Attachment 03 LISC OMS Award Fee Plan.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3: AWARD FEE PLAN

FA8811-13-R-0001

Launch and Test Range System (LTRS)

Integrated Support Contract (LISC)

Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment (OMS)

Attachment 3: Award Fee Plan

20 March 2013

[This page intentionally left blank]

APPROVED BY:

[This page intentionally left blank]

Revision Change Record

Revision Effective Date Description Initials

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ORGANIZATION

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

4. AWARD FEE PROCESS

5. FEE ALLOCATIONS BY EVALUATION PERIOD

6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

7. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY

8. AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

9. CONTRACT TERMINATION

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

1. INTRODUCTION

This Award Fee Plan is the basis for the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in relation to the quality of services provided to support the Wing Commanders’ mission success. It is also the basis for the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance during Phase-In. 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. Award fee deals with those areas under the control of the Contractor, which are susceptible to qualitative and subjective evaluation. Award fee for Phase-In will be earned on CLIN 1400. Award fee earned for operations and maintenance will be earned on CLIN 1401 (and option CLINs 1501, 1601, 1701, 1801, 1901, 2001, 2101, 2201, and 2301 if exercised).

The award-fee earned will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications and is in addition to the fixed price incentive (FPI) provisions of the contract. 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.

The principal goal of the Award Fee is to incentivize contractor responsiveness. The Wing Commanders will subjectively evaluate the Contractor in areas such as quality of service and business relations. Therefore, award fee shall not be earned for performance rated as "Satisfactory" or only meeting contract requirements. The award fee plan describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. The specific criteria used to assess Contractor performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned are described in Appendix 1.

DFARS 252.216-7999, Award Fee Reduction or Denial for Jeopardizing the Health or Safety of Government Personnel, (Deviation), (April 2010) is applicable to this award fee plan in any given period. This provision allows up to 100% of the award fee be denied if contractor’s performance results in a covered incident. If a covered incident occurs, the Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) membership will subjectively determine the percentage to be denied (0%-100%). The FDO will make the final decision.

2. ORGANIZATION

The Award Fee organization consists of the following: an FDO, the Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) with chairpersons and other membership approved by the FDO, the contracting officer, a recorder, other functional area participants, advisor members, and the performance monitors. The members of the AFRB are identified in Appendix 2 by their title and position in order to eliminate administrative changes to the plan when an individual member changes.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official. The AFPEO/SP will serve as the FDO. The FDO approves the Award Fee Plan and any significant changes thereto. The FDO reviews the recommendations of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award-fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board. The 30 SW/CC and 45 SW/CC will serve as the AFRB co-

Chairpersons. AFRB members review the performance monitors’ evaluation of the Contractor’s performance, review the Contractor self-assessment report, 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 the plan.

c. Chairperson Award Fee Review Board. AFRB Chairpersons are responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members.

1. Schedule all AFRB meetings and notify 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. Receipt, processing, and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources

2. Scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings

3. Accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process

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

f. Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors will continually monitor and maintain written records of the Contractor's performance in their assigned 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. Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) will be delegated performance monitor responsibilities via their COR delegation letter. Non-COR personnel (subject matter experts) will provide any input through the appropriate COR to ensure a fair and balanced treatment by personnel not formally identified with a monitoring role.

g. Range Program Manager (RPM). The Range Program Managers are the focal points for award fee activity at their respective ranges, and are responsible for coordinating all administrative actions required by the contractor, performance monitors, the AFRB, and the FDO. The overall contract PM will provide guidance to ensure consistency between the ranges.

4. AWARD FEE PROCESS

a. The AFRB will convene at the time, date and place established by the Chairpersons, and will consider information submitted by the following sources to make an award fee recommendation to the FDO:

1. Evaluations submitted by designated performance monitors

2. Assessments or inputs from other sources (e.g. SMC/BC, DCMA, DCAA, GAO, IG and users) as considered appropriate by the AFRB

3. Optional written Contractor self-assessment of performance may be submitted to the AFRB Chairpersons through the PCO for each evaluation period under consideration. Self-assessments shall be no more than 10 pages in length and shall be submitted no later than 5 working days following the close of an evaluation period. The Contractor may be provided the opportunity to present its self-assessment to the AFRB and FDO for a period not to exceed 20 minutes.

b. The Contractor will not be present during the deliberations, as the AFRB is not a forum for arbitration. The participation by Contractor personnel is limited to providing data and/or answering questions from AFRB members.

c. After receiving the presentations and reviewing all available information, the AFRB members shall vote on each evaluation area.

d. The AFRB will brief the FDO on the AFRB’s recommendations of the award fee amount to be paid to the Contractor and any significant changes to the Award Fee Plan.

e. After the FDO decides an overall rating and the award fee amount earned for the evaluation period, an FDO determination letter will be sent to the Contractor within 45 calendar days after the end the evaluation period. The determination letter will inform the Contractor of the earned award fee amount and the major strengths and weaknesses of the Contractor for that evaluation period. The FDO’s decision must be provided to the CO and documented in the contract file. The documentation must include an explanation of the rationale for any upward or downward variation from the AFRB’s recommendation.

f. After the FDO determination letter is sent to the Contractor, the PCO will unilaterally modify the contract to obligate funds for the earned award fee amount. Contractor receipt of the modification will constitute formal notification of the amount of award fee earned as determined by the FDO.

g. Interim Letter: At approximately the midpoint of the evaluation period (excluding Phase-

In) the AFRB Chairpersons will send an interim letter to the Contractor that addresses the Contractor’s performance with emphasis on areas needing improvement. The AFRB Chairpersons may also issue letters at any time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern. For each letter issued, the Contractor should provide a written response within 30 days. The response should set forth plans for increasing effectiveness in the areas addressed or explain why it is not feasible to do so.

5. FEE ALLOCATIONS BY EVALUATION PERIOD

a. The award fee earned by the Contractor will be determined at the completion of the evaluation periods shown below. The available award fee dollars shown corresponding to Phase-In and period 1 is the maximum amount that can be earned during that particular period. The available award fee dollars shown corresponding to periods 2 – 10 are the maximum amounts that can be earned during those particular periods should the Government exercise those options. The award fee pool will not be adjusted for each period throughout the duration of the contract.

Table 5-1: Fee Allocations by Evaluation Period

Evaluation Period

From To Available

Award Fee Award Fee

Earned

Phase-In ATP ATP + 180 days $350,000 1 ATP + 91 days 30 September 2014 $1,290,000* 2 01 October 2014 30 September 2015 $1,310,000 3 01 October 2015 30 September 2016 $1,330,000 4 01 October 2016 30 September 2017 $1,350,000 5 01 October 2017 30 September 2018 $1,370,000 6 01 October 2018 30 September 2019 $1,390,000 7 01 October 2019 30 September 2020 $1,410,000 8 01 October 2020 30 September 2021 $1,430,000 9 01 October 2021 30 September 2022 $1,460,000

10 01 October 2022 Contract Complete $1,480,000 Total $14,320,000

* The available award fee amount shown for Evaluation Period 1 is based on one full year of performance. The actual available award fee amount will be prorated based on the actual number of days in this period.

6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

a. The Contractor will be evaluated through subjective evaluation areas IAW the evaluation criteria in Appendix 1.1.1 (for operations and maintenance) and Appendix 1.1.2 (for Phase-In).

b. If the PCO does not give specific notice in writing to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation area prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same standards for the preceding period will be used in the new award fee evaluation period. Prior to the beginning of any period, the Contractor may provide Award Fee Plan inputs for the upcoming period.

c. Performance monitors will identify strengths and weaknesses. All strengths and weaknesses will be accompanied by a brief description of the benefit or detriment to the government and an associated program impact IAW Appendix 1.3. The Contractor will be notified of strengths and weaknesses via monthly reports and have the opportunity to respond. If the Contractor has not had at least 3 working days to respond before the end of the reporting period, the issue will be considered during the next performance period (with the exception of the final period, in which case, the issue must be resolved prior to an award fee determination).

i. A strength is defined as: demonstrated effective action, quality of particular worth to the government, a subjective or objective degree of effectiveness determined by standards, comparisons, or judgment.

ii. A weakness is defined as: inadequate or defective quality processes and procedures or other quality related issues; fault, flaw, or defect; or failure to meet requirements.

d. The PM or RPM will determine to which evaluation areas the individual strengths and weaknesses best belong. This application is to ensure strengths and weaknesses are assessed on an individual basis and the Contractor is neither excessively penalized nor credited for an individual event.

e. The AFRB will assign a point value for the subjective evaluation areas based on the evaluation criteria in Appendix 1.1.

f. The point scores for each evaluation area are then multiplied by their respective weights as shown in Appendix 1 Table A1-1 (for operations and maintenance) and Table A1-2 (for Phase-In) to calculate the weighted score for that evaluation area.

The AFRB recommendation is the sum of these weighted scores.

g. The FDO will determine the final Award Fee score based on the AFRB recommendation. The FDO determined score will correspond with the Percent of Award Fee Earned in accordance with Table 6-1. The Contractor will earn award fee only by achieving an overall performance rating of at least “Good.” An overall performance rating below the award fee standard of “Good” shall receive zero award fee dollars ($0). For example, if the Contractor achieves a total point score of 45, then zero award fee dollars are earned.

Table 6-1: Overall Performance Rating

FDO

Determined

Score

Overall Performance Rating

Corresponding Percent of Award Fee Earned

91-100 Excellent 91-100% 76-90 Very Good 76-90% 51-75 Good 51-75% 1-50 Satisfactory 0%

0 Unsatisfactory 0%

7. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY

Although the award fee process is recognized to be subjective in nature, every effort will be made to ensure reasonableness and fairness. The written records of performance monitors, inputs from other pertinent sources, and the Contractor's self-assessment of performance provides the checks and balances necessary to ensure award fee integrity.

8. AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

The Award Fee Plan will be reviewed annually for potential changes. All significant changes are approved by the FDO; the AFRB Chairpersons approve other changes. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights 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 CO no later than 60 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the CO shall 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 CO at least 10 days before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

9. 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 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 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.

APPENDIX 1

EVALUATION CRITERIA

A1.1 Evaluation Areas. The Contractor's performance will be evaluated through the subjective evaluation areas outlined below.

A1.1.1 Operations and maintenance

Table A1-1 Evaluation Areas for operations and maintenance

AREA

PERCENTAGE

WEIGHTS

CONTRIBUTION TO

TOTAL SCORE

Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities

Business Relations

70%

30%

0-70 POINTS

0-30 POINTS

AFRB Recommendation 100% 0 – 100 POINTS

The AFRB’s subjective assessment will evaluate Contractor’s performance in Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities and Business Relations to enhance mission support. The subjective point score will be assessed based on the award fee comments provided.

A1.1.1.1 Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities. Assess the effectiveness of the Contractor’s communication of range relevant, command-level information required for the Commander and staff to execute the Space Wing’s mission. Assess the Contractor’s ability to proactively manage work and flexibility to adjust to a dynamic environment (e.g. ops tempo and customer requirements).

Assess the Contractor’s responsiveness to Commander priorities (Commander priorities will be communicated and documented through a means mutually agreed to by the Commanders and the Contractor). Assess the Contractor’s performance as a member of the Wing Commander’s team driving to mission success for each operation. The AFRB will calculate the subjective score using the evaluation standards and program impact criteria.

A1.1.1.2 Business Relations. Assess the degree to which the Contractor works cooperatively with the LTRS SE&I contractor to ensure seamless systems engineering across the system, subsystem, and configuration item levels of the LTRS baseline. Assess the Contractor’s preparation for and proactive support to integrating non-LISC modifications into the LTRS baseline. Assess the Contractor’s integration and coordination of management and information needed to execute operations and maintenance functions in support of the mission. Specifically, this includes customer satisfaction; the timeliness, completeness and quality of proposals, estimates, reports, and briefings; and the Contractor’s degree of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include cooperation with FFRDC and Government support Contractors). This also includes the timely identification and resolution of controversial issues. The AFRB will calculate the subjective score using the evaluation standards and program impact criteria.

A1.1.2 Phase-In

Table A1-2 Evaluation Areas for Phase-In

AREA

PERCENTAGE

WEIGHTS

CONTRIBUTION TO

TOTAL SCORE

Transparency into Transition Operations

Readiness to Conduct

Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment

20%

80%

0-20 POINTS

0-80 POINTS

AFRB Recommendation 100% 0 – 100 POINTS

The AFRB’s subjective assessment will evaluate Contractor’s performance in Transparency and Readiness. The subjective point score will be assessed based on the award fee comments provided.

A1.1.2.1 Transparency into Transition Operations. Assess Contractor actions which provide maximum Government insight into management activities, risk identification/burn-down, and use of all resources required to execute Phase-In effectively. The AFRB will calculate the subjective score using the evaluation standards and program impact criteria.

A1.1.2.2 Readiness to conduct operations, maintenance, and sustainment.

Assess how well the Contractor’s execution of transition activities led to the Contractor being fully capable of executing all PWS requirements on the day the transition period ends with specific emphasis on the contractor’s ability to support operations scheduled to occur in the first three months of post-transition contract performance.

A1.2 Evaluation Standards. The evaluation standards for the subjective evaluation areas are indicated below.

A1.2.1 Excellent Performance. Performance in the rated area must meet all contractual requirements and must clearly exceed requirements with the combined effect being significant benefit to the government. The contractual performance of the area being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. To justify an excellent rating, the evaluator must identify significant actions in each category and state how they were a significant benefit to the government. In addition, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

A1.2.2 Very Good Performance. Performance in the rated area must meet contractual requirements and must exceed most requirements with the combined effect being substantial benefit to the government. The contractual performance of the area assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were very effective. To justify a Very Good rating, the evaluator must identify significant actions in each category and state how they were a benefit to the government.

A1.2.3 Good Performance. Performance in the rated area meets contractual requirements and must exceed some requirements with the combined effect being of benefit to the government. The contractual performance of the area assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. To justify a Good rating, the evaluator must identify actions observed and state how they were a benefit to the government.

A1.2.4 Satisfactory Performance. Performance in the rated area meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were satisfactory. To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the Contractor recovered from without impact to overall contract performance requirements.

A1.2.5 Unsatisfactory Performance. To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, performance in the rated area must have failed to meet the basic minimum essential requirements of the contract. The Contractor may also be rated Unsatisfactory if a weakness was so substantial that it had a major negative impact on the mission or mission events. If performance during the award fee period is determined by the government to be unsatisfactory for the entire area, the Contractor will not receive any award fee in that area for the period.

A1.3 Program Impact is used to convey the impact of a strength or weakness and to assist the AFRB in making their subjective scoring determinations. A plus sign (+) denotes positive impact. A minus sign (-) denotes negative impact. The number of +/-‘s denotes the severity of impact on the program.

A1.3.1 +/- Minor program impact. The input was noted and worthy of inclusion into award fee consideration, but was of relatively small benefit or detriment to the government. Actual/potential positive or negative impact to schedule and/or performance was minimal. Any failure to meet contractual requirements may not be considered to be of minor impact.

A1.3.2 ++/-- Moderate (or potentially moderate) program impact. The input is clearly worthy of inclusion into award fee considerations due to its benefit or detriment to the government. Actual/potential positive or negative impact to schedule and/or performance was at an intermediate level.

A1.3.3 +++/--- Major, or potentially major, program impact. The input is most definitely a factor in award fee considerations due to its substantial benefit or detriment to the government. Actual/potential positive or negative impact to schedule and/or performance was of the highest importance.

APPENDIX 2

AWARD FEE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERSHIP

Fee Determining Official:

Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space or delegated representative

AFRB co-Chairpersons:

Space Wing Commander 30 SW/CC and 45 SW/CC

Voting Members:

Commanders, Operations Group 30 OG/CC and 45 OG/CC Program Manager SMC/RND Contracting Officer (PCO) SMC/RNK Range Program Managers 30 RMS and 45 OG

Non-Voting Members:

Program Director SMC/RN Judge Advocate SMC/JA Space Wing Judge Advocate 30 SW/JA or 45 SW/JA Recorder 30 RMS or 45 OG

A quorum, defined as a Chairperson plus six voting members, must meet to conduct an AFRB. An alternate AFRB member, if designated in writing, may represent voting members. Alternates shall possess a thorough understanding of contract requirements and the award fee process, and shall be briefed by the RPM or designee, prior to AFRB sessions.

APPENDIX 3

SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS OF AWARD FEE EARNED

Table A3‐1: Sample AFRB Recommendation

AREA POINT SCORE WEIGHT WEIGHTED SCORE

Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities 90 70% 63

Business Relations 80 30% 24

AFRB

Recommendation: 87

Award Fee Earned 87%

The AFRB assigned point value for the Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities Area equals 90. The AFRB assigned point value for the Business Relations Area equals 80. The point scores are then multiplied by their respective weight to calculate the weighted scores. The weighted scores are summed to calculate the AFRB Recommendation. In this sample, assuming the FDO upholds the AFRB Recommendation, 87 total points corresponds with an overall performance rating of Very Good and an Award Fee Earned of 87%. (Note: See Table 6‐1 and associated notes for percentage computations)

Table A3‐2: Sample AFRB Recommendation

AREA POINT SCORE WEIGHT WEIGHTED SCORE

Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities 40 70% 28

Business Relations 80 30% 24

AFRB

Recommendation: 52

Award Fee Earned 52%

In this sample, assuming the FDO upholds the AFRB Recommendation, 52 total points corresponds with an overall performance rating of Good and an Award Fee Earned of 52%

Table A3‐3: Sample AFRB Recommendation

AREA POINT SCORE WEIGHT WEIGHTED SCORE

Responsiveness to Wing Commander Priorities 40 70% 28

Business Relations 50 30% 15

AFRB

Recommendation: 43

Award Fee Earned 0%

In this sample, assuming the FDO upholds the AFRB Recommendation, 43 total points corresponds with an overall performance rating of Satisfactory and an Award Fee Earned of 0%.