Section_J _Attachment_4 _C2SES_III_CPIF_Plan.docx

C2SES III INCENTIVE FEE PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Incentive Fee Plan documents the structure and implementation of fee provisions. The overall intent is to incentivize the Contractor to deliver quality products and services within program performance, cost and schedule constraints. The Contractor’s performance in achieving these results will be measured in accordance with the methods detailed in this plan. Each program/CLIN shall follow this CPIF Plan.

2.0 QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX – Maintenance/Sustainment

The incentive provisions consist of Performance Objective (PO) incentives applied in a Quality Performance Index (QPI) for the program (rounded to the nearest tenth). This allows a balance between cost and quality while meeting Government needs. Each PO is multiplied by its correlating attainable QPI points. The QPI points are summed and converted to a percentage to complete the fee calculation.

2.1 Performance Objective # 1 (PO-1)

For each future growth CPIF task order, the Government will insert the performance objective.

2.2 Performance Objective # 2 (PO-2)

For each future growth CPIF task order, the Government will insert the performance objective.

2.3 Performance Objective # 3 (PO-3)

For each future growth CPIF task order, the Government will insert the performance objective.

2.4 QPI-1 + QPI-2 + QPI-3 = the total QPI points

3.0 COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (CPIF) STRUCTURE – <Task Order Title> The Cost incentives provide a focus for ensuring costs stay within allotted program budgets. The goal is to meet or be slightly below the target cost (TC) and meet the quality objectives. Payment of the Incentive Fee shall be in accordance with clause 52.216-10. Determination of the Total Allowable Cost shall be made upon receipt of the contractor’s final invoice and signed release of claims.

Target Fee = TBD Maximum Fee = TBD Minimum Fee = TBD

TC = Target Cost = Negotiated Cost TAC = Total Allowable Cost = Actual Final Cost of Work CS = Underrun: TBD (govt/ktr) Overrun: TBD (govt/ktr) TF = Target Fee (TBD of TC) ATF = Adjusted Target Fee = ((TC – TAC) x applicable CS% + TF ATF will not exceed the Maximum Fee or be below the Minimum Fee QPI = number of QPI points earned expressed as % AFF – Adjusted Final Fee = ATF x QPI% AFF will not exceed the Maximum Fee or be below the Minimum Fee

Also expressed as: AFF = (((TC-TAC) x applicable CS) + TF) x QPI%

RFP FA4600-16-R-0007

Section J, Attachment 4

FA4600-17-D-000X

XXXX

RFP FA4600-16-R-0007

Section J, Attachment 4 Source Selection Sensitive Information – See FAR 3.104

ATTACHMENT# 1

CUSTOMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The Customer Survey Questionnaire is used to determine the Performance Objective 3 rating, which shall be used to determine Quality Performance Index 3 points.

For each question below circle the appropriate rating, or Not Observed. Use these guidelines to assist in determining your ratings:

Exceptional (EXC) -- Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (VG) -- Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (SAT) -- Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal (MAR) -- Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (UNS) -- Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Comments are required for any question receiving a “Satisfactory” rating or lower.

Each question shall apply the following numerical score:

Exceptional = 4 Very Good = 3 Satisfactory = 2 Marginal = 1 Unsatisfactory = 0

PO-3 = (sum of awarded points / sum of total points possible) x 100.

Not Observed/Applicable rating will not be counted in the total number of questions.

Ex1: contractor received 80/80 = 100% Contractor received full points

Ex2: contractor received 70/72= 97.2% The PM deemed 2 questions as “Not Observed” and awarded two other questions as “Very Good”

CUSTOMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE - EXAMPLE

Evaluator:

Period Evaluated: from to

1) How well did the contractor provide corrective, adaptive, perfective, and preventative maintenance?

2) How well did the contractor maintain the current baselines of systems and provide software changes and problem fixes to these baselines as required?

3) How well did the contractor ensure software engineering efforts were compatible with other C2 systems’ hardware, software, and architectures?

4) How well did the contractor modify/enhance the software to ensure a strong cybersecurity posture?

5) How well did the contractor design, develop, test and package software for release?

6) How effective was coordination of software change requests, Deficiency Reports (DRs), and projects into scheduled releases?

7) How effective was the analysis and recommended solutions to Change Requests (CRs) for Government prioritization and approval?

8) How effective was the incorporation of prioritized user-defined mission requirement capabilities and adaptive, correct, and perfective CRs into software? support efforts for each version release?

9) How well did the contractor perform analysis and responses to stakeholder requests, software DRs, and Software CRs?

10) How well did the contractor track and manage stakeholder requests, software DRs, and Software CRs?

11) How effective is the Contractor in identifying program risks and implementing appropriate mitigation strategies?

12) Does the Contractor provide complete and usable software and CDRL documentation?

13) Does the Contractor recommend technical approaches that are logical, accurate, coordinated, and in the best long‐term interests of the Government?

14) How effective is the Contractor in being cooperative and responsive in its working relationships with the members of the Integrated Product Team?

15) How effective was the contractor in utilizing the CM process to maintain and control the product baseline (all artifacts associated with a release - software, documentation, version descriptions, test results, etc.)

16) How effective was the contractor in collecting software quality metrics and presenting it to the Government?

17) How effective was the contractor in developing and delivering technical reports to document the results and recommendations of application security/information assurance analyses and studies?

18) How effective was the contractor in providing database and data administration?

19) How effective was the contractor’s system administration?

20) How effective was the contractor in communicating with the Government to ensure the accuracy, timeliness, and quality of all tasks?