ATTACHMENT B_Award Fee Eval Plan.docx

ATTACHMENT B

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

REACTS Contract

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 Contract 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 1: Provide expert advice and consultation to States Task 2: Facilitate communication between stakeholders Task 3: Provide subject matter expert technical assistance and support

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 below 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.

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 year 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 also use the participant evaluations provided by the contractor to evaluate the contractor’s performance.

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 total percent for all incentivized tasks should be approximately 2% of the annual year’s contract value awarded at the end of each year.

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

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

DELIVERABLE: Task 1: Provide expert advice and consultation to States

Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________

Average Score Across All Rating Elements: ________________________

Rating Element 1: Quality and Timeliness of Products

Score: _______

Where: Excellent (9.1-10) – The contractor provides accurate and timely information to States and responds to most non-routine questions appropriately, rarely seeking guidance from OME. Trip reports and written responses to customers are high quality, requiring one or 2 minor revisions.

Very Good (7.6 – 9.0) – The contractor provides accurate and timely information to States and responds to many non-routine questions appropriately, on occasion seeks guidance from OME. Trip reports and written responses to customers are high quality, with few revisions and re-drafts.

Good (7.5 – 8.9) – The contractor provides accurate and timely information to States. The contractor appropriately routes non-routine questions to the OME. Trip reports and written responses to customers require few substantive revisions and re-drafts.

Satisfactory (5.0-7.4) – The contractor provides accurate and timely information to States and accurately responds to routine customer questions with little direction. Trip reports and written responses are acceptable.

Unsatisfactory (0-4.9) - The contractor fails to provide accurate and timely information to States and does not accurately respond to customer questions. Contractor requires frequent and excessive consultation and direction from OME in order to prepare accurate responses to customer inquiries. Trip reports and written responses are unacceptable.

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

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

DELIVERABLE: Task 2: Facilitate communication between stakeholders

Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________

Rating Element 2: Communications Plan and Communication products

Where: Excellent (9.1-10) – The contractor develops and implements an innovative, highly-effective, and practical Communications Plan that exceeds the agreed goals and objectives of the Records Exchange Program. The Quarterly Newsletter, Listserv, and Semi-Annual Survey are high quality and useful products that inform the operation and direction of the Records Exchange Program. All communication products are continually kept current and up-to-date. The contractor often suggests well-conceived ideas to improve the usefulness of the communication materials to the MEP community. All products are high quality, rarely requiring substantive revisions.

Very Good (7.6 – 9.0) – The contractor develops and implements an effective and practical Communications Plan that exceeds the agreed goals and objectives of the Records Exchange Program. The Quarterly Newsletter, Listserv, and Semi-Annual Survey are high quality and useful products. Most communication products are continually kept current and up-to-date. The contractor occasionally suggests well-conceived ideas to improve the usefulness of the communication materials to the MEP community. All products are high quality, requiring few substantive revisions.

Good (7.5 – 8.9) – The contractor develops and implements a practical Communications Plan that meets the agreed goals and objectives of the Records Exchange Program. The Quarterly Newsletter, Listserv, and Semi-Annual Survey are good quality products. Many communication products are continually kept current and up-to-date. All products are good quality, requiring some substantive revisions.

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

DELIVERABLE: Task 3: Provide subject matter expert technical assistance and support

Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________

Rating Element 3: Quality of Subject Matter Expertise

Where: Excellent (9.1-10) – The contractor provides high-quality, knowledgeable subject matter experts (SME) that deliver excellent products on time and frequently under budget. All SME materials and products are high quality, rarely requiring substantive revisions. Minimal assistance is required from OME staff to give direction to SMEs in order for them to produce a quality product.

Very Good (7.6 – 9.0) – The contractor provides high-quality, knowledgeable subject matter experts (SME) that deliver very good products on time and occasionally under budget. All SME materials and products are high quality, occasionally requiring substantive revisions. Minimal assistance is required from OME staff to give direction to SMEs in order for them to produce a quality product.

Good (7.5 – 8.9) – The contractor provides quality, knowledgeable subject matter experts (SME) that deliver good products on time and within budget. All SME materials and products are high quality, occasionally requiring substantive revisions. Some assistance is required from OME staff to give direction to SMEs in order for them to produce a quality product.

Satisfactory (5.0-7.4) – The contractor provides knowledgeable subject matter experts (SME) that frequently deliver good products on time and within budget. All SME materials and products are quality, sometimes requiring substantive revisions. Some assistance is required from OME staff to give direction to SMEs in order for them to produce a quality product.

Unsatisfactory (0-4.9) - The contractor fails to provide knowledgeable subject matter experts (SME) and frequently delivers products late and/or over budget. Most SME materials and products are poor quality, requiring substantive revisions. Frequent assistance is required from OME staff to give direction to SMEs in order for them to produce a quality product.

Approved by:

Stephanie Girard Date Contracting Officer