Datasets:
| <html> | |
| <body> | |
| <table><tr><td><p><strong>Statement of Work for Services Checklist</strong></p> <p><strong>Note:</strong> An entered check mark (3) indicates the requirement has been met. (If the statement does not apply to the SOW, enter: n/a.)</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Is the SOW sufficiently specific to permit the Laboratory and the prospective subcontractors to determine the personnel, special facilities, supplies, equipment, subcontracts, consultants, etc. needed to accomplish the work?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Is general information clearly distinguishable from subcontractor responsibilities? (Statements that do not directly contribute to the requirements should be avoided because they may be ambiguous or confusing and may increase costs.)</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have the required technical objectives, subordinate tasks, “hold and witness points”, desired results, and deliverables (including the criteria against which they will be evaluated) been clearly and specifically described so the subcontractor can understand what is required and the Laboratory can assess the quality of the work?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Has adequate background information been provided to ensure a clear understanding of the requirements and how they evolved?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have technical considerations, such as any known specific phenomena or techniques, been clearly presented?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have critical milestones and delivery dates been included in the SOW for all tasks that require a Laboratory review and approval or an acceptance/rejection decision before the subcontractor proceeds to accomplish additional effort?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Has the SOW been written as specifically as possible while providing the subcontractor the flexibility that is necessary to meet the technical needs?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Are applicable specifications or exhibits included? If so, are they properly referenced in the document?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have the elements of quality assurance for the Subcontractor and its subtier contractors (including those for hardware and software, material purchase and receipt inspection as applicable) been fully considered for the total life of the requirement?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have the technical requirements been correctly reflected in the SOW?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have the Laboratory’s role and responsibilities been clearly identified?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have environmental, health, and safety impact requirements been considered?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have security requirements been identified?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have design requirements for construction been clearly identified?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Has government-furnished equipment been described?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Has Price-Anderson Amendments Act been clearly addressed in the SOW?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have material receiving inspection requirements been clearly identified, including “hold and witness points”?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p></p> </td><td><p>Have the delivery dates for the deliverables been clearly specified?</p> </td></tr><tr><td><p>QP-7.1</p> </td><td><p>Los Alamos</p> <p>Environmental Restoration Project</p> </td></tr></table> | |
| </body> | |
| </html> | |