Base Kodiak BOSS Award Fee Plan_Final.pdf

BASE KODIAK BOSS AWARD FEE PLAN

AWARD FEE PLAN

US Coast Guard Base Kodiak Base Operations Support Services

BASE KODIAK, AK

Date: 21-June-2023

Signed: ______________________________

Ryan M. Suchy, Contracting Officer

Signed: _______________________________________ CAPT Jeremy Hall, Fee Determining Official

AWARD FEE PLAN

US Coast Guard Base Kodiak Base Operations Support Services

1. INTRODUCTION

a. This Award Fee Plan sets forth specific criteria and procedures to be used in evaluating contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO) for providing BOSS contract services at Base Kodiak, AK. The Government may modify this contract award fee plan through unilateral modification at any time.

b. The Award Fee will reward the contractor for better than satisfactory overall performance.

The award fee is to motivate the contractor to provide optimum performance in critical areas that are susceptible to qualitative evaluation. In addition, the contractor may be rewarded for performance relative to any special interest items. Therefore, performance rated as "Satisfactory" will not earn the contractor any award fee.

c. Award fee decisions by the FDO are final and shall not be subject to FAR 52.212-4(d), Disputes. The total Award Fee amount cited in Section 7 Evaluation Periods, is the maximum amount that can be earned for the entire performance period of the effective contract. Unearned amounts cannot be recuperated in subsequent evaluation periods.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official (FDO): The FDO will consider all performance recommendations made by the Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB). The FDO will, after considering available pertinent information and recommendations, determine the award fee earned by the contractor in accordance with (IAW) the provisions of this plan. The FDO will also appoint government personnel to serve on the AFEB. The FDO is the Base Commander, Base Kodiak, AK.

b. Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB): The AFEB consists of AFEB members led by an AFEB chairperson. The AFEB will evaluate the contractor’s performance as it relates to the Award Fee Criteria listed in Section 4 of this plan. At the end of each evaluation period, the AFEB will prepare a written report of its evaluation. The report will include recommendations to the FDO as to the percentage award fee earned to be assigned to the contractor for its performance during that evaluation period. The AFEB will be chaired by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and will include the DOL-9 Contracting Officer. The AFEB may also include additional DOL-9 Representatives, the Base Kodiak Executive Officer (XO), Level II and Level III COR’s. The responsible party for execution of the BOSS contract on Base Kodiak shall be the Contractor:

c. Government Performance Monitors: Government Performance Monitors will monitor the contractor’s performance and in conjunction with the Contracting Officer, will discuss performance with the contractor, as appropriate during regular progress meetings and reviews on the program. Additionally, the Performance Monitors may use evaluations and assessments from other Government officials in preparing reports for the AFEB.

d. Contracting Officer: An individual with the authority to enter, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings.

3. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. The Facilities Maintenance Branch (FMB) should be made aware of all patron comments regarding the contractor’s performance through methods described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The COR shall organize and summarize the comments in a clear and concise presentation format for the board.

b. The CORs shall make continuous observations of the contractor’s performance as provided by the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (Appendix E Performance Requirements Statement), then (using the criteria in paragraph 4, Criteria) prepare monthly COR Performance Evaluation Summary Reports and submit them to the FMB Branch Chief. The summary is due to the FMB Branch Chief within seven workdays after the end of the month being evaluated. The contractor shall submit a self-evaluation to the FMB Branch Chief within seven workdays after the end of the six-month period being evaluated. The CORs, KO, and ACO shall periodically meet with the contractor to discuss performance. At approximately the midpoint of the evaluation period, an interim letter which addresses the contractor performance with emphasis on areas needing improvement will be generated by the Facilities Engineer (FE) and forwarded through the Contracting Office for issuance to the contractor. A letter may also be issued at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of government concern. For each letter issued, the contractor shall provide a written response within 15 days. The response should set forth plans for increasing effectiveness in the areas addressed or explain why it is not feasible to do so. In addition to the data collected through monthly COR surveillance, examples of above satisfactory performance shall be documented by COR’s and referred to the FMB Chief to be present to the AFEB with the COR Performance Evaluation Summary Report shown below. The contractor is also encouraged to provide evidence and data that supports performance above satisfactory to the FMB Chief to be presented at the AFEB. All data must be presented to the FMB Chief at least 5 working days before the AFEB meets.

c. The FDO and the Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB) will be briefed within 15 working days after the end of the six-month period being evaluated. The AFEB shall schedule this meeting.

During this meeting, the contractor shall be permitted to present a briefing consisting of self-evaluation of performance. The Government Performance Monitors shall present a briefing which shall include significant positive and negative events or factors on a subjective rating in the format shown in the COR performance evaluation summary report. In addition, the Government Performance Monitors shall provide each member of the AFEB an evaluation summary report.

During briefings, the AFEB will conduct an open forum and offer advice to the FDO. The FDO shall consider the information presented along with any other pertinent information available and reach a decision as to the award fee amount.

d. Within 5 working days after the FDO decision, the FE COR shall prepare a letter for the FDO’s signature notifying the contractor of the award fee amount and shall provide the letter to the Contracting Officer for issuance to the contractor. This letter will address the key positive and negative factors in the evaluation, noting any areas requiring particular emphasis for the next evaluation period. The Contracting Officer shall ensure the modification is delivered to the Accounting and Finance Officer within one working day after the contract modification is complete for payment.

e. The AFEB Chairperson shall ensure all official records of the award fee evaluation process are forwarded to the Administrative Contracting Officer for inclusion in the official contract file.

4. CRITERIA

a. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated in compliance with the tasks in the contract PWS. Quality is based mostly on COR and customer reports. The tasks for evaluation will include:

1. CLIN x001: Service Work (25% of Award Pool):

a. Quality Service work as defined by 5.1.4 of the PWS, measured IAW the PRS, and feedback from the COR team. Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Resounding and nearly exclusively top quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, superior materials, and excellent customer service. Well trained employees could mean basic trade licensing plus specific manufacturer training to the device being worked on and/or a formal on the job program. Section 7.4.1 of the PWS also provides details about some of the training requirements for excellent training.

Superior materials are defined in this context with the vision of a facility manager, i.e. adding, durability, longevity, energy efficiency, and/or reduce maintenance to the systems being worked on. Also, though less important, is user convenience, user features, and/or aesthetics could be seen as using superior quality materials. Examples include, but are not limited to: using a stainless water heater tank vs. an enamel coated tank to add longevity to the system and reduce maintenance, use an enamel paint to add durability where latex paint wore out, use stainless fasteners vs galvanized to add longevity in a marine application. The added costs will have to be within the limits of the Level II threshold (PWS 3.22.2). Materials used for LVL III task orders do not apply if they were already specified. Further definition of quality service can be found in the PWS 5.1.2.K. “Quality work can be characterized, but not limited to: Work was completed by a state certified (when required), trade trained, individual demonstrating good craftsmanship; (i.e. trainees charge to contractor’s overhead), the worker planned materials/tools ahead, when possible, and took a minimum number of trips to-from the field; work was completed to building codes required in this PWS, even if that means reworking a limited portion of the system to bring the system up to date (i.e.

sometimes more than a simple parts change out); work used like-or-better materials in repair and quality materials (e.g. quality commercial/industrial grade when required) for new work, work was done with the eye and pride of craftsmanship (e.g. plumbing joints are clean and pipes are straight and secured to the wall when required, electrical wires are neat and organized when installed into a panel, finish carpentry has clean cuts from a sharp blade and wood is finished to be smooth to the touch, etc.), a work request is submitted to the USCG through the help desk when other items in the work area are noticeably and obviously in need of corrective maintenance, work area is clean when complete, all notifications and paperwork are complete, etc.”

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs and customers.

SATISFACTORY: Completes service work in accordance with PWS.

Completes minimum requirements in most cases.

75% of Service Work Award Pool (18.75% Award Pool Total)

b. Timely service work as defined by the response time in section 5.1 of the PWS measured IAW the PRS:

EXCELLENT: Priorities 1 and 5 completed on time, Priorities 2,3,4 completed 15% early.

VERY GOOD: Priorities 1 and 5 completed on time, Priorities 2,3,4 completed 10% early.

GOOD: Priorities 1 and 5 completed on time, Priorities 2,3,4 completed 5% early by compiling all the days the work orders had available as the baseline.

For example, if there were 100 priorities 2, 3, or 4 work orders in the rating period with a total work time available of 1700 workdays. Good would be completing them all 85 days early (1615 days of work).

25% of Service Work Award Pool (6.25% Award Pool Total)

2. CLIN x002: Preventive Maintenance (25% of Award Pool):

a. Quality Service work as defined by 5.2.7 of the PWS, as measured IAW the

Performance Requirements Survey (PRS) and feedback from the COR team.

Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Resounding and nearly exclusively top quality as reported by CORs. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service. A large and noticeable decline in corrective maintenance on tracked equipment. A further definition of quality can be found in section 4.1.a.

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service. A noticeable decline in corrective maintenance on tracked equipment.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs.

50% of Preventive Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

b. Timely completion rate as defined by the Annual PM Plan and measured IAW the

PRS:

EXCELLENT: ≥97% PM completion VERY GOOD: ≥93% PM completion GOOD: ≥85%, PM completion

50% of Preventive Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

3. Environmental Compliance (25% of Award Pool):

a. CLIN x010 Outside agency reporting quality.

EXCELLENT: 0 permit noncompliance findings, 0 deliverables discrepancies, reaching 100 % of environmental management systems goals and objectives.

VERY GOOD: 0 permit noncompliance findings, <10 deliverables discrepancies, reaching 80% environmental management systems goals and objectives.

GOOD: 0 permit noncompliance findings, <15 deliverables discrepancies, reaching environmental 50% management systems goals and objectives.

SATISFACTORY: 0 permit noncompliance findings, some deliverables discrepancies, reaching environmental limited management systems goals and objectives.

50% of Environmental Compliance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

b. CLIN x014 Successful execution, reporting, and cleanup of spills EXCELLENT: 100% on time cleanup, proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, advise government as needed, and were well prepared before the spill. This includes zero rework after the spill. “Took adequate action to prevent further spills” is often characterized as meaningful change to prevent the incident from happening for the foreseeable future. For example, writing a procedural change that isn’t implemented is a common pitfall that isn’t meaningful.

Also, cleaning all trash cans from illegally dumped aerosol cans is also a onetime solution and not meaningful change. Meaningful change includes a written procedure, possibly a procedure update, implementing the procedure, possibly funding new disposal equipment, training, future monitoring.

“Advise government as needed” refer to the BOSS contractor providing quick, concise and prepared recommendations to resolve a spill quickly and effectively, when required. Preparation before the spill refers to going above and beyond the regulatory requirements for preparations and having things organized in such a way that the materials can be used in the shortest possible time.

VERY GOOD: 100% on time cleanup, proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, advise government as needed, and were well prepared before the spill – all with little government direction. This includes 0 rework after the spill. This includes little rework after the spill.

GOOD: 99% on time cleanup, nearly perfect proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, and were well prepared before the spill. This includes little rework after the spill.

SATISFACTORY: Mostly on time cleanup, mostly proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, and were generally well prepared before the spill. This includes little rework after the spill.

50% of Environmental Compliance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

4. CLIN x019: Housing Maintenance (25% of Award Pool):

a. COM Season performance – Meeting timeliness and quality standards as defined by the COR IAW the PWS, as well as feedback from the COR about responsiveness to changes and challenges regarding, but not limited to, priority houses, associated work orders, and material challenges.

50% of Housing Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

b. Housing maintenance quality of work (corrective and COM) – As defined by 5.1.4 of the PWS, with regard to housing maintenance only, measured IAW the PRS, and feedback from the COR team. Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Perfect or near exclusively top quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service. A further definition of quality can be found in section 4.1.a.

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs and customers.

SATISFACTORY: Completes service work in accordance with PWS.

Completes minimum requirements in most cases.

50% of Housing Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% Award Pool Total)

5. OVERALL AWARD FEE RATINGS AND AWARD FEE EARNING

Award are determined based on FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv) Table 16-1. The table below adds more adjectival criteria and definitions relative to this specific contract. These adjectival ratings are to be used when evaluating COR input toward quality of work.

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned

Description

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.

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.

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.

Satisfactory 0% 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.

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.

6. EVALUATION PERIODS

The evaluation periods and amount of potential award fee available for each period are listed below. Award fee amounts not earned during a given period shall not be available in the future periods.

POTENTIAL AWARD

FEE

BASE Period plus Transition Period

TRANSITION PERIOD THREE MONTHS December 1, 2023 – February 29, 2024 $0.00

FIRST SIX MONTHS March 1, 2024 – August 31, 2024 $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS September 1, 2024 – February 28, 2025 $250,000.00

FIRST Ordering Period

FIRST SIX MONTHS March 1, 2025 – August 31,2025

$250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS September 1,2025 –February 28, 2026 $250,000.00

SECOND Ordering Period

FIRST SIX MONTHS March 1, 2026 – August 31, 2026 $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS September 1, 2026 – February 28. 2027 $250,000.00

THIRD Ordering Period

FIRST SIX MONTHS March 1, 2027 – August 31, 2027 $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS September 1, 2027- February 29, 2028 $250,000.00

FOURTH Ordering Period

FIRST SIX MONTHS March 1, 2028 –August 31, 2028 $250,000.00

LAST THREEMONTHS September 1, 2028- November 30, 2028 $125,000.00

Total $2,375,000

COR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACT NO: EVALUATOR:

EVALUATION PERIOD:

POSITIVE EVENTS OR FACTORS

I. Responsiveness:

II. Quality of Work:

NEGATIVE EVENTS OR FACTORS

I. Responsiveness:

II. Quality of Work:

COMMENTS

(Describe any factors that significantly influenced events noted above)

EVALUATOR’S SIGNATURE: DATE: