Att 03_EPF_Award Fee Determination Plan (AFDP).docx

AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PLAN FOR

THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION WEBSTER OUTLYING FIELD

ENGINEERING AND PROTOTYPING OPERATIONS

ENGINEERING, PROTOTYPING, AND FABRICATION SUPPORT SERVICES TASK ORDER

This Award Fee Determination Plan (AFDP) is applicable to the Period of Performance (PoP) ranging from 08 July 2026 – 07 January 2032 (inclusive of 52.217-8)

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

This AFDP establishes the procedures for evaluating the Contractor’s performance and for determining the amount of award fee earned for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Webster Outlying Field (WOLF) Engineering & Prototyping (EP) Operations Engineering, Prototyping, and Fabrication (EPF) Support Services Task Order (TO) TBD. A Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is required under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 46.401; this AFDP replaces the QASP for the work performed on a CPAF basis The AFDP may be revised unilaterally by the Government at any time during the PoP. This plan is a unilateral document created by the Government and may be revised at any time at the Government’s discretion to align with current program priorities. The Government will make every attempt to communicate changes to the Contractor no less than 15 business days prior to the start of the affected evaluation period. The AFDP may be re-evaluated each evaluation period with input from the Contractor. The award fee objective for this TO is to afford the Contractor the opportunity to earn award fee as a result of optimum performance:

a. By providing a workable AFDP with a high probability of successful implementation.

b. By clearly communicating evaluation procedures that provide effective two-way communication between the Contractor and the Government.

c. By focusing the contractor on areas of greatest importance in order to motivate outstanding performance.

The amount of award fee earned and payable to the Contractor for achieving specified levels of performance will be determined by the Award Fee Determination Official (AFDO), with the assistance of the Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB), per this AFDP. The maximum award fee payable for any period is 100% of the Award Fee Pool Allocation. The Contractor may earn all, part, or none of the award fee allocated to an evaluation period.

Standard terms used in the AFDP are:

a. Award Fee Pool: The maximum Award Fee Pool established at award.

b. Award Fee Pool Allocation: The amount of the Award Fee Pool that is allocated and potentially earned from the Award Fee Pool for the specific award fee period subject to the AFDP.

The Government will evaluate contractor performance every six months to determine the amount of award fee earned and payable to the contractor. Each Cost-Plus-Award-Fee labor Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) will contain two distinct six-month Award Fee Evaluation Periods during a twelve- month period. Mid-Period reviews will be scheduled concurrently with in-process reviews, as practicable.

Award Fee Evaluation Periods

* The Award Fee Evaluation Periods may be revised at the unilateral discretion of the Government.

3.1 Maximum Award Fee

The maximum Award Fee Pool for TO TBD over the life of the TO is $TBD.

The maximum Award Fee Pool Allocation determined for each period will never exceed the matching proportional amount of Award Fee listed in Section B for the applicable CLIN and associated PoP.

3.2 Allowable Award Fee Pool Allocation Methods

For the purpose of determining the award fee, the designated allocation methodology shall be incurred cost. The Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) have mandated this method to account for variable project effort and surging support levels. The Contractor is required to provide incurred cost data, as calculated and reported by its approved Cost Accounting System, following the end of each Award Fee Evaluation Period. Calculations must be based on approved provisional billing rates, as established by FAR 42.704. Invoiced cost shall not be used as a substitute unless incurred cost data is unavailable.

3.3 Prohibited Award Fee Pool Allocation Methods

3.3.1 Funded Cost

Funded cost will inherently exceed incurred cost. Award Fee Pool Allocations based on the funded cost would artificially increase the total effective award fee percentage higher than the negotiated amount at award. Funded cost shall never be utilized.

3.3.2 Estimated Cost

Estimated costs at award will inherently exceed incurred cost. Award Fee Pool Allocations based on the estimated cost would artificially increase the total award fee percentage higher than the negotiated amount at award. Estimated costs shall never be utilized.

3.3.3 Equal Distribution

Equal distribution of the maximum Award Fee Pool inherently deviates from the award fee percentage negotiated at award. Planned value and incurred cost are superior methodologies to provide a consistent and fair Award Fee Pool Allocation. Equal distribution shall never be utilized.

3.3.4 Weighted Distribution

Weighted distribution of the maximum Award Fee Pool inherently deviates from the award fee percentage negotiated at award. Planned Value and Incurred Cost are superior methodologies to provide a consistent and fair Award Fee Pool Allocation that correspond inherently to high levels of effort. Weighted distribution shall never be utilized.

3.4 First Award Fee Evaluation Period

The first Award Fee Evaluation Period for all CPAF awards will default to utilizing incurred cost to determine the Award Fee Pool Allocation. Transition activities inherently introduce Level of Effort (LOE) variation. A Planned Value cannot be determined prior to award. In certain circumstances (e.g., when LOE is consistent), subsequent Award Fee Evaluation Periods may use Planned Value as an alternative. The KO will notify the Contractor in writing of any decision to transition to a Planned Value methodology no later than 15 business days prior to the start of the affected evaluation period.

SECTION 4: AWARD FEE RESULTS REPORTING

4.1 Initial Award Fee Evaluation Period

The Award Fee Results Reporting Table is completed after the end of the first Award Fee Evaluation Period. The fields to be completed are Cost Incurred Amount ($), Award Fee Pool Allocation Amount ($), Earned Award Fee Percent (%), Earned Award Fee Amount ($), and Unearned Award Fee Amount ($).

4.2 Second and Subsequent Award Fee Evaluation Period

The fields to be completed after each Award Fee Evaluation Period are Award Fee Pool Allocation Amount, Earned Award Fee Percent, Earned Award Fee Amount, and Unearned Award Fee Amount. If Planned Value allocation was not used, the default Cost Incurred will be reported at the end of the award fee period.

If the Award Fee Pool Allocation methodology is progressing from Incurred Cost to Planned Value, the Planned Value Amount and the Anticipated Funded Cost shall be recorded in the table below prior to the start of the second evaluation period.

Award Fee Reporting Table for Incurred Cost

Timeline for Updating AFDP and Reporting Results

SECTION 5: AWARD FEE EVALUATION RATINGS

The following table shows the Award Fee Pool Allocation percentage by scores and the definition for each rating.

Award Fee Pool Allocation Rating/Percentage

SECTION 6: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF AWARD FEE DETERMINATION

6.1 AFDO

The KO will appoint the Primary COR as the official AFDO in writing.

The AFDO’s responsibilities include:

a. Approving the AFDP and authorizing any changes to the AFDP throughout the life of the TO.

b. Approving the members of the AFEB and appointing the AFEB Chairperson.

c. Reviewing assessments of contractor performance. Feedback coordinated with the AFEB will be provided to the Contractor as appropriate during the evaluation period to enhance overall performance and minimize problems.

d. Determining the amount of award fee that the Contractor has earned based on its performance during each Award Fee Evaluation Period.

6.2 AFEB

The AFEB consists of a Chairperson and Technical Point(s) of Contact (TPOC(s)). The KO is a non-voting advisory member of the AFEB. Additional non-voting board members may be Performance Monitors as deemed appropriate by the AFEB Chairperson. The following table provides the title or role of the individuals that are members of the AFEB. Substitutions are permitted in the event of a schedule conflict, subject to approval by the AFEB Chairperson. Attendance of the non-voting members is not required to convene the AFEB.

AFEB Members

Non-voting members will participate in AFEB assessments of Performance Monitor evaluations and discussions of award fee recommendations. Additionally, non-voting members are allowed to submit written reports on contractor performance to the AFEB for its consideration.

The responsibilities of the AFEB are:

a. Recommend the specific elements upon which the Contractor will be evaluated for each evaluation period to the AFDO.

b. Request and obtain performance information from Performance Monitors involved in observing contractor performance.

c. Evaluate the Contractor’s performance and summarize its findings and recommendations for the AFDO.

d. Recommend the percentage of award fee available during an evaluation period which the Contractor should receive to the AFDO.

6.2.1 AFEB Chairperson

The responsibilities of the AFEB Chairperson are to:

a. Conduct AFEB meetings.

b. Resolve any inconsistencies in the AFEB evaluations.

c. Ensure that AFEB recommendations to the AFDO are timely and made in accordance with the Award Fee Agreement and this AFDP.

d. Ensure timely payment of award fee earned by the Contractor.

e. Recommend any changes to the AFDP to the AFDO.

f. Ensure and have overall responsibility for the proper execution of the AFDP including managing the activities of the AFEB.

g. Exert overall responsibility for all documents and activities associated with the AFEB.

h. Maintain the award fee files, including current copy of the AFDP, any internal procedures, Performance Monitor reports, and any other documentation having a bearing on AFDO award fee decisions.

6.2.2 Performance Monitors

Government and TO support personnel will be identified by the AFEB Chairperson as Performance Monitors to aid the AFEB in making its recommendation for award fee. Performance Monitors, responsible for the technical administration of specific tasks issued under the TO, document the Contractor’s performance against evaluation criteria in assigned evaluation areas(s).

The primary responsibilities of the Performance Monitors include:

a. Monitoring, evaluating, and assessing contractor performance in assigned areas.

b. Preparing evaluation reports (scorecards) that ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of the contractor’s performance.

c. Recommending changes to the AFDP to the AFEB Chairperson.

Performance Monitors will submit written reports, as required by the AFEB Chairperson, regarding the Contractor’s performance to the AFEB for consideration. Submission of reports will be coordinated through the AFEB Chairperson. Procedures and instructions for the Performance Monitors regarding midterm and final evaluations are provided below. The final report will be comprehensive and will be completed and submitted to the AFEB Chairperson in a timely manner.

SECTION 7: AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PROCESS

The Contractor shall begin each evaluation period with 0% of the available award fee and earn award fee based on performance during the evaluation period.

7.1 Monitoring and Assessing Performance

The AFEB Chairperson will assign Performance Monitors for the major performance areas. The Performance Monitors will be selected on the basis of expertise in the prescribed performance areas and/or association with specific technical tasks. The AFEB Chairperson may assign and change Performance Monitor assignments at any time without notice to the Contractor. The AFEB Chairperson will ensure that each Performance Monitor and board member has a copy of the TO and all modifications, the AFDP, and all changes and specific instructions for assigned areas.

Performance Monitors will conduct assessments of the contractor performance in their assigned areas. Feedback coordinated with the AFEB Chairperson will be provided to the Contractor as appropriate during the evaluation period to enhance overall performance and minimize problems.

7.1.1 Instructions for Performance Monitors

Performance Monitors will maintain a written record of the contractor’s performance, including inputs from other Government personnel, in the evaluation areas of responsibility. Performance Monitors will retain informal records used to prepare evaluation reports for 12 months after the completion of an evaluation period to support any inquiries made by the AFDO. Performance Monitors will conduct assessments in an open, objective, and cooperative spirit, so that a fair and accurate evaluation is made. Performance Monitors will make every effort to be consistent from period-to-period in their approach to determine recommended ratings. Positive accomplishments should be emphasized just as readily as negative ones.

a. Performance Monitors will prepare midterm and final evaluation reports for each evaluation period during which they are Performance Monitors. The final reports will be more comprehensive than the midterm reports.

The reports, at a minimum, will contain the following information:

1. The criteria and methods used to evaluate the contractor’s performance during the evaluation period.

2. The technical, economic, and schedule environment under which the Contractor was required to perform. What effect did the environment have on the Contractor’s performance?

3. The Contractor’s major strengths and weaknesses during the evaluation period. Give examples of the contractor performance for each strength and weakness listed. Also provide the reference in the specification, Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement (SOW/PWS), data requirement, TO, etc., that relates to each strength or weakness.

4. A recommended rating for the evaluation period using the adjectives and definitions set forth in this AFDP. Provide concrete examples of the contractor’s performance to support the recommended rating.

7.2 Exclusions

Throughout the entire evaluation period, the Contractor shall present and document any exclusion to the PoP, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Contractor, to the AFEB Chairperson within 10 business days of the end of the award fee period. The Performance Monitors should present the exclusions (if any) to the AFEB. If necessary, the AFEB will ask the Contractor to present its case. The AFEB, in conjunction with the NAWCAD KO, will make a unilateral decision as to the exclusion from the evaluation.

7.3 Contractor Monthly Performance Reports

The Contractor shall prepare Monthly Performance Reports that contain data that can be used to compare against the Performance Standards stated in this AFDP. All Monthly Performance Reports, including the raw data, shall be provided to the designated Performance Monitors.

Performance Monitors will collect the Monthly Performance Reports from the Contractor. They will then review and analyze the reports for accuracy and, if required, provide an oral or written summary to the AFEB.

7.4 Midterm Evaluation Procedures

The purpose of the midterm evaluation is to provide the Contractor with a quick, concise, interim Government review of contractor performance and an opportunity to improve its performance prior to the determination of award fee earned at the end of the evaluation period. No award fee is paid based on midterm evaluations.

7.5 Final Evaluation Reports

The Performance Monitors will provide evaluations for the entire six-month evaluation period. Performance Monitors will submit final evaluation reports after the end date of the evaluation period to the AFEB Chairperson.

7.6 Contractor Self-Evaluation Presentation

The Contractor may prepare a written self-assessment against the AFDP, along with the option of presenting the results to the AFEB upon request. This presentation should last no longer than one hour. A subsequent question and answer session is permissible, if necessary.

7.7 AFEB Meeting and Memorandum to the AFDO

After receipt of the Contractor’s self-evaluation, the AFEB will meet and evaluate all performance information it has obtained. The AFEB will review the Performance Monitor reports and prepare an Award Fee Evaluation Report. The Award Fee Evaluation Report will be a memorandum to the AFDO with the AFEB’s recommendation.

7.8 AFEB Final Report

After meeting with the Contractor, the AFEB will finalize the report and present it to the AFDO. The report will recommend the award fee amount and any unresolved contractor issues to the AFDO.

7.9 Issuing Award Fee Determination Report

The AFDO will consider the final AFEB report and ensure compliance with the AFDP. The AFDO may accept, reject, or modify the AFEB recommendation. The AFDO will make the final determination of the award fee earned during the period. The AFDO’s determination of the amount of award fee earned and the basis of the determination will be stated in an Award Fee Determination Report and forwarded to the NAWCAD KO for the TO file via modification.

7.10 Award Fee Determination Notice

Within 30 calendar days of the end of the Award Fee Period, the KO will prepare this notice to the Contractor stating the amount of the award fee earned for the evaluation period. The Contractor shall invoice after accepting the modification including the award fee determination and any corresponding deobligation of unearned fee.

7.11 Failure to Conduct Timely Award Fee Determinations

If the Government fails to complete the Award Fee Determination in the timeframe specified in Section 7.10 for two consecutive periods, the Government may convert the CPAF CLINs for the remaining PoPs to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF). The CPFF type will be term. The contract type conversion and fixed fee amount will be subject to negotiation (limited by any applicable statutory and regulatory maximum of 10%).

SECTION 8: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS

During each evaluation period and in accordance with DFARS 252.216-7004, the Government will conduct a review to determine if any contractor and subcontractor actions jeopardized the health or safety of Government personnel, through gross negligence or reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel, as determined through—

(1) Conviction in a criminal proceeding or finding of fault and liability in a civil or administrative proceeding (in accordance with section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84)); or

(2) If a Contractor or a subcontractor at any tier is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, a final determination of contractor or subcontractor fault resulting from a DoD investigation (in accordance with section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383)).

The Government may reduce or deny award fees for a period, if contractor or subcontractor actions cause serious bodily injury or death of civilian or military Government personnel during such period. The Government reserves the right to recover all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.

Additionally, the AFDP consists of award fee provisions for four distinct areas. The award fee areas are broken down as follows:

Award Fee Areas

The criteria and weights provided above and discussed in detail below are guidelines to be used in evaluating these areas to determine the appropriate award fee. The criteria and relative percentages may be adjusted for subsequent award fee periods. Members of the AFEB and working group will use the following examples of criteria to evaluate the Contractor’s performance during each Award Fee Evaluation Period.

Service-Level Agreements (SLAs) and other subjective criteria may be revised for subsequent award fee periods. Those future SLAs will be developed jointly by the Contractor and Government and may replace some or all of the criteria listed below. The Government has the final responsibility for determining which SLAs will be incorporated.

8.1 Criteria 1: Project Management – 20%

The Contractor will be evaluated on the effectiveness of project management support including the management and oversight of all activities performed by contractor and subcontractor personnel. Managing and supporting customer requirements will also be assessed.

The following are areas to be evaluated during this award fee period:

a. How effective was the Contractor in meeting the objectives and requirements identified in the TO and subsequent Government approved Technical Direction Letters (TDLs).

b. Was the percentage of Production Readiness Reviews (PRRs) held more than 15 calendar days out from an install greater than or equal to 90% and did the Contractor deliver at least 90% of the After Action Reports (AARs) no more than 15 calendar days after the Production Completion Date (PCD) on all fabrication efforts (less Government approved exceptions) Fabrication Tiers, as defined in the table below, will be used to classify PRRs:

c. The degree to which the Contractor effectively and proactively communicated, shared information, and collaborated across the enterprise, both internally and with the Government. Did the Contractor proactively raise potential issues and resolve those issues with the Government before impacting performance?

d. How effective was the Contractor in planning, organizing, and managing internal resources, subcontractors, and service Other Direct Cost (ODC) vendors to include maintaining lines of authority to a distributed workforce? How effective was the Contractor in ensuring that subcontractors and service ODC vendors were effectively motivated to meet or exceed requirements in the TO?

8.2 Criteria 2: Quality – 20%

The Contractor will be evaluated on the effectiveness of instituting and adhering to quality and safety processes at every stage of the project.

The following are areas to be evaluated during this award fee period:

a. The degree to which the Contractor minimized Corrective Action Requests (CARs), especially in the area of personnel safety and rework in performance of project work.

b. Did the Contractor keep overall re-work, and defects in fabrication of required items to a minimum (less than 1% of manufacturing and fabrication hours)?

c. The degree to which the Contractor followed their approved Quality Management System (QMS) plan throughout the performance of project work.

8.3 Criteria 3: Cost and Schedule Control – 20%

The Contractor will be evaluated on how well it manages costs and schedule both at the TO and project level. The Government will assess how the Contractor applies innovative management techniques and best practices, and the effectiveness of actions taken to identify and reduce costs and maintain schedule as they relate to the execution of the TO.

The following are areas to be evaluated during this award fee period:

a. The degree to which the Contractor submitted accurate and timely invoices (i.e., invoices did not require revisions and/or corrections prior to Government acceptance, included all required information, and were delivered or exceeded TO time requirements). The Contractor submitted invoices promptly, including charges Materials and Equipment and ODCs to facilitate prompt closeouts.

b. The degree to which the Contractor provided accurate financial reporting and future projections (i.e., accurate costs and hours expended against specific work activities to include labor, Materials and Equipment, and ODCs). The Contractor provided timely and accurate reports of current expenditures to include subcontractor incurred costs, against TDL plan/baselines with trend analyses to identify and inform the Government of possible cost overruns or underruns and identify and leverage efficiencies that benefit the Government.

c. The degree to which the Contractor identified and implemented efficiencies and cost reductions related to ODCs.

8.4 Criteria 4: Technical Effectiveness – 40%

The Contractor will be evaluated on the degree to which it accomplished the TO requirements and TDL project work from a technical perspective while employing innovative methodologies and assuming minimal risk. The Contractor’s ability to manufacture all of the tasks within the TO to produce successful TDL project outcomes will be assessed. The following are areas to be evaluated during this award fee period:

a. The degree to which the Contractor was effective in executing all pre-fabrication activities (planning and engineering) culminating in the Production Readiness Review.

b. How effective was the Contractor in executing the fabrication in accordance with the applicable Navy Modernization specifications and standards, as determined by the TDL, to the Production Completion Date (PCD). During execution of fabrication, the Contractor will present detailed execution data at established benchmarks (based upon schedule milestone):

The degree to which the Contractor was effective in executing all fabrication activities culminating in the presentation of the AAR.

APPENDIX 1:

AWARD FEE EVALUATION BOARD (AFEB) SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT

Date:

AFEB Chairperson Name:

Award Fee Period: – Criteria 1 – Project Management: Rating Adjective/Performance Points Discussion:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Criteria 2 – Quality: Rating Adjective/Performance Points Discussion:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Criteria 3 – Cost and Schedule: Rating Adjective/Performance Points Discussion:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Criteria 4 – Technical: Rating Adjective/Performance Points Discussion:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Award fee rating recommended for this evaluation criteria and period of performance with recommended percentage earned.

AFEB Chairperson Signature: Date:

APPENDIX 2:

AWARD FEE EVALUATION BOARD (AFEB) EVALUATOR’S REPORT

Instructions: Evaluators are requested to use bulleted format for submitting strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Also, evaluators are encouraged to attach additional sheets, supporting data, etc. for the final report.

Date:

Evaluator Name and Title:

Award Fee Period: – Evaluator’s Primary Task Area(s) (check all that apply):

Criteria 1 – Project Management

Criteria 2 – Quality

Criteria 3 – Cost and Schedule

Criteria 4 – Technical Effectiveness

Note: Evaluators are NOT limited to evaluating only their own task areas. Although experiences in other areas should also be evaluated, ensure that your primary area(s) of responsibility are indicated in the boxes above.

Special circumstances during this period and the impact:

a.

b.

Strengths of the contractor’s performance:

a.

b.

Weaknesses in the contractor’s performance (with examples and task order references):

a.

b.

Impact of the contractor’s performance on execution of the project:

a.

b.

Corrective actions recommended, if any:

a.

b.

Award fee rating recommended for this evaluation criteria and period of performance (with supporting examples):

a.

b.

Evaluator Signature: Date:

image1.jpeg