USAFE GPMS - Appendix F - Award Fee Plan (30 Apr 2020).docx

AWARD FEE PLAN

FOR

U.S. AIR FORCES IN EUROPE (USAFE)

GLOBAL PREPOSITIONED MATERIEL SERVICES (GPMS) PROGRAM

Prepared By: AMIC/PMCS

STEVEN F. PETERS, NH-04, DAF

GPMS Program Manager

Reviewed By: AMIC/PKFB

ANISSA S. ROSS, NH-03, DAF

GPMS Procuring Contracting Officer

Approved By:

NANCY K. ANDREWS, SES, DAF

Source Selection Authority

AFPEO/CM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. This Award Fee Plan is the basis for evaluation of the contractor's performance on the U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) Global Prepositioned Materiel Services (GPMS) 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 management in cost, schedule, and 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 minimum contract performance in all required areas. Within each evaluation criteria in para 7.0., 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. Fee Determining Official (FDO). The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) members are approved by position as detailed in this Award Fee Plan. 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 affirming the contractor's performance as rated against the criteria of this plan, assessing the relative weight and application (either an increase or decrease to the recommended rating) of any applicable Positive Significant Incident(s) (PSIs) and Negative Significant Incident(s) (NSIs), and recommending an overall award fee rating and 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 four (4) voting members are required to convene an AFRB.

2.3. AFRB Chairpersons. The AFRB Co-Chairpersons, appointed through this plan, are the AMIC/DR or DD, and USAFE/A4R, A4R Deputy, or A4RI. The AFRB Chairpersons or designee(s), with the assistance of the AMIC Program Manager, present 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. ACC AMIC/PMCS serves as the AFRB Secretariat.

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. PCOs appoint Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs). Training is given to Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO). After assigned CORs have satisfactorily completed all DAU, QAPC Led, and Contract Specific Training, AMIC/DRQM will forward designation letters to the respective PCO for appointment as CORs on the contract.

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

2.8. Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs). The CORs are responsible to the appropriate QM for executing the surveillance program. The ranking officer or senior NCO assigned of the trained CORs serves as the Chief COR (C-COR). CORs, through the C-COR and QM, provide input to the AFRB on contractor performance.

2.9. 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.

2.10. Lead Functional Evaluator. The lead functional evaluator is the Government agency/office designated by the PM/Secretariat to coordinate, verify, validate, and evaluate Positive Significant Incidents & Negative Significant Incidents.

2.11. Evaluation Criteria. The subjective and/or objective criteria that are used to rate each category of performance.

2.12. Positive Significant Incident (PSI). Incidents either within or beyond the contractor’s control to which the contractor’s actions or response may have significantly and positively impacted cost, schedule, performance or Government operations or mission.

2.13. Negative Significant Incident (NSI). Incidents within the contractor’s control, which may, by itself, have a significant negative impact on cost, schedule, performance, or Government operations or mission.

3.0. ORGANIZATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES.

3.1. Organization. Annex 1 depicts the AFRB composition.

3.2. Responsibilities.

3.2.1. FDO. The FDO is responsible for:

3.2.1.1. Appointing the AFRB Chairpersons (Chair/Co-chair) through the Award Fee Plan. The designated AFRB Co-Chairs are AMIC/DR or DD and USAFE/A4R or Deputy A4R. 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.

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/PMCS) and PCO (AMIC/PKFB).

3.2.2. AFRB Chairpersons. The AFRB Chairpersons are responsible for:

3.2.2.1. Convening an AFRB in accordance with this Award Fee Plan.

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

3.2.2.3. With the PM, briefing the FDO on the contractor’s overall performance and recommended rating/earned award fee amounts.

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. 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 AMIC GPMS Program Manager (PM), and GPMS Deputy PM (DPM), AMIC/PMCS, comprise the AFRB Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for:

3.2.4.1. Notifying the QM that contract performance evaluations are due.

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

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

3.2.4.4. Scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones.

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 objective report for the PM, summarizing the details of the factors in 7.1.1. thru 7.1.4., as well as any subjective inputs received as detailed in 7.1.5.

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 voting members of the AFRB and the FDO (if delegated by AFPEO/CM). The Secretariat will track and document that training has been completed for the contract file.

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 PCO.

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

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

3.2.5.6. Preparing a “Summary” subjective evaluation, as detailed in para 7.1.5., 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 rating will be provided as part of the report.

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

3.2.5.8. 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, if applicable.

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. QM. The QM, 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/guide.

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. The Executive Summary must be submitted to the Secretariat NLT 15 business days after the end of the award fee period. Should contractor performance warrant, the QM or C-COR 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.

3.3. 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 (1) 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 (if trained and appointed as CORs) 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.

3.3.4.1.3. Multi-Functional Team Input. Observations and recommendations of members of the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) can be considered. MFT submissions must be validated to ensure the integrity of the process. Typically, input from the MFT will be used by the Government PM for the Subjective Evaluation.

3.3.4.2. Significant Incidents. Significant Incidents are tied to the PWS requirements. They are assessed during the award fee period separate from the evaluation criteria in para 7.0. PSIs and 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 GPMS asset 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 90 calendar days after the beginning of the evaluation period, but not later than 90 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 (CARs), 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 QM/C-COR 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) for the period. The Executive Summary will include an attachment providing the audit details necessary to rate contractor performance detailed in Section 7.0. (para 7.1.1, Quality Management System; 7.1.2., Manpower/Staffing Rates; 7.1.3., Materiel Serviceability; and 7.1.4., Transition/Site Stand-up). Additionally, the report will include objective evidence required to rate applicable Special Interest Items (SIIs).

3.3.6.1.2. If the QM or C-COR is requested by the PM or AFRB Chairperson(s) to conduct a briefing of the objective evidence at the AFRB, the C-COR will consolidate all surveillance results and customer feedback, as applicable, for the award fee period and will prepare an objective evaluation report and briefing (MS PowerPoint 2013, or later) of contractor performance based on the PWS and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The C-COR will provide the report/briefing to the QM for review/approval. The QM will submit the C-COR report to the Secretariat, not later than 15 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 relevant data 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 meeting will be conducted 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 of all AFRB Voting Members, Advisors, and contractor management team, unless otherwise approved by the AFRB Chairperson(s). The AFRB can be conducted by alternate means, including by video teleconference (VTC), teleconference, through other virtual collaboration tools (e.g. MS Teams), or through emails.

3.3.6.2.1. Contractor Briefing/Report. Depending on how the board is conducted, the contractor will either be provided the opportunity to brief the board or (see Annex 2 for briefing format) or provide a written “Contractor Self-Assessment” in regards to fulfilling or exceeding contract requirements and the evaluation criteria for the subject award fee period. If a briefing is provided, it shall not normally exceed 30 minutes.

3.3.6.2.2. Government PM Briefing/Report. The PM will provide a briefing or report detailing the ratings of contractor performance as calculated IAW in Section 7.0. (para 7.1.1, Quality Management System; 7.1.2., Manpower/Staffing Rates; 7.1.3., Materiel Serviceability; and 7.1.4., Transition/Site Stand-Up; as well as 7.1.5., Government Program Manager Subjective Evaluation). Additionally, the report will include the rating of applicable Special Interest Items (SIIs), as well as a recommendation for the relative weight of each PSI and NSI, as applicable. The PM’s briefing/report will not provide a recommended overall rating. It is the sole responsibility of the AFRB Voting Members to determine, through consensus, the overall recommended rating after weighing all criteria.

3.3.6.2.3. With the exception of the weighting of PSIs/NSIs, the contractor’s performance will be evaluated IAW the criteria in Section 7.0. and applicable SII rating criteria see Annex 4 for SII format).

3.3.6.2.3.1. With the exception of the weighting of PSIs/NSIs, the contractor’s performance will be evaluated IAW the criteria in Section 7.0. and applicable SII rating criteria.

3.3.6.2.3.2. Deliberations will be limited to the AFRB Voting Members, the PM Team, PCO/CM, QM, JA, C-COR, USAFE/A4RI representative, and AMIC Division Chiefs approved by the AFRB Chairperson(s). The Secretariat, PM, PCO, and JA serve solely in an advisory capacity during deliberations to support the Voting Members as required. During deliberations, each Voting Member will consider the Government Program Manager (PM) Subjective Evaluation, individually determine their concurrence of (or alternate score to) the PM’s recommended rating, and provide their rating to the Secretariat.

3.3.6.2.3.3. The scores will be entered into the Consolidated Evaluation Ratings Worksheet (sample at Annex 3) to calculate the sub-total of the five (5) factors, plus any applicable SIIs. The Consensus Rating will be validated by the board before considering PSIs/NSIs.

3.3.6.2.4. The Voting Members will next consider the relative weight of each validated PSI or NSI, as applicable, either increase/decrease the overall rating percentage (thereby changing the award fee earned) or by directly increasing or decreasing the actual award fee payment. Specific adjustments in the recommended rating relative to NSIs/PSIs events must be detailed in the AFRB recommendation to the FDO.

3.3.6.2.5. The AFRB recommendation will be provided to the FDO within ten (10) business days of the AFRB.

3.3.6.3. AFRB Meeting Procedures (Unsatisfactory Performance). The AFRB meeting will be conducted 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, QM, 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 CARs 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 (in 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% increments). SIIs will decrease each factor (detailed in para 7.1. below) by an equal proportional amount. 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, USAFE/A4R (on behalf of USAFE stakeholders), ACC AMIC /DR/DD/PM/PK/PMS/PKB/ DRQ, PCO, PM, USAFE/A4 Staff Functionals, AMIC Functional Managers, CORs (through the QM), or any member of the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) may submit proposed SIIs to the Secretariat. Proposed SIIs will include recommended evaluation criteria, desired results, and proposed scoring or weighted percentage. 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 QM will be notified within 10 calendar days of SII approval to ensure it is included as part of COR surveillance.

5.0. RATING RANGES. The rating definitions below will be used to assess the contractor’s performance against the evaluation criteria in para 7.0. and SII rating criteria, if applicable and to provide the award fee “Narrative” rating. Since meeting minimum contract performance requirements is expected from the contractor, rating assessments will start at "satisfactory" and go up or down from there. Failure to meet minimum essential contract performance requirements will result in an “Unsatisfactory” award fee rating for the period regardless of performance against evaluation criteria. The contractor shall be entitled to receive, in any evaluation period, an award-fee commensurate with the performance ratings identified in Table 1.

Rating

Table 1 – Performance Ratings

6.0. EVALUATION PERIODS:

6.1. The award fee pool amounts applicable to Table 2 will reflect a fixed award fee pool of $50,000 for each Deployable Air Base System (DABS) set the contractor is responsible for storing and maintaining as of the first day of the 7th month (1 May) of each 12-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.

Option Award Fee Periods

Table 2 – Award Fee Evaluation Periods

7.0. CALCULATIONS FOR FEE DETERMINATION.

Note: The example calculations below represent a 12-month award fee period where five (5) storage locations are open, either at the beginning of the period or at a point during the period; ten (10) DABS-FEV sets are in storage, either complete or partial, during the period. For QMS, any Major Non-Conformance or Second Notice issued by the Government will be evaluated. For Manpower/Staffing Rates, only sites meeting the criteria in 7.1.2.1. will be evaluated. For Materiel Serviceability, only sets meeting the criteria in 7.1.3.1. will be evaluated.

Note: Manning figures used in these calculations in no way represent either the Government’s estimate or anticipated Industry proposed manning. They are presented here only as a tool for demonstrating the calculations for award fee purposes.

7.1. The Award Fee will be based, as outlined below, on five (5) factors, each worth 20% of the available pool: Quality Management System (20 pts.), Manpower/Staffing Rates (20 pts.), Materiel Serviceability (20 pts.), Transition/Site Stand-Up (20 pts.) and Government Program Manager Subjective Evaluation (20 pts.). Up to 20% (20 pts.) of the pool may be allocated to SIIs (in 5 pt. increments). Consideration/impacts of PSIs and/or NSIs will be applied after all other factors are scored, along with any considerations resulting from PSIs and NSIs. The SII will be determined by the PM, and the Contractor will be notified IAW paragraph 4.0.

7.1.1. Quality Management System – 20 pts. (or reduced for SIIs). The Quality portion of the Award Fee will use a Quality Performance Index (QPI) where the contractor can earn points for exceeding critical Service Summary standards and for successfully executing the contractor’s QMS to the benefit of the Government. The contractor can earn up to 12 points, one (1) point per month, for months in which there are zero (0) major non-conformances issued by the Government. If one (1) CAR is issued during a month the contractor will earn ½ point. An additional six (6) points, ½ point per month, can be earned for each month in which there are zero (0) Second Notices identified by the Government. An additional two (2) points can be earned if there are zero (0) major non-conformances issued against the contractor’s QMS during the period; one (1) point can be earned if only one (1) CAR is issued against the contractor’s QMS during the period.

CARs: 1 point for 0 CARs in a month; ½ point for 1 CAR in a month; 0 points for 2 or more.

2nd Notices: ½ point for zero 2nd notices in a month; 0 points for 1 or more 2nd notices.

CARs attributed to QMS: 2 points for 0 CARs; 1 point for 1 CAR; 0 points for 2 or more.

7.1.1.1. Major Non-Conformance. A major non-conformance is defined as: A non-conformance that adversely impacts (or has the potential to impact) mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, environment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), and/or cost. Major non-conformances are communicated to the contractor by the CO using a CAR. The date of the CAR (Block 3) determines the month in which the major non-conformance was identified.

7.1.1.2. Second Notice. A second notice is defined as a repeat of a previous identified minor non-conformance, after the contractor has either notified the Government of completion of a corrective action, or 60 calendar days, whichever comes first, regardless of the award fee period in which the first notice was issued.

7.1.1.3. Example Calculation. The following assumptions and table represent a sample award fee period where a total of three (3) CARs are issued, one (1) of which is attributed to the contractor’s QMS, and four (4) Second Notices are issued, two (2) of which are issued in the same month.

7.1.1.4. QMS Rates Calculation. With the available 20 points representing 20% of the pool, the example above shows 16 points (or 16% of the total pool) being awarded for the example period.

7.1.2. Manpower/Staffing Rates – 20 pts. (or reduced for SIIs). The following evaluations will be performed during each period:

7.1.2.1. Manpower/Staffing Rates Criteria. For each site that was opened before the first day of the 7th month of the period, staffing numbers included in the calculation (the numerator) will be as on the first day of the 10th month of the period. The basis for the calculation (the denominator) will be each site’s total manning from the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) or contract modification executing the stand-up of each applicable site. A total of 20 points (or reduced for SIIs), allocated proportionally for each qualified open site, will be available for each award fee period. A site open/opened any time during the previous award fee period shall be counted as open on Day 1 of the current award fee period.

7.1.2.2. Example Calculation. The following assumptions and table represent a sample award fee period where four (4) sites are eligible to earn points for Manpower/Staffing metrics. Any site that has been opened (by contract award or modification) before 1 May of the award fee period will be evaluated utilizing the staffing numbers (the numerator) on 1 August and the manpower positions (the denominator) from the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) or contract modification.

Assumption: Assume Opel was fully opened in the previous award fee period; Fairford, Powidz, Karup, Campia Turzii opened during the current award fee period in Month shown:

7.1.2.3. Manpower/Staffing Rates Calculation. With the available 20 points representing the 20% of the pool, the example above shows 15 points (or 15% of the total pool) being awarded for the example period.

7.1.3. Materiel Serviceability – 20 pts. (or reduced for SIIs). Serviceability rates for each DABS set for which the contractor is responsible must exceed 95% overall. Note: Serviceability of each commodity within each DABS set must meet or exceed the serviceability requirement of PWS Appendix G, Level of Effort.

7.1.3.1. Each DABS set is considered to be “on contract” when ≥ 50% of equipment & vehicle authorizations of a set are present at a site before the 1st day of the 7th month of the award fee period (1 May).

7.1.3.2. Serviceability of each DABS set is calculated by dividing the quantity of serviceable equipment & vehicles by the quantity of equipment & vehicles present (“on-hand”). The calculation will use the quantities of each on the 1st day of the 10th month of the award fee period (1 August).

Assumption: Assume ten (10) total DABS sets either “on-contract” or beginning to arrive at the storage locations. Of these, five (5) are assumed to meet the criteria for ≥ 50% of equipment & vehicle authorizations received before 1 May. The example shows three (3) sets meeting the 85% criteria on 1 August, with one (1) set not meeting the overall 95% criteria on 1 August, and one (1) set not meeting one (1) or more of the minimum commodity serviceability rates.

7.1.3.3. Materiel Serviceability Rate Calculation. With the available 20 points representing 20% of the award fee pool, the example above shows 12 points (or 12% of the total pool) being awarded for the example period.

7.1.4. Transition/Site Stand-Up – 20 pts. (or reduced for SIIs).

The Government is seeking Industry feedback on fair, objective criteria by which to rate the contractors Transition to full contract performance (Base Year) and stand-up of Forward Storage Locations (FSLs) as MILCON projects are completed, each site is turned over to the contractor for occupation, assets arrive for storage & maintenance, and the contractor assumes full responsibility for PWS requirements at each FSL. Initial thoughts are to hold the contractor accountable to the schedule/milestones of the contractor’s Transition/Site Stand-Up Plan; failure to meet the schedule or key milestones will negatively impact the rating. Upon stand-up of the final FSL, this factor will be considered for removal/replacement by another relevant factor to be determined.

7.1.5. Government PM Subjective Evaluation – 20 pts. (or reduced for SIIs). The Government PM shall submit a written “summary” evaluation of the Contractor’s overall performance for each award fee period. The PM may use any and all information available to include, but not limited to, mission partner feedback, Service Summary metrics, major events during the period, contractor performance that exceeded standards, and areas of concern. The evaluation may contain objective data; however, the evaluation remains subjective by design and intent. The Government recognizes that some information considered in the subjective evaluation may already be covered in other sections of the Award Fee Plan. The PM shall recommend the amount to be awarded under this section to the AFRB and the AFRB, in turn, will reach consensus on the awarded amount during deliberations.

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 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 AFPEO/CM (may be delegated at AFPEO/CM’s discretion)

Secretariat

AMIC/PMCS

Award Fee Review Board Chairpersons (1 each from USAFE & AMIC) AMIC/DR or DD or PK or PM USAFE/A4R or A4R Deputy or A4RI

Award Fee Review Board Voting Members (2 each from USAFE & AMIC) USAFE/A4RI or any Branch Chief within USAFE/A4R USAFE/A4RI Command WRMO or WRM Manager AMIC/PM or PMC or any AMIC PM Division Chief) AMIC/PK or PKF or any AMIC PK Division Chief)

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

AMIC/DRJ

USAFE/A4 Staff

86 MMS/CC/DO

AMIC/PM/PK

AMIC/PMCS (PM/DPM)

AMIC/PKFB (PCO/CM)

AMIC/DRQ

AMIC/PLG

AMIC/PCE

AMIC/PMC

AMIC/PMS

AMIC/DRR

Solicitation Number: FA4890-19-R-A004 Solicitation Number: FA4890-19-R-A004

Page F-2 of 21

ANNEX 2 – CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION FORMAT

(MS PowerPoint version 2013 or higher)

Contractor’s presentation shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes. First, the contractor must address its performance as compared to the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement and Services Summaries. The contractor can then focus on specific accomplishments that are 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 including in the objective rating criteria.

Suggested format:

Evaluation Category and Criterion

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

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

ANNEX 3 – CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION RATINGS

Note: Available Award Fee Pool as defined in Para 6.1., above.

Consolidated Evaluation Ratings Worksheet is in work; will be completed after Industry feedback.

ANNEX 4 – SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS (SII) FORMAT

SII Criteria Title: [SII Title]

Relative Weight: [Specify percentage. Remember to adjust rating table as appropriate.]

Description: [Insert language. Example: This SII will evaluate the contractor’s efforts in transitioning from Contract Award to full contract performance (or stand-up of a new storage location) while effectively supporting contract and mission requirements IAW the contractor’s approved Transition Plan.]

Method of Evaluation: The SII will be evaluated using COR audits, Multi-Functional Team input, and Requirement Owner feedback. The Secretariat will consolidate these inputs and provide to the Government PM for review and 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 recommended rating for the SII and include it in the Government PM’s briefing/report to the AFRB.

[Insert criteria language. Example is below.]

UNSATISFACTORY

( 0 )

SATISFACTORY

(1 - 49.99)

GOOD

(50 - 74.99)

EXCELLENT

(75 - 89.99)

OUTSTANDING

(90 - 100)