaluation-procedure .DOE-Heading-4}

The SP shall report validated complaints each month, so the QAEs may
review the valid complaints and formulate action items if necessary.
Trend analysis may be used to test for variations in the number of
complaints received each month and identify changes in SP performance.

## [Analysis and Results]{.mark}  {#analysis-and-results .DOE-Heading-2}

When the inspections and customer feedback record validations have been
completed, the QAEs will perform an analysis of the SP's performance.
The purpose of the analysis is to ensure that DOE is receiving
high-quality products and services from the SP. QAEs will review the
results, rate SP compliance with the performance standards and AQLs, and
characterize the SP's overall performance. Analysis of all types of
contract monitoring will result in one of the following outcomes:
outstanding performance, very good performance, satisfactory
performance, or unsatisfactory performance.

### Outstanding Performance {#outstanding-performance .DOE-Heading-3}

Outstanding performance is the result of the SP substantially exceeding
the performance standards with significant achievements and no
significant deficiencies. DOE may reduce its level of surveillance when
the DGR determines that the SP provides sustained performance that
significantly exceeds the requirements with no significant deficiencies.
[]{#__RefHeading___Toc100992815 .anchor}

###  Very Good Performance {#very-good-performance .DOE-Heading-3}

> When the SP's performance is very good, performance exceeds acceptable
> quality levels and achievement(s) exist with no significant
> deficiencies. Strengths in performance are substantially greater than
> minor performance weaknesses.

### Satisfactory Performance {#satisfactory-performance .DOE-Heading-3}

> When the SP's performance is good, performance meets acceptable
> quality levels and deficiencies are correctable without adverse impact
> to mission accomplishment. Strengths and weaknesses in performance are
> on balance where any deficiencies are identified and corrected
> immediately by the SP.

### Unsatisfactory Performance {#unsatisfactory-performance .DOE-Heading-3}

When the performance for any service does not meet the AQL, the SP's
performance is unsatisfactory, and is, therefore, unacceptable. The
following responses are available to the DGR regarding that
task/subtask:

-   The CO and/or DGR meet with the SP to discuss discrepancies, trends,
    and intended corrective measures;

-   The level of surveillance is increased until the SP demonstrates
    acceptable performance over a period of time;

-   The DGR issues a Contract Discrepancy Report for each service that
    does not meet its AQL;

-   Should deficiencies be significant and affect multiple requirements,
    CO action such as a 'Cure' notice may be appropriate.

###### performance requirements summary {#performance-requirements-summary .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1}

The performance standards and AQLs in the nine tables below will be used
to measure the performance of the SP. The nine tables were extracted
from the PRS in the contract and are applicable to the nine functional
areas of the PWS (sections 3.1 through 3.9):

1\. Reference Materials;

2\. Measurement Evaluation;

3\. Nuclear Safeguards, Nonproliferation and National Security
Assistance;

4\. Nuclear Metrology Services;

5\.  Measurement Services;

6\. Compliance with Nuclear Analytical Laboratory Operational
Requirements;

7\. Measurement Development;

8\. Serve on Consensus Standards-Writing Committees and Working Groups;
and

9\. Laboratory Administration.

QAEs will monitor SP performance using the procedures in Section 4
above, together with the PRS tables below and the PWS sections referred
to in the PRS. The PRS includes performance standards and AQLs for
selected PWS sections that are intended to be representative of the
entire PWS. In the process of monitoring SP performance, the QAEs and
the DGR may improve the PRS by developing changes to the standards and
AQLs or by developing standards and AQLs for different PWS sections.
Such changes to the PRS will be documented.

These measurements will also apply to all provisions in the contract. SP
performance results may be posted to an internal DOE website. The SP
shall be required to comply with all terms and provisions of the
contract, including the PWS and Technical Exhibits (TEs), and the post
award provisions of the OMB Circular A-76.

**1. Reference Materials**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Reference Materials. Tasks include,
but are not limited to:

-   Program Planning and Management;

-   Production and Acquisition of Base Materials;

-   Sampling, Analysis, and Certification;

-   Sales, Distribution, and Customer Service; and

-   Assistance to Other Reference Materials Organizations.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**     **Acceptable Quality Level **Surveillance
  Section**                                (AQL)**                    Method**
  ----------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------
  3.1.1.3     Customer contacts are        Annual survey of customer  100% Inspection
              maintained in sufficient     needs is to be conducted   
              detail to allow              based on survey criteria   
              identification of a subgroup developed in coordination  
              of customers to poll for a   with the DGR.              
              survey of customer needs.                               

  3.1.1.9     Storage and protection of    At least 90% of a random   Random Sampling
              data and vital records       statistical sample of      
              associated with the          stored CRM records         
              production, maintenance and  reviewed are found to be   
              storage of CRMs are          complete and in on-site    
              inspected annually.          storage inside fire proof  
                                           containers.                

  3.1.1.10    The inventory listing of CRM A list with the location   Periodic
              base materials and CRM units of at least 90% of the CRM Inspection
              held on and off site is      base materials and the     
              inspected annually for       number of units of each    
              accuracy.                    CRM stored both on and off 
                                           site can be provided       
                                           within two working days of 
                                           a request for a list.      

  3.1.2.3     Bulk materials selected for  The plans for acceptance   Periodic
              new or replacement CRM       testing of bulk materials  Inspection
              production meet              for new or replacement     
              specifications.              CRMs and, when available,  
                                           the test results on those  
                                           acceptance tests were      
                                           comprehensively documented 
                                           and available in the CRM   
                                           file.                      

  3.1.3.1     Detailed certification plans The certification plans    100% Inspection
              for each new or replacement  for new or replacement     
              CRMs are prepared and        CRMs were comprehensively  
              approved prior to beginning  documented and available   
              the certification process.   in the CRM file.           

  3.1.3.6     Certification analyses are   At least 90% of the        Periodic
              performed using              measurement systems        Inspection
              well-characterized           (sample preparation and    
              measurement systems with     analysis technique) used   
              associated quality control   for characterization of    
              evaluation to demonstrate    CRMs have statistically    
              system control. Inspections  planned and evaluated      
              are performed semiannually.  qualifications of the      
                                           system in place; any other 
                                           measurement system used    
                                           for characterization of    
                                           CRMs must have DGR         
                                           approval prior to use.     

  3.1.3.8     Final reports for new or     The new or replacement     100% Inspection
              replacement CRMs are         CRMs\' final reports       
              documented and approved by   contain a complete         
              the DGR prior to offering    uncertainty budget report  
              the material for sale.       and have been reviewed and 
                                           approved prior to sale of  
                                           the CRM.                   

  3.1.4.2     Customer CRM ordering and    90% of the domestic orders Random Sampling
              shipping records are         received are processed     
              reviewed annually. Targets   within 30 days of receipt  
              for shipments are met unless of the completed order     
              the order processing is      form; 90% of the           
              delayed by DOE, another      international orders       
              government agency, or a      received are processed     
              foreign government.          within 90 days of receipt  
                                           of the completed order     
                                           form. A statistical sample 
                                           of orders is reviewed; 90% 
                                           of all records reviewed    
                                           are complete and in        
                                           sequential order.          

  3.1.4.6     CRM shipments\' calculated   A statistical sample of    Random Sampling
              values for determination of  the CRM orders is          
              type quantity, selected      reviewed; 90% of the CRM   
              container type and           shipments records meet the 
              packaging, inclusion of      stated performance         
              Emergency Response Guide and standard.                  
              Material Safety Data Sheet,                             
              and follow through to                                   
              receipt by the customer are                             
              reviewed annually.                                      
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**2. Measurement Evaluation**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Measurement Evaluation. Tasks
include, but are not limited to:

-   Program Planning and Management Planning;

-   Production of Test Materials;

-   Analysis and Characterization;

-   Distribution of test materials and customer service;

-   Perform Statistical Evaluation of Results and Prepare Reports;

-   Annual Report and Annual Meeting;

-   Maintain Database;

-   Assistance to Other Organizations Who Conduct Evaluation Programs;
    and

-   Perform Periodic Re-evaluation of Test Material Stability and
    Values.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**        **Acceptable Quality Level  **Surveillance
  Section**                                   (AQL)**                     Method**
  ----------- ------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------
  3.2.1.5     Historically, 6 types of        At least 90% of the         100% Inspection
              uranium test materials and 3    analysis reports are        
              types of plutonium test         completed within 7 working  
              materials are characterized or  days after completion of    
              verified annually. Annually     the statistical analysis of 
              review the analysis reports     the results of              
              which provide the characterized characterization            
              values for each type of test    experiments.                
              material.                                                   

  3.2.1.8     Monthly, quarterly, and annual  At least 90% of the monthly Periodic
              Measurement Evaluation Program  reports are submitted       Inspection
              status reports are required.    within three working days   
              SME program fiscal year reports of receiving the monthly    
              are due by the end of December  activity summary reports.   
              of the following FY; and the    At least 75% of the         
              CALEX program calendar year     quarterly reports are       
              reports are due by the end of   submitted by the 15th       
              the first quarter of the        working day of the month    
              following calendar year.        following the end of each   
                                              quarter; the grace period   
                                              for the single default is   
                                              an additional five working  
                                              days. No annual report is   
                                              delayed more than 30 days.  

  3.2.2.3     The current annual level of     At least 90% of the test    100% Inspection
              work is about 4 uranium test    materials are tested and    
              materials for assay, 2 uranium  characterized within the    
              test materials for isotopic     time schedule developed in  
              abundance, 1 test material for  coordination with the DGR   
              plutonium assay, and 2 test     to be made ready for        
              materials for plutonium         shipping test samples to    
              isotopic abundance prepared     participating laboratories. 
              annually. Reports containing                                
              the characterized values for                                
              the test materials are reviewed                             
              annually.                                                   

  3.2.3.3     The detailed analysis plans for A random sample of the      Random Sampling
              the                             analysis and                
              characterization/verification   characterization plans      
              experiments for each test       prepared for the year show  
              material, prepared with input   comprehensive detail to     
              from statisticians and guided   assure that acceptable test 
              by the ME Program Manager, are  samples can be produced     
              reviewed annually.              from the test materials to  
                                              meet annual customer needs. 

  3.2.4.3     Customer records (name,         A random sample of customer Random Sampling
              organization, telephone number  records shows that 90% of   
              and e-mail) are maintained      the information is current; 
              electronically and in hard      and a random sample of      
              copies; customer records are    experimental results shows  
              reviewed and updated            at least 90% of the results 
              semi-annually. Experimental     were entered within 7       
              results, stored in the SME      working days after          
              program and the CALEX program   submission by the customer. 
              databases, are updated within                               
              one week of receiving new                                   
              experimental results submitted                              
              for evaluation. Semi-annual                                 
              inspections are performed of                                
              customer and new experimental                               
              result databases.                                           

  3.2.5.2     Statistical evaluation of       At least 90% of the reports Random Sampling
              experimental results are        in the random sample of     
              performed, and reports,         statistical reports show    
              specifying the values for the   that the statistical        
              test samples and comparing them evaluations of experimental 
              to characterized values are     results submitted by the    
              prepared. The reports contents  participants are provided   
              are evaluated annually.         within 7 working days of    
                                              receiving the data.         

  3.2.5.4     Statistical evaluation reports  At least 90% of customer    Random Sampling
              of experimental results with    reports in the random       
              comparison of accuracy and      sample were prepared and    
              precision of the experimental   disseminated within 10      
              results against international   working days after          
              target values are prepared      completing the statistical  
              together with cover letters to  evaluation of the results.  
              explain the evaluation                                      
              conclusions and are sent to                                 
              customers and their sponsors.                               
              These reports are reviewed                                  
              annually.                                                   

  3.2.6.4     Coordinate and conduct the      The annual ME Program       100% Inspection
              annual Measurement Evaluation   meeting location and        
              Program meeting to intercompare participants are identified 
              data.                           at least 60 working days    
                                              prior to the meeting. The   
                                              meeting technical program   
                                              is designed/prepared and    
                                              communicated to 90% of the  
                                              participants at least 10    
                                              working days prior to the   
                                              meeting.                    
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**3. Nuclear Safeguards, Nonproliferation, and National Security
Assistance**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Nuclear Safeguards, Nonproliferation,
and National Security Assistance. Tasks include, but are not limited to:

-   Nuclear Safeguards Assistance;

-   Nonproliferation Assistance; and

-   National Security Assistance.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**     **Acceptable Quality Level **Surveillance
  Section**                                (AQL)**                    Method**
  ----------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------
  3.3         Timeliness of support for    At least 90% of the fiscal Customer
              fiscal management of work    reports for WFO funding    Feedback
              for others (WFOs) is         are provided within the    
              reviewed semi-annually.      required timeframe stated  
                                           by the customer.           

  3.3.1.1     Plan and coordinate the NSNS The NSNS Program plan is   Periodic
              Program, and manage employee reviewed at least annually Inspection
              support for assistance work  and updated as required.   
              at other locations. NSNS     At least 90% of the        
              Program planning and         monthly reports are        
              reporting is reviewed        submitted within 3 working 
              annually.                    days after receiving the   
                                           monthly activity           
                                           summaries. At least 75% of 
                                           the quarterly reports are  
                                           submitted by the 15th day  
                                           of the month following the 
                                           calendar quarter; the      
                                           grace period for a single  
                                           default is an additional   
                                           five working days. No      
                                           annual report is delayed   
                                           more than 30 days. Project 
                                           plans (for WFOs) are       
                                           developed in at least 90%  
                                           of the cases within one    
                                           month of approval to start 
                                           work.                      

  3.3.1.3     Safeguards directives        At least 90% of the        Periodic
              (orders, manuals, guides),   reviews meet the SO        Inspection
              site security plans, and     requested due date. DART   
              facility\'s security         team responds to HQ needs  
              categorization are reviewed  within 3 days of request.  
              as requested. DOE Anomaly                               
              Review Team (DART) members                              
              are provided. Communication                             
              with sites on corrective                                
              actions is provided as                                  
              needed.                                                 

  3.3.1.4     Assistance to field offices  Select and assign staff    100% Inspection
              and others in Material       within 5 working days of   
              Control and Accountability   receiving request for      
              (MC&A), nuclear material     assistance for at least    
              measurement methods and      80% of the requests.       
              measurement control is       Submit 90% of the          
              reviewed at least annually.  assistance work activity   
                                           work reports within 30     
                                           calendar days of the end   
                                           of the assistance          
                                           activity.                  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4\. **Nuclear Metrology Services**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Nuclear Metrology Services. Tasks
include, but are not limited to:

-   Provide Traceability of Results to National and International
    Reference Base;

-   Quality Assurance (QA); and

-   Measurement Uncertainty.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**   **Acceptable Quality Level  **Surveillance
  Section**                              (AQL)**                     Method**
  ----------- -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------
  3.4.1.1     Annually engage in joint   Provide measurement results 100% Inspection
              measurement evaluations of for at least one            
              reference materials to     inter-laboratory            
              compare U.S. and other     measurement evaluation      
              national nuclear           program per year for        
              certification facilities   actinide elements within 60 
                                         days of the program results 
                                         due date.                   

  3.4.2.1     Involvement (e.g.,         Demonstrate involvement by  100% Inspection
              committees, meetings,      at least one NBL staff      
              reviews, reports,          member in at least one area 
              audits/inspections) in     (e.g., committees,          
              quality systems            meetings, reviews, reports, 
              management, QA practices,  audits/inspections) per     
              audit and inspection       year.                       
              practices, or QA standards                             
              is reviewed annually.                                  

  3.4.3.1     Development and            Demonstrated use of         Periodic
              maintenance of uncertainty uncertainty spreadsheets or Inspection
              calculation spreadsheets   templates that follow ISO   
              or templates that follow   guideline for CRMs for the  
              ISO guidelines are         major isotopic abundances   
              reviewed for               and major elemental         
              certifications.            quantities certified.       
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**5. Measurement Services**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Measurement Services. Tasks include,
but are not limited to:

-   Administrative Measurement Services Activities;

-   Sampling, Chemical Preparation, and Separation of Materials;

-   Instrument and Analytical Equipment Maintenance and Upgrades;

-   Elemental Analysis;

-   Isotopic Abundances;

-   Impurities and Trace Element Analysis;

-   Other Analyses;

-   Nuclear Low-level Environmental Safeguards Analysis; and

-   Conversion and Analysis of UF~6~

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard** **Acceptable Quality Level     **Surveillance
  Section**                            (AQL)**                        Method**
  ----------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------
  3.5.1.3     Demonstrated use of      100% use of reference          Random Sampling
              reference materials as   materials as quality controls  
              comparator/quality       in each set of reportable      
              control samples for      measurements utilizing         
              reported measurements is approved procedures in making  
              reviewed semi-annually.  the measurements. Any software 
                                       used for calculations          
                                       associated with the            
                                       measurements have 100%         
                                       appropriate quality controls   
                                       in place.                      

  3.5.2.2     Demonstrated use of      100% of certifications,        Random Sampling
              qualified or approved    verifications and reported     
              procedures for preparing samples are prepared using     
              a range of sample types  qualified/approved procedures. 
              is reviewed annually.                                   

  3.5.3.1     Demonstrated instrument  100% of performance and log    Random Sampling
              repair, required         books (paper or digital) on    
              maintenance records,     instrument maintenance and     
              tracking of associated   repairs are performed to       
              time for repair and      assure the least amount of     
              maintenance, and         equipment inoperability time.  
              notations on poor                                       
              instrumental performance                                
              with associated problem                                 
              resolution are reviewed                                 
              annually.                                               

  3.5.3.4     Demonstrated semi-annual 100% compliance with           Random Sampling
              balance service and      semi-annual balance service    
              certification.           and certification requirements 
                                       as evidenced in the service    
                                       record and data on the         
                                       associated master weights,     
                                       secondary weights and quality  
                                       control reports.               

  3.5.4       Review annually the      100% Compliance that for a     Periodic
              demonstrated achievement pure uranium reference         Inspection
              of, or approach to,      material the repeatability of  
              state-of-the-art         five high precision titration  
              elemental measurement    measurements (1 sigma) is less 
              capability for the       than 0.04% and that for a pure 
              identified methods.      plutonium reference material   
                                       the repeatability of five      
                                       coulometry measurements (1     
                                       sigma) is less than 0.1%.      

  3.5.5       Review annually          100% compliance that for a     Periodic
              demonstrated achievement pure uranium reference         Inspection
              of, or approach to,      material with a 235U/238U      
              state-of-the-art         ratio between 0.1 and 1,       
              isotopic measurement     repeatability of ten accepted  
              capability in identified TIMS or UF6 measurements (1    
              methods.                 sigma) is below 0.05% and that 
                                       for a pure plutonium reference 
                                       material with a 240Pu/239Pu    
                                       ratio between 0.1 and 1,       
                                       repeatability of ten accepted  
                                       TIMS measurements (1 sigma) is 
                                       below 0.05%.                   

  3.5.6       Review annually          100% capability to detect      Periodic
              demonstrated achievement uranium in a simple matrix at  Inspection
              of, or approach to,      or below 10 pg/g. Validate     
              state-of-the-art         that an acceptable plan is in  
              impurities and trace     place and being followed to    
              element measurement      achieve the demonstrated       
              capability.              capability to measure 60% of   
                                       the transition plus the rare   
                                       earth elements by December     
                                       2008.                          

  3.5.7       Review annually          100% facility capability to    Periodic
              demonstrated capability  measure americium in a         Inspection
              to screen samples and    plutonium sample or            
              provide quantitative     calibration standard to within 
              gamma-ray measurements   2% (1 sigma) uncertainty for   
              of americium.            Am contents greater than 2% .  

  3.5.8       Review annually          100% facility capability to    Periodic
              demonstrated capability  measure amounts of \>100 pg    Inspection
              to measure nuclear,      but less than 1 ng of Pu and   
              low-level environmental  \>0.3 ng but less than 3 ng of 
              or comparable samples    U with uncertainties of 3% or  
                                       better.                        

  3.5.9       Review annually the UF6  The apparatus shall be capable Periodic
              conversion apparatus     of converting uranium oxides   Inspection
              capability of the        to UF6 and providing results   
              facility.                from UF6 or TIMS measurements  
                                       that agree to within 0.1% (2   
                                       sigma)                         
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**6. Compliance with Nuclear Analytical Laboratory Operational
Requirements**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Compliance with Nuclear Analytical
Laboratory Operational Requirements. Furthermore, this portion of the
PRS describes the standards by which the SP shall meet the task
assignments. Tasks include, but are not limited to:

-   Environmental Safety and Health;

-   Safeguards and Security Activities;

-   Quality Assurance and Control;

-   Statistical Analysis of Measurement Uncertainty; and

-   Packaging and Shipping.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS        **Performance Standard**  **Acceptable Quality Level    **Surveillance
  Section**                              (AQL)**                       Method**
  ------------ ------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------
  3.6          Review follow-up actions  All external reviews, audits  Periodic
               for reviews, audits and   and inspections required to   Inspection
               inspections of            monitor the compliance of     
               operational requirements  facility operations with      
               to meet reporting         applicable statutes,          
               schedules.                regulations, orders policies  
                                         and guidelines are supported  
                                         at the request of the DGR. At 
                                         least 90% of the follow-up    
                                         actions meet the agreed-to    
                                         schedules, or the DGR has     
                                         agreed, in writing, to an     
                                         alternate schedule.           

  3.6.1.1.6    Review program to monitor Facility exposure goals are   Periodic
               and control radiation in  met 95% of the time. Any      Inspection
               the workplace in          instance of exposure above    
               accordance with 10CFR 835 the facility goal is reported 
               (Occupational Radiation   to the DGR and reviewed by    
               Protection) annually.     the SP to determine if        
                                         processes or procedures       
                                         should be changed to assure   
                                         that the cause does not       
                                         result in additional          
                                         exposure. Lost/Restricted     
                                         Work Day case rates are below 
                                         the mean for Standard         
                                         Industrial Classification     
                                         (SIC) system code 8734,       
                                         Testing Laboratories.         

  3.6.1.2.3    All existing and new      95% of ongoing and new        Periodic
               projects and activities   projects and activities have  Inspection
               will be reviewed to       been screened. Should an      
               determine if they are     unscreened ongoing or new     
               bounded by the facility   project or activity be        
               safety envelope. The      identified, the failure to    
               process used shall be in  screen the project or         
               accordance with 10 CFR    activity is identified and    
               830.203, Unreviewed       reported as required, and the 
               Safety Question Process.  project or activity is then   
                                         screened.                     

  3.6.1.7.2    Safety Significant        Safety significant systems    Periodic
               Systems and the           are operated/maintained in    Inspection
               facility\'s Documented    accordance with DSA 95% of    
               Safety Analysis are       the time. Non-conformances    
               reviewed annually for     are reported within the time  
               compliance. All           limits specified in DOE M     
               non-conformance issues,   231.1-2 90% of the time.      
               reported in accordance                                  
               with DOE O 231.1A,                                      
               Environment, Safety and                                 
               Health Reporting, are                                   
               reviewed monthly.                                       

  3.6.1.9.1    Unreviewed safety         All required reviews have     100% Inspection
               questions for all         been completed before any     
               chemical and safety       laboratory operation begins   
               hazards, radiation        for 95% of the ongoing or new 
               protection and            projects or activities. Any   
               monitoring, safety system laboratory operation that is  
               requirements, and waste   begun before all required     
               disposal paths identified reviews have been completed   
               for any new or ongoing    is stopped, reported as       
               project are reviewed when required in DOE M 231.1-2 90% 
               identified and before     of the time, and the review   
               starting work.            is completed before           
                                         laboratory operations         
                                         continue on the project or    
                                         activity.                     

  3.6.2.1.4    Review the NBL accounting At least 95% of transactions  Random Sampling
               ledger of all external    are logged on the same day as 
               transactions involving    the transaction. When a       
               nuclear material          transaction cannot be logged  
               (reportable and           on the same day as the        
               non-reportable) annually. transaction, a reason is      
                                         identified in the ledger.     
                                         When a transaction has not    
                                         been logged on the same day   
                                         and the fact is identified,   
                                         the transaction is logged     
                                         with the date of the log-in   
                                         and the date of the           
                                         transaction is also noted in  
                                         the ledger.                   

  3.6.2.1.11   Export controls meet DOE  The sensitive subjects list   Random Sampling
               requirements.             provided contains at least    
                                         90% of the sensitive subjects 
                                         covered by the laboratory. A  
                                         sample of at least one        
                                         document of each type         
                                         requiring export control      
                                         approval is reviewed and      
                                         found to have the appropriate 
                                         authorizations.               

  3.6.2.2.5    Receipt and handling of   At least 95% of the           Random Sampling
               classified information in classified material is        
               accordance with DOE O     handled in accordance with    
               471.2A (Information       requirements.                 
               Security Program) or its  Non-conformances are reported 
               successor(s) is reviewed  within the time limits        
               annually. Incidents of    specified in DOE 0 471.4 90%  
               concern are reported per  of the time.                  
               DOE O 471.4 (Incidents of                               
               Security Concern) or its                                
               successor(s).                                           

  3.6.2.3.2    Cyber security risks      Cyber security risks are      Periodic
               management to meet DOE    assessed and mitigated or     Inspection
               requirements is reviewed  submitted to the DGR for      
               annually.                 acceptance and approved       
                                         before new software or        
                                         hardware are installed or     
                                         cyber systems are exposed to  
                                         the risk; cyber security      
                                         documentation updates are     
                                         provided within 30 days of    
                                         the requested due date.       

  3.6.2.4.5    Information regarding     All foreign visitors are      Periodic
               foreign visits to NBL,    logged into FACTS before      Inspection
               entered into FACTS or its coming on site. At least 90%  
               replacement, is reviewed  of visitors from sensitive    
               prior to the visit.       counties are logged into      
               Recordkeeping for DOE O   FACTS at least 45 days in     
               142.1 (Classified Visits  advance of the beginning of   
               Involving Foreign         the visit. At least 90% of    
               Nationals) and DOE O      visitors from non-sensitive   
               142.3 (Unclassified       countries are logged into     
               Foreign Visits and        FACTS at least 30 days in     
               Assignments) or their     advance of visit. At least    
               successors, is reviewed   80% of visits are closed out  
               annually.                 in FACTS by 90 days after the 
                                         visit has ended. Records      
                                         accurately reflect foreign    
                                         visitor documentation as      
                                         required in DOE O142.1.       

  3.6.2.4.6    The facility security     Facility security by external Periodic
               program to meet           and internal reviews is       Inspection
               requirements of DOE O     satisfactory as defined in    
               471.1, Change 1 (or its   DOE O 471.1, Change 1.        
               successor(s)), is                                       
               reviewed annually.                                      

  3.6.2.6.6    The facility self         SP self assessments and       Random Sampling
               assessment and audit      audits are completed within 2 
               program is reviewed       months; a written report is   
               annually. Attend all      provided within one week of   
               close-out meetings of     close out meeting. The SP     
               senior management         reviews corrective actions    
               personnel where findings, within two weeks of           
               observations and          completing their completion.  
               recommendations are                                     
               presented.                                              

  3.6.3.1      Review the quality        For 90% of the reviewed plans Random Sampling
               management system which   and operating procedures, the 
               includes document         approvals were documented and 
               control, training         in place. For 90% of the      
               qualification assurance,  reviewed training, the        
               corrective action         required training was         
               tracking and records      performed within 15 working   
               management annually.      days of the due date, or the  
                                         authority of the person to    
                                         perform the function was      
                                         removed. For 90% of the       
                                         completed corrective actions  
                                         reviewed, responses were      
                                         documented and closed. For    
                                         90% of the records reviewed,  
                                         the records were accurately   
                                         filed.                        

  3.6.3.5      The deficiencies tracking A statistical sampling of the Random Sampling
               system is reviewed, from  records for quality           
               identification to         deficiencies is reviewed; 90% 
               closure, annually.        of the QA deficiencies        
                                         reviewed have documentation   
                                         which accurately reflects the 
                                         status at the time of the     
                                         review.                       

  3.6.3.9      Review of demonstrated    At least 90% of the QC        100% Inspection
               quality control of        measurements (elemental and   
               measurements and          isotopic) for techniques with 
               instrument calibrations   a sufficient number of QCs    
               with statistical analysis for evaluation were reviewed  
               of quality control        and documented at least       
               samples over time for     annually for trends in        
               trend analysis is         reported results.             
               performed annually.                                     

  3.6.3.10     Review facility           A statistical sampling of     Random Sampling
               documentation annually to facility plans and analytical 
               determine if established  procedures is reviewed; 90%   
               review cycles exist and   of the documents reviewed     
               if the review cycle meets have an established review    
               DOE requirements.         cycle which meets DOE         
                                         requirements and of those,    
                                         90% have been reviewed or     
                                         revised as required within 30 
                                         days of the required date.    

  3.6.3.15     Annually review the       At least 90% of training      Random Sampling
               training and              requirements are completed    
               qualifications program    within 15 working days after  
               developed in accordance   the required training or      
               with DOE O 5480.20A -     re-training date. Findings    
               Change 1 (Personnel       associated with training and  
               Selection, Qualification, qualification of NBL          
               and Training Requirements personnel which are           
               for DOE Nuclear           discovered during             
               Facilities) or its        self-assessments have         
               successor(s).             solutions identified which    
                                         are incorporated into the     
                                         training plan within 90 days. 

  3.6.4        Annually review the       A statistical report or       100% Inspection
               capability to perform     description of statistical    
               statistical analysis of   methods and results is        
               data for qualification of provided for each new         
               new analytical techniques qualified techniques and each 
               and whether or not ISO    reference material certified. 
               and ANSI guidelines are   ISO and ANSI guidelines are   
               met for uncertainty       met for uncertainty budget    
               budget calculations.      calculations.                 

  3.6.5.7      Annually review shipping  At least 95% of the paperwork Random Sampling
               documentation for all     prepared for shipping         
               hazardous materials;      hazardous materials is        
               these should meet 49 CFR  compliant with regulations.   
               and IATA requirements.    When errors in paperwork are  
                                         identified, notifications are 
                                         made to the DGR and to others 
                                         as required by shipping       
                                         authorities. The errors are   
                                         reviewed to determine if      
                                         processes or procedures need  
                                         to be changed to assure that  
                                         the same error does not occur 
                                         again.                        

  3.6.6.3      Annually review Emergency Document reviews are          Periodic
               Plans and implementing    completed within 30 days of   Inspection
               procedures to assure that the due date which meets DOE  
               planning and resources    requirements, or approval for 
               are adequate to meet DOE  delay of the review or        
               requirements, maintained  revision will be obtained in  
               and exercised.            writing from the DGR.         
                                         Emergency exercises are held  
                                         in collaboration with the ANL 
                                         site Emergency Operations     
                                         Center as required. There are 
                                         no incidents of failure to    
                                         cooperate with site emergency 
                                         personnel.                    
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**7. Measurement Development**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Measurement Development. Tasks
include, but are not limited to:

-   Reference Material Production and Certification Methods;

-   Chemical Analysis and Separation Methods;

-   Mass Spectrometry, Impurities, and Trace Element Analysis Methods;

-   Cleanroom and Low-level Environmental Chemical Processing
    Techniques;

-   NDA Techniques;

-   Capital Equipment Improvements;

-   Publications; and

-   Meetings with the Scientific Community.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**    **Acceptable Quality Level  **Surveillance
  Section**                               (AQL)**                     Method**
  ----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------
  3.7.1.4     Annually review the plans   Within one year, prepare    100% Inspection
              and processes for producing plans, documents, or        
              new, synthetic calibration  reports that describe the   
              materials for isotopic CRMs production or use of new    
              which are traceable to the  synthetic calibration       
              national reference base.    materials for isotopic      
                                          CRMs.                       

  3.7.2.2     Annually review efforts to  Within one year, prepare    100% Inspection
              expand or improve elemental plans, documents, or        
              measurement capabilities.   reports that describe the   
                                          development or use of at    
                                          least one new elemental     
                                          analysis technique.         

  3.7.2.3     Annually review efforts to  Within one year prepare     100% Inspection
              expand or improve chemical  plans, documents, or        
              separation capabilities.    reports that describe the   
                                          development or use of at    
                                          least one new chemical      
                                          separation technique.       

  3.7.3.3     Annually review efforts to  Within one year prepare     100% Inspection
              expand or improve ICPMS     plans, documents, or        
              capabilities                reports that describe the   
                                          development or use of new   
                                          ICPMS techniques.           

  3.7.6       Review annual               Provide or maintain an      100% Inspection
              recommendations for capital annual list of capital      
              equipment replacements or   equipment needs that        
              improvements.               details the type of         
                                          equipment, specifications,  
                                          approximate cost, and       
                                          estimated associated costs  
                                          for installation (including 
                                          building modification,      
                                          factory installment, etc.). 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**8. Serve on Consensus Standards-Writing Committees and Working
Groups**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Serving on Consensus
Standards-Writing Committees and Working Groups Tasks include, but are
not limited to:

-   Service on Consensus Standards; and

-   Service on Government Working Groups.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**   **Acceptable Quality Level  **Surveillance
  Section**                              (AQL)**                     Method**
  ----------- -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------
  3.8         Annually review efforts to At least two persons        Periodic
              write or support those     participate at least        Inspection
              writing consensus          annually as subject matter  
              standards for the nuclear  experts on panels,          
              industry.                  committees or subcommittees 
                                         writing consensus standards 
                                         for the nuclear industry.   

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**9. Laboratory Administration**

The following table provides the performance standards, AQLs and
surveillance methods pertaining to Serving on Consensus
Standards-Writing Committees and Working Groups Tasks include, but are
not limited to:

-   Finance and Budget;

-   Timekeeping and Accounting for NBL Programs, Projects, and
    Activities;

-   Records Management;

-   Computer Systems Management;

-   Web Page Management;

-   Travel Processing and Coordination;

-   Activity Status Reports;

-   Property Management;

-   Procurement;

-   Public Relations and Marketing;

-   Stockroom; and

-   Administrative Support Activities.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PWS       **Performance Standard**  **Acceptable Quality Level  **Surveillance
  Section**                             (AQL)**                     Method**
  ----------- ------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------
  3.9.1.2     Annually review financial Financial and other         Periodic
              and other resource        resource records requested  Inspection
              records for adequacy.     by the DGR are available    
                                        90% of the time within the  
                                        agreed to deadline.         

  3.9.3.1     Annually review document  A statistical sample of     Random Sampling
              filing and storage for    documents prepared during   
              adequacy.                 the year are selected for   
                                        review. 90% of the          
                                        documents reviewed were     
                                        properly filed in the       
                                        central filing system.      

  3.9.8       Annually review property  The status of a random      Random Sampling
              records for adequacy.     selection of property items 
                                        from each category is       
                                        evaluated based on the last 
                                        inventory. At least 90% of  
                                        the items reviewed were     
                                        appropriately accounted for 
                                        in the most recent          
                                        inventory of that category  
                                        of items.                   
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

###### SERVICE PROVIDER DISCREPANCY REPORT {#service-provider-discrepancy-report .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1}

######  {#section .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1 .unnumbered}

+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| *        |   |                 |                  |   | ** |           |
| *SERVICE |   |                 |                  |   | 1. |           |
| PROVIDER |   |                 |                  |   | D  |           |
| DIS      |   |                 |                  |   | IS |           |
| CREPENCY |   |                 |                  |   | CR |           |
| REPORT** |   |                 |                  |   | EP |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | EN |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | CY |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | RE |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | PO |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | RT |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | NU |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | MB |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | ER |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   | ** |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **2.     |   |                 | **3. FROM:**     |   |    |           |
| TO:**    |   |                 | (*Name of DGR*)  |   |    |           |
| (        |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| *Service |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Provider |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| and      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Manager  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Name*)   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| *        |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| *DATES** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **PR     |   | **ORAL          | **RETURNED BY    | * |    |           |
| EPARED** |   | NOTIFICATION**  | CONTRACTOR**     | * |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | A |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | C |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | T |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | I |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | O |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | N |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | C |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | O |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | M |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | P |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | L |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | E |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | T |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | E |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | * |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  | * |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **4.     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| DIS      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| CREPENCY |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| OR       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| P        |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ROBLEM** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| (*       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Describe |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| in       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Detail.  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Include  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| PWS      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ref      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| erences. |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Attach   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Cont     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| inuation |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Sheet if |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Nece     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ssary.*) |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **5.     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| S        |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| IGNATURE |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| OF DGR** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **6.     |   |                 | **7. FROM:**     |   |    |           |
| TO:**    |   |                 | (*Service        |   |    |           |
| (*Name   |   |                 | Provider*)       |   |    |           |
| of DGR*) |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **8.     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| SERVICE  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| PROVIDER |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| RESPONSE |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| AS TO    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| CAUSE,   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| EFFECT,  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| CO       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| RRECTIVE |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ACTION   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| AND      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ACTIONS  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| TO       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| PREVENT  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| RECUR    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| RENCE.** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| (*Attach |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Cont     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| inuation |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Sheet if |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| nec      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| essary.* |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| *Cite    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ap       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| plicable |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| SP QC    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| program  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| pr       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ocedures |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| or new   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| QC       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| proce    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| dures.*) |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **9.     |   |                 | **10. DATE**     |   |    |           |
| S        |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| IGNATURE |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| OF SP    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| REPRES   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ENTIVE** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **11.    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| GO       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| VERNMENT |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| EVAL     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| UATION** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| (*Acc    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| eptance, |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| partial  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| acc      |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| eptance, |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| or       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| re       |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| jection. |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Attach   |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Coor     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| dination |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| Sheet if |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| nece     |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| ssary.*) |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| 12. **GO |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| VERNMENT |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|     A    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| CTIONS** |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|   (*Cure |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|  notice, |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|     show |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|   cause, |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| other*.) |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **CLOSE  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| OUT**    |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **SP     | * |                 | **SIGNATURE**    |   |    | **DATE**  |
| NO       | * |                 |                  |   |    |           |
| TIFIED** | N |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | A |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | M |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | E |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | A |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | N |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | D |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | T |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | I |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | T |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | L |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | E |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | * |                 |                  |   |    |           |
|          | * |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
|          |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **QAE**  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+
| **DGR**  |   |                 |                  |   |    |           |
+----------+---+-----------------+------------------+---+----+-----------+

#  

###### CUSTOMER FEEDBACK RECORD {#customer-feedback-record .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1}

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **CUSTOMER FEEDBACK RECORD**       |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| DATE AND TIME OF COMPLAINT         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| SOURCE OF COMPLAINT                |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| ORGANIZATION                       |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| INDIVIDUAL                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| NATURE OF COMPLAINT                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| PWS REFERENCE                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| VALIDATION                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| DATE AND TIME SERVICE PROVIDER     | NAME OF SP REPRESENTATIVE       |
| INFORMED OF COMPLAINT              | INFORMED OF COMPLAINT           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ACTION TAKEN BY SERVICE PROVIDER   |                                 |
| *(Responsible officer)*            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| RECEIVED AND VALIDATED BY          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| *Determination: Complaint Valid   |                                 |
| Complaint Invalid *               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

###### SAMPLING GUIDE/INSPECTION CHECKLIST {#sampling-guideinspection-checklist .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1}

SERVICE FUNCTION:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PWS SECTION:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTE: **E** = Excellent Performance **S** = Satisfactory Performance
**U** = Unsatisfactory Performance **N/A** = Not Applicable

  ------- ---------------------------------- ------------------ ------------- --------------
  **1**   **Method of Surveillance:**                                         

  **2**   **Lot Size:**                                                       

  **3**   **Sample Size:**                                                    

  **4**   **Performance Requirement:**                                        
          Performance is excellent (E) when                                   
          \_\_\_\_\_ or fewer defects are                                     
          discovered per month. Performance                                   
          is satisfactory (S) when                                            
          \_\_\_\_\_ or fewer defects are                                     
          discovered per month. Performance                                   
          is unsatisfactory (U) when                                          
          \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                    
          or more defects are discovered per                                  
          month.                                                              

  **5**   **Sampling Procedure:**                                             
          Instructions on how to select the                                   
          sample must be clear and complete                                   

  **6**   **Inspection Procedure:** The                                       
          procedure must be detailed enough                                   
          to allow a yes/no objective                                         
          decision as to the acceptability                                    
          of performance by anyone making                                     
          the inspection. Explain when                                        
          evaluation is to occur and what is                                  
          acceptable/unacceptable                                             

                                             **Performance:**                 
                                             Excellent (E),                   
                                             Satisfactory (S),                
                                             Unsatisfactory                   
                                             (U), Not                         
                                             Applicable (N/A)                 

          **PRS Requirements**               **Timeliness**     **Quality of  **Notes**
                                                                Work**        

  .                                                                           

                                                                              

                                                                              

                                                                              

          **Overall Rating Of Inspection (E, []{.mark}                        
          S, U, or N/A)**                                                     
  ------- ---------------------------------- ------------------ ------------- --------------

Inspector Comments:

**SP Signature:** **Date: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

QAE Signature: Date:

###### Acronyms {#acronyms .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1}

######  {#section-2 .DOE-Appendix-Heading-1 .unnumbered}

> ANSI American National Standards Institute
>
> AQL Acceptable Quality Level
>
> CO Contracting Officer
>
> COR Contracting Officer Representative
>
> CRM Certified Reference Material
>
> DART DOE Anomaly Response Team
>
> DGR Designated Government Representative
>
> DOE U.S. Department of Energy
>
> HQ Headquarters
>
> ICPMS Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
>
> MC&A Material Control and Accountability
>
> ME Measurement Evaluation
>
> MEO Most Efficient Organization
>
> NBL New Brunswick Laboratory, Argonne, IL
>
> NSNS Nuclear Safeguards and Noproliferation Support, Program at NBL
>
> OMB Office of Management and Budget
>
> PRS Performance Requirements Summary
>
> PWS Performance Work Statement
>
> QA Quality Assurance
>
> QAE Quality Assurance Evaluator
>
> QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
>
> QC Quality Control
>
> QCP Quality Control Plan
>
> SME Safeguards Measurement Evaluation, Program at NBL
>
> SO Office of Security
>
> SP Service Provider
>
> TE Technical Exhibit
>
> WFO Work for others