08_DIR_T F_AttachmentC1-AFP-12-18-07final.doc
DOC document 148 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 08-DIR-ORC-Teleconference-and-Field-Meetings
About this file
Attachment C1 - Sample Award Fee Plan
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 08_DIR_TF_QuestionsAnswers_01_02.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_ORC_ConferenceAttendanceSheet_Companies.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 08_DIR_ORC_ConferenceTranscript.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_ORC_Questions_PreProConf.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_T F_ModificationOne.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_ORC_ConferenceTranscript_Corrections.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_ORC_T F_SF26.pdf | ||
| 08_DIR_T F_ATTACHMENTASOW_12-18-07.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_T F_ATTACHMENTB-F12-18-2007.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_T F_RFP_12-18-07.doc | DOC document | |
| 08_DIR_T F_RFS_Field.doc | DOC document | |
| DRAFTATTACHMENTASOWFT12-5-07.doc | DOC document |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
ATTACHMENT C1
AWARD FEE PLAN
for
OBJECTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
As of:
December 18, 2007
Agency:
Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of Federal Assistance Management, Division of Independent Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
31.0
OVERVIEW
31.1 Introduction
31.2 Objective
31.3 Determination of Incentives
31.4 Award Fee Periods and Allocations
31.5 Determination Period
31.6 Award Fee Pool Adjustments
41.7 Termination For Convenience
41.8 Termination For Default
42.0
AWARD FEE REVIEW PROCESS
42.1 Award Fee Evaluation Board
42.2 Performance Monitors
42.3 Self Assessment
43.0
EVALUATION CRITERIA
43.1 Performance Areas
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
3.3 Ratings
3.4 Rating Scale
3.5 Award Fee Pool and Distribution
1.0 OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
This Award Fee Plan provides procedures for evaluating the Contractor’s performance for the Office of Financial Management, Division of Independent Review, Objective Review Committee Meetings Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contract, Task Orders on a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) or Fixed Price award fee basis, as appropriate. The amount of the award fee to be paid is determined by the Government’s judgmental evaluation of the contractor’s performance in terms of the criteria stated in the contract. This determination and the methodology for determining the award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government. The Government reserves the right to modify this Award Fee Plan and apply it as it deems appropriate to each task order.
1.2 Objective
The objective of the award fee plan for this Contract is to issue several task orders which will afford the Contractor the opportunity to earn award fee commensurate with demonstrated performance by: (a) providing a workable award fee plan with a reasonable probability of successful implementation, (b) clearly communicating evaluation procedures that provide effective two-way communication between the Contractor and the Government, and (c) focusing the Contractor on areas of greatest importance to encourage outstanding performance.
1.3 Determination of Incentives
The award fee is intended to encourage continuous Contractor responsiveness to program priorities and to place an emphasis on total program quality in terms of deliverables, schedule, and work performed. Award fee will be calculated based on an allocated portion of the total award fee pool for a rating period. The Government will pay the Contractor an award fee for performance that exceeds minimum acceptability.
1.4 Award Fee Periods and Allocations
The award fee periods for the contract will be specified on each task order starting from the date of task order award.
1.5 Determination Period
The award fee earned by the Contractor for an award fee period will be determined in accordance with this Award Fee Plan within thirty (30) business days after receipt of the contractor’s self-assessment report for the award fee period.
1.6 Award Fee Pool Adjustments
It is anticipated that adjustments to the award fee pool will need to be made throughout the period of performance. The Government reserves the right to adjust the award fee pool amounts within this plan as necessary and reserves the right to remove unearned award fee from the pool. Award fee pool adjustments may be the result of changes to the contract baseline, exercising an option, and for other reasons. The Contractor will be notified as changes occur to the award fee pool amounts. A modification will be issued to reflect changes in the award fee pool amounts.
1.7 Termination For Convenience
In the event that the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee period, performance will be evaluated and an award fee rating applied to a pro-rated amount of award fee for the current period. The pro-rated amount will be determined by calculating the number of business days costs incurred from the beginning of the period to the date of termination divided by the total number of business days in the current period and multiplied by the amount of available award fee for the current period.
1.8 Termination For Default
In the event that the contract is terminated for default after the start of an award fee period, performance will not be evaluated and any award fee for that period will be forfeited.
2.0 AWARD FEE REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 Award Fee Evaluation Board
The Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB) members are as follows: Contracting Specialist, Project Officer, and Director, Office of Federal Assistance Management, Division of Independent Review. The AFEB will evaluate the Contractor's performance. The AFEB will also consider interim award fee letters and a Contractor self-assessment report during the determination period. The AFEB will provide a written award fee recommendation, which shall include its rationale for the recommendation, to the Chief Contracting Officer (CCO) within twenty (20) business days after receipt of the contractor’s self-assessment report for the award fee period. After review of the recommendation and consultation with the AFEB, as the CCO deems necessary, the CCO shall determine the award fee and provide to the contractor the rationale in writing in accordance with Section 1.5 above.
2.2 Performance Monitors
The Project Officer, with such assistance as may be required, shall monitor contractor performance.
2.3 Self Assessment
The Contractor is required to submit a written self-assessment report of its performance during the award fee period. The report shall be delivered to the AFEB no later than ten (10) business days after the close of the award fee period.
3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.1 Performance Areas
The Contractor's accomplishments will be evaluated against the criteria set forth in this plan. The award fee evaluation will be allocated between four performance areas as follows: Pre-Review performance; Review; Post Review and Closeout. Work performance refers to the overall ability to perform the services required for each Objective Review Committee Meeting that meets or exceeds the requirements defined in the Statement of Work and supporting documents.
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
DIR Evaluation of Contractor Performance shall be based on the completion of the tasks listed below. The evaluation shall comprise two parts: one, a self-completed questionnaire by the Contractor; second, a review of performance reports, scheduled reports, and other review materials available to the Project Officer.
Each Task element assumes the completion of all elements in the next-lowest standard. For example, performance rated at the Excellent level automatically incorporates all element tasks at the Satisfactory level. Superior performance would include all evaluation criteria for the rated Task.
| Performance Level |
| As a Satisfactory level of performance |
| As an Excellent level of performance |
| As a Superior level of performance |
Task 1 PRE-REVIEW
Formal
Communication and Work Schedule
Task 1 (a), (b) and (c)
| The Contractor provided scheduled and event driven status reports in 10 workdays. Addresses written correspondence with minor errors. Contractor followed the Manual and Forms with minor errors. |
| The Contractor provided formal status reports in written format in 7 workdays. Communicated issues and needs effectively to avoid delays in tasks. Contractor followed the Manual and Forms with no errors. |
| The Contractor submitted timely and accurate reports and telephone calls in 5 workdays. Contractor followed the Manual and Forms with no errors and used a Quality Improvement plan to implement negotiated modifications. |
Meeting Logistics and estimated budget
Task 1 (d) The review teleconference or field logistics met the contract requirements.
There is no adverse impact to the meeting or participants. Estimated budget contains some errors that were addressed within 30 days of the scheduled meeting. Weekly, Monthly and Budget reports reflect estimated costs. Estimates are ≥ 10% of historical costs.
| The logistics were completed at the deadlines. Conditions of satisfactory performance, but with estimates ≥ 3% of actual costs. |
| The logistics were completed in advance of the deadlines, within budget, and in adequate facilities with amenities. Cost estimates are at or below actual costs. |
Travel/Meeting site Logistics
Task 1 (e)
| Review participants notified of travel and agenda two weeks or more before the meeting. Logistical problems adjusted up to one week before the meeting. Travel costs met or exceed the government rate. |
| Review participants notified of travel and agenda three weeks or more before the meeting. Some changes needed up to two weeks before the meeting. Travel costs met the government rate. |
| Review participants notified of travel and agenda one month or more before the meeting. Travel logistics were executed without incident and met government rates. Participants report no Contractor problems with arrangements. |
Potential Reviewer Correspondence
All Task 1
| The Contractor had no delays in contacting potential review participants and used proper procedures. Met the deadline. The Contractor notified participants of changes pertaining to the reviews within 5 business days of the notification from the Federal RA. This caused only minor delay or adjustments in the deadlines and process. |
| The Contractor had no delays in contacting potential review participants and used proper procedures. Availability issues are resolved before final availability list. The Contractor notified participants of changes pertaining to the reviews within 3 business days of the notification from the Federal RA. The process proceeded smoothly without deadline delay. |
| The Contractor had no delays in contacting potential review participants and used proper procedures. Availability issues are resolved during initial contact. Draft of the availability list submitted before the deadline. All changes, either minor or major, were communicated by the Contractor to participants within 1 business day of the notification from the Federal RA. The process was transparent to participants. All deadlines met in advance. |
Potential Reviewer Selection
Task 1 (f) and (g)
| Final panel selections made 4 weeks or more before the meeting. HRSA demographic distribution met. |
| Final panel selections made up to 6 weeks or more before the meeting. HRSA demographic distribution met. Professional distribution met at the lowest degree level. Sufficient professionals available for a stand-by roster. |
| Final panel selections made up to 8 weeks or more before the meeting. HRSA demographic distribution met. Professional distribution and qualification level is met at the highest degree level. Sufficient professionals available for a stand-by roster. |
Conflict of Interest issues
Task 1 (g) and (h)
| Conflict of Interest Issues (COI) identified and resolved up to 3 weeks before the meeting with assistance from the agency. Substitute review participants needed within two weeks of the meeting comprise less than 10% of the total number of review participants. |
| There were conflict of interest issues that were addressed immediately and resolved up to 4 weeks before the meeting. There are no substitutions necessary within 3 weeks of the meeting. Additional review participants could be arranged within the normal review cycle. |
| Conflict of Interest Issues (COI) resolved more than 4 weeks before the meeting or there were no conflict of interest issues. There was no delay in panel selections. |
Mail outs
Task 1 (h)
| The Contractor distributed mail outs and met the deadline with outstanding COI forms. Some documents were missing. The review process was minimally impacted and no critical deadlines were missed. |
| The Contractor received all COI forms and then distributed mail outs before the deadline. No documents were missing. There was no impact to the review process and all critical deadlines were made. |
| The Contractor received all COI forms and then distributed mail outs before the deadline (over 1 week). No documents were missing. There were no delays in managing the review and all deadlines were met in advance. |
Task 2 REVIEW
Meeting Logistics and room preparation
Task 2 (a)
| The meeting conditions had two to three of any adverse conditions: small room for the group size; the meeting was interrupted by hotel internal or external noise /fumes /dust; the hotel dining facility was closed or under renovation requiring unusual food arrangements; the facility HVAC was inoperable or poorly controlled; the hotel shuttle service was unsafe, inadequate, or inoperative; the meeting rooms were not set up or equipped as requested. There was an adverse impact to the meeting or participants. |
| The meeting had only one adverse condition as noted in the Satisfactory Level. The room was set up and equipped as requested with minor adjustments. There was no delay or interruption to the review. |
| There were no adverse conditions noted during the entire meeting. The facility would be suitable for a future reservation. The room was set up and equipped as requested without adjustments. There was no delay or interruption to the review. |
Staffing
– SSO,
GTA, RA, Courier
Task 2: Performance Evaluation, Technical Evaluation Criteria
| The Contractor provided appropriate quantity and quality of staffing. May have experienced minor delays in managing the review. The review process was minimally impacted and no critical deadlines were missed. |
| The Contractor provided professionally qualified staffing appropriately assigned and able to respond to issues in a timely manner. There was no impact to the review process and all critical deadlines were made. |
| Assigned staff works as a team, and is professionally qualified. With permission, staff is able to independently anticipate and resolve issues of impact. There were no delays in managing the review and all deadlines were met in advance. |
Contract RA
Task 2: Performance Evaluation, Technical Evaluation Criteria
| The contract RA supervised staff and did anticipate issues to manage the review. The review process was minimally impacted and no critical deadlines were missed. |
| The contract RA effectively supervised and utilized the staff, and personally anticipated and addressed issues to manage the review. There was no impact to the review process and all critical deadlines were made. |
| The contract RA demonstrated teamwork with staff and appropriate independent function of staff to anticipate and address review issues. Demonstrated a transparent management style with no delays in managing the review. All deadlines were met in advance. |
Summary Statement Operators
Task 2: Performance Evaluation, Technical Evaluation Criteria
| Summary Statement operators (SSOs): had minor delays in uploading the pre-consolidated review drafts; was able to operate the laptop and projector without technical assistance; was able to address technical problems in hardware or software as they occur; did not involve themselves in the review process; functioned as an objective recorder. The Summary Statement captured the general content of the panel discussion; there are less than 15 spelling errors; the format generally reflects the program guidance; the draft will require more than 4 hours of review and editing before final. Review process delays are reduced. |
| The SSO: able to function at the Satisfactory level; had the panel summaries pre-loaded to the laptop; had no evident technical difficulties. The Summary Statement: accurately captured the panel discussion; there are less than 10 spelling errors; the format reflects the program guidance criteria; the draft will require less than 4 hours of review and editing before final. SSO performance added no delay to the review process. |
| The SSO: was able to function at the Excellent level. The Summary Statement: accurately captured the panel discussion; there are less than 5 spelling errors; the format accurately reflects the program guidance criteria; the draft will require less than 2 hours of review and editing before final. |
SSO performance accelerated the review process.
Data Entry
Task 2 (d)
| Data forms and documents contain some errors (4 or less). |
| Data forms and documents contain minor format errors (2 or less). |
| Data forms and documents contain no errors. |
Task 3 POST REVIEW
Summary Statements
Task 3 (c)
| Summary Statement addresses strengths or weaknesses of applicant application as reflected in the reviewer’s drafts, and the review discussion. Contains minor errors (5 or less) in format, grammar, or punctuation. Copies provided as requested on RFS. |
| Summary Statement clearly identifies and states the strengths and weaknesses of applicant application as reflected in the reviewer’s drafts, and the review discussion. Contains a few errors (3 or less) in format, grammar, or punctuation. Copies provided as requested on RFS. |
| Summary Statement addresses strengths and weaknesses of applicant application in clear and concise language extracted from the drafts and modified during the discussion. Contains no errors in format, grammar, or punctuation. Copies provided as requested on RFS. |
Reviewer Reimbursement
Task 3 (d)
| Reimbursement was completed as submitted by review participants with few errors and within 45 days. |
| Reviewer reimbursement was done within 30 days and with no errors. |
| Reviewer reimbursement was within 14 workdays, with no errors. |
Final Budget
Deliverable Reports
| Final Budget contains some errors that were addressed within a timely manner. Weekly, Monthly and Budget reports are on time and have final cost charges 60 days after the meeting. |
| Final Budget contains minor errors (2 or less). Provides organized accurate information on cost and spending. Weekly, Monthly and Budget reports are on time and have final cost charges 45 workdays after the meeting. |
| Final Budget contains no errors. Provides organized accurate information on cost and spending. Weekly, Monthly and Budget reports are on time and have final cost charges 30 workdays after the meeting. |
Rank Order List / DIR Spreadsheet
Task 3 (c)
| Rank Order List/DIR spreadsheet contains some format errors (4 or less) and no scoring errors. |
| Rank Order List/DIR spreadsheet contains minor format errors (2 or less) and no scoring errors. |
| Rank Order List/DIR |
Spreadsheet contains no errors.
Task 4 CLOSEOUT
DIR Official File Folder
Task 4 (a)
| DIR Official File Folder has documents completed. May need some additional changes. Met the deadline. |
| DIR Official File Folder has documents completed. Requires no additional changes. Received on time. |
DIR Official File Folder has documents completed. Well organized and received on time. Requires no changes. Received before deadline.
3.3 Ratings
Ratings will be based on the degree of accomplishment, and/or extent to which the desired results were achieved as defined by the performance standards and as evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria.
3.4 rating scale The Performance Rating and the available Award Fee amount shall be defined as follows:
Performance Rating
| Definition of Rating |
| Range/ Possible total |
| Award Fee |
Amount
| Superior |
| Contractor’s performance exceeds standards by a substantial margin, and the monitor can cite few, if any, areas for improvement-all of which are minor. |
| 91-100 |
Superior performance earns 100% of Award fee pool available for the award fee rating period
| Excellent |
| Contractor’s performance exceeds standards, and although there may be some areas for improvement, these are more than offset by better performance in other areas. |
| 81-90 |
Excellent performance earns 75% of Award fee pool available for the award fee rating period
| Satisfactory |
| Contractor’s performance is standard and areas for improvements are appropriately offset by better performance in other areas. |
| 71-80 |
Satisfactory performance earns 50% of Award fee pool available for the award fee rating period
Unsatisfactory
| 0-70 |
| Unsatisfactory performance earns 0% of Award fee pool available for the award fee rating period |
3.5 Award Fee Pool and Distribution
Table 3.5 details the Award Fee Pool and Distribution. Offerors are requested to propose the Award Fee Pool for each Performance Area.
| Award Fee Period |
| Award Fee Pool |
| Award Fee Earned |
| Award Fee Not Earned |
Portion of total Contract costs as Proposed by Contractor as part of Proposal
See #1
See #1
See #1
Table 4.2: Award Fee Pool and Distribution Payment of the award fee under this contract shall be accomplished by an administrative unilateral modification, executed by the Contracting Officer, when the award fee, if any, has been determined to be due. The administrative modification shall set forth the amount of fee to be awarded for the performance period evaluated. Upon receipt of the contract and/or modification, the Contractor may submit a public voucher for payment for an award fee earned for the period evaluated.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .