Award-Fee Plan.pdf

AWARD-FEE PLAN

FOR

PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM SUPPORT CONTRACT

SUSTAINING ENGINEERING SERVICES

DATE TBD

Approved:

Luke C. Cropsey, Col, USAF

AFNWC/NI

Fee Determining Official

Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Organization 3

3 Responsibilities 3

4 Award-Fee Processes 4

5 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure 5

Perf. Deficiencies in Previous AF Periods

Contract Termination

Annex

1 Award-Fee Organization 7

2 Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods 8

Award-Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria

1. INTRODUCTION

This award-fee plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor's performance on the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract (PSSC) 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. 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, 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. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official. The FDO approves the award-fee plan and any significant changes thereto. The FDO 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 performance monitors’ evaluation of the contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented 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. Contracting Officer (CO). The CO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. CO 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.

4. 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 Quarterly PMR/Task Log Review. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not more than 5 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation results and the government notifies the contractor of the strength and weaknesses for the current evaluation period during the Quarterly PMR/Task Log Review. The CO may issue letters at any other time when it is 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. All tasks completed and submitted by the contractor during the evaluation period shall be closed by the Performance Monitors no later than 10 days after the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not later than 14 calendar days; and the Recorder will provide the complete report to the AFRB not later than 30 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 grade 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 CO 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.

e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. When the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the CO 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 10 pages including the title page. The contractor, if they desire, may brief the AFRB; briefing may not exceed 30 minutes, not including questions.

5. AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes are approved by the FDO. The CO, in coordination with the AFRB Chairperson, approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include:

changing evaluation criteria; and revising the distribution of the award-fee dollars. The FDO will delegate approval for adjusting category weights (detailed in Annex 3) to one level above the CO and PM. The category weightings are used to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement and may be adjusted more frequently based on contractor performance. The contractor may recommend changes to the CO no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any 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. 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. 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 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 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.

4 Annexes

1. Award-Fee Organization

2. Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

3. Award-Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

4. Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria

ANNEX 1

Award-Fee Organization

Members

Fee Determining Official:

Director, ICBM Systems Directorate

AFNWC/NI

Award-Fee Review Board Chairperson:

MMIII Sustainment Chief

AFNWC/NIAS

Award-Fee Review Board Members:

MMIII Sustainment Chief Engineer Propulsion Section Chief

AFNWC/NIAS

AFNWC/NIASP

Propulsion Section Engineering Chief Contracting Division Chief or Branch Chief Contracting Officer (Non-Voting Member) Recorder (Program Manager) (Non-Voting Member)

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/PZB

AFNWC/PZBB

AFNWC/NIASP

Advisors Staff Judge Advocate (or designee) 75 ABW/JAQ

Performance Monitors

PSSC Program Manager Batteries Lead

Batteries Lead Engineer Boosters Lead Boosters Lead Engineer Liquids Lead Liquids Lead Engineer Ordnance Lead Ordnance Lead Engineer Support Equipment Lead Support Equipment Lead Engineer

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

AFNWC/NIASP

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 Available

Award Fee I 6-Nov-20 5-May-21 TBD II 6-May-21 5-Nov-21 TBD III 6-Nov-21 5-May-22 TBD IV 6-May-22 5-Nov-22 TBD V 6-Nov-22 5-May-23 TBD VI 6-May-23 5-Nov-23 TBD VII 6-Nov-23 5-May-24 TBD VIII 6-May-24 5-Nov-24 TBD IX 6-Nov-24 5-May-25 TBD X 6-May-25 5-Nov-25 TBD XI 6-Nov-25 5-May-26 TBD XII 6-May-26 5-Nov-26 TBD XIII 6-Nov-26 5-May-27 TBD XIV 6-May-27 5-Nov-27 TBD XV 6-Nov-27 5-May-28 TBD XVI 6-May-28 5-Nov-28 TBD XVII 6-Nov-28 5-May-29 TBD XVIII 6-May-29 5-Nov-29 TBD XIX 6-Nov-29 5-May-30 TBD XX 6-May-30 5-Nov-30 TBD XXI 6-Nov-30 5-May-31 TBD

XXII 6-May-31 5-Nov-31 TBD XXIII 6-Nov-31 5-May-32 TBD XXIV 6-May-32 5-Nov-32 TBD XXV 6-Nov-32 5-May-33 TBD XXVI 6-May-33 5-Nov-33 TBD XXVII 6-Nov-33 5-May-34 TBD XXVIII 6-May-34 5-Nov-34 TBD XXIX 6-Nov-34 5-May-35 TBD XXX 6-May-35 5-Nov-35 TBD XXXI 6-Nov-35 5-May-36 TBD XXXII 6-May-36 5-Nov-36 TBD XXXIII 6-Nov-36 5-May-37 TBD XXXIV 6-May-37 5-Nov-37 TBD XXXV 6-Nov-37 5-May-38 TBD XXXVI 6-May-38 5-Nov-38 TBD XXXVII 6-Nov-38 5-May-39 TBD

Total TBD

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. Each Performance Evaluation Area will be weighted in accordance with the table below.

AREA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) WEIGHT

1 Performance

Responsiveness 20%

Quality 50%

70%

2 Cost 20%

3 PEO Focus Areas 10%

The following table depicts the relationship between the adjectival ratings and associated descriptions as well as the award-fee pool earned percentages.

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 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 three Performance Evaluation Area (PEA) tables.

Table 1 - PEA 1 - PERFORMANCE Sub PEA 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

UNSATISFACTORY

(0)

An award in this range indicates:

1.1

Responsiveness

The contractor completed the task prior to the ECD and achieved an Excellent rating in all other PEA 1 and 2 criteria.

The contractor completed the task prior to the ECD or achieved a Very Good rating in all other PEA 1 and 2 criteria and all other PEA criteria:1) Obtained 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 and showed progress

3) Mitigated the delivery delay within the contractor’s control completed the task by the ECD or obtained lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances and proactively worked the task completed the task by the ECD or within 2 calendar days after the ECD and obtained lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

(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:

UNSATISFACTORY

(0)

An award in this range indicates:

1.2

Quality provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Thorough justification for recommendations

2) No rework required to complete the task

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)

The contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Thorough justification for recommendations

2) Minimal rework required to complete the task

3) Well organized and formatted documentation with no Government effort

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

The contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Extended justification for recommendations

2) Minimal rework required to complete the task

3) Organization and formatting required some Government effort

The contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Justification for recommendations

2) Minimal rework required to complete the task

3) Organization and formatting required some Government effort for over 5% of submitted deliverable

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

Table 2 PEA 2 – COST*

(91 – 100)

An award in this range indicates satisfying all the criteria below:

VERY GOOD

(76 – 90)

An award in this range indicates satisfying all the criteria below:

GOOD

(51– 75)

An award in this range indicates satisfying all the criteria below:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than 50)

An award in this range indicates satisfying all the criteria below:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0)

An award in this range indicates:

2.1

Cost

• Total period cost between** 97% and 100% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment withhold)***

• Average scores for both responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

• Total period cost between** 95% and 97% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment withhold)***

• Average scores for both responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

• Total period cost between** either 90% and 95% or 100% and 105% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment withhold)***

• Average scores for both responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

• Total period cost between** either 85% and 90% or 105% and 110% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment withhold)***

• Average scores for both responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

Fails to meet criteria for all other PEA 2 ratings.

*The Government recognizes that a small number of critical tasks can drive overruns. Consideration will be given to the PSSC contractor in exceptional scenarios where cost control is limited due to task complexity and urgency.

**If period cost percentage equals a criteria limit, the higher rating will apply. For example, 95% will result in a Very Good rating.

***Any rate adjustment withhold increase within an award fee period must be coordinated with and approved by the Government.

NOTES:

ODD-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: Each year of sustaining engineering is broken into two 6-month evaluation periods.

The odd-numbered evaluation periods (I, III, V, 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 20% less any adjustments from any previous evaluation periods will be awarded for cost. The 20% will be decremented in the following evaluation period, if necessary, as described in the Even-Numbered Evaluation Periods section below.

EVEN-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: At the time the FDO is required to determine the award fee earned for the even-numbered evaluation periods (II, IV, VI, etc.), the actual cost data, which is delivered via the cost reporting CDRL, is not available. It takes several additional weeks for the final cost data to become available. Due to this, the 20% cost for these evaluation periods will be based off the cost data projections made available by the contractor shortly after the evaluation period ends. Any decrement to cost will be doubled to account for a decrement to the 20% that was provided in the previous evaluation period. When the actual cost data is submitted, if it is different than the projections, the government will adjust the award fee earned on a later evaluation period to account for this.

END OF CONTRACT EVALUATION PERIODS: If the 6-month extension option (award-fee period XXI) is not exercised, award-fee period XX 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.

If the 6-month extension option (award-fee period XXXVII) is exercised, period XXXVI payment will be based on cost data projections provided shortly after the evaluation period ends. If actual cost data necessitates an adjustment, the government will make the adjustment on the period XXXVII payment. Award-fee period XXXVII will be the final evaluation period of the contract and the cost portion of the award-fee payment will be withheld and paid after the final cost reporting CDRL is delivered.

Table 3 - PEA 3 - PEO Focus Areas*

PEA EXCELLENT

(91- 100)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76 – 90)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51 – 76)

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:

3.1 Contractor’s

implementation of the PEO Focus Areas significantly exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Focus Areas or risk mitigation/reduction of Propulsion Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the PEO Focus Areas exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Focus Areas or risk mitigation/reduction of Propulsion Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the PEO Focus Areas somewhat exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Focus Areas or risk mitigation/reduction of Propulsion Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the PEO Focus Areas met expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Focus Areas or risk mitigation/reduction of Propulsion Weapon System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the PEO Focus Areas did not meet expectations

*Each FDO Award Fee letter issued by the PEO for completion of an award-fee period will also serve as the official notification of the tasked/assigned PEO focus areas for the next award-fee period. The PEO Focus Areas 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 Focus Areas were implemented and the resulting impact.

*If no PEO Focus Areas are assigned during an evaluation period, the 10% weight will be spread evenly across Sub PEA 1.1 Responsiveness (5%) and Sub PEA 1.2 Quality (5%).