Appendix J BOSS Award Fee Plan.pdf

BASE KODIAK BOSS AWARD FEE PLAN

AWARD FEE PLAN

BOSS CONTRACT

BASE KODIAK, AK

Date: January 31, 2023

AWARD FEE PLAN, BOSS CONTRACT

BASE KODIAK, AK

1. INTRODUCTION

a. This Award Fee Plan set forth specific criteria and procedures to be used in evaluating Contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO) for providing BOSS contract services at Base Kodiak, AK. The Government may modify contract award fee plan through unilateral modification at any time.

b. The Award Fee will reward the contractor for better than satisfactory overall performance.

The award fee is to motivate the contractor to provide optimum performance in critical areas that are susceptible to qualitative evaluation. In addition, the contractor may be rewarded for performance relative to any special interest items. Therefore, performance rated as "Satisfactory" will not earn the contractor an award fee.

c. Award fee decisions by the FDO are final and shall not be subject to FAR 52.212-4(d), Disputes. The Award Fee amount cited in the Bid Schedule is the maximum amount that can be earned for the entire performance period (contract year). Unearned amounts cannot be recuperated in subsequent evaluation periods.

2. DEFINITION OF TERMS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official (FDO): The individual who makes the final determination of the amount of the fee to be awarded to the contractor. The FDO is the Base Commander, Base Kodiak, AK or their designated official.

b. Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB): A group of officials, to include one chairperson, responsible for evaluating COR and Contracting reports and recommending an appropriate award fee to the Fee Determining Official.

The Contractor is the responsible party for execution of the BOSS contract on Base Kodiak.

The board may consist of the following individuals:

DOL-9 Rep Executive Officer, Base Kodiak FE, COR Level III Base Kodiak

e. Contracting Officer Representative (COR): The individual(s) assigned to monitor the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis. Level II COR will provide input and Level III CORs will organize and present the information. The FDO may designate other advisory members as required.

f. Contracting Officer: An individual with the authority to enter, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings.

4. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. The FMB Branch Chief should be made aware of all patron comments regarding the contractor’s performance through methods described in the PWS. The COR shall organize and summarize the comments in a clear and concise presentation format for the board.

b. The CORs shall make periodic observations of the contractor’s performance as provided by the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, then (using the criteria in paragraph 5, Criteria) prepare monthly COR Performance Evaluation Summary Report and submit it to the FMB Branch Chief. The summary is due to the Chief COR within seven workdays after the end of the month evaluation period being evaluated. The contractor shall submit a self-evaluation to the FMB Branch Chief within seven workdays after the end of the six-month period being evaluated. The Level III CORs, KO, and ACO shall periodically meet with the contractor to discuss performance.

At approximately the midpoint of the evaluation period, an interim letter which addresses the contractor performance with emphasis on areas needing improvement will be generated by the FE and forwarded through the Contracting Office for issuance to the contractor. A letter may also be issued at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of government concern.

For each letter issued, the contractor shall provide a written response within 15 days. The response should set forth plans for increasing effectiveness in the areas addressed or explain why it is not feasible to do so.

c. The FDO and the AFEB will be briefed within 10 to 15 working days after the end of the six-month period being evaluated. The PEB secretary shall schedule this meeting. During this meeting, the contractor shall be permitted to present a briefing consisting of self-evaluation of performance. The advisory members shall present a briefing which shall include significant positive and negative events or factors on a subjective rating in the format shown at Appendix 2.

In addition, the advisory members shall provide each member of the PEB an Evaluation Summary Report following the format shown at Appendix 3. The Advisory members shall simultaneously provide a copy of any briefing charts and the Evaluation Summary Report to the Contracting Officer or designee for the official contract file. If desired by the Contracting Officer or the PEB Chairperson, the Contracting Officer or designee may also brief the PEB. Following the briefings, the PEB will conduct an open forum and offer advice to the FDO. The FDO shall consider the information presented along with any other pertinent information available and reach a decision as to the award fee amount.

d. Within 5 working days after the FDO decision, the Secretary (contract specialist) shall prepare a letter for the FDO’s signature notifying the contractor of the award fee amount and shall provide the letter to the Contracting Officer for issuance to the contractor. This letter will address the key positive and negative factors in the evaluation, noting any areas requiring particular emphasis for the next evaluation period. The Contract Specialist shall issue a modification to the contract stipulating the award amount within 10 working days after the written receipt of FDO decision. The Contracting Officer shall ensure the modification is delivered to the Accounting and Finance Officer within one working day after the contract modification is complete for payment.

e. The Secretary shall forward all official records of the award fee evaluation process to the Contract Administrator for inclusion in the official contract file.

5. CRITERIA

a. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated in compliance with the tasks in the contract Statement of Work. Quality is based mostly on COR and customer reports. The tasks for evaluation will include:

1. CLIN x 002: Preventive Maintenance (25% of Award Pool):

a. Quality Service work as defined by 5.2.7 of the PWS, as measured IAW the Performance Requirements Survey (PRS) and feedback from the COR team.

Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Resounding and nearly exclusively top quality as reported by CORs. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service. A large and noticeable decline in corrective maintenance on tracked equipment.

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service. A noticeable decline in corrective maintenance on tracked equipment.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs.

SATISFACTORY: Completes PMs in accordance with PWS.

50% of Preventive Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

b. Timely completion rate as defined by the Annual PM Plan and measured IAW the

PRS:

EXCELLENT: ≥97% PM completion VERY GOOD: ≥93% PM completion GOOD: ≥85%, PM completion

50% of Preventive Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

2. CLIN x 001: Service Work (25% of Award Pool):

a. Quality Service work as defined by 5.1.4 of the PWS, measured IAW the PRS, and feedback from the COR team. Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Resounding and nearly exclusively top quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service.

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs and customers.

SATISFACTORY: Completes service work in accordance with PWS.

Completes minimum requirements in most cases.

75% of Service Work Award Pool (18.5% of total award pool)

b. Timely service work as defined by the response time in section 5.1 of the PWS measured IAW the PRS:

EXCELLENT: Priority (Pri) 1 and 5 completed on time, Pri 2,3,4 completed 15% early VERY GOOD: Pri 1 and 5 completed on time, Pri 2,3,4 completed 10% early GOOD: Pri 1 and 5 completed on time, Pri 2,3,4 completed 5% early by compiling all the days the work orders had available as the baseline. For example, if there were 100 pri 2,3, or 4 work orders in the rating period with a total work time available of 1700 work days. Good would be completing them all 85 days early (1615 days of work).

25% of Service Work Award Pool (6.25% of total award pool)

3. Environmental Compliance (25% of Award Pool):

a. CLIN x010 Outside agency reporting quality

EXCELLENT: 0 permit noncompliance findings, 0 deliverables discrepancies, reaching 100 % of environmental management systems goals and objectives.

VERY GOOD: 0 permit noncompliance findings, <10 deliverables discrepancies, reaching 80% environmental management systems goals and objectives.

GOOD: 0 permit noncompliance findings, <15 deliverables discrepancies, reaching environmental 50% management systems goals and objectives.

SATISFACTORY: 0 permit noncompliance findings, more than 15 but less than 20 deliverables discrepancies, reaching environmental limited management systems goals and objectives.

50% of Environmental Compliance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

b. CLIN x014 Successful execution, reporting, and cleanup of spills EXCELLENT: 100% on time cleanup, proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, advise government as needed, and were well prepared before the spill with no government direction required. This includes zero rework after the spill.

VERY GOOD: 100% on time cleanup, proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, advise government as needed, and were well prepared before the spill – all with little government direction. This includes zerorework after the spill.

GOOD: 99% on time cleanup, good proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, and, were well prepared before the spill. This includes little rework (less than 2% of the total cleanup effort or collected material) after the spill.

SATISFACTORY: Mostly on time cleanup, mostly proper and complete reporting (including closeout reports), took adequate action to prevent further spills, and, were generally well prepared before the spill. This includes little rework after the spill.

50% of Environmental Compliance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

4. CLIN x019: Housing Maintenance (25% of Award Pool):

a. COM Season performance – Meeting timeliness and quality standards as defined by the COR IAW the PWS, as well as feedback from the COR about responsiveness to changes and challenges regarding, but not limited to, priority houses, associated work orders, and material challenges.

50% of Housing Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

b. Housing maintenance quality of work (corrective and COM) – As defined by 5.1.4 of the PWS, with regard to housing maintenance only, measured IAW the PRS, and feedback from the COR team. Classifications (GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT) determined by the AFEB with COR recommendations and accounts a guide. General guidance given below:

EXCELLENT: Resounding and nearly exclusively top quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, consistent extra steps taken, superior materials, and excellent customer service.

VERY GOOD: Consistent superior quality as reported by CORs and customers. Well trained employees, extra steps taken, improved materials, and good customer service.

GOOD: Occasional superior quality and consistent satisfactory quality as reported by CORs and customers.

SATISFACTORY: Completes service work in accordance with PWS.

Completes minimum requirements in most cases.

50% of Housing Maintenance Award Pool (12.5% of total award pool)

6. OVERALL AWARD FEE RATINGS AND AWARD FEE EARNING

Award are determined based on FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv) Table 16-1. The table below adds more adjectival criteria and definitions relative to this specific contract. These adjectival ratings are to be used when evaluating COR input toward quality of work.

Award-Fee Adjectival 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 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.

Good 51%-75%

Contractor has exceeded some 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.

Satisfactory 0% 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 for the award-fee evaluation period.

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.

7. EVALUATION PERIODS

The evaluation periods and amount of potential award fee available for each period are listed below. Award fee amounts not earned during a given period shall not be available in the future periods.

POTENTIAL AWARD

FEE

BASE PERIOD YEAR

FIRST SIX MONTHS $200,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS $200,000.00

FIRST OPTION YEAR

FIRST SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

SECOND OPTION YEAR

FIRST SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

THIRD OPTION YEAR

FIRST SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

FOURTH OPTION YEAR

FIRST SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

SECOND SIX MONTHS $250,000.00

Total $2,500,000

F04666-00-D-0001

COR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

CONTRACTOR:

CONTRACT NO: EVALUATOR:

EVALUATION PERIOD:

POSITIVE EVENTS OR FACTORS

I. Responsiveness:

II. Quality of Work:

III. Meets Sub-Contracting Goals:

NEGATIVE EVENTS OR FACTORS

I. Responsiveness:

II. Quality of Work:

III. Meets Sub-Contracting Goals:

COMMENTS

(Describe any factors that significantly influenced events noted above)

EVALUATOR’S SIGNATURE: DATE: