Attached is my evaluation of the evaluator actions during the MCC Oral Presentation. To me, Gary Dayton had the most interaction with Lawrence White having the next most interaction. The two contracting officers James Sprandel and Nancy Feeney seemed to to split their participation with Sprandel participating at the beginning and middle and Feeney participating during the end. I did not get MCC fifth participating evaluators name, identified as Dorothy in my evaluation participated very little during the presentation, My perspective the two biggest reactions came from Gary Dayton regarding level of effort and Nancy Feeney regarding NBC and Service Level Agreement (SLA). I believer Gary Dayton was concerned by satisfied with the KPMG responsr regarding level of effort and maybe even pleased with a better understanding of the relation to past performance. I also believe Nancy Feeney agreed with the KPMG observation that SLA was a problem for Federal SSPs and maybe the commercial SSP could do better. It may have also been eye opening to hear Bill's identification of 8 or maybe now 11 commercial SSPs to choose from. Gary Dayton also responded to the questions related to KPMG interest in better understanding the MCC requirements with respect to the inclusion of the "etc." wording under Task 3. Gary responded to the question with a smile, hand gestures, and a verbal statement "we want everything". However, I believe he also recognized and admitted after his response that MCC did not have good requirements and the KPMG observation was appropriate. I believe that this also played into his questioning at the end of the presentation regarding level of effort. I believe, Bill's explanation that the KPMG past work with IRS and their extremely large number of requirements eased his concern that the KPMG proposed pricing maybe too low. I further believe, that Bill's light hearted response at the end of the presentation that the KPMG past experience should mitigate a lot of effort in the requirements analysis, however it may require some modification due to unknowns in this area including the number of systems/functions that maybe included within the MCC Task 3 Requirements Analysis "etc." wording and specific reference to the MCC payments functions.

My suggestion is that either in the transmittal letter to the revised proposal to be submitted on April 30 or in the Technical and Pricing Proposals or both, reference be made to the positive impact that KPMG's past experience and performance with the Task 2 Gap Analysis and entire new Task 3 Requirements Analysis will have in terms of materially aiding in the timely and quality completion of the Assessment. The hot points of Experience, Insight and "been there done that" needs to come forward to reassure the evaluator that KPMG is the best value. I believe pricing is not a problem and increasing the price will be acceptable, so long as it is not a disproportionate increase to a justification. I believe the KPMG justification needs to focus on the unknown requirements "etc. and want everything" admission by MCC and change in their business process related to their payment system and other future changes that will relate to including new cost accounting, asset accounting, performance measurement, planning and budget, and payment systems as well as the impact that changing SSPs or core accounting systems will have on the assessment process and its results in the form of recommendations and options.