Section_J_Attachment_7_Draft_PSSC_Award-Fee_Plan_20140327.docx
DOCX document 77 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8214-14-R-0003
About this file
Draft Section J Attachment 7 PSSC Award Fee Plan
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
AWARD-FEE PLAN
FOR THE
PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM SUPPORT CONTRACT
as of 27 March 2014
Approved:
DARYL J. HAUCK, Brig Gen, USAF
AFLCMC/SS
Fee Determining Official
Table of Contents
Section
Page
INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZATION
RESPONSIBILITIES
AWARD-FEE PROCESSES
AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE
PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS AWARD-FEE PERIODS
CONTRACT TERMINATION
Annex
AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION
AWARD-FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS
AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA WEIGHTS AND RATINGS RELATIONSHIP
AWARD-FEE EVALUATION CRITERIA
SAMPLE AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE POINTS COMPUTATION
SECTION J ATTACHMENT 7
I i
1. INTRODUCTION
This award-fee plan is the basis for the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract (PSSC) evaluation of the contractor's performance 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. As described below, the contractor may provide a self-assessment of contractor performance. 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 FAR Clause 52.233-1, Disputes. This plan implements contract DFARS Clause 252.216-7005, Award Fee.
The award-fee earned will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications. The awardfee 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), 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. ORGANIZATION
The award-fee organization consists of: the FDO, an Award-Fee Review Board (AFRB) (which consists of a chairperson and members, the PCO, 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, Award-Fee Organization.
3. 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 performance monitors’ evaluation of the contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and arrive at an earned award-fee recommendation to be presented 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. The AFRB Chairman oversees the performance of the AFRB 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. Performance monitors prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. Performance monitors are prohibited from being AFRB members. |
4. AWARD-FEE PROCESSES
| a. Available Award-Fee Amount. The available award-fee for each evaluation period is shown in Annex 2, Task Areas Subject to Evaluation and Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods. 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, Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria. 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, Award-Fee Performance Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship and/or Annex 4, Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria. |
| 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 that evaluation reports are due. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB not more than 5 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation 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 other time when it is 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 grade 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 PCO. 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. |
| e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. If the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, the written assessment 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 10 pages, including the title page. |
5. 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 Award-Fee Performance Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship) 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. The PCO shall notify the contractor in writing of any approved change(s) no later than 10 business days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Unilateral changes may be made to the award-fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the PCO 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. 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. 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. Upon termination, award-fee amount will be calculated based upon a pro-rated ratio of completed days in award-fee period. |
| (2) Award-Fee deemed earned and to be paid for performance during the period in which the termination becomes effective will be determined by the FDO in accordance with the approved awardfee 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; 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 period in which the default occurred. Consequently, no additional award-fee shall be paid during the termination settlement of the contract. 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, unless other provisions of the contract and/or award-fee plan (e.g., negative incentives) require payback of previously earned fee.
5 ANNEXES
1. Award-Fee Organization
2. Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods
3. Award-Fee Performance Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship
4. Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria
5. Sample Award-Fee Performance Points Computation
ANNEX 1
Award-Fee Organization
Members
Fee Determining Official:
AF Program Executive Office/Strategic Systems
AFLCMC/SS
Award-Fee Review Board Chairperson:
System Program Manager (SPM) or Deputy
AFNWC/NI
Award-Fee Review Board Members:
Flight Systems Division Chief or Deputy Flight Systems Chief Engineer Program Control Chief or Deputy Contracting Division Chief or Deputy Propulsion Branch Chief Propulsion Engineering Branch Chief PCO (Non-Voting Member) Recorder (Program Manager) (Non-Voting Member)
AFNWC/NIB
AFNWC/NIE
AFNWC/NIP
AFNWC/PZB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBE
AFNWC/PZBF
AFNWC/NIB
Advisors
| Staff Judge Advocate (or designee) | |
| 75 ABW/JAQ |
Performance Monitors
Solids/Flight Controls IPT Lead Liquids/Ordnance/Battery IPT Lead Solids Depot Support Equipment PM Flight Controls PM Liquids PM Ordnance PM Battery PM
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
AFNWC/NIBB
Solids Engineer Liquids Engineer Flight Controls Engineer Flight Batteries Engineer System Ordnance Engineer
AFNWC/NIBE
AFNWC/NIBE
AFNWC/NIBE
AFNWC/NIBE
AFNWC/NIBE
ANNEX 2
Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods
The award-fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods and shall begin on contract start date. 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 |
| Available Award-Fee * |
| I |
| 1 Oct 2015 |
| 31 Mar 2016 |
| II |
| 1 April 2016 |
| 30 Sep 2016 |
| III |
| 1 Oct 2016 |
| 31 Mar 2017 |
| IV |
| 1 April 2017 |
| 30 Sep 2017 |
| V |
| 1 Oct 2017 |
| 31 Mar 2018 |
| VI |
| 1 April 2018 |
| 30 Sep 2018 |
| VII |
| 1 Oct 2018 |
| 31 Mar 2019 |
| VIII |
| 1 April 2019 |
| 30 Sep 2019 |
| IX |
| 1 Oct 2019 |
| 31 Mar 2020 |
| X |
| 1 April 2020 |
| 30 Sep 2020 |
| XI |
| 1 Oct 2020 |
| 31 Mar 2021 |
Total
* Will be filled out after negotiations and included in the final award-fee plan.
ANNEX 3
Award-Fee Performance Evaluation Area Weights and Ratings Relationship
During the first award-fee period, 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 |
| 10% |
| 2 |
| Cost |
| 0% |
| 3 |
| Transition |
| 90% |
During the remaining award-fee periods, the Government will evaluate contractor performance using the criteria identified in Annex 4, Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria against task areas identified in the Propulsion Subsystem PWS. Performance Evaluation Areas and their respective weights are listed in the table below.
| PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) |
| WEIGHT |
| 1 |
| Performance |
| 80% |
| 2 |
| Cost |
| 20% |
| 3 |
| Transition |
| 0% |
The PEA 1 Performance is computed in the following manner:
| SUB PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) |
| WEIGHT |
| 1.1 |
| Responsiveness |
| 40% |
| 1.2 |
| Deliverable Quality |
| 40% |
| 1.3 |
| Innovation |
| 20% |
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 |
| Total Points |
| Percent of Award-Fee Earned |
| Excellent |
| 91 - 100 |
| 91% - 100% |
| Very Good |
| 76 - 90 |
| 76% - 90% |
| Good |
| 51 - 75 |
| 51% - 75% |
| Satisfactory |
| 1 - 50 |
| Not 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 points earned. This number of total points earned will equal the percentage of the award-fee to be paid.
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.
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%): 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%): 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%): Contractor’s performance of most contract task meets standard with some tangible benefits to the Government due to contractors’ effort or initiative.
4. Satisfactory Performance (not greater than 50%): 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%): 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.
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
UNSATISFACTORY
(0%) An award in this range indicates:
1.1 Respon-siveness
1.1 Respon-siveness Cont.
Contractor provides all deliverables significantly ahead of Estimated Closure Date (ECD).
Maintains accurate status of tasks, recommends reprioritization, minimizes transitions between tasks, and recommends a more efficient use of resources.
Proactively reports potential schedule impacts to Propulsion Subsystem Sustainment and develops feasible/successful mitigation plan.
Accommodates all requests for changes involving high priority tasks in a timely manner.
Accommodates most requests for changes on medium and low priority tasks.
Contractor provides all deliverables slightly ahead of Estimated Closure Date (ECD).
Maintains accurate status of tasks, recommends reprioritization, and minimizes transitions between tasks.
Regularly reports potential schedule impacts to Propulsion Subsystem Sustainment and develops feasible/effective mitigation plan.
Accommodates most requests for changes on high priority tasks in a timely manner.
Accommodates some requests for changes on medium and low priority tasks.
Contractor provides most deliverables ahead of Estimated Closure Date (ECD).
Maintains accurate status of tasks and recommends reprioritization.
Reports potential schedule impacts to Propulsion Subsystem Sustainment and develops mitigation plan on request.
Accommodates some requests for changes on high priority tasks in a timely manner.
Accommodates a few requests for changes on medium and low priority tasks.
Coordinates required changes (e.g., current status, ECD, prioritization) of Task Log items with the Government.
Contractor provides all deliverables by Estimated Closure Date (ECD).
Maintains accurate status of tasks.
Reports potential schedule impacts to Propulsion Subsystem Sustainment
Accommodates some requests for changes on high priority tasks.
Fails to meet the criteria for SATISFACTORY performance.
1.2 Deliver-able Quality Contractor execution of Task exceeds all requirements to resolve the issue without rework for work accomplished in the current or previous award-fee periods.
| Contractor execution of Task meets all and exceeds most requirements to resolve the issue without rework for work accomplished in the current or previous award-fee periods. |
| Contractor execution of Task meets all requirements to resolve the issue for work accomplished in the current or previous award-fee periods. |
*Minimal rework (<5%) of total task output required to satisfy task requirements.
Contractor execution of Task meets all requirements to resolve the issue for work accomplished in the current or previous award-fee periods.
*Some rework (<10%) of total task output required to satisfy task requirements.
Fails to meet the criteria for SATISFACTORY performance.
1.3 Innovation Contractor develops innovative solutions and new systems to improve management oversight, timeliness, and quality of the PSSC technical and business processes.
Implements innovative solutions in multiple areas of responsiveness, quality, cost effectiveness, or any other scope.
Contractor develops innovative solutions and new systems to improve management oversight, timeliness, and quality of the PSSC technical and business processes.
Implements a minimum of one innovative solution in the areas of responsiveness, quality, cost effectiveness, or any other scope.
Contractor proposes innovative solutions and new systems to improve management oversight, timeliness, and quality of the PSSC technical and business processes.
Provides innovative solution for one or more areas of responsiveness, quality, cost effectiveness, or any other scope.
| Contractor actively participates in process improvement activities with substantive recommendations and inputs. |
| Fails to meet the criteria for SATISFACTORY performance. |
Table 2 PEA 2 – COST
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:
UNSATISFACTORY
(0%) An award in this range indicates:
| 2 |
| **Increases task log completion by 10% or greater beyond tasks established at the beginning of the award-fee period within current budget while maintaining responsiveness and quality. |
| **Increases task log completion between 5% and 9.99% beyond tasks established at the beginning of the award-fee period within current budget while maintaining responsiveness and quality. |
| **Increases task log completion between 0% and 4.99% beyond tasks established at the beginning of the award-fee period within current budget while maintaining responsiveness and quality. |
| **Task log completion between 90% and 99.99% of tasks established at the beginning of the award-fee period within current budget while maintaining responsiveness and quality. |
| **Task log completion below 90% of tasks established at the beginning of the award-fee period within current budget. |
Fails to maintain current budget.
*Percentages of rework may be based on proportion of deliverable requiring corrections or proportion of schedule necessary to accomplish corrections.
**The Task Log will be the unit of measurement the Government utilizes to analyze cost efficiencies implemented by the PSSC contractor. The Government recognizes that tasks can reach a level of criticality where a few tasks have the potential to outprioritize and consume the entire budget. On a case-by-case basis, consideration may be given to the PSSC contractor in scenarios where cost efficiencies cannot be gained due to the level of complexity and urgency.
Table 3 PEA 3 – TRANSITION
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:
UNSATISFACTORY
(0%) An award in this range indicates:
Transition
Transition Cont.
Proactively, effectively, and continuously meets with Government, and ISC and PBC contractors immediately after Post Award Conference to assist in preparing the draft transition plan to ensure submission prior to 12 calendar days following Post Award Conference.
Complete the final transition plan and ensure submission prior to the first 46 calendar days after the Post Award Conference. This includes Government’s 20-day review period.
Accomplishes successful transition of all Sustaining Engineering and Program Management CLIN requirements and is effectively performing tasks covered within the PWS at least 45 days earlier than 6 months after the Contract Post Award Conference.
Proactively, effectively, and continuously meets with Government, and ISC and PBC contractors immediately after Post Award Conference to assist in preparing the draft transition plan to ensure submission prior to 15 calendar days following Post Award Conference.
Complete the final transition plan and ensure submission prior to the first 49 calendar days after the Post Award Conference. This includes Government’s 20-day review period.
Accomplishes successful transition of all Sustaining Engineering and Program Management CLIN requirements and is effectively performing tasks covered within the PWS at least 30 days earlier than 6 months after the Contract Post Award Conference.
Effectively and continuously meets with Government, and ISC and PBC contractors immediately after Post Award Conference to assist in preparing the draft transition plan to ensure submission no later than 18 calendar days following Post Award Conference.
Complete the final transition plan and ensure submission no later than 52 calendar days after the Post Award Conference. This includes Government’s 20-day review period.
Accomplishes successful transition of all Sustaining Engineering and Program Management CLIN requirements and is effectively performing tasks covered within the PWS at least 15 days earlier than 6 months after the Contract Post Award Conference.
Continuously meets with Government, and ISC and PBC contractors immediately after Post Award Conference to assist in preparing the draft transition plan to ensure submission no later than 20 calendar days following Post Award Conference.
Complete the final transition plan and ensure submission no later than 55 calendar days after the Post Award Conference. This includes Government’s 20-day review period.
Accomplishes successful transition of all Sustaining Engineering and Program Management CLIN requirements and is effectively performing tasks covered within the PWS not later than 6 months after the Contract Post Award Conference.
Fails to meet the criteria for SATISFACTORY performance
ANNEX 5
Sample Award-Fee Performance Points Computation
| PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AREA (PEA) |
| POINTS EARNED (0-100) |
| AREA WEIGHT |
| WEIGHTED % POINTS |
| PEA 1 – Performance |
| 92* |
| 70% |
| 64.4 |
| PEA 2 – Cost |
| 92 |
| 20% |
| 18.4 |
| PEA 3 – Transition |
| N/A |
| 0% |
| N/A |
| Total Points Earned |
| 82.8 |
*To determine the points earned for PEA 1 Performance, the below sample is a compilation of the Sub PEAs. After determination of the result in the below sample, the total points earned is then transferred to the above Points Earned for PEA 1 Performance
| SUB PEA |
| POINTS EARNED (0-100) |
| AREA WEIGHT |
| WEIGHTED % POINTS |
| 1.1 – Responsiveness |
| 90 |
| 40% |
| 36.0 |
| 1.2 – Deliverable Quality |
| 90 |
| 40% |
| 36.0 |
| 1.3 – Innovation |
| 100 |
| 20% |
| 20.0 |
| Total Points Earned for PEA 1 Performance |
| 92.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .