Appendix_F_-_AFCENT_WRM_Award_Fee_Plan_with_Quality_Performance_Index_(1).pdf

Solicitation Number: FA4890-15-R-0004

AWARD FEE PLAN WITH QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX

FOR

U.S. AIR FORCES CENTRAL COMMAND (USAFCENT)

WAR RESERVE MATERIEL (WRM) PROGRAM

AND

EXERCISE & CONTINGENCY LOGISTICS SUPPORT

Prepared By: AMIC/PMSW

STEVEN F. PETERS, NH-03, DAF Date WRM Program Manager

Reviewed By: AMIC/PKBA

SHEILA R. RESHARD-BRYANT, NH-03, DAF Date WRM Procuring Contracting Officer

Approved By:

SCOTT A. KINDSVATER, Brig Gen, USAF Date Source Selection Authority

USAFCENT/ACD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. INTRODUCTION

2.0. DEFINITION OF TERMS

3.0. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES

4.0. SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SIIs)

5.0. RATING RANGES

6.0. EVALUATION PERIODS

7.0. QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX

8.0. PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE AWARD FEE PLAN

9.0. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY

10.0. PCO CONTRACT TERMINATION

ANNEX 1 – AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, AND WEIGHTS

ANNEX 3 – CAFI/GAFI RATING GUIDELINES

ANNEX 4 – GOVERNMENT AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT

ANNEX 5 – CONTRACTOR AWARD-FEE INPUT FORMAT

ANNEX 6 – CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION FORMAT

ANNEX 7 – INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION REPORT

ANNEX 8 – CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT

ANNEX 9 – SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SII) FORMAT

1.0. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. This Award Fee Plan with a Quality Performance Index is the basis for evaluation of the contractor's performance on the USAFCENT WRM Program and Exercise & Contingency Logistics Support contract 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. This assessment will consider performance of the entire effort (fixed price, cost reimbursable and cost plus fixed fee portions) for each period evaluated. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

1.2. This plan is designed to motivate superior performance, responsiveness, innovation, and proactive management. The objective 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.

2.3. AFRB Chairpersons. The AFRB Co-Chairpersons, appointed through this plan, are the AMIC/DD and USAFCENT/A4. The AFRB Chairpersons or designee(s), with the assistance of the AMIC Program Manager, 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. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO performs post-award contract administration duties, monitors contractor performance, and serves as the liaison between the contractor and Government personnel. PCO s train and appoint Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs). After assigned CORs have satisfactorily completed Phase I and II training, AMIC/DRQ will forward nomination letters to the respective PCO for appointment as CORs for the contract.

2.7. Functional Director (FD). The FD is AMIC/PMS Division Chief; however, the Commander, USAFCENT Det 6, is responsible for ensuring primary and alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) personnel are assigned.

2.8. Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). The QAM, within AMIC/DRQ, is responsible for the surveillance program from audit planning/scheduling, to conducting, documenting, and reporting contractor performance. The QAM is responsible for training all assigned primary and alternate CORs.

2.9. Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs). The CORs are responsible to the appropriate QAM for executing the surveillance program. Typically, the officer assigned as the USAFCENT Det 6 Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) is trained as a COR and serves as the Flight Chief Quality Assurance (FCQA). CORs, through the FCQA and 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 (PWS) function. A functional manager may be an AFRB member or advisor.

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

2.12. Evaluation Criteria. The subjective and/or objective criteria that are used to rate 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 that have a direct benefit to the Government 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 under this plan, delegated by Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat & Mission Support (AFPEO/CM), is the Assistant Deputy Commander, U.S. Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT/ACD). The FDO is responsible for:

3.2.1.1. Appointing the AFRB Chairpersons (Chair/Co-chair) through the AFP. The designated AFRB Co-Chairs are AMIC/DD and USAFCENT/A4. In the event either individual is unable to participate in the AFRB, their trained alternate will serve in their place.

3.2.1.2. Approving/disapproving the plan and any significant/substantive 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, revising the distribution of the award fee pool, and/or increasing or decreasing the award fee pool or Quality Performance Index pool.

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 contractor, in writing, of the amount of the fee awarded for the evaluation period. Notification is transmitted through the PM (AMIC/PMSW) and PCO (AMIC/PKBA).

3.2.2. AFRB Chairpersons. The AFRB Chairpersons are 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 is 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 20% under this award fee plan.

3.2.2.6. Approving or disapproving non-significant (i.e. administrative) 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 Chairpersons.

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

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

3.2.3.4. Recommending changes to the award fee plan.

3.2.4. AFRB Secretariat. The AMIC Program Manager (PM), Deputy PM (DPM) and Logistics/Munitions Manager, AMIC/PMSW, comprise the AFRB Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for:

3.2.4.1. Notifying the QAM that their contract performance evaluations are due.

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

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

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

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

3.2.4.6. Prepare a comprehensive subjective report as described in paragraph 3.2.5.7.

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

3.2.5. PM. The PM (or DPM in the absence of the PM) is responsible for:

3.2.5.1. Providing basic award-fee training to board members on behalf of AFRB Chairpersons.

The Secretariat will track and document that training has been completed for the contract file.

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

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

3.2.5.4. Coordinating COR findings and contractor performance/savings data with the functionals and PCO.

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

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

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

3.2.5.8. 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.

3.2.5.9. Briefing the AFRB if requested by the AFRB Chairpersons.

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

3.2.6. PCO. The PCO 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 PCO 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 deobligation 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. The QAM, through appointed CORs, is responsible for:

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

3.2.7.2. Observing and documenting the contractor’s performance, and coordinating observations with the functionals, PM, and PCO.

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 Executive Summary of the contractor’s performance during the performance period, including a recommendation as to whether the objective evidence shows that the contractor failed to meet, met, or exceeded minimum contract performance standards in accordance with the PWS. Additionally, the Executive Summary will present the detailed scoring of the Quality Performance Index (QPI). The Executive Summary must be submitted to the Secretariat NLT 15 days after the end of the award fee period. Although not required, should contractor performance warrant, the QAM or FCQA may be requested by the PM or AFRB Chairpersons to present a comprehensive briefing to the AFRB of the objective evidence using the guidelines in paragraph 3.3.6.

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 PCO.

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 narrative rating from paragraph 5, Table 1, and documenting justification/rationale for rating.

3.2.8.2. Coordinating with AFCENT/AMIC functionals and other subject matter experts as applicable. Incorporate 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 Chairpersons or Member Substitution(s). In the event one of the appointed AFRB Chairpersons (or their pre-designated alternate(s) as identified in Annex 1) is unable to attend the scheduled AFRB, the FDO will appoint a designee in writing to perform the AFRB

Chairperson responsibilities. If a voting member of the AFRB is absent and a pre-designated alternate (as identified in Annex 1) is not available, a person with similar qualifications may be substituted with the approval of the AFRB Chairpersons. All substitutions must be trained on their duties by the PM/DPM NLT 15 days prior to the AFRB.

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.

3.3.4.1.1. Contract Surveillance. CORs, alternate CORs, and functional managers will perform contract surveillance, in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance 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 a Government representative (e.g. Contracting Officers 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, 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 information provided by the contractor (e.g., monetary savings, man-hours avoided etc.). 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 (GAFIs). 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 (CORs, 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. 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 (PSIs) and Negative Significant Incidents (NSIs), if noted during the evaluation period, may lead to increasing or decreasing the overall AFRB recommendation to the FDO. An NSI that is determined to be extraordinarily significant (redundancy intended) may result in an overall “Unsatisfactory” award fee rating for the period. 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 WRM readiness and responsiveness providing serviceable WRM to the warfighter.

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 (e.g., safety mishap, etc.) is determined a contractor responsibility after the award fee period in which the event occurred, then the Government can consider the finding at the next AFRB to be held. The AFRB should consider if any action was already taken in regard to the NSI to ensure “double jeopardy” does not occur. 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 that warrants feedback, 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.

Oral feedback can range from a discussion between the Government PM and contractor PM, to a broad meeting attended by applicable functional personnel from both the Government and contractor should the details of the necessary feedback warrant. 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., PCO 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.

3.3.6.1.1. If the QAM/FCQA is not requested to submit a comprehensive support or brief at the AFRB (see para. 3.2.7.6., above) the Executive Summary will be the primary documentation of the objective evidence (surveillance audits/Service Summary performance) and QPI for the period.

3.3.6.1.2. If the QAM/FCQA is requested by the PM or AFRB Chairperson(s) to conduct a briefing of the objective evidence at the AFRB, the FCQA will consolidate all surveillance results and customer feedback, as applicable, for the award fee period and will prepare an objective evaluation report and briefing of contractor performance based on the PWS and the Performance Plan. The FCQA will provide the report/briefing to the QAM for review/approval.

The QAM will submit the FCQA report 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 has met (or exceeded) minimum contractor performance standards as outlined in the PWS.

3.3.6.1.3. The AFRB Secretariat will consolidate all CAFIs, GAFIs, PSIs, 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 Chairpersons. 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 normally exceed 45 minutes. The QAM will (only if requested by the PM or AFRB Chairpersons) provide a brief and report (reference paragraph 3.3.6.1) that summarizes the number of notices or CARs, the corrective action taken, and any reoccurrences since the date of corrective action, and an objective assessment of the period’s Special Interest Item(s), if applicable. 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, PCO, JA, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB

Chairpersons. The Secretariat, PM, PCO, 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).

3.3.6.2.1. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria at Annex

2. Upon arriving at an initial adjectival rating range (e.g. “GOOD”) for a sub-criteria area (e.g.

“Cost Management”), a combination of subjective inputs (CAFIs, GAFIs, etc.) and objective performance data (CARs, Service Summary metrics, etc.) may be used to increase or decrease the scoring (i.e. elevating the adjectival rating to “EXCELLENT”, decreasing it to “SATISFACTORY”, or moving up or down on the estimated points range within the same rating range), depending on the nature and impact of both positive and negative inputs. At no time in the process of arriving at either Evaluation Sub-Criteria or Evaluation Criteria (e.g. Technical Performance) or "Weighted Performance Rating are PSIs or NSIs considered in rating the contractor’s performance against Annex 2.

3.3.6.2.2. The Individual Evaluation Reports will then be submitted to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will administratively assist the AFRB in the rating process. The AFRB calculates the weighted performance rating and recommended award fee, using the Consolidated Evaluation Report (Annex 8). The 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.

3.3.6.2.3. Only after the AFRB has reached consensus on the overall rating will the impact of NSIs/PSIs (see para. 3.3.4.4.) be considered by the board. The relative weight of validated NSIs/PSIs will be used to either increase/decrease the overall rating percentage (thereby changing the earned award fee) or by directly increasing or decreasing the actual award fee payment. Specific adjustments in recommended rating relative to NSI/PSI events must be completely covered in summary.

3.3.6.2.4. 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 Chairpersons. The AFRB members will review the report provided by the PM supporting an “Unsatisfactory” rating. Deliberations will be limited to the AFRB Secretariat, PM, PCO, JA, DRQ, and voting members unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chairpersons. The Secretariat, PM, PCO, 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, such as

Corrective Action Requests and contractor response, PCO 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 PCO 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 PCO will inform the contractor in writing of the amount of the award fee amount earned or the “Unsatisfactory” rating for the period rated. The PCO will unilaterally modify the contract to incorporate the earned award fee amount.

4.0. SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SIIs). Up to 20 percent of the total award fee may be designated for SIIs. If there is not a SII for an award fee period (or less than the available 20 percent is used) the remaining percentage will be redistributed to Technical Performance. 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 start of an award fee period, USAFCENT/A4, ACC AMIC/DR/DD/PM/PK/PMS/PKB/DRQ, PCO, PM, AFCENT/A4 Staff Functionals, AMIC Functional Managers, USAFCENT Det 6 and CORs (through the QAM) may submit proposed SIIs to the Secretariat. Proposed SIIs will include recommended evaluation criteria, desired results, and proposed weight percentage and shall be submitted in the format detailed in Annex 9. The PM will submit proposed SIIs to the AFRB Chairpersons for approval.

If approved, the PCO will notify the contractor by PCO letter not later than 20 calendar days prior to the start of the affected award fee period. After the start of an award fee period (or less than 20 calendar days prior to 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.

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 Greater Than or

Equal To Equal to or Less

Than Narrative Award-Fee Percentage

90.00 100.00 Outstanding 90 - 100%

75.00 89.99 Excellent 75 – 89.99%

50.00 74.99 Good 50 – 74.99%

1.00 49.99 Satisfactory 1 - 49.99%

0 Unsatisfactory No Fee Awarded Table 1 – Performance Ratings

6.0. EVALUATION PERIODS:

6.1. The award fee amounts in Table 2 reflect a fixed award fee pool of $750,000 per 6-month 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 Dates Potential Award Fee 1st Period 01 October 2016 – 31 March 2017 $750,000.00 2nd Period 01 April 2017 – 30 September 2017 $750,000.00 Option Award Fee Periods 3rd Period 01 October 2017 – 31 March 2018 $ 750,000.00 4th Period 01 April 2018 – 30 September 2018 $ 750,000.00 5th Period 01 October 2018 – 31 March 2019 $ 750,000.00 6th Period 01 April 2019 – 30 September 2019 $ 750,000.00 7th Period 01 October 2019 – 31 March 2020 $ 750,000.00 8th Period 01 April 2020 – 30 September 2020 $ 750,000.00 9th Period 01 October 2020 – 31 March 2021 $ 750,000.00 10th Period 01 April 2021 – 30 September 2021 $ 750,000.00 11th Period 01 October 2021 – 31 March 2022 $ 750,000.00 12th Period 01 April 2022 – 30 September 2022 $ 750,000.00 13th Period 01 October 2022 – 31 March 2023 $ 750,000.00 14th Period 01 April 2023 – 30 September 2023 $ 750,000.00 15th Period 01 October 2023 – 31 March 2024 $ 750,000.00 16th Period 01 April 2024 – 30 September 2024 $ 750,000.00

Table 2 – Award Fee Evaluation Periods

7.0. QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX:

7.1. The Quality Performance Index (QPI) pool is a fixed amount awarded through an objective points-based rating scale based on performance of the contractor’s Quality Management System (QMS). The QPI pool is $250,000 for each 6-month performance period. The QPI pool for each evaluation period that is not awarded will not be carried forward to the next evaluation period.

The Contractor can earn points towards the QPI for successfully executing a highly effective QMS. The Contractor can earn up to six (6) points per period, with zero (0) points assigned to minimum contract performance standards:

• Zero (0) points per month earned when the Government identifies one (1) major non-conformance

• Positive one (+1) point per month earned when the Government does not identify a major nonconformance

• Negative one-half (-.5) point deducted for the second and each subsequent major non-conformance identified in a month

7.1.1. Non-conformance. Failure to fulfill any contract requirement is a non-conformance. The Contractor shall take immediate corrective action for any non-conformance. Non-conformances are evaluated for risk, then communicated to the contractor in one of two forms:

7.1.1.1. Major Non-conformance. A non-conformance 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 non-conformance is evaluated as Moderate or High on a standard 5x5 Risk Assessment matrix. As Service Summary metrics are critical success factors, failing to meet SS metrics will typically result in a major non-conformance. The CO will communicate a major non-conformance on a Corrective Action Request (CAR) form with a suspense date for the Contractor’s corrective action plan.

7.1.1.2 Minor Non-conformance. A non-conformance, which by itself is not likely to adversely impact mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), or cost. The risk associated with this non-conformance is evaluated as Low on a standard 5x5 Risk Assessment matrix and is communicated by the COR through a First and/or Second Notice. First notices are issued for any identified minor non-conformance; second notices are issued for a repeat non-conformance or failing to correct a non-conformance within a reasonable amount of time. As a minimum, the Contractor’s corrective action plan shall address action taken to fix the immediate problem.

7.1.2. QPI Calculation. The overall QPI shall be calculated by dividing the points earned by the total points available (6) during the period and multiplying the result by the available fee for this factor:

7.1.2.1. Formula. Points Awarded / Total Points Available) x $250,000 = Fee Amount Earned

7.1.2.2. Sample Calculation.

Month 1: 0 CARs issued (+1 pt.)

Month 2: 3 CAR issued (0 pt. -.5 pt. -.5 pt. = -1 pts) Month 3: 0 CARs issued (+1 pt.)

Month 4: 2 CARs issued (0 pt. -0.5 pt. = -0.5 pt.)

Month 5: 0 CARs issued (+1 pt.)

Month 6: 0 CARs issued (+1 pt.)

Contractor earns 2.5 of 6 available points:

• QPI Earned:

• (2.5 pts. / 6 pts.) = 0.4167 = 0.42 (rounded)

• 0.42 x $250,000 = $105,000

8.0. PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE AWARD FEE PLAN. The FDO approves all significant changes to this award fee plan. The AFRB Chairpersons approve all non-significant changes to the plan. Unilateral changes, including increases or decreases to the award fee pool or QPI pool, 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 award fee plan to the PCO not later than 60 calendar days prior to the beginning of a new award fee period. Upon approval of changes, the PCO 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.

9.0. 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 CORs, 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.

10.0. PCO 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 USAFCENT/ACD (delegated by AFPEO/CM)

Secretariat

AMIC/PMSW

Award Fee Review Board Chairpersons (1 each from USAFCENT & AMIC) ACC AMIC/DD (PK and PM are pre-designated alternates) USAFCENT/A4 (A4D and A4X are pre-designated alternates)

Award Fee Review Board Voting Members (2 each from USAFCENT & AMIC)

USAFCENT/A4D/A4X/A4R/A4M

USAFCENT/A4XR (WRMOs) ACC/AMIC/PM or PMS (or any AMIC PM Division Chief) ACC/AMIC/PK or PKB (or any AMIC PK Division Chief)

Non-Voting Members /Advisors AFPEO/CM (Program Representative)

ACC/JAQ (AMIC/DRJ)

USAFCENT/A4 Staff USAFCENT Det 6 Commander USAFCENT Det 6 ACO (FCQA)

ACC AMIC/PM/PK

ACC AMIC/PMSW (WRM PM/DPM)

ACC AMIC/PKBA (WRM PCO/CM)

ACC AMIC/DRQ

ACC AMIC/PLG

ACC AMIC/PCE

ACC AMIC/PMC

ACC AMIC/DRF

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%) 1.a. Storage, Maintenance, and Production (50%) Failed to meet contract requirements. Work was poorly organized, unprofessional, and required much interpretation or rework. Warehousing and storage was inadequate. Assets were delayed PMI or unserviceable causing WRM readiness rates to fall below minimum.

Customer is dissatisfied with performance.

Met all contract requirements.

Production and maintenance effort sustained WRM readiness rates. PMI rework minimized.

WRM storage well designed reducing life-cycle costs. Contractor met production objectives meeting customer requirements.

Customer satisfied with overall performance.

Met all contract requirements. WRM readiness rates sustained. WRM was stored to reduce life-cycle costs and facilitate outloading processes. Production efforts constantly met customer’s requirements without increasing manpower.

Employees put forth an extra effort to accomplish contract requirements. Customer very satisfied with performance.

Met all contract requirements.

Contractor anticipated WRM use and projected reconstitution requirements while sustaining readiness rates. WRM storage maximized facility utilization reducing life-cycle costs while streamlining outloading processes. Support to customer was excellent and well-coordinated.

Employees displayed exceptional knowledge and put forth a commendable effort to accomplish contract requirements. Customer completely satisfied with performance.

Met all contract requirements. Contractor anticipated WRM use and projected reconstitution requirements while sustaining readiness rates.

WRM facility plan maximized storage capacity, facility utilization, production flow, and enhanced outload processes.

Contractor assisted in the development of life-cycle planning to reduce AF costs. Employees displayed expert knowledge and put forth an admirable effort to accomplish contract requirements. Customer extremely satisfied with performance.

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

1.b. Material and Traffic Management (50%) Failed to meet contract requirements. Inventory data accuracy was below minimum standards.

Outloads were poorly managed and executed.

Property management and custodial processes not compliant with property management plan resulting in inaccurate inventories or loss of Government assets. Asset visibility while stored or in transit did not met minimum customer requirement. Contractor caused late shipment and/or deliveries.

Contractor was responsible for major transportation documentation or customs processes errors.

requirements. WRM and POS inventory was well managed with minor accountable record errors. WRM asset visibility while stored, in transit, or deployed met customers’ requirement with no major errors.

WRM receipts, shipments, and deliveries met customer timeframes with no damage to WRM assets. No major customs delivery or shipment delays attributable to contractor documentation or processes causing customer mission impact.

requirements. WRM and POS inventory was well managed and accurate with minor errors identified and corrected.

WRM asset visibility while stored, in transit, or deployed meets customers’ requirement with minor errors. Supply chain management responsive and contributed to sustained readiness rates. Property management records accurate and custodial responsibilities prudent to prevent loss or damage to Government property.

WRM receipts and deliveries met customer timeframes without damage to WRM assets.

Minor customs delays experienced due to contractor documentation or processes with no impact to customer mission requirement.

requirements. Inventory was very well managed, highly accurate with few minor errors promptly corrected. WRM asset visibility while stored, in transit, or deployed exceeds customers’ expectations, with few minor errors, enhancing the customer’s WRM asset awareness. Supply chain management predictive of customer needs. Property management records were accurate and custodial responsibilities practical to prevent loss or damage to Government property.

WRM receipts and deliveries met customer timeframes with no damage to WRM assets.

No customs delays were experienced due to contractor documentation or processes resulting in customer mission success.

requirements. Inventory was extremely well managed, highly accurate with no errors. WRM asset visibility while stored, in transit, or deployed exceeded customers’ expectations, with no errors, enhancing the customer’s WRM asset awareness and sourcing.

Supply chain management predictive of customer needs. Property management records were accurate and custodial responsibilities prudent to prevent loss or damage to Government property. WRM receipts and deliveries met customer timeframes with no damage to WRM assets. No customs delays experienced due to contractor documentation or processes.

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

2. Management Performance (40%) 2.a. Cost Management (50%) Failed to manage or control costs within contract projections. A large percentage of actual costs exceeded estimates. Most cost documentation was inadequate and costs were difficult to track.

Took reasonable actions to manage and control costs within contract projections.

Some actual costs exceeded estimates.

Indirect, G&A, and overhead pools for future fiscal years are budgeted and provisional rates approved IAW FAR

42.7. Cost

documentation was adequate and costs were traceable. No major resource management problems apparent.

Costs were managed and used in a cost-effective manner. Costs incurred were consistent with estimated costs and cost management guidelines. Budget and cost management practices and procedures met requirements. Indirect, G&A, and overhead pools for future fiscal years are budgeted and provisional rates approved IAW FAR

42.7. Most contract cost

projections were met.

Cost documentation was adequate and easy to track. No major resource management problems apparent.

Costs were managed and controlled. Almost 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. Indirect, G&A, and overhead pools for future fiscal years are budgeted and provisional rates approved IAW FAR

42.7. Projections were

made for the use of some excess funds and efforts were undertaken to ensure these funds were used or returned to the customer.

Costs were managed and controlled. All cost projections were met or under-run. Significant gains were made in reducing contract costs.

Costs were tracked well enough to identify all variances. Indirect, G&A, and overhead pools for future fiscal years are budgeted and provisional rates approved IAW FAR

42.7. Projections were

made for the use of most excess funds and efforts were undertaken to ensure these funds were used or returned to the customer.

Documented savings are apparent.

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)

2.b. Communications (25%) Failure to communicate with the Government Program Office and customers resulted in several significant problems. Management style was poor and the contractor frequently failed to follow normally acceptable management practices. Several problems, some major, occurred due to the prime contractor’s failure to adequately control subcontractor(s). Little or no interest was shown on management 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 not resolved.

Notice of significant employment discussions not provided.

Communication with the Government Program Office and customers resulted in several problems, none major.

Management style was suitable and the contractor did not deviated from normally acceptable management practices. No problems occurred due to the prime contractor’s failure to control subcontractor(s).

Sufficient interest was shown on management issues that led to minor problems or delays in accomplishing contract requirements. Customer and Program Office were satisfied with interface practices. OCI and/or information access concerns resolved. Notice of some employment discussions provided.

Communication with the Government Program Office and customers was good. No minor problems occurred due to communication problems.

Management style was good and the contractor almost always followed normally acceptable management practices.

Only a few minor problems occurred due to the prime contractor’s failure to control subcontractor(s). Adequate interest was shown on management issues to prevent problems or delays in accomplishing contract requirements. Customer and Program Office were reasonably satisfied with interface practices. All OCI and/or information access concerns resolved with Government help.

Notice of all significant employment discussions provided without prompting by Government.

Communication with the Government Program Office and customers was frequent and very proactive. Additional efforts to improve communication led to a good team relationship between the contractor and the customer/ Program Office.

Management style was excellent and the contractor followed normally acceptable management practices.

Prime contractor exhibited good subcontractor control and no problems occurred due to a failure to control subcontractor(s). Above normal interest was shown on management issues which resulted in the prevention of almost all problems. Customer and Program Office were very satisfied with interface practices. All OCI and information access concerns resolved promptly. Notice of all significant employment discussions provided promptly

Lines of communication with the Government Program Office and customers were superior, timely, and led to efficient and proactive management by the contractor and greatly assisted the…