21R3100 - Attach M Award Fee Plan.pdf

Attachment M – Award Fee Plan

N32205-21-R-3100

ATTACHMENT M

AWARD FEE PLAN

1.0 – Introduction

This award fee plan is the basis for the T-AGOS/T-AGM program (Solicitation N32205-21-R-3100) evaluation of the Contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the

Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

This plan will be used by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) in the administration of award fee provisions under the contract resulting from solicitation N32205-21-R-

3100. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the AFDO based upon review of the

Contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The AFDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The Contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer (KO) in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period.

2.0 – Organization

The award fee organization consists of the AFDO and an AFRB, which consists of the MSC PM2

Program Manager (Chairperson), the KO, PM2 Contracting Officer Representative (COR), a Recorder, and the Performance Monitors. The Government reserves the right to make unilateral substitutions for award fee organization members.

3.0 – Responsibilities

a. Award Fee Determining Official. The AFDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. The AFDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review the Performance Monitors’ evaluation of the

Contractor’s performance, considers all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented to the AFDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Award Fee Review Board Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members. The Chairperson is responsible for:

(1) scheduling all meetings of the AFRB;

(2) conducting the briefing of the AFDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB.

d. Award Fee Review Board Recorder. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFRB, and the AFDO, including:

(l) maintaining records of all meetings in developing the award fee evaluations (a copy of which will be provided to the KO for retention in the contract file);

(2) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources;

(3) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and

(4) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the AFRB.

e. Contracting Officer (KO). The KO is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel on all issues. The KO is responsible for forwarding the AFDO decision to the Contractor and maintaining the contract file.

f. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The COR collects and evaluates the records provided by the Performance Monitors. If there is a difference of opinion in a given evaluation area, the COR will adjudicate the difference to establish one rating for the evaluation area. The COR may perform the duties of a Performance Monitor for his/her area of expertise.

g. Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors maintain written records of the Contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained, and prepare end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB.

4.0 – Award Fee Processes

a. Available Award Fee Amount. This award fee plan has a maximum value of $525,000 for all seven ships, per evaluation period. Performance periods that are less than one year will have a prorated award fee according to the number of days of performance. The award fee evaluation periods will be aligned with each year of the performance period. The award fee earned will be paid based on the Contractor’s performance during each evaluation period. Performance during a contract extension due to FAR 52.217-8 will be eligible for an award fee only if the KO provides written notice prior to the start of that period. The decision to allow or prohibit award fee during a contract extension is exclusively at the option and discretion of the Government. Award fee may not be earned for performance provided under FAR 52.237-3. Unearned Award fee shall not be rolled over into subsequent award fee periods pursuant to the prohibition in FAR 16.401.

b. Evaluation Criteria. If the KO does not give specific notice, in writing, to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria, prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the subsequent award fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by issuing a unilateral modification to the Contractor.

c. End-of-Period Evaluations. The contractor shall submit a written self-evaluation of its performance, (not to exceed 30 pages), to the KO within 30 calendar days after the closure of each evaluation period. The contractor may also give a presentation to the AFRB. If the contractor desires to make a presentation, he/she should notify the KO within 10 days prior to the end of the evaluation period. The contractor must submit an electronic copy of the presentation slides no later than five working days prior to the presentation date.

Performance Monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB Recorder within 30 calendar days after the contractor submits the self-evaluation or gives a presentation, whichever is later. Then the

AFRB Recorder will consolidate a summary evaluation and provide it to the AFRB.

Next, the Chairperson briefs the AFDO on the AFRB’s recommendations of the earned award fee amount and any significant changes to the award fee plan. The briefing includes discussion of the contractor’s performance during the rating period. After the AFDO decides an overall rating and the award fee amount for the evaluation period, an AFDO summary evaluation will be sent to the contractor via cover letter from the KO. The KO’s determination letter should be clear and concise, inform the contractor of the earned award fee amount, the rating received in each category, and a summary of its performance during the award fee evaluation period. The KO shall issue a unilateral contract modification to authorize payment of the earned award fee amount within 15 calendar days after the AFDO’s determination.

These procedures and timelines are projected; therefore, failure by the Government to abide by these timelines and procedures shall not form the basis of a Request for Equitable Adjustment or claim.

5.0 – Award Fee Plan Change Procedure

All significant changes shall be approved by the AFDO. The AFRB Chairperson shall approve other changes. Examples of significant changes include: changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect Contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of the award fee dollars. The Contractor shall make recommendations to change the award fee plan for the next evaluation period no later than 60 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period.

Contractor recommended changes to the award fee plan are encouraged throughout the contract period.

All Contractor recommended changes shall be provided to the KO. The KO may make unilateral changes to the award fee plan if the Contractor is provided written notification by the KO 30 days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

6.0 -- Contract Termination

If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the AFDO using the normal award fee evaluation process with an appropriate pro-rated amount. After termination for convenience, the remaining award fee amounts allocated to subsequent award fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the Contractor and will not be paid by the government.

7.0 – Evaluation Criteria

The award-fee rating will be based upon a subjective evaluation by the Government of the effectiveness and quality of the Contractor’s performance in the following categories and subcategories. If the

Government determines that the Contractor’s performance in any one of the evaluation categories or subcategories is Unsatisfactory, the Contractor shall receive NO award-fee for that evaluation period.

The award-fee criteria will be judged in light of the nature of the contract requirements and any other factors considered relevant to the determination. It should also be noted that meeting contract requirements is equivalent to a satisfactory rating and not eligible for an award fee.

Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

A) Sponsor Support

Rating Criteria

Unsatisfactory Contractor does not meet the Sponsor’s objectives with schedule, mission support, or customer service. Contracting officer intervention is necessary to obtain corrective action.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for meeting mission objectives, schedule and customer service to the Sponsor.

Good Contractor meets all and exceeds some of the minimum contract requirements for meeting mission objectives, schedule and customer service to the Sponsor. Sponsor relationship is positive.

Very Good Contractor meets all and exceeds many contract requirements and exceeds customer performance expectations, which provides a benefit to the Sponsor in meeting mission objectives and schedule. Sponsor relationship is positive. Contractor strives to continuously improve performance. As an example, Contractor frequently solicits feedback from Sponsor to identify areas of improvement to facilitate their achievement of mission objectives (verified through i.e.

Monthly customer service log files, etc.).

Excellent Contractor exceeds almost all contract requirements and exceeds customer performance expectations, which provides a benefit to the Sponsor in meeting mission objectives and schedule. Contractor frequently solicits feedback from Sponsor in areas to improve to facilitate the mission objectives (i.e. Monthly customer service logs, etc.). Contractor’s proactive approach to improving Sponsor relations and meeting mission objectives is a widely accepted culture that has resulted in documented Sponsor recognition (BZ letter, etc.).

B) Task and Schedule Management

Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to submit plans of action, required vessel reports (i.e. OPREP, CASREP, etc.) or task schedules as required by the contract or when requested from the Program Office. The

Contractor fails to comply with established POA&M, report submittal requirements, or task deadlines. KO intervention is necessary to obtain results.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for POA&M development and compliance, vessel reporting and task management but requires prompting from the MSC Program Office.

Good Contractor meets all and exceeds some performance expectations, which provides benefit to the

Government in areas of schedule and/or mission accomplishment with minimal prompting from the MSC Program Office.

Very Good Contractor meets all and exceeds many performance requirements for POA&M development and compliance, vessel reporting and task management, and sometimes exceeds cost/schedule expectations. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are sometimes offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to accommodate Government priorities.

Excellent Contractor exceeds almost all performance requirements for POA&M development and compliance, vessel reporting and task management, and typically exceeds cost/schedule expectations. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are frequently offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to anticipate and accommodate Government priorities.

C) Financial Management

Unsatisfactory The Contractor fails to submit annual budget inputs, monthly cost reports and invoices. They fail to deobligate funds to ensure effective utilization of resources and repeatedly undertake unauthorized, poorly conceived, or poorly executed initiatives resulting in budget over-runs. The Contractor fails to advise the MSC program office when obligations reach threshold levels of expenditure specified in the contract.

Satisfactory The Contractor meets the minimum cost avoidance requirements of the contract and submits required reports and budget inputs with prompting from the MSC Program Office.

Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds some of the requirements for financial management. The

Contractor undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government, and submits required reports and budget inputs with minimal prompting from the MSC Program Office. These initiatives are sometimes effective and may result in a net decrease in cost to the Government.

Very Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds many financial management requirements. The Contractor often undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government and submits required reports and budget inputs without prompting from the

MSC Program Office. These initiatives are frequently effective and result in a net decrease in cost to the Government.

Excellent The Contractor exceeds almost all contract requirements for financial management. The

Contractor aggressively undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government and submits required reports and budget inputs without prompting from the MSC Program Office. These initiatives are always effective and always result in a significant net decrease in cost to the Government.

D) Management of Key Personnel and Crew Retention

Unsatisfactory The Contractor is unable to retain personnel assigned to key billets shoreside or shipboard, causing significant breaks in continuity, loss of corporate knowledge, and/or impacting vessel operations to the detriment of the Government. Contractor is unable or unwilling to properly train personnel in accordance with training requirements. There are prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets. Some or all Contractor personnel do not meet contract training requirements.

Satisfactory The Contractor meets the minimum technical requirements for key personnel submittals, approval and retention. There are occasional prolonged gaps in key personnel and crew billets.

Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds some of the technical requirements for key personnel submittal, approval and retention. The Contractor manages their crew retention plan with minimal government initiation. Key billets are manned appropriately with experience and corporate knowledge with some turnover.

Very Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds many of the technical requirements for key personnel submittal, approval and retention. The Contractor manages their crew retention plan with minimal government initiation. Key billets are manned appropriately with experience and corporate knowledge, with minimal turnover. There are no gaps in shipboard or shoreside key personnel.

Excellent The Contractor exceeds almost all the technical requirements for key personnel submittal, approval and retention. The Contractor manages an effective crew retention plan with no government initiation, with no gaps in shipboard or shoreside personnel. Key billets are manned appropriately with experience and corporate knowledge, with no turnover. The Contractor leverages corporate knowledge maintained by key personnel to capture and disseminate lessons learned and improve the readiness and reliability of assigned vessels.

E) Management of Maintenance and Repair

Unsatisfactory The Contractor does not support MSC’s lifecycle management initiatives as required by the contract. The Contractor fails to develop and execute alterations. The Contractor fails to plan, manage and execute scheduled availabilities and emergent repairs within scope, time, and budget constraints. The Contractor does not adhere to MSC’s established Predictive Maintenance (PdM) and Preventative Maintenance (PM) program in accordance with the minimum requirements of the contract.

Satisfactory The Contractor meets the minimum requirements for lifecycle management, availability planning and execution, and PdM and PM practices. The Contractor does not plan alterations or improvements in PdM or PM practices without Program Office initiation.

Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds some of the minimum requirements for lifecycle management, availability planning and execution, and PdM and PM practices. The Contractor develops and plans alterations and improvements in PdM and PM practices with minimal initiation from the Program Office. This provides benefit to the Government in terms of consistent mission readiness and cost savings and retention

Very Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds many of the requirements for lifecycle management, availability planning and execution, and PdM and PM practices, which involves a proactive approach to alteration development, continuous monitoring of PdM and PM practices, capturing lessons learned with no initiation from the Program Office. This provides benefit to the

Government in terms of consistent mission readiness and cost savings and retention

Excellent The Contractor exceeds almost all contract requirements for management of maintenance and repair. The Contractor manages availabilities, the PdM and PM program, and industrial assistance in that the actions taken in the planning and execution of the work demonstrate results in multiple instances where substantial reductions to the overall cost, duration of the work, and increase in the ship’s readiness and reliability are realized.

F) Safety

Unsatisfactory The Contractor does not develop a widely accepted safety culture through their Safety

Management System (SMS) across the program. The Contractor fails to provide timely notification of accident/mishaps to the Government (i.e. USCG-835, USCG-2692, CASREPS, Near Miss, etc.).

Satisfactory The Contractor meets the minimum requirements for safety management and risk mitigation, but is not proactive in developing their safety culture without initiation from the government.

Notifications of accidents/mishaps are timely.

Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds some of the minimum requirements for safety management and risk mitigation and has developed an adequate safety culture that is accepted by all stakeholders. Notification of accidents and mishaps are timely, but government initiation is necessary for capturing lessons learned and best practices.

Very Good The Contractor meets all and exceeds many of the minimum requirements for safety management and risk mitigation. The Contractor implements a widely accepted safety management system and adopts a proactive approach to increasing safety awareness and risk mitigation through company training, drills and capturing lessons learned from casualties, incidents and near misses.

Notifications of accidents and mishaps are timely, and the Contractor frequently captures lessons learned and best practices as a result.

Excellent The Contractor exceeds almost all of the minimum requirements for safety management and risk mitigation. The Contractor implements a widely accepted safety management system and adopts a proactive approach to increasing safety awareness and risk mitigation through company training, drills and capturing lessons learned from casualties, incidents and near misses. Notifications of accidents and mishaps are timely, and the Contractor frequently provides corrective actions and procedural changes within their SQMS to the government.

8.0—Award Fee Pool Allocation

Award fee may be earned in accordance with the following:

Award Fee Maximum Values

A) Sponsor Support $87,500

B) Task and Schedule Management $87,500

C) Financial Management $87,500

D) Management of Key Personnel and Crew Retention $87,500

E) Management of Maintenance and Repair $87,500

F) Safety $87,500

Total Award Fee Value $525,000.00

Each category is weighted equally, accounting for 16.67% of the total potential award fee. Maximum award-fee values listed in the chart above are earned for all T-AGS vessels combined.

Each category will receive an overall adjectival rating based on an average of the numerical value of the ratings received for the subcategories within each category. Each adjectival rating assigned to one of the subcategories above will be assigned a numerical value as follows:

Unsatisfactory = 0

Satisfactory = 1

Good = 2

Very Good = 3

Excellent = 4

The amount of award fee earned will be determined at the category level using the category ratings and allocation ranges below. Each category may receive up to 16.67% of the total available award fee

($525,000). The specific amount of award fee earned in each category, within the ranges set below, will be solely within the discretion of the Award Fee Determining Official.

Award-Fee

Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned

Description

Unsatisfactory 0%

Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Satisfactory Not Greater Than 50%

Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Good 51-75%

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Very Good 76%-90%

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Excellent 91%-100%

Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.