Attach_4_Award_Fee_Plan.pdf

AWARD FEE PLAN

FOR

GROUND SUBSYSTEMS SUPPORT CONTRACT (GSSC2.0)

DD MM 2019

Revision 1

Approved:

Shaun Q. Morris, Maj Gen, USAF

AFPEO/SS

Fee Determining Official

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 ORGANIZATION

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

4.0 AWARD FEE PROCESSES

5.0 AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

6.0 PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS AWARD FEE PERIODS

7.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

8.0 Annexes

1. Award Fee Organization

2. Award Fee Evaluation Periods

3. Award Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

4. Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

a. ANNEX 1

b. ANNEX 2

c. ANNEX 3

d. ANNEX 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This award fee plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor’s performance on the Ground Subsystems Support Contract (GSSC) 2.0 and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government; however, the determination is subject to the “Disputes Clause” of the contract.

The award fee earned will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based upon review of the contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of a new 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 are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

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 and members, the contracting officer, and a recorder), other functional area participants, advisor members, and the performance monitors. The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official. The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes thereto. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review the performance monitors’ evaluation of the contractor’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and provide an earned award fee recommendation to the FDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Chairman Award Fee Review Board. AFRB Chairman is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members.

(1) Schedule all meetings of the AFRB and notify its members of the meetings.

(2) Conduct the briefing to the FDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB.

d. AFRB Recorder. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB and the FDO, including:

(1) Receive, process, and distribute evaluation reports from all required sources;

(2) Schedule and assist with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and

(3) Accomplish other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

e. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. The PCO is the only individual authorized to monetarily obligate the Government.

f. Performance Monitors. Performance monitors maintain written records of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. Performance monitors are prohibited from being AFRB members but may serve as advisors to the board.

4.0 AWARD FEE PROCESSES

a. Available Award Fee Amount. The available award fee for each evaluation period is shown in Annex 2. The award fee earned will be paid based on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

b. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria are located in Annex 4. Changes to the evaluation criteria will be made in accordance with paragraph 5, Award Fee Plan Change Procedure. Any changes to area weight or the evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and/or 4.

c. Interim Evaluation Process. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor not less than 10 calendar days before the Quarterly PMR/Task Log Review. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not more than 5 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB evaluates the interim results and the Government notifies the contractor of the strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period during the Quarterly PMR/Task Log Review. The PCO may issue letters at any time deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor not less than 14 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period.

Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not later than 14 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. The AFRB chairperson briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the award fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall rating and earned award fee amount for the evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the earned rating/award fee amount which will be forwarded to the contractor by the contracting officer. The PCO issues a contract modification authorizing the payment of the award fee earned not later than 14 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made.

f. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. When the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the PCO within 10 calendar 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 15 pages including the title page. The contractor, if they desire, may brief the AFRB; briefing may not exceed 30 minutes, not including questions.

5.0 AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes are approved by the FDO. The PCO, in coordination with the AFRB Chairperson, approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include: changing evaluation criteria; adjusting weights (detailed in Annex 3) to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement; and revising the distribution of the award fee dollars. The contractor may recommend changes to the PCO no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the PCO shall notify the contractor in writing of any approved change(s). Unilateral changes may be made to the award fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer no later than 10 business days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

6.0 PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS AWARD FEE

PERIODS

If, during the current award fee period, performance or cost deficiencies from a prior award fee period are discovered that show degradation which should have been detected in a prior award fee period, the government reserves the right to unilaterally decrease the size of the award fee pool for the current award fee period by an amount determined appropriate by the FDO.

7.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

a. Termination for Convenience: In the event that the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the amount of award fee to which the contractor is entitled shall be determined as follows:

(1) Award fee earned or earnable by the contractor for award fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination.

(2) Award fee deemed earned and to be paid for performance during the award fee period in which the termination becomes effective will be determined by the FDO in accordance with the approved award fee criteria and will not be subject to negotiation as part of the equitable adjustment in accordance with the termination clause of the contract. For purposes of fee determination, contractor performance evaluation will end as of the date of termination.

(3) The remaining award fee dollars for all periods subsequent to the period in which the termination becomes effective will not be considered earned or earnable and, therefore, will not be paid.

b. Termination for Default: If the Government terminates this contract for default (i.e., contractor’s performance is less than satisfactory), the contractor shall not earn any fee for the award fee period in which the default occurred. Consequently, no additional award fee shall be paid during the termination settlement of the contract. Award fee earned by the contractor for award fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination.

8.0 Annexes

1. Award Fee Organization

2. Award Fee Evaluation Periods: Occurs every six months starting DD MMM 2020 through DD MMM 2030

3. Award Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

4. Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

a. ANNEX 1 Award Fee Organization

Members

Fee Determining Official:

AF Program Executive Office/Strategic Systems

AFPEO/SS

Award Fee Review Board Chairperson:

System Program Manager (SPM) or Deputy

AFNWC/NI

Award Fee Review Board Members:

Minuteman III Division Chief or Deputy Minuteman III Division Chief Engineer Joint Mission Division Chief or Deputy Joint Mission Division Chief Engineer Program Control Chief or Deputy Launch Control Center Program Branch Chief Launch Facility Program Branch Chief Ground Support Equipment Program Branch Chief ALCS Branch Chief WNC3 Branch Chief Contracting Division Chief or Deputy

AFNWC/NIA

AFNWC/NIE

AFNWC/NIB

AFNWC/NIB

AFNWC/NIP

AFNWC/NIAG

AFNWC/NIAH

AFNWC/NIAI

AFNWC/NIBA

AFNWC/NIBN

AFNWC/PZB

Advisors Staff Judge Advocate (or designee) 75 ABW/JAQ

Performance Monitors

Ground Subsystem Contract Program Manager AFNWC/NIAG Launch Control Center Lead Engineers Launch Control Center IPT Leads Launch Facility IPT Leads Launch Facility Lead Engineers Ground Support Equipment Lead Engineers Ground Support Equipment IPT Leads Joint Mission Division Lead Engineers Joint Mission Division IPT Leads Programmed Depot Maintenance IPT Lead Technology Office

AFNWC/NIAB

AFNWC/NIAG

AFNWC/NIAH

AFNWC/NIAH

AFNWC/NIAI

AFNWC/NIBI

AFNWC/NIBN

AFNWC/NIB

AFNWC/NIL

AFNWC/NIT

b. ANNEX 2 Award Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

The award fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods shown below. The dollars shown corresponding to each period is the maximum available award fee amount that can be earned during that particular period.

Evaluation Period From To Award-Fee Pool*

1 DD MMM 2020 DD MMM 2020

2 DD MMM 2020 DD MMM 2021

3 DD MMM 2021 DD MMM 2021

4 DD MMM 2021 DD MMM 2022

5 DD MMM 2022 DD MMM 2022

6 DD MMM 2022 DD MMM 2023

7 DD MMM 2023 DD MMM 2023

8 DD MMM 2023 DD MMM 2024

9 DD MMM 2024 DD MMM 2024

10 DD MMM 2024 DD MMM 2025

11 DD MMM 2025 DD MMM 2025

12 DD MMM 2025 DD MMM 2026

13 DD MMM 2026 DD MMM 2026

14 DD MMM 2026 DD MMM 2027

15 DD MMM 2027 DD MMM 2027

16 DD MMM 2027 DD MMM 2028

17 DD MMM 2028 DD MMM 2028

18 DD MMM 2028 DD MMM 2029

19 DD MMM 2029 DD MMM 2029

20 DD MMM 2029 DD MMM 2030

21 DD MMM 2030 DD MMM 2030

22 DD MMM 2030 DD MMM 2031

23 DD MMM 2031 DD MMM 2031

24 DD MMM 2031 DD MMM 2032

25 DD MMM 2032 DD MMM 2032

26 DD MMM 2032 DD MMM 2033

27 DD MMM 2033 DD MMM 2033

28 DD MMM 2033 DD MMM 2034

29 DD MMM 2034 DD MMM 2034

30 DD MMM 2034 DD MMM 2035

31 DD MMM 2035 DD MMM 2035

32 DD MMM 2035 DD MMM 2036

33 DD MMM 2036 DD MMM 2036

34 DD MMM 2036 DD MMM 2037

35 DD MMM 2037 DD MMM 2037

36 DD MMM 2037 DD MMM 2038

*Total award-fee value and how amounts are allocated across each evaluation period is captured in Section J Attachment 5, Pricing Matrix, and applicable Task Orders as each ordering period is exercised.

c. ANNEX 3 Award Fee Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship

The Government will evaluate contractor performance using the criteria identified in Annex 4, Award Fee Evaluation Criteria.

Performance Evaluation Areas and their respective weights are listed in the table below.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) WEIGHT

1 Performance

Responsiveness 20%

Quality 45%

Innovation 10%

75%

2 Cost 15%

3 FDO Special Interest Items 10%

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

Overall Rating

Award Fee Pool Available To Be

Earned

Description

Excellent 91% - 100% 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.

Very Good 76% - 90% 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.

Good 51% - 75% 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.

Satisfactory Not Greater Than

50% 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.

Unsatisfactory 0% 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.

d. ANNEX 4 Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate contractor performance using the criteria identified in the following four Performance Evaluation Area (PEA) tables.

Table 1 - PEA 1 – PERFORMANCE

Sub PEA EXCELLENT (91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)

An award in this range indicates:

1.1

Responsiveness

Contractor completed the task prior to the ECD or met all three of the following criteria:

1) Obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by extenuating circumstances

2) Proactively worked the task

3) Mitigated the delivery within the contractor’s control

Contractor completed the task by the ECD or met both of the following criteria:

1) Obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by

2) Proactively worked

Contractor completed the task no later than 3 calendar days after the ECD or obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by

Contractor completed the task 4 to 10 calendar days after the ECD or obtained IPT Lead concurrence for late delivery of all deliverables prior to the ECD, when a delivery delay was justified by

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

* If the contractor is found to not be in compliance with PWS paragraph 1.4.3.3.4.2.1 and 1.4.3.3.4.2.2 this will result in an unsatisfactory Quality rating for the Award Fee period in which the infraction took place.

Table 1 - PEA 1 – PERFORMANCE

Sub PEA EXCELLENT (91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)*

An award in this range indicates:

1.2

Quality

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Excellent justification for recommendations

2) No rework required to complete the task

3) Highly organized and properly formatted with no Government effort

4) Additional information beyond the original request which significantly aided the government POC (when applicable)

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Very good justification for

2) Minimal rework required to complete

3) Well organized and properly formatted with no Government effort

4) Additional information beyond the original request which significantly aided the Government POC (when applicable)

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Good justification for

2) Moderate rework required to complete the task

3) Organization and formatting required some Government effort

Contractor provided complete documentation to include all of the following:

1) Minimal justification for recommendations

2) Significant rework required to complete

3) Organization and formatting required Government effort for over 50% of submitted deliverable

Fails to meet the criteria for

SATISFACTORY

Table 1 - PEA 1 – PERFORMANCE

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than

50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)

An award in this range indicates:

1.3

Innovation*

Solution provided led to significant cost, schedule, Operational, Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E), mission assurance, or other performance improvements in any Ground Subsystem effort

Solution provided moderate improvement to cost, schedule, OSS&E, mission assurance, or other performance improvements in any Ground Subsystem

Solution provided some improvement to cost, schedule, OSS&E, mission assurance, or other performance improvements in any

Solution provided marginal improvement to cost, schedule, OSS&E, mission assurance, or other performance improvements in any

Task specifically requested an innovative improvement in a specific area, but the response did not contain any innovative element which could improve cost, schedule, OSS&E, mission assurance, or other performance improvements in any Ground Subsystem effort

OR

No innovation opportunities identified during evaluation period

*Innovation opportunities can be identified by either Government or Contractor from task creation through task closure.

Table 2 PEA 2 – COST*

(91% – 100%)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76% – 90%)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51%– 75%)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than 50%)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0%)

An award in this range indicates:

2.1

Cost

1) Total period cost between** 97% and 100% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment withhold)***

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

1) Total period cost between** 95% and 97% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

1) Total period cost between** either 90% and 95% or 100% and 105% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

1) Total period cost between** either 85% and 90% or 105% and 110% end of period contract value** (excluding travel CLIN and rate adjustment

2) Average scores for both Responsiveness (PEA 1.1) and Quality (PEA 1.2) during the award fee period in the excellent range (91- 100%)

Fails to meet criteria for all other PEA 2 ratings.

* The Government recognizes tasks can reach a level of criticality where a few tasks have the potential to out-prioritize and consume the entire budget. Consideration will be given to the GSSC contractor in scenarios where cost efficiencies cannot be gained due to the level of complexity and urgency.

** If period cost percentage equals a criteria limit, the higher rating will apply. For example, 95% will result in a Very Good rating.

***Any rate adjustment withhold increase within an award fee period must be coordinated with and approved by the Government.

NOTES:

ODD-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: Each year of sustaining engineering is broken into two 6-month evaluation periods.

The odd-numbered evaluation periods (1, 3, 5, etc.) are the mid-year evaluations. Due to the fact that cost is handled on the basis of the entire year, and due to surges that occur throughout the entire year, cost cannot be evaluated on these evaluation periods.

Therefore, for each of these evaluation periods the full 15% less any adjustments from any previous evaluation periods will be awarded for cost. The 15% will be decremented in the following evaluation period, if necessary, as described in the Even-Numbered Evaluation Periods section below.

EVEN-NUMBERED EVALUATION PERIODS: At the time the FDO is required to determine the award fee earned for the even-numbered evaluation periods (2, 4, 6, etc.), the actual cost data, which is delivered via the cost reporting CDRL, is not available. It takes several additional weeks for the final cost data to become available. Due to this, the 15% cost for these evaluation periods will be based off the cost data projections made available by the contractor shortly after the evaluation period ends. Any decrement to cost will be doubled to account for a decrement to the 15% that was provided in the previous evaluation period. When the actual cost data is submitted, if it is different than the projections, the government will adjust the award fee earned on a later evaluation period to account for this.

END OF CONTRACT EVALUATION PERIODS: If the next option period (OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, and OP5) is not exercised, the last award-fee period of the current OP will be the final evaluation period of the contract. The cost portion of the award-fee payment will be withheld and paid after the final cost reporting CDRL is delivered.

Table 3 - PEA 3 - FDO Special Interest Items*

PEA EXCELLENT

(91- 100)

An award in this range indicates:

VERY GOOD

(76 – 90)

An award in this range indicates:

GOOD

(51 – 76)

An award in this range indicates:

SATISFACTORY

(No Greater Than 50)

An award in this range indicates:

UN-

SATISFACTORY

(0)

An award in this range indicates:

3.1 Contractor’s

implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items significantly exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Ground System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of the Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Ground System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items somewhat exceeded expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Ground System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items met expectations through innovation, planning, execution of Special Interest Items or risk mitigation/reduction of Ground System Risks

Contractor’s implementation of the FDO Special Interest Items did not meet expectations

FDO Special Interest Items are subjects of particular interest to the Government. Special Interest Items may use JIRA or other means to ensure proper evaluation of each Special Interest Item.

*Each Award Fee letter issued by the FDO for completion of an award fee period will also serve as the official notification of the tasked/assigned FDO Special Interest Items for the next award fee period. The FDO Special Interest Items will be evaluated by the Award Fee Board Members based on the criteria listed in Table 3 and the contractor will brief the board members during the Award Fee Board on specific ways the Special Interest Items were implemented and the resulting impact.

*If the PCO does not notify the contractor in writing the details of any proposed Special Interest Items prior to 10 calendar days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period, the Performance (PEA 1) will increase to 80% and the Cost (PEA 2) will increase to 20%, with no Special Interest Items for that particular evaluation period. If Special Interest Items are added within 10 calendar days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period or during a current evaluation period, the change will be made by bilateral agreement.

This page intentionally left blank