AFP.pdf

Award Fee Plan for the

Guidance & Navigation System Repair (GNSR) Contract

FY15-FY20

Contract Number FA8117-15-D-XXXX

Coordination: Date:

422 SCMS/CC ______________________________________ __________________

AFSC/PZAB ______________________________________ __________________

AFSC/PZA _____________________________________ __________________

Approved:

(Signed Name)

(Printed Name)

FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL

448 SCMW/DV

Date: ________________________________

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Organization 4

3.0 Responsibilities 4

4.0 Award Fee Process 5

5.0 Award Fee Plan Change Procedure 6

6.0 Contract Termination 6

Attachment Title Page

1 Award Fee Organization 7

2 Award Fee Periods and Allocations 8

3 Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship 9 and Weights

4 Evaluation Standards and Criteria 10

5 Strengths and Weaknesses 17

6 Sample Computation 18

Award Fee Plan

1.0 Introduction

This award fee plan is for the Guidance & Navigation System Repair (GNSR) Contract evaluation of the contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). This plan implements clause 252-216-7005, Award Fee, of this contract.

The specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned are described herein. All FDO decisions regarding the award fee, including but not limited to:

the amount of the award fee, if any; the methodology used to calculate the award fee; the calculation of the award fee; the contractor's entitlement to the award fee; and the nature and success of the contractor's performance, shall not be subject to the "Disputes" clause nor reviewed by any Board of Contract Appeal, court, or other judicial entity. 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 affecting the current evaluation period must be by bilateral agreement.

The contractor manages contract costs in a manner which controls costs and contributes to lowering total support cost to the Government (i.e. labor, material, overall contract management, etc.) and adequately justifies costs in excess of contract estimated costs. Estimates at Completion (EAC) must be accurate and will be taken into consideration as indicators of potential cost performance. The contractor leverages a combination of process efficiency improvements and addition of non-GNSR business to offset overhead cost, necessary to perform to or underrun estimated prices for individual delivery orders. The contractor develops and maintains a business development plan, addressing internal and external potential non-GNSR workloads. The contractor maintains an accurate projection of out-year cost performance, defined as three years for evaluation purposes, based on Government furnished workload estimates, projected rates, process improvements, non-GNSR business, etc. The contractor presents business plan and out year cost projections at Program Management Reviews (PMRs).

This award fee plan is subject to DFARS 252-216-7004 which reads:

AWARD FEE REDUCTION OR DENIAL FOR JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF

GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL (SEP 2011)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause— “Covered incident”–

(i) Means any incident in which the Contractor, through a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding that results in a disposition listed in paragraph (a) (ii) of this definition –

(A) Has been determined in the performance of this contract to have caused serious bodily injury or death of any civilian or military personnel of the Government through gross negligence or with reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel; or

(B) Has been determined to be liable for actions of a subcontractor of the Contractor that caused serious bodily injury or death of any civilian or military personnel of the Government through gross negligence or with reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel.

(ii) Includes those incidents that have resulted in any of the following dispositions:

(A) In a criminal proceeding, a conviction.

(B) In a civil proceeding, a finding of fault or liability that results in the payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damage of $5,000 or more.

(C) In an administrative proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that results in –

(1) The payment of a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more; or

(2) The payment of a reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000.

(D) In a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, a disposition of the matter by consent or compromise with an acknowledgment of fault by the Contractor if the proceeding could have led to any of the outcomes specified in subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A), (a) (ii)(B), or (a)(ii)(C).

(E) In a DoD investigation of the Contractor or its subcontractors at any tier not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, a final determination by the Secretary of Defense of Contractor or subcontractor fault (see DFARS 216.405-2-70).

“Serious bodily injury” means a grievous physical harm that results in a permanent disability.

(b) If, in the performance of this contract, the Contractor’s or its subcontractor’s actions cause serious bodily injury or death of civilian or military Government personnel, the Government may reduce or deny the award fee for the relevant award fee period in which the covered incident occurred, including the recovery of all or part of any award fees paid for any previous period during which the covered incident occurred.

2.0 Organization

The award fee organization consists of: the FDO and Award Fee Review Board (AFRB). The AFRB consist of:

The AFRB Chairperson, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), the Program Manager (PM), Contract Performance Monitors (CPM), other functional area participants, and advisory members. This award fee organization is listed in Attachment 1(a).

3.0 Responsibilities

a. Fee Determining Official (FDO) The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes.

The FDO reviews the recommendations of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award fee amount for the contract during each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) AFRB members review performance monitors’ evaluation of the contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO. The AFRBs will also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) The PCO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel.

d. Contract Performance Monitors (CPM) CPMs maintain written records of the contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained.

Prepare end-of-period evaluation reports and interim reports, as directed by the AFRB.

e. Program Manager (PM) The PM is the individual responsible for the day-to-day management of this contract’s workload. The PM is also responsible for: 1) receipt, processing, and distribution of evaluation reports; 2) preparation and presentation of a briefing to the AFRB which highlights results of the evaluation reports; 3) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones. The PM is also responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB and the FDO and accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

4.0 Award Fee Process

a. Available Award Fee Amount Payment of Award fee dollars shall be made on an annual basis per the FDO determination. The evaluation areas, and the weights assigned to these areas is shown in Attachment 3.

b. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria are located in Attachment 4. If the PCO does not give specific notice in writing to the contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the following award fee evaluation period. Any changes to area weight or the evaluation criteria will be made by revising Attachment 3 and/or 4 and notifying the contractor.

c. Interim Evaluations The PM will prepare an interim evaluation for the contractor that addresses contractor’s weaknesses, strengths, and Government concerns to allow the contractor the ability to remedy any weaknesses and reinforce strengths. Interim evaluations will be delivered to the contractor on or around 15 Apr of each evaluation period.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations The PM will notify evaluators, 15 calendar days before the end of each evaluation period, who will evaluate and describe the contractor’s strengths and weaknesses using the criteria in this plan and indicate the impact using the indicator codes reflected in Attachment 5.

Evaluators submit their evaluation reports to the PM not later than 15 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period with the exception of Cost Performance, which will be up to 30 calendar days.

The PM consolidates the information in these evaluation reports and then prepares and presents a briefing to the AFRB. The AFRB provides its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. Then, the PM briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the PM may also recommend any significant award fee plan changes to the FDO for approval. The FDO determines the overall rating(s) and earned award fee amount from the award fee pool. This determination will normally be completed within 45 calendar days after the end of each evaluation period. The FDO Strengths and Weaknesses Letter informs the contractor of the earned award fee percentage and other relevant issues.

e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment The contractor may provide a written self-evaluation to the PCO within 15 working days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance 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 will be limited to 15 pages. The PCO may also request a verbal self-assessment briefing from the contractor. The self-assessment briefing will be limited to one hour.

5.0 Award Fee Plan Change Procedure

All significant changes to this Award Fee Plan must be coordinated through the PCO, who will forward to the FDO for approval. After approval, the PCO will notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). Unilateral changes may be made 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 by mutual agreement of both parties.

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 earned for that period shall be determined by the FDO using the normal award fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, no further orders will be placed and no award fee can be earned or paid.

Attachment 1

Award Fee Organization

Fee Determining Official

448 SCMW DV

AFRB Voting Members 848 SCMG (Chairperson) CC/DD Chief, Contract Branch AFSC/PZAB

PCO AFSC/PZABA

DCMA, Program Integrator DCMA (Heath, OH)

AFRB Advisors (Non-Voting) Staff Judge Advocate 72 ABW/JAQ Chief, Contract Division AFSC/PZA

AFRB Non-Voting Member AFRB Recorder 422 SCMS/GUMA

Contract Performance Monitors

Cost Performance Monitors are assigned for all workloads having award fee bearing CLINs on this contract.

Area of Evaluation Contract Performance Monitors

I Repair Program Manager (PM), Production Management Specialist (PMS), Engineer (EN), Equipment Specialist (ES), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

II Program Management PCO, PM, PMS, DCMA

III Cost Performance PCO, PM, PMS, DCMA

Attachment 2

Award Fee Evaluation Periods and Allocations

The award fee evaluation periods will consist of a single twelve (12) month period of contract performance (See table below). Each award fee pool will consist of the contract specified award fee amount on the fee bearing Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) produced during the award fee period. Award Fee pool will be reduced by the value of residual government furnished/reclaimed material (GFM) usage.

Computation Method: Award Fee Pool – GFM = Adjusted Award Fee Pool

The contractor may bill for award fee payment on an annual basis after the modification(s) obligating the amount of the award fee earned has been issued. The following sections describe award fee pools for orders placed by quantity, lot and over and above:

Orders placed by quantity: The total award fee available to be earned is dependent on the number of end items delivered during the award fee evaluation period.

Order placed as Lots to include Over and Above and Item Unique Identification (IUID): The total award fee available to be earned associated with the above shall be based on the actual work completed during the award fee evaluation period.

Award Fee Evaluation Periods

Evaluation Period Basic

FY15-FY16

Period 1

Option I

FY16-FY17

Period 2

Option II

FY17-FY18

Period 3

Option III

FY18-FY19

Period 4

Option IV

FY19-FY20

Period 5

Start 7 Aug 15 7 Aug 16 7 Aug 17 7 Aug 18 7 Aug 19 Interim Assessment 15 Apr 16 15 Apr 17 15 Apr 18 15 Apr 19 15 Apr 20

End 7 Aug 16 7 Aug 17 7 Aug 18 7 Aug 19 7 Aug 20

Attachment 3

Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship and Weights

The Government will evaluate contractor performance with respect to the criteria identified in Attachment 4, Evaluation Standards and Criteria. Area weights are assigned based on the relative importance of the area to the workload. Performance Evaluation Areas and their respective weights are listed in the table below.

Performance Evaluation Area Weights

Area Performance Evaluation Area Weight I Repair Performance 50% II Program Management 20% III Cost Performance 30%

Performance monitors will document their findings regularly and submit them to the PM in the format and at the frequency prescribed by the AFRB.

The following chart depicts the relationship between the overall performance ratings, the points spread of the ratings, and the percentage of the award fee payable.

Overall Points vs Ratings

Overall Rating Total Points Percent of Maximum Excellent 91-100 91-100% Very Good 76-90 76-90% Good 51-75 51-75% Satisfactory 1-50 No greater than 50% Unsatisfactory 0 0%

During the evaluation, the AFRB will award points for the contractor’s performance as measured against the criteria established in this plan. The points awarded in each evaluation area will be multiplied by the respective area weight. The weighted area points will then be summed to provide the total weighted points earned. The summation shall represent the AFRB recommended percentage of award fee to be paid. If the FDO determination is for a percentage other than that recommended by the AFRB, the rationale must be explained and documented in the contract file.

Award fee determinations and the methodology for determining the award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

Attachment 4

General Evaluation Standards and Criteria

This Attachment consists of "General Standards of Performance" and "Specific Evaluation Criteria and Standards". The General Standards of Performance will be used in conjunction with the Specific Evaluation Criteria and Standards to determine to what extent the contractor has earned an award fee.

Note: The numbers in parentheses represent the point range that relates to the rating.

General Standards of Performance

1. Excellent Performance (91-100): In accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv), contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

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. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

2. Very Good Performance (76-90): In accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv), contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is consistently above standard and provides numerous significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government (e.g. 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 deficiencies have been noted, and contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

3. Good (51-75): In accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv), contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Contractor’s performance of most contract task meets standard with some tangible benefits to the Government due to contractor’s effort or initiative.

4. Satisfactory Performance (No greater than 50): In accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv), contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is adequate. Although there are areas of good or better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas.

5. Unsatisfactory Performance (0): In accordance with FAR 16.401(e)(3)(iv), contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is inadequate and/or inconsistent. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.

Overall unsatisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee.

Specific Evaluation Standards and Criteria

AREA I - REPAIR PERFORMANCE

All subareas weighted equally.

A. Schedule Performance

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor maintains an effective repair program. Minimal Government involvement is required for the contractor to accomplish the repair workload. The contractor is responsive to changing Government requirements. Contractor has met 100% of the required delivery schedule on a minimum of 95% of the ordered CLINs. Performance will be evaluated as a cumulative effect for the twelve-month award fee performance period, however, the intent is for monthly schedules to be executed but small fluctuations are acceptable. The contractor is proactive in completing all Line Replaceable Unit/Shop Replaceable Unit (LRU/SRU) repairs to the extent that delivery orders are always production complete within one year from the date of last induction.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor maintains an effective repair program. Some Government involvement may be required for the contractor to accomplish the repair workload. The contractor is responsive to changing Government requirements. Contractor has met 100% of the required delivery schedule on at least 90% of the ordered CLINs. Performance will be evaluated as a cumulative effect for the twelve-month award fee performance period, however, the intent is for monthly schedules to be executed but small fluctuations are acceptable. The contractor is proactive in completing all LRU/SRU repairs to the extent that delivery orders are always production complete within one year from the date of last induction.

3. Good (51-75): The contractor maintains an acceptable repair program. Government involvement may be significant in order for the contractor to accomplish the repair workload. The contractor is responsive to changing Government requirements. Contractor has met 100% of the required delivery schedule on at least 85% of the ordered CLINs. Performance will be evaluated as a cumulative effect for the twelve-month award fee performance period, however, the intent is for monthly schedules to be executed but small fluctuations are acceptable. The contractor is proactive in completing all LRU/SRU repairs to the extent that delivery orders are always production complete within one year from the date of last induction.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The contractor met 100% of the required delivery schedule on at least 80% of the ordered CLINs. Performance will be evaluated as a cumulative effect for the twelve-month award fee performance period, however, the intent is for monthly schedules to be executed but small fluctuations are acceptable. The contractor is proactive in completing all LRU/SRU repairs to the extent that delivery orders are always production complete within 18 months from the date of last induction.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

B. Field Performance

Field performance is demonstrated in the reliability and supportability of repaired systems and equipment.

Because of the large number of systems and equipment involved in the aircraft workloads, assessment of field performance is inherently subjective based on the Major Command’s perspective of the quality of equipment delivered.

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor’s repair program is highly effective and proactive. The field communication’s process is highly responsive and the overall field performance (PQDRs, reliability, MICAPs) is improving.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor’s repair program is highly effective. The field communications process is responsive and the overall field performance (PQDRs, reliability, MICAPs) is improving.

3. Good (51-75): The contractor’s repair program is effective. The field communications process is generally responsive and the overall field performance is consistent with historical field performance.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The contractor’s repair program has no negative impact to reliability and supportability of repaired systems and equipment.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

C. Procedures, Skills and Parts Support

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor maintains a parts system that supports contract delivery requirements.

The contractor is proactive in the resolution of all parts problems and works actively to prevent parts unavailability. The contractor effectively works to obtain new parts which could include manufacturer qualification and/or reverse engineering. The contractor tracks Contractor Furnished Material (CFM) and is proactive in achieving best values for the Government. The contractor continues to update and maintain Aerospace Vehicle Equipment (AVE) and Depot Support Equipment (DSE) maintenance and repair procedures for all repair areas and processes through the formal configuration management process. The contractor innovatively identifies and recommends viable solutions and work-arounds for all repair areas having deficient or inadequate procedures and maintains an effective process for updating technical data mitigating production impact. The contractor administers a formal, documented training program.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor maintains a parts system supporting contract delivery requirements. The contractor’s parts system functions in such a manner that very little production is impacted due to non-availability of component parts. The contractor identifies parts problems and successfully resolves unavailability issues. The contractor tracks CFM. The contractor maintains and follows maintenance and repair procedures for the vast majority of AVE and DSE repair areas and processes. The contractor identifies and recommends viable solutions or work-arounds for a few minor deficient or inadequate procedures experienced. The contractor administers a formal, documented training program.

3. Good (51-75): The contractor maintains a parts system. The contractor is able work parts shortages with minimal production impacts due to lack of CFM. The contractor maintains and follows maintenance and repair procedures for all critical AVE and DSE repair areas and processes. The contractor identifies and recommends viable solutions or work-arounds for all technical data inadequacies with minimal Government help. The contractor administers a formal, documented training program.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The contractor maintains a parts system. The contractor is able work parts shortages with minimal production impacts due to lack of CFM. The contractor maintains and follows maintenance and repair procedures for all critical AVE and DSE repair areas and processes. The contractor is able to identify and recommend viable solutions or work-arounds for all technical data inadequacies with considerable Government help. The contractor administers a formal, documented training program.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

AREA II - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

All subareas weighted equally.

A. Management Systems

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor continues to successfully use all management/data programs/systems identified in contract data requirements lists (CDRLs) which meet all contractual requirements, are produced timely, and provide accurate information upon the first submittal. Contractor maintains highly effective, immediate communications ensuring program issues and corrective actions are transparent to the Government.

The contractor maintains a proactive audit and surveillance program to assure products are in conformance with technical requirements and business processes operate as designed. Inventory records are accurate, and the property control system meets all contractual requirements.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor continues to use all management/data programs/systems identified in CDRLs which meet all contractual requirements, are produced timely, and provide accurate information with minimal discrepancies that do not require resubmittal. Contractor maintains effective communications ensuring program issues and corrective actions are apparent to the Government in a timely manner. The contractor maintains an active audit and surveillance program to assure products are in conformance with technical requirements and business processes operate as designed. Inventory records are accurate, and the property control system meets all contractual requirements.

3. Good (51-75): The contractor utilizes many of the management/data programs/systems identified in CDRLs which meet all contractual requirements, are produced timely, and provide generally accurate information with discrepancies that require rework/resubmittal. Contractor maintains communications addressing program issues and corrective actions to the Government in a timely manner. The contractor maintains an audit and surveillance program to assure products are in conformance with technical requirements and business processes operate as designed. Inventory records are generally accurate, and the property control system meets all contractual requirements, with few exceptions. Contractor maintains effective communications with the Government so program accomplishments, issues, corrective actions, and schedules are apparent to the Government.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The contractor utilizes many of the management/data programs/systems identified in CDRLs which meet all contractual requirements, are produced timely, and provide generally accurate information with few discrepancies requiring rework/resubmittal. Contractor maintains communications addressing program issues and corrective actions to the Government. The contractor maintains an audit and surveillance program to assure products are in conformance with technical requirements and business processes operate as designed. Inventory records are generally accurate, and the property control system meets all contractual requirements, with few exceptions.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

B. Contract Change Management

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor is proactive and meets all customer requests and requirements.

Proposals are complete, of high quality and accuracy, and meet requested deadlines. Responsive actions and attitudes exist on all interfaces with the customer. Contractor is helpful in addressing proposal issues or questions.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor responds to customer requests in a timely manner and meets deadlines.

Proposals are complete and submitted timely with minor clarifications required. Contractor is helpful in addressing proposal issues or questions.

3. Good (51-75): Contractor is responsive to customer requests. Proposals are complete with only minor clarifications required, and the contractor misses requested deadlines by no more than 5 business days.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): Contractor is mostly responsive to customer requests. Proposals are complete, but the contractor misses requested deadlines by no more than 15 business days.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

C. Subcontract Management

1. Excellent (91-100): Subcontract management processes ensure timely and accurate subcontract cost and schedule visibility. Problems are identified early and resolved quickly avoiding impact to LRU production schedule and avoiding impact to SRU order closeout.

2. Very Good (76-90): Subcontract management processes ensure timely and accurate subcontract cost and schedule visibility. Problems are identified and resolved with no impact to LRU production schedule and no impact to SRU order closeout.

3. Good (51-75): Subcontract management processes ensure timely and accurate subcontract cost and schedule visibility with few exceptions. Problems are identified and resolved with no impact to LRU production schedule and minimal impact to SRU order closeout.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): Subcontract management processes ensure timely and accurate subcontract cost and schedule visibility with few exceptions. Problems are identified and resolved with minimal impact to program schedules and minimal impact to SRU order closeout.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

D. Risk Identification and Mitigation

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor proactively and formally identifies any areas of technical or management risk, develops a mitigation plan, and then resolves identified risk in accordance with the Work Specification avoiding impact to program schedule or objectives. The contractor demonstrates an in-depth understanding of potential risks and implements risk avoidance processes. The contractor also demonstrates exceptional response to technical, cost or schedule problems when they occur by completely addressing all aspects of the issue with viable solutions.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor formally identifies any areas of technical or management risk, develops a mitigation plan, and then resolves identified risk in accordance with the Work Specification with no impact to program schedule or objectives. The contractor demonstrates an in-depth understanding of potential risks and takes appropriate steps to minimize impact upon realization of risk. The contractor demonstrates good response to technical, cost and schedule risks when they occur by addressing most aspects of the issue with viable solutions.

3. Good (51-75): The contractor identifies any areas of technical or management risk, develops a mitigation plan, and then resolves the identified risk, in accordance with the Work Specification with no more than one minimal short term impact to program schedule or objectives. The contractor demonstrates an understanding of potential risks and takes appropriate steps to minimize impact upon realization of risk. Government intervention may be needed to help resolve problems.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The contractor identifies any areas of technical or management risk, develops a mitigation plan, and then resolves the identified risk, in accordance with the Work Specification with no more than three minimal short term impacts to program schedule or objectives. The contractor demonstrates an understanding of potential risks and takes appropriate steps to minimize impact upon realization of risk.

Government intervention is needed to help resolve problems.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

E. Management Integration

1. Excellent (91-100): The integration of programs/systems/functions provides an effective and efficient repair system consistently applied across all ordered CLINs. The contractor consistently takes advantage of existing information from the technical community (program offices, contractors, DLA, DCMA, etc.) to accomplish the repair of the guidance/navigation units and DSE hardware. The contractor supports the guidance/navigation and DSE communities by providing repair process data when required/requested. The contractor identifies and resolves common issues/problems with other contractors and the Government with no Government intervention.

Open lines of communication exist between all contractor functional and repair areas, DCMA and the Air Force.

2. Very Good (76-90): The integration of programs/systems/functions provides an effective repair system applied across all ordered CLINs. The contractor frequently takes advantage of existing information from the technical community (program offices, contractors, DLA, DCMA, etc.) to accomplish the repair of the guidance/navigation and DSE hardware. The contractor supports the guidance/navigation and DSE community by providing repair process data when required/requested. The contractor identifies and resolves common issues/problems with other contractors and the Government, and minimal, if any, Government intervention is needed. Open lines of communication exist between all contractor functional and repair areas, DCMA and the Air Force.

3. Good (51-75): The integration of programs/systems/functions provides an effective repair system applied across all ordered CLINs. The contractor works with the guidance/navigation and DSE community when necessary to accomplish repair activities. The contractor works with other contractors and the Government to resolve common issues/problems. Some Government intervention is needed. Open lines of communication exist.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): The integration of programs/systems/functions provides an effective repair system. The contractor works with the guidance/navigation and DSE community when necessary to accomplish repair activities. The contractor works with other contractors and the Government to resolve common issues/problems. Some Government intervention is needed. Open lines of communication exist.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

AREA III - COST PERFORMANCE

All subareas weighted equally.

1. Excellent (91-100): The contractor takes initiative to forecast and identify potential cost/schedule/funding issues in order to prevent cost growth. The contractor implements a formal cost reduction program and together, with its subcontractors, aggressively works to reduce repair costs at the CLIN level. The contractor requires little, if any, direction from the Government to control cost growth. EACs are consistently current and accurate. Monthly performance report analysis provides a thorough understanding of financial/schedule performance and variances are fully explained. Funds data in the monthly Performance and Cost Report (PCR) are quickly updated after contract changes and funding projections/requirements are accurate and received ahead of schedule. Evaluation period’s financial performance is under or at estimated price. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

2. Very Good (76-90): The contractor immediately reports costs/schedule/funding impacts, corrective actions, and any associated re-planning; contractor takes initiative in cost reduction; EACs are updated as required by performance or budget changes; monthly PCR analysis provides sufficient visibility to identify and assess key issues. Contractor’s gathering of subcontractor cost/schedule data is timely and accurate. Funding projections/requirements are accurate and received ahead of schedule. Evaluation period’s financial performance is under or at estimated price. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

3. Good (51-75): When cost/schedule funding problems are discovered, timely corrective actions are implemented and variances are recovered without serious impact to technical or schedule goals. The contractor is able to work cost reduction initiatives when requested; EACs are accurate; monthly PCR provides sufficient visibility to identify key issues. All requirements for additional funding are thoroughly documented and justified. Evaluation period’s financial performance is at estimate. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

4. Satisfactory (No greater than 50): When cost/schedule funding problems are discovered, timely corrective actions are implemented and variances are recovered with minimal impact to technical or schedule goals. The contractor is able to work cost reduction initiatives when requested; EACs are generally accurate; monthly PCR provides visibility to identify issues. All requirements for additional funding are thoroughly documented and justified. Evaluation period’s financial performance is near estimate. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

5. Unsatisfactory (0): Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

Attachment 5

Strengths and Weaknesses Indication Chart

(Legend utilized on AFRB/FDO Charts to depict perceived level of Strength or Weakness)

Strengths:

+ Minor: Contributed to mission success through attention to detail, ownership, or pride in product.

++ Moderate or Potentially Moderate Impact: Positively contributed to an activity and showed an understanding of how the activity supports the successful execution of a program.

+++ Major Impact: Significantly contributed to the execution of a program and showed a high degree of understanding about the program.

Weaknesses:

- Minor: Instances that should not have happened, resulting from inattention to detail, inadequate coordination, etc.

- - Moderate or Potentially Moderate Impact: Cause for significant concern. If not corrected, may lead to significant, but workable, program problems.

- - - Major Impact: Reflects lack of understanding of the program, objectives, and a critical lack of communications. If not corrected, there is a serious threat to successful program accomplishment.

Attachment 6

Sample Computations

Area Sub-area Evaluation Area Points Earned

Area Weight

Weighted Points

I Repair Performance a Schedule Performance 100 b Field Performance 100 c Proc., Skills, Parts 95 Average Score 98.33 50% 49.17

II Program Management a Management Systems 95 b Contract Change Mgmt. 100 c Subcontract Mgmt. 100 d Risk ID & Mitigation 100 e Management Integration 90 Average Score 97.00 20% 19.40

III Cost Performance 95.80 30% 28.7

Total Points Earned 97.27

Formulas:

Points Earned * Area Weight = Weighted Points Sum of Weighted Points = Total Points Earned as Recommended by AFRB

Computation Method:

FDO Percentage * Total Available Award Fee Pools = Amount to be Paid

The FDO Strengths and Weaknesses Letter informs the contractor of the FDO determined earned award fee percentage and other relevant issues.

Each task order has its own award fee pool, and modifications will be issued for each order to allow for payment of fee.

Assuming the FDO determines to accept the AFRB’s recommendation, an FDO letter to the contractor advising of strong and weak areas of performance will be issued and task order modifications allowing for payment of fee will be made.

*If the FDO determination is for a percentage other than that recommended by the AFRB, the rationale must be explained and documented in the contract file.

AREA III - COST PERFORMANCE