Attachment 2 - Award Fee Plan.pdf

AWARD FEE PLAN FOR

INTEGRATION SUPPORT CONTRACT (ISC) 2.0

16 November 2020

Approved:

JASON BARTOLOMEI, Colonel, USAF Director, GBSD Systems Directorate Fee Determining Official

Approved:

ERIK QUIGLEY, Colonel, USAF Director, MMIII Systems Directorate Fee Determining Official

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 ORGANIZATION

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

4.0 AWARD FEE PROCESSES

5.0 AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

6.0 PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS AWARD FEE PERIODS

7.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

8.0 ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Award Fee Organization

Annex 2 – Award Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

Annex 3 - Award Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

Annex 4 – Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This award fee plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor’s performance on the Integration Support Contract (ISC) 2.0 and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and 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; however, the determination is subject to the “Disputes Clause” of the contract.

The award fee earned will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based upon review of the contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of a new evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The award fee organization consists of: the Fee Determining Official (FDO), an Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) (which consists of a chairperson and members, the contracting officer, and a recorder), other functional area participants, advisor members, and the performance monitors. The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official: The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes thereto. The FDO reviews 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 provide an earned award fee recommendation to the FDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

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

(1) Schedule all meetings of the AFRB and notify its members of the meetings.

(2) Conduct the briefing to the FDO with regard to the recommendations of the

AFRB.

d. AFRB Recorder: The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB, and the FDO including:

(1) Receive, process, and distribute evaluation reports from all required sources;

(2) Schedule and assist with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings, and;

(3) Accomplish other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

e. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO): The PCO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. The PCO is the only individual authorized to monetarily obligate the Government.

f. 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. Prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. Performance monitors are prohibited from being AFRB members but may serve as advisors to the board.

4.0 AWARD FEE PROCESSES

a. Available Award Fee Amount: The available award fee for each evaluation period is shown in Annex 2. The award fee earned will be paid based on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

b. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are located in Annex 4. Changes to the evaluation criteria will be made in accordance with paragraph 5, Award Fee Plan Change Procedure. Any changes to area weight or the evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and/or 4.

c. Interim Evaluation Process: The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor not less than 10 calendar days before the Task Force Review (TFR) (completed every other quarter) and PMR (completed opposite quarters from the TFR).

Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not more than 5 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB evaluates the interim results and the Government notifies the contractor of the strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period during the TFR or PMR. The PCO may issue letters at any time deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations: The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor not less than 14 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not later than

14 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. The AFRB chairperson briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the award fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall rating and earned award fee amount for the evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the earned rating/award fee amount which will be forwarded to the contractor by the contracting officer. The PCO issues a contract modification authorizing the payment of the award fee earned not later than 14 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made.

In order to prevent focus being applied to a single task order award fee effort, or any group of efforts, to the detriment of another, all award fee task orders will be reviewed during one AFRB. Any task order which utilizes award fee under this contract, shall submit the above requirements on the same schedule. One AFRB will be convened for all award fee task orders during which each task order will be reviewed and evaluated. The AFRB may take into consideration performance across all award fee efforts in determining earned award fee for each task order.

e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment: When the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the PCO within 10 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain any information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFRB in evaluating the contractor’s performance. The contractor’s self-assessment may not exceed 15 pages including the title page. The contractor, if they desire, may brief the AFRB; briefing may not exceed 30 minutes, not including questions.

5.0 AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes are approved by the FDO. The PCO, in coordination with the AFRB Chairperson, approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include: changing evaluation criteria; adjusting weights (detailed in Annex 3) to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement; and revising the distribution of the award fee dollars. The contractor may recommend changes to the PCO no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the PCO shall notify the contractor in writing of any approved change(s). Unilateral changes may be made to the award fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer no later than 10 business 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 PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS AWARD FEE PERIODS

If, during the current award fee period, performance or cost deficiencies from a prior award fee period are discovered that show degradation which should have been detected in a prior award fee period, the government reserves the right to unilaterally decrease the size of the award fee pool for the current award fee period by an amount determined appropriate by the FDO.

7.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

a. Termination for Convenience: In the event that the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the amount of award fee to which the contractor is entitled shall be determined as follows:

(1) Award fee earned or earnable by the contractor for award fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination.

(2) Award fee deemed earned and to be paid for performance during the award fee period in which the termination becomes effective will be determined by the FDO in accordance with the approved award fee criteria and will not be subject to negotiation as part of the equitable adjustment in accordance with the termination clause of the contract. For purposes of fee determination, contractor performance evaluation will end as of the date of termination.

(3) The remaining award fee dollars for all periods subsequent to the period in which the termination becomes effective will not be considered earned or earnable and, therefore, will not be paid.

b. Termination for Default: If the Government terminates this contract for default (i.e., contractor’s performance is less than satisfactory), the contractor shall not earn any fee for the award fee period in which the default occurred. Consequently, no additional award fee shall be paid during the termination settlement of the contract. Award fee earned by the contractor for award fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination.

8.0 ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Award Fee Organization

Members

Fee Determining Official(s):

MMIII Systems Director ANFWC/NM and/or

GBSD Systems Director ANFWC/NX

Award Fee Review Board Co-Chairs:

MMIII Deputy Director AFNWC/NM GBSD Deputy Director AFNWC/NX

Award Fee Review Board Members*:

MMIII Operations Division Chief AFNWC/NMO MMIII Sustainment Division Chief AFNWC/NMS

MMIII Integration Division Chief AFNWC/NME MMIII Acquisitions Division Chief AFNWC/NMA GBSD Operations Division Chief AFNWC/NXO Contracting Division Chief AFNWC/PZB

Advisors*:

Staff Judge Advocate 75 ABW/JAQ Procuring Contracting Officer AFNWC/PZBC

Performance Monitors:

Shall be the designated primary and alternate(s) Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) for each task order.

* Can be delegated as needed

Annex 2 – Award Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods*

The award fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods shown below. The dollars shown corresponding to each period is the maximum available award fee amount that can be earned during that particular period.

Evaluation Period From To Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 1 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 2 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 3 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 4 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 5

1 DD MMM 2022 DD MMM 2022

2 DD MMM 2022 DD MMM 2023

3 DD MMM 2023 DD MMM 2023

4 DD MMM 2023 DD MMM 2024

5 DD MMM 2024 DD MMM 2024

6 DD MMM 2024 DD MMM 2025

7 DD MMM 2025 DD MMM 2025

8 DD MMM 2025 DD MMM 2026

9 DD MMM 2026 DD MMM 2026

10 DD MMM 2026 DD MMM 2027

11 DD MMM 2027 DD MMM 2027

12 DD MMM 2027 DD MMM 2028

13 DD MMM 2028 DD MMM 2028

14 DD MMM 2028 DD MMM 2029

15 DD MMM 2029 DD MMM 2029

16 DD MMM 2029 DD MMM 2030

17 DD MMM 2030 DD MMM 2030

18 DD MMM 2030 DD MMM 2031

19 DD MMM 2031 DD MMM 2031

20 DD MMM 2031 DD MMM 2032

21 DD MMM 2032 DD MMM 2032

22 DD MMM 2032 DD MMM 2033

23 DD MMM 2033 DD MMM 2033

24 DD MMM 2033 DD MMM 2034

Evaluation Period From To Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 1 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 2 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 3 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 4 Award-Fee Pool

Task Order 5

25 DD MMM 2034 DD MMM 2034

26 DD MMM 2034 DD MMM 2035

27 DD MMM 2035 DD MMM 2035

28 DD MMM 2035 DD MMM 2036

29 DD MMM 2036 DD MMM 2036

30 DD MMM 2036 DD MMM 2037

31 DD MMM 2037 DD MMM 2037

32 DD MMM 2037 DD MMM 2038

33 DD MMM 2038 DD MMM 2038

34 DD MMM 2038 DD MMM 2039

35 DD MMM 2039 DD MMM 2039

36 DD MMM 2039 DD MMM 2040

* Award-Fee Periods 11-36 will be incorporated into future task orders at a later time but will remain in the same format.

Annex 3 - Award Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship The Government will evaluate contractor performance using the criteria identified in Annex 4, Award Fee Evaluation Criteria. Performance Evaluation Areas and their respective weights are listed in the table below.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) WEIGHT

Performance

Responsiveness 25%

Quality 65%

Innovation 10%

75%

Cost* 10%

FDO Special Interest Items 15%

* An unsatisfactory rating within the Cost PEA will result in no greater than a satisfactory rating in the Performance PEA.

The following table depicts the relationship between the overall performance ratings, the point spread of the ratings, and the percentage of award fee payable.

Overall 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 Not 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.

Annex 4 – Award Fee Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate contractor performance using the criteria identified in the following four Performance Evaluation Area (PEA) tables.

Table 1 - PEA 1 – PERFORMANCE

Sub PEA

1.1

Responsiveness

EXCELLENT

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)

An award in this range indicates:

Contractor completed 95% of tasks* prior to the ECD or met all three of the following criteria:

1) Obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

2) Proactively worked the task

3) Mitigated contractor controlled delay

Contractor completed 95% of tasks* by the ECD or met both of the following criteria:

1) Obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

2) Proactively worked the task

Contractor completed 90% of tasks* by the ECD with the other 10% of tasks completed within 3 calendar days after the ECD or obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

Contractor completed 90% of tasks* by the ECD with the other 10% of tasks completed within 10 calendar days after the ECD or obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

* Tasks are those with end dates within the evaluation period

* This includes responsiveness to PCO/Buyer requests

1.2

CDRL

Quality

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)*

An award in this range indicates:

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Clear justification for recommendations

2) No more than 5% or

1 document (whichever is greater) require rework for acceptance

3) Highly organized and properly formatted with no Government effort

4) Additional information beyond the original request which significantly aided the government POC (when applicable)

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the

1) Clear justification for

2) No more than 10% or

1 document (whichever is greater) require rework for

3) Properly formatted with no Government effort

4) Additional information beyond the original request which significantly aided the Government POC (when applicable)

Contractor provided complete documentation to

1) Justification for recommendation s which requires further explanation

2) No more than

10% or 3 documents (whichever is greater) require

3) Organization and formatting require Government effort

Contractor provided complete documentation to

1) Justification for included

2) No more than

10% or 5 documents (whichever is greater) require

3) Organization and formatting required Government effort for over 50% of deliverables

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

1.3

Innovation*

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)

An award in this range indicates:

Contractor suggested solution(s) and more than 1 were implemented which led to significant improvements in resource efficiency** such as: cost, schedule, operational capability, safety, suitability, effectiveness, mission assurance, and/or other weapon system efficiencies.

Contractor suggested solution(s) and more than 1 were implemented which led to moderate improvements in resource efficiency** such as: cost, schedule, operational capability, safety, suitability, effectiveness, mission assurance, and/or other weapon system efficiencies.

Contractor suggested solution(s) and more than 1 were implemented which led to improvements in resource efficiency** such as: cost, schedule, operational capability, safety, suitability, effectiveness, mission assurance, and/or other weapon system efficiencies.

Contractor suggested solution(s) and at least 1 was implemented which led to improvements in resource efficiency** such as: cost, schedule, operational capability, safety, suitability, effectiveness, mission assurance, and/or other weapon system efficiencies.

Task specifically requested an innovative improvement in a specific area, but the response did not contain any innovative element which could improve resource efficiency such as: cost, schedule, operational capability, safety, suitability, effectiveness, mission assurance, and/or other weapon system efficiencies.

OR

No innovation opportunities identified during evaluation period

* Innovation opportunities can be identified by either Government or Contractor from task creation through task closure. Innovation can be either related to specific tasks or related to weapon system integration.

** Resource efficiency is being able to do more with existing resources.

Table 2 PEA 2 – COST*

PEA

Cost

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than 50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)***

An award in this range indicates:

1) Total period cost between** 95% and 100% end of period contract value** (excluding travel/ODC CLIN)

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

1) Total period cost between** 93% and 95% end of period contract value** (excluding travel/ODC CLIN)

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

1) Total period cost between** either 90% and 93% or 100% and 103% end of period contract value** (excluding travel/ODC

CLIN)

2) Average scores for both

Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the very good range (76-90%)

1) Total period cost between** either 85% and 90% or 103% and 105% end of period contract value** (excluding travel/ODC

CLIN)

2) Average scores for both

Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the good range (51-75%)

Fails to meet criteria for all other PEA 2 ratings.

* The Government recognizes tasks can reach a level of criticality where a few tasks have the potential to out-prioritize and consume the entire budget. Consideration will be given to the ISC contractor in scenarios where cost efficiencies cannot be gained due to the level of complexity and urgency.

** If period cost percentage equals a criteria limit, the higher rating will apply. For example, 93% will result in a Very Good rating.

*** An unsatisfactory rating within the Cost PEA will result in no greater than a satisfactory rating in the Performance PEA.

Table3 - PEA3- FDO Special Interest Items*

PEA

FDO

SPECIAL

INTEREST

EXCELLENT

(91- 100)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76 – 90)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51 – 75)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than 50)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0)

An award in this range indicates:

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items significantly exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items somewhat exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items met expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items did not meet expectations

FDO Special Interest Items are subjects of particular interest to the Government. Special Interest Items may use JIRA or other means to ensure proper evaluation of each Special Interest Item.

*Each Award Fee letter issued by the FDO for completion of an award fee period will also serve as the official notification of the tasked/assigned FDO Special Interest Items for the next award fee period. The FDO Special Interest Items will be evaluated by the Award Fee Board Members based on the criteria listed in Table 3 and the contractor will brief the board members during the Award Fee Board on specific ways the Special Interest Items were implemented and the resulting impact.

*Award Fee Interest Item for Award Fee Period I is based upon successful completion of transition as outlined in the transition plan.

NOTES:

ODD-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: Each year of integration engineering is broken into two 6-month evaluation periods. The odd-numbered evaluation periods (1, 3, 5, etc.) are the mid-year evaluations. Due to the fact that cost is handled on the basis of the entire year, and due to surges that occur throughout the entire year, cost cannot be evaluated on these evaluation periods.

Therefore, for each of these evaluation periods the full 15% will be awarded for cost. The 15% will be decremented in the following evaluation period, if necessary, as described in the Even-Numbered Evaluation Periods section below.

EVEN-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: If final cost data submissions are delayed beyond the award fee review board deadline, the even numbered evaluation periods will be postponed until the contractor is able to supply the cost data for the entire evaluation period (for both even and odd numbered periods within the same year). The award fee board will be convened within 10 business days after receipt of cost data. Any decrement to cost for the previous odd numbered period will be included during this award fee evaluation.

END OF CONTRACT EVALUATION PERIODS: If the next option period (OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, and OP5) is not exercised, the last award-fee period of the current OP will be the final evaluation period of the contract. The cost portion of the award-fee payment will be withheld and paid after the final cost reporting CDRL is delivered.

This page intentionally left blank