LMX PEP Draft.pdf

COST-PLUS-AWARD-FEE

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

FOR

GEOSTATIONARY EXTENDED OBSERVATIONS (GeoXO) Lightning Mapper (LMX)

HARDWARE CONTRACT NO. TBD

CONCURRENCE:

Cathy Richardson Fee Determination Official

APPROVAL:

Date

Mary V. Stevens Procurement Officer

Date

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

B.2 Business Management Performance

B.3 Cost Control

B.4 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 Evaluating and Monitoring Performance

I. INTRODUCTION

This Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) covers the administration of the award fee provisions of Contract XXX, dated XXX, with TBD. The purpose of this plan is to establish a general framework for evaluating the Contractor’s performance. Accordingly, all fee determinations shall 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).

The following matters, among others are covered:

A. The Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract provides for the development of two flight model (FM) LMXs. The contract also has two options, each of which provide for an additional FM LMX. The contractor is also required to provide spare parts and materials, ground and test support equipment, simulators, and pre-launch, launch and post-launch support. This contract contains NASA Far Supplement (NFS) Clause 1852.216-77, “Award Fee for End Item Contracts,” and the award fee determination each period is considered interim pending the final award fee determination made in the final evaluation period at contract completion.

B. The period of performance of this contract, including all options, is from the effective date of the contract through the fifteenth year of performance of the instrument that is launched last.

C. The estimated cost and maximum available award fee for performing this contract is specified in Clause B.2, “Estimated Cost and Award Fee” and Clause H.12, “Options”.

The maximum award fee percentage is TBD percent. The estimated cost and award fee are subject to equitable adjustments arising from changes or other contract modifications.

D. Provisional award fee payments will not be made under this contract pending the determination of the amount of fee earned for an evaluation period

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

F. Maximum available award fee will be divided among the following major pools:

Pool 1: Non-Recurring Effort (NRE) Pool 2: FM 1 Pool 3: FM 2 Pool 4: FM 3 (Option, if exercised) Pool 5: FM 4 (Option, if exercised) Pool 6: Post-Delivery Support (PDS)

Maximum available award fee for the on-orbit performance pool will be established upon the individual final evaluations and FDO determinations for Pools 1-5.

G. The maximum available award fee for each of pools 1-6 will be divided among technical performance (40%), business management performance (20%), cost control (30%), and small business utilization (10%). Fee will not be straight-lined throughout the periods.

Rather, fee will be spread to be concomitant with the magnitude and priority of activities throughout the program life.

H. There are four types of award fee evaluations: Interim, Final, PDS, and On-Orbit Performance.

I. Interim award fee evaluations for Pools 1-5 are based on technical, management, cost performance, and small business utilization in accordance with Attachment B.1 of this plan. Evaluations will include milestone performance, technical performance, project management, business management, cost control, and small business utilization. The score for each interim evaluation will determine the amount of fee that may be paid provisionally pending the final Pool 1-5 evaluations.

If the score for an interim evaluation is rated as Poor/Unsatisfactory, no provisional fee is paid and all fee for the period is reserved for the final evaluation. Fee that is paid provisionally is not considered to be earned by the contractor.

In accordance with G.2, Award Fee for End Item Contracts, no provisional fee will be made under this contract.

J. The FDO’s final award fee score and award fee dollar amount determination for each Pool 1-5 determines the amount of earned award fee to be finalized for that pool’s pre-on-orbit performance (70% final payment – not subject to payback) and to be made available and provisionally paid for on-orbit performance (30% provisional - subject to payback based on on-orbit performance evaluations in accordance with Attachment B.4). Final evaluations are conducted for FM Pools 2-5 after the successful Pre-Storage/Pre-Ship Review is completed (including closure of all action items and resolution of all liens) for each individual FM. For Pools 2-5, the 30% provisional on-orbit performance fee will be allocated to the respective FM on-orbit performance pool. Final evaluation of Pool 1 is conducted after the successful Pre-Storage/Pre-Ship Review for FM1 is completed (including closure of all action items and resolution of all liens). For Pool 1 the 30% provisional on-orbit performance fee will be allocated across all FMs on-orbit performance (currently in-orbit or to be launched).

The maximum award fee available to be paid for the final evaluation for each pool is the total award fee pool amount less any fee previously made available for special events or removed because of a major breach of safety or security in an interim evaluation period.

Each pool’s final evaluation determination supersedes the previous interim evaluations. If there are any differences between the pool’s cumulative previous provisional payments and the pool’s final evaluation award fee determination, those differences shall be reconciled in accordance with Contract Clause G.2, Award Fee for End Item Contracts, paragraph (c)(4).

The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to the evaluation for PDS or the evaluation for on-orbit performance. Each evaluation for PDS and on-orbit performance are considered to be a final evaluation.

K. Post-delivery support award fee evaluations will occur periodically to evaluate the contractor’s overall effort in preparing for and supporting the Government and other associate contractors in performing final Integration and Test (I&T), launch and Mission Operations activities of the respective FMs. Post-delivery support award fee evaluations are based on milestone performance, technical, management, and cost performance evaluation factors and criteria specified in Attachment B.3 Award fee evaluations for each period of PDS are stand-alone evaluations and are final. Unearned fee cannot be reserved for other purposes.

L. On-orbit evaluations are made based on on-orbit performance, which begins after launch.

On-orbit performance is evaluated against the evaluation criteria in Attachment B.4.

Provisionally paid on-orbit fee will be finalized with each on-orbit evaluation period. In the event of a launch failure or other catastrophic failure for which the Contractor is not responsible, in whole or in part, the associated on-orbit fee for that mission will be finalized in full. In the event of a catastrophic failure for which the Contractor is not responsible, in whole or in part, after the first award fee period, the FDO shall determine what portion, if any, of the on-orbit fee shall be finalized based upon previous on-orbit performance evaluations and any other data that indicates what the future performance would have been. In the event of such failures, if the Contractor is in part responsible, but not wholly responsible, the FDO shall determine what portion, if any, of the on-orbit fee shall be finalized. Each on-orbit evaluation is considered to be a final evaluation. The Contractor shall pay back to the Government any provisional payments of award fee for on-orbit performance that were not earned in the final FDO determination for that period, in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of Contract Clause G.2, Award Fee for End Item Contracts.

M. 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.

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

O. The unearned award fee in any given period shall not be carried forward or “rolled-over” into subsequent periods in accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(4).

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, Maryland.

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

3. Approve the use of a substitute Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) voting member, on an individual case-by-case basis.

B. Fee Determination Official (FDO)

The FDO for this contract is the Director, Flight Projects at GSFC in Greenbelt, MD. The

FDO may designate an Alternate FDO when appropriate.

The primary FDO responsibilities are:

1. Establish the 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 interim 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. At the end of each Pool 1-5, will determine the final total Award Fee earned for each pool based on overall performance and evaluation factors and criteria, which will supersede all previous interim provisional payments. 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 PEP as addressed in Section V, as appropriate.

6. On an exceptional basis, with the approval of the Procurement Officer, establish a specific FM Special Event(s) for an upcoming key program initiative. A FM Special Event shall not be established to correct a previous problem or poor performance.

7. 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

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. For the final evaluation of Pools 1-5, the PEB will prepare a summary of the overall performance and evaluation results for the entire performance period of each individual pool.

4. 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 the Project Manager (or Acting Project Manager) of the GeoXO Flight Project Office at GSFC in Greenbelt, MD. 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 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt Maryland.

The primary responsibilities of the COR are to:

1. Receive, analyze and 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.

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 Attachment E, or others as appropriate.

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

G. Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO will be located at the GSFC facility in Greenbelt, MD.

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

Interim Evaluation Performance Evaluation Criteria (Pools 1-5) B.1

Final Evaluation Performance Evaluation Criteria (Pools 1-5) B.2

Post-Delivery Support Performance Evaluation Criteria (Pool 6) B.3

On-Orbit Performance Evaluation Criteria B.4

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 Attachments B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4 and the grading tables in Attachment C.1 and C.2 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. The final fee determination shall reflect the Government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance against the terms and conditions of the contract requirements.

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. Interim Award Fee Evaluations for Pools 1-5

1. 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.

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

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

b. Appropriate orientation and guidance.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The CO shall notify the contractor in writing of the FDO's determination. The contractor may request a debriefing from the PEB Chairperson.

B. Final Evaluations of Pools 1-5

The true quality of Contractor performance cannot be measured until the end of the required performance for each award fee pool, therefore, only the last evaluation of Pools 1-5 is final. The final evaluation shall consider the Contractor’s performance over the entire performance period of each pool.

The method to be followed for monitoring, evaluating, and assessing contractor performance for each final evaluation of Pools 1-5 will follow the process established for the interim evaluations, except that the scope of the final evaluations will include total overall performance and shall be in accordance with the factors and criteria specified in Attachment B.2.

The interim payments are superseded by the award fee determination made in the final evaluation. The Government will then pay the contractor, or the contractor will refund to the Government, the difference between the final award fee determination and the cumulative interim fee evaluation payments in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of Contract Clause G.2, Award Fee for End Item Contracts. Per FAR 16.401(e)(2), no award fee will be paid to the contractor if the final evaluation is “Unsatisfactory.”

The FDO’s final award fee score and award fee dollar amount determination for each Pool 1-5 determines the amount of award fee to be finalized for that pool’s respective FM pre-on-orbit performance (70% final payment – not subject to payback) and to be made available and provisionally paid for that FM’s on-orbit performance (30% provisional -subject to payback based on on-orbit performance evaluations in accordance with Attachment B.4).

C. Post Delivery Support Evaluations of Pool 6 performance for Pool 6 will follow the process established for the Interim evaluations, except that the scope of the post-delivery evaluations will be in accordance with the factors and criteria specified in Attachment B.3 and each evaluation period’s FDO award fee determination is final.

D. On-Orbit Performance Evaluation

The maximum available award fee for on-orbit performance for each FM is 30% of the FDO’s final award fee amount determination of each respective FM. Award Fee earned for on-orbit performance for each FM is determined by a qualitative assessment of on-orbit performance and assigned a percentage score in accordance with the categories listed in Attachment B.4. A score less than 100% will be assigned in the event of any performance or functional degradation and, in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of Contract Clause G.2, Award Fee for End Item Contracts, the contractor shall pay back to the Government the provisionally paid on-orbit award fee amount not earned based on the assigned score’s fee reduction percentage specified in Attachment B.4.

The method to be followed for monitoring, evaluating, and assessing the performance of each FM on-orbit performance will follow the process established for the Interim evaluations, except that on-orbit performance will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in Attachment B.4 and the award fee score assigned for each evaluation period is final.

performance of each FM on-orbit performance evaluation will follow the process established for the Interim evaluations, with the following exceptions: 1) on-orbit performance will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria specified in Attachment B.4; 2) the award fee score assigned for each evaluation period is final; and 3) the evaluations are performed annually once in operational status. On-orbit storage in excess of 5 years counts as operations time.

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

INTERIM EVALUATIONS (POOL 1-5)

Period Start Date End Date Maximum Available Award Fee*

The amounts and dates for each period shall be maintained by the Contracting Officer.

FINAL EVALUATIONS (POOL 1-5)

The maximum amount of award fee available to be paid for the final evaluation of each Pool 1-6 is the maximum available award fee in the associated pool, less any fee previously allocated for special events or that was removed due to a major breach of safety or security during an interim evaluation period.

The amounts and dates for the final evaluation of each Pool 1-5 shall be maintained by the contracting officer.

POST DELIVERY SUPPORT (POOL 6)

Period Start Date End Date Maximum Available Award Fee*

The amounts and dates for each period shall be maintained by the Contracting Officer.

ON ORBIT PERFORMANCE

In accordance with paragraph IV.D of this plan, the on-orbit performance award fee pool for Pools 1-5 will be 30% of the FDO’s final award fee amount determination. Accordingly, 30% of the final Award Fee determination dollar amount associated with each FM (Pool 2-5) will become the maximum available award fee dollar amount included in the respective FM on-orbit performance fee pool. For Pool 1, 30% of the final Award Fee determination dollar amount associated with the pool will be allocated across all FMs on-orbit performance (currently in-orbit or to be launched). The schedule for on-orbit performance evaluations will be developed upon launch of each FM. The amounts and dates for each period shall be maintained by the contracting officer.

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.

Factor Weight

Technical Performance 40% Business Management Performance 20% Cost Control 30% Small Business Utilization Performance 10%

ATTACHMENT B.1

INTERIM EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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 Statement of Work (SOW) and Specifications, including a variety of subfactors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

Subfactors Considered for Evaluation:

Subfactors 1 through 11 Combined Weight: 25%

1. Assessment of overall technical performance including ability to successfully perform all activities and manage internal work priorities across all functional areas in a manner that is consistent with the priorities and goals of the program/project. 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; and reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes. Also to be considered is the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the technical documentation, reports, plans, and other required deliverables as outlined in the contract. 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.

2. Assessment of the ability to successfully meet the functional requirements and performance specifications of the contract.

3. Assessment 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.

4. Assessment of performance as measured against contract specific metrics, including the metrics contained the contractor’s internal plans.

5. Assessment of the overall responsiveness, performance, usability and stability of the systems throughout the contract period of performance.

6. Assessment of the Contractor’s ability to provide technical documentation and plans that are complete, accurate, and timely. This element includes formal data requirements deliverables, major interface documents, program schedules, internal plans, and ad hoc workarounds, as needed.

7. Assessment of the contractor’s 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 the program.

8. Assessment of the contractor’s ability to maintain good communication within its organization and the Government and whether all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.

9. Assessment of their ability to provide staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient support and the extent to which the contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and cost-efficient performance.

This element includes timely addition of staff to maintain the overall development schedule and the timely removal of staff to minimize program cost.

10. Assessment of the Contractor’s 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. 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 pool shall be reduced by the amount of the award fee available for the evaluation period in which the major breach occurred.

11. Assessment of the Contractor’s ability to provide adequate security. 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 interim evaluation period in which there is a major breach of security. In addition, the overall maximum available award fee pool shall be reduced by the amount of the fee available for the evaluation period in which the major breach occurred.

12. Schedule Performance 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 contract 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. The contractor’s schedule performance will be evaluated based on the following:

a. Assessment of the contractor’s ability to provide appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish overall requirements within schedule and budget.

b. Assessment of the contractor’s ability to meet their internal schedules.

c. Assessment of the quality and timeliness of technical reports and other required deliverables that have been requested/ordered as specified in the contract.

d. Assessment of the timely notification of schedule problems and recommended re-planning of work.

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

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Factor Weight: 20%

Description of Factor: Business Management is the manner in which the Contractor implements contract terms and conditions. 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:

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, 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. 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. 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 and Government-furnished) in accordance with the property clauses in the contract.

8. External Interfaces – The contractor will be evaluated on their response to and support of all external interfaces including, but not limited to, the following: launch vehicle and processing facilities, spacecraft contractor and facilities, and spacecraft and Government ground systems and interfaces.

performance for them, the Performance Monitors will evaluate performance and prepare a 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.

For each applicable subfactor, 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 performance of the contract. These impact statements will be used by the PEB to weigh the inclusion of specific issues in the Award Fee Letter.

COST CONTROL FACTOR

Factor Weight: 30%

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 contract.

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 integrated performance management reports, compares to the negotiated estimated cost of the contract. Cost variances for the individual period will be evaluated in combination with the overall estimated cost variance at contract 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 anticipated but unreported overruns/underruns, changed requirements, un-definitized contract actions, changed statutory requirements, and/or other changes that are within or beyond the contractor's control that impact contract costs. Each cost element will be analyzed to determine its effect on total 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.

On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very

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 evaluation should consider both goals as a percentage of subcontracting dollars as well as a percentage of the total contract value.

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.

On the basis of those evaluations, each PMR will be assigned a rating of "Excellent," "Very 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 B.2

FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

The final technical performance will consider the interim performance in the aggregate, the final product performance and the impact on the program as a whole.

• Criteria will be the same as for the interim evaluations (Attachment III-B.1, Technical

Performance Factor)

• Science and reliability performance in the instrument based on testing and analysis will be considered

• Overall schedule performance and impact, if any, on overall program schedule (e.g.

launch date) will be considered

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

• Criteria will be the same as for the interim evaluations (Attachment III-B.1, Business

Management Performance Factor)

• Consideration will be given to the effectiveness of management actions to achieve performance during the course of instrument development

• Consideration will be given to trends in overall management performance

COST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

• Criteria will be the same as for the interim evaluations (Attachment III-B.1 Cost Performance

Factor)

SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

• Criteria will be the same as for the interim evaluations (Attachment III-B.1 Small Business

Utilization Evaluation Performance Factor)

ATTACHMENT B.3

POST DELIVERY SUPPORT EVALUATION CRITERIA

The PDS activities involve supporting the activities of the Government and various associate contractors in preparing for and executing the launch of the GeoXO Observatory. These activities are led by either the Government, the Spacecraft provider or the Ground System provider. The Instrument provider serves in a secondary although vital capacity in the successful completion of the mission. As such, the contractor does not control the work content or schedule which may drive unplanned changes in resource requirements.

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 SOW and Specifications, including a variety of subfactors related to how the work was accomplished, as indicated below:

Subfactors 1 through 11 Combined Weight: 25%

1. Assessment of overall technical performance including ability to successfully perform all activities and manage internal work priorities across all functional areas in a manner that is consistent with the priorities and goals of the program/project. 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; and reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes. Also to be considered is the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the technical documentation, reports, plans, and other required deliverables as outlined in the contract. 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.

2. Assessment of the ability to successfully meet the functional requirements and performance specifications of the contract.

3. Assessment 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.

4. Assessment of performance as measured against contract specific metrics, including the metrics contained the contractor’s internal plans.

5. Assessment of the overall responsiveness, performance, usability and stability of the systems throughout the contract period of performance.

6. Assessment of the contractor’s ability to provide technical documentation and plans that are complete, accurate, and timely. This element includes formal data requirements deliverables, major interface documents, program schedules, internal plans, and ad hoc workarounds, as needed.

7. Assessment of the contractor’s 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 the program.

8. Assessment of the contractor’s ability to maintain good communication within its organization and the Government and whether all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.

9. Assessment of their ability to provide staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient support and the extent to which the contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and cost-efficient performance.

This element includes timely addition of staff to maintain the overall development schedule and the timely removal of staff to minimize program cost.

10. Assessment of the contractor’s 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. 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.