T-38 CTP Award Fee Plan - 21 Dec 10.docx

AWARD FEE PLAN

FOR

T-38 COMPANION TRAINER PROGRAM CONTRACT

Prepared By:

STEPHEN M. BRANNEN

ACC AMIC/PMAM

T-38 CTP Program Manager

Date

JEREMY S. BABB, Capt, USAF

ACC AMIC/PKC

T-38 CTP Contracting Officer

Date

Reviewed By:

RANDALL J. MCFADDEN

Director ACC Acquisition Management and Integration Center

Date

Approved By:

MARK A. ATKINSON

Major General, USAF Director of Logistics Fee Determining Official

Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX 1 – AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS 15

ANNEX 3 - CAFI/GAFI RATING DEFINITIONS

1.0. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. This award fee plan is the basis for evaluation of the contractor's performance on the T-38 Companion Trainer Program and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific evaluation criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the award fee recommendation. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

1.2. Contract incentive strategies are designed to motivate superior performance, responsiveness, innovation, and proactive management. The objective of this incentive plan is to encourage the contractor to improve performance in the rated areas over and above performance requirements stated in the contract, but not at the expense of minimally acceptable performance in all required areas. Within each evaluation criteria in Annex 2, the Government is interested in achieving both improved mission support and resource savings. Focus areas are in no way intended to mandate a course of action for the contractor; however, they should be viewed as areas where the Government sees potential for substantial benefit in improving mission/customer support while at the same time realizing resource savings. The award fee starts at zero (0) for each award fee period. To the maximum extent possible, the final subjective assessment will be additionally supported by objective data assessments.

2.0. DEFINITION OF TERMS.

2.1. FDO. The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. AFRB members are approved by the FDO. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent information, and unilaterally determines the earned award fee amount for each evaluation period.

2.2. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB). The AFRB is a group of individuals responsible for evaluating the contractor's performance and recommending an award fee amount to the FDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to the award fee plan. Members and advisors of the board are shown at Annex 1. A minimum of three (3) voting members are required to convene an AFRB (maximum is 5).

2.3. AFRB Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is appointed by the FDO, and responsible for recommending the remaining board members to the FDO for approval. The AFRB Chairperson or designee presents the AFRB’s final recommendation to the FDO for consideration.

2.4. AFRB Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for managing the administrative functions of the award fee process.

2.5. Program Manager (PM). The PM responsible for accomplishing the program objectives to meet the user’s operational needs. The PM is accountable for credible cost, schedule, and performance reporting.

2.6. Contracting Officer (CO). The CO performs post-award contract administration duties, monitors contractor performance, and serves as the liaison between the contractor and government personnel. COs train and appoint Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAE). After assigned QAEs have satisfactorily completed Phase I and II training, AMIC/DRQ will forward nomination letters to the respective CO for appointment as QAEs for the contract.

2.7. Functional Director (FD). The FD is the organizational commander (ACC AMIC/DR) or designee (AMIC/PM Division Chiefs) responsible for ensuring primary and alternate Quality Assurance personnel are assigned and trained.

2.8 Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). The QAM is responsible for the surveillance program from audit planning/scheduling, to conducting, documenting, and reporting contractor performance.

2.9. Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs). The QAEs are responsible to the appropriate QAM for executing the surveillance program. Typically, the highest ranking QAE serves as the Flight Chief Quality Assurance (FCQA). QAEs, through the FCQA and appropriate QAM, provide input to the AFRB on contractor performance.

2.10. Functional Manager. The functional manager is the government manager responsible for a particular Performance Work Statement function. A functional manager may be an AFRB member or advisor.

2.11. Lead Functional Evaluator. The lead functional evaluator is from the Government agency/office designated by the PM/Secretariat to verify, validate, and evaluate contractor award fee inputs (CAFIs).

2.12. Evaluation Criteria. The subjective and/or objective criteria used to grade each category of performance.

2.13. Contractor Award Fee Inputs (CAFIs). Contractor-submitted, value-added inputs to the Government documenting accomplishments relative to the evaluation criteria areas. CAFIs with associated monetary or manpower savings must include sufficient data to facilitate Government validation of savings.

2.14. Government Award Fee Inputs (GAFIs). Government-initiated inputs documenting value-added accomplishments or significant deficiencies relative to the evaluation criteria areas.

2.15. Significant Incident. Incidents, positive or negative, within the contractor’s control, which may by itself, have a significant impact on the award fee recommendation.

3.0. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES.

3.1. Organization. Annex 1 depicts the AFRB composition.

3.2. Responsibilities.

3.2.1. FDO. The FDO is responsible for:

3.2.1.1. Appointing the AFRB Chairperson.

3.2.1.2. Approving/Disapproving the plan and any significant changes to the plan. Significant changes include: Changes to the evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, changing members in the Award Fee Organization, and/or revising the distribution of the award fee dollars

3.2.1.3. Reviewing recommendations of the AFRB, considering all pertinent data, and determining the award fee amount for each evaluation period.

3.2.1.4. Documenting rational for deviations from AFRB recommendation. Documentation must directly relate to specific evaluation criteria.

3.2.1.5. Notifying the CO, in writing, of the amount of the fee awarded for the evaluation period. Notification is then transmitted to the contractor by the CO.

3.2.2. AFRB Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for:

3.2.2.1. Leading the AFRB meetings, to include reaching a final consensus.

3.2.2.2. Training AFRB participants. Training execution may be delegated to the PM and/or the AFRB Secretariat.

3.2.2.3. Briefing the FDO on the contractor’s overall performance and recommended rating/earned award fee amounts unless accomplished by the PM.

3.2.2.4. Recommending significant award fee plan changes to the FDO.

3.2.2.5. Approving special interest items (SII) and relative weight up to 30% [Note: Per ACC AMIC/DR, SII cannot exceed 30%.] under this award fee plan.

3.2.2.6. Approving or disapproving non-significant changes to the Plan.

3.2.3. AFRB Panel (Voting Members). The AFRB is responsible for:

3.2.3.1. Convening a board at the direction of the AFRB Chairperson.

3.2.3.2. Considering all information from pertinent sources on the contractor’s performance for the award fee period.

3.2.3.2. Documenting and determining the recommended rating/earned award fee amount to be presented to the FDO.

3.2.3.3. Recommending changes to the award fee plan.

3.2.4. AFRB Secretariat. The AFRB Secretariat is designated by the AFRB Chairperson. An AFRB member may perform this position in conjunction with other functions on the AFRB. The Secretariat is responsible for:

3.2.4.1. Providing basic award-fee training to board members on behalf of AFRB Chairperson. The Secretariat will track and document that training has been completed for the contract file.

3.2.4.2. Notifying QAMs that their contract performance evaluations are due.

3.2.4.3. Coordinating and administrating actions required by the FDO, AFRB, PM, and QAMs.

3.2.4.4. Receiving, processing, and distributing evaluation reports, to include CAFIs and GAFIs, from all required sources and maintaining official files.

3.2.4.5. Scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings.

3.2.4.6. Accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award-fee process, such as documenting the AFRB activities.

3.2.4.7. Providing pertinent data to include documentation supporting the FDO decision and award fee evaluation reports to the CO for the contract file.

3.2.5. PM. The PM is responsible for:

3.2.5.1. Designating a lead functional evaluator to verify, validate, and evaluate CAFIs and GAFIs and interfacing with QAMs on a periodic basis to review contractor performance.

3.2.5.2. Reviewing and analyzing all performance reports for consistency and completeness.

3.2.5.3. Coordinating QAE findings and contractor performance/savings data with the functionals and CO.

3.2.5.4. Preparing interim evaluation reports to provide formal feedback to the contractor during the evaluation period.

3.2.5.5. Assigning a rating of record for each CAFI/GAFI and documenting justification/rationale for rating.

3.2.5.6. Coordinating with the Secretariat to schedule and prepare for AFRB meetings.

3.2.5.7. Preparing a comprehensive subjective evaluation report using all available inputs/sources and provide it to the board members in sufficient time (usually five (5) business days) before the scheduled AFRB to allow AFRB members to fully examine contractor performance information. A recommended adjectival rating will be provided as part of the report.

3.2.5.8. Briefing the AFRB if requested by the AFRB Chairperson.

3.2.5.9. Discussing contractor performance with the contractor PM to include AFRB feedback, as necessary.

3.2.6. CO. The CO is responsible for:

3.2.6.1. Ensuring there is an audit trail in place to substantiate the AFRB recommendation and FDO determination.

3.2.6.2. Transmitting the FDO Award Fee Determination Letter to the contractor. (Note: FDO letter will be addressed to the CO per paragraph 3.2.1.5)

3.2.6.3. Ensuring adequate funding is available for the awarded amount.

3.2.6.4. Preparing and distributing the contract modification awarding the fee.

3.2.6.5. Forwarding contract modification awarding the fee to AMIC/DRF to initiate de-obligation of funds.

3.2.6.6. Notifying the contractor in writing of any approved change(s) to the award fee plan.

3.2.6.7. Maintaining contract file documentation supporting the FDO decision including award fee evaluation reports and contractor self assessments.

3.2.7. QAMs. Each QAM, through appointed QAEs, is responsible for:

3.2.7.1. Being familiar with the contract terms, conditions, PWS, governing specifications, and the award fee plan.

3.2.7.2. Observing and documenting the contractor’s performance, and coordinating it with the functionals, PM, and CO.

3.2.7.3. Maintaining all audit results.

3.2.7.4. Maintaining a current audit checklist.

3.2.7.5. Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting contractor performance.

3.2.7.6. Submitting an objective evaluation of the contractor’s performance using guidelines in paragraph 3.3.6 and providing an objective assessment briefing during the AFRB; this briefing is given by the FCQA.

3.2.7.7. Bringing significant problems promptly to the attention of the PM.

3.2.7.8. Maintaining a letter of designation on file from the CO.

3.2.8. Lead Functional Evaluators. Each Lead Functional Evaluator is responsible for:

3.2.8.1. Evaluating assigned CAFI/GAFIs using the rating definitions at Annex 3, assigning a recommended narrative rating from paragraph 5, Table 1, and documenting justification/rationale for rating.

3.2.8.2. Coordinating with others who in an official capacity have feedback on contractor performance and incorporating comments/concerns in evaluation statement.

3.2.8.3. Listing others contacted, by name and office symbol, in evaluation statement.

3.2.8.4. Including results of verification and validation in evaluation statement.

3.2.8.5. Securing Functional Division Chief’s concurrence of recommended rating/evaluation before forwarding to PM/Secretariat.

3.3. Procedures.

3.3.1. Information Security. Electronic communications between members of the Government team and the contractor will be used to the maximum extent possible within security constraints, including teleconferencing and electronic data exchange. Open access to technical performance and cost databases will be implemented within appropriate security channels to facilitate insight into program activities.

3.3.2. AFRB Chairperson or Member Substitution(s). In the event, the designated AFRB Chairperson is unable to chair the scheduled AFRB, that Chairperson will appoint a designee to assume the AFRB Chair responsibilities. If a member of the AFRB is absent, a person with similar qualifications may be substituted with the approval of the AFRB Chairperson.

3.3.3. AFRB Advisors. Additional technical and functional experts may serve in an advisory capacity. Advisors will not serve as voting members of the AFRB. Consultants may be requested to advise other areas as required.

3.3.4. Award Fee Inputs. Several forms of input will be evaluated by the AFRB to arrive at an award fee recommendation. It is the Government’s discretion whether or not to consider inputs provided for actions outside of the scope of the contract. The forms of inputs are as follows but not limited to:

3.3.4.1. Contract Performance Monitoring. Contractor performance will be continually monitored. Four methods of monitoring will be utilized:

3.3.4.1.1. Contract Surveillance. QAEs, alternate QAEs, and functional managers trained and appointed by the CO will perform contract surveillance, in accordance with the Performance Plan.

3.3.4.1.2. Customer Feedback. Customer feedback is a critical part of the award fee process and is highly encouraged for all programs. Customer surveys/feedback can be administered by government personnel (PMs, QAE’s, functional managers, etc.) or contractor personnel, to assess the quality of services provided by the contractor as it applies to the evaluation criteria for that program. Any customer feedback/survey program administered by a contractor must be validated by a cognizant government representative before being submitted to the AFRB members for consideration.

3.3.4.2. Contractor Award Fee Inputs (CAFI). The contractor shall provide CAFIs as they occur but no later than 20 days after occurrence (via e-mail distribution) to the Secretariat. All CAFIs must be submitted NLT the fifth (5th) calendar day following the end of an award fee period. The government is interested in the quality of the submitted CAFIs vs. quantity of submissions. CAFIs submitted that do not provide innovation, increased mission effectiveness, risk mitigation, and/or benefit to the Government, will be returned to the contractor. CAFIs submitted that do not contain sufficient documentation to substantiate/validate contractor claims will be returned to the contractor for correction and resubmission. The contractor normally has 1 to 3 business days to resubmit the CAFI. Incomplete resubmitted CAFIs will be returned to the contractor and cannot be resubmitted without approval of the PM. The Secretariat will suspense a lead functional evaluator and others (QAE, commander, customer, etc) as necessary to evaluate the CAFIs. The lead functional evaluator is responsible for providing a coordinated evaluation and recommended rating to the PM for each CAFI using the rating definitions at Annex 3 to include verifying the event happened and validating the claims made by the contractor (e.g., monetary savings, man-hours avoided etc.). Lead functional evaluators and others will use the narrative ratings identified in paragraph 5, Table 1, of this award fee plan for rating CAFIs. The PM will consider all evaluations and recommended ratings and assign a single rating of record for each CAFI. The Government’s evaluation of the CAFIs will be provided to the contractor to promote timely feedback. See Annex 5 for format.

3.3.4.3. Government Award Fee Inputs (GAFI). Any government representative in an official capacity will provide GAFIs as they occur (via email distribution) to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will assign and suspense a lead functional evaluator and others (QAEs, commanders, customers, etc) to evaluate the GAFIs. The lead functional evaluator can be from any Government agency, and it is generally the agency best equipped to evaluate, verify, and validate GAFIs. The lead functional evaluator is responsible for providing a coordinated evaluation and recommended rating to the PM for each GAFI using the rating definition at Annex 3. Lead functional evaluators and others will use the narrative ratings identified in paragraph 5, Table 1, of this award fee plan to rate GAFIs. The PM will consider all evaluations and recommended ratings and assign a single rating of record for each GAFI. All inputs shall be submitted prior to the fifth (5th) calendar day following the end of an award fee period. See Annex 4 for format.

3.3.4.4. Significant Incidents. Significant Incidents are tied to the PWS requirements. They are assessed during the award fee period separate from the evaluation criteria in Annex 2. Positive Significant Incidents (PSI) and Negative Significant Incidents (NSI), if noted during the evaluation period, may lead to increasing or decreasing the overall AFRB recommendation to the FDO. Significant NSIs may result in an “Unsatisfactory” rating. Examples of significant events may include, but are not limited to:

PSI:

· Major innovations that directly result in vast monetary savings to the Government.

· Improvements in procedures that significantly increase readiness and responsiveness.

NSI:

· Serious damage/destruction to Government property as a result of the contractor’s actions.

· Serious, significant, and/or chronic management problems or performance problems that can be reasonably attributed to a general lack of contractor management oversight in areas not necessarily delineated in the evaluation criteria.

If the cause of a NSI (i.e., aircraft mishap, etc.) is determined a contractor responsibility after the award fee period in which the event occurred, then the government can consider the finding in the next award fee period. The AFRB should consider if any action was already taken in regard to the NSI. The Government will ensure the contractor is aware of any NSI that will be reviewed by the AFRB.

3.3.5. Interim Evaluation.

3.3.5.1. Interim Award Fee Period Evaluation. The Government will conduct an interim evaluation during each award fee period to provide performance feedback to the contractor. This interim evaluation may take place not earlier than 60 calendar days after the beginning of the evaluation period, but not later than 60 calendar days before the end of the period. Additional feedback may be conducted at any time if the government detects a positive or negative trend in performance, or if requested by the contractor. The contractor shall understand that any interim evaluation is for feedback purposes only, and no award fee rating will be provided in connection with this effort. The interim evaluation may be oral or written. If performance problems are indicating the possibility of an “Unsatisfactory” award fee rating for the period, the contractor will be notified in writing as part of the contract administration process; i.e., CO letter, documented NSI, Corrective Action Requests, Show Cause Letter etc., prior to the AFRB meeting.

3.3.6. Final Evaluation.

3.3.6.1. Preparation. FCQA will consolidate all surveillance results and customer feedback, as applicable, for each award fee period and provide an objective evaluation report and briefing of contractor performance based on the PWS and the Performance Plan and provide to the QAM for review/approval. The QAM will submit the FCQA report and briefing to the Secretariat, not later than 10 business days prior to the AFRB meeting. The report will contain all necessary support information indicating whether or not the contractor met (or exceeded) minimum contractor performance standards as outlined in the PWS. The AFRB Secretariat will consolidate all CAFIs, GAFIs, PSIs, and NSIs at the end of the award fee period and prepare a report for the PM, supported by objective data when available. The PM will substantiate recommendations, provide an adjectival rating, and distribute it to the AFRB members providing them sufficient time to review the report prior to the scheduled AFRB.

3.3.6.2. AFRB Meeting Procedures (Minimum of Satisfactory Performance). The AFRB will meet as soon as possible, but not later than 45 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB will be conducted as a face-to-face meeting, unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chair. The contractor will be provided the opportunity to make a presentation (see Annex 6 for Contractor’s Self-Assessment Presentation Format) or provide a written self assessment (other than CAFIs) in regards to fulfilling contract requirements and the evaluation criteria for the subject award fee period. If a brief is provided, it shall not normally exceed 30 minutes. The QAM will provide a brief and report (reference paragraph 3.3.6.1) that summarizes contractor’s performance with regards to the Service Summary metrics, the number of notices or CARs, the corrective action taken, any reoccurrences since the date of corrective action, and an objective assessment of the period’s Special Interest Item(s), if applicable. The AFRB Secretariat or PM will provide a brief or report (reference paragraph 3.3.6.1) detailing the results of the subjective evaluation. Deliberations will be limited to the AFRB Secretariat, PM, CO, JA, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chair. The AFRB Secretariat, PM, CO, and JA serve solely in an advisory capacity during deliberations to support the voting members as required. During deliberations, the voting members will consider all information presented and individually score the evaluation criteria performance, using the Individual Evaluation Report (Annex 7). The individual reports will then be submitted to the AFRB Secretariat. The AFRB Secretariat will administratively assist the AFRB in the rating process. The AFRB calculates the overall weighted rating and recommended award fee, using the Consolidated Evaluation Report (Annex 8). The AFRB Secretariat will document for record any instances where final ratings of individual voting members indicate a marked difference and it is apparent consensus was not reached at an individual Award Fee Criteria level. This record should summarize the diverse or opposing perspectives of board members while still describing the nature by which the AFRB membership as a whole did reach a consensus and concur with the final, overall rating for the award fee period. In addition, specific adjustments in recommended rating relative to NSI/PSI (see para. 3.3.4.4.) events must be completely covered in summary. The AFRB recommendation shall be provided to the FDO within ten (10) business days of the AFRB and will include strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the rating recommendation.

3.3.6.3. AFRB Meeting Procedures (Unsatisfactory Performance). The AFRB will meet as soon as possible, but not later than 45 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB will be conducted as a face-to-face meeting, unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chair. The AFRB members will review the report provided by the PM supporting an “Unsatisfactory” rating. Deliberations will be limited to the AFRB Secretariat, PM, CO, DRQ, JA, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chair. The Secretariat, PM, CO, and JA serve solely in an advisory capacity during deliberations to support the voting members as required. During deliberations, the voting members will consider all information presented and determine if the zero fee/”Unsatisfactory” rating is warranted. The recommendation will be documented (to include all pertinent supporting information, i.e., Corrective Action Reports and contractor response, CO letter and contractor response, etc.) and provided to the FDO for approval. The AFRB recommendation shall be provided to the FDO within ten (10) business days of the AFRB.

3.3.7. Award Fee Determination. The FDO considers the AFRB recommendation, but is solely responsible for the final award fee determination. If the FDO decision differs from the recommendation of the AFRB, the FDO shall document the decision rationale against the evaluation criteria for the contract file. The written decision will also summarize the contractor’s overall performance assessment and identify significant strengths and weaknesses that influenced the award fee decision. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the FDO will provide the CO a written award fee decision within 60 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period.

3.3.8. Contractual Aspects. Within five (5) business days of receipt of the FDO’s determination, the CO will inform the contractor in writing of the amount of the award fee amount earned or the “Unsatisfactory” rating for the period rated. The CO will unilaterally modify the contract to incorporate the earned award fee amount.

4.0. FACTORS. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria at Annex 2.

4.1. Special Interest Item (SII). Up to 30 percent of the total award fee may be designated for SIIs. If there is not an SII for an award fee period, the remaining percentage will be redistributed to the other criteria in Annex 2. [The impact of the SII within a given period should be taken into consideration prior to assigning a 30% weighting, i.e., Transition] When identified, a SII is an area of performance that the Government deems critical and/or requires special attention. Not later than 45 calendar days prior to the end of an award fee period, [Insert customer office symbol], ACC AMIC DR/DD, CO, PM, Functional Managers, Government Flight Representative (if applicable), and QAEs through the QAM, may submit proposed SIIs to the Secretariat or PM. Proposed SIIs will include recommended evaluation criteria, desired results, and proposed weight percentage. The Secretariat or PM will submit proposed SIIs to the AFRB Chairperson for approval. If approved, the SII will be furnished to the CO, who will notify the contractor 15 days prior to the start of the affected award fee period. After the start of an award fee period, a SII can only be implemented by a bilateral modification between the contractor and Government. The QAM will be notified within 10 calendar days of SII approval to ensure it is included in the surveillance plan. Annex 9 contains SII(s) that apply to the current award fee period.

5.0. RATING RANGES. The rating definitions below will be used to assess the contractor’s performance against the evaluation criteria at Annex 2 and to provide the award fee rating. Since meeting minimum contract performance requirements is expected from the contractor, rating assessments will start at "satisfactory" and go up or down from there. Failure to meet minimum essential contract performance requirements will result in an “Unsatisfactory” award fee rating for the period regardless of performance against evaluation criteria. The contractor shall be entitled to receive, in any evaluation period, an award-fee commensurate with the performance ratings identified in Table 1.

Rating

Table 1 – Performance Ratings

6.0. EVALUATION PERIODS:

6.1. The award fee amounts in Table 2 reflect the known award fee dollar values at the beginning of the award fee period and will not be updated (if required) until the beginning of the next award fee period. The total award fee for each evaluation period that is not awarded will not be carried forward to the next evaluation period.

Option Award Fee Periods

TABLE 2 – Award Fee Evaluation Periods

7.0. PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE AWARD FEE PLAN. The FDO approves all significant changes to this award fee plan. The AFRB Chairperson approves all non-significant changes to the plan. Unilateral changes may be made to the award fee plan if the contractor is provided a modification not later than 15 business days before the start of the upcoming award fee period. The contractor may recommend changes to the CO not later than 60 calendar days prior to the beginning of a new award fee period. Upon approval of changes, the CO will notify the contractor of revisions to the plan, normally by unilateral contract modification, before the start of the affected award fee period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual consent of both parties.

8.0. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY. Assessing contractor performance and determining award fee eligibility under this plan is subjective. However, the process is explicit enough to allow the contractor every opportunity to understand how the award amount is based on performance. The Government will make every effort to ensure fairness of evaluation, use objective data to support subjective assessments, and provide prompt and consistent feedback. The written records of the QAEs, inputs from other pertinent sources and information from the contractor's self-assessment briefing provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure award fee integrity. It is incumbent on the contractor to continually communicate initiatives, as well as corrected deficiencies, that may have an impact on award fee determination. The Government must be aware of, and have the opportunity to assess, contractor initiatives prior to an AFRB in order for them to be eligible for consideration during an evaluation period.

9.0. CONTRACT TERMINATION. If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the FDO will make the award fee determination using the normal award fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award fee periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, will not be paid.

ANNEX 1 – AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

Fee Determining Official

ACC A4 or A4-2

Secretariat

PMAM Deputy PM / Functional manager

Award Fee Review Board Chairperson

ACC AMIC DR, DD, PM, or PK

Award Fee Review Board Voting Members

ACC AMIC/DD or DR

ACC AMIC/PM

ACC AMIC/PK

ACC AMIC/PKC

ACC AMIC/PMA

Customer Representative (i.e. 1FW, 9 RW, 49 WG, 509 BW)

Non-Voting Members /Advisors

AFPEO/CM

ACC/JA

ACC A3T

AFGSC A3T

AFGSC A4M

ACC AMIC/PQA

ACC AMIC/PSC

ACC AMIC/PLG

ACC AMIC/PCE

ACC AMIC/DRF

Customer Representatives

Solicitation No. FA4890-10-R-0008 Contract No.

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

1. Technical Performance (40%)

1a. Responsiveness to requirements (50%)

Failed to meet contract requirements Met basic contract requirements Met all contract requirements;

exceeded some Met all contract requirements;

exceeded many Exceeded most contract requirements with benefit to Government

1b. Innovation/Improvement (50%)

Failed to provide innovation/improvement Met basic contract requirements Provided some innovation/ improvement that benefited program Provided comprehensive/improvement that benefited program Provided substantial, consistent innov./ improvement that benefited program

2. Management Performance (40%)

2a. Customer Relations (40%)

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

2b. Responsiveness (30%)

2c. Innovation/Improvement (30%)

3. Special Interest Item. See Annex 9 for criteria and weighting percentage if used during an evaluation period.

ANNEX 3 – CAFI/GAFI RATING DEFINITIONS

Outstanding:

· A contractor-motivated improvement that greatly exceeds contract requirements, and

· Impact provides exceptional benefit to the government, or

· Program wide effects or very large “over time” impacts, or

· Exceptional dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the government Excellent:

· A contractor-motivated improvement that exceeds contract requirements, and

· Impact provides significant benefit to the government, or

· A program-wide improvement, or

· Significant dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the government Good:

· Exceeds contract requirements, and

· Impact provides appreciative benefit to the government, or

· A non program-wide improvement, or

· Appreciative dollar savings and/or cost avoidance to the government Satisfactory:

· Meets basic contract requirements, or

· Impact provides no additional (above meeting PWS requirements) benefit to the government Unsatisfactory:

· Does not meet contract requirements

ANNEX 4 – GOVERNMENT AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT (Use Microsoft Word and Times New Roman 12 pitch font)

CRITERIA AND SUBCRITERIA HEADING: (e.g. PMO and Site Level Management – Exercise Logistics Support)

ACTION: (Specifically state what, where, how, and why – must be detailed)

DATE (S): (Self explanatory)

JUSTIFICATION: (Bullet format – state why the action was accomplished and how the action exceeded contract requirement; must be specific)

IMPACT: (Bullet format – state how this action will improve the program; at what level the action was incorporated, the resulting cost savings, increased availability hours, recurring gains, efficiencies, etc.; how did this action improve quality, safety, etc.)

OPR: (Name, Location, and Phone)

PROGRAM MANAGER ASSESSMENT

Rating: Outstanding – Unsatisfactory

Justification: Narrative evaluation of GAFI

Dollar Savings/Avoidance: Dollar amount

Time/Schedule Savings: Hour amount

ANNEX 5 – CONTRACTOR AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT (Use Microsoft Word and Times New Roman 12 pitch font)

CRITERIA AND SUBCRITERIA HEADING: (e.g. PMO and Site Level Management – Exercise Logistics Support)

ACTION: (Specifically state what, where, how, and why – must be detailed)

DATE (S): (Self explanatory)

JUSTIFICATION: (Bullet format – state why the action was accomplished and how the action exceeded contract requirement; must be specific)

IMPACT: (Bullet format – state how this action will improve the program; at what level the action was incorporated, the resulting cost savings, increased availability hours, recurring gains, efficiencies, etc.; how did this action improve quality, safety, etc.)

OPR: (Name, Location, and Phone)

PROGRAM MANAGER ASSESSMENT

Rating: Outstanding – Unsatisfactory

Justification: Narrative evaluation of CAFI

Dollar Savings/Avoidance: Dollar amount

Time/Schedule Savings: Hour amount

ANNEX 6 – CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION FORMAT

(MS PowerPoint version 2.3 or higher)

Contractor’s presentation shall be limited to thirty minutes. First, the contractor must address its performance as compared to the minimum requirements of the performance work statement services summary. The contract can then focus on other specific accomplishments which are over and above minimum contract requirements that save money, improve processes, or exceed specifications. The presentation should be succinct and shall complement but not duplicate information already submitted as CAFIs.

Suggested format:

Evaluation Category and Criterion

Action (Specifically, who did what? How did the contractor meet or exceed minimum contract performance using the PWS Service Summary as a guide.)

Impact (Include specific enhancements in mission capability, cost reductions, time savings, increases in customer satisfaction, end-product improvement, process improvement, etc.)

ANNEX 7 – INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION REPORT

Total

1. Technical Performance

1a. Responsiveness to Requirements

X .50 =

1b. Innovation/Improvement

X .50 =

Weighted Sub element Total

Weighted Element Total

X .40 =

2. Management Performance

2a. Customer Relations

X .40 =

2b. Responsiveness

X .30 =

2c. Innovation/Improvement

X .30 =

Weighted Sub element Total

Weighted Element Total

X .40 =

3. Special Interest Item (SII)

3a. SII Transition

X .20 =

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE

(Compare to ranges listed in Table1)

ANNEX 8– CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT

ANNEX 9 – SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SII)

SII Criteria Title: Transition

Relative Weight: 20%

Description: This SII will evaluate the contractor’s ability to transition from the current contract FA4890-07-C-0003 to the new contract while effectively supporting all contractual mission requirements IAW the contractor’s approved Transition Plan.

Method of Evaluation: The SII will be subject to contractor/Government award fee inputs and customer feedback just as the other evaluation criteria are. The Secretariat will consolidate these inputs on a spreadsheet for functional manager validation. In addition, the spreadsheet will include a category for overall evaluation of the SII. The government will rate the SIIs using the rating ranges defined below. The Secretariat will use the inputs to arrive at the consolidated Government rating for the SII and include it on the midterm and final contractor feedback spreadsheet(s).

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

image1.emf

Master Scoresheet.xls Sheet1

Evaluation Period: Update green fields only with data from Award Review Board. Contractor:

Enter Number of Evaluators (3-5): ARB Location: ACC AMIC Newport News VA

Contract Number: Date of Report:

Individual ARB Member Ratings Total Points Average Rating Item Factor Eval. Rating Category Factor Efficiency Rating

Criteria Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 Mbr 4 Mbr 5

1 Technical Performance

1a. Responiveness to requirements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 x 0.50 = 0.00

1b. Innovation/Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 x 0.50 = 0.00

0.00 x 0.40 = 0.00

2 Management Performance

2a. Customer Relations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 x 0.40 = 0.00

2b. Responsiveness 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0.30 =

2c. Innovation/Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0.30 =

0.00 x 0.40 = 0.00

3 Special Interest Items

3a. Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 x 1.00 = 0.00 x 0.20 = 0.00

0 0.00 x 1.00 = 0.00 x 0.00 = 0.00

Total Weighted AFRB RATING = 0.00

PSI or NSI Adjustment =

Total Adjusted AFRB RATING = 0.00

Total Award Fee Pool Available For Period = $0

Recommended Percentage of Award Fee Pool = 0.00%

Total Amount Recommended for Award This Period = $0

Recommended RATING for period is: 0.00

Recommended NARRATIVE for period is: 0

Total Recommended Award Fee Amount For Period: $0.00

Data Verified: Approved:

Name RANDALL J. MCFADDEN

AFRB Secretariat AFRB Chairperson