J-3_Award_Fee_Plan_4-29-14.pdf

RFP-CMS-2015-8A-00209 29 April 2014

Award Fee Plan

I. Overview and Award Fee Performance Evaluation Periods

This plan provides the Award Fee Evaluation Plan for the Healthcare Quality Information Systems (HCQIS) Infrastructure Support contract task. Performance criteria contained in this plan will be used to determine the amount of Award Fee that will be earned by the Contractor per FAR 16.401(e).

The Award Fee Evaluation Periods are as follows:

Base Year: December 05, 2014 - December 04, 2015

Option Year 1: December 05, 2015 – December 04, 2016 Option Year 2: December 05, 2016 – December 04, 2017 Option Year 3: December 05, 2017 – December 04, 2018 Option Year 4: December 05, 2018 – December 04, 2019 Option Year 5: December 05, 2019 – December 04, 2020 Option Year 6: December 05, 2020 – December 04, 2021 Option Year 7: December 05, 2021 – December 04, 2022 Option Year 8: December 05, 2022 – December 04, 2023 Option Year 9: December 05, 2023 – December 04, 2024

II. Organizational Structure for Award Fee Administration The following organizational structure is established for both CMS and the Contractor for administering the Award Fee provisions of the Contract:

A. Fee Determination Official (FDO): The FDO is the Director, CCSQ, Information

Systems Group (ISG). The FDO shall review the recommendation of the Performance Evaluation Panel ((PEP) – see below) and make a final determination of Award Fee earned and payable to the Contractor for each evaluation period. The FDO may determine a different Award Fee than the PEP recommendation. However, such determinations shall be substantiated by written documentation. The FDO determination shall be made within 45 calendar days following an Award Fee Evaluation Period. The final determination will be forwarded to the Contracting Officer for Contractor notification.

B. Performance Evaluation Panel (PEP) and Process: The PEP is a panel comprised of the HCQIS Infrastructure COR, Government Task Leader (GTL), Contracting Officer (CO), Contract Specialist and other Government officials as necessary. The responsibilities of the PEP are as follows:

• Monitor the Contractor’s performance during the Award Fee Evaluation Period;

• Perform an in-depth review of the Contractor’s performance at the end of each Award

Fee Evaluation Period.

• Prepare an Award Fee Recommendation Report to be submitted to the FDO no later than 30 calendar days after the close of each evaluation period. The report shall include, at a minimum:

• A contractor performance analysis against the evaluation criteria identified herein;

• Recommendation for an Award Fee amount to be earned by the Contractor;

and,

• Signatures of all PEP members.

• The PEP report shall be delivered to the FDO no later than 30 days after each evaluation period.

• Contractor: The Contractor shall provide an award fee performance evaluation self assessment to the PEP within 15 days of completion of each award fee evaluation period.

• The self assessment shall provide substantiating documentation for award fee determined by the Contractor to be due upon evaluation by the PEP. The self-assessment shall provide and analysis of each evaluation criteria and will assess the contractor’s performance against the provided metrics.

• Notification to the Contractor: The Contractor shall receive written notification of the award fee determination within 60 days of the end of each performance evaluation period.

• The award fee available is split between a Performance Metric (PM) and the Qualitative Performance Measure (QPM). The Government reserves the right to unilaterally allocate the award fee available between the PM and QPM for each award fee period. This right is based on providing written notice to the Contractor prior to the start of the award fee period. The allocation for the previous award fee period will continue in effect if written notice is not provided to the Contractor prior to the start of a performance incentive period.

• Prior to the beginning of each award fee period, the parameters of the PM to be in force during that period can be changed by mutual agreement during the award fee period. In addition, the parameters of the PM can be changed by mutual agreement during the award fee period.

C. Contracting Officer Notification: The Contracting Officer shall provide the Contractor with written notification of the final Award Fee earned within 60 calendar days of the end of each performance evaluation period.

III. Summary of Tasks & Timeframes:

IV. Award Fee Criteria and Award Fee Pool Distribution

1. Server Build Performance Metric (25% of negotiated award fee)

Desired Outcome

Required Service

Performance Standard

Monitoring Method

Acceptable Quality Level

New Servers shall be built and deployed within a 3 week period

Server fully functional without any problems or issues

The stated timeframe should be met unless Government and Contractor agree to a new completion date.

Status reports will be provided to monitor the server build process to ensure completion in specific timeframe.

Excellent 91%-100% of Award Fee Pool

100% of server builds will be completed on time

Very Good 76%-90% of Award Fee Pool

95% or greater of server builds will be completed on time

Good 51%-75% of Award Fee Pool

90% or greater of server builds will be completed

Responsibility Task Timeframe Contractor Award Fee Performance Evaluation

Self Assessment No later than 15 days after completion of each evaluation period

PEP Prepare Award Fee Recommendation Report to be submitted to the FDO

No later than 30 calendar days after the close of each evaluation period

FDO Review recommendation of PEP and make final determination of Award Fee earned

Within 45 calendar days of the end of each Award Fee evaluation period

Contracting Officer

Provide written notification of the final Award Fee earned

Within 60 calendar days of the end of each Award Fee evaluation period on time

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% of Award Fee Pool

85% or greater of server builds will be completed on time

Unsatisfactory 0% of Award Fee Pool

84% or less of server builds will be completed on time

2. Qualitative Performance Measures (75% of negotiated award fee)

The Government will analyze reports, incidents, and events during the award fee evaluation period, along with any input submitted by the Contractor, in order to determine the level of overall contract performance.

The Government will evaluate the Contractor, in the following areas:

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Task Rating Criteria Task Criteria Metrics and Definitions

Data Center (DC) Management

DC infrastructure uptime:

Availability of the HCQIS DC IT support infrastructure including UPSs, generators, power distribution systems, HVAC, security, fire suppression systems, and general DC infrastructure (rack space, cabling, etc.). Planned

Refer to criterion definitions and metrics table below infrastructure outages/unavailability will not be counted as an occurrence.

Unavailability of the above systems that results in unplanned downtime of the supported IT systems within the data center will be counted as an occurrence within this criterion. The monthly ratings will be totaled at the end of the contract period which will reflect the total quality level score for this task.

Network (NW) Management Enterprise NW uptime:

Availability of the HCQIS NW enterprise. NW uptime will be a reflection of the NW infrastructure support tasks and systems (NW hardware and circuits) and take into account planned NW outages/unavailability. Carrier, local teleco, remote power availability, and other support issues outside of the Contractors control will not count against the overall rating. Hardware failure that results in network downtime will not be counted against the contractor if the Government decided not to provide redundant architecture (e.g., the QIO routers.) Outages impacting other tasks within the criterion will not be double-counted (e.g., a data center power outage would count against the data center criterion but would not also count against the Network Management task.) The monthly ratings will be totaled at the end of the contract period which will reflect the total quality level score for this task

SAN Administration Enterprise SAN uptime:

Availability of the HCQIS SAN enterprise. SAN uptime will be a reflection of the SAN infrastructure support tasks and systems (individual SAN units, SAN switches, etc.) and take into account planned SAN outages/unavailability. Outages impacting other tasks within the criterion will not be double-counted (e.g., a data center power outage or network failure would count against those criterions but would not also against the SAN Administration task.) The monthly ratings will be totaled at the end of the contract period which will reflect the total quality level score for this task

Refer to criterion definitions and metrics table below

Email Services Email availability: Availability of the HCQIS email enterprise.

Email uptime will be a reflection of the email infrastructure support tasks and systems (e.g., email security filtering and storage systems) and take into account planned email outages/unavailability. Outages impacting other tasks within the criterion will not be double-counted (e.g., a data center power outage or network failure would count against those criterions but would not also against the Email Services task.)

The monthly ratings will be totaled at the end of the contract period which will reflect the total quality level score for this task

The following table outlines the criterion definitions:

Outage Any impact to DC that bring Prod/Dev/QA offline due to unplanned activity Business Lost A disruption in the ability for any stakeholder to perform their daily task(s) Time Start from beginning of the outage/no when notified (example: if DC goes offline at 10:00 pm EDT resulting in any business loss but Contractor does not respond until the following morning the time still starts at 10:00 pm EDT)

The following table outlines the criterion metrics:

Rating # of Total

Outage Hours

5 0 4 <2 3 <5 2 <16 1 <24 0 >24 The following rating scale will be used to assess the quality level:

Rating Scale of 1 to 5 1- Unsatisfactory 2- Satisfactory 3- Good 4- Very Good 5- Excellent

The maximum potential score is 20 (5 x 4) a month or 240 (12 x 20) a year. The final percentage will be calculated from the base of 240.

Award Fee Pool Unsatisfactory 0% Satisfactory –No

Greater than 50%

Good –51-75% Very Good –76-90% Excellent 91 -

100%

The amount of the QPM portion of the award fee available to be received by the Contractor will be based upon the Government’s subjective evaluation of the Contractor’s performance during the award fee evaluation period.

The Award Fee Determining Official will make the final award fee determination for the QPM portion of the award fee available.

Contractor feedback will be provided monthly by the Government. The Contractor will provide their self-assessment of their performance to the Government within 15 days of the end of the previous month. The Government will provide feedback of the Contractor’s performance to the Contractor within 30 days of the end of the previous month.

In any given period of performance where a task is not quantifiable or measured, and/or where work is not performed, that period’s measurable/metric will not be included into the total recording or tabulation for that period of performance. The metric will neither count for nor against the Contractor’s overall score, or value. The Government will review the Contractor-supplied self assessment and QPM performance information, compare the information with other sources of data (as available), and analyze the validity of the information. The Government will discuss any differences, discrepancies, or questions with the Contractor. The GTL will make the final determination of data validity. Once the information is validated, the appropriate adjectival rating will be assessed based on the criteria 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 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 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 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 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 as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.