ESP_Award_Fee_Plan.doc

(Hidden text is shown in italics and provides additional guidance/information.)

AWARD-FEE PLAN

FOR THE

B-52

ENGINEERING SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM

(ESP)

10 July 2008 @1430 (Remember, this plan should be tailored to your particular acquisition.

This template only provides an outline of what must be contained in an award-fee plan.)

APPROVED:

Fee Determining Official

(Title) Table of Contents Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Organization 3.0 Responsibilities 4.0 Award-Fee Process 5.0 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure 6.0 Contract Termination Annexes Annex Title Page Award-fee Organization Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods Grade Definitions Evaluation Criteria Award Fee Conversion Chart Performance Monitor Worksheet Recommendation Summary Worksheet

AWARD-FEE PLAN

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This award-fee plan is the basis for the B-52 Engineering Sustainment Program (ESP) evaluation of the contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). This plan applies only to ESP task orders with award fee pricing arrangements. It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and determine the amount of award fee earned. The plan may be applied as written to each task order if appropriate, or may be tailored to meet the specific goals of an individual task order as required. Award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at Government discretion.

The award fee will be provided to the contractor through a contract modification and is in addition to other contract provisions. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based on review of the contractor's performance against the criteria in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that apply to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

Award fee will only be earned when the contractor meets the minimum essential task order requirements. None of the award fee may be earned or paid if the contractor fails to meet the minimum essential task order requirements.

2.0

ORGANIZATION

The award-fee organization consists of: the Fee Determining Official (FDO); an Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) which consists of a chairperson, the contracting officer, a recorder, other functional area participants, and advisor members; and the Performance Monitors. (Remember, performance monitors are prohibited from being AFRB members.) The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annex 1. (If you prefer, you can insert the lists here rather than using an annex.)

3.0

RESPONSIBILITIES

a.

Fee Determining Official. The FDO approves the award-fee plan and any significant changes. The FDO reviews the AFRB recommendation(s), considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award-fee amount for each evaluation period. The FDO decision will be documented. If the FDO decision varies from the AFRB recommendation, the rationale will be documented in the official contract file and explained with reference to the award fee plan. The FDO rationale must describe the basis for the revised award fee amount including changes to recommended performance ratings, conversion factors, or category weighting and the justification for each change.

b.

Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review Performance Monitors’ evaluation of contractor performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and prepare an earned award-fee recommendation for presentation to the FDO. The AFRB will not include Performance Monitors. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. AFRB Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is appointed by the FDO and selects the remaining AFRB members. The chairperson also selects the Performance Monitors. The AFRB Chairperson briefs the FDO on recommended award fee amounts and contractor overall performance, and recommends significant award fee plan changes to the FDO.

d.

AFRB Recorder. The Recorder is appointed by the AFRB Chairperson. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFRB and the FDO. These actions include receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources, scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings and accomplishing all other actions required to ensure smooth, legal operation of the award fee process.

e.

Contracting Officer (CO). The CO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. The CO will prepare and distribute the contract modification awarding the fee authorized by the FDO within 10 calendar days after the FDO determination. The CO will ensure the award fee is certified and administratively reserved prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The CO will also ensure all unearned award fee funds are de-committed after each evaluation period.

f.

Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors maintain written records of the contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. They also prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. A sample Performance Monitor worksheet is shown in Annex 6. Performance Monitors must be dedicated and dependable professionals who can be counted on to track and document contractor performance throughout the evaluation period. Performance Monitors should be ready to brief the AFRB in their specific evaluation areas.

4.0 AWARD-FEE PROCESS (Detail the process used for your acquisition; e.g., interim evaluation periods may or may not be in your acquisition; you have some flexibility in establishing the timetable for certain events; contractor’s self-assessments may or may not be used, etc.)

a.

Available Award-Fee Amount. The available award fee amount will be determined at the inception of each task order. The available award fee amount as stated as a percentage of the total task order cost will not be greater than 10%. The total available award fee amount will be distributed over each evaluation period. The amount distributed to each period will be based on the significance and risk of the work to be performed in that period. This amount can be reallocated to a later period if required based on schedule or risk changes as described in paragraph f below. The award fee amount allocated to the final evaluation period for each effort will contain a significant part of the award fee pool to emphasize successful program completion. Although the final evaluation period may not contain a significant portion of the overall task, it must still contain a meaningful portion of award fee pool to ensure successful program completion. This will provide a contractor incentive to complete all required tasks and a reward for successful task completion. The available award fee for each evaluation period will be the total of the award fee amounts for each individual task order. The award fee earned will be paid based on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period. The contractor begins each award fee period with 0% of the available award fee and works up to the evaluated fee for each evaluation period. The award fee pool for an effort may be subject to an equitable adjustment if change orders or other contract modifications are issued which significantly alter the contract performance effort. Each contract change will have an associated award fee pool amount.

b. Base Fee. Base Fee is the fixed amount received by the contractor regardless of the contractor’s evaluated performance. Unless deemed inappropriate by the HCA, each CPAF task order shall include a base fee. The base fee will be no greater than 3%. The base fee will be fixed at the inception of each task order. The base fee may be subject to an equitable adjustment if change orders or other contract modifications are issued which significantly alter the contract performance effort. Each contract change will have an associated base fee amount.(If you don’t want to use an annex, insert table/graph/etc. for guidance in determining the relationship between evaluation points and various grades here.)

c.

Interim Evaluation Process. This program will include an interim evaluation 180 days prior to the end of the award fee period. The AFRB Recorder will notify each AFRB member and Performance Monitor 60 calendar days before the midpoint of the evaluation period. Performance Monitors will submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 30 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of the strength and weaknesses for the current evaluation period. The CO may issue letters any other time it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

d. Award Fee Periods. There will be one award fee period per year. The evaluation period will begin on 1 January and end on 31 December of each year. If a new CPAF task order is awarded less than 90 days prior to the end of an award fee period, the effort will not be evaluated until the end of the following award fee period. The ESP evaluation periods for the basic order and all options are shown in Annex 2.

e.

End-of-Period Evaluations. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor 30 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 5 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB will consolidate the evaluation reports for each CPAF task and prepare the overall evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee for the evaluation period. The AFRB briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. The AFRB briefing to the FDO will occur no later than 30 days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the award-fee plan for FDO approval at this time. The FDO determines the overall grade and earned award-fee amount for the evaluation period within 30, but no more than 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the earned award-fee amount. The CO issues a contract modification authorizing payment of the earned-award-fee amount within 15, but no more than 15 calendar days of the FDO’s decision.

f. Reallocation. The Government may move a portion of the available award fee from one evaluation period to another in order to ensure the amount allocated to each evaluation period continues to be based on the significance and risk of the work to be performed in the respective period. Reallocation may be done by the Government unilaterally if projected before the start of the affected evaluation period. If reallocation is done during the affected evaluation period, it must be through mutual agreement between both parties. The ESP Contracting Officer will ensure unearned award fee is not included in the reallocation.

g. Rollover. Rollover is prohibited in services contracts and will not be allowed for any ESP task orders

h. Interim Fee Payments. There will be no interim fee payments for ESP.

i. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. If the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the CO no later than five working days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain any information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFRB in evaluating the contractor’s performance. The contractor’s self-assessment may not exceed 20 , make sure it matches the number in the contract clausepages for each award fee task order.

j. Performance Categories. The ESP performance categories are Cost Performance, Technical Performance, Schedule Performance, and Program Management. These categories may be tailored for individual ESP task orders to provide the desired incentive priorities.

k. Category Weighting. For the purposes of this overall Award Fee Plan, Technical Performance will be the most heavily weighted performance category followed by Cost Performance, Schedule Performance, and Program Management. The weighting for each category is shown below.

Technical Performance 40 %

Cost Performance

30 %

Schedule Performance 20 %

Program Management 10 %

This category weighting may be tailored for each task order as appropriate.

l. Evaluation Criteria. Each performance category will be graded by the Performance Monitors based on specific evaluation criteria for each category. ESP evaluation criteria will consist of the 5 grades and their associated definitions shown in Annex 3. Each grade will have an associated numerical range from 0 to 100 as shown below. The Performance Monitors will assign specific numerical ratings based on the general Grade Definitions in Annex 3 and the detailed Evaluation Criteria in Annex 4. Each Performance Monitor will provide a specific numerical rating in each category and associated comments on the Performance Monitor worksheet shown in Annex 6.

Outstanding 90 - 100

Excellent

80 - 89

Good

70 - 79

Satisfactory 60 - 69

Unsatisfactory 0 - 59

These evaluation criteria may be tailored for each task order. The criteria applied for an evaluation period will be used in the subsequent award-fee evaluation period unless the CO gives specific notice in writing to the contractor of any evaluation criteria changes prior to the start of the new evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and notifying the contractor.

m. Performance Rating to Award Fee Amount Conversion. The contractor’s overall score will be converted to an award fee percentage using the conversion table shown in Annex 5. This conversion table will be used to quantify the non-linear relationship between contractor score and earned award fee percentage. This table can be tailored for each task order as appropriate.

n. Rating Calculation (Doing the math). The following calculation will be performed individually for each ESP award fee task order. The contractor’s performance for each award fee task order will be evaluated separately to determine the percentage of the award fee pool earned for that task order. The total award fee earned for the period will be the sum of the award fee earned for each respective task order. Performance Monitors will grade the contractor in each Performance Category from 0 to 100 based on the Evaluation Criteria. The ratings for each category from all Performance Monitors will be averaged resulting in a numerical rating for each category. The numerical rating will be converted to a percentage using the conversion table in Annex 5. These percentages must now be adjusted for the category weightings by multiplying each percentage by the weighting for that category. The sum of these adjusted percentages will give the total award fee percentage. The product of this total award fee percentage and the award fee amount for the evaluation period results in the award fee amount, in dollars, for the evaluation period. The calculation of each element in this process is shown below.

Award Fee (AF) calculation:

Award Fee = (Total Award Fee Percentage)(Total Available Award Fee Amount)

AF = (AFPt)(AFAt)

Where

AF = Award Fee (in Dollars)

AFPt = Total Award Fee Percentage (in %)

AFAt = Total Available Award Fee Amount (in Dollars) Total Award Fee Percentage (AFPt) calculation AFPt = AFP1 + AFP2 + AFP3 + AFP4 Where:

AFP1 = Award Fee Percentage for Criteria 1 (Technical Performance)

AFP2 = Award Fee Percentage for Criteria 2 (Cost Performance)

AFP3 = Award Fee Percentage for Criteria 3 (Schedule Performance)

AFP4 = Award Fee Percentage for Criteria 4 (Program Management)

Award Fee Percentage for Criteria X (AFPx) calculation (X = 1, 2, 3 or 4) AFPx = (ARx converted to % using Annex 5 conversion table)(weighted factor)

AFP1 =

(AR1 converted to % using Annex 5 conversion table)(.40)

AFP2 =

(AR2 converted to % using Annex 5 conversion table)(.30)

AFP3 =

(AR3 converted to % using Annex 5 conversion table)(.20)

AFP4 =

(AR4 converted to % using Annex 5 conversion table)(.10)

ARx = average rating for Performance Criteria X (X = 1,2,3 or 4)

AR1 = average rating for Performance Criteria 1

AR2 = average rating for Performance Criteria 2

AR3 = average rating for Performance Criteria 3

AR4 = average rating for Performance Criteria 4

Average Rating for Criteria X (ARx) calculation (X = 1,2,3 or 4) AR1 = (R1 + R2 + … + Rx) / X (where X = the number of Performance Monitors)

R1 = First Performance Monitor Rating

R2 = Second Performance Monitor Rating

Rx = Last Performance Monitor Rating

This process and the resulting award fee amount is shown in the Recommendation Worksheet shown in Annex 7. This worksheet summarizes the individual Performance Monitor ratings, average ratings and the resulting award fee percentages for each performance category. The sum of these resulting award fee percentages is the overall award fee percentage.

If the performance criteria are tailored, or if sub factors are added to the performance criteria, this process must be modified accordingly.

This process must be performed individually for each task order being rated for a given evaluation period. The AFRB will present the results of each evaluation to the FDO.

5.0

AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant award fee plan changes must be approved by the FDO. The AFRB Chairperson approves all other changes. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria and adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement. The contractor may recommend changes to the CO no later than 60 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. If approved, the CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). The Government may make unilateral changes to the award-fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be agreed to by both parties and documented in the form of a bilateral modification.

6.0

CONTRACT TERMINATION

If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award-fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the FDO using the normal award-fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award-fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award-fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid.

7 Annexes

1. Organization

2. Evaluation Periods

3. Grade Definitions

4. Evaluation Criteria

5. Award Fee Conversion Chart

6. Performance Monitor Worksheet

7. Recommendation Summary

Worksheet

ANNEX 1

AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

Members

Award Fee Review Board Members:

(Following are other possible members:)

Plans Staff Member

DCMA representative

* These are mandatory members.

Performance Monitors

(Select your monitors based on the needs of your acquisition)

ANNEX 2

AWARD-FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

The award fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion of the evaluation periods shown below. The maximum available-award-fee amount for each period will be based on the individual amounts available for each task order. The allocation of award fee will be unique to each task order and may be equal or unequal over the evaluation periods based on the nature of the effort. (Fill in table specific to your acquisition.)

(If you use milestones, include expected milestone completion dates. Use a table similar to the one below.)

First through

Last period

100%

* The Government may unilaterally revise the distribution of the remaining award-fee dollars among subsequent periods. The contractor will be notified of such changes in writing by the CO before the relevant period is started and the award-fee plan will be modified accordingly. Subsequent to the commencement of a period, changes may only be made by mutual agreement of the parties.

** The maximum available award fee for each evaluation period will be the sum of the available award fees for each individual task order being evaluated for that period.

ANNEX 3

Grade Definitions

Unsatisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is inadequate and inconsistent. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Program cost and schedule requirements are not met. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective. Overall unsatisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee.

Satisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is adequate with few tangible benefits to the Government due to contractor’s effort or initiative. Program cost and schedule requirements are satisfied. Although there are areas of good or better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas.

Good Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is better than adequate and provides some tangible benefits to the Government in several significant areas. While the remainder of the contractor’s effort generally meets the contract requirements, areas requiring improvement are more than offset by better performance in other areas. Program cost and schedule requirements are met or exceeded. Few if any recurring problems have been noted and the contractor takes corrective action.

Excellent Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is consistently above stand and provides numerous significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government such as improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations Although some areas may require improvement, these areas are minor and are more than offset by better performance in other areas. Few if any recurring problems have been noted and the contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

Outstanding Performance: Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible benefits to the Government. The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Program cost and schedule requirements are consistently exceeded. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

(See Annex E, Samples Award-Fee Plan Criteria, for examples.)

(List the evaluation criteria for each category of performance by grade. In other words, tell what constitutes Excellent versus Satisfactory versus Unsatisfactory performance for Program Management, Cost Control, etc.)

ANNEX 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Technical Performance

Cost Performance

Schedule Performance

Program Management

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

UNSATISFACTORY

1. Reports and other deliverable data are not submitted in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements and are in formats not easily understood.

2. Discrepancies are major and require extensive time and effort to correct.

3. Shop submittals and drawings do not meet specifications.

4. Drawing deficiencies impact schedule and cost.

5. Proposals are submitted late, are sometimes unacceptable.

6. Major deficiencies for completeness and accuracy are noted.

7. Deficiencies adversely impact contractor’s ability to complete tasks resulting in project delays and increased cost.

SATISFACTORY

1. All technical or periodic reports and other deliverable data are submitted in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements and are in a format that is easily understood.

2. Data discrepancies are minor and easily corrected.

3. Shop submittals and drawings are accurate, complete and meet specifications,

4. Deficiencies are minor with minimal impact to schedule and cost.

5. Acceptable proposals are submitted timely and the change process proceeds with no adverse impacts to estimated cost and schedule.

6. Minor deficiencies for completeness and accuracy are noted.

GOOD

1. Technical reports and other deliverable data are submitted in accordance with Contract Data Requirements on time or early in a format that is easily understood.

2. Data discrepancies are very minor with no impact to cost or schedule.

3. Shop submittals and drawings are accurate, complete and meet or exceed specifications.

4. No drawing deficiencies are noted.

5. Quality proposals are submitted on time or early and the change process proceeds with no adverse impacts to cost and schedule.

6. No deficiencies for completeness or accuracy are noted.

EXCELLENT

1. Technical reports and other deliverable data are submitted in accordance with Contract Data Requirements on time with many early and in a format that is easily understood.

2. No data discrepancies are noted

3. Shop submittals and drawings are accurate, complete and meet or exceed specifications.

4. Quality proposals are submitted on time or early and the change process proceeds with no adverse impacts to cost and schedule.

5. No deficiencies for completeness or accuracy are noted.

OUTSTANDING

1. Technical reports and other deliverable data far exceed Contract Data Requirements and are delivered well ahead of schedule in a format that is complete, clear, concise, technically accurate and easily understood.

2. No data discrepancies are noted.

3. All shop submittal and drawings are accurate, complete and exceed specifications.

4. High quality proposals are submitted on time or early and the change process proceeds with no adverse impacts to cost or schedule.

5. No proposal deficiencies for completeness and accuracy are noted.

COST PERFORMANCE

UNSATISFACTORY

1. Provides some measures for controlling costs

2. Costs exceed estimates.

3. Experiences repeated resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends only partially accurate.

5. Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Financial reporting is irregular, inaccurate, incomplete, or incomprehensible.

SATISFACTORY

1. Provides measures for controlling costs

2. Costs meet estimates

3. Does not experience major resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate.

5. No Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Financial reporting is timely and accurate.

GOOD

1. Provides measures for controlling costs

2. Costs meet estimates with some program costs below estimates

3. Does not experience any resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate and thoroughly addressed.

5. No Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Financial reporting is timely, clear and accurate.

EXCELLENT

1. Provides measures for controlling costs

2. Costs meet estimates with many below estimates.

3. Does not experience any resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate, thoroughly addressed, and includes recommendations for solutions or corrective plans.

5. No Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Financial reporting is timely, complete, clear and accurate.

OUTSTANDING

1. Provides measures for controlling all costs. Reductions in direct costs to the Government are documented and noteworthy.

2. All costs are below estimates.

3. Resource management results in optimum use of funds to provided maximum benefit to the Government.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate, thoroughly addressed. Recommendations are implemented and effective.

5. No Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Financial reporting is timely, complete, clear, accurate, and proactive.

SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

UNSATISFACTORY

1. Fails to meet satisfactory standards for contractual schedule requirements

2. Fails to meet customer expectations for satisfying performance

3. Schedule variances are not identified in advance.

4. Schedule milestone tracking and projection inaccurate causing major program impacts.

5. Experiences recurring resource management problems.

6. Issues and trends poorly addressed with inadequate analysis

7. Government action is required to resolve schedule issues

8. Schedule reporting is late, incomplete, inaccurate or unclear.

SATISFACTORY

1. Meets schedule requirements XX% of the time

2. Meets customer expectations for satisfying requirements

3. Schedule variances are identified in advance and recovery plans are reported and implemented

4. Schedule milestone tracking and projections are accurate with only minor impacts occurring

5. Issues or trends are addressed and analysis is submitted

6. No Government action is required to resolve contractor schedule issues.

7. Schedule reporting is timely and accurate.

GOOD

1. Meets schedule requirements XX% of the time

2. Provides measures for controlling costs with some below estimated costs

3. Does not experience any resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate and thoroughly addressed.

5. No Government action is required to resolve contractor schedule issues.

6. Schedule reporting is timely, clear and accurate.

EXCELLENT

1. Contractor meets schedule requirements XX% of the time

2. Meets or exceeds customer expectations for satisfying performance

3. Contractor does not experience any resource management problems.

4. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate, thoroughly addressed, and includes recommendations for solutions or corrective plans.

5. No Government action required to resolve contractor cost issues.

6. Schedule reporting is timely, complete, clear and accurate.

OUTSTANDING

1. Consistently exceeds schedule requirements and customer expectations

2. Schedule management results in optimum use of time to provide maximum benefit to the Government.

3. Analysis of problems or trends is accurate, thoroughly addressed. Recommendations are implemented and effective.

4. No Government action is required to resolve contractor schedule issues.

5. Schedule reporting is timely, complete, clear, accurate, and proactive.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

UNSATISFACTORY

1. Program planning does not contain a logical flow of activities. No program status and visibility into near term actions provided.

2. No clear lines of authority or effective communication with Government.

3. Fails to perform timely problem identification.

4. Defines problems without factual supporting information and rationale.

5. Contractor solutions have a negative impact on cost and schedule.

6. Organizational structure fails to assign qualified personnel with duties, responsibilities and authority necessary to achieve project goals.

7. Lines of communication fail to facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual to meet project goals.

8. Fails to meet percentage of total subcontracting dollars established at XX% for small business and XX% for small disadvantaged business.

SATISFACTORY

1. Program planning is comprehensive and contains a logical flow of activities.

2. Program status and visibility into near term actions are provided through schedules and status of contract tasks.

3. Establishes clear lines of authority and provides effective communication with the Government.

4. Minimal programmatic or technical impacts experienced because of communication problems.

5. Implements management control systems that provide for identification of problems to the appropriate management level.

6. Clearly defines problems with factual supporting information and rationale.

7. Responsive to Government in supporting programmatic and technical issues.

8. Contractor provides timely, logical response to Government concerns.

GOOD

1. Plays a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements.

2. Makes decisions and recommendations that demonstrate sensitivity to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

3. Anticipates, assesses, and makes only necessary changes to program milestones.

4. Provides pertinent planning data to Government management.

5. Provides efficient management and control over program resources.

6. Management initiates and promotes strong two-way communication with Government counterparts and associate contractors.

7. Seeks continual interaction with Government representatives on contract status, goals, and objectives.

8. Coordinates with the Government to ensure contractor interpretation of contract tasking is correct.

9. Management identifies problems, causes and solutions that have a potential for impact on program cost, schedule or performance. Solutions minimize impacts and life cycle costs.

10. Implements an effective program to identify and resolve internal problems that adversely affect contractor's performance. Takes corrective action to minimize impacts.

11. Provides adequate staffing levels and selection of personnel. Constantly evaluates staff needs to support meetings and takes action to ensure appropriate attendance.

12. Responsive to Government technical and business management requests, such as Requests for Proposals, cost/schedule reporting, and forecast information.

13. Responds effectively to directed program changes accomplishing procurement actions on a timely basis in a cost effective manner.

14. Responses to special studies authorizations are submitted timely, within budget, fulfilling the specific requirements of the special study task.

15. Makes maximum use of informal reporting to provide timely data.

16. Identifies open items and risk resolution alternatives and defines preferred solutions. Provides comprehensive status of open items and risk items at management level and provides results to the Government. Takes the initiative in coordinating scheduled meetings and reviews and responds quickly to action items and questions.

EXCELLENT

1. Plays a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements.

2. Anticipates new requirements and incorporates them well before critical need dates, thereby avoiding unnecessary work.

3. Accommodates changing schedules and program activities with minimal impact to the overall program.

4. Makes decisions and recommendations that demonstrate a high level of sensitivity to identifying cost-avoidance opportunities that could reduce overall program costs.

5. Demonstrates positive management control over program resources; minimizes conflicts with allocation of corporate resources to other programs.

6. Design, development, and production activities provide for increased performance, reliability, maintainability, and supportability without additional cost or risk.

7. Demonstrates strong leadership through effective internal communications.

8. Ensures Government is informed of all upcoming decisions that will potentially impact schedule, technical performance, and/or cost. Early coordination with Government management to keep the Government informed of problem developments, schedule changes, and required decision points.

9. Demonstrates initiative and foresight in planning for potential problems, analyzing program impact, resolving program problems and instituting prompt corrective actions.

10. Positive management control over problem areas results in early problem resolution and minimal program impacts. Proposed solutions require little revision or Government interventions.

11. Provides visibility to Government of resource concerns and solutions.

12. Maintains a complete and comprehensive discrepancy tracking system and provides easy access to the Government.

OUTSTANDING

1. Demonstrates the highest degree of foresight into program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment of tasks, advance identification of problems and problem resolution.

2. Critical milestones are planned as early as possible to provide for maximum program contingency time. Many milestones are met early, to the benefit of the program, with no adverse effect on performance, schedule, cost, or risk.

3. Demonstrates concern for understanding of contract tasking and cost growth avoidance, and is responsive to the changing nature and levels of work.

4. Develops an effective contractor team that reflects strong, open lines of communication. Program improvements result from high quality communication with no program impacts attributed to poor communication.

5. Maintains complete and effective coordination with Government counterparts.

6. Demonstrates initiative in planning, analyzing, and assessing the total impact of potential problems.

7. Identifies high-risk/problem areas early, plans alternative/parallel courses of action, and keeps the Government well informed of developments.

8. Team consists of highly qualified and motivated personnel, with an emphasis on productivity. Minimizes changes of key individuals.

9. Demonstrates initiative in support of the Government by taking a leadership role in identifying issues and providing significant, timely recommendations and actions for program improvements.

ANNEX 5

Award Fee Conversion Chart (Performance Score Award Fee Percentage)

Performance

% Of Available Performance

% Of Available

Score

Award Fee

Score

Award Fee

<59

NOTE: Round all Performance Scores up to the next highest whole number.

ANNEX 6

PERFORMANCE MONITOR WORKSHEET

Evaluation Period: _________________________

Contract Number: _______________________________

Contractor: _______________________________

Engineering Assignment: _________________________

1. Technical Performance

2. Cost Performance

3. Schedule Performance

4. Program Management

NAME: _________________________________________________________

POSITION: ______________________________________________________

ANNEX 7

RECOMMENDATION WORKSHEET

Evaluation Period: _____________________________ Contract Number: ________________________________________

Contra Contractor: __________________________________ Engineering Assignment: __________________________________

Factor Factor Award Fee %

1.Technical Performance

X .40

2. Cost Performance

X .30

3. Schedule Performance

X .20

4. Program Management

X .10

(Percentage of Award Fee Amount) X (Award Fee Pool For Evaluation Period) = Award Fee Amount

(___________________________) X (______________________________) = $________________________

EAFPVD 30 May 2008 at 1130 ESP Award Fee Plan Version Dated 30 May 2008

- 2 -

- 3 -