EOMS II Draft Award Fee Plan.pdf

Attachment #

SECTION J ATTACHMENT #

EGLIN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES II

AWARD FEE / AWARD TERM PLAN

Draft 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Organization

3. Fee/Term Determining Official

4. Award Fee/Term Review Board

5. Award Fee Rating

6. Computation of the Award Fee Amount

7. Variations

8. Award Fee Criteria

9. Contractor’s Self-Evaluation

10. Award Term Options

11. Contract Termination

12. Award Fee/Term Plan Changes

APPENDICES

A. AWARD FEE/TERM EVALUATION CRITERIA

A.1. Evaluation Areas A.1.1. Performance Measurements A.1.1.1. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluations A.1.1.1.1. Mission Evaluations A.1.1.1.2. Technical Directive Evaluations A.1.1.2. COR Inspections A.1.1.3. Management Measurements A.1.1.3.1. Contract Management A.1.1.3.2. MTC Management Evaluations A.1.1.3.3. Direct Budget Authority (DBA) Targets

B. MISSION AND TECHNICAL DIRECTIVE RATING METHODS

B.1. Overview B.1.1. Missions B.1.2. Technical Directives B.2. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluation Points Calculation Method B.2.1. Mission Evaluation Points Calculation Method B.2.2. Technical Directive Evaluation Calculation Method B.2.3. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluation Roll Up

C. COR INSPECTION RATING METHODS

Table of Tables Table 1: Overall Award Fee Points Earned and Rating Table 2: Evaluation Areas and Fee Calculation* Table 3: Award Term Options

Table 4: Award Fee Rating: Mission and Technical Directive Evaluations Table 5: Evaluation Scoring Criteria: Missions, Technical Directives Table 6: Award Fee Rating: COR Inspections Table 7: Management Evaluation Ratings Table 8: Total DBA Spend Plan Goal Table 9: Mission and Technical Directive Scoring Criteria Table 10: Mission and Technical Directive Weights Table 11: Contract Period ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table of Figures Figure 1: Resource Group DBA Targets

1. Introduction

The strategy of the Award Fee/Term Plan (AF/TP) is to incentivize contract performance and improvements. The incentives are arranged to motivate Contractor efforts that might not otherwise be emphasized and discourage Contractor inefficiency and waste, while clearly communicating satisfactory performance targets that are reasonable and attainable. This AF/TP is applicable to CLINs #s.

The award fee pool is calculated based on estimated values of the above CLINs.

The AF/TP establishes procedures for determining the award fee and award term options earned based on performance evaluation criteria located in the Eglin Operation and Maintenance Services (EOMS) II Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 5, Performance Requirements. These EOMS Performance Requirements were derived from the following high-level objectives to ensure EOMS Program success:

(1) Meet Performance Requirements

(2) Meet Management Requirements

These high-level objectives motivate the Contractor to enhance performance in the areas rated, but not at the expense of minimum acceptable performance in non-rated areas.

Award fee periods are 12 months in duration and will be aligned with contract start date 01 April of each year. Any exercised options will include award fee periods. Interim feedback will be given at 6 months.

This AF/TP may be adjusted to account for changes in focus during program execution.

The Fee/Term Determining Official (F/TDO) will determine the amount of award fee earned based on the Contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan and the EOMS PWS. The F/TDO will also determine if award term options are earned. Award fee and award term evaluation periods are aligned with contract performance periods.

2. Organization

The award fee organization consists of the following: an F/TDO, the Award Fee/Term Review Board (AF/TRB) with chairperson and other membership approved by the F/TDO, the Contracting Officer, a recorder, other functional area participants, advisory members, and Performance Monitors.

3. Fee/Term Determining Official The F/TDO is the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM) or his/her designee. HQ SAF/AQ, HQ AFMC, and HQ AFTC may advise the

F/TDO.

Within 45 days after each award fee evaluation period closes, the F/TDO determines the amount of fee the Contractor receives, defined in Table 2. Within 45 days after each award term evaluation period closes the F/TDO determines if the Contractor earned the next available award term option.

All F/TDO award fee and award term determinations, including the ratings assigned to the Contractor during an evaluation period, are unilateral determinations made solely at the discretion of the Government.

4. Award Fee/Term Review Board

At the end of each award fee evaluation period, the AF/TRB recommends to the F/TDO the amount of fee the Contractor should receive. At the end of each award term evaluation period, the AF/TRB recommends to the F/TDO whether the Contractor should receive an award term option.

The AF/TRB consists of the following individuals:

Award Fee/Term Review Board Chairperson: 96th Test Wing Commander

Award Fee/Term Review Board Members: 96th Range Group Director, Eglin

Requirements Owner

96th Operations Group Commander, Operational Execution Owner

AFTC/PZZA, Contracting Officer

Installation Management Command (IMCOM) USATR, Range Officer

96 TSSQ/RNXC, Recorder (non-voting)

96 TW/JA, Legal Advisor (non-voting)

The Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) and the Contract Performance Monitors may advise the AF/TRB. Performance Monitors are responsible for monitoring day to day operations and generally include Range Systems Engineers, Instrumentation Engineers, Targets Engineers, Programming Engineers, Test Engineers, and Safety, Security, and Environmental and Occupational Health personnel.

Data used to support the AF/TRB decisions are derived from performance and management criteria as defined in Appendix A. 96 TSSQ/RNXC will convene the AF/TRB within 30 days of the end of an Award Fee Period. 96 TSSQ/RNXC will brief the AF/TRB and recommend a score based on the evaluation criteria and subjective data collected during the Award Fee Plan (AFP).

Subjective data includes, but is not limited to, exceptional performance not measured in objective performance criteria, individual or group Contractor employee performance, damage to Government property, environmental impacts, etc.

The AF/TRB will vote, by majority, to recommend a final score to the F/TDO.

Within 15 days after the AF/TRB, 96 TSSQ/RNXC will brief the F/TDO for a decision on the final award fee score, award fee earned, and if award term options will be exercised (if the end of the award fee period ends at the end of an award term option evaluation period).

5. Award Fee Rating

The Contractor will receive an Award Fee Rating based on the Points earned in Table 1 below.

No fee will be paid to the Contractor if an Award Fee Rating of Unsatisfactory is received.

Table 1: Overall Award Fee Points Earned and Rating

Award Fee Adjectival Rating Category

Award Fee Points Earned

Description Award Fee Pool Available to be Earned

Excellent 91-100 Contractor has exceeded almost all of the award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract, in the aggregate, as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.

91%-100%

Very Good 76-90 Contractor has exceeded many of the award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract, in the aggregate, as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.

76%-90%

Good 51-75 Contractor has exceeded some of the award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract, in the aggregate, as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.

51%-75%

Satisfactory 50 Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract, in the aggregate, as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.

50%

Unsatisfactory 0-49 Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract, in the aggregate, as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.

0%

The F/TDO retains the right to increase the award fee earned for reasons such as excellent performance that is either not objectively measured during the award fee period or is of such significance to a customer’s mission objectives that it deserves rewarding.

The F/TDO retains the right to decrease the award fee earned for reasons such as significantly poor performance; performance failures; Contractor actions creating safety, health, environmental, mission, or security impacts; Contractor actions resulting in damage to Government property or injury to persons; cost and management deficiencies increasing burden to the Government; etc.

The F/TDO retains the right to unilaterally assign special emphasis items to focus the Contractor’s attention on specific items that relate to the EOMS high level objectives during subsequent Award Fee/Term periods.

6. Computation of the Award Fee Amount

The Award Fee Amount is an evaluation of two criteria, the Contractor’s performance and management.

As shown in Table 2, performance will be scored based on 2 subfactors equating to 55% of the overall award fee. Those subcategories include Mission / Technical Directive Evaluations and COR inspections.

Management will be scored based on evaluations of 3 subcategories equating to 45% of the overall award fee. Those subcategories include Contract Management, MTC Management, and DBA Targets.

Table 2: Evaluation Areas and Fee Calculation*

Evaluation Area Category Rating

Category Points Earned

Overall Award Fee % Earned

Performance

55% Mission & Technical Directive Evaluations

Excellent 35

COR Inspections Excellent 20 Management

45% Contract Management Excellent

MTC Management DBA Targets

*Table 2 is an example of fee award if the Contractor earns excellent in every category.

For points earned greater than or equal to 50, the F/TDO derives the award fee amount by dividing the points earned by 100 and then multiplying that quotient by the award fee pool amount established in Section B of the Schedule. For example, if the Contractor earns 80pts and the award fee pool is $2M, then the Contractor would receive an award fee amount of $1.6M. Reference formula and sample computation below.

Award Fee Amount = (points earned/100) * Award Fee Pool $1.6M = (80/100) * $2M

If the Contractor earns 70pts and the award fee pool is $2M, then the Contractor would receive an award fee amount of $1.4M. Reference formula and sample computation below.

Award Fee Amount = (points earned/100) * Award Fee Pool $1.4M = (70/100) * $2M

If the Contractor earns a total of 50 pts, the award fee amount is 50% of the award fee pool. Any total points earned for the given period at or below 49 results in no award fee earned.

Award fee not earned by the Contractor in previous award fee periods is not available for payment in current or future award fee periods.

There is neither a requirement nor a presumption that the rating for a given period will become a baseline for the rating applicable to future periods. The F/TDO may determine that the Contractor has earned $0 in award fee for any given period. In accordance with DFARS 252.216-7004, Award Fee Reduction or Denial for Jeopardizing the Health or Safety of Government Personnel is applicable to this award fee plan in any given period. This provision allows up to 100% of the award fee to be denied if a Contractor’s performance results in a covered incident. If a covered incident occurs, the AF/TRB membership will subjectively determine its recommendation to the F/TDO regarding the percentage to be denied (0%-100%).

The F/TDO will make the final decision. The F/TDO determination is subject to the disputes clause of the contract.

7. Variations

The EOMS contract includes two separate Award Fee Pools which are the Eglin Range Award Fee Pool and United States Army Training Range (USATR) Award Fee Pool. The Total Award Fee amount of each Pool is negotiated at contract award and defined in the Award Fee

CLIN.

Contract adjustments involving increases or decreases to the Performance Work Statement during any of the contract’s performance periods (base, Option One, Option Two, Award Term Option One, etc.) involving 15% or less of the combined estimated values (O&M Labor, Overtime Labor, and Tier 1 Directive Labor) for any Award Fee Pool during the performance period for a given modification will result in negotiation of a new estimated cost only.

Contract adjustments involving more than 15% of the combined estimated values (O&M Labor, Overtime Labor, and Tier 1 Directive Labor) for any Award Fee Pool during the performance period for a given modification will result in negotiation of a new estimated cost and fee using a percentage rate not to exceed the originally proposed award fee rate.

The basis for any fee negotiation for any Award Fee Pool will be the combined values for O&M Labor, Overtime Labor, and Tier 1 Directive Labor related to the Award Fee Pool. Cost reductions resulting from the implementation of the Contractor’s initiatives or improvements will not be considered in calculating the 15% at the discretion of the contracting officer. No fee will be attributable to Contractor Acquired Property or Travel.

Changes in contract value resulting from Contractor-proposed improvements under the terms of the AF/TP are not included in the percentage calculations within this Paragraph 8.

8. Award Fee Criteria

The Contractor’s performance will be assessed through evaluation areas IAW the evaluation criteria in Appendix A. Evaluation criteria include:

• Performance Requirements

• Mission Evaluations and Technical Directive Evaluations

• COR Inspections

• Management Requirements

• Contract Management

• MTC Management

• DBA Targets

If the Contracting Officer (CO) does not give specific notice in writing to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation area prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same standards for the preceding period will be used in the new award fee evaluation period.

Before an evaluation Period is started, the Government may provide a letter providing Focus Areas if the government has additional emphasis and considerations for strategic improvements/innovation to support the vision for Eglin during contract performance. If the Contracting Officer or COR does not give specific notice to the contractor of any change to the Focus Areas prior to the start of a new evaluation Period, then the same ones listed for the preceding Period, if any, will be used in the following Award Fee evaluation Period as appropriate.

CORs and Performance Monitors will evaluate the Contractor’s performance in the areas identified in PWS Paragraph 5 and Appendix A. Ratings above or below the satisfactory level will be accompanied by a brief description of the benefit or detriment to the government and an associated program impact for each evaluation.

Contractor mission and technical directive rating methods are described in Appendix B.

9. Contractor’s Self-Evaluation

Within 6 business days after each evaluation period, the Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with a written self-evaluation that shall not exceed 10 single-sided pages using Times New Roman, 12-point font, single space. The self-evaluation shall include the Contractor’s assessment of its performance under the Award Fee Criteria. The Contractor may make a formal presentation of their performance and assessment of contract performance during the evaluation period to the AF/TRB and the F/TDO. The Contractor's presentations shall not exceed 30 minutes each.

10. Award Term Options

The Contractor may earn up to two 2-year award term options. If the Contractor earns an award term option, then the Contracting Officer exercises the award term option through unilateral contract modifications subject to the Government's right to Terminate for Convenience and subject to:

a) the availability of funds; and b) the award of the award term option satisfying the conditions of FAR 17.207(c). Each award term option has an associated 1-year award term evaluation period.

The relationship between evaluation periods and award term option years is as follows:

Table 3: Award Term Options

Evaluation Period Award Term Option 1 Apr 2029 – 31 Mar 2030 1 Apr 2032 – 31 Mar 2034 1 Apr 2031 – 31 Mar 2032 1 Apr 2034 – 31 Mar 2036

At the conclusion of an award term evaluation period, the total points earned occurring within the award term evaluation period are averaged to produce an Award Term Score (ATS).

First Award Term Option Criteria

The Contractor will receive the first award term option if the Contractor receives an ATS of at least 76 points. If the Contractor receives an ATS of less than 76 points, the F/TDO may award the first award term option if it is in the best interest of the Government.

Second Award Term Option Criteria

The Contractor will receive the second award term option if the Contractor receives an ATS of at least 80 points. If the Contractor receives an ATS of less than 80 points, the F/TDO may award the second award term option if it is in the best interest of the Government.

When assessing award term scores, the F/TDO may consider performance outside defined award term evaluation periods contained in Table 2. If the Contractor does not earn the first award term option, the second award term option will not be awarded.

11. Contract Termination

If the Government terminates the contract for convenience after the start of an award fee/term period, the F/TDO will determine the award fee for that period, consistent with this award fee plan. The remaining dollars for all subsequent periods will not be considered available or earned and shall not be paid. If the contract is terminated for default, the Contractor shall not earn any fee for the period in which the default termination occurred.

12. Award Fee/Term Plan Changes

The Contracting Officer may unilaterally change the AF/TP, provided the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor of the change in writing 30 days before the start of the upcoming award fee/term period. Changes to this AF/TP that are applicable to a current evaluation period may be incorporated by mutual agreement of the parties at any time.

The AF/TRB is responsible for recommending significant AF/TP changes to the F/TDO.

Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect the Contractor’s emphasis, and revising the distribution of award fee dollars. The F/TDO approves significant changes to the AF/TP.

APPENDICES

A. AWARD FEE/TERM EVALUATION CRITERIA

A.1. Evaluation Areas

The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated through the subjective evaluation areas outlined in Table 2: Evaluation Areas and Fee Calculation.

The Award Fee amount results from an evaluation of two criteria, the Contractor’s performance and management.

Performance will be scored based on 2 subcategories equating to 55% of the overall award fee.

Those subcategories include Mission / Technical Directive Evaluations, COR inspections.

Management will be scored based on 3 subcategories equating to 45% of the overall award fee.

Those subcategories include Contract Management, MTC management, and DBA Targets.

A.1.1. Performance Measurements

The Performance Measurements include the subfactors of Mission / Technical Evaluations and COR Inspections. Each area is evaluated against the Satisfactory Score located in the Performance Requirements in Section 5 of the EOMS II PWS, to ensure minimal performance requirements are met.

A.1.1.1. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluations

The Mission and technical evaluations are broken out below, but they will be combined into an overall evaluation score. The evaluation score will equate to a rating and a determined amount of points earned identified in Table 4.

Table 4: Award Fee Rating: Mission and Technical Directive Evaluations

Evaluation Rating Evaluation Score Points Earned

Excellent 91-100 35

Very Good 76-90 31.5

Good 51-75 26.25

Satisfactory 50 17.5

Unsatisfactory 0-49 0

A.1.1.1.1. Mission Evaluations

Performance Monitors prepare a mission evaluation after each mission or related set of missions. The evaluation measures the performance of the Contractor in meeting the mission objectives, in the areas of quality, schedule, and budget. Each mission evaluation has a total of six criteria that are assigned a rating of Did Not Meet Requirements, Partially Met Requirements, Met Requirements with Minor Deviations, or Met Requirements with No Deviations based on Table 5. The weighting of each mission evaluation is based on the 96 TW Test Priority System, which defines the importance of each test program to the 96 TW mission.

This priority is assigned at the test program initiation. The six mission evaluation ratings are a weighted average of all evaluated missions for the award fee period and are evaluated against PWS Performance Requirements 5.2.1 through 5.2.6.

A.1.1.1.2. Technical Directive Evaluations

The Performance Monitors evaluate the Contractor’s technical directive performance. Each evaluation measures the Contractor’s performance in meeting the technical directive’s requirements in the areas of quality, schedule, and budget. Each technical directive evaluation has a total of five evaluation criteria, based on requirements established in the PWS paragraph 5. The Contractor’s performance is rated Did Not Meet Requirements, Partially Met Requirements, Met Requirements with Minor Deviations, or Met Requirements with No Deviations based on Table 5. Each evaluation is weighted by the technical directive originator and their management.

The five technical directive evaluation scores are a weighted average of all evaluated technical directives for the award fee period and are evaluated against PWS Performance Requirements 5.2.1 through 5.2.6 excluding 5.2.3.

Table 5: Evaluation Scoring Criteria: Missions, Technical Directives

Rating Rating Description Met Requirements with No Deviations

The O&M Contractor met all requirements to support the test mission or technical directive with no deviations from the test mission or technical directive plan.

Met Requirements with Minor Deviations

The O&M Contractor met all requirements to support the test mission or technical directive with minor deviations from the test mission or technical directive plan.

Partially Met Requirements

The O&M Contractor did not meet all requirements for the test mission or technical directive; however, the test mission or technical directive was still effective.

Did Not Meet Requirements

The O&M Contractor did not meet all requirements for the test mission or technical directive and the test mission or technical directive was not effective.

A.1.1.2. COR Inspections

CORs monitor the Contractor’s performance and produce surveillance inspection reports that include the CORs’ observations, findings, and major findings. An observation is a minor deviation from, or noncompliance with, an otherwise well-implemented process. A finding identifies noncompliance with PWS paragraph 4.1.17. A major finding is an inspection discrepancy or lack of responsiveness that significantly degrades or has potential to significantly degrade mission, system, or equipment capability, or creates a health, safety, or environmental hazard. Any inspection finding that is repeated within the same or next rating period for which the Contractor has responded to the finding and failed to take appropriate corrective action will be considered a major discrepancy. All surveillance inspection reports are evaluated in the aggregate at the end of the award fee period. The result of the COR inspection will be evaluated against PWS Performance Requirement 5.3. and Appendix C. The COR Inspection score is equated to a rating and points earned amount as determined in Table 6.

Table 6: Award Fee Rating: COR Inspections

Inspection Rating Inspection Score Points Earned

Excellent 91-100 15

Very Good 76-90 13.5

Good 51-75 11.25

Satisfactory 50 7.5

Unsatisfactory 0-49 0

A.1.1.3. Management Measurements Overall, the evaluation of Management functions in the critical areas of Contract Management, MTC Management, and DBA Targets will significantly impact award fee determination. The Government expects the Contractor to execute essential Basic Management skills such as clear communication, availability, responsiveness to events, and proactive issue anticipation and resolution. The Government will evaluate management functions related to MTC personnel such as the Contractor’s ability to provision qualified personnel and fill positions (IAW the PWS) with individuals possessing the requisite skills and experience. The Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to hit financial targets while adhering to budgetary constraints and cost saving initiatives. Additionally, the Government assessments include Contractor’s effectiveness to capture the benefits of current technology in workforce management to create tools and systems that enhance efficiency and productivity. Clear communication includes the Contractor’s record of reporting to the Government of any critical skills shortages which it cannot resolve otherwise prior to it having mission impact.

The award fee for management will include an overall rating and the fee will be calculated using the table below. If the Contractor receives an Unsatisfactory Rating in any of the management critical areas, then the contractor will receive an overall management rating of unsatisfactory.

Table 7: Management Evaluation Ratings

Evaluation Rating Points Earned

Excellent 45

Very Good 33.75

Good 22.5

Satisfactory 11.25

Unsatisfactory 0

Prior to each Award Fee Period the government and the Contractor will meet to discuss Focus Areas. The Focus Areas are subjective requirements of the Management Critical Areas which are provided via a Focus Areas Letter from the Contracting Officer at the beginning of each Award Fee Period. This may include any additional emphasis and considerations from the F/TDO from previous Periods if they are still applicable. The Focus Areas implement the strategic vision for the ETTC during contract performance. Strategic improvements may span multiple Award Fee Periods; in such cases, the Contractor’s milestone progress will be tracked and credited in the evaluations.

Additional Focus Areas can be added to heighten awareness and/or correction. This may include situations in which there is a significant negative mission impact, a single safety Class A mishap, or multiple safety mishaps regardless of class. Assignment of this type of Improvement Area may reflect a decrement in the Award Fee Pool or in the total Award Fee earned for that Period. These additional Focus Areas may be assigned at any point within the Award Fee Period based upon the severity of the incident(s).

A.1.1.3.1. Contract Management

The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s efforts to maintain effective and efficient management structures to foster maximum contract performance and realize PWS Section 4.1 General Support Services. The Contractor will be given an overall rating of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory for the entirety of the Award Fee Period. The Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to provide and apply qualified resources, in a timely manner, to most effectively meet mission needs. Simultaneously, the Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to adhere to established PWS requirements, generally acceptable business standards, the use of small business, reporting, resource management, and regulatory compliance requirements in a manner that does not unduly burden the technical mission, e.g., safety, security, asset management. Additionally, the Contractor’s ability to facilitate proactive, meaningful, and transparent communication, and timely and accurate financial reporting will be considered throughout this assessment criterion. Lastly, the Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to innovate and provide / execute improvements and efficiencies to their management processes.

This criterion evaluates the Contractor’s actual cost performance compared to the established budget baseline, and the effective use of the cost control system in the day-to-day management of the contract. The Contractor will be evaluated on their ability to maximize contract performance and execute PWS Section 4.1.18 Cost Tracking System. Causes and impacts of variances and implementing corrective action planning will be assessed. This criterion evaluates the amount of Government re-work created from incorrect labor charges. This includes assessment of the Contractor’s ability to forecast accurate Provisional Billing Rates (PBRs).

Contractor adherence to their cost processes and procedures, and continued improvement of the cost accounting system will also be evaluated. This criterion evaluates Contractor management of CLINs.

This criterion evaluates whether the Contractor met or exceeded the total small business participation goal (25% of total contract value during the award fee period) in the PWS and Contractor’s Small Business Participation Plan. In addition, this criterion assesses the Contractor’s management of their small businesses.

The Contractor will be rated based on exhibiting proficiency in the key aspects of the individual criteria as stated below. The below criteria are not all encompassing and is meant to help guide the evaluators in their ratings.

Excellent Management:

a. The Contractor has implemented an effective risk management program to anticipate issues and implement solutions before the risks are realized. The few issues identified are non-significant, non-reoccurring and are properly mitigated to prevent any mission impact.

b. Maintains current and accurate contract cost baseline and effectively control cost.

c. Reporting is always timely and accurate. Maintains open communication channels with the Government to accomplish the ETTC mission expertly and efficiently and maintain the ETTC infrastructure.

d. Implements focus area letter improvements and achieves proposed benefits to the Government consistent with the period being evaluated.

2. Very Good Management:

a. The Contractor has implemented an effective risk management program to anticipate issues and implement solutions. There are a few issues identified but result in minimal mission impact and the Contractor has demonstrated or taken satisfactory corrective action without government initiation.

b. Maintains current and accurate contract cost baseline and effectively control cost.

c. Reporting is mostly timely and accurate. Minor reporting mishaps are corrected in a timely manner, have little to no impacts, are non-reoccurring and without government initiation. Maintains open communication channels with the Government to accomplish the ETTC mission expertly and efficiently and maintain the ETTC infrastructure.

d. Implements improvements / efficiencies and achieves proposed benefits to the Government consistent with the Period being evaluated.

3. Good Management:

a. The Contractor has implemented a somewhat effective risk management programs to anticipate issues and implement solutions. There are some issues or recurring deficiencies. While the issues can be serious or have some mission impact, the Contractor has demonstrated or taken satisfactory corrective action to resolve them and minimize the impact without government initiation.

b. Maintains adequate cost control.

c. Reporting is somewhat timely and accurate. Reporting mishaps are corrected in a somewhat timely manner, have little to no impacts, are non-reoccurring and were implemented without government initiation. Maintains somewhat open communication channels with the Government to accomplish the ETTC mission, but there are areas of improvements in communication.

d. Implements improvements / efficiencies and achieves proposed benefits to the

Government consistent with the Period being evaluated.

4. Satisfactory Management:

a. The Contractor has implemented a somewhat effective risk management program to anticipate issues and implement solutions. There are some issues or recurring deficiencies. While the issues can be serious or have some mission impact, the Contractor has demonstrated or taken satisfactory corrective action to resolve them and minimize the impact. However, corrective actions were either aided or initiated by the government.

b. Minimal cost control.

c. Reporting is somewhat timely and accurate. Reporting mishaps are corrected in a timely manner but do have some management impacts such as delayed customer billing. The same reporting mishaps have been identified more than once and corrective actions were either aided or initiated by the government. Maintains somewhat open communication channels with the Government to accomplish the ETTC mission, but there are areas of improvements in communication.

d. Implements improvements / efficiencies with little to no results consistent with the Period being evaluated.

5. Unsatisfactory Management:

a. The Contractor implemented an ineffective risk management program to anticipate issues and implement solutions. There are several critical issues that had significant mission impact. Little action, if any, by the Contractor to address the problems or the corrective actions have little to no results. Repeated environmental or safety mishaps indicative of lack of attention.

b. There is little to no cost control as shown by critical cost overruns.

c. Reporting is rarely timely or accurate. Reporting mishaps are not corrected in a timely manner and have some management impacts such as delayed customer billing. The same reporting mishaps has been identified more than twice and corrective actions ineffective.

d. Contractor failed to implement improvements or innovation.

A.1.1.3.2. MTC Management Evaluations

MTC Management Evaluations monitors the Contractor’s management of the MTC positions and performance in executing the duties required for the MTC positions, to ensure the MTC positions most effectively meets mission needs. The Contractor management will be evaluated on the ability to maintain a stable workforce, execute transition without disruption of service, and eliminate the need for the Government to expend resources to retrain and re-orient new Contractor personnel. The award fee for MTC Management is the overall rating provided using the table below.

MTC Management also Evaluates the Contractor’s ability to meet the technical performance required by the duties of each MTC position specified in PWS and Appendix 1. The Contractor will be evaluated on technical performance of the duties of the MTC positions, problem solving, integration of new/modified range systems, and savings of benefit to the Government.

The Contractor will be rated based on exhibiting proficiency in the key aspects of the individual criteria as stated below. The below criteria is not all encompassing and is meant to help guide the evaluators in their ratings.

1. Excellent MTC Management:

a. 91% - 100% of the MTC positions are filled.

b. Vacant positions were filled in 4 weeks or less.

c. Almost every MTC personnel transitioned without disruption.

d. MTC personnel provide critical support for the seamless integration of new/modified systems with no critical issues or failures.

e. MTC personnel solve highly complex or unique problems to ensure test site readiness and mission success.

f. MTC personnel routinely demonstrate expertise that exceeds PWS and Appendix 1 duties requirements.

g. The Contractor has implemented MTC improvements or efficiencies resulting in benefit to the government.

2. Very Good MTC Management:

a. 76% - 90% or more of the MTC positions are filled.

b. Vacant positions were filled in 6 weeks or less.

c. Most MTC personnel transitioned without disruption.

d. MTC personnel provide important support for the seamless integration of new/modified systems with minimal critical issues or failures. Any issues were corrected by the Contractor without government initiation with little to no mission impact.

e. MTC personnel solve very complex or unique problems to ensure test site readiness and mission success.

f. MTC personnel often demonstrate expertise that exceeds PWS and Appendix 1 duties requirements.

g. The Contractor has implemented MTC improvements or efficiencies resulting in benefit to the government.

3. Good MTC Management:

a. 51% - 75% or more of the MTC positions are filled.

b. Vacant positions were filled in 9 weeks or less.

c. Many MTC personnel transitioned without disruption.

d. MTC personnel provide good support for the seamless integration of new/modified systems, but there were some issues or failures resulting in government-directed corrective actions.

e. MTC personnel solve complex or somewhat unique problems to ensure test site readiness and mission success.

f. MTC personnel occasionally demonstrate expertise that exceeds PWS and Appendix 1 duties requirements.

g. The Contractor has implemented some MTC improvements and efficiencies resulting in benefit to the government.

4. Satisfactory MTC Management:

a. 50% of the MTC positions are filled.

b. Vacant positions were filled in 12 weeks or less.

c. Some MTC personnel transitioned without disruption.

d. MTC personnel provide support for the integration of new/modified systems.

e. MTC personnel solve everyday problems to ensure test site readiness and mission success.

f. MTC personnel routinely demonstrate expertise required by the PWS and Appendix 1 duties requirements.

g. The Contractor has implemented some MTC improvements and efficiencies resulting in little to no benefit to the government.

5. Unsatisfactory MTC Management:

a. Less than 50% of the MTC positions are filled.

b. Vacant positions took longer than 12 weeks to fill.

c. MTC personnel transitioned with several disruptions.

d. MTC personnel fail to provide support for the integration of new/modified range systems.

e. MTC personnel unable to solve normal problems to ensure test site readiness or mission success.

f. MTC personnel routinely fail to demonstrate expertise required by the PWS and

Appendix 1 duties requirements.

g. MTC personnel failed to implement improvements or efficiencies.

A.1.1.3.3. Direct Budget Authority (DBA) Targets

DBA targets determine if the Contractor provided the Government with accurate financial estimates in their annual DBA spend plan and met the Government provided DBA spend plan goal. The spend plan is evaluated annually for its accuracy and monitored on a monthly basis.

The financial inspection results will be evaluated against PWS Performance Requirement paragraph 5.7.

Table 8: Total DBA Spend Plan Goal

% Deviation Below Target Points Earned 1 or Less Excellent

1.5 Very Good

1.75 Good

2 Satisfactory Greater than 2 Unsatisfactory

Any “below target” deviation greater than 2% in PWS paragraph 5.7 results in a DBA Targets Award Fee % of zero. Any deviation over the Government provided fiscal year DBA spend plan goal will result in zero points earned for DBA Target. The Government reserves consideration of deviations due to events outside the Contractor’s control.

The allocated funding is additionally broken down into Resource Groups as depicted in the example Figure 1 below. Each Resource Group will have its own DBA Target and a +/-20% deviation will be allowed without impacting the award fee. The Resource Group targets are determined in a collaborative effort between the Government and the Contractor for each FY.

For each Resource Group DBA Target that is not within the Resource Group DBA Target allowable deviation at the end of the FY, a reduction of the Management Award Fee will be determined by the Government. The Government reserves consideration of deviations due to events outside the Contractor’s control.

Figure 1: Example Resource Group DBA Targets

Total DBA Target

Engineering and General Support

Airborne Ranges & Resources

Ground Explosive Test Resources

Electronic Warfare

Resources MCL Resources MSTTE Resources

B. MISSION AND TECHNICAL DIRECTIVE RATING METHODS

B.1. Overview

The Government schedules missions and provides the Contractor technical direction to meet requirements as they arise.

B.1.1. Missions

The Government schedules missions in support of test programs as a part of the workload accepted by the 96 TW. Mission support required by the Government is schedulable through the Central Scheduling Enterprise (CSE). Contractor evaluations are completed by Government Performance Monitors after the completion of each mission by using the evaluation forms embedded in CSE; this data is archived by the Government for objective performance score calculations.

B.1.2. Technical Directives

Technical Directives are used to direct the Contractor to perform uncommon or irregular work under the PWS, such as work requiring short-term manning changes, temporary duty of Contractor personnel, property account changes, real property accountability changes, reduced maintenance status changes, fabrication of other than prototype items, and support required outside of regularly scheduled missions. The Government utilizes the Electronic Directive System (EDS) to issue technical directives to the Contractor. Contractor evaluations are completed by Government Performance Monitors after the completion of each Technical Directive by using the evaluation forms embedded in EDS; this data is archived by the Government for objective performance score calculations.

B.2. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluation Points Calculation Method

B.2.1. Mission Evaluation Points Calculation Method

Each accomplished mission is evaluated by a Government Performance Monitor after mission completion. This form is embedded in the CSE application. Individual evaluation areas are defined in PWS paragraphs 5.2.1 through 5.2.6.

Each individual evaluation entry on the mission evaluation form is assigned an evaluation area score in accordance with Table 9.

Each individual score is then automatically weighted according to the 96 TW Mission Priority System weights contained in Table 10. The weighted score is obtained by multiplying the individual score by the Test Program’s associated weight in Table 10. At the end of the award fee period, all of the weighted mission evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area (PWS Paragraph 5.2.1 through 5.2.6) are averaged.

B.2.2. Technical Directive Evaluation Calculation Method

Each accomplished Technical Directive is evaluated by a Government Performance Monitor after completion. This form is embedded in the EDS application.

Each individual evaluation entry on the Technical Directive evaluation form is assigned an evaluation area score in accordance with Table 9.

Each individual score is then weighted according to the importance of the Technical Directive at the time of directive initiation in accordance with Table 10. The weighted score is obtained by multiplying the individual score by the associated weight in Table 10.

At the end of the award fee period, all of the weighted Technical Directive evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area (PWS Paragraph 5.2.1. through 5.2.6., excluding 5.2.3.) are averaged.

B.2.3. Mission and Technical Directive Evaluation Roll Up

At the end of the award fee period, the individual averaged mission and Technical Directive evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area are averaged, with the exception being only one averaged score for PWS paragraph 5.2.3. The qualitative score for each PWS paragraph can be determined from Table 9.

The resulting combined mission and Technical Directive score is then derived by summing weighted scores, in Table 10, of the individual evaluation areas.

Table 9: Mission and Technical Directive Scoring Criteria

PWS Mission and Technical Directive Requirements

CRITERIA SCORE

Met Requirements with No Deviations 100

Met Requirements with Minor Deviations 93

Partially Met Requirements 75

Did Not Meet Requirements 0

Table 10: Mission and Technical Directive Weights

96 TW Test Priority System

Associated Weight

Technical Directive Priority

Associated Weight

Tier 0 3 A 3

Tier 1 2.5 B 2.5

Tier 2 2 C 2

Tier 3 1.5 D 1.5

Tier 4 1 E 1

C. COR INSPECTION RATING METHODS

EVALUATION FACTOR: Maintenance Program Effectiveness 65%

EVALUATION

FACTORS

UNSATISFACTORY

(0 -49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 -59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY

GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT

(90 -100)

10% Preventive Maintenance Preventive Preventive Preventive Preventive Inspection Completion Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Rate <90% within the Inspection

Completion Inspection Inspection Inspection scheduled period. Rate ≥90% but <92%

Completion Rate Completion Rate Completion Rate within the scheduled ≥92% but <96% ≥96% but <98% ≥98% within the period. within the within the scheduled scheduled period. scheduled period. period.

20% Corrective maintenance Corrective Corrective Corrective Corrective action not completed within maintenance action maintenance maintenance maintenance

6 months of the initiation of completed within 6 action completed action completed action completed the Job Control Number months of the initiation within 6 months of within 6 months of within 6 months

(JCN)/Work Order with of the JCN/Work the initiation of the the initiation of the of the initiation of

>25% of unjustified delays.

Order with >20% but JCN/Work Order JCN/Work Order the JCN/Work

≤25% unjustified with >10% but with >5% but Order with ≤5% delays. ≤20% unjustified ≤10% unjustified unjustified delays. delays. delays.

50% Corrective maintenance, installations and fabrication workmanship complies with general maintenance standards for <85% of work observed.

Corrective maintenance, installations, and fabrication workmanship complies with general maintenance standards for ≥85% but <90% of work observed.

Corrective maintenance, installations, and fabrication workmanship complies with general maintenance standards for ≥90% but <95% of work observed.

Corrective maintenance, installations and fabrication workmanship complies with general maintenance standards for ≥95% but <98% of work observed.

Corrective maintenance, installation and fabrication workmanship complies with general maintenance standards for ≥98% of work observed.

10% Maintenance documentation1 is accurate and complete <70% of the time.

Maintenance documentation1 is accurate and complete ≥70% but <75% of the time.

Maintenance documentation1 is accurate and complete ≥75% but <85% of the time.

Maintenance documentation1 is accurate and complete ≥85% but <90% of the time.

Maintenance documentation1 is accurate and complete ≥90% of the time.

10% Maintenance program is preserving ancillary equipment2 in serviceable3 condition for <70% of items inspected.

Maintenance program is preserving ancillary equipment2 in serviceable3 condition for ≥70% but <75% of items inspected.

Maintenance program is preserving ancillary equipment2 in serviceable3 condition for ≥75% but <85% of items inspected.

Maintenance program is preserving ancillary equipment2 in serviceable3 condition for ≥85% but <90% of items inspected.

Maintenance program is preserving ancillary equipment2 in serviceable3 condition for ≥90% of items inspected.

EVALUATION FACTOR: Safety, Security, and Environmental Compliance Program Effectiveness 10%

EVALUATION

FACTORS

UNSATISFACTO

RY (0 -49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 -59)

GOO

D (60 - 79)

VERY

GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT (90 -

100)

Safety, Security, and Environmental Compliance Programs Effectiveness

Safety, Security, and/or Environmental programs failed to meet many requirements in range/test safety and security.

Performance was unsatisfactory.

Non- responsive to customer feedback. Poor coordination with the customer.

There are more than one major and/or more than 30 minor Safety, Security, and Environmental findings.

Safety, Security, and/or Environmental programs met sufficient requirements in range/test safety and security.

Contractor coordinated consistently with the customer. There are one or less major and/or 30 or less minor Safety, Security, and Environmental findings.

Safety, Security, and/or Environmental programs met most requirements in range/test safety and security.

Corrective actions performed in a timely manner.

Coordination with the customer done in a highly acceptable manner. There are zero major and 25 or less minor Safety, Security, and Environmental findings.

Safety, Security, and/or Environmental programs exceeded many requirements in range/test safety and security.

Contractor put forth extra effort to accomplish corrective actions.

Proactively coordinated with the customer on nearly all relevant issues.

There are zero major and

20 or less minor Safety, Security, and Environmental findings.

Safety, Security, and/or Environmental programs exceeded most or all requirements in range/test safety and security.

Contractor demonstrated exceptional knowledge and effort to accomplish corrective actions.

Contractor worked proactively with customers to identify and either mitigate or eliminate potential issues before impact. There are zero major and 15 or less minor Safety, Security, and Environmental findings.

EVALUATION FACTOR: Maintain Government Furnished Vehicles in Safe / Serviceable Condition & Mission Capable 15%

EVALUATION

WEIGHT

UNSATISFACTORY

(0 - 49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 - 59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT (90 -

100)

30% <85% of inspected ≥85% but <91% of ≥91% but <98% of ≥98% but <100% of 100% of inspected vehicles met maintenance inspected vehicles inspected vehicles inspected vehicles vehicles met requirements of T.O.36- 1-met maintenance met maintenance met maintenance maintenance

191 requirements of requirements of requirements of requirements of T.O.36-1-191 T.O.36-1-191 T.O.36-1-191 T.O.36-1-191

10% Two or more incidents of vehicle abuse or four or more vehicle accidents5.

One incident of vehicle abuse or three vehicle…