Attach M - Award Fee Plan.pdf

Attachment M – Award Fee Plan N32205-21-R-4117

ATTACHMENT M

AWARD FEE PLAN

1.0 – Introduction

This award fee plan is the basis for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) program (Solicitation N32205-21-R-4117) evaluation of the Contractor’s performance for award fee purposes and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

This plan will be used by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) in the administration of award fee provisions under the contract resulting from solicitation N32205-21- R-4117. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the AFDO based upon review of the Contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The AFDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The Contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer (KO) in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period.

2.0 – Organization

The award fee organization consists of the AFDO and an AFRB, which consists of the MPS Project Officer (Chairperson), the KO, Contracting Officer Representative (COR), a Recorder, and the Performance Monitors. The AFDO is the Prepositioning (PM3) Program Manager. The Government reserves the right to make unilateral substitutions for award fee organization members.

3.0 – Responsibilities

a. Award Fee Determining Official. The AFDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes to it. The AFDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review the Performance Monitors’ evaluation of the Contractor’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented to the AFDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Award Fee Review Board Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members. The Chairperson is responsible for:

(1) scheduling all meetings of the AFRB;

(2) conducting the briefing of the AFDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB.

d. Award Fee Review Board Recorder. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFRB, and the AFDO, including:

(l) maintaining records of all meetings in developing the award fee evaluations (a copy of which will be provided to the KO for retention in the contract file);

(2) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources;

(3) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and

(4) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the AFRB.

e. Contracting Officer (KO). The KO is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel on all issues. The KO is responsible for forwarding the AFDO decision to the Contractor and maintaining the contract file.

f. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The COR collects and evaluates the records provided by the Performance Monitors. If there is a difference of opinion in a given evaluation area, the COR will adjudicate the difference to establish one rating for the evaluation area. The COR may perform the duties of a Performance Monitor for his/her area of expertise.

g. Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors maintain written records of the Contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained, and prepare end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB.

4.0 – Award Fee Processes

a. Available Award Fee Amount. The maximum value of the award fee will be $750,000.00 per evaluation period. Performance periods that are less than one year will have a prorated award fee according to the number of days of performance. The award fee evaluation periods will be aligned with each year of the performance period. The award fee earned will be paid based on the Contractor’s performance during each evaluation period. Performance during a contract extension due to FAR 52.217-8 will be eligible for an award fee only if the KO provides written notice prior to the start of that period. The decision to allow or prohibit award fee during a contract extension is exclusively at the option and discretion of the Government. Award fee may not be earned for performance provided under FAR 52.237-3. Rolling over of unearned award fee is prohibited under FAR 16.401.

b. Evaluation Criteria. If the KO does not give specific notice, in writing, to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria, prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the subsequent award fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by issuing a unilateral modification to the Contractor.

c. End-of-Period Evaluations. The contractor shall submit a written self-evaluation of its performance, (not to exceed 30 pages), to the KO within 30 calendar days after the closure of each evaluation period. The contractor may also give a presentation to the AFRB. If the contractor desires to make a presentation, he/she should notify the KO within 10 calendar days prior to the end of the evaluation period. The contractor must submit an electronic copy of the presentation slides no later than 5 working days prior to the presentation date.

Performance Monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB Recorder within 30 calendar days after the contractor submits the self-evaluation or gives a presentation, whichever is later. Then the AFRB Recorder will consolidate a summary evaluation and provide it to the AFRB.

Next, the Chairperson briefs the AFDO on the AFRB’s recommendations of the earned award fee amount and any significant changes to the award fee plan. The briefing includes discussion of the contractor’s performance during the rating period. After the AFDO decides an overall rating and the award fee amount for the evaluation period, an AFDO summary evaluation will be sent to the contractor via cover letter from the KO. The KO’s determination letter should be clear and concise, inform the contractor of the earned award fee amount, the rating received in each category, and a summary of its performance during the award fee evaluation period. The KO shall issue a unilateral contract modification to authorize payment of the earned award fee amount within 15 calendar days after the AFDO’s determination.

These procedures and timelines are projected; therefore, failure by the Government to abide by these timelines and procedures shall not form the basis of a Request for Equitable Adjustment or claim.

5.0 – Award Fee Plan Change Procedure

All significant changes shall be approved by the AFDO. The AFRB Chairperson shall approve other changes. Examples of significant changes include: changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect Contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of the award fee dollars. The Contractor shall make recommendations to change the award fee plan for the next evaluation period no later than 60 calendar days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. Contractor recommended changes to the award fee plan are encouraged throughout the contract period. All Contractor recommended changes shall be provided to the KO. The KO may make unilateral changes to the award fee plan if the Contractor is provided written notification by the KO 30 calendar days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

6.0 -- Contract Termination

If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the AFDO using the normal award fee evaluation process with an appropriate pro-rated amount. After termination for convenience, the remaining award fee amounts allocated to subsequent award fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the Contractor and will not be paid by the government.

7.0 – Evaluation Criteria

The award fee rating will be based upon a subjective evaluation by the Government of the effectiveness and quality of the Contractor’s performance in the following Criteria: Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control of Reimbursable Items, Business Relations, Management of Key and Shipboard Personnel, and Overhaul, Repair and Regulatory Management. All criteria are equally weighted. These evaluation criteria have been selected as they are directly linked to the acquisition objectives of this contract. If the Government determines that the contractor’s performance in any one of the evaluation criteria is Unsatisfactory, then contractor shall receive NO award fee for that evaluation period. The award fee criteria will be judged in light of the nature of the contract requirements and any other factors considered relevant to the determination. It should also be noted that meeting contract requirements is equivalent to a satisfactory rating.

Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

A - Quality of Service

Ships' Appearance Unsatisfactory Ships' exteriors and mission gear are not maintained IAW contract requirements, leading to a loss of mission readiness or excessive generalized rust resulting in wastage, holing, or active corrosion.

Satisfactory Ships' exteriors, mission gear, and interiors are maintained IAW contract requirements.

Good Ships' exteriors and mission gear are maintained with typical small areas of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. Deficiencies are resolved in a timely manner without affecting mission readiness.

Very Good Ships' exteriors and mission gear are maintained with a minimum amount of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in a very clean and sanitary manner. Deficiencies are resolved in a timely manner without affecting mission readiness.

Excellent Ships' exteriors and mission gear are maintained with almost no or minor amounts of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in an exceedingly clean and sanitary manner.

Deficiencies are resolved in a timely manner without affecting mission readiness.

B - Schedule

Task Management Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to meet the minimum contract requirements for POA&M compliance and task management.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for POA&M compliance and task management.

Good Contractor meets and exceeds some contract requirement for POA&M compliance and task management, which provides benefit to the Government in areas of schedule and/or mission accomplishment. All periodic reports are submitted to proper MSC personnel, in the correct format, through the correct IT system, and on time greater than 95% of the time.

Very Good Contractor meets and exceeds many contract requirements for POA&M compliance and task management, which provides benefit to the Government in areas of schedule and/or mission accomplishment. Plans and risk mitigations are provided with courses of actions in a timely manner to allow for internal and external MSC discussions. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are sometimes offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to accommodate Government priorities. All periodic reports are submitted to proper MSC personnel, in the correct format, through the correct IT system, and on time greater than 97% of the time.

Excellent Contractor exceeds almost all contract requirements for POA&M compliance and task management, which provides benefit to the Government in areas of schedule and/or mission accomplishment. Plans and risk mitigations are routinely provided with reasonable courses of actions in a timely manner to allow for internal and external MSC discussions. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are frequently offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to anticipate and accommodate Government priorities. All periodic reports are submitted to proper MSC personnel, in the correct format, through the correct IT system, and on time greater than 99% of the time throughout the reporting period.

C - Cost Control of Reimbursable Items

Cost Avoidance Initiatives Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to meet the minimum contract requirements for cost avoidance. Contractor repeatedly undertakes unauthorized, poorly conceived, or poorly executed initiatives that are not in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives are ineffective and result in a net increase in cost to the government.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for cost avoidance.

Good Contractor undertakes some cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and approval of the Government. These initiatives are generally effective and in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives usually result in a documented net decrease in cost to the Government. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions. Contractor provides an example with documentation in its self-assessment. Cost savings initiatives are proven not to adversely impact mission readiness or projected life-cycle costs.

Very Good Contractor often undertakes many cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and approval of the Government. These initiatives are frequently effective and are in compliance with contract requirements. Many of these initiatives result in a net decrease in cost to the Government. Contractor provides two or more specific examples in its self-assessment. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions.

Cost savings initiatives are proven not to adversely impact mission readiness or projected lifecycle costs.

Excellent Contractor almost always undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and approval of the Government. These initiatives are almost always effective and are in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives always result in a significant net decrease in cost to the Government. Contractor provides five or more specific examples in self-assessment. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions. Cost savings initiatives are proven to increase mission readiness and reduce projected lifecycle costs.

D - Business Relations

Business Relations/Management Approach Unsatisfactory Contractor’s management approach fails to meets minimum contract requirements.

Contractor’s management approach produces deficiencies in various aspects of contract execution, and often requires Government intervention to resolve problems. Contractor’s management fails to provide timely, accurate, or important information to the Government.

Satisfactory Contractor’s management approach produces acceptable levels of contract performance and meets minimum contract requirements.

Good Contractor’s management approach is sometimes proactive, responsive and provides effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates demonstrable benefits for the Government.

Very Good Contractor’s management approach is often proactive, responsive, adaptive, and provides effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates continual demonstrable benefits for the Government.

Contingency plans and risk mitigations are frequently provided with reasonable courses of actions & in a timely manner to allow for internal and external MSC discussions.

Excellent Contractor’s management approach is almost always proactive, responsive, adaptive, and provides highly effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates significant and demonstrable benefits for the Government. Contingency plans and risk mitigations are always provided with reasonable courses of actions in a timely manner to allow for internal and external MSC discussions.

E - Management of Key and Shipboard Personnel

Shipboard Crew and Key Shipboard/Shoreside Billets Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to meet the minimum contract requirements for key billet approvals, personnel/crew retention and training requirements. There are prolonged gaps in key personnel/crew positions/billets.

Satisfactory Contractor meets minimum contract requirements for key billet approvals, personnel/crew retention and training requirements. There are some prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets.

Good Contractor is generally able to retain and train personnel/crew on a relatively permanent basis with some turnover due to typical personnel changes. Less than 10% of the Key billet approvals submitted require mitigation plans for training, experience, or special consideration by MSC to prevent gaps in billets. There are some prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets.

Very Good The contractor is often able to retain and train personnel assigned to both shoreside and shipboard key billets creating demonstrable benefit to the Government. The contractor leverages corporate knowledge maintained by key personnel to capture and disseminate lessons learned. Less than 5% of key billet approval request require mitigation plans for training, experience, or special consideration by MSC to prevent gaps in billets. There are few prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets.

Excellent The contractor is almost always able to retain and train personnel assigned to both shoreside and shipboard key billets creating demonstrable benefits to the Government. The contractor leverages corporate knowledge maintained by key personnel to capture and disseminate lessons learned and improve the readiness and reliability of assigned ships. Less than 1% of key billet approval request require mitigation plans for training, experience, or special consideration by MSC to prevent gaps in billets. There are no prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets.

F – Overhaul, Repair and Regulatory Management

Overhaul and Repair Management Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to meet the minimum contract requirements for overhaul, repair and regulatory management. Contractor fails to include known required maintenance and alteration items in the work packages. Contractor’s management of availabilities and industrial assistance directly leads to: 1) failure to complete the full work scope, 2) failure to complete work on time, 3) failure to complete work within original budget provided or, 4) failure to make mission. Contractor’s management directly leads to failure to maintain any ship within statutory or regulatory inspections certification requirements.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for overhaul, repair and regulatory management. No ships fail to be maintained within statutory or regulatory inspections certification requirements due to Contractor mismanagement. No overhaul/repair work was cancelled or missions delayed due to contractor mismanagement.

Good Contractor’s management of overhauls/repairs sometimes results in some reduction in overall growth cost, reduction in duration of the work, an increase in the ship’s readiness or reliability. Contractor provides an example in their self-assessment. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions. Cost savings initiatives are proven not to impact mission readiness or projected lifecycle costs. Contractor maintains all ships within statutory or regulatory inspections certification requirements. No availability periods were extended or work canceled due to contractor mismanagement.

Very Good Contractor management of overhauls/repairs often results in many instances where substantial reductions to the overall growth cost and/or duration of the work and/or an increase in the ship’s readiness and/or reliability are realized. Contractor provides two or more specific examples in their self-assessment. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions. Cost savings initiatives are proven not to impact mission readiness or projected lifecycle costs. Contractor maintains all ships within statutory or regulatory inspections certification requirements. All availability periods ended early or on-time without the need to cancel work.

Excellent Contractor management of overhauls/repairs almost always results in instances where substantial reductions to the overall growth cost and/or duration of the work and/or an increase in the ship’s readiness and/or reliability are realized. Contractor provides five or more specific examples in self-assessment. Documentation provided includes trackable short and long term cost reductions. Cost savings initiatives are proven to increase mission readiness and reduce projected lifecycle costs. Contractor maintains all ships within statutory or regulatory inspections certification requirements. All availability periods ended early or on-time without the need to cancel work.

8.0—Award Fee Pool Allocation

Award fee may be earned in accordance with the following:

Award Fee Maximum Values A) Quality of Service

Ship's Appearance $125,000.00 B) Schedule

Task Management $125,000.00 C) Cost Control of Reimbursable Items

Cost Avoidance Initiatives $125,000.00 D) Business Relations

Business Relations/Management Approach Business $125,000.00 E) Management of Key and Shipboard Personnel

Shipboard Crew and Key Shipboard/Shoreside Billets

$125,000.00 F) Overhaul, Repair and Regulatory Management

Overhaul and Repair Management $125,000.00 Total Award Fee Value $750,000.00

The amount of award fee earned will be determined at the category level using the category ratings and allocation ranges below. Each category is weighted equally, accounting for 16.67% of the total potential award fee. The specific amount of award fee earned in each category will be solely within the discretion of the Award Fee Determining Official. FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv) mandates the use of particular percentages of the resulting contract’s total award fee that may be earned by the contractor for achievement of particular adjectival performance ratings. Those percentages are as follows in the table below:

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 No Greater Than 50%.

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