Addendum to 52.212-4 Para X -Award Term Plan DRAFT.pdf

Addition to 52.212-4

Paragraph (X): AWARD TERM OPTIONS

(Applicable throughout the effective period of the contract.)

1. Long term contracts can provide benefits to both the contractor and the government. Award term options provide a method of extending the duration of a contract at the sole discretion of the government to retain the services of an above average performing contractor. While such performance benefits the government in the execution of the mission, it can also benefit the contractor with a longer contract period. Award term options are not an obligation by the government to extend the contract, they are simply additional options added to the awarded base and original option periods. Exercising of an award term option is based on the government having a need to continue the service and appropriation of funds. At any time, the government may terminate the contract for cause or convenience with no obligation for unexercised award term option years.

2. The contractor may be extended by up to 3 award-term option years based on performance, in addition to the base year and six 1-year options. The exercise of award-term option years is contingent upon the contractor maintaining an above satisfactory rating as described in Annex 3 during evaluation periods, contingent upon a continuing requirement, and subject to the availability of funding. (NOTE: all references to “annex” refer to the annexes in the

Award Term Plan.

a. Monitoring of Performance. The contractor’s performance will be continually monitored by the Program

Manager, Contracting Officer’s Representative, the Contracting Officer, and other authorized Government

Representatives to ensure the contractor complies with the terms and conditions of the contract and to measure performance in accordance with the Award-term Plan.

b. Award-term Plan. The evaluation periods and available award-term periods (Annex 2), evaluation criteria and grading tables (Annex 3), and individual weight of each evaluation criteria (Annex 4) are specified in the award-term plan. The Award-term Plan identifies the evaluation criteria that will be utilized to grade the contractor during the identified performance periods. Incorporation of an Award-term Plan enables the contractor to plan and execute contract requirements based on the objectives the 6 Civil Engineer Squadron considers critical to execution of the mission. The potential of 3 award-term years is advantageous to both the government and the contractor in that the government benefits from continuity of services by a motivated and high-performing contractor and the contractor retains government business.

c. Modification of Award-term Plan. Bilateral changes may be made to the award-term plan during contract performance as specified in the plan. If agreement cannot be reached on changes, the latest version of the award-term plan remains in effect.

d. Self-evaluation. Via email, the contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer within the timelines specified in the Award-term Plan a brief written self-evaluation. This self-evaluation shall not exceed ten (10), 10-pitched, single-spaced pages. The contractor is responsible for ensuring the Contracting Officer receives the self-evaluation on time. The contractor's self-evaluation will be used by the Award-term Review Board, along with the government's evaluation, to evaluate the contractor’s performance during the evaluation period and to make a recommendation to the Term Determining Official (TDO) on whether an award-term year should be approved.

e. Award-term Extension. The TDO makes decisions regarding the length of the award term, if any; the methodology used to calculate the award term; and the nature and success of the contractor’s performance. These decisions are final. Award term options shall be exercised in accordance with clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the

Term of the Contract. The total award length including award-term years under this clause will not exceed 10 years

(excluding any extensions under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The government reserves the right to cancel the award term option if the government issues a termination for cause or convenience; or Congress does not appropriate funds.

(End of Notice)

Addition to 52.212-4

Paragraph (X): AWARD-TERM OPTION PLAN

DRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION

a. This award-term plan outlines the procedures/guidelines for evaluation of the contractor’s performance during an identified evaluation period. The Award Term Review Board (ATRB) Chairperson will forward written evaluations of the contractor’s performance to the Term Determining Official (TDO). Any award term option will be granted for a 12-month period. However, the performance period of an award term option may be adjusted upon execution of a termination for cause or convenience. The government envisions a maximum contract period of ten years, exclusive of any extension granted in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

b. This plan describes the specific evaluation criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the number of award-term points received. All TDO decisions regarding the award-term points are within the discretion of the TDO (including but not limited to the amount of the award-term points, if any; the methodology used to calculate the award-term points; the calculation of the award-term points; the contractor’s entitlement to the award points; and the evaluation rating of the contractor’s performance.) Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

2. ORGANIZATION

a. The award-term organization consists of the TDO and the ATRB. Given the potential duration of the contract, the members may change over time. However, the members will consistently represent the functional areas/groups identified in Plan Annex 1.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Performance Monitors. Performance monitors consist of the Contracting Officer Representative and any alternate CORs appointed by the Contracting Officer. Performance monitors maintain written records of the contractor’s performance so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Monitors provide input on the contractor’s performance to the Contracting Officer Representative, who then prepares the Contractor Performance and Assessment Report System (CPARS) report for the contract.

b. Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer is the liaison between contractor and government. The

Contracting Officer will collect performance information from the COR and complete the CORs inputs to the

CPARS report for the contract, which will be used by the ATRB in making the award term option recommendation to the TDO. The Contracting Officer modifies the contract, if necessary, to reflect the decision.

c. Term Determining Official. The TDO approves any changes to the award term plan. The TDO reviews the recommendations(s) of the ATRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the award-term points for each evaluation period. The TDO appoints the ATRB Chairperson if this individual is not the Contracting Officer.

d. Award Term Review Board Chairperson. The ATRB Chairperson chairs the meetings of the ATRB.

The ATRB Chairperson appoints the ATRB members. The ATRB chairperson will brief the TDO on the award-term point status from previous evaluation periods. The ATRB chairperson will brief on the ATRB’s recommended award-term points for the instant evaluation period. The ATRB chairperson will also brief award-term plan changes, applicable to receiving future award-term periods, to the TDO. For this award-term plan, the Contracting Officer is the ATRB Chairperson unless the TDO determines otherwise. If the TDO decides to appoint an individual other than the Contracting Officer, such appointment shall be made in writing with a copy provided to the Contracting

Officer.

e. Award Term Review Board. The ATRB members are appointed by the ATRB Chairperson and will consist of end users (or customers) of the services procured under this contract, CORs, and other contract management personnel. The ATRB will be provided copies of the interim performance reports prepared by ATRB

Chairperson at the midpoint of the evaluation period only during option years 5 and 6. The ATRB will convene annually upon notification from the ATRB recorder. ATRB members review performance monitors’ evaluation of the contractor’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an award-term points recommendation to be presented to the TDO. The ATRB will also recommend changes to this plan to the TDO.

f. ATRB Recorder. The ATRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the ATRB, and the TDO. For this award-term plan, the ATRB Recorder is the 6

CONS Contract Specialist, unless determined otherwise by the ATRB Chairperson.

4. AWARD-TERM PROCESSES

a. Available Award-Term Points Amount. The evaluation for the amount of term points to be awarded will begin at the start of the contract. Award-term points will be awarded based on the contractor’s performance during each performance period for all years that the contractor has been performing under during the evaluation period.

The points needed to receive an award-term year for each evaluation period are shown in Annex 2.

b. Evaluation Criteria.

1) If the Contracting Officer does not provide written notice (of changes to evaluation criteria) at least

30 calendar days prior to a follow-on evaluation period the same criteria will be used in the follow-on evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria for a follow-on evaluation period will be issued bilaterally. Annex 3 and 4 will be modified accordingly.

2) The basis for award term evaluations is the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS). The Contracting Officer Representative will obtain input from performance monitors and will report past performance information in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 42.15 using CPARS. These reports will be used by the ATRB to assess whether the contractor will be awarded the next award-term year. The criteria listed in Annexes 3 and 4 are based on criteria evaluated in the CPARs. Ratings are assigned a numeric score for purposes of the award-term criteria evaluation.

c. Interim Evaluation Process.

1) For performance years 1 through 4 there will be no interim evaluations. Since the award-term scores for performance years 1 through 4 will be averaged to determine the overall evaluation score for approving the first award-term option (year 8), the annual evaluations are considered sufficient periodic feedback to the contractor on performance. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may issue periodic evaluation notices at any time it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern. Reference Annex 2.

2) For performance years 5 through 9, the Contracting Officer Representative will prepare an interim evaluation report each year. The ATRB Recorder notifies performance monitors 45 calendar days before the midpoint of the evaluation period. Performance monitors submit their written evaluation reports to the Contracting

Officer Representative 21 calendar days after this notification. The Contracting Officer Representative and the

Contracting Officer determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of the strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period. A copy of the interim evaluation results will also be provided to the

ATRB members. During these years, the Contracting Officer may determine to issue interim evaluation notices at any time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of government concern.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations. The annual CPARS report and the end of period evaluation for award-term determination will be completed in accordance with the timelines established in the table below. The ATRB

Recorder notifies each ATRB member and performance monitor 30 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period as a reminder of the timelines.

TIMELINE (# CALENDAR DAYS AFTER

END OF EVALUATION PERIOD)

ACTION

30 calendar days

(Approx. 1 May of each year)

-Performance monitors submit performance input report to the Contracting Officer

105 calendar days

(Approx. 15 Jul of each year)

-Entire CPARS reporting process completed by

Contracting Officer.

- Contracting Officer will provide a copy of the final CPARs to the contractor if they do not receive through CPARS, and that the contractor’s self-assessment of performance is due in accordance with these timelines. (See next block.)

-ATRB begins proceedings to evaluate contractor performance.

150 calendar days

(Approx. 31 Aug of each year)

180 calendar days

(Approx. 30 Sep of each year)

-Contractor submits via email a written self-assessment of contract performance to the

Contracting Officer. Self-assessment shall not exceed ten, 10-pitched, single-spaced pages.

Contractor is responsible for ensuring receipt by the Contracting Officer.

-ATRB completes draft evaluation report based on CPARS reporting and contractor’s self-assessment, and briefs TDO on recommendation.

-ATRB recorder provides a copy of draft evaluation report and recommendation to contractor.

210 calendar days

(Approx. 31 Oct of each year)

-Contractor provides via email a written response to draft evaluation report to the

Contracting Officer. Response shall not exceed five (5), 10-pitched, single-spaced pages. If no response is received, it will be determined that the contractor agrees with the ATRB’s draft evaluation report. Contractor is responsible for ensuring the Contracting Officer receives the response.

225 calendar days

(Approx. 15 Nov of each year)

-After review of contractor response to draft report, ATRB provides final report to TDO, and approval is complete. The Contracting

Officer will notify the contractor of the award-term points. For performance years 1-3, the evaluation report will be retained for computing the average score after performance year 4 to determine if the first award-term year

(year 8) will be awarded.

255 calendar days

(Approx. 15 Dec of each year)

-Contracting Officer issues unilateral modification to the contract if award-term points are sufficient in accordance with Annex

2.

5. AWARD-TERM PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

a. Contractor requested changes to the Award-term Option Plan should be forwarded to the Contracting

Officer not later than 90 calendar days prior to the end of the given evaluation period. The Contracting

Officer/ATRB chair will forward recommended changes to board members for coordination as appropriate. Upon review, the ATRB will forward a recommendation to accept or reject the changes to the TDO. Proposed changes to the award-term plan will be negotiated with the contractor. The contractor will be notified in writing of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer at least 30 days prior to the start of the affected evaluation period.

ANNEX 1. AWARD-TERM ORGANIZATION

Members (All are voting members)

Term Determining Official Flight Chief, 6 CONS/PKM

Award Term Review Board Chairperson Contracting Officer

Award Term Review Board Members Contract Specialist (Recorder)

6 CES Deputy/Program Manager

Contracting Officer Representative

Alternate Contracting Officer Representatives

6 CES Functional Area Representatives:

• Civil Engineer Operations

• Programs and Engineer Services

• Installation Management

• Emergency Management

6 CONS functional specialists or consultants as needed

ANNEX 2. EVALUATION PERIODS AND AVAILABLE AWARD-TERM OPTION PERIODS

Evaluation Points Required Available Award

Period for Award Term Option Term

Base Period – Year 1 Avg of years 1-4 of Very Good (81-90)* n/a

Year 2 (option year) Avg of years 1-4 of Very Good (81-90)* n/a

Year 3 (option year) Avg of years 1-4 of Very Good (81-90)* n/a

Year 4 (option year) Avg of years 1-4 of Very Good (81-90)* 1 year

Year 5 (option year) Very Good (81-90) 1 year**

Year 6 (option year) Very Good (81-90) 1 year**

Year 7 (option year) n/a* n/a

Year 8 (award-term year) (Based on years 1-4) n/a

Year 9 (award-term year) (Based on year 5) n/a

Year 10 (award-term year) (Based on year 6) n/a

*Note: Although an award-term year is not granted for each of years 1-4 individually, performance is still assessed annually in accordance with this plan.

**Note: The ATRB proceedings to assess the performance evaluation period actually take place during the next performance evaluation period. For example, the evaluation for year 4 and averaging of scores for years 1 through 4 actually occurs in year 5 and is used to determine if the first award-term year (year 8) will be approved. Then, the

ATRB assesses year 5 during year 6 to determine if the next award-term year (year 9) will be approved. Finally, the

ATRB assesses year 6 during year 7 to determine if the next award-term year (year 10) will be approved

ANNEX 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND GRADING TABLES

Criteria used to evaluate performance under this plan are those evaluated in the CPARS report. Inputs for assessment are obtained as identified elsewhere in this Plan and can include input on any performance area that is considered under the listed elements of evaluation. Performance monitors will consider performance against all items in the Service Summary tables, and any other element in the PWS that discusses performance schedule requirements. The CPARS evaluation will play a significant factor in the decision to award additional time, and while it contributes to the recommendation of the Award Term Review Board and the decision by the Term

Determining Official, the CPARS evaluation ratings do not dictate the ultimate recommendation or decision. While it is anticipated the final decision will correlate to the CPARS evaluation results, there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate for them not to correlate.

1. Technical/Quality of Services.

2. Schedule/Timelines.

3. Cost Control.

4. Management/Business Relations.

5. Regulatory Compliance

The following scale will be used to evaluate the performance categories listed above.

Range of

Adjectival Rating Evaluation Rating Description

Exceptional (91 - 100) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (81 - 90) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (71-80) Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal (61-70) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (less than 61) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

ANNEX 4. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHT OF EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following weights will be applied to each performance category to calculate the overall weighted score. The weighted score is then used to determine if an award-term year is approved.

Performance Category Evaluation Weight

1. Technical/Quality of Services 40%

2. Schedule/Timelines 35%

3. Cost Control 10%

4. Management/Business Relations 10%

5. Regulatory Compliance 5%

TOTAL 100%

1. Explanation of Award Term Calculations.

a. Years One through Four: For each performance category the unweighted scores for that category over the first four years will be averaged. The average for each of the categories “Schedule Performance” and “Quality of

Services” must individually be minimum of 81%. The average of each of the categories will then be multiplied by the evaluation weight, and the sum of the three categories must be a minimum of 81%. The following example illustrates:

*Columns E, F, G, H depict the weighted average, calculated by multiplying the category score by the weight, then summing to give the overall score for the year.

**In this illustration, the first year was below the minimum for “Schedule Performance” and “Quality of Service,” and the overall score was below the minimum acceptable 81%. Had this been an award-term year, it would have been unacceptable, and the contractor would not have received award of an additional year. But, since it is averaged with the other three years, which show continuing improvement, the resulting average scores are above the minimum 81% for “Schedule Performance” and “Quality of Service”, and above the minimum 81% for the overall score.

b. Years Five and Six: The contractor must score a minimum of 81% in each of the categories

“Technical/Quality of Services,” “Schedule/Timelines,” and “Management/Business Relations.” The summed weighted score of all three categories must be a minimum of 81%.

a E* b F* c G* d H* (a+b+c+d)/4

Category (Weight) Year: Average Weighted Average

75 30 82 33 87 35 92 37 84 34 (84*.40)

77 27 80 28 85 30 90 32 83 29 (83*.55)

92 9 93 9 87 9 95 10 92 9 (92*.10)

85 9 87 9 90 9 92 9 89 9 (89*.10)

91 5 90 5 95 5 96 5 93 5 (93*.05)

79 83 87 92 85

Technical/Quality of Services (40%)

Schedule/Timelines (35%)

Cost Control (10%)

Management/Business Relations (10%)

Regulatory Compliance (5%)

Weighted Sum:

1 2 3 4

NOTE: Award Term boards will end after the first award term year is not awarded or after the award term decision for year 6 performance is made, whichever occurs first, since then all possible periods for receiving an award term year would have been considered.

(End of Notice)