Enclosure 11 (DRAFT Performance Evaluation Plan).pdf

COST-PLUS-AWARD-FEE

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

FOR

NASA SOUNDING ROCKET OPERATIONS CONTRACT

(NSROC) IV

CORE SERVICES AND

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

SERVICES & END-ITEM TASK ORDERS

CONTRACT NO. TBD

WITH TBD

CONCURRENCE:

Dave Pierce, Director WFF Date

Fee Determination Official

APPROVAL:

Michael E. McGrath Date

Procurement Officer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR AWARD FEE ADMINISTRATION

III. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS

IV. METHOD FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

V. CHANGING THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

VI. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Evaluation Periods and Maximum Available Award Fee

Attachment B: Performance Factors and Evaluation Criteria

B.1 Technical Performance–Services

B.2 Technical Performance–End-Item

B.3 Business Management Performance

B.4 Cost Control–Services

B.5 Cost Control–End-Item

B.6 Small Business Utilization Performance

Attachment C: Award Fee Grading Tables

C.1 Performance Factors

C.2 Overall Total

Attachment D: Actions and Schedules for Award Fee Determinations

Attachment E: General Instructions for Evaluation and Monitoring of Performance

I. INTRODUCTION

This Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) covers the administration of the award fee provisions of

Contract No. To Be Determined (TBD), dated TBD, with TBD. The purpose of this plan is to establish a general framework for evaluating the Contractor’s performance. Accordingly, all fee determinations will be based on the guidelines found herein. The plan is unilaterally established by the Government and may be revised at any time to redirect emphasis in accordance with

Section V of this plan. The contract was awarded in accordance with the provisions of Request for Proposal (RFP) 80GSFC21R0037.

The following matters, among others are covered:

A. This Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) Core and IDIQ services contract is to operate and maintain the government-owned facilities located at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia (WFF) and at White Sands Missile Range, White Sands, New

Mexico (WSMR). The Contractor shall be responsible for conducting sounding rocket operations from multiple launch sites, including remote launch campaigns.. This contract contains NFS Clause 1852.216-76, “Award Fee for Service Contracts,” and the award fee determination each period is final.

B. The total period of performance/effective ordering period of this contract is five (5) years from the effective date of the contract as specified in Clause F.2, “Period of

Performance/Effective Ordering Period” and Clause B.7, “Option to Extend”.

C. The Core estimated cost and maximum available award fee for performing this contract is specified in Clause B.1, “Estimated Cost and Award Fee,” and Clause B.7, “Option to

Extend”. The Core maximum award fee percentage is TBD percent. The IDIQ minimum ordering value under this contract is $[insert dollar amount] and the IDIQ maximum ordering value of this contract is $[insert dollar amount] as specified in Clause B.4, “Minimum/Maximum Amount of Supplies or Services.” The award fee percentage is

TBD percent and will be used to calculate the maximum available award fee dollars on all task orders issued in accordance with the “Task Ordering Procedure” clause of this contract. Due to the IDIQ characteristics of this contract, the IDIQ maximum available award fee dollars allocated for each evaluation period will fluctuate as Task Orders are issued and/or modified during performance. The IDIQ maximum available award fee pool amounts for the IDIQ portion shall be allocated by the Contracting Officer based on the IDIQ work performed during the evaluation period. Of the $[insert dollar amount]

IDIQ maximum ordering value of this contract, the potential IDIQ maximum available award fee that could be made available is $TBD. The estimated cost and award fee of the

Core and each IDIQ task order are subject to equitable adjustments arising from changes or other contract modifications.

D. Provisional award fee payments will be made under this contract pending the determination of the amount of fee earned for an evaluation period. If applicable, a provisional award fee payment may be made to the Contractor each period after each month completed. The total amount of award fee available in an evaluation period that will be provisionally paid is the lesser of 80 percent of that evaluation period’s available award fee or the prior period’s evaluation score.

E. The Fee Determination Official (FDO) will determine the award fee payable periodically in accordance with this plan.

F. The Government may unilaterally change this plan, as covered in Section V and not otherwise requiring mutual agreement under the contract, provided the Contractor receives notice of the changes 30-days prior to the beginning of the evaluation period to which the changes apply.

G. The determination of the award fee earned is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the Government.

H. The unearned award fee in any given period is lost and shall not be carried forward or

“rolled-over” into subsequent periods in accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(4) and NFS

1816.405-273(a).

II. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR AWARD FEE ADMINISTRATION

The following organizational structure is established for administering the fee provisions of the contract.

A. Procurement Officer (PO)

1. The PO is located at the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, MD.

2. The PO is the approval authority for any significant changes to this plan.

3. Approve the use of a substitute PEB voting member, on an individual case-by-case basis.

B. Fee Determination Official (FDO)

The FDO for this contract is the Director at GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Wallops Island, VA. The FDO may designate an Alternate FDO when appropriate.

The primary FDO responsibilities are:

1. Establish the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) and appoint the voting members of the PEB by memorandum.

2. Consider the PEB findings for each evaluation period and discuss it with the PEB chair and, if appropriate, with others such as the Contractor.

3. Determine the overall Award Fee earned and payable for each evaluation period as addressed in Section IV and ensure that the amount and percentage of award fee earned is commensurate with and accurately reflects the Contractor's performance.

Any variance between the PEB recommendation and FDO determination must be justified and documented in the official contract file.

4. Issue and sign the award fee determination letter for the evaluation period, specifying the amount of award fee determined and the basis for that determination.

5. Concur or approve changes proposed to the Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) as addressed in Section V, as appropriate.

6. Concur in the use of a substitute PEB voting member, on an individual case-by-case basis, before forwarding the request to the PO for approval.

C. Performance Evaluation Board (PEB)

The PEB primary responsibilities of the Board are to:

1. Conduct ongoing evaluations of Contractor performance based upon Performance

Monitor Reports and such additional performance information as may be obtained from the Contractor and other sources. The PEB will evaluate the Contractor's performance according to the standards and criteria stated in this performance evaluation plan.

2. Submit an award fee letter to the FDO for signature, which addresses the PEB's findings and recommendations for each evaluation period.

3. Recommend for approval by the FDO proposed changes in the performance evaluation plan and the PO for significant changes.

D. PEB Chairperson

The PEB Chairperson is Division Chief, Code 810, GSFC/WFF in Wallops Island, VA.

The primary responsibilities of the PEB Chairperson are to:

1. Appoint non-voting members, if appropriate, to assist the PEB in performing its functions, e.g., a recording secretary.

2. Appoint performance monitors for the contract effort and assure that they are providing appropriate instructions and guidance.

3. Request and obtain performance information from other units or personnel involved in observing Contractor performance, as appropriate.

4. Call on personnel from various organizational units to consult, as needed, with the

PEB.

5. Assume responsibility for the actual preparation and approval of the award fee letter and other documentation such as PEB minutes.

6. Ensure the timeliness of award fee evaluations.

7. Recommend appropriate changes in this plan for consideration, as addressed in

Section V.

8. If necessary, meet with the Contractor during the evaluation period to provide preliminary performance feedback.

9. Request FDO concurrence and PO approval to use a substitute PEB voting member, on an individual case-by-case basis.

E. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The COR will be located at the GSFC/WFF facility in Wallops Island, VA.

The primary responsibilities of the COR are to:

1. Receive and analyze the Monitor Evaluation Reports submitted by the Performance

Monitors.

2. Monitor, evaluate, and assess Contractor performance.

3. Ensure the Contractor is provided feedback in a timely manner when Government expectations are not being met.

4. Ensure proper records are kept during each evaluation period.

5. Prepare the Contract Performance Summary Report for the Contracting Officer (CO).

6. Attend all PEB meetings, record the findings of the PEB, and prepare the award fee determination letter for the FDO’s review and signature in coordination with the CO.

7. Provide technical input for the annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) evaluation.

8. Recommend appropriate changes in this plan for consideration, as addressed in

F. Performance Monitors

Performance Monitors will be designated by the PEB Chairperson to each performance area to be evaluated. Generally, the task initiator for each issued task order will be the

Performance Monitor for that task.

The primary responsibilities of the Performance Monitor are to:

1. Monitor, evaluate, and assess Contractor performance in assigned areas and in accordance with this award fee plan.

2. Periodically prepare a Performance Monitor Report (PMR) for the PEB that will be submitted to the COR, as described in Section II.E., or others as appropriate.

3. Recommend appropriate changes in this plan for consideration, as addressed in

G. Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO responsible for Contract No. TBD will be located at the GSFC/WFF in Wallops

Island, VA.

The primary responsibilities of the CO are to:

1. Advise the PEB on CPAF rating standards, policies, and procedures and ensure the consistent application of Agency policy in these matters.

2. Receive and analyze the Performance Monitor Evaluation Reports submitted by the

Performance Monitors via the assigned COR.

3. Monitor, evaluate, and assess Contractor performance.

4. Ensure the Contractor is provided timely feedback when Government expectations are not being met.

5. Ensure proper records are maintained during each evaluation period.

6. Consider changes to this plan and recommend those determined appropriate for presentation to the FDO and PO, if significant.

7. Attend all PEB meetings and assist the COR in preparing all PEB correspondence for the FDO.

III. EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS

The applicable evaluation requirements are included as attachments to this Performance

Evaluation Plan. They are as follows:

Attachment Title Attachment

Evaluation Periods and Maximum Available Award Fee A

Performance Factors and Evaluation Criteria B

Technical Performance–Services B.1

Technical Performance–End-Item B.2

Business Management Performance B.3

Cost Control–Services B.4

Cost Control–End-Item B.5

Small Business Utilization Performance B.6

Award Fee Grading Tables C

Performance Factors C.1

Overall Total C.2

Actions and Schedules for Award Fee Determinations D

General Instructions for Evaluation and Monitoring of E

Performance

The percentage weights indicated in Attachment B and the grading tables in Attachment C are quantifying devices. Their sole purpose is to provide guidance in arriving at a general assessment of the amount of award fee earned. In no way do they imply an arithmetical precision to any judgmental determination of the Contractor's overall performance and amount of award fee earned.

IV. METHOD FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

A determination of the award fee earned for each evaluation period will be made by the FDO within forty-five (45) calendar days after the end of the period. All fee determinations shall reflect the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s progress and ability to meet the contract objectives. Although award fee contracts are subjective in nature, the Government generally attempts to utilize objective and quantifiable measures to the greatest extent possible as a guide in assessing the Contractor’s performance.

The method to be followed in monitoring, evaluating, and assessing Contractor performance during the period, as well as for determining the award fee earned or paid, is described below.

Attachment D summarizes the principal actions and schedules involved.

A. The PEB Chairperson will ensure that a monitor is assigned for each performance evaluation factor to be evaluated under the contract. Monitors will be selected on the basis of their expertise relative to prescribed performance area emphasis. The PEB

Chairperson may change monitor assignments at any time without advance notice to the

Contractor. The PEB Chairperson will notify the Contractor promptly of all monitor assignments and changes.

B. The PEB Chairperson will ensure that each monitor receives the following:

1. A copy of this plan along with any changes made in accordance with Section V.

2. Appropriate orientation and guidance.

3. Specific instructions applicable to the monitors' assigned performance areas.

C. Monitors will evaluate and assess Contractor performance and discuss their observations with Contractor personnel as appropriate, in accordance with the General Instructions for

Evaluation and Monitoring of Performance, Attachment E, and the specific instructions and guidance furnished by the PEB Chairperson.

D. Monitors will submit PMRs to the COR within 15 days after the end of an evaluation period, and, if required, make oral presentations to the PEB.

E. The Contractor may submit self-evaluation summaries to the CO. The Contractor shall submit self-evaluations no later than seven (7) calendar days following the end of a performance period. Contractor self-evaluations will be forwarded through the appropriate Performance Monitors, who will reconcile differences between their reports and the Contractor self-evaluations prior to the PEB meeting. Such self-evaluation summaries will be included in the PEB package.

F. Promptly after the end of each evaluation period, the PEB will meet to consider all the performance information it has obtained. At the meeting, the PEB will summarize its preliminary findings and recommendations for inclusion in the award fee letter and other documentation such as PEB minutes.

G. The COR, in coordination with the CO, will prepare the award fee determination letter for the period, which will be reviewed by the PEB Chairperson and then submitted to the

FDO for use in determining the award fee earned. The letter will include an adjectival rating and a recommended performance score with supporting documentation.

H. The FDO will consider the recommendations of the PEB, information provided by the

Contractor, if any, and any other pertinent information in determining the amount of the award fee to be paid for the period. The FDO's determination of the amount of award fee earned and the basis for this determination will be stated in the award fee determination letter.

I. The CO shall notify the Contractor in writing of the FDO's determination. The

Contractor may request a debriefing from the PEB Chairperson.

V. CHANGING THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

A. Right to Make Unilateral Changes

The Government may unilaterally change any matters covered in this plan and not specifically identified as requiring mutual agreement under the contract, prior to the beginning of an evaluation period by providing timely notice to the Contractor in writing at least 30 calendar days prior to the start of the relevant evaluation period. Significant changes to this Plan will require the approval of the Procurement Officer.

B. Steps to Change the PEP

The following is a summary of the principal actions involved in changing the PEP for an evaluation period (actions may be modified to reflect different approval or notification levels).

Action Schedule

PEB members draft proposed revisions to PEP

Ongoing

PEP revisions submitted to CO for drafting

Ongoing

FDO reviews and concurs on all revisions to PEP

45 days prior to the start of period

PO reviews and approves significant revisions to the PEP

45 days prior to the start of period

FDO/CO notifies the Contractor regarding revisions to the PEP

30 days prior to the start of period

C. Method for Changing Plan Coverage

The method to be followed for changing the PEP is described below:

1. Personnel involved in the administration of the fee provisions of the contract are encouraged to recommend plan changes with a view toward changing management emphasis, motivating higher performance levels, or improving the award fee determination process. Recommended changes should be sent to the CO and COR for PEB consideration and drafting.

2. Prior to the end of each evaluation period, the PEB will submit its recommended changes, if any, applicable to the next evaluation period for approval by the FDO with appropriate comments and justification. If the changes are considered to be significant by the CO, then the revised plan must be sent to the Procurement Officer for approval after the FDO review/concurrence.

3. No later than thirty (30) calendar days before the beginning of each evaluation period, the CO will notify the Contractor in writing of any changes to be applied during the next period. If the Contractor is not provided with this notification, or if the notification is not provided within the agreed number of calendar days before the beginning of the next period, then the existing plan will continue in effect for the next evaluation period unless bi-lateral agreement is obtained.

VI. ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A

EVALUATION PERIODS AND MAXIMUM AVAILABLE AWARD FEE

Period Start Date End Date

Core

Maximum

Available

Award Fee

IDIQ Maximum

Available Award

Fee for Services

Tasks

IDIQ Maximum

Available Award

Fee for End

Item Tasks***

1 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

2 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

3 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

4 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

5 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

6 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

7 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

8 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

9 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

10 $TBD* $TBD** $TBD**

*The Core Maximum Available Award Fee will be allocated among the evaluation periods solely by the

Contracting Officer.

**Due to the IDIQ nature of this contract, the IDIQ Maximum Available Award Fee for Services and

End-Items Task Orders will be allocated among the evaluation periods solely by the Contracting Officer based upon the task orders issued and their periods of performance.

***The Maximum Available Award Fee for each individual End-Item Task Order shall be allocated, tracked and evaluated separately.

ATTACHMENT B

PERFORMANCE FACTORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

The performance factors to be evaluated are identified below. The evaluation criteria for each factor are specified in the indicated section of this attachment.

For Core and “Services” Task Orders:

Factor Weight Section

Technical Performance 40% B.1

Business Management Performance 25% B.3

Cost Control 25% B.4

Small Business Utilization Performance 10% B.6

For “End-Item” Task Orders:

Factor Weight Section

Technical Performance–End-Item 40% B.2

Business Management Performance 25% B.3

Cost Control–End-Item 25% B.5

Small Business Utilization Performance 10% B.6

Each individual End-Item Task Order shall be tracked (maximum available award fee, provisional payments, and interim earned) and evaluated/scored (interim and final) separately each evaluation period until the end-item task order is complete.

B.1 Technical Performance–Services Factor

Factor Weight: 40%

Description of Factor: For each evaluation period, the Contractor's technical performance will be assessed to determine if the work that has been performed meets the technical requirements of the Core Statement of Work (SOW) and issued Task Orders, including a variety of subfactors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

Subfactors Considered for Evaluation:

1. Technical Requirements – The Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to provide effective and efficient performance-based services to meet the technical requirements and schedules as described in the contract's Core requirement and task orders issued. These evaluations include a subjective assessment of the quality of technical performance provided, i.e., accuracy of Contractor performance in providing services; timely completion of key milestones and tasks identified; anticipating and resolving technical and schedule problems;

recovery from delays; and reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes. Also to be considered is the quality, completeness, and timeliness of technical documentation, reports, plans, and other required deliverables as outlined in the contract, Core SOW, and task orders issued. In addition, the extent to which these documents and deliverables must be returned for rework due to accuracy or completeness issues will also be considered. The

Government will make evaluations only on services that have been required/ordered.

2. Innovation – Innovations, systems transitions, and improvements in service delivery accomplished during the period will be evaluated. Innovative methods, techniques, or technologies and/or process improvements will be evaluated for their impact on effectiveness and efficiencies under the contract.

3. Personnel Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the ability to provide staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient performance. The Contractor will also be evaluated on the extent to which the Contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and efficient performance.

4. Communications – The Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to maintain good communication within its organization and with the Government. The Government will also evaluate if all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.

5. Subcontracting – The Contractor will be evaluated on the overall effectiveness of their subcontractors’ technical performance. This will include the level of cooperation between all parties and the Contractor's ability to meet technical milestones and ensure quality technical performance from subcontractors.

6. Thoroughness - The Contractor will be evaluated based on their ability to provide appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish overall requirements within schedule and budget.

7. Safety and Security - The Contractor will be evaluated based on their ability to provide a safe work environment, including inspections and processes for accident and incident files, mishap reporting, and training. A major breach of safety consists of an accident, incident, or exposure resulting in a fatality or mission failure; or in damage to equipment or property equal to or greater than $1 million; or in any "willful" or "repeat" violation cited by the

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) or by a state agency operating under an OSHA approved plan. Security is the condition of safeguarding against espionage, sabotage, crime (including computer crime), or attack. A major breach of security may occur on or off Government installations, but must be directly related to work on this contract. A major breach of security is an act or omission by the Contractor that results in compromise of classified information; illegal technology transfer; workplace violence resulting in criminal conviction; sabotage; compromise or denial of information technology services; equipment or property damage from vandalism greater than $250,000; or theft greater than $250,000.

The Contractor shall receive an overall adjectival rating of Unsatisfactory and not earn any

Award Fee in any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety or security.

8. Risk Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to identify risks; analyze their impact and prioritize them; develop and carry out plans for risk mitigation, acceptance, or other action; track risks and the implementation of mitigation plans; support informed, timely, and effective decisions to control risks and mitigation plans; and assure that risk information is communicated among all levels of a program/project.

Basis for Measuring Performance: Using the above subfactors and a standard of reasonable performance for them, the Performance Monitors will evaluate performance and prepare a

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory," as specified in Attachment C, Section C.1, Award Fee Grading Table for Each Performance Factor.

If an aspect of the Core requirement or a task order is performed with less than reasonable expected competence, the PMR will characterize it as having major or minor impacts on overall performance in related areas and will describe any extraordinary circumstances relating to the

Core/task performance. These impact statements will be used by the PEB to weigh the inclusion of specific issues in the award fee letter.

B.2 Technical Performance–End-Item Factor

Factor Weight: 40%

Description of Technical Performance–End-Item Factor: For each evaluation period, the

Contractor's technical performance on each individual End-Item Task Order will be assessed to determine if the work performed meets the technical requirements of the End-Item Task Order issued, including a variety of subfactors related to how the work was accomplished.

Subfactors 1 through 8 Combined Weight: 25%

1. Technical Requirements – The Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to successfully meet the functional requirements and performance specifications of each individual end-item task order issued. These evaluations include a subjective assessment of the quality of technical performance, i.e., quality of hardware and software end-item developments;

successful completion of key milestones and tasks identified; anticipating and resolving technical problems; recovery from delays; reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes; and managing internal work priorities across all functional areas in a manner that consistent with the priorities and goals of the program/project. Also to be considered is the quality, completeness, and accuracy of technical documentation, reports, plans, and other required deliverables as outlined in the contract and end-item task orders issued. In addition, the extent to which these documents and deliverables must be returned for rework due to accuracy or completeness issues will also be considered. The Government will only evaluate end-item task order performance that has been required/ordered.

2. Innovation – Innovations, systems transitions, and improvements in end-item performance accomplished during the period will be evaluated. Innovative methods, techniques, or technologies and/or process improvements will be evaluated for their impact on effectiveness and efficiencies under the contract.

3. Personnel Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the ability to provide staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient performance. The Contractor will also be evaluated on the extent to which the Contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and efficient performance.

4. Communications – The Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to maintain good communication within its organization and with the Government. The Government will also evaluate if all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.

5. Subcontracting – The Contractor will be evaluated on the overall effectiveness of their subcontractors’ technical performance. This will include the level of cooperation between all parties and the Contractor's ability to meet technical requirements and ensure quality technical performance from subcontractors.

6. Thoroughness - The Contractor will be evaluated based on their ability to provide appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish overall requirements within schedule and budget.

7. Safety and Security - The Contractor will be evaluated based on their ability to provide a safe work environment, including inspections and processes for accident and incident files, mishap reporting, and training. A major breach of safety consists of an accident, incident, or exposure resulting in a fatality or mission failure; or in damage to equipment or property equal to or greater than $1 million; or in any "willful" or "repeat" violation cited by the

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) or by a state agency operating under an OSHA approved plan.

Security is the condition of safeguarding against espionage, sabotage, crime (including computer crime), or attack. A major breach of security may occur on or off Government installations, but must be directly related to work on this contract. A major breach of security is an act or omission by the Contractor that results in compromise of classified information;

illegal technology transfer; workplace violence resulting in criminal conviction; sabotage;

compromise or denial of information technology services; equipment or property damage from vandalism greater than $250,000; or theft greater than $250,000.

Under each individual End-Item Task Order, the Contractor shall receive an overall adjectival rating of Unsatisfactory and not earn any Award Fee in any interim evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety. In addition, the overall maximum available award fee amount for that individual End-Item Task Order shall be reduced by the amount of the award fee available for the interim evaluation period in which the major breach of safety or security occurred.

8. Risk Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to identify risks; analyze their impact and prioritize them; develop and carry out plans for risk mitigation, acceptance, or other action; track risks and the implementation of mitigation plans; support informed, timely, and effective decisions to control risks and mitigation plans; and assure that risk information is communicated among all levels of a program/project.

9. Schedule Performance–End-Item Subfactor Weight: 15%

For each evaluation period, the amount of award fee earned in this subfactor will be based on the evaluation of the Contractor’s ability to fully meet specific end-item task order deliverable dates and milestone schedules.

Prior to the beginning of each evaluation period, the Contractor will be provided with the specific major milestones and delivery dates that the Contractor shall meet for each individual end-item task order. The Contractor’s schedule performance on each individual end-item task order will be assessed based on the following:

a. Ability to provide appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish end-item task order requirements within schedule and budget.

b. Ability to meet their internal schedules.

c. Quality and timeliness of technical reports and other required deliverables that have been requested/ordered.

d. Timely notification of schedule problems and recommended re-planning of work.

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory," or "Unsatisfactory," as

If an aspect of an end-item task order is performed with less than reasonable expected competence, the PMR will characterize it as having major or minor impacts on overall performance in related areas and will describe any extraordinary circumstances relating to the end-item task order performance. These impact statements will be used by the PEB to weigh the inclusion of specific issues in the award fee letter.

B.3 Business Management Performance Factor

Factor Weight: 25%

Description of Factor: Business Management is the manner in which the Contractor implements contract provisions. It includes personnel, inter-organizational interfaces, work flow, property and materials controls, and contract management. For each evaluation period, business management performance is broadly assessed in meeting the business management requirements for the overall contract, as indicated below:

Subfactors Considered for Evaluation:

1. Contract Administration and Compliance – The Contractor will be evaluated on the overall administration of the contract. This will include accuracy and timeliness of all reporting requirements, task plan submissions, subcontract consent documentation, and proposal submissions; overall compliance with all terms and conditions of the contract; and responsiveness to contract issues.

2. Contract Changes – The Contractor will be evaluated on responsiveness to requests for

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates, Not-To-Exceed (NTE) estimates, and change proposals/task plans. The evaluation will include the Contractor’s submission of timely, complete proposals and cooperation in negotiating changes.

3. Financial Reporting – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which NASA Form

533 Reports are accurate, timely and complete. The Contractor will also be evaluated on the extent to which financial systems are responsive to special analyses or quickly adjusted as a result of contract changes or program events.

4. Subcontract Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which subcontracts are managed to ensure compliance with subcontract terms and conditions, subcontract and cost performance reporting, and overall business management. This includes the ability to monitor and forecast business trends that may ultimately impact overall contract performance as well as timely incorporation of subcontract changes. Technical performance of subcontractors will be evaluated under Technical Performance factor.

5. Responsiveness of Upper Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which corporate staffing, strategies, policies, plans, procedures, and actions provide an effective context for the successful performance of the contract and its subcontracts. This includes effective and timely management actions in relationships or interfaces with all major team organizations including international aspects such as export control.

6. General Business Management - The Contractor will be evaluated on its local and corporate business management. This area will include an evaluation of the Contractor’s overall ability and effectiveness in responding to management issues, identifying and correcting problems, and timeliness and accuracy of data.

7. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) – The Contractor shall submit SF-100 entitled, "Employer Information Report EEO-1" to GSFC's Code 120 15 days prior to closing of the evaluation period. Information regarding completion of this report is available from http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.cfm. The Contractor shall provide the date and results of the most recent EEO compliance review. The Contractor shall describe the deficiencies (if known) from compliance reviews by OFCCP and what the http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.cfm

Contractor's goals are to correct these deficiencies. Discuss Contractor's efforts in community outreach, special events, awards, and other. Additionally, the Contractor shall provide data depicting terminations, promotions, and new hires by job category, number of employees, gender and race. An assessment will be performed on the EEO-1 form in regards to changes from last performance period and comparison to census data (Washington SMSA) as well as a review of all other data and Contractor efforts.

8. Government Property – The Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to manage (control, use, preserve, protect, repair, maintain and report) all Government property in their possession (Contractor-acquired, Government-furnished and/or Installation-accountable) in accordance with the property clauses in the contract.

9. Diversity and Inclusion – The Contractor will be evaluated on their commitment to inclusion by promoting teamwork, unity, respect, and integrity. Further, the Contractor will be evaluated on their commitment to diversity in recruitment.

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory" or “Unsatisfactory," as

For each applicable subfactor, the Performance Monitor report will characterize it as having major or minor impacts on overall performance in related areas and will describe any extraordinary circumstances relating to the Core/task performance. These impact statements will be used by the PEB to weigh the inclusion of specific issues in the Award Fee Letter.

B.4 Cost Control–Services Factor

Description of Factor: Cost Control is the manner in which the Contractor controls costs and manages financial resources. Cost Control includes the measure of the Contractor's success in controlling actual costs against the negotiated estimated cost of the Core requirement and all active task orders.

For the Core requirement, the cost control award fee shall be based on how the Contractor's (and subcontractors) actual accrued costs, contained in the monthly NASA Form 533s, compare to the negotiated estimated cost of the Core. An assessment of actual technical work accomplished will be considered in the determination of the cost. The analysis of negotiated cost control will also give consideration to changed support requirements, changed statutory requirements, and/or changes beyond the Contractor’s control, which impact Core costs.

For Task Orders, the cost control award fee shall be based on how the Contractor's (and subcontractors) actual accrued costs, contained in the monthly NASA Form 533s, compare to the negotiated estimated cost of all individual task orders issued or active within an evaluation period. An assessment of actual task technical work accomplished will be considered in the determination of the cost. The analysis of negotiated cost control will also give consideration to changed support requirements, changed statutory requirements, and/or changes beyond the

Contractor’s control, which impact task order costs.

The evaluation of cost control will utilize the following guidelines:

• Normally, the Contractor should be given an Unsatisfactory rating for cost control when there is a significant cost overrun within its control. However, the Contractor may receive a Satisfactory or higher rating for cost control if the overrun is insignificant. Award fee ratings should decrease sharply as the size of the overrun increases. In any evaluation of

Contractor overrun performance, the Government shall consider the reasons for the overrun and assess the extent and effectiveness of the Contractor's efforts to control or mitigate the overrun.

• The Contractor should normally be rewarded for an underrun within its control, up to the maximum award fee rating allocated for cost control, provided the adjectival rating for other award fee evaluation factors is Very Good or higher.

• The Contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated cost of the contract, but not to the maximum rating allocated for cost control, to the degree that the Contractor has prudently managed costs while meeting contract requirements. No award fee shall be given in this circumstance unless the average adjectival rating for all other award fee evaluation factors is Satisfactory or higher.

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory" or “Unsatisfactory," as

B.5 Cost Control–End-Item Factor

Description of Factor: Cost Control is the manner in which the Contractor controls costs and manages financial resources. Cost Control includes the measure of the Contractor's success in controlling actual costs against the negotiated estimated cost of each individual end-item task order.

The cost control award fee shall be based on how the Contractor's (and subcontractors) actual accrued cumulative costs plus the projected estimate-to-complete, contained in the monthly

NASA Form 533s, compares to the negotiated estimated cost of each individual end-item task order. Cost variances for the individual period will be evaluated in combination with the overall estimated cost variance at task completion. An assessment of actual technical work accomplished will be considered in the determination of the cost control. The analysis of negotiated cost control will also give consideration to changed support requirements, changed statutory requirements, and/or changes beyond the Contractor’s control, which impact each individual end-item task order costs.

The evaluation of cost control will utilize the following guidelines:

• Normally, the Contractor should be given an Unsatisfactory rating for cost control when there is a significant cost overrun within its control. However, the Contractor may receive a Satisfactory or higher rating for cost control if the overrun is insignificant. Award fee ratings should decrease sharply as the size of the overrun increases. In any evaluation of

Contractor overrun performance, the Government shall consider the reasons for the overrun and assess the extent and effectiveness of the Contractor's efforts to control or mitigate the overrun.

• The Contractor should normally be rewarded for an underrun within its control, up to the maximum award fee rating allocated for cost control, provided the adjectival rating for other award fee evaluation factors is Very Good or higher.

• The Contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated cost of the contract, but not to the maximum rating allocated for cost control, to the degree that the Contractor has prudently managed costs while meeting contract requirements. No award fee shall be given in this circumstance unless the average adjectival rating for all other award fee evaluation factors is Satisfactory or higher.

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory," or “Unsatisfactory," as

B.6 Small Business Utilization Performance Factor

Factor Weight: 10%

Description of Factor: Small Business Utilization is the manner in which the Contractor focuses management attention to subcontracting with Small, Women-Owned, Historically Black

Colleges and Universities, HUBZone, Veteran-Owned, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned, and

Small Disadvantaged business concerns to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with efficient contract performance.

The Contractor will be evaluated on their performance against the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan goals and their achievements in subcontracting high technology efforts.

The Contractor’s Mentor Protégé program will be assessed. The areas to be evaluated during each evaluation period include the following:

(a) Specific actions taken by the Contractor to increase the participation of protégés as subcontractors and/or suppliers;

(b) Specific actions taken by the Contractor to develop the technical and corporate administrative expertise of a protégé as defined in the agreement;

(c) To what extend the protégé has met the developmental objectives in the agreement;

and

(d) To what extent the firm’s participation in the Mentor Protégé Program resulted in the protégé receiving competitive contract(s) and/or subcontract(s) from private firms and agencies other than the mentor.

Performance Monitor Report (PMR). On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Satisfactory," or “Unsatisfactory," as

For each applicable subfactor, the Performance Monitor report will characterize it as having major or minor impacts on overall performance in related areas and will describe any extraordinary circumstances relating to the Core/task performance. These impact statements will be used by the PEB to weigh the inclusion of specific issues in the Award Fee Letter.

ATTACHMENT C

AWARD FEE GRADING TABLES

C.1 Award Fee Grading Table for Each Performance Factor

Adjectival

Rating

Range of

Performance Description

Excellent 100-91

Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Very Good 90-76

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Good 75-51

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Satisfactory 50

Contractor has met the significant award-fee criteria as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Unsatisfactory Less than 50

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

Any Performance Factor receiving a grade of “Unsatisfactory” (less than 50 points) will be assigned zero performance points for purposes of calculating the award fee amount for that

Performance Factor (includes cost control).

C.2 Overall Total Award Fee Grading Table

Adjectival

Rating

Range of

Performance Description

Excellent 100-91

Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, business 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 90-76

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, business 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 75-51

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, business 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 50

Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and business 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 Less than 50

Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, business 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.

Any factor receiving a adjectival rating of “Unsatisfactory” (less than 50) will be assigned a numerical score of Zero (0) for purposes of calculating the award fee amount to be earned

(includes cost control). Per FAR 16.401(e)(2), the Contractor shall not be paid any award fee when the total award fee rating in the aggregate is "Unsatisfactory" (less than 50).

An overall adjectival rating of “Unsatisfactory” shall be assigned for any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety or security; and the Contractor shall not earn any Award

Fee in an evaluation period in which the major breach of safety or security occurred.

As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated "Excellent" overall, the Contractor would typically be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and providing outstanding technical performance. If all of these criteria are not met, the PEB or FDO must include justification for an overall “Excellent” rating.

ATTACHMENT D

ACTIONS AND SCHEDULES FOR AWARD FEE DETERMINATIONS

The following is a summary of the principal actions involved in determining the award fee for the evaluation periods. The PEB will establish lists of subsidiary actions and schedules as necessary to meet the schedule for principal actions.

Action Schedule

PEB Chairperson and members appointed Prior to first period and ongoing

PEB Chairperson appoints Performance Monitors Prior to first period and ongoing and informs the Contractor

Monitors receive orientation and guidance Prior to first period

Performance Monitors assess performance Ongoing and discuss results with the Contractor

Performance Monitors submit performance Not later than (NLT) 15 reports to PEB days after end of period

PEB meets to discuss performance reports NLT 30 days after end of and prepare preliminary findings and period recommendations

PEB forwards findings and summary NLT 40 days after end of recommendations to FDO in the award period fee letter

The FDO reviews and signs the award fee NLT 45 days after end of letter. CO forwards the award fee letter and period executed contract modification to the Contractor

Award fee payment made to the Contractor NLT 60 days after end of period

ATTACHMENT E

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

FOR EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE

1. Performance Monitors will prepare outlines of their assessment plans and coordinate them with the PEB Chairperson. Upon agreement with the PEB Chairperson, the Performance

Monitor will discuss the plans with appropriate Contractor personnel to assure complete…