Attachment 13_Award Term Plan.pdf

Attachment 13 Award Term Plan

Award Term Plan

For

Mail, Management, Warehouse, and Related Support Services

(ENTER DATE)

(ENTER CONTRACTOR)

APPROVED:

Term Determining Official

Assistant Director

Logistics Management Services, FASS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1 Introduction 3

2 Organization 3

3 Responsibilities 3

4 Award Term Processes 4

5 Award Term Plan Change Procedure 5

AMMEXES

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1 Award Term Organization 6

2 Award Term Allocation 7

3 Evaluation Criteria 8

4 Award Term Conversion Tables 12

5 Sequence of Events 13

AWARD TERM PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

a. This award term plan is the basis for the Mail & General Support Services (GSS) evaluation of the contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the

Term Determining Official (TDO). Evaluation will begin at the start of the contract. An adjustment to the award term will not result in a contract ordering period of less than five years or greater than seven years from the award of the contract. This plan describes the specific criteria and procedures to be used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award term points earned. Actual award term determinations and the methodology for determining the award term are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the

Government.

b. Any contract term extensions earned will be reflected in unilateral contract modifications based upon points earned as determined by the TDO. The award term earned will be determined by the TDO based upon review of the contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The TDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period.

Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by consent of both parties.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

a. The award term organization consists of the Term Determining Official (TDO); the Performance

Monitors; the Contracting Officer; and other functional area participants (advisors), if required.

The TDO, Performance Monitors, functional area participants, and the Contracting Officer are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Term Determining Official: The TDO approves the award term plan and any changes. The TDO reviews the reports and recommendations of the performance Monitors, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award term points for each evaluation.

b. 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. Monitors prepare interim and end‐of‐period evaluation reports as required by this plan.

c. Contracting Officer: The CO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. The

CO modifies the contract ordering period if necessary to reflect the decision.

d. Functional Area Participants: Functional Area Participants may be used in an advisory capacity to both the Performance Monitors and the TDO, and may recommend changes to the Award

Term Plan.

4.0 AWARD TERM PROCESSES

a. Available Award Term Points: The earned award term points will be based on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period. The available points for each evaluation period are shown in Annex 2. A total score of 76 – 100 points is required for a one year term extension and no award term extension will be earned for a total score between 0 – 75 points.

b. Evaluation Criteria: If the CO does not provide specific notice in writing to the contractor of changes to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of an evaluation period, the same criteria from the preceding period will be used in the subsequent evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and notifying the contractor.

c. Interim Evaluation Process: The interim evaluation (midpoint) is normally not scored, but is used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the contractor’s performance so that appropriate adjustments can be effected prior to the end of the evaluation period. No later than 30 calendar days after the midpoint of the evaluation period, the performance monitors submit their evaluation report to the TDO. The TDO determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of their strengths and weaknesses for the interim period. Discussions with the contractor regarding performance need not be restricted to the interim evaluation; the

CO may also issue notice at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of

Government concern. Additionally, the quarterly In‐Process Review (IPR) forum may also be used to discuss any aspects (both positive and negative) of the contractor’s performance.

d. End‐of‐Period Evaluations: No later than 30 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period, the performance monitors submit their evaluation report and recommendation to the

TDO.. The contractor presents its self‐assessment. The TDO determines the overall rating and earned award term points for evaluation period no later than 60 calendar days after each evaluation period. The TDO issues a letter that informs the contractor of the earned award term points. If there are sufficient award term points, the CO issues a modification reflecting the earned award term amounts.

e. Contractor’s Self‐Assessment: The contractor’s self‐evaluation is submitted to the CO within 30 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain and information that may be reasonably expected to assist the TDO in evaluating the contractor’s performance.

The contractor’s self‐assessment may not exceed five (5) pages.

5.0 AWARD TERM PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURES

a. The TDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. In addition, the contractor may recommend changes to the plan no later than 90 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the CO, 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 the mutual consent of the parties.

Annexes

1. Award Term Organization

2. Award Term Allocations

3. Evaluation Criteria

4. Award Term Conversion Tables

5. Sequence of Events

ANNEX 1

AWARD TERM ORGANIZATION

[JMD/FASS]

Term Determining Official (Position Title): Marny Cvrkel, Deputy Director, FASS

Contracting Officer: Denise Fines

Performance Monitors:

NAME POSITION AREA OF EVALUATION**

Joe Gerstell COR ALL

** Area of Evaluation

Program Management

Management of Key Personnel

Quality of Service

Schedule

Functional Area Participants (Advisors):

NAME POSITION TITLES

Joe Gerstell COR

ANNEX 2

AWARD TERM ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

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

EVALUATION PERIOD FROM TO AVAILABLE AWARD

TERM

First Contract Award September 30, 2021 12 MONTHS October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2025

Second October 1, 2021 September 30, 2023 12 MONTHS October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026

Interim and Decision Milestones:

Base Period Contract Award – Sept. 30, 2010 N/A

Option Year 1: Oct. 01, 2020 – Sept. 30, 2021 Complete Interim by Oct 30, 2020

Option Year 2: Oct. 01, 2021 – Sept. 30, 2022 Make Decision by November 30, 2021

Option Year 3: Oct. 01, 2022 – Sept. 30, 2023 Complete Interim by October 30, 2022

Option Year 4: Oct. 01, 2023 – Sept. 30, 20242 Make Decision by November 30, 2023

NOTE: Actual Award Term determinations and the methodology for determining the Award Term are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government and shall not be subject to appeal under the “Disputes” clause of this contract. Additionally, if performance deteriorates after granting an

Award Term, but prior to starting performance of the Term, the Government may rescind the term of performance. If, after commencing an Award Term, performance deteriorates, the Government may terminate the Award Term at no cost to the Government.

ANNEX 3

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Performance Criteria Rating Points Weighting (%) Score

Program Management 100 25 25.0

Management of key Personnel

100 25 25.0

Quality of Service 100 25 25.0

Schedule 100 25 25.0

Total Award Points 100.0

NOTE 1. 76 – 100 total Award Term points = 1 year term extension

0 – 75 total award term points = no award term earned

NOTE 2. The applicable rating points will be based on the table found in Annex 4.

Program Management: Includes timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of problem identification and program planning; existence of clear lines of authority and/or effective communication with

Government, other agencies, and associate contractors. Extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract.

Unsatisfactory – Contractor fails to identify problems timely and/or defines problems without factual supporting information and rationale. Solutions, when and if implemented, have a negative impact on overall program performance. Program planning, to include integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, does not contain a logical flow of activities. No program status and visibility into near term actions provide. No clear lines of authority or effective communication.

Satisfactory ‐ Program planning, integration, and coordination is comprehensive and contains a logical flow of activities. Program status and visibility into near term actions are provided through schedules and status of contract tasks. Problems are identified timely and are supported by factual information and rationale. Contractor provides sufficient information on alternate solutions. Solutions are implemented with limited adverse impact on overall schedule performance. Contractor establishes clear lines of authority and provides effective communication with Government, other agencies and associate contractors. Minimal programmatic or technical impacts experienced because of communication problems.

Excellent – Management demonstrates the highest degree of foresight into program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment of tasks, advance identification of problems, and problem resolution, integrating a total program concept and a comprehensive management approach. Contractor proactively identifies and anticipates problems prior to adverse impact. Contractor provides organized and detailed alternatives including risk assessments, trade off analysis, plan of action and implementation schedule. Solutions are implemented with no impact in overall program performance.

Contractor develops effective, efficient contractor team that reflects strong, open lines of communication. Improvements to the planned program result from high quality communication with

Government and other external focal points with no program impacts attributed to poor communication. Contractor maintains complete and effective coordination and liason with Government counterparts and other contractors. Contractor independently supports program activities in a consistent and cooperative mode.

Management of Key Personnel: Includes contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel. Contractor’s ability to ensure no breaks in continuity of service when replacing key personnel. Degree to which replacement personnel are well informed and understand contact requirements.

Unsatisfactory – Organizational structure fails to assign qualified key personnel with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communication fail to facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual in order to meet project goals.

Contractor fails to provide adequate staffing levels of key personnel for the program to run smoothly.

Contractor does not re‐evaluate staffing and resources to re‐forecast requirements to meet long range contract re‐planning, resulting in program inefficiency.

Satisfactory – Organizational structure provides for qualified key personnel assigned with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communication facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

Contractor provides adequate staffing levels of key personnel for program to run smoothly. Contractor re‐evaluates staffing and resources to re‐forecast requirements to meet long range contract re‐planning with minimum inefficiency due to reallocated resources.

Excellent – Organizational structure provides for highly qualified key personnel assigned with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals ahead of schedule. Lines of communication are well defined, clearly understood, and always facilitate rapid exchanges of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals. Contractor’s team consists of highly qualified and motivated key personnel, with an emphasis on productivity. Contractor minimizes changes of key individuals.

Quality of Service: Includes overall conformance to contract requirements, ensuring equipment is maintained with no degradation of service, adequate staffing levels are maintained for timely and accurate work completion, and Mail Referral Unit (MRU) error rate remains at or below the acceptable quality level. The degree to which the contractor displays knowledge of contract requirements that consider cost, capabilities, and procurement problems; the contractor’s ability to deliver a complete and accurate job that is free of incompatibilities, with little or no Government direction. The degree to which the contractor’s quality assurance surveillance plan is complete and effective so as to allow for continual quality assurance. Degree of surveillance required to keep job on track.

Unsatisfactory – Quality assurance surveillance plan is incomplete, contains inaccuracies, or fails to comply with the contract level of quality. Deficiencies adversely impact on the contractor’s ability to complete tasks. Contractor fails to maintain equipment without degradation of service, staffing levels are inadequate to compute mission requirements, and MRU error rate is consistently higher than acceptable quality level. Contractor tends to follow past practices with no variation to meet requirements of the current contract. Constant surveillance required to keep job from slipping and expects Government resolution of most problems.

Satisfactory – Quality assurance surveillance plan is complete, accurate, and complies with the contract level of quality. Contractor displays knowledge of contract requirements that consider cost, capabilities, and procurement problems and easily engages in variation in practice to meet requirements of the current contract. Quality program adequate to ensure maintenance of equipment, adequate staffing levels and an MRU error rate that meets and acceptable quality level, with minor adverse impact on job completion. Occasional surveillance required to stay on schedule and expects Government resolution of some problems.

Excellent – Quality assurance surveillance is complete, accurate, and exceeds the contract level of quality. Contractor seeks out problem areas and resolves them ahead of schedule and work is of the highest caliber. Contractor displays exceptional knowledge of contract requirements and adaptability to work process incorporating knowledge of future planning in all aspects of work. Quality program is such that periods of equipment malfunction are transparent to the government, staffing levels of well qualified personnel are consistently engaged, and the MRU error rate is consistently lower than the acceptable quality level with no impact on job completion. Contractor seeks out problem areas and resolves them to remain ahead of schedule with little or no Government intervention.

Schedule: Includes degree of overall conformance to contract delivery requirements for items such as reports, completed mail runs (pick‐up and delivery), completion of office moves in accordance with schedules, completion of copying services, and providing qualified candidates for support service positions in accordance with established timeframes. Degree to which contractor keeps Government advised of delays.

Unsatisfactory – Reports and other deliverable data are not submitted timely in accordance with the contract terms. Discrepancies are major so that extensive time and effort are required to correct.

Failure to adhere to mail pick‐up and delivery schedules such that deductions in contractor payments consistently occur. Acceptable quality level for meeting MRU time standards for processing mail is rarely achieved. Copying services are usually not completed on time and office moves are seldom completed within the established schedule. Contractor does not expose changes or resolve them as soon as they are recognized; often fails to provide timely notification to the Government of delays.

Qualified candidates for new or backfill positions are rarely provided in a timely manner and result in significate Government delays.

Satisfactory – Reports and other deliverable data are most often submitted timely in accordance with the Statement of Work. Discrepancies are minor and easily corrected. Adherence to mail pick‐up and delivery schedules is such that deductions in contractor payments usually meet the acceptable quality level established in the contract. MRU time standards for processing mail is usually accomplished within the acceptable quality levels, as are copying services and office moves. Contractor keeps Government informed of delays, but resolves them independently as soon as they are recognized.

Qualified candidates for new or backfill positions are mostly provide in a timely manner resulting in minor Government delays.

Excellent – Reports and other deliverable data are submitted ahead of schedule, and are submitted in a format that is complete, clear, concise technically accurate and easily understood so as not to require correction. Mail pick‐up and delivery exceed the acceptable quality level for time standards established by the contract. MRU time standards for processing mail, copying services, and office moves are consistently accomplished and exceed the acceptable quality levels established for these functions. Contractor keeps Government informed of delays, resolves them independently, and meets schedules. Qualified candidates for new or backfill positions are almost always provided in a timely manner and the contractor notifies the Government of any issues that could result in a delay of service.

ANNEX 4

AWARD TERM CONVERSION TABLE

OVERALL RATING (ALL AREAS) RATING POINTS

Unsatisfactory 0 – 50

Satisfactory 51 – 75

Excellent 76 ‐ 100

Each area represents 25% of the total available points (100). As such, the maximum point score in any area (Performance Criteria), cannot exceed 25 points.

ANNEX 5

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS – AWARD TERM PROCESS

(All days are “calendar” days unless otherwise stipulated)

Interim Evaluation (IE)

30 days after the IE point Performance Monitors submit evaluation report ot he TDO.

60 Days after the IE point TDO determines IE results and notified Contractor of strengths and weaknesses.

End‐of‐Period (EOP)

30 days after the EOP Performance Monitors submit evaluation report to

TDO.

30 days after the EOP Contractor presents its self‐assessment.

60 days after the EOP TDO determines overall rating and points and notifies Contractor of results.