E-OMS_AFP_10_June_2015.pdf

FA2486-16-C-0002

Attachment 8

SECTION J ATTACHMENT 8

EGLIN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES

AWARD FEE / AWARD TERM PLAN

Table of Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

2. Organization……………………………………………………………………………………

3. Fee Determining Official………………………………………………………………………… 3

4. Award Fee/Term Review Board………………………………………………...……………… 4

5. Award Fee Score………………………………………………………………………………... 5

6. Award Fee Rating……………………………………………………………………………….. 5

7. Award Fee Amount……………………………………………………………………………… 6

8. Variations………………………………………………………………………………………

9. Award Fee Criteria………………………………………………………………………………. 8

10. Contractor’s Self Evaluation……………………………………………………………………. 8

11. Award Term Options…………………………………………………………………………….. 8

12. Contract Termination……………………………………………………………………………. 9

13. Award Fee/Term Plan Changes……………………………………………………………….. 9

Appendix 1: Award Fee/Term Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………….. 10

Appendix 2: Mission and Technical Directive Rating Methods………………………………… 15

Appendix 3: COR Inspection Rating Methods …………….…………………………………….. 21

Appendix 4: Award Fee Allocations by Evaluation Periods…………………………………….. 26

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 0001, 0002, 0003, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0015, 0016, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1011,1012,1013, 1014,1015,1016, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2011,2012, 2013, 2014,2015,2016, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3011,3012,3013, 3014,3015,3016, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4011,4012, 4013, 4014, 4015, & 4016.

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 (E-OMS) Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 5, Performance Requirements. These E-OMS Performance Requirements were derived from the following high level objectives to ensure E-OMS Program success:

(1) Meet Customer Requirements

(2) Meet Management Requirements

(3) Provide for Continuous Improvement

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. AF/TP Continuous Improvements include, but are not limited to, increased operational efficiencies, enhanced relevancy, reduced reliance on Direct Budget Authority (DBA) funding, and innovation.

Award fee periods are six months in duration and will be aligned with fiscal years. Any exercised options will include award fee periods.

This AF/TP will apply to award fee period one of the E-OMS program. The plan may be adjusted in award fee period two and beyond 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 E-OMS 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. AFPEO/CM, 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. Within 45 days after each award term evaluation period closes, defined in Table 2, 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: 96 Test Wing Commander

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

96 Operations Group Commander, Operational Execution Owner

96 Test Group Commander, NRTF, LGTF, AVSF Requirements Owner

AFTC/PZZB, Contracting 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, Safety, Security, Environmental, and Occupational Health, Programming Engineers and Test Engineers.

Data used to support the AF/TRB decisions are derived from performance and improvement criteria as defined in Appendix 1. 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 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 Score

The Award Fee Score (AFS) is an evaluation of the Contractor’s two criteria, performance and improvements. A total of 100 points are available for the Award Fee Score in each Award Fee period.

Performance will be scored from 0-100. The Performance score will account for 80% of the AFS and therefore be assigned a weight of 0.8.

Improvement will be scored from 0-100. The Improvement score will account for 20% of the AFS and therefore be assigned a weight of 0.2.

The AFS is the weighted sum of the performance and improvement criteria and the formula is:

Award Fee Score = [(Performance score) * 0.8] + [(Improvement score) * 0.2]

6. Award Fee Rating

The Contractor will receive an Award Fee Rating based on the AFS in Table 1 below. The F/TDO letter to the Contractor will state both the AFS and the Award Fee Adjectival Rating Category. No fee will be paid to the Contractor if an Award Fee Rating of Unsatisfactory is received.

Award Fee Adjectival Rating Category

Award Fee Score

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%

Table 1: Award Fee Score and Rating

The F/TDO retains the right to adjust the award fee based upon 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 adjust the award fee based upon significantly poor performance, performance failures, or for events outside the Contractor’s control that impact the Contractor’s ability to successfully perform contract requirements. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) Contractor actions creating safety, health, environmental, mission, or security impacts; (b) Contractor actions resulting in damage to Government property or injury to persons; and

(c) Events such as hurricanes, wildfires and Government shutdowns.

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 E-OMS high level objectives during subsequent Award Fee/Term periods.

7. Award Fee Amount

The annual award fee available to be earned by the Contractor is broken into two pools: 50% of the annual award fee pool for the first award fee period, and 50% of the annual award fee pool for the second award fee period of each fiscal year. Award fee allocations by award fee period are contained in Appendix 4.

For AFSs greater than 50, the F/TDO derives the award fee amount by dividing the award fee score 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 receives an award fee score of 80 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 = (Award Fee Score/100) * Award Fee Pool $1.6M = (80/100) * $2M

If the Contractor receives an award fee score of 70 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 = (Award Fee Score/100) * Award Fee Pool $1.4M = (70/100) * $2M

If the Contractor receives an award fee score of 50, the award fee amount is 50% of the award fee pool.

Any AFS, 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 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.

8. Variations

The available award fee pool of the contract shall remain unchanged unless a net increase in total contract value of more than 15% or a net decrease in total contract value of more than 15% to the requirements of the Performance Work Statement during a fiscal year. If during a fiscal year, the contract value, in the aggregate, increases or decreases by 15%, then the Government and the Contractor shall, subject to the availability of funds, negotiate in good faith to increase or reduce the award fee pool for the remainder of that contract period.

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

9. Award Fee Criteria

The Contractor’s performance will be assessed through evaluation areas IAW the evaluation criteria in Appendix 1. Evaluation criteria include:

Performance Requirements

• Mission Evaluations

• Technical Directive Evaluations

• COR Inspections

• Financial Inspections

• Small Business Participation

Improvement Requirements

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.

CORs and Performance Monitors will evaluate the contractor’s performance in the areas identified in PWS Paragraph 5 and Appendix 1. Scores 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 2.

10. Contractor’s Self-Evaluation

Within seven (7) days after each evaluation period, the Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with a written self-evaluation. The self-evaluation shall include the Contractor’s assessment of its performance under the Award Fee Criteria.

11. Award Term Options

The Contractor may earn up to two (2) 2-year award terms options. If the Contractor earns an award term option, then the Contracting Officer exercises the award term option through unilateral contract modifications 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 one-year award term evaluation period.

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

Evaluation Period Award Term Option

4 June 2018 – 3 June 2019 4 June 2022 – 3 June 2024 4 June 2020 – 3 June 2021 4 June 2024 – 3 June 2026

Table 2: Awards Term Options

At the conclusion of an award term evaluation period, the AFSs occurring within the award term evaluation period are averaged to produce an award term score (ATS).

First Award Term Option Criteria

The Contractor shall 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 shall 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

APPENDIX 1

AWARD FEE/TERM EVALUATION CRITERIA

A1. Evaluation Areas. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated through the subjective evaluation areas outlined below.

A1.1. Operation and Maintenance.

The Award Fee Score (AFS) is an evaluation of the Contractor’s two criteria, performance and improvements. A total of 100 points are available for the Award Fee Score in each Award Fee period.

Performance will be scored from 0-100. The Performance score will account for 80% of the AFS and therefore be assigned a weight of 0.8.

Improvement will be scored from 0-100. The Improvement score will account for 20% of the AFS and therefore be assigned a weight of 0.2.

The AFS is the weighted sum of the performance and improvement criteria and the formula is:

AFS = [(Performance score) * 0.8] + [(Improvement score) * 0.2]

The AF/TRB’s assessment will evaluate Contractor’s performance and improvement. The point score will be determined based on the following assessments.

A1.1.1. Performance Requirements

The Performance requirements focus on the following five areas: Mission Evaluations, Technical Directive Evaluations, COR Inspections, Financial Inspections and Small Business Participation. Each area is evaluated against the Satisfactory Score located in the Performance Requirements in Section 5 of the E-OMS PWS, to ensure minimal performance requirements are met.

A1.1.1.1. 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 ratings that are assigned based on a scale of Unsatisfactory to Excellent, according to Table A1.1. The weighting of each mission evaluation is based on the 96 TW Test Priority System, which defines the importance of each test/training program to the 96 TW mission. This priority is assigned at the test/training 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 5.1.1 through 5.1.6.

A1.1.1.2. 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 ratings, based on requirements established in the PWS paragraph 5. The Contractor’s performance is evaluated on a scale of Unsatisfactory to Excellent, according to Table A1.1. 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 5.1.1 through 5.1.6, excluding 5.1.3.

Rating Rating Description

Excellent Performance requirements in the area being evaluated were greatly exceeded, resulting in a significant positive impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Very Good Performance requirements in the area being evaluated were greatly exceeded, resulting in a positive impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Good Performance requirements in the area being evaluated were exceeded, resulting in minimal positive impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Satisfactory Performance requirements in the area being evaluated met the requirements of the overall success of the mission/directive and had no notable positive or negative impact.

Marginal Performance requirements in the area being evaluated did not fully meet the requirements resulting in minimal negative impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Poor Performance requirements in the area being evaluated did not meet critical requirements, resulting in negative impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Unsatisfactory Performance requirements in the area being evaluated did not meet critical requirements, resulting in a significant negative impact on the overall success of the mission/directive.

Table A1.1: Evaluation Scoring Criteria: Missions, Technical Directives

A.1.1.1.3. Management Requirements

A1.1.1.3.1 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 7.2. 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. 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 5.2.1. and Appendix 3. The COR Inspection AFS is calculated according to the following formula:

COR Inspection AFS = COR Inspection Rating (%) * 20 (Maximum Score)

Note: The Contractor must be above satisfactory level (50%) to earn a COR Inspection AFS.

A1.1.1.3.2. Financial Inspections

Financial inspections determine if the Contractor provided the government with accurate financial estimates in their annual Direct Budget Authority (DBA) spend plan. The spend plan is evaluated monthly for its accuracy. All financial inspections are evaluated, in the aggregate, at the end of the award fee period. The financial inspection results will be evaluated against PWS Performance Requirements 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Financial Inspection AFSs are calculated according to the following tables:

Deviation

AFS Score

0 5.0

0.1 4.5

0.2 4.0

0.3 3.5

0.4 3.0

0.5 2.5

Table A1.2: PWS Paragraph 5.2.2: Spend Plan AFS Calculation

Deviation

AFS Score

0 15

0.01 13.5

0.02 12

0.03 10.5

0.04 9

0.05 7.5

Table A1.2: PWS Paragraph 5.2.3: DBA Spend Plan AFS Calculation

Note: Any deviation greater than 0.5% in paragraph 5.2.2 or greater than 0.05 in paragraph 5.2.3 results in no Financial Inspection AFS.

A1.1.1.3.3. Small Business Participation

Small Business participation is evaluated as to whether or not 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. The result of the Small Business participation will be evaluated against PWS Performance Requirement 5.2.4. The Small Business goal AFS is Pass/Fail with no range of scores between 0 and 5.

A1.1.2. Improvement Requirements

Contractor-driven, Government-approved improvements are critical to increasing both the relevancy and the long term sustainability of E-OMS. If E-OMS does not continuously improve, the 96 TW will be unable to fully achieve its mission in the foreseeable future.

The Contractor is incentivized to develop improvements that benefit the E-OMS program.

Improvements may include, but are not limited to, process changes, cross-utilization of employees, implementing unique business strategies, leveraging technological upgrades and modifying existing government assets.

The Contractor is responsible for presenting each proposed improvement in writing to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will either approve or disapprove the proposed improvement, with or without limitations.

The return on investment of the improvement is determined at the CO’s approval of that improvement.

The Contractor’s performance in executing that improvement will be evaluated at the end of each award fee period. The improvement portion of the award fee will be paid at the completion of the period in which the improvement was completed. Improvement awards paid will not be available in subsequent award fee periods.

The Contractor is required to provide a program management plan for each improvement recommended to the Government. The Government will evaluate cost, schedule, and quality of the Contractor’s implementation against their provided program management plan. Contractor’s improvement performance is evaluated on a scale of Unsatisfactory to Excellent, according to Table A1.2.

The improvement portion of the award fee will not be paid if performance for that award fee period is below the Satisfactory Score for any of PWS Performance Requirements 5.1.1 through 5.2.4.

Adjectival Rating Category

Improvement Points Score

Description

Excellent 91-100 Contractor has exceeded almost all of the requirements contained in their program management plan related to cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements.

Very Good 76-90 Contractor has exceeded many of the requirements contained in their program management plan related to cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements.

Good 51-75 Contractor has exceeded some of the requirements contained in their program management plan related to cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements.

Satisfactory 50 Contractor has met the requirements contained in their program management plan related to cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements.

Unsatisfactory 0-49 Contractor has failed to meet the requirements contained in their program management plan related to cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements.

Table A1.2: Evaluation Scoring Criteria: Improvements

APPENDIX 2

MISSION AND TECHNICAL DIRECTIVE RATING METHODS

A2. The Government schedules missions and provides the Contractor technical direction to meet requirements as they arise.

A2.1. 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.

A2.2. 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.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 are examples of mission and technical directive evaluation forms.

Figure 1 (Appendix 2) Screen Shot of Mission Evaluation Form Used By Government Performance Monitors

Figure 2 (Appendix 2) Screen Shot of Technical Directive Evaluation Form Used By Government Performance Monitors

A2.3. Mission and Technical Directive Award Fee Score (AFS) Calculation Method

A2.3.1. Mission AFS Calculation Method

A2.3.1.1. Each accomplished mission is evaluated by a Government Performance Monitor after mission completion using the form in Figure 1. This form is embedded in the CSE application.

Individual evaluation areas are defined in PWS paragraphs 5.1.1 through 5.1.6.

A2.3.1.2. Each individual evaluation entry on the mission evaluation form is assigned an evaluation area score in accordance with Table A2.1.

A2.3.1.3. Each individual score is then automatically weighted according to the 96 TW Mission Priority System weights contained in Table A2.2, the exception being that Satisfactory scores are not weighted.

The weighted score is obtained by multiplying the individual score by the Test Program’s associated weight in Table A2.2.

A2.3.1.4. At the end of the award fee period, all of the weighted mission evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area (PWS Paragraph 5.1.1 through 5.1.6) are averaged.

A2.4.1. Technical Directive AFS Calculation Method

A2.4.1.1. Each accomplished Technical Directive is evaluated by a Government Performance Monitor after completion using the form in Figure 2. This form is embedded in the EDS application.

A2.4.1.2. Each individual evaluation entry on the Technical Directive evaluation form is assigned an evaluation area score in accordance with Table A2.1.

A2.4.1.3. Each individual score is then weighted according to the importance of the Technical Directive at the time of Directive initiation in accordance with Table A2.2, the exception being that Satisfactory scores are not weighted. The weighted score is obtained by multiplying the individual score by the associated weight in Table A2.2.

A2.4.1.4. At the end of the award fee period, all of the weighted Technical Directive evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area (PWS Paragraph 5.1.1 through 5.1.6, excluding 5.1.3) are averaged.

A2.5.1. Mission and Technical Directive AFS Roll Up

A2.5.2. At the end of the award fee period, the individual averaged mission and Technical Directive evaluation scores for each individual evaluation area (per paragraphs A2.3.1.4. and A2.4.1.4.) are averaged, with the exception being only one averaged score for PWS paragraph 5.1.3.

A2.5.3. The resulting combined mission and Technical Directive averaged score is then derived by summing scores of the individual averaged evaluation areas.

Criteria PWS Mission Requirement # PWS Tech Directive Requirement #

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6

Be lo w

Ex pe ct at io n

Unsatisfactory -20 -5 -10 -5 -10 -5 -20 -5 -5 -10 -5

Poor -10 -2.5 -6.5 -2.5 -6.5 -2.5 -10 -2.5 -2.5 -6.5 -2.5

Marginal -5 -1 -3 -1 -3 -1 -5 -1 -1 -3 -1

M et

Satisfactory 10 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 ce ed pe ct at io n Good 13 3 7 3 7 3 13 3 3 7 3

Very Good 17 4 8.5 4 8.5 4 17 4 4 8.5 4

Excellent 20 5 10 5 10 5 20 5 5 10 5

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6

PWS Mission Requirement # PWS Tech Directive Requirement #

Table A2.1: Mission and Technical Directive Scoring Criteria

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

Table A2.2: Mission and Technical Directive Weights

APPENDIX 3

COR INSPECTION RATING METHODS

EVALUATION FACTOR: Maintenance Program Effectiveness 65%

EVALUATION

WEIGHT

UNSATISFACTORY

(0 - 49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 - 59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT

(90 - 100)

10% Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate <90% within the scheduled period.

Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate ≥90% but <92% within the scheduled period.

Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate ≥92% but <96% within the scheduled period.

Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate ≥96% but <98% within the scheduled period.

Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate ≥98% within the scheduled period.

20% Corrective maintenance action not completed within 6 months of the initiation of the Job Control Number (JCN)/Work Order with >25% of unjustified delays.

Corrective maintenance action completed within 6 months of the initiation of the JCN/Work Order with ≤25% unjustified delays.

Corrective maintenance action completed within 6 months of the initiation of the JCN/Work Order with ≤20% unjustified delays.

Corrective maintenance action completed within 6 months of the initiation of the JCN/Work Order with ≤10% unjustified delays.

Corrective maintenance action completed within 6 months of the initiation of the JCN/Work Order with ≤5% unjustified 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 preserve 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 Criteria Rating 10%

FACTORS

UNSATISFACTORY

(0 -49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 -59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT

(90 -100)

Safety, Security, and Environmenta Compliance Programs Effectiveness 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 discrepancies.

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

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 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 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

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% ≤84% of inspected vehicles met maintenance requirements of T.O.36-1-191

≥85% but <91% of inspected vehicles met maintenance requirements of T.O.36-1-191

≥91% but <98% of inspected vehicles met maintenance requirements of T.O.36-1-191

≥98% but <100% of inspected vehicles met maintenance requirements of T.O.36-1-191

100% of inspected vehicles met maintenance requirements of T.O.36-1-191

10% Two or more incidents of vehicle abuse.

One incident of vehicle abuse.

No incidents of vehicle abuse.

30% Average vehicle score of vehicles inspected was <70 as documented on AF Form 4431.

Average vehicle score of vehicles inspected was ≥70 but <75 % as documented on AF Form 4431.

Average vehicle score of vehicles inspected was ≥75 but <85 % as documented on AF Form 4431.

Average vehicle score of vehicles inspected was ≥85 but <97 % as documented on AF Form 4431.

Average vehicle score of vehicles inspected was ≥97 % as documented on AF Form 4431.

30% <85% of Vehicle maintenance records and OLVIMS data inspected and special programs are managed IAW AFI 24-302.

≥85% but <90% of Vehicle maintenance records and OLVIMS data inspected was managed IAW

AFI 24-302.

≥90% but <95% of Vehicle maintenance records and OLVIMS data managed IAW

AFI 24-302.

≥95% but <99% of Vehicle maintenance records and OLVIMS data managed IAW 24-302.

≥99% of Vehicle maintenance records and OLVIMS data managed IAW 24-302.

EVALUATION FACTOR: Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) 5%

WEIGHT

UNSATISFACTORY

(0 - 49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 - 59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT

(90 - 100)

90% More than two TMDE overdue calibration and <75% of TMDE inspected is maintained and properly protected.

No more than two TMDE overdue calibration and ≥75% but <80% of TMDE inspected is maintained and properly protected.

No more than one TMDE overdue calibration and ≥80% but <90% of TMDE inspected is maintained and properly protected.

No TMDE overdue calibration and ≥90% but <95% of TMDE inspected is maintained and properly protected.

No TMDE overdue calibration and ≥95% of

TMDE

inspected is maintained and properly protected.

10% Error rate for Table of Allowances >20%.

Table of Allowances maintained with >15% but ≤20% error rate.

Table of Allowances maintained with >10% but ≤15% error rate.

Table of Allowances maintained with >5% but ≤10% error rate.

Table of Allowances maintained with ≤5% error rate.

NOTES

1 Effective documentation process includes Plant In Place Records, E-OMS Operating Procedures (EOPs; formerly known as Eglin Test and Training Complex Procedures and Eglin Operating Procedures), Job Control Numbers (JCNs), Facility Problem Reports (FPRs), Work Orders, Condition/Status tags, Equipment Status Reports (ESR), and Civil Engineering documentation.

2 Ancillary equipment is subdivided into two groups: Mission support equipment (MSE) is military equipment not intended for use in supporting aircraft, but essential to supporting primary range mission systems. Examples include portable generators, water (pond) pumps, aerial lifts, frequency converters, etc. General support equipment (GSE) is equipment used to prepare or maintain sites or systems, but not used to directly support primary range mission systems. This category includes powered machinery and shop equipment. Examples include trash pumps, packers, welders, some air compressors, small bench grinders, buffers, drill presses, mowers, weed whackers, chain saws, pressure washers, ice machines, and powered hand tools such as side grinders, drills, skill saws, etc. GSE includes any other equipment that only requires operator inspection prior to use.

3 Equipment maintained in useful working condition.

4 A linear relationship exists between the evaluation standards in the tables above and the score. For example, an evaluation of 91% in Preventive Maintenance Inspection Completion Rate evaluation area results in a score of 54.5.

EVALUATION FACTOR: Civil Engineering 5%

WEIGHT

UNSATISFACTOR

Y (0 - 49)

SATISFACTORY

(50 - 59)

GOOD

(60 - 79)

VERY GOOD

(80 - 89)

EXCELLENT

(90 - 100)

90% Civil Engineering program ensures < 85% of inspected Real Property and Real Property Installed Equipment had discrepancies documented. [AF Form 332 (332), Direct Scheduled Work-order

(DSW)]

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥85% but <90% of inspected Real Property and Real Property Installed Equipment had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥90% but <94% of inspected Real Property and Real Property Installed Equipment had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥94% but <96% of inspected Real Property and Real Property Installed Equipment had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥96% of inspected Real Property and Real Property Installed Equipment had discrepancies documented. (332, DSW)

10% Civil Engineering program ensures <85% of NRTF, MCL, or D-3 inspected Real Property, Real Property Installed Equipment and site infrastructure had discrepancies.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥85% but <90% of NRTF, MCL, or D-3 inspected Real Property, Real Property Installed Equipment and site infrastructure had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW).

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥90% but <94% of

NRTF, MCL,

or D-3 inspected Real Property, Real Property Installed Equipment and site infrastructure had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥94% but <96% of NRTF, MCL, or D-3 inspected Real Property, Real Property Installed Equipment and site infrastructure had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

Civil Engineering program ensures ≥96% of inspected NRTF, MCL, or D-3 Real Property, Real Property Installed Equipment and site infrastructure had discrepancies documented.

(332, DSW)

NOTE: The Contractor is responsible for repair and maintenance of all real property at the National Radar Cross Section Test Facility (NRTF), McKinley Climatic Lab (MCL), and at Test Site D-3.

APPENDIX 4

AWARD FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

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

Contract Period

Evaluation Period

From

To

Pool*

Fee Allocation Award Fee Earned

Contract Base 1 4 Jun 2016 3 Dec 2016 $

5%

Contract Base 2 4 Dec 2016 3 Jun 2017 $ 5% $

Contract Base 3 4 Jun 2017 3 Dec 2017 $ 5% $

Contract Base 4 4 Dec 2017 3 Jun 2018 $ 5% $

Option 1 5 4 Jun 2018 3 Dec 2018 $ 5% $

Option 1 6 4 Dec 2018 3 Jun 2019 $ 5% $

Option 1 7 4 Jun 2019 3 Dec 2019 $ 5% $

Option 1 8 4 Dec 2019 3 Jun 2020 $ 5% $

Option 2 9 4 Jun 2020 3 Dec 2020 $ 5% $

Option 2 10 4 Dec 2020 3 Jun 2021 $ 5% $

Option 2 11 4 Jun 2021 3 Dec 2021 $ 5% $

Option 2 12 4 Dec 2021 3 Jun 2022 $ 5% $

Award Term Option One 13 4 Jun 2022 3 Dec 2022 $ 5% $

Award Term Option One 14 4 Dec 2022 3 Jun 2023 $ 5% $

Award Term Option One 15 4 Jun 2023 3 Dec 2023 $ 5% $

Award Term Option One 16 4 Dec 2023 3 Jun 2024 $ 5% $

Award Term Option Two 17 4 Jun 2024 3 Dec 2024 $ 5% $

Award Term Option Two 18 4 Dec 2024 3 Jun 2025 $ 5% $

Award Term Option Two 19 4 Jun 2025 3 Dec 2025 $ 5% $

Award Term Option Two 20 4 Dec 2025 3 Jun 2026 $ 5% $

Total: $ 100% $

*To be filled in at Contract Award