CMOE II RFP Exhibit P - Award Fee Evaluation Plan_Amendment_2.pdf

80LARC23R0001 Exhibit P – Award Fee Evaluation Plan

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

for

CENTER MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS, AND ENGINEERING

II (CMOE II)

80LARC23R0001

APPROVAL:

Fee Determination Official Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Organizational Structure and Responsibilities for Award Fee Administration

3. Evaluation Requirements and Criteria

4. Method for Determining Award Fee

5. Award Fee Grading Table

6. Actions and Schedules for Award Fee Determinations

7. Changing the Award Fee Evaluation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Award Fee Evaluation Plan (hereafter referred to as “Plan”) is the basis for evaluation of the Contractor’s performance on the CMOE II Contract 80LARC23R0001 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. This Plan is unilaterally established by the Government and may be revised at any time to redirect emphasis in accordance with Section 7 of this Plan.

1.2. The primary objective of the CMOE II contract is to provide NASA LaRC with a comprehensive and cohesive maintenance, operations, and engineering program and services to ensure facilities are fully operational and safe for NASA LaRC to carry out its mission now and in the future. The contract requirements consist of core support (Core) and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) requirements. The Core consists of sustaining work in maintenance, operations, and engineering (CLINs 10X, 20X, and 30X). Under the IDIQ requirements, task orders (TOs) will be issued to accommodate uncertainty and potential additional work within the scope of the contract (CLINs 401 and 402).

1.3. This contract contains Clause G.2, Award Fee for Service Contracts (1852.216-76).

This Clause, along with the award fee requirements in FAR 16.4 and NFS 1816.405-2, provides the overarching requirements for the Award Fee evaluation process for the CMOE II contract.

1.4. The estimated cost and maximum available award fee for performing this contract is specified in Clauses B.4, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, B.5, Maximum IDIQ Value, and B.6, Total Contract Value. The evaluation periods and maximum award fee available per evaluation period is specified in Clause G.12, Award Fee Availability Schedule. The estimated cost and award fee are subject to adjustments arising from changes or other contract modifications.

1.5. The Fee Determination Official (FDO) will determine the award fee payable for each evaluation period in accordance with this plan. The determination of the award fee earned is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the government.

1.6. The unearned award fee in any given period will not be carried forward or “rolled-over” into subsequent periods.

2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AWARD FEE

ADMINISTRATION

The following organizational structure and responsibilities are established for administering the award fee provisions of the contract.

2.1. FDO. The FDO is TBD. The primary FDO responsibilities are:

2.1.1. Establish the Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB) and appoint the voting members of the AFEB by memorandum.

2.1.2. Review recommendations of the AFEB, consider all other pertinent data, and

Contractor self-assessment, if provided.

2.1.3. Determine the amount of award fee earned and payable for each evaluation period as addressed in Section 4 of this Plan 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 AFEB recommendation and FDO determination must be justified and documented in the official contract file.

2.1.4. Sign the Award Fee Determination Letter for the evaluation period, specifying the amount of award fee determined and the basis for that determination.

2.1.5. Approve the Plan and changes as addressed in Section 7 of this Plan.

2.1.6. The FDO may designate an Alternate FDO when appropriate.

2.2. AFEB Chairperson. The AFEB Chairperson is the Director of the LaRC Center

Operations Directorate (COD). The primary responsibilities of the AFEB Chairperson are to:

2.2.1. Be responsible for the overall functioning of the AFEB.

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

2.2.3. Serve as a voting member on the AFEB.

2.2.4. Request and obtain performance information from other organizations or personnel involved in monitoring and assessing Contractor performance, as appropriate.

2.2.5. Meet with the Contractor during the evaluation period to provide preliminary performance feedback, as necessary.

2.2.6. Participate in the evaluation of Contractor performance.

2.2.7. Conduct briefing to the FDO on the AFEB’s evaluation of the Contractor’s overall performance and recommend the award fee rating.

2.2.8. Conduct debriefs to Contractor providing the results of the award fee evaluation.

2.2.9. Finalize and approve the AFEB Evaluation Report.

2.2.10. The AFEB Chairperson may designate an Alternate Chairperson when appropriate.

2.3. AFEB. The AFEB members will be appointed by the FDO. An Office of Procurement management representative or Senior Contracting Representative shall be a permanent voting member of the AFEB. The CMOE Government Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) shall be permanent non-voting members of the AFEB. If a member of the AFEB is absent, a person with similar qualifications may be substituted with the approval of the AFEB Chairperson. The primary responsibilities of the AFEB are to:

2.3.1. Conduct evaluations of Contractor performance based upon the requirements of this Plan, COR and CO input, and all other information from pertinent sources on the Contractor’s performance for the award fee period.

2.3.2. Determine the recommended award fee rating to be presented to the FDO for each award fee evaluation period.

2.3.3. Finalize and approve the AFEB Evaluation Report.

2.3.4. Recommend changes to this Plan as addressed in Section 7 of this Plan.

2.4. COR. The primary responsibilities of the COR are to:

2.4.1. Serve as a permanent non-voting member on the AFEB.

2.4.2. Provide Performance Monitors with appropriate award fee performance instructions and guidance.

2.4.3. Monitor, evaluate, and assess Contractor performance.

2.4.4. Prepare the AFEB Evaluation Report.

2.4.5. Attend all AFEB meetings, record the findings of the AFEB, and assist the CO in preparing the Award Fee Determination Letter for the FDO’s review and signature.

2.4.6. Recommend changes to this Plan as addressed in Section 7 of this Plan.

2.5. CO/Contract Specialist. The primary responsibilities of the CO/Contract Specialist are to:

2.5.1. Advise the AFEB, and others as necessary, on Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) rating standards, policies, and procedures and ensure the consistent application of Agency policy in these matters.

2.5.2. Monitor, evaluate, assess, and document the Contractor’s performance.

2.5.3. Attend all AFEB meetings and assist the COR in preparing the Award Fee

Determination Letter for the FDO’s review and signature.

2.5.4. Transmit the signed FDO Award Fee Determination Letter to the Contractor.

2.5.5. Manage all contractual requirements and changes associated with the Award

Fee process.

2.5.6. Recommend changes to this Plan and notify the Contractor in writing of any approved changes to this Plan as addressed in Section 7 of this Plan.

2.6. Performance Monitors. The Deputy CORs will serve as Performance Monitors

(PMs). The primary responsibilities of the PMs are to:

2.6.1. Comply with the award fee evaluation process as outlined in this Plan as well as any specific instructions from the CO, COR, or AFEB Chairperson.

2.6.2. Monitor, evaluate, and assess contractor performance in assigned functional areas.

2.6.3. Prepare a Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for their assigned functional area that serves as the basis for preparation of the AFEB Evaluation Report by the COR for the AFEB and others as appropriate.

2.6.4. Recommend changes to this Plan as addressed in Section 7 of this Plan.

2.7. AFEB Recorder. An AFEB member may perform this position in conjunction with other functions on the AFEB. The primary responsibilities of the AFEB Recorder are to:

2.7.1. Coordinate administrative actions required by the AFEB and the FDO.

2.7.2. Receive, process, and distribute evaluation reports from all required sources.

2.7.3. Schedule and assist with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings and the AFEB meetings.

2.7.4. Accomplish all other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria and associated weights are identified below. The Contractor’s performance will be assessed for each factor using the adjective ratings described in Section 5.

Evaluation Criteria

Weight

Section

Technical Performance (including Safety, Health, and Environmental) 35% 3.1.

Cost Control 25% 3.2.

Management Performance 20% 3.3.

Small Business Participation 10% 3.4.

Areas of Special Emphasis 10% 3.5.

The evaluation criteria contained herein will be used for evaluation of performance under the both the Core and IDIQ support areas. For each evaluation period, the Contractor's performance will be assessed to determine if the work that has been performed meets contract’s performance requirements and the following evaluation criteria:

3.1. Technical Performance

General Performance: The Government will assess the Contractor’s performance in providing safe, effective, and efficient operations, maintenance, and engineering support to meet technical requirements as described in the Statement of Work (SOW), Task Orders (TOs) and the Annual Service Plan. The Government will assess the Contractor’s performance in the following areas:

1. Contractor’s performance in maximizing research and institutional facility operational readiness, reliability, and utilization.

2. Contractor’s utilization of workforce across the contract and within and among LaRC facilities to safely achieve efficiency and effectiveness.

3. Contractor’s performance in providing creative solutions to fully utilize facilities and support Government activities to obtain new business/alternative utilization techniques, especially for underutilized facilities.

4. Contractor’s effective technical planning and integration of projects with Center revitalization efforts and efficient project engineering and facilities operation and maintenance management.

5. Contractor’s full compliance with Center and Agency policies and guidelines.

6. Contractor’s performance in identifying risks; analyzing their impact and prioritizing them;

developing and carrying out plans for risk mitigation, acceptance, or other action;

tracking risks and the implementation of effective mitigation plans; supporting informed, timely, and effective decisions to control risks and mitigation plans; and assuring that risk information is communicated among all levels of a program/project.

Schedule Performance: The Government will assess the Contractor’s performance in successfully completing work and meeting requirements in accordance with the milestones and delivery dates established in the contract and identified in TOs. This includes early delivery, attaining or exceeding milestones or meeting rapid response/urgent requirements which result in notable positive impact on requirements. The Government will also assess the Contractor’s identification of potential schedule problems early, project the impact of near-term schedule adjustments on accomplishment of overall work and effectiveness of the Contractor’s schedule recovery plans.

Enhancements, Innovations, and Approaches to Provide Best Value: The Government will assess the Contractor’s achievement towards the enhancements, innovations, and approaches to provide the best value of resources. The Government will also assess the effectiveness and impact of additional process improvements, innovative methods, techniques, and/or technologies utilized by the Contractor in meeting the contract requirements, supporting the Center’s revitalization efforts, improving energy efficiency, and improving quality, reliability, and productivity in operations, maintenance, and engineering.

Safety, Health, and Environmental: The Government will assess the effectiveness of the Contractor’s safety, health, and environmental program and ability to proactively provide a safe work environment, including the Contractor’s progress towards achieving zero mishaps in the workplace. The Government will assess the overall effectiveness of the Contractor’s safety, health, and environmental performance based on its compliance with applicable safety, health, and environmental laws, regulations, policies, requirements, and permits; mishap incident rates and severity rates, including assessments to determine if incidents represent isolated instances or are symptomatic of a Contractor deficiency; property damage; environmental discharges and performance indicators; Notices of Violations (NOVs) and non-compliance reports; third party reviews or audits; and LaRC facility audits. The Government will also assess the Contractor’s approach to enhance the success of the Center’s safety, health, and environmental programs.

NOTE: The Contractor shall receive an overall total award fee rating of Unsatisfactory for any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety or security, as defined in 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security.

Center Transformation: The Government will assess the effectiveness to advance technology use throughout the center to a) lower costs, b) improve quality c) improve efficiencies, d) integrate and improve existing civil service/contractor data systems, e) maintain schedules and

f) aid in workload oversight and management

3.2. Cost Control

Cost control is the way the Contractor controls costs and manages financial resources for the Core and all CPAF TOs. Cost control includes the measure of the Contractor's success in controlling actual direct and indirect costs against the negotiated estimated cost of the contract or those costs contained in the NASA approved Annual Service Plan. Cost Control will be evaluated in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1816.405-274(e) and the criteria contained herein.

Cost control will be measured on how the Contractor's actual incurred costs contained in the monthly NASA Form 533s compare to the negotiated estimated cost of the contract and/or those costs contained in the NASA approved Annual Service Plan. The Government will assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract costs and/or costs contained in the Annual Service Plan, including monthly estimating variances against the contract goal of ±5% and indirect rate analysis. An assessment of actual technical work accomplished will be considered in the determination of the cost control, including economies in the use of all resources, productivity achieved for the cost incurred, and the cost effectiveness of the services provided. The analysis of cost control will also consider changed support requirements, changed statutory requirements, and/or changes beyond the Contractor’s control, which impact contract/annual service plan costs. The Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to provide clear, accurate, and timely financial reports and its ability to identify potential problems and implement corrective action which minimizes cost impact.

3.3. Management Performance

Management performance is the way the Contractor plans, estimates, organizes, and controls all work under the contract and implements contract requirements. It includes personnel, inter-organizational interfaces, workflow, property and materials controls, and overall effectiveness of technical and business/contract management. Management performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

Overall Management: The Government will assess the Contractor’s overall management of the contract, integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, as well as the successful implementation, utilization, and responsiveness of the Electronic Contract Management System (ECMS), including the accuracy of the data contained therein. This will include the Contractor’s implementation of the Annual Service Plan; overall ability and effectiveness in responding to management issues; recognition, resolution and prevention of problems; accuracy and timeliness of all reporting requirements; timeliness and completeness of proposal submissions; and the Contractor’s cooperation and effective working relationships with other Contractors and Government personnel to ensure integrated efficiency, effective use of resources and response to emergencies and other unexpected situations.

Requirement Dynamics: The Government will assess the extent to which the Contractor adapts to changing missions, requirements, priorities, workloads, and funding fluctuations. The Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to maintain necessary skills during periods that require immediate ramp-up, ramp-down, and/or reallocation of resources, and its management of tasks when the knowledge base does not exist in the current workforce. The Government will assess the extent to which appropriate staffing, strategies, policies, plans, procedures, and actions provide an effective context for the successful performance of the contract.

Contract Compliance: The Government will assess the Contractor’s overall compliance with terms and conditions of the contract, and responsiveness to contract issues including areas such as the Contractor’s overall recognition, mitigation and management of Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest; ability to manage (control, use, preserve, protect, repair, maintain and report) all Government property in its possession in accordance with the property clauses in the contract; responsiveness to requests for rough orders of magnitude (ROMs) estimates, not to exceed (NTE), and change proposals (including the Contractor’s submission of timely, complete proposals and cooperation in negotiating changes); and soundness of all management systems (e.g., accounting, purchasing, subcontracting, estimating, scheduling).

3.4. Small Business Participation

The effectiveness of the Contractor’s overall small business subcontracting program will be evaluated based on the following:

A. Achievement towards subcontracting with the entities designated in the subcontracting plan to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with efficient contract performance with attention given not to significantly increase the Government’s cost or seriously impede the attainment of acquisition objectives.

B. The effectiveness of the overall small business subcontracting program will be evaluated against the Contractor’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Exhibit K) and the corresponding Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) data submission.

3.5. Areas of Special Emphasis

The Areas of Special Emphasis factor is used to reflect specific areas in which the Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance. This factor may be revised throughout the life of the contract. Special areas of emphasis will be provided to the Contractor via Letters of Special Emphasis, signed by the AFEB Chairperson, which will state the areas that will require emphasis the next evaluation period. If there is no Area of Special Emphasis for an award fee period, the associated percentage will be redistributed to one or all the other evaluation criteria by the FDO and in accordance with Section 7 of this Plan.

4. METHOD FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

A determination of the award fee earned for each evaluation period will be made by the FDO.

All fee determinations will reflect the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s progress and performance in meeting contract requirements and objectives. The evaluation process will encompass actual performance and the conditions under which it was achieved. Performance will be considered considering the priorities and workload existing during the evaluation period, taking into consideration factors beyond the Contractor’s control, which either enhanced or detracted from performance. Although award fee contracts are subjective in nature, the Government will 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 each evaluation period, as well as for determining the award fee earned, is described below. Section 6 summarizes the principal actions and schedules involved.

4.1 The COR and PMs will oversee performance in each of the functional areas reflected in the SOW, in addition to safety, health, and environmental and the areas of special emphasis for the evaluation period. These individuals will obtain performance information for their functional area based on the surveillance method and metrics detailed in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

4.2 The COR will ensure that each PM member receives the following:

a. A copy of this plan and any changes made in accordance with Section 7.

b. Appropriate orientation and guidance.

c. Specific instructions applicable to each assigned performance area.

4.3 The COR, CO/Contract Specialist, and PMs will evaluate and assess Contractor performance and discuss the results with the Contractor management during regularly scheduled performance status meetings. The regularly scheduled performance status meetings will be conducted between appropriate Government oversight personnel and Contractor management personnel to discuss all significant aspects of contract performance. These discussions will address strong and weak points, significant issues, problems and concerns, and any other matters deemed pertinent to effective contract performance. This affords the Contractor an opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings regarding areas of unsatisfactory performance and to rectify or resolve deficiencies in a timely manner. The assessments will be conducted in an open, objective, and cooperative manner so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. This will ensure that both the Government representatives and the Contractor receive accurate and complete information from which to prepare assessments and to plan improvements in performance. Positive performance accomplishments will be emphasized just as readily as negative ones and extraordinary circumstances will be noted in reports.

4.4 PM members will prepare and submit individual PMRs for each function contained within the PM member’s functional area. These reports will address and fully substantiate strong and weak points and all significant issues, problems, and concerns that should be brought to the attention of the AFEB for the evaluation period.

4.5 The CO/Contract Specialist will simultaneously prepare a report for the AFEB that addresses all aspects of cost control, business management, small business participation and other pertinent matters.

4.6 The Contractor may prepare and submit a written self-evaluation that addresses perceived strengths and weaknesses (including their resolution), significant issues, accomplishments, problems, and concerns applicable to the period being evaluated.

The self-evaluation shall be limited to 25 pages.

4.7 The COR will consider the input reflected in the individual PMRs and the CO/Contract Specialist report and compile an AFEB Evaluation Report for each evaluation period.

The AFEB Evaluation Report shall address all evaluation areas defined in Section 3 of this Plan. In addition, the Contractor’s self-evaluation will be included with the Report.

This Report may also reflect personal observations and dialogue with appropriate Government and Contractor personnel as necessary.

4.8 The CO/Contract Specialist may send a copy of the preliminary AFEB Evaluation

Report to the Contractor to provide the Contractor an opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation. The preliminary AFEB Evaluation Report provided to the Contractor should not include an actual rating. The preliminary AFEB Evaluation Report is representative of the CO/Contract Specialist, COR, and PM team input only and does not include input from the AFEB.

4.9 After the end of each evaluation period, the AFEB will meet to consider all the performance information provided by the CO/Contract Specialist, COR, and PM team as documented in the AFEB Evaluation Report. The AFEB Chairperson shall determine whether enough AFEB voting members are present to constitute a quorum.

The relevant details of the AFEB Evaluation Report will be discussed and presented as appropriate. The CO/Contract Specialist, COR, and PM team and other Government personnel, as appropriate, will attend the meeting and provide any necessary details of the Contractor’s performance. At some point during the meeting, the Contractor will be invited to speak (limited to 30 minutes) at the meeting to address its performance during the evaluation period under consideration. The AFEB may ask questions to clarify any relevant issues with the Contractor. The Contractor will then be excused from the meeting. The AFEB will determine the score and adjective ratings.

4.10 During the AFEB meeting, the AFEB will consider the AFEB Evaluation Report and Contractor’s input and finalize its findings and recommendations for the AFEB Evaluation Report and FDO. The COR will then prepare the final AFEB package for the evaluation period for approval of the AFEB Chairperson.

4.11 The AFEB Chairperson will brief summary findings contained in the AFEB Evaluation Report and provide recommendation to the FDO. The FDO considers the recommendations of the AFEB Chairperson, information provided by the Contractor, if any, and any other pertinent information in determining the amount of the award fee to be earned for the period. The FDO's determination of the amount of award fee earned will be stated in the Award Fee Determination Letter, which will be provided to the Contractor by the CO/Contract Specialist.

4.12 The AFEB Chairperson, COR, and CO/Contract Specialist will meet with the contractor to discuss the AFEB’s findings and recommendations as approved by the FDO. As requested by the AFEB Chairperson, the AFEB, the CO/Contract Specialist, COR, and PM team, and other personnel involved in performance evaluation may attend the debriefing meeting and participate as necessary. The Contractor will be notified of the AFEB evaluation, rating, and score for each evaluation period.

5. AWARD FEE GRADING TABLE

The Government will use the grading and scoring method below to translate evaluation findings into recommended award fee ratings. The grading and scoring method are not intended to be a substitute for exercising judgment in the award fee determination process. All grading is at the discretion of the AFEB based on input from the COR, CO, DCORs, PMs, and the Contractor’s self-report, if submitted.

Based on Table 16-1 from FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv)).

Award Fee Adjective

Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100%

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

Very Good 76%-90%

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan

Good 51%-75%

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee 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 No Greater than 50%

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

Unsatisfactory 0%

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

The Contractor shall receive an overall fee rating of Unsatisfactory for any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety or security, as defined in 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security.

** No award fee shall be earned for an unsatisfactory rating**

6. 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 AFEB Chairperson, in coordination with the COR and CO/Contract Specialist, will establish lists of subsidiary actions and schedules as necessary to meet the schedule for principal actions.

# Action Schedule 1 AFEB Chairperson and members appointed Prior to first evaluation period and ongoing

2 COR and PMs receive Award Fee guidance from CO/Contract Specialist

Prior to first evaluation period and ongoing

3 COR, CO/Contract Specialist, and PMs assess performance and discuss results with Contractor Ongoing

4 Areas of Special Emphasis provided to Contractor

Not Later Than (NLT) 14 calendar days prior to start of affected evaluation period or during the period if mutually agreed to

5 Contractor submits self-assessment report to COR and CO/Contract Specialist

NLT 14 calendar days after end of each evaluation period

6 PMs submit PMR input to COR NLT 21 calendar days after end of each evaluation period

7 CO/Contract Specialist submit input to COR NLT 21 calendar days after end of each evaluation period

8 COR consolidates PM and CO input into AFEB Evaluation Report

NLT 35 calendar days after end of period

9 AFEB meets to discuss performance reports and prepare preliminary findings and recommendations

NLT 49 calendar days after end of period

10 AFEB Chairperson briefs findings and summary recommendations to FDO

NLT 63 calendar days after end of period

FDO determines overall rating/earned award fee amount and signs Award Fee Determination Letter.

CO processes all contractual actions, including providing Letter to Contractor.

NLT 70 calendar days after end of period

12 Award fee payment made to the Contractor NLT 84 calendar days after end of period

7. CHANGING THE AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

7.1. Unilateral and Mutual Agreement 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 a notice to the Contractor in writing at least 30 calendar days prior to the start of the relevant evaluation period. Changes may also be made to this Plan at any time during an evaluation period, if mutually agreed to by both parties.

7.2. Steps to Change the Plan

The following is a summary of the principal actions involved in changing the Plan for an evaluation period.

7.3. Method for Changing Plan: The method to be followed for changing the Plan is described below:

7.3.1. 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/Contract Specialist and COR for AFEB consideration.

7.3.2. Prior to the end of each evaluation period, the AFEB members, COR, PMs, CO/Contract Specialist, and Contractor will submit its recommended changes to the AFEB Chairperson, if any, applicable to the next evaluation period for approval by the AFEB Chairperson with appropriate comments and justification.

7.3.3. No later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the beginning of each evaluation period, the CO/Contract Specialist will notify the Contractor in writing of any AFEB Chairperson approved 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 days before the beginning of the next period, then the existing plan will continue in effect for the next evaluation period unless bilateral agreement is obtained.

Action Schedule AFEB members, COR, PMs, CO/Contract Specialist, or Contractor propose revisions to Plan Ongoing

All Plan revisions submitted to CO/Contract Specialist for drafting Ongoing

FDO reviews and concurs on revisions to Plan NLT 30 calendar days prior to the start of period (unless by mutual agreement during period)

CO/Contract Specialist notifies the Contractor regarding revisions to the Plan

NLT 30 calendar days prior to the start of period (unless by mutual agreement during period)