Section_J_Attachment_6_Award_Fee_Award_Term_Plan.pdf

ATTACHMENT 6

AWARD FEE / TERM PLAN (AF/TP)

Eglin – Operation and Maintenance Services (E-OMS) Contract for the Eglin Test and Training Complex (ETTC)

1. Introduction

2. Organization and Responsibilities

3. Award Fee

4. Award Term

5. Changes to the Award Fee / Term Plan

6. Contract Termination

ANNEX 1: Award Fee / Term Review Board ..................................................................... A1-1

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 2

Draft RFP 12/10/2014

1. Introduction

1.1. This Award Fee / Term Plan (AF/TP) is the basis for evaluating Contractor performance for the Eglin – Operation and Maintenance Services (E-OMS) effort for the 96th Test Wing, and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee/Term Determining Official (F/TDO). The AF/TP describes criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned and award term options that may be awarded.

1.2. The F/TDO will determine the award fee earned and payable based upon review of the Contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in the AF/TP. All F/TDO decisions regarding the award fee, including the methodology for determining the award fee, the amount of the award fee, if any, and the Contractor’s entitlement to the award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

1.3. The award fee / award term incentives are intended to be motivational tools. This AF/TP incentivizes superior performance in meeting mission requirements, and incentivizes the Contractor to increase throughput, streamline processes, and reduce Direct Budget Authority (DBA) cost through innovation. The Award Fee / Term Review Board (AF/TRB) and the F/TDO may use significant swings, positive or negative, in the rating from one period to another if performance changes. 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.

1.4. The contract includes two 2-year award term options. If the Contractor earns an award term, then the Contracting Officer will exercise award term periods through unilateral contract modifications, subject to the Availability of Funds clause (See Section I, FAR Clause 52.232- 18), together with a Determination and Findings that the award of the term period meets the conditions of FAR 17.207(c). The first award term evaluation period will commence September 2018, and the second award term evaluation period will commence in September 2020. The award term option process is described in Section 4.0 of this plan.

2. Organization and Responsibilities

2.1. The award fee / term organization consists of the F/TDO, the AF/TRB, Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), and performance monitors.

2.2. The F/TDO will be the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat and Mission Support or his/her designee. The F/TDO may be assisted by a group of advisors from other activities including, but not limited to, AFPEO/CM, HQ SAF/AQ, HQ AFMC, and HQ AFTC staff members.

2.3. The AF/TRB will consist of a chairperson, a recorder, and senior members of the Government staff including the Contracting Officer. The members of the AF/TRB are listed in Annex 1.

2.4. Performance monitors include personnel responsible for functional areas (e.g. Range Systems Engineers, Instrumentation Engineers, Targets Engineers, Safety, Security, E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 3

Environmental, and Occupational Health), Programming Engineers, Test Engineers and Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs).

2.5. The responsibilities of the various members of the Award Fee / Term organization are:

2.5.1. Fee/Term Determining Official. The F/TDO will approve the AF/TP and any significant changes to it. The F/TDO will approve the members of the AF/TRB and appoint a chairperson.

Within 45 days after each evaluation period, the F/TDO will review the recommendation of the AF/TRB; consider all appropriate data; determine the amount of award fee earned and payable to the Contractor; determine if an award term period is to be awarded; and advise, in writing, the Contractor and Contracting Officer of the fee determined along with a description of the Contractor's strengths, areas for innovation, and emphasis areas for future periods.

2.5.2. Award Fee / Term Review Board. The AF/TRB consists of senior-level members of the 96TW staff familiar with the work conducted under E-OMS. The AF/TRB will review the performance monitors’ evaluations of the Contractor’s performance, the Contractor’s self-evaluation, and other pertinent information from technical or contracting sources to arrive at a fee recommendation for the F/TDO. The AF/TRB will recommend any changes to this plan to the F/TDO.

2.5.3. Award Fee / Term Review Board Chairperson. The chairperson of the AF/TRB is the 96TW Commander. The AF/TRB chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AF/TRB and the performance of its members. The chairperson (or the chairperson’s designated representative) briefs the F/TDO on the Contractor’s performance, the recommended award fee for the period under review, and recommendations on changes to the AF/TP changes. The chairperson ensures the performance evaluation is thorough and covers all areas required to support the award fee / term recommendation including Contractor strengths, weaknesses, and areas for innovation or emphasis. The chairperson will resolve any disputes within the AF/TRB.

2.5.4. Contracting Officer Representatives. CORs monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s). Performance Monitors (PM) are tasked with evaluating the Contractor’s performance during day-to-day operations. PMs are Range Systems Engineers, Instrumentation Engineers, Targets Engineers, Programming Engineers, and Test Engineers. PMs are trained to a level less than CORs, and provide performance inputs that affect the award fee.

2.5.5. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel. Specific responsibilities include: transmitting the F/TDO award fee / term letters to the Contractor; preparing and distributing the modification awarding the fee / term; notifying the Contractor of any changes to the AF/TP; and providing orientation and guidance to AF/TRB members and CORs to assist them in performing their respective evaluation duties. The PCO maintains appropriate award fee / term documentation as a part of the official contract file.

2.5.6. Recorder. The Recorder is a non-voting member of the AF/TRB. The Recorder is responsible for coordinating receipt, processing, and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources; scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 4 briefings; and accomplishing any additional administrative actions necessary to operate the award fee process smoothly.

3. Award Fee

3.1. Award Fee Amount. The F/TDO derives the award fee amount from the award fee score (X/100 points) multiplied by the award fee pool amount. For example, if the Contractor receives an award fee score of 75/100 points and the award fee pool was $2M, the Contractor would receive an award fee amount of $1.5M.

3.2. Award Fee Score. The award fee score is the sum of the Performance Criterion score, the Innovation Criterion score, and any adjustment for special circumstances as defined in subsection 3.5 (below). The award fee score ranges from 0 - 100 points. Absent any special circumstances adjustment, the Performance Criterion will account for up to 80 of the possible 100 points and the Innovation Criterion will account for up to 20 of the possible 100 points.

3.3. Award Fee Criteria. The award fee criteria consist of two criterions: Performance and Innovation.

3.3.1. Performance Criterion. Performance determined objectively through standardized mission and task evaluations, and surveillance evaluations.

3.3.1.1. Mission and Task Evaluations.

3.3.1.2. Mission Evaluations. Mission evaluations are conducted after each mission or related set of missions by the Test Engineer, Program Engineer, and/or Central Control Facility. These results will be recorded in the Central Scheduling Enterprise management system. Each evaluation will measure the performance of the Contractor in meeting the mission customer’s requirements for PWS 5.1.1. through 5.1.6.

3.3.1.3. Task Evaluations. Task evaluations are conducted after each task and typically evaluated by the task originator. These results will be recorded in the Electronic Tasking System. Each evaluation will measure the performance of the Contractor in meeting the task originator’s requirements for PWS 5.1.1., 5.1.2., and 5.1.4 through 5.1.6.

3.3.1.4. Evaluation Rating. Performance is measured on a scale of “-3” to “+3.” A negative rating indicates that performance was below expectation; positive ratings indicate that performance exceeded expectations. A rating of “0” indicates that the Contractor performed all requirements as expected.

Rating Result Excellent 70 - 80 Good 55 - 69 Acceptable 45 - 54 Marginal 30 - 44 Unacceptable 0 - 29

3.3.1.5. Evaluation Weighting. Weighting is applied to each evaluation. Task evaluations are weighted according to the importance of the task as determined by the originator and

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 5 management. Weighting is applied upon initiation of the task. Mission evaluations are weighted according to the 96TW Test Priority System.

3.3.1.6. Surveillance Evaluations. CORs will surveil the contract and produce surveillance evaluation reports. Evaluations may include observations, findings, major findings, and/or exemplary recognition. An observation is a minor deviation or potential noncompliance from an otherwise well-implemented process and will not negatively impact a performance rating. A finding is noncompliance with PWS requirements or established standards. A major finding is an inspection discrepancy or lack of responsiveness which significantly degrades or has potential to significantly degrade test, system, or equipment capability, or which 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. To be considered a repeat, the inspection finding must be the same deficiency or lack of responsiveness at the same facility and on the same piece of equipment or system; or where a deficiency trend has been identified and not corrected at three or more facilities across the range. Major findings will be documented and briefed to the F/TDO for consideration in the final evaluation.

3.3.2. Innovation Criterion

3.3.2.1. Innovation Criterion. The Contractor is incentivized to develop innovative solutions for producing cost savings, increasing capability, and increasing mission throughput. Innovation may include process changes, modifications to existing government assets, and technology upgrades.

3.3.2.2. Process. The innovation process includes the Innovation Plan (IP), the Innovation Review Board’s (IRB) IP review, IP Approval, and IP Execution.

3.3.2.3. Innovation Plan. The Contractor begins the innovation process by submitting an IP to the IRB. The IP provides a detailed description of the innovation, the Government’s and Contractor’s role in executing the innovation, the execution timeline, cost benefit analyses, analysis of alternatives, method of measuring the benefit, requested innovation award amount and structure, an assessment of the risks, a discussion of the availability of resources to support the innovation, and any lasting secondary impacts of the innovation (new training, skill, manning, maintenance, process, or other new requirements).

3.3.2.4. Innovation Review Board IP Review. The IRB reviews all IPs to determine the innovation’s legality, quality, schedule, cost aspects of the IP in executing the IPs and verifying the realized benefits (i.e. successful implementation, increased throughput, or cost savings).

3.3.2.5. Acceptance. The IRB will review the IP for accuracy, schedule, budget, and completeness. The IRB will assign a dollar value to each IP on a case by case basis. However, the AF/TRB and the FDO have full discretion to determine the value of the IP through the award fee evaluation process. Additionally, the IRB may recommend revisions to the IP. Once the IP has been approved by the IRB, execution will begin.

3.3.2.6. Execution. Throughout execution of the IP, the IRB and the Contractor will track progress to ensure proper execution. At any time, the IRB may cancel the execution of any IP.

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 6

3.4. Special Considerations. The F/TDO retains the right to adjust the award fee score due to special considerations. Examples of special considerations include: Contractor actions creating safety, health, environmental, or security impacts; Contractor actions resulting in damage to Government property; Contractor failure to meet subcontracting goals; Events outside of the Contractor’s control that impact the Contractor’s ability to obtain satisfactory evaluation ratings.

3.5. Award Fee Integrity. The award fee process is recognized to be subjective in nature, but every effort will be made to provide a fair evaluation. The written records of the performance monitors, the inputs from other pertinent sources, and the Contractor’s self-assessment of performance in each of the performance evaluation areas assist in ensuring award fee integrity.

4. Award Term

4.1. The Contractor may be awarded two two-year award term option periods. In order for these to be awarded, the following criteria and FAR 17.207(c) must be met. Each award term period has an associated one year evaluation period which is used to determine award. During each evaluation period, two award fee scores are calculated (one score each six months) and averaged to produce an evaluation score for that period. The award term periods will commence at the start of years seven and nine from the start of the full performance date. The relationship between evaluation periods and award term years is as follows:

Evaluation Period Award Term Period

1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019 1 April 2022 – 31 March 2024 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021 1 April 2024 – 31 March 2026

4.1.1. Award Term Option One Criteria.

4.1.1.1. Subject to the availability of funds, the Contractor will be awarded the first award term option if the following conditions are met:

4.1.1.1.1. An evaluation score of at least 70

4.1.1.1.2. The Contractor is achieving the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as subjectively determined by the F/TDO

4.1.1.2. The Contractor may be awarded the first award term option if the following conditions are met:

4.1.1.2.1. An evaluation score of at least 55

4.1.1.2.2. The Contractor is achieving the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as subjectively determined by the F/TDO

4.1.2. Award Term Option Two Criteria.

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 7

4.1.2.1. Subject to the availability of funds, the Contractor will be awarded the second award term option if the following conditions are met:

4.1.2.1.1. The Contractor is achieving the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as subjectively determined by the F/TDO

4.1.2.1.2. An evaluation score of least 75

4.1.2.2. The Contractor may be awarded the second award term option if the following conditions are met:

4.1.2.2.1. The Contractor is achieving the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as subjectively determined by the F/TDO

4.1.2.2.2. An evaluation score of at least 60

5. Changes to the Award Fee / Term Plan

Changes to the award fee plan may be issued unilaterally if the Contracting Officer provides the contractor written notification 30 days before the start of the upcoming period. Changes to this award fee plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period may be incorporated by mutual agreement of both parties via a bilateral contract modification. Significant changes to the plan will be approved by the F/TDO. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect the Contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of award fee dollars. Changes to administrative or procedural requirements and other minor changes will be approved by the AF/TRB Chairperson.

6. Contract Termination

6.1. If the contract is terminated for convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee period, the award fee deemed earned will be determined by the F/TDO using the normal award fee evaluation. The remaining dollars for all subsequent periods will not be considered available or earned and shall not be paid.

6.2. If the contract is terminated for default (i.e., Contractor’s performance is less than satisfactory), the Contractor shall not earn any fee for the period in which the default occurred.

Consequently, no additional award fee shall be paid during the termination settlement of the contract. Award fee earned by the Contractor for evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination unless other provisions of the contract require payback of previously earned fee.

E-OMS Award Fee / Term Plan Page 8

ANNEX 1: Award Fee / Term Review Board

Award Fee / Term Review Board Chairperson: 96 TW Commander

Award Fee / Term Review Board Members: 96 RN/CL

96 OG/CC

PCO, AFTC/PZZB

Recorder, Appointed by 96 RN/CL (non-voting)

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

ANNEX 1: Award Fee / Term Review Board