Attachment B - Award Fee Eval Plan estp 100004.doc

ATTACHMENT B

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

Technical Assistance Contract for Teacher Incentive Fund Grants Funded Under the ARRA Introduction This AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN (AFEP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the US Department of Education (ED) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor will be aware of the methods that ED will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

Purpose of the AFEP The AFEP is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials and outside experts;

2. Define the key deliverables which will be assessed;

3. Describe the rating elements and standards of performance against which the contractor’s performance will be assessed for each key deliverable;

4. Describe the process of quality assurance assessment; and

5. Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms that will be used by the Government in documenting and evaluating the contractor’s performance.

Each of these purposes is discussed in detail below.

Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials The following Government Officials will participate in assessing the quality of the contractor’s performance. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

The Award Fee Board is the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or Task Manager (Whenever COR is mentioned in this Award Fee Plan, Task Manager may be substituted.)

The COR or Task Manager will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will also be responsible for completing the Award Fee Evaluation Forms (described in greater detail below) which will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance on key deliverables.

It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the Contractor’s Project Director (PD) in order to perform monitoring functions. The COR, CO (Contracting Officer), and PD must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Meetings should be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems. Less serious problems should be discussed and resolved on an impromptu basis.

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the Fee Determining Official. The CO will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The Contracting Officer will be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and property control; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s version and the contractor’s version. The CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required.

The Contracting Officer’s procurement authorities include the following:

1. SOLE authority for any decisions which produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract;

2. SOLE authority for any actions subject to the “Changes” clause;

3. SOLE authority for any decision to be rendered under the “Disputes” clause;

4. SOLE authority for negotiation and determination of indirect rates to be applied to the contract;

5. SOLE authority to approve the substitution or replacement of the Project Director and other key personnel;

6. SOLE authority to approve the contractor’s invoices for payment, subject to the Limitation of Costs clause and the Limitation of Funds clause;

7. SOLE authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements;

8. Authority to arrange for and supervise Award Fee Evaluation activities under this contract;

9. SOLE authority to approve the contractor’s Quality Control Program;

10. To approve all contractor purchases of equipment, supplies, and materials exceeding $2,500 are encouraged even though not required by FAR 13.106; and

11. Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

Key Deliverables to Be Assessed Although ED’s COR will monitor the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis, the volume of tasks performed by the contractor makes technical inspections of every task and step impractical. Accordingly, the Department of Education will use an award fee evaluation plan process to monitor the contractor’s performance under this contract. Specifically, the COR will assess the contractor’s performance across a set of tailored rating elements for the following key deliverables:

· Task 4: Technical Assistance to Grantees

· Deliverable 4.4: Monthly Report on the Provision of Technical Assistance

· Task 5: Monitoring Assistance

· Deliverable 5.3: Monitoring Reports.

Rating Elements and Standards of Performance for Key Deliverables

The contractor’s performance shall be evaluated by assessing the key deliverables described above. Tailored rating elements for this deliverable have been developed and incorporated into the Award Fee Evaluation Plan Rating Forms. For each key deliverable, criteria scores will be averaged to generate the final evaluation score for that key deliverable. Performance award fees will be awarded, based upon the Rating Elements and Standards of Performance for Key Deliverables table, for those key deliverables that are judged by the Award Fee Board. If a majority of evaluation criteria for a specific deliverable are determined to be Excellent (i.e., a grade of 9.1 or greater), Very Good (i.e. a grade of 7.6 to 9), Good (i.e. a grade of 5.1 to 7.5) or Satisfactory (i.e. a grade of no greater than 5); ED will provide an award fee commensurate with award-fee pool available to be earned for that deliverable. If a majority of evaluation criteria for a specific deliverable are determined to be unsatisfactory (i.e., a grade from 0), there will be no award fee awarded for the deliverable.

Note: The Contractor is prohibited from earning award fee when the Contractor’s overall cost, schedule, and technical performance is below satisfactory.

Process of Award Fee Evaluation While quality assurance is closely tied to these performance standards for deliverable content, timeliness and cost are also important considerations in the assessment of contractor performance. The contractor’s cost performance will be evaluated by the COR, CS, and the CO at the end of each performance period and at the end of the contract. ED expects the contractor to stay within cost. The contractor shall not exceed the total estimated cost of the contract. If the contractor exceeds the total estimated cost all bonus incentives shall be forfeited.

In the event of an excusable delay (as defined in FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays and EDAR 3452.242-71, Notice to the Government of Delays), ED and the contractor shall work together to modify the contract with regard to the due dates of the deliverables. If such an event were to occur that would require a modification to the due dates of the deliverables, the contractor’s performance shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the COR using the appropriate key deliverable evaluation forms (see below). These forms will serve to document and evaluate the contractor’s performance for each of the key deliverables under this contract. Each form will be completed by the COR and the rating element scores will be averaged to generate the final evaluation score for that key deliverable. This final evaluation score will document the COR's understanding of contractor performance for that key deliverable.

The COR will substantiate, in narrative form, all individual scores judged to be indicative of “excellent”, “very good”, “good” or “unsatisfactory” performance. At a minimum, performance at the “satisfactory” level is expected from the contractor. The primary method of surveillance shall be documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of deliverables under Tasks 1 and 3.

The COR will forward copies of completed evaluation forms to the CO. The CO will forward a summary of COR comments to the contractor. The contractor shall respond in writing to any “unsatisfactory” final average evaluation scores within 5 working days after receipt of the form(s).

The CO will review the key deliverable evaluation form prepared by the COR. When appropriate, the CO may investigate the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COR opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will immediately discuss every event receiving an “unacceptable” rating with the contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

Award Fee Plan Performance incentive bonuses will be awarded for those key deliverables that are judged by the COR to be satisfactory and above.

All incentives will be stated in dollar values upon award of the contract. The approximate percentages will be replaced with the actual dollar values. The percent for Task 4 should be 3% of the contract period’s value awarded at the end of each 12-month contract period. The percent for Task 5 should be 2% of the contract period’s value awarded at the end of each 12-month contract period.

The dollar amount of incentives for the base period and each option period will be proportionate to the scope of work of the contract.

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN RATING FORM

Task 4: Technical Assistance Deliverable 4.4: Monthly Report on the Provision of Technical Assistance Reviewer: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ Average Score Across All Rating Elements: ________________________

Rating Element: Monthly Report on the Provision of Technical Assistance Score: _______ Where:

Excellent (9.1-10) – would include monthly communication via the Montly Progress Report (MPR) to inform the COR of the status of each grantee. The status report would include for each grantee a complete description of the status of the technical assistance requested and provided and a complete summary of any issues that may need the COR’s attention.

Very Good (7.6 – 9.0) – would include include monthly communication via the MPR to inform the COR of the status of each grantee. The status report would include for each grantee an incomplete description of the status of the technical assistance requested and provided and an incomplete summary of any issues that may need the COR’s attention.

Good (7.5 – 8.9) – would include bi-monthly communication via the MPR, with the COR to inform the COR on the status of the technical assistance requested by and provided to each grantee.

Satisfactory (5.0-7.4) – would include quarterly communication via the MPR with the COR to inform the COR on the status of the technical assistance requested by and provided to each grantee.

Unsatisfactory (0-4.9) – would include the failure to communicate with the COR at least quarterly via the MPR on the status of the technical assistance requested by and provided to each grantee.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN RATING FORM

Task 5: Monitoring Assistance Deliverable 5.3: Monitoring Reports Reviewer: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ Average Score Across All Rating Elements: ________________________

Rating Element: Monitoring Reports Score: _______ Where:

Excellent (9.1-10) –Includes on-time submission of monitoring report (within 20 days of the monitoring visit), and the first draft is largely finished. If any revisions are required, includes thoughtful consideration of reviewer’s comments and suggestions for revision, and written responses to address primary concerns expressed by all reviewers for all drafts.

Very Good (7.6 – 9.0) – Includes on-time submission of monitoring report (within 20 days of the monitoring visit) and the first draft is satisfactory. For revisions, includes thoughtful consideration of reviewer’s comments and suggestions for revision, and written responses to address primary concerns expressed by all reviewers for all drafts.

Good (7.5 – 8.9) – Includes submission of monitoring report within 30 days of the monitoring visit, and the first draft is satisfactory. For revisions, includes thoughtful consideration of reviewer’s comments and suggestions for revision, and written responses when requested.

Satisfactory (5.0-7.4) – Includes submission of monitoring report more than 30 days after the monitoring visit, and the first draft is only partially satisfactory. For revisions, includes consideration of reviewer’s comments and suggestions for revision, and written responses when requested.

Unsatisfactory (0-4.9) – Includes submission of a poor first draft or a draft submitted more than 40 days after the monitoring visit. For revisions, includes unsubstantiated disregard for reviewers' comments and suggestions for revisions throughout the drafting process, refusal to provide written responses to reviewers who request them.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Approved by:

Stephanie Girard

Date

Contracting Officer