Appendix F - RPA Mx Award Fee Plan - FINAL.pdf

APPENDIX F – AWARD FEE PLAN

FOR THE

REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT (RPA) OPERATION &

MAINTENANCE (O&M) SUPPORT FOR CONUS & OCONUS

LOCATIONS

Prepared By: AMIC/PMAU

ANNETTE E. RENN, NH-III, DAF

Program Manager, RPA Operations & Maintenance

Reviewed By: AMIC/DD (AFRB Chair)

, Col, USAF Deputy Director

Approved By: ACC/A4 (FDO)

Brigadier General, USAF Director of Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection or

, SES, DAF

Deputy Director of Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection

REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT (RPA) Mx – PWS Appendix F Solicitation: FA4890-24-R-0012

Date: 2 Jul 2024

Appendix F Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. INTRODUCTION

2.0. DEFINITION OF TERMS

3.0. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES

4.0. AWARD FEE INPUTS

5.0. EVALUATIONS

6.0. RATING RANGES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0. EVALUATION PERIODS AND AWARD FEE

8.0. PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE AWARD FEE PLAN

9.0. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY

10.0. CONTRACT TERMINATION

ANNEX 1 – AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

ANNEX 3 –RATING GUIDELINES

ANNEX 4 – QUALITY OF SERVICES ASSESSMENT

Appendix F Page | 2

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Award Fee Plan with a Quality Performance Index (QPI) is the basis for evaluation of the contractor's performance on the Air Combat Command (ACC) Acquisition Management and Integration Center (AMIC) Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) contract and for presenting an assessment of performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes evaluation criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the award fee recommendation. This assessment will consider performance of the entire effort for each period evaluated. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

1.2. This plan is designed to motivate superior performance, responsiveness, a mature quality management system, innovation, and proactive management. The objective is to encourage the contractor to improve performance in the rated areas over and above performance requirements stated in the contract, but not at the expense of minimally acceptable performance in all required areas. The QPI is an objective measurement geared toward improving mission support. Within the subjective evaluation, for each evaluation criteria in Annex 2, the Government is interested in achieving both improved mission support and resource savings. This plan seeks to highlight potential improvements for mission and customer support that also increase cost benefit and return on investment. The plan does not mandate a course of action for the contractor. The award fee starts at zero (0) for each award fee period. To the maximum extent possible, the final assessment will be supported by data and vignettes that demonstrate mission impacts.

2.0. DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.1. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB). The AFRB is a group of individuals, trained on this award fee plan, responsible for evaluating the contractor's performance and recommending an award fee amount to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The AFRB may also recommend changes to the award fee plan. Members and advisors of the board are shown at Annex 1. A minimum of four (4) voting members are required to convene an AFRB.

2.2. Evaluation Criteria. The subjective (qualitative) and/or objective (quantitative) criteria that are used to rate each category of performance.

2.3. Contractor Award Fee (CAF) Summary. Opportunity for the Contractor to submit data and impact statements demonstrating value-added support throughout the evaluation period.

When providing input specific to an evaluation criterion in Annex 2, the Contractor should include the rating expected, i.e., satisfactory, good, very good, excellent, or outstanding along with sufficient justification to support the rating.

2.4. Significant Event. An event (positive or negative), within the contractor’s control, which may, by itself, have a significant impact to the program and bearing on the award fee determination.

Appendix F Page | 3

3.0. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES

3.1. Organization. Annex 1 depicts the AFRB composition.

3.2. Fee Determining Official (FDO). IAW DAFI63-138, Service Acquisition Decision Authority (SADA) has delegated FDO responsibilities to the ACC/A4 General Officer/Senior Executive Service (GO/SES) for this program. The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. The FDO reviews the recommendations of the AFRB, considers all pertinent information and unilaterally determines the earned award fee amount for each evaluation period. The FDO is responsible for:

3.2.1. Approving/disapproving the plan and any significant changes to the plan. Significant changes include changes to the evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, changing members in the Award Fee Organization, revising the distribution of the award fee pool, and/or increasing or decreasing the award fee pool.

3.2.2. Reviewing recommendations of the AFRB, considering all pertinent data, and determining the award fee amount for each evaluation period.

3.2.3. Documenting rational for deviations from AFRB recommendation. Documentation should relate to specific evaluation criteria.

3.2.4. Notifying the contractor, in writing, of the amount of the fee awarded for the evaluation period. Notification is transmitted through the PM and the contractor’s Contracting Officer (CO) via the Fee Determining Letter (FDL).

3.3. AFRB Chairpersons. The designated Chairperson is the AMIC Deputy Director (DD). In the event the appointed AFRB Chairperson (or their pre-designated alternates as identified in Annex 1) is unable to attend the scheduled AFRB, the FDO will appoint a designee in writing to perform the AFRB Chairperson responsibilities. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for:

3.3.1. Leading the AFRB meetings, to include reaching a final consensus.

3.3.2. Briefing the FDO on the contractor’s overall performance and recommended rating earned award fee amounts with the assistance of the Program Manager (PM).

3.3.3. Recommending significant award fee plan changes to the FDO for recommendation to

FDO.

3.3.4. Approving special interest items (SII) and relative weight up to 20% under this award fee plan.

3.3.5. Approving or disapproving non-significant (i.e., administrative) changes to the Plan.

3.4. AFRB Panel (Voting Members). Voting members are identified in Annex 1. If a voting member of the AFRB is absent and a pre-designated alternate (as identified in Annex 1) is not

Appendix F Page | 4 available, a person with similar qualifications may be substituted with the approval of the AFRB Chairpersons. A minimum of 4 voting members is required. The AFRB Panel is responsible for:

3.4.1. Convening a board at the direction of the AFRB Chairpersons.

3.4.2. Considering information from pertinent sources on the contractor’s performance for the award fee period.

3.4.3. Documenting and determining the recommended rating/earned award fee amount to be presented to the FDO.

3.4.4. Recommending changes to the award fee plan.

3.5. Program Manager (PM). The Remotely Piloted (RPA) PM serves as the AFRB Secretariat. The PM is responsible for accomplishing the program objectives to meet the user’s operational needs and managing the administrative functions of the award fee process to include:

3.5.1. Notifying the Quality Manager (QM) that their contract performance evaluations are due.

3.5.2. Coordinating and administrating actions required by the FDO and AFRB.

3.5.3. Receiving, processing, and distributing evaluation reports, to include CAF Summary from all required sources and maintaining official files.

3.5.4. Providing basic award-fee training to board members on behalf of AFRB Chairpersons.

3.5.5. Scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings.

3.5.6. Accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award-fee process, such as documenting the AFRB activities.

3.5.7. Providing documentation and rationale to the AFRB Chairperson when the Multi- Functional Team (MFT) determines Quality of Services for the award fee period is less than Satisfactory.

3.5.8. Preparing a comprehensive subjective evaluation report using all available inputs/sources and provide it to the board members in sufficient time, typically seven (7) calendar days, before the scheduled AFRB to allow AFRB members to fully examine contractor performance information. A recommended adjectival rating will be provided as part of the report.

3.5.9. Providing pertinent data, to include documentation supporting the FDO decision and award fee evaluation reports, to the CO for the contract file.

3.5.10. Designating a Functional Manager and Lead Functional Evaluators to verify, validate, and evaluate the CAF Summary, Special Interest Items, and award fee inputs and interfacing with QM and Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) on a periodic basis to review contractor performance.

Appendix F Page | 5

3.5.11. Reviewing and analyzing all performance reports for consistency and completeness.

3.5.12. Briefing the AFRB if requested by the AFRB Chairperson.

3.5.13. Ensuring adequate funding is available for the awarded amount.

3.5.14. Preparing interim evaluation reports to provide formal feedback to the contractor during the evaluation period.

3.5.15. Discussing contractor performance with the contractor PM to include AFRB feedback, as necessary.

3.6. Contracting Officer (CO). The CO performs post-award contract administration duties and monitors contractor performance. The CO is responsible for:

3.6.1. Ensuring there is an audit trail in place to substantiate the AFRB recommendation and FDO determination.

3.6.2. Interpreting the contract to determine whether significant events meet or exceed minimum contract requirements.

3.6.3. Transmitting the FDO Award Fee Determination Letter to the contractor.

3.6.4. Preparing and distributing the contract modification awarding the fee.

3.6.5. Notifying the contractor in writing of any approved changes to the award fee plan.

3.6.6. Maintaining contract file documentation supporting the FDO decision including award fee evaluation reports and contractor self-assessments.

3.7. Quality Manager (QM). The QM is responsible for the surveillance program from audit planning/scheduling, to conducting, documenting, and reporting contractor performance. CORs are responsible to the QM for executing the surveillance program and, through QM, provide input to the AFRB on contractor performance. The QM provides the objective data for the MFT discussion on Quality of Services. Information on contractor's performance against service summary (SS) metrics, QPI metrics, inspections and results will be included. The QM is responsible for:

3.7.1. Bringing significant problems promptly to the attention of the PM.

3.7.2. Providing contract performance evaluations to the PM.

3.7.3. Coordinating COR findings and contractor performance/savings data with the functionals and CO.

Appendix F Page | 6

3.7.4. Leading a discussion with the Government MFT on the Quality of Services using Performance Assessment rubric at Annex 4. If performance does not meet at least a Satisfactory, QM will provide documentation and rationale to the PM.

3.8. Functional Manager/Lead Functional Evaluators. The functional manager is the Government manager responsible for a particular Performance Work Statement (PWS) function.

A functional manager may also be an AFRB member or advisor. The lead functional evaluator is the Government agency/office designated by the PM to coordinate, verify, validate, and evaluate CAF Summary and SIIs. The Functional Manager and Lead Functional Evaluators will interface on a periodic basis to review contractor performance. Each Lead Functional Evaluator is responsible for:

3.8.1. Evaluating assigned summaries using the guidelines at Annex 3, assigning a narrative rating from paragraph 6, Table 2, and documenting justification/rationale for rating.

3.8.2. Coordinating with functionals, members of the program’s MFT, and other subject matter experts as applicable. Incorporate comments/concerns in evaluation statement. Include others contacted by name and office symbol.

3.8.3. Including results of verification and validation in evaluation statement.

3.8.4. Secure Functional Division Chief’s concurrence of rating/evaluation before forwarding to

PM.

4.0. AWARD FEE INPUTS

4.1. Evaluation Information. Several forms of input will be evaluated by the AFRB to arrive at an award fee recommendation. It is the Government’s discretion whether to consider inputs provided for actions outside of the scope of the contract. The forms of inputs are as follows but not limited to:

4.1.1. Customer Feedback. Customer feedback is a critical part of the award fee process and is highly encouraged. The PM will obtain completed Warfighter Servicing surveys and other feedback from supported Maintenance Group Commanders, Operational Detachment Commanders, Squadron Commanders, and other warfighter mission partners. This feedback will be used to assess contract service quality and provide validation for SII and CAF Summary items.

4.1.2. CAF Summary. The contractor shall provide a summary NLT the seventh (7th) calendar day following the end of an award fee period. The summary is limited to 5 pages, and it is incumbent upon the contractor to submit items addressing each area in Annex 2 for which they wish to receive award fee consideration. Summary shall include justification for ratings above Satisfactory in Annex 3. The summary should include mission impacts, demonstrate benefit to the Government and provide sufficient details to support event verification and information validation. The summary may include cost savings, increased availability of hours, recurring gains, efficiencies, innovations, quality and safety process improvements, increased effectiveness, reduced risk, etc. If the Government requires additional information the contractor

Appendix F Page | 7 will asked to provide a response as soon as possible but NLT 5 calendar days to support AFRB processing.

4.1.3. PWS Performance Objectives. The Technical and Management Performance objectives will be used to determine the awarded fee during a performance period. The QPI will be assessed where the points are earned for exceeding minimum standards over the 6-month period. Objective data earned during the award fee period will be assessed and used along with the overall QPI. The QPI will be calculated by dividing the Quality points earned by the Quality points available during the period and multiplying the result by the available fee for this factor: (Points Awarded / Total Points Available) x Available Pool.

4.1.4. Mission Success Rate (MSR). The MSR comprises 20% of the total award fee. The Contractor earns this fee when maintenance support of Combat and Training Lines result in mission success ≥ 98% of the time using the definitions provided the IDIQ PWS, Section B.

Service Summary. Two (2) points per site per month are possible for sites that provide air tasking order support (ATO) and 1 point per site per month is possible for sites that do not provide ATO support. See Table 1. MSR Sites and Points. Events or issues determined to be outside of Contractor control shall not be attributed to the overall Award Fee Summary or resultant score. The total points earned by all sites over the six-month period will be used to calculate the MSR award fee: Total Points Earned / Total Points Possible = % of MSR Award Fee earned.

Example:

Step 1. $1.5M Pool Possible X .20 = $300K MSR Award Possible Step 2. 75 points earned / 84 point possible = .893 points earned Step 3. $300K MSR Award Possible X .893 points earned = $267,900

MSR Site 1-Month Points 6-Month Points

Creech 1 6 Nellis 1 6 Ellsworth 2 12 Shaw 2 12 Whiteman 2 12

ANG 2 12

DP58 2 12

DP80 2 12

Total Possible 14 84 Table 1. MSR Sites and Points

4.1.5. SII. Up to 20% of the total award fee may be designated for SIIs. If there are no SIIs for an award fee period (or less than the available 20% is used) the remaining percentage will be redistributed to the subjective evaluation; 60/40 between Technical and Management Performance. When identified, an SII is an area of performance that the Government deems critical and/or requires special attention. An SII can be identified up to 3 months into the award period. Mission Partners, AMIC DR/DD/PM/PK/Division Chiefs, as well as RPA CO, PM, Functional Managers, QMs and CORs (via the QM) may submit proposed SIIs to the RPA PM.

Appendix F Page | 8

Proposed SIIs will include recommended evaluation criteria, desired results, and proposed weight percentage. The PM will submit proposed SIIs to the AFRB Chairpersons for approval. Once approved, the CO will notify the contractor. The QM will be notified upon SII approval to ensure approved SIIs are included in the surveillance plan.

4.1.5.1. Significant Events. Significant Events are tied to the PWS requirements. They are assessed during the award fee period separate from the evaluation criteria in Annex 2. Positive Significant Events (PSEs) and Negative Significant Events (NSEs), if noted during the evaluation period, may lead to increasing or decreasing the overall AFRB recommendation to the FDO. An NSE that is determined to be extraordinarily significant (redundancy intended) may result in an overall “Unsatisfactory” award fee rating for the period. Examples of significant events may include, but are not limited to:

4.1.5.2. PSE

• Major innovations that directly result in significant cost benefit to the Government.

• Significant process or procedural improvements that positively impact operational mission.

• Responsive actions to an external issue, event, or influence that provides cost benefit and/or positively impacts operational missions.

4.1.5.3. NSE

• Serious damage/destruction to Government property due to negligent contractor actions.

• Serious, significant, and/or chronic management or performance issues that can be reasonably attributed to a general lack of contractor management oversight in areas not necessarily delineated in the evaluation criteria.

NOTE: If the cause of a NSE (e.g., safety mishap, etc.) is determined a contractor responsibility after the award fee period in which the event occurred, then the Government can consider the finding at the next AFRB to be held. The AFRB should consider if any action was already taken regarding the NSE to ensure “double jeopardy” does not occur. The Government will ensure the contractor is aware of any NSE that will be reviewed by the AFRB.

4.1.5.5. PM Summary. The PM shall submit a written evaluation of the Contractor’s overall performance to the AFRB. The evaluation will consider all award fee inputs (customer feedback, CAF summary (individual items rated using Annex 3 are collectively assessed using Annex 2), performance objectives, and SII performance (if applicable). Service Summary Performance and QPI Achievement data should be analyzed and discussed with the MFT and mission partners along with review of the Contractor’s Award Fee Summary and SIIs, as applicable. The PM narrative summary shall include an MFT agreed upon recommendation.

PSE and NSE submission recommendations will be provided separately from the PM AFRB Summary with MFT concurrence.

5.0. EVALUATIONS

5.1. Interim Award Fee Period Evaluation. The Government will conduct an interim evaluation during each award fee period to provide performance feedback to the contractor. This

Appendix F Page | 9 interim evaluation should take place during the middle 60 days of the award fee period ideally during a program management review (PMR). Additional feedback may be conducted at any time if the Government detects a positive or negative trend in performance that warrants feedback, or if requested by the contractor. The contractor shall understand that while interim award fee status should be discussed, the interim evaluation is for feedback purposes only. The interim evaluation may be oral or written. Oral feedback can range from a discussion between the PM and contractor PM, to a broad meeting attended by applicable functional personnel from both the Government and contractor should the details of the necessary feedback warrant. If performance problems are indicating the possibility less than satisfactory performance for the period, the contractor will be notified in writing as part of the contract administration process, i.e., CO letter, documented NSE, Nonconformance Form, Show Cause Letter, etc., prior to the AFRB meeting.

5.2. Final Evaluation

5.2.1. Preparation. The PM will consolidate all summaries and Significant Events at the end of the award fee period and prepare a report, supported by objective data when available. The PM will substantiate recommendations, provide an adjectival rating, and distribute it to the AFRB members providing them sufficient time to review the report prior to the scheduled AFRB.

5.2.2. AFRB Meeting Procedures (Minimum of Satisfactory Performance). The AFRB will be scheduled as soon as possible, but not later than 60 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period.

5.2.2.1. Contractor Presentation. The contractor is allowed 30 minutes to brief the AFRB and should address Annex 2 criteria, demonstrating significant cost benefit and/or mission impact for each area that exceeds Satisfactory. The Contractor presentation may also include internal inspection efforts, results, and trends; synopsis of major non-conformances, corrective actions taken and the effectiveness of those actions; and a summary of the contractor’s Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) efforts for the period. Final piece of the presentation should be a self-assessment using the award fee plan rubric per Annex 2. The presentation should be succinct and shall complement but not duplicate information already submitted.

5.2.2.2. PM Presentation. The PM will provide a brief detailing the results of the subjective evaluation.

5.2.2.3. Deliberations. Deliberations are limited to the AFRB, AMIC PM, CO, DRJ, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chairperson. The non-voting members serve in an advisory capacity during deliberations to support the voting members, as required. The applicable Division Chiefs and Branch Chiefs may remain throughout deliberations as advisors.

During deliberations, the voting members will consider all information presented and individually score the evaluation criteria performance, using the Individual Evaluation Report in Annex 4.

5.2.2.3.1. Deliberations will conclude with an AFRB rating that translates to a recommended award fee.

Appendix F Page | 10

5.2.2.3.2. Only after the AFRB has reached consensus on the overall rating will the impact of Significant Events be considered by the board. The relative weight of validated Significant Events will be used to either increase/decrease the overall rating percentage (thereby changing the earned award fee) or by directly increasing or decreasing the actual award fee payment.

Specific adjustments in recommended rating relative to Significant Events must be completely covered in summary.

5.2.2.4. The AFRB recommendation shall be provided to the FDO in a timely manner following the AFRB and will include strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the rating recommendation.

5.2.3. AFRB Meeting Procedures (Unsatisfactory Performance). The AFRB will notify the contractor a review board will not be required when performance is “Unsatisfactory” no later than 60 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB will not be conducted face-to-face unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chairpersons. The AFRB members will review the report provided by the PM detailing “Unsatisfactory” performance, and deliberations will be limited to the AMIC PM, CO, DRJ, DRQ, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chairpersons. The RPA PM, CO, and DRJ serve solely in an advisory capacity during deliberations to support the voting members as required. During deliberations, the voting members will consider all information presented and determine if the Unsatisfactory performance renders the contractor ineligible for further consideration. The recommendation will be documented (to include all pertinent supporting information, such as Nonconformance Forms and contractor response, CO letter and contractor response, etc.) and provided to the FDO for approval. The AFRB recommendation shall be provided to the FDO within fourteen (14) calendar days of the AFRB.

5.3. Award Fee Determination. The FDO considers the AFRB recommendation but is solely responsible for the final award fee determination. If the FDO decision differs from the recommendation of the AFRB, the FDO shall document the decision rationale against the evaluation criteria for the contract file. The written decision will also summarize the contractor’s overall performance assessment and identify significant strengths and weaknesses that influenced the award fee decision. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the FDO will provide the CO a written award fee decision in a timely fashion after the end of the evaluation period.

5.4. Contractual Aspects. Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the FDO’s determination, the CO will inform the contractor in writing of the amount of the award fee amount earned or that an AFRB was not warranted based on unsatisfactory performance for the period rated. The CO will unilaterally modify the contract to incorporate the earned award fee amount.

6.0. RATING RANGES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA. The rating definitions below will be used to assess the contractor’s performance against the evaluation criteria at Annex 2 and to provide the award fee rating. Since meeting minimum contract performance requirements is expected from the contractor, rating assessments will start at "satisfactory" and go up from there.

Failure to meet minimum essential contract performance requirements will result in an “Unsatisfactory” award fee determination for the period regardless of performance against evaluation criteria. The contractor shall be entitled to receive, in any evaluation period, an

Appendix F Page | 11 award-fee commensurate with the performance ratings identified in Table 2. Performance Ratings and based on Table 3. Evaluation Criteria.

Greater Than or Equal To Equal to or Less Than Narrative Award-Fee Percentage

90.00 100.00 Outstanding 90 - 100%

75.00 89.99 Excellent 75 – 89.99%

50.00 74.99 Very Good 50 – 74.99%

1.00 49.99 Good 1 - 49.99%

0 0 Satisfactory No Fee Awarded

Table 2. Performance Ratings

Evaluation Criteria Weight Factor $ Value AVG % Total $ Technical Performance 42%

Quality of Work/Services 60% Innovation and Improvement 40%

Technical Total Management Performance 38%

Customer Relations 50% Organizational Management 50%

Management Total Mission Success Rate 20% Optional SII PSE Value

TOTAL AFRB RECOMMENDED AWARD

Table 3. Evaluation Criteria

7.0. EVALUATION PERIODS AND AWARD FEE

7.1. The Award Fee evaluation periods and dates are provided in Table 4.

FY $ OY Award PRD PoP FY25 Base Yr PRD 1 01 Jul 2025 - 31 Dec 2025 FY25 Base Yr PRD 2 01 Jul 2026 - 31 Dec 2026 FY26 Option 1 PRD 3 01 Jul 2026 - 31 Dec 2026 FY26 Option 1 PRD 4 01 Jan 2027 - 30 Jun 2027 FY27 Option 2 PRD 5 01 Jul 2027 - 31 Dec 2027 FY27 Option 2 PRD 6 01 Jan 2028 - 30 Jun 2028 FY28 Option 3 PRD 7 01 Jul 2028 - 31 Dec 2028 FY28 Option 3 PRD 8 01 Jan 2029 - 30 Jun 2029 FY29 Option 4 PRD 9 01 Jul 2029 - 31 Dec 2029 FY29 Option 4 PRD 10 01 Jan 2030 - 30 Jun 2030

Table 4. Award Fee Evaluation Periods

7.1.2. The Award Fee is based on the contract value during the period of performance (PoP) being evaluated. When contract modifications increase or decrease contract value, for the evaluation period being assessed, the potential award fee value shall be prorated based on the

Appendix F Page | 12 number of calendar days in the period. The effective date of the proration shall be the same as the date on the SF Form 30, Block 16C for the contract modification that causes the proration.

The potential award fee shall not exceed $2M semi-annually. The award fees are a unilateral Government decision. The potential Award Fee Scale is provided in Table 5. Award Fee Scale.

Contract Year Value 6-Month Award Fee Pool Below $20M $400,000

$20M – Below $30M $500,000 $30M – Below $40M $700,000 $40M – Below $50M $900,000 $50M – Below $60M $1,100,000 $60M – Below $70M $1,300,000 $70M – Below $80M $1,500,000 $80M – Below $90M $1,700,000 $90M – Below $100M $1,900,000

Above $100M $2,000,000 Table 5. Award Fee Scale

8.0. PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE AWARD FEE PLAN. The FDO approves all significant changes to this award fee plan. The AFRB Chairpersons approve all non-significant changes to the plan. The contractor may recommend changes to the award fee plan to the CO not later than 60 calendar days prior to the beginning of a new award fee period. Upon approval of changes, the CO will notify the contractor of revisions to the plan, by unilateral contract modification, before the start of the affected award fee period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual consent of both parties.

9.0. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY. Assessing contractor performance and determining award fee eligibility under this plan is subjective. However, the process is explicit enough to allow the contractor every opportunity to understand how the award amount is based on performance. The Government will make every effort to ensure fairness of evaluation, use objective data to support subjective assessments, and provide prompt and consistent feedback. The written records of the CORs, inputs from other pertinent sources and information from the contractor's self-assessment briefing provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure award fee integrity. It is incumbent on the contractor to continually communicate initiatives, as well as corrected deficiencies, that may have an impact on award fee determination. The Government must be aware of, and could assess, contractor initiatives prior to an AFRB for them to be eligible for consideration during an evaluation period.

10.0. CONTRACT TERMINATION. If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the FDO will make the award fee determination using the normal award fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award fee periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, will not be paid.

Appendix F Page | 13

ANNEX 1 – AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

Fee Determining Official ACC A4, or ACC A4-2 (SES position)

Secretariat

RPA PM

Award Fee Review Board Chairperson ACC AMIC DD (PK and PM are pre-designated alternates)

Award Fee Review Board Voting Members ACC AMIC DR or DD (Chairperson)

ACC AMIC PM

ACC AMIC PK or AMIC PKC

ACC AMIC PMA

432 MXG CC or CD, ACC A3M, ACC A4I or ACC A5I

Non-Voting Members /Advisors AFPEO CM (Program Director)

ACC AMIC/DRQ

ACC AMIC/DRJ

ACC AMIC/PLG

ACC AMIC PCE

ACC AMIC/PCY

ACC AMIC/PKC

RPA MFT

Appendix F Page | 14

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

1. Technical Performance (30%) 1.a. Quality of Work (60%)

RATING Evaluation Criteria

Outstanding (90-100)

Extremely effective and pro-active QMS that often identifies and mitigates risks before becoming NC issues. Strong evidence of leadership commitment to continuously improving performance of own organization and services provided to the Govt; routinely seizes opportunities to the benefit of the program. Highly adept in providing insight on QMS efforts and effectiveness which enables Govt confidence to the point of considering reduced oversight.

Excellent (75-89.99)

Highly effective QMS. Evidence of leadership commitment to continuously improving performance of own organization and services provided to the Govt; often seizes opportunities to the benefit of the program. Proactively takes action to address performance risks before negatively impacting program. Provides insight on QMS efforts and effectiveness which enhances Govt confidence in contractor’s ability to sustain/improve performance that meets or exceeds contract requirements

Very Good (50-74.99)

Mature, effective QMS. Highly effective inspection system which bases schedule frequency, intensity and duration on risks and trends, successful in identifying the vast majority of NCs. Highly effective and expeditious corrective action process based on complexity and criticality of NCs; excels at root cause analysis, developing creative/innovative solutions, and conducting robust follow up efforts to ensure corrective actions taken are optimal in bringing about changes necessary to prevent recurrence. Highly capable of accurately assessing QMS maturity level and effectiveness.

Routinely seeks Govt collaboration on RIO efforts.

Good (1-49.99)

Comprehensive QMS which provides details for all controls put in place to assure the quality of contractor’s service (Operating Instructions, Site Operating Procedures, Work Instructions, technical and in-process inspections, personnel training/competency evaluations, audits, etc.) required to meet contract requirements plus methods employed to verify controls are in-place and effective in bringing about desired results. Inspection system is effective in identifying majority of contract NCs, particularly Major NCs. Corrective Action process is effective in correcting underlying issues that led to the NC and nearly always preventing recurrence whether Govt or contractor identified. Capable of assessing QMS maturity level and effectiveness. Provides insight into QMS and RIO efforts and effectiveness of actions taken.

Satisfactory (0)

Met contract requirements

1. Technical Performance (30%) 1.b Innovation and Improvement (40%)

RATING Evaluation Criteria

Outstanding (90-100)

The contractor significantly exceeds nearly all contract requirements and the contractor’s PMO, and site management teams improve management processes, increase efficiencies, raise customer satisfaction, improve end products, and/or save time. Numerous attempts to provide enhancements and most were fully adopted/implemented and provided exceptional benefit to the Government.

Excellent (75-89.99)

The contractor significantly exceeds most contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s effort meets contract requirements and the contractor’s PMO and site management teams improve management processes, increase efficiencies, raise customer satisfaction, improve end products, and/or save time. Numerous attempts to provide enhancements and several were fully adopted/implemented and provided significant benefit to the Government.

Very Good (50-74.99)

The contractor appreciably exceeds many contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s efforts meets contract requirements and the contractor’s PMO and site management teams improve management processes, increase efficiencies, raise customer satisfaction, improve end products, and/or save time. Several attempts to provide enhancements and one or more were fully adopted/implemented and provided positive benefit to the Government.

Good (1-49.99)

The contractor exceeds some contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s effort meets contract requirements and the contractor’s PMO and site management teams improve management processes, increase efficiencies, raise customer satisfaction, improve end products, and/or save time. Some attempts to provide enhancements which may have provided some benefit/s to the govt;

Satisfactory (0)

Few attempts to provide enhancements which may have provided minimal benefit to the Government. Contractor’s performance met most contractual requirements.

Appendix F Page | 15

2. Managerial Performance (30%) 2.a Customer Relations (50%)

RATING Evaluation Criteria

Outstanding (90-100)

Lines of communication with Government MFT and Mission Partners were superior, timely, and led to superior efficiency and proactive management by the contractor and greatly assisted the government in making program decisions. Additional communication efforts led to an excellent team/partner relationship between the contractor, Government MFT and Mission Partners. Contractor was very proactive in seeking solutions to problems and resolved all issues before they became problems. Government MFT and Mission Partners were extremely satisfied with interface practices. Key personnel employment discussions were provided promptly.

Excellent (75-89.99)

Communication with Government MFT and Mission Partners was frequent and very proactive. Additional efforts to improve communication led to an excellent team/partner relationship between the contractor, Government MFT and Mission Partners. High interest was shown on management issues which resulted in the prevention of almost all problems. Government MFT and Mission Partners were very satisfied with interface practices. Notice of all significant personnel employment discussions/issues were provided promptly.

Very Good (50-74.99)

Communication with Government MFT and Mission Partners was good. Very few minor problems encountered due to communication problems. Solid interest was shown on management issues to prevent problems or delays in accomplishing contract requirements. Government MFT and Mission Partners were satisfied with interface practices.

Government was informed of all significant personnel employment discussions/issues without prompting.

Good (1-49.99)

Communication with Government MFT and Mission Partners. Some minor problems encountered due to communication problems. An adequate interest level was shown on management issues with some minor problems or delays encountered in accomplishing contract requirements. Government MFT and Mission Partners were reasonably satisfied with interface practices. Government was informed of some significant personnel employment discussions/issues without prompting.

Satisfactory (0)

Satisfactory communication with Government MFT and Mission Partners. Some problems encountered due to communication problems. An adequate interest level was shown on management issues with problems or delays encountered in accomplishing contract requirements. Government MFT and Mission Partners were reasonably satisfied with interface practices. Government was informed few significant personnel employment discussions/issues.

2. Managerial Performance (30%) 2.b Organizational Management (50%)

RATING Evaluation Criteria

Outstanding (90-100)

The contractor significantly exceeds nearly all contract requirements by anticipating problems, needs, and desires of the government, and devises effective, long-term resolutions to problems. The contractor displays initiative by identifying opportunities to excel. Contractor demonstrated the highest degree of foresight into program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment, advance identification of problems and problem resolution, integrating total program concept and a comprehensive management approach. Contractor demonstrated superior understanding of the contract requirement and was responsive to the changing nature of levels of work.

Excellent (75-89.99)

The contractor significantly exceeds most contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s effort meets contract requirements. The contractor is highly effective in highlighting minor areas of concern and initiates effective corrective action whenever needed without being prompted by the Government.

Contractor displayed strong initiative in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements. Contractor anticipated new requirements and incorporated them well before critical need dates thereby avoiding unnecessary work. Contractor accommodated changing schedules, program activities with minimal impact to the overall program

Very Good (50-74.99)

The contractor appreciably exceeds many contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s efforts meets contract requirements. Almost all areas of concern are minor, few in nature, and are generally non-recurring problems. Program planning was comprehensive and contains a logical flow of activities.

Contractor played a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements

Good (1-49.99)

The contractor exceeds some contract requirements while the remainder of the contractor’s effort meets contract requirements. The contractor adequately highlights areas of concern and initiates reasonable corrective action with some prompting by the Government. Program planning was comprehensive and included a logical flow of activities. Program status and visibility into near term actions were provided through schedules and status of contract requirements.

Satisfactory (0)

Program planning was adequate and included a flow of activities. Program status and visibility into near term actions were provided when requested by Government

Appendix F Page | 16

3. Special Interest Item. Up to 20% See CO Letter for criteria and weighting percentage if used.

RATING Evaluation Criteria

Outstanding (90-100)

Excellent (75-89.99)

Very Good (50-74.99)

Good (1-49.99)

Satisfactory (0)

Met contract requirements

Appendix F Page | 17

ANNEX 3 –RATING GUIDELINES

Used to rate individual events in CAF Summary for holistic Annex 2 Performance evaluation.

Outstanding:

• A contractor-motivated improvement that greatly exceeds contract requirements, and

• Impact provides exceptional benefit to the Government, or

• Program wide effects or very large “over time” impacts, or

• Exceptional dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the Government.

Excellent:

• A contractor-motivated improvement that exceeds contract requirements, and

• Impact provides significant benefit to the Government, or

• A program-wide improvement, or

• Significant dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the Government.

Very Good:

• Exceeds contract requirements, and

• Impact provides appreciative benefit to the Government, or

• A non-program-wide improvement, or

• Appreciative dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the Government.

Good:

• Minimally exceeds contract requirements, and

• Impact provides benefit to the Government, or

• An isolated improvement, or

• Limited dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the Government.

Satisfactory:

• Meets basic contract requirements, or

• Impact provides no additional (above meeting PWS requirements) benefit to the Government.

Appendix F Page | 18

ANNEX 4 – QUALITY OF SERVICES ASSESSMENT

Used to determine if contractor’s performance is worthy of holding AFRB. Overall Quality of Services must be assessed as Satisfactory in order to hold an AFRB.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems1 for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems2 the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. Only minor weaknesses1 were identified.

A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Effective Corrective Action process Excellent response to AMIC CO Letter of Concern Effective QMS delivered which provide details for all controls contractor puts in place to assure the quality of their service (Operating Instructions, Site Operating Procedures, Work Instructions, technical and in-process inspections, personnel evaluations, audits, etc. required to meet contract requirements) SS metrics not met or excused are corrected in timely manner.

Majority of corrective actions taken prevent recurrence (few repeat Major NCs) Rapidly address/correct underlying issues that led to NSE

Less than Satisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem2 for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify a Less than Satisfactory performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. This rating should be supported by referencing the management tool3 that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Systemic issues with major section/s of QMS;

multiple Major NCs Performance problems as evidenced by failing to meet SS metrics.

Failing in enforcing OIs, SOPs, technical and in-process inspections, personnel evaluations, audits, etc.

Increased Govt inspections NC response rejection/partial acceptance CO Letter of Concern NSE/s Negative impact to Govt

1 Minor Problems/Weaknesses are defined as issues with little or no impact to performance. Examples are Govt issued Non- Conformances issued for increased risk which has yet to negatively impact performance.

2 Major/Serious Problems are defined as those issues with performance impact. Examples are Major NCs for failing to meet SS Metrics, Negative Significant Events, issues that result in CO Letter of Concern, Show Cause or Cure Notice.

3 Management Tools are Non-Conformance Reports, PMR Memos For Record, Negative Significant Events, CO Letter of Concern, Show Cause, Cure Notice.