Draft_Award_Fee_Plan-_15Aug14.docx

AWARD FEE PLAN FOR

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS OPERATION CENTERS SUPPORT (UASOCS)

15 August 2014 Solicitation No. FA4890-14-R-0018 Contract No. TBD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX 10 – QUALITY INCENTIVE (QI) PROCEDURES……..………………………...27

ANNEX 11 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PROCEDURES………………..29

UAS Operations Center Support PWS, Appendix F 15 Aug 14

1.1. INTRODUCTION.

1.2. This award fee plan is the basis for evaluation of the contractor's performance on UASOCS 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.

1.3. 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.

2.1. DEFINITION OF TERMS.

2.2. FDO. The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. Award Fee Review Board (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.

2.3. 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.

2.4. 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.

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

2.6. 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.

2.7. 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.

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

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. Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The COR is nominated by the FD or designee, appointed in writing by the CO, and assigned responsibility for surveillance of portions of the contract requirements. CORs provide input to the AFRB on contractor performance.

2.10. Functional Manager. The functional manager is the government manager responsible for a particular PWS 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 that are 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 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 that may be positive or negative within the contractor’s control, which may by itself, have a significant impact on the award fee recommendation.

3.1. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES.

3.2. Organization. Annex 1 depicts the AFRB composition.

3.3. Responsibilities.

3.3.1. FDO. The FDO is responsible for:

3.3.1.1. Appointing the AFRB Chairperson.

3.3.1.2. Approving/Disapproving the plan and any significant changes to the plan. Significant changes include: Changes to the evaluation criteria, with the exception of the special interest items (SII), and changing members in the Award Fee Organization.

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

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

3.3.1.5. Notifying the contractor, in writing, of the amount of the fee awarded for the evaluation period. Notification is transmitted through 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. Provide an overview of the AFRB meeting process (i.e., introductions, contractor briefing [then departs], COR Report, PM briefing, followed by govt only discussion with CO, PM, attending customers, COR, AFRB members. All attendees are excused and voting members then meet privately for discussions to reach a consensus and a final recommendation for FDO. This recommendation is not for release until the FDO has officially approved and the CO notifies the contractor)

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%.

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 QAM.

3.2.4.4. Receiving, processing, and distributing evaluation reports, to include CAFIs and GAFIs, from all required sources and maintains 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 COR 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 any 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. QAM. Each QAM, through appointed CORs, is responsible for:

3.2.7.1. Scheduling and conducting contractor performance assenssments, plus documenting and reporting assessment results. Contractor’s Quality Performance Index points shall be determined IAW Annes 10 and reported in the monthly Executive Summary.

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

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

3.2.8.2. Coordinating with others who 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 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, ACC AMIC/DD, ACC AMIC/PM, or designee will 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:

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. CORs, alternate CORs, and functional managers 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, COR’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 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 (COR(s)`, 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 (COR(s), commander, customer, 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 GAFIs 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. Performance Incentive (PI) Procedures. The contractor may earn $5,800 per point for each of the six (6) points available in the Performance element each evaluation period for a total of $35,000.

3.3.4.4.1. Determination of PI earned. The PI will be based on the quality of the contractor’s performance and the level of customer satisfaction provided. The assessment will use a Quality Performance Index (QPI) where the contractor can earn up to six (6) points per evaluation period, one (1) point per month, as defined in Annex 10. Performance will be evaluated IAW the PWS, Service Summary Items and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

3.3.4.5. Small Business Subcontracting Criteria - 10%. The Contractor may earn up to $35K semi-annually for exceeding the mandatory overall small business subcontracting goal of 25% of total contract value. The contractor can earn one (1) point for every full one percent (1%) it exceeds the small business subcontracting percentage of 25%. No fractional points will be awarded. The ceiling is five (5) points.

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. The AFRB Secretariat will consolidate all CAFIs, GAFIs, and Quality Performance Incentive (QPI) points via the last Executive Sumamry of the reporting and prepare a report, supported by objective data when available. The PM will review this report, 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 brief (see Annex 6 for briefing 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 exceed 30 minutes.

The 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 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 Secretariat. The 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 recommendation shall be provided to the FDO within five (5) 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 five (5) 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. 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. The written decision will also summarize the contractor’s overall performance assessment and identify significant strengths and weaknesses that influenced the award fee decision.

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.

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

4.2. 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. When identified, a SII is an area of performance that the Government deems critical and requires special attention. Not later than 45 calendar days prior to the end of an award fee period, ACC A5I/CC, ACC AMIC DR/DD, CO, PM, Functional

Managers, GFRs (if applicable), and CORs through ACC AMIC/DRQ, 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. AMIC/DRQ 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

6.1. EVALUATION PERIODS:

6.2. 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.

Evaluation Period 1st Period Dates 1 Feb 2016-30 Sep 2016 Potential Award Fee $450,000

Option Award Fee Periods

11th Period 12th Period 1 Apr 2021-30 Sep 2021 1 Oct 202- 31 Mar 2022 $350,000 $350,000

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/A5I (Rev 3)

Secretariat

ACC AMIC Deputy Program Manager (DPM)

Award Fee Review Board Chairperson

ACC AMIC/DR (DD/PM serve as alternates)

Award Fee Review Board Voting Members

ACC AMIC/PM ACC AMIC/PK ACC AMIC/PSU ACC/A5I

432 MXG/CC or Representative

Non-Voting Members /Advisors

ACC/JA

ACC AMIC/DRQ ACC AMIC/PLG ACC AMIC/PCE ACC AMIC/DRF

ACC AMIC/PKC (CO/CM) ACC AMIC/PSC

432 ACMS/CC

49 CS/CC

432 ATKS/CC

1. Technical Performance (40%)

1a. Responsiveness to requirements (50%)

Proactive improvements resulted in implementing program-wide enhancements.

1b. Innovation/Improvement (50%)

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

UAS Operations Center Support PWS, Appendix F 15Aug 14

Received a HIGH RISK rating from the customer requirements. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with some significant problems as well as some minor problems; satisfactory corrective actions were taken by the contractor. No long-term negative impact to performance, schedule, and cost.

Received a LOW TO MODERATE RISK rating from the customer.

contractor’s QMS met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with zero critical problems and just a few minor problems for which effective corrective actions were taken by the contractor.

Contractor’s QMS is preventive-based.

Received an average LOW RISK rating in all areas from the customer of contractor’s QMS met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with zero critical problems and just a few minor problems for which highly effective corrective actions were taken by the contractor.

Contractor’s QMS was obviously preventive- based. Consistently received an overall LOW RISK rating from the customer.

contractor’s QMS met contractual requirements and exceeded a majority to the Government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with zero critical problems and no minor problems. The contractor’s QMS was obviously preventive- based. Consistently received a LOW RISK rating in all areas from the customer.

2. Management Performance (30%)

2a. Customer Relations (40%)

WG, which resulted in several significant problems. Management style was ineffective.

Little or no interest was shown on management Communication with ACC/AMIC and 432 WG, which resulted in several problems, none major. Management style was satisfactory and the contractor almost always utilized effective management Communication with ACC/AMIC and 432 WG was good. Very few minor problems occurred due to communication problems. Management style was good and the contractor utilized Communication with ACC/AMIC and 432 WG was frequent and very proactive.

Additional efforts to improve communication led to an excellent team/partner Lines of communication with ACC/AMIC and 432 WG were superior, timely, and led to superior efficiency and proactive management by the contractor and greatly assisted the government in making program

issues, which led to frequent problems and delays in accomplishing the contract requirement. Customer and Program Office were dissatisfied with interface practices.

Some Significant Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and/or information access concerns were not resolved. ACC/AMIC and 432 WG was not informed of significant personnel employment discussions/issues.

practices. An adequate interest level was shown on management issues; typically, only minor problems or delays were encountered in accomplishing contract requirements. Customer and Program Office were reasonably satisfied with interface practices. OCI and/or information access concerns were resolved with government help.

Government was informed of some personnel employment discussions/issues.

Customer and Program Office were very satisfied with interface practices. All OCI and information access concerns were resolved promptly. Notice of all significant personnel employment discussions/issues were provided promptly.

decisions. Additional communication efforts led to an excellent team/partner relationship between the contractor and the customer/ Program Office.

Management style was superior and the contractor followed the most effective management practices. Contractor was very proactive in seeking out solutions to problems and resolved all issues before they became problems.

Customer and Program Office were extremely satisfied with interface practices. Key personnel employment discussions were provided promptly.

2b. Innovation/Improvement (40%)

Improved efficient/effectiveness of data content and Government access Integrated several aspects of MIS improving contract and Government functionality. Improved program level metrics to enhance decision-level information.

Comprehensive MIS improvements which provides valuable benefits to the UASOCS program. Data is user friendly, easily navigated and integrates all aspects of contract data requirements.

Provides customers a consolidated, single point access to program management information. Data was analyzed providing highly effective metrics with decision quality-level information. Data was highly accurate and near real-time. MIS greatly improved Government PM’s ability to forecast and manage the UASOCS program.

2c. Cost Management (20%)

cost documentation was inadequate and costs were difficult to track.

Took measures to avoid cost growth. Contractor recognized where cost growth may be Budget and cost management practices and procedures met requirements all cost projections were met or under-run.

Some gains were made in reducing contract costs. Costs were tracked well enough to identify most variances. Costs were effectively managed and controlled by working with customers, contractors, and the program office. Funding was always used in a cost-effective manner. Provided unfunded recommendations, beneficial to the UASOCS program; ensured any excess funding was used or returned in a timely manner. Anticipated cost issues; proposed innovative and cost effective approaches to problems. Financial reporting was timely, clear and accurate; problems or trends were addressed thoroughly; documented savings were apparent.

cost projections were met or under-run.

Significant gains were made in reducing contract costs. Costs were tracked well enough to identify all variances. Proactively managed and controlled costs by working directly with customers, contractors, and program office.

Significant gains were made in reducing task costs. Provided unfunded recommendations, beneficial to the UASOCS program; ensured any excess funding was used or returned in a timely manner. Cost reimbursable funding was optimally used to provide maximum benefit to the UASOCS program.

Consistently anticipated cost issues; identified innovative and cost effective approaches to problems. Financial reporting was timely, clear, and accurate; proactively identified and corrected adverse trends. Documented savings were readily apparent.

3. Special Interest Item. See Annex 8-9 for criteria and weighting percentage

ANNEX 3 – CAFI/GAFI RATING GUIDELINES

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

UAS Operations Center Support PWS, Appendix F 15 Aug 14

ANNEX 4 – GOVERNMENT AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT (Use Microsoft Word)

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)

ANNEX 5 – CONTRACTOR AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT (Use Microsoft Word)

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)

ANNEX 6 – CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION FORMAT

(MS PowerPoint version 2.3 or higher)

Contractor’s presentation shall be limited to thirty minutes and focus on specific accomplishments over and above 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?)

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

AFRB Member Name: Evaluation Period: Contractor:

Contract:

Date of Report:

1. Technical Performance

1a. [Responsiveness to Requirements] X .50 = 1b. [Innovation/Improvement] X .50 = Weighted Sub element Total

Weighted Element Total

X .30 =

2. Management Performance

2a. [ Customer Relations]

X .40 = 2b. [Innovation/Improvement] X .40 = 2c. [Cost Management] X .20 =

Weighted Sub element Total

Weighted Element Total

X .30 =

3. [Optional Special Interest Item (SII)]

3a. [SII Transition]

X .30 =

4. Quality Incentive (QI) X .10 =

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE

(Compare to ranges listed in Table1)

ANNEX 8 – CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT

Master scoresheet.xls

[Include Note if contractor proposes the pool - Note: Available award fee pool TBD based on contract award offer’s proposal.]

[Remember to update the score sheet for your program.]

ANNEX 9 – SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SII)

SII Criteria Title: Program Management (Rev 2)

Relative Weight: 30%

Description: This SII will evaluate the contractor’s efforts supporting the evolving UASOCS requirements in program management while fulfilling the requirements of the PWS.

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).

The CPM managed or mitigated some program and or system risks.

Fully met all objectives of the PWS and program management was effective IAW UASOCS PWS and exceeded some of the requirements, while mitigating program and system risks.

Exceeded most objectives of the PWS and program management IAW UASOCS PWS. Exceeded all customer requirements and correctly ensured Government needs were met. Maintained an extremely proactive program management posture.

Annex 10 – Quality Performance Incentive (QPI) Procedures

Nonconformance - Failure to fulfill any contract requirement is a nonconformance. The Contractor shall take immediate corrective action for any nonconformance. The two types of Nonconformances are as follows:

Major Nonconformance - A nonconformance that negatively impacts, or has potential to impact, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), or cost. The risk associated with this nonconformance is evaluated as Moderate or High. The CO will communicate a major nonconformance on a Corrective Action Request (CAR) form with a suspense date for the Contractor’s corrective action plan.

Minor Nonconformance - A nonconformance, which by itself does not adversely impact mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), or cost. The risk associated with this nonconformance is evaluated as Low and is communicated by the COR through a First and/or Second Notice. First notices are issued for any identified minor nonconformance; second notices are issued for a repeat nonconformance or failing to correct a nonconformance within a reasonable amount of time. As a minimum, the Contractor’s corrective action plan shall address action taken to fix the immediate problem.

QPI Point Assignment Explanation (6 possible points).

The Government determines that an effective contractor Quality Management System (QMS) overlays all services provided on the contract, increasing the likelihood of highly successful performance and decreasing the likelihood of discrepancies—or minor and major nonconformances. The QPI assessment is designed to provide incentive for the achievement of a QMS program that exceeds minimum requirements and expectations, thus positively influencing performance on each service area within the PWS.

For each calendar month of the evaluation period the contractor shall receive one (1) point if no major nonconformances or second notices are identified. The contractor shall receive zero (0) points any month in which the Government identifies minor nonconformances, but no Second Notices only* and no major nonconformances are identified. The contractor shall receive negative one (-1) point any month in which the Government identifies a major nonconformance. At the end of the evaluation period, the numbers earned are added together for the total points earned.

*The Government has not established a maximum acceptable number of minor nonconformances in any one month, so any number of minors will earn zero (0) points.