Attachment B - Award fee plan.docx

Attachment B

AWARD FEE PLAN

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives

Introduction This Performance-based Award Fee Plan sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education 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 the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

The award fee for technical deliverables outlined in the Award Fee Plan will be capped at $475,000 of the total award fee.

Purpose of the Award Fee Plan The Award Fee Plan is intended to accomplish the following:

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

· Define the key deliverables which will be assessed;

· Describe the assessment process;

· Define the standards of performance;

· Describe the rating procedure;

· Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms, containing the rating criteria against which the contractor’s performance will be assessed for each key deliverable, which will be used by the Government in documenting and evaluating the contractor’s performance.

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 have the primary responsibility for completing “Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms,” which will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the Contractor’s Project Manager (PM) and the PM’s staff to perform monitoring functions. The COR, Contracting Officer (CO), and PM 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 as-needed basis.

The Fee Determining Official will be the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer (CO) will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required. The Fee Determining Office has approved this award fee plan.

The Contracting Officer’s procurement authorities include the following:

· SOLE authority for any decisions which produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract/task order;

· SOLE authority for any actions subject to the Changes clause;

· SOLE authority for any decision to be rendered under the Disputes clause;

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

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

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

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

· Authority to arrange for and supervise Quality Assurance activities under this contract;

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

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

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

The Contract Specialist (CS) 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.

Key Deliverables to be Assessed Although the Government, through its COR, will be monitoring 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 a quality-assurance review 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 each of the following four key deliverables:

· Development of Surveys (Task 5)

· Baseline Report (Task 7)

· Follow-up Report (Task 7)

· Second Follow-up Report (Task 12, in Option #1)

In addition, the contractor shall be evaluated at the end of the contract period of performance on the amount and type of work subcontracted to small businesses.

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 these deliverables have been developed and incorporated into the Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms. The rating elements and acceptable standards of performance for these deliverables are described in the Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms.

Assessment Process

1. The Award Fee Evaluation will be conducted each 12-month period of the Contract. The Contractor will be eligible for Award Fee only for fully completed Tasks for each Evaluation Period.

1. Evaluation of the Contractor’s performance will be based on the contract Activities and Standards contained in the Surveillance Plan.

1. Surveillance Reporting Forms The COR will use a quality assurance monitoring form to document and evaluate the Contractor’s performance under this contract. 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. For individual scores above satisfactory, the COR will substantiate them in narrative form.

1. Analysis of Surveillance Reports At the end of each quality assurance processing cycle, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the surveillance of the Contractor’s performance during the previous 12 months. This report will become part of the formal quality assurance documentation. The CO will review each monitoring form and 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 a substandard rating with the Contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

1. Within 30 days after the end of an Evaluation Period the Evaluation Panel will meet to determine a rating of the Contractor’s performance on completed Contract Tasks for the preceding period.

1. The COR will forward copies of all completed Quality Assurance monitoring forms to the CO and Contractor within 10 days of the end of an evaluation period. The contractor shall respond in writing to any unacceptable final average evaluation scores within 5 working days after receipt of the form(s).

1. Within 30 days of receiving a written recommendation regarding the award fee determination from the Evaluation Panel, the Contracting Officer will make a unilateral determination of an Award Fee payment to be paid to the Contractor.

1. Within 20 days of making the unilateral determination of an award fee determination, the Contracting Officer will unilaterally modify the Contract to authorize the contractor to invoice for the award fee earned.

1. Within 20 days, in order to make any change(s) to the Surveillance Plan the Government and contractor shall agree to a Modification of the Contract, that changes language in the Surveillance Plan. Any change to the Award Fee Plan requires a contract modification.

Standards of Performance

The work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements are satisfied, the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the Contractor’s technical proposal, clarity of documentation, and timeliness of scheduled task accomplishment.

For each deliverable, criteria will be established for the set of activities/deliverables and will be evaluated based on the categories of performance defined below.

The significant award-fee criteria are referenced on the Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms.

Rating Procedure

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the COR using the appropriate key deliverable evaluation forms (see Exhibits A through D). These forms will serve to document and evaluate the contractor’s performance for each of the key deliverables under this contract. 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 above table, for those key deliverables that are judged by the Award Fee Board. If the average evaluation grade for a specific deliverable is Excellent (i.e., an average grade of 9.1 or greater), Very Good (i.e. an average grade of 7.6 to 9), Good (i.e. an average grade of 5.1 to 7.5) or Satisfactory (i.e. a grade of no greater than 5.0); ED will provide an award fee commensurate with award-fee pool available to be earned for that deliverable.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Average scores will be rounded to the nearest tenth.]

In order to not be a late deliverable, the product must be delivered no later than the date specified in the contractor’s technical proposal or in the schedule of deliverables in the statement of work. (See FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays and EDAR 3452.242-71, Notice to the Government of Delays.) 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), the Department 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. Note: no modification can be done after the deliverable due date is passed.

Award Fee Plan

The tasks that will be used to evaluate contractor performance and the potential bonuses tied to each are listed below.

· Development of Surveys (Task 5)

· Baseline Report (Task 7)

· Follow-up Report (Task 7)

· Second Follow-up Report (Task 12, in Option #1)

Award Fee Earnings ranges The percentage of the award fee earned by the Contractor reflects the average grade for the deliverable (e.g. excellent average score of 9.1 entails a performance award at 91% of the award potential). All unearned award fee amounts for each evaluation period are considered lost and will not be available in future evaluation periods.

Very Good:76-90%=$76,000 - $90,000 Good: 51% - 75% = $51,000 - $75,000 Satisfactory: < 50% = < $50,000 Unsatisfactory: 0% = $0.00

Very Good:76-90%=$95,000 - $112,500 Good: 51% - 75% = $63,750 - $93,750 Satisfactory: < 50% = < $62,500 Unsatisfactory: 0% = $0.00

Very Good:76-90%=$95,000 - $112,500 Good: 51% - 75% = $63,750 - $93,750 Satisfactory: < 50% = < $62,500 Unsatisfactory: 0% = $0.00

Very Good:76-90%=$95,000 - $112,500 Good: 51% - 75% = $63,750 - $93,750 Satisfactory: < 50% = < $62,500 Unsatisfactory: 0% = $0.00

EXHIBIT A:

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE EVALUATION FORM

EVALUATION FORM

Development of Surveys

Award Fee Board Member:

Date

Rating Element 1: Comprehensiveness, clarity, and organization

Circle the appropriate number for your rating:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include missing, unclear, inefficient survey items, unclear writing, style, poor grammar/spelling, disorganized document format.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include complete, clear, efficient approaches, clear writing style, proper grammar/spelling, clearly organized survey instruments and require substantial revision based on ED feedback.

Good performance (5.1-7.5) would include complete, clear, efficient approaches, clear writing style, proper grammar/spelling, clearly organized survey instruments and require some revision based ED feedback.

Very good performance (7.6-9) would include complete, clear, efficient approaches, clear writing style, proper grammar/spelling, clearly organized document format and require only minimal revision based on ED feedback.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, AND include innovative, exceptionally skillful approaches used in developing the survey instruments. Require only minimal revision based on ED feedback.

Supporting comments (required for anything other than satisfactory performance ratings):

Rating Element 2: Quality of technical approach.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include missing, unclear, confusing data collection instruments, insufficient instrumentation to support data collection and analysis plans.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include complete, clear, efficient, and user-friendly data collection instruments, sufficient instrumentation to support data collection and analysis plans without being unnecessarily burdensome to respondents. Require substantial revision based on ED feedback.

Good performance (5.1-7.5) would include complete, clear, efficient, and user-friendly data collection instruments, sufficient instrumentation to support data collection and analysis plans without being unnecessarily burdensome to respondents. Require some revision based on ED feedback.

Very good performance (7.6-9) would include complete, clear, efficient, and user-friendly data collection instruments, sufficient instrumentation to support data collection and analysis plans without being unnecessarily burdensome to respondents. Require only minimal revision based on ED feedback.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, AND include need for minimum revision based upon ED review. Require only minimal revision based on ED feedback.

Rating Element 3: Timeliness.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include acceptable deliverables not being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Good performance (5.1-7.5) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted 1-2 days earlier than the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Very good performance (7.6-9) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted 3-5 days earlier than the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted at least a week before the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

EXHIBIT B:

EVALUATION FORM

Baseline Report Award Fee Board Member:___________________ Date:

Rating Element 1: Accuracy and Relevance of Information Provided

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include incomplete, illogical, unclear, inappropriate, and inaccurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions, lack appropriate context for interpreting results.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results; presentation of the analysis and results that is easily accessible and relevant to both policy-makers and practitioners.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance standards for this rating element, AND include innovative, exceptionally skillful conduct and reporting on data analysis results for research questions.

Rating Element 2: Response Rates

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) means the contractor did not reach an 80% response rate overall on the baseline surveys.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the baseline surveys.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the baseline surveys and was cost efficient.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on any of the baseline surveys.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on the baseline surveys.

Rating Element 3: Comprehensiveness, Clarity and Organization of Report

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include a draft report that is missing elements, unclear writing style, poor grammar/spelling, disorganized document format; a draft report that is not consistent with core peer review requirements.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires only modest revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires minimal revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance requirements, WITH a draft, draft final, and final report in a cost efficient manner.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance requirements, AND that include exceptional skill in presenting findings.

Rating Element 4: Timeliness and Responsiveness of deliverables

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include acceptable deliverables not being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR comments at each stage.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR and peer review comments at each stage.

Superior performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance requirements, AND be cost efficient.

EXHIBIT C:

EVALUATION FORM

Follow-up Report

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include incomplete, illogical, unclear, inappropriate, and inaccurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions, lack appropriate context for interpreting results.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results; presentation of the analysis and results that is easily accessible and relevant to both policy-makers and practitioners.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance standards for this rating element, AND include innovative, exceptionally skillful conduct and reporting on data analysis results for research questions.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) means the contractor did not reach an 80% response rate overall on the follow-up surveys.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the follow-up surveys.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the follow-up surveys and was cost efficient.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on any of the follow-up surveys.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on the follow-up surveys.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include a draft report that is missing elements, unclear writing style, poor grammar/spelling, disorganized document format; a draft report that is not consistent with core peer review requirements.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires only modest revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires minimal revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance requirements, WITH a draft, draft final, and final report in a cost efficient manner.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance requirements, AND that include exceptional skill in presenting findings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include acceptable deliverables not being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR comments at each stage.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR and peer review comments at each stage.

EXHIBIT D:

EVALUATION FORM

Second Follow-up Report

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include incomplete, illogical, unclear, inappropriate, and inaccurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions, lack appropriate context for interpreting results.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would include complete, logical, clear, appropriate, and accurate reporting of data analysis and results for key research questions along with an appropriate context for interpreting results; presentation of the analysis and results that is easily accessible and relevant to both policy-makers and practitioners.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance standards for this rating element, AND include innovative, exceptionally skillful conduct and reporting on data analysis results for research questions.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where: Unsatisfactory performance (0) means the contractor did not reach an 80% response rate overall on the second follow-up surveys.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the second follow-up surveys.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) means the contractor reached 80% response rate overall on the second follow-up surveys and was cost efficient.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on any of the second follow-up surveys.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet good performance standards AND the contractor reached 85% response rate overall on the second follow-up surveys.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include a draft report that is missing elements, unclear writing style, poor grammar/spelling, disorganized document format; a draft report that is not consistent with core peer review requirements.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires only modest revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would include a draft report that has a clear writing style, and proper grammar/spelling and requires minimal revisions to be consistent with peer review requirements; a draft final report that is consistent with peer review requirements; a final report that clears peer review and is consistent with ED web requirements.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet good performance requirements, WITH a draft, draft final, and final report in a cost efficient manner.

Excellent performance (9.1-10) would meet very good performance requirements, AND that include exceptional skill in presenting findings.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unsatisfactory performance (0) would include acceptable deliverables not being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Satisfactory performance (no greater than 5) would include acceptable deliverables being submitted by the time specified in the Schedule of Deliverables.

Good performance (5.1 – 7.5) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR comments at each stage.

Very good performance (7.6 – 9) would meet satisfactory performance requirements, AND be thoughtfully responsive to COR and peer review comments at each stage.