Attachment 04 LISC OMS Incentive Plan.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

FA8811-13-R-0001

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Launch and Test Range System (LTRS)

Integrated Support Contract (LISC)

Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment (OMS)

Attachment 4: Performance Incentive Plan

20 March 2013

[This page intentionally left blank]

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

APPROVED BY:

[This page intentionally left blank]

Revision Change Record

Revision Effective Date Description Initials

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3. QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX

4. QPI-BASED ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY

5. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN CHANGES

6. TERMINATION

APPENDIX A: QPI BY PERFORMANCE PERIOD

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX C: QPI SERVICE SUMMARY ITEMS

APPENDIX D: SSI CALCULATION TABLE

APPENDIX E: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1: QPI by Performance Period

Table B-1A: Sample QPI Calculations (page 1 of 2)

Table B1-B: Sample QPI Calculations (page 2 of 2)

Table C-1: Service Summary Items

Table D-1: SSI Calculation Table

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

1. INTRODUCTION

This Launch and Test Range System (LTRS) Integrated Support Contract (LISC) for Operations, Maintenance, and Sustainment (OMS) Performance Incentive Plan is one component of a three-pronged incentive program for the LISC OMS. The other two components, a cost incentive and an award fee, are not addressed by this Plan. This Plan is applicable to Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target) (FPIF) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) identified in Appendix A.

The three-pronged LISC incentive structure has two principal goals: the first goal is to motivate the Contractor to deliver services that result in acceptable range performance objectives, and the second goal is to reduce costs across LTRS operations, maintenance, and sustainment.

The methodology described in this Plan effectively provides a unified mechanism to evaluate performance against a defined set of objectives.

Section 2 of this Plan lists the roles and responsibilities of key individuals involved in this process.

This Plan implements an adjustment to the Contractor’s Target Profit and Underrun Share based on technical performance. This adjustment will be made at the end of the performance period for each CLIN. For each performance period, the Government assesses the Contractor’s performance using a Quality Performance Index (QPI), which is intended to reduce profit for subpar performance. The QPI is described in further detail in Section 3 of this Plan.

Appendix A of this Plan contains a table consisting of the Performance Periods of LISC OMS, the applicable CLINs associated with each Performance Period, and the QPI score determined for each Performance Period; Appendix B provides sample QPI and incentive calculations;

Appendix C describes Service Summary Items (SSIs) that are used to calculate the QPI scores; and Appendix D provides an SSI calculation table. Appendix E defines the various acronyms used in this document.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section describes the roles and responsibilities associated with the development and execution of this LISC OMS Performance Incentive Plan.

Incentive Approving Official (IAO)

The Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space (AFPEO/SP) will serve as the IAO. The AFPEO/SP may delegate the IAO role to the Spacelift Range and Network Systems Division Chief. The IAO approves the Plan and any significant changes to be made to the Plan upon

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

the recommendation of the Incentive Certifying Official (ICO) and Procuring Contracting Officer

(PCO).

Incentive Certifying Official (ICO)

The Spacelift Range and Network Systems Division Chief (SMC/RN) will serve as the ICO.

The ICO reviews the Plan and recommends approval of the performance incentives to the IAO based on her or his compilation of pertinent data regarding the Contractor’s performance in meeting performance incentive criteria.

LISC OMS PM

The LISC OMS Program Manager (PM) oversees the Contractor and is responsible for evaluating the Contractor’s performance. The LISC OMS PM presents the results of the Government’s performance evaluation to the ICO. The LISC OMS PM also recommends any significant changes to be made to this Plan to the ICO, including changes to the Plan’s appendices.

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

The PCO is the formal representative of the Government for the LISC OMS and acts as a liaison between the Government and the Contractor. The PCO formally communicates changes to this Plan to the Contractor via contract modifications.

Government Surveillance Team

The Government Surveillance Team is comprised of the Quality Assurance Program Coordinators, SMC/RND Quality Assurance Program Lead, and the Contracting Officer Representatives. This team is responsible for scoring the SSIs that are used to calculate the QPI in accordance with (IAW) the SSI Scoring Sheets in Appendix C.

3. QUALITY PERFORMANCE INDEX

This Performance Incentive Plan implements an adjustment to profit or loss based on a quantitative assessment of the performance of the Contractor during the performance period.

For each performance period, the Contractor is assessed a QPI score per the method described in this Plan.

A QPI weighting system is used to allocate 100 basis points to each of the SSIs identified in Appendix C. These SSIs represent significant tasks described in the LISC OMS Performance Work Statement (PWS). The QPI weight is allocated to SSIs according to the relative importance of the specific tasks represented.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

At the end of each performance period, the Government Surveillance Team scores each SSI as a percent (%) value in accordance with the SSI Scoring Sheets in Appendix C. Each SSI percent score is subject to the QPI constraints described in this section.

The SSI Table in Appendix C identifies how often each SSI is assessed during the performance period (e.g., monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, or per event) and the scoring methodology. The calculation table in Appendix D will be filled out by the Government Surveillance Team using the SSI Scoring Sheets in Appendix C and will be used to calculate the final QPI score.

An SSI’s contribution to the QPI is calculated by multiplying the percent score of the SSI, subject to the QPI constraints described in this section, by the SSI’s allocated QPI weight. The QPI score is then calculated by adding together the QPI contributions of all the SSIs and rounding to the nearest hundredth, subject to the following constraints, which have been established to ensure a minimum acceptable level of performance and to impose greater profit reduction for subpar performance in critical areas:

If the Contractor is found by the Accident Investigation Board to be responsible for a catastrophic event during a performance period, the Contractor will receive a QPI score of Zero for that performance period. A catastrophic event is defined as an event in which either the launch vehicle is inadvertently destroyed or the launch vehicle should have been destroyed but was not, thereby placing lives or property in peril.

The score for each SSI is subject to the following constraint, which represents a minimum acceptable level of performance: An SSI score of at least 70 percent must be achieved for each SSI at the conclusion of the performance period. In the event that this constraint is not met for an SSI, the Contractor will be assessed a score of 0 percent for that SSI.

The score for SSI 5 and SSI 6 is subject to the following constraints which provide for greater profit reduction for subpar performance in critical areas: (1) If the Contractor earns a score of 0 percent for SSI 6, during any launch, the final QPI score for the performance period will be reduced by 4 percentage points; and/or (2) if the Contractor earns a score of 0 percent for SSI 5, during any launch attempt, the final QPI score for the performance period will be reduced by 4 percentage points.

Issuance of any Level 3 CAR will result in reduction of the final QPI score by 2 percentage points. Note: Multiple repeat Level 2 CARs with the same root cause will result in a Level 3

CAR.

The QPI score is determined on a contract-wide basis (i.e., it reflects the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance of the entirety of the PWS effort corresponding to

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

the CLINs covered by this Plan), but it is applied to each CLIN individually through the process described in Section 4.

Sample QPI calculations are provided in Appendix B of this Plan.

4. QPI-BASED ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY

This section describes the adjustments made by the Government to Target Profit and Contractor’s Underrun Share through application of the QPI. Each CLIN covered under this Plan adheres to an FPIF pricing arrangement that consists of a Target Cost, a Target Profit, a Price Ceiling, a Contractor’s Overrun Share, and a Contractor’s Underrun Share. These elements are identified in each applicable CLIN’s descriptive data.

In concert with the Contractor’s submission of data in accordance with FAR 52.216-16(c), the Government will determine the QPI score (as a percentage out of 100) for the applicable performance period in accordance with the procedures described in Section 3 of this Performance Incentive Plan. As a result of the QPI determination, the Target Profit and Contractor’s Underrun Share for each applicable CLIN shall be adjusted through the issuance of a unilateral modification to the contract as follows:

1. Target Profit shall be adjusted by multiplying the existing Target Profit by the QPI.

2. Contractor’s Underrun Share shall be adjusted by multiplying the existing Contractor’s Underrun Share by the QPI.

Note that in the event of a QPI of 100, no adjustments are necessary.

Sample calculations are provided in Appendix B of this Plan.

5. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN CHANGES

This Performance Incentive Plan will be reviewed annually. It may be modified unilaterally by the PCO to adjust the QPI Weight associated with each SSI only. All unilateral modifications will take effect at the beginning of the next performance period. All other modifications shall be made bilaterally with the Contractor.

All significant changes to this Plan must be approved by the IAO. Adjusting the QPI weight associated with each SSI shall be considered a significant change.

6. TERMINATION

In the event of the termination this contract for convenience pursuant to FAR 52.249-2 or FAR 52.249-9, the performance period during which such termination occurs will end, and the

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance for the period of performance as if the period had been completed.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

APPENDIX A: QPI BY PERFORMANCE PERIOD

Table A-1: QPI by Performance Period

Performance Period CLINs QPI

Period 1 1 October 2013 – 30 September 2014

1401 – 1408

Period 2 (Option Year 1) 1 October 2014 – 30 September 2015

1501 – 1508

Period 3 (Option Year 2) 1 October 2015 – 30 September 2016

1601 – 1608

Period 4 (Option Year 3) 1 October 2016 – 30 September 2017

1701 – 1708

Period 5 (Option Year 4) 1 October 2017 – 30 September 2018

1801 – 1808

Period 6 (Option Year 5) 1 October 2018 – 30 September 2019

1901 – 1908

Period 7 (Option Year 6) 1 October 2019 – 30 September 2020

2001 – 2008

Period 8 (Option Year 7) 1 October 2020 – 30 September 2021

2101 – 2108

Period 9 (Option Year 8) 1 October 2021 – 30 September 2022

2201 – 2208

Period 10 (Option Year 9) 1 October 2022 – Contract Complete

2301 – 2308

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Sample Calculations

Example 1 (Underrun)

Sample CLIN 0001 includes the following information:

Target Profit (TP) = $10 Contractor’s Underrun Share (SR) = 50%

In this example, the adjusted Target Profit and adjusted Contractor’s Underrun Share are calculated as follows:

1. Assume that QPI = 90%

2. Calculate Target Profit adjustment

Adjusted Target Profit = TP x QPI

Adjusted Target Profit = $10 x 90%

Adjusted Target Profit = $9

3. Calculate Contractor’s Underrun Share adjustment

Adjusted Contractor’s Underrun Share = SR x QPI

Adjusted Contractor’s Underrun Share = 50% x 90%

Adjusted Contractor’s Underrun Share = 45%

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Sample QPI Calculations

The Government Surveillance Team scores the SSIs IAW the SSI Scoring Sheets in Appendix C, as shown in Table B- 1A, which lists the SSIs that are assessed monthly, quarterly, and annually, and in Table B-1B, which lists the SSIs whose assessment frequency is per the CAR, USA, launch attempt, launch, or EDLM. The QPI Weight for each SSI is defined in Appendix C.

The score for each SSI is multiplied by the SSI’s QPI weight to calculate the SSI’s QPI contribution. The final QPI score is the sum of all QPI contributions.

Table B-1A: Sample QPI Calculations (page 1 of 2)

SSI

Assessment Frequency

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Score

QPI

Weight

QPI

Contribution

2 Annual P 100% .05 5.00%

4 Quarterly F P P F 50%1 .05 0%1

7 Monthly 87.5 100 85 100 100 100 85 87.5 100 100 100 95 95% .08 7.60%

8 Quarterly 90 90 100 100 95% .08 7.60%

P = Pass (100); F = Fail (0)

Table B1-B: Sample QPI Calculations (page 2 of 2)

Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Score QPI Weight

QPI

Contribution

1 Per CAR P P F F P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P 80% 0.08 6.40%

3 Per USA P P F P 75% 0.05 3.75%

Per Launch

Attempt 55 100 100 100 02 100 90 100 100 100 90 85% 0.28 23.80%

6 Per Launch 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 98% 0.28 27.44%

9 Per EDLM P P P P F F F P P P 70% 0.05 3.50%

QPI: 81.09%2

Note 1: Any SSI that achieves a score below 70% will be counted as a 0 (Zero) IAW Section 3.

Note 2: Any launch attempt that achieves a hard zero (meaning there was a deduction of at least 100 points during the launch attempt) will result in the final Quality Performance Index score being reduced by an additional 4 percentage points IAW Section 3.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

APPENDIX C: QPI SERVICE SUMMARY ITEMS

The QPI score will be derived from the SSIs listed in Table C-1, which are scored in accordance with the following scoring sheets. The SSI scoring sheets in this appendix are maintained by CORs during the performance period and used at the conclusion of each performance period by the SMC/RND Quality Assurance Program Lead to fill the Calculation Table in Appendix D.

Table C-1: Service Summary Items

SSI Performance Objective

PWS

Section Performance Threshold

Surveillance Method

Functional Area

Calculation Frequency

QPI

Weight

Provides acceptable cause and corrective action response to government issued Corrective

Action Requests (CAR).

2.4.1

CAR responses are received within 15 working days of issuance with an acceptable cause and corrective action.

This performance threshold applies to Level 2 and Level 3 CARs whenever a written corrective action response is requested or required.

Record Review

Level 2 CAR: Local PM & Local

CO

Level 3

CAR:

SMC/RND

SMC/RNK

Per CAR 0.08

Completes conformance testing on repaired parts to validate operational readiness.

3.5.2

99% of restocked spares controlled by the LISC contractor meet conformance to operational system.

Randomly sampled and record inspection

SMC/RND,

OL U, OL X

Annual 0.05

3 Urgent Software Actions (USAs) 3.9.2

USA code corrections are implemented IAW the agreed to schedule after receiving direction from the

Government with zero (0) “new” Category I (A-E) or

Category II (A-C) deficiencies introduced after DT&E.

Multiple source verification, primarily with customer or source identifying faults

SMC/RND Per USA 0.05

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI Performance Objective

PWS

Section Performance Threshold

Surveillance Method

Functional Area

Calculation Frequency

QPI

Weight

Accomplishes information assurance (IA) Control Reviews

IAW the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

(FISMA).

3.10.1

95% of all IA Control Reviews are completed and delivered on time with evidence of completion.

Government evaluations of annual control reviews

SMC/RND Quarterly 0.05

5 Support minus count operations 3.1; 3.2;

3.3

Achieves an average score of at least 70% over the course of the performance period using the scoring criteria in

PWS 6.3

Review of Operations

Logs

1 ROPS,

2 ROPS

Per Launch Attempt

0.28

6 Support plus count operations 3.1; 3.2;

3.3

Achieves an average score of at least 70% over the course of the performance period using the scoring criteria in

PWS 6.3

Review of Operations

Logs, Instrumentation Coverage Plan

(ICP), and System

Performance Report (SPR)

1 ROPS,

2 ROPS

Per Launch 0.28

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI Performance Objective

PWS

Section Performance Threshold

Surveillance Method

Functional Area

Calculation Frequency

QPI

Weight

Perform level 1 maintenance activities 3.3

Achieves an average composite score of at least 70% over the course of the performance period using the scoring criteria in PWS 6.3

Maintenance logs, communications logs, range Item

Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) reports with monthly values averaged over the prior 6 months

30RMS,

45RMS

Monthly 0.08

Perform level 2 maintenance activities 3.4

Achieves an average composite score of at least 70% over the course of the performance period using the scoring criteria in PWS 6.3

Record review of PDMs, record review of repair times for reparable equipment both in-house and other than in-house

SMC/RND Quarterly 0.08

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI Performance Objective

PWS

Section Performance Threshold

Surveillance Method

Functional Area

Calculation Frequency

QPI

Weight

9 Respond to EDLMs 3.4.3

Meets the following response time standards:

For launch head sites (e.g.

VAFB, CCAFS, KSC, and

PAFB): On site within 2 hours IAW the integrated Maintenance Plan.

For up-range sites (e.g.

Laguna Peak, Pillar Point AFS, JDMTA, and other

Florida annexes): In transit within 2 hours or provide the appropriate response within 2 hours IAW the integrated

Maintenance Plan.

For down-range sites (e.g.

Ascension AAF and Antigua

AS): In transit within 24 hours IAW the integrated Maintenance Plan.

Review of response times for each EDLM

SMC/RND Per EDLM 0.05

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C1: SSI 1 Scoring Sheet

Functional Area(s):

Level 2 CAR: Local PM & Local CO; Level 3 CAR: SMC/RND & SMC/RNK

Purpose:

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI each time the Contractor submits a response to a Level 2 or Level 3 Corrective Action Request (CAR). At the completion of each performance period, this scoring sheet provides the input to the Calculation Table in Appendix D.

Instructions:

For each Level 2 or Level 3 CAR, the COR will enter the date that the CAR was issued by the Government, the date that the Contractor responded, and whether or not the cause and corrective action are acceptable. The COR will then assess a grade of Pass or Fail for each assessment. The assessment fails if either of the following conditions is met: 1) the delta between Issue Date and Response date is greater than 15 working days, or 2) the cause and corrective action was not acceptable.

Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by deducting 5 points for every assessment failed. Because this SSI may be assessed by CORs at multiple sites, the SMC/RND Quality Assurance Program Lead will be responsible for consolidating all reports before determining the final SSI score.

CAR # Issue Date Response Date Was cause and corrective action acceptable?

Pass/Fail

SSI Score

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 1 Example

Scenario:

During the performance period there were ten Level 2 CARs issued by the Western Range (WR), five Level 2 CARs issued by the Eastern Range (ER), and five Level 2 CARs issued by SMC. The Contractor responded to CAR #3 and CAR #4 over 15 working days after each was issued. Additionally, the Contractor responded to CAR #15 and CAR #16 within 15 working days but failed to provide an acceptable cause and corrective action.

CAR # Issue Date Response Date Was cause and corrective action acceptable?

Pass/Fail

1 (WR) 10 Feb 2013 20 Feb 2013 Y P

2 (WR) 15 Feb 2013 25 Feb 2013 Y P

3 (WR) 20 Feb 2013 20 Mar 2013 Y F

4 (WR) 25 Feb 2013 25 Mar 2013 Y F

5 (SMC) 10 Mar 2013 20 Mar 2013 Y P

6 (ER) 15 Mar 2013 25 Mar 2013 Y P

7 (WR) 1 Apr 2013 10 Apr 2013 Y P

8 (WR) 6 Apr 2013 15 Apr 2013 Y P

9 (SMC) 25 Apr 2013 5 May 2013 Y P

10 (ER) 30 Apr 2013 10 May 2013 Y P

11 (SMC) 14 May 2013 20 May 2013 Y P

12 (ER) 19 May 2013 25 May 2013 Y P

13 (WR) 20 Jun 2013 30 Jun 2013 Y P

14 (WR) 25 Jun 2013 30 Jun 2013 Y P

15 (WR) 10 July 2013 20 July 2013 N F

16 (WR) 15 July 2013 25 July 2013 N F

17 (SMC) 10 Oct 2013 20 Oct 2013 Y P

18 (ER) 15 Oct 2013 25 Oct 2013 Y P

19 (SMC) 1 Nov 2013 8 Nov 2013 Y P

20 (ER) 5 Nov 2013 10 Nov 2013 Y P

SSI Score 80%

Results:

The Contractor fails to meet the performance threshold for four assessments, leading to a 20 point deduction and resulting in an 80% overall score for this SSI.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C2: SSI 2 Scoring Sheet

SMC/RND; OL U; OL X

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI annually. At the completion of each performance period, this scoring sheet provides the input to the Calculation Table in Appendix D.

For the assessment, the COR will enter the quantity of restocked spares under control of the LISC contractor that were inspected, the number of restocked spares that met conformance to operational system, and the corresponding percentage of restocked spares that met conformance to operational system. The COR will then assess a grade of Pass or Fail for each assessment, and, if failed, provide any substantiating documentation.

The assessment fails if the following condition is met: the percentage of restocked spares under control of the LISC contractor that met conformance to operational systems is less than 99%.

Date

Number of spares observed

Number of spares meeting conformance

Percent of spares meeting conformance

Did percentage of spares meeting conformance meet threshold?

Pass/

Fail Documentation

Score

SSI 2 Example

Scenario:

An audit was conducted in November. During the November audit, 400 spares were inspected. 398 of those met the threshold.

Date

Number of spares observed

Number of spares meeting conformance

Percent of spares meeting conformance

Did percentage of spares meeting conformance meet threshold?

Pass/

Fail Documentation

1 Nov 2013 400 398 99.5% Y P

SSI

Score

100%

Results:

The Contractor receives a score of 100 because the percentage of spares meeting conformance was greater than 99%.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C3: SSI 3 Scoring Sheet

SMC/RND

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI each time the Contractor executes an Urgent Software Action (USA). At the completion of each performance period, this scoring sheet provides the input to the Calculation Table in Appendix D.

For each assessment, the COR will enter whether or not the Contractor completed the action IAW the agreed-to schedule, and whether or not any deficiencies were introduced after DT&E. The COR will then assess a grade of Pass or Fail for each assessment. The assessment fails if either of the following conditions are met: 1) the action was not completed IAW the agreed-to schedule, or 2) any Category I (A-E) or Category II (A-C) deficiencies were introduced after DT&E.

Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by dividing the number of assessments Passed by the total number of assessments.

USA

Agreed-to schedule end date

Date completed

Completed action IAW agreed-to schedule?

Any deficiencies after DT&E?

Pass/Fail

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 3 Example

Scenario:

The COR assessed four USAs during the performance period. USA 3 was not completed IAW the agreed-to schedule and also introduced a new Category I A deficiency after Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E).

USA

Agreed-to schedule end date

Date completed

Completed action IAW agreed-to schedule?

Any deficiencies after DT&E?

Pass/Fail

1 15 Jun 2013 15 Jun 2013 Y N P

2 20 Jun 2013 20 Jun 2013 Y N P

3 1 Jul 2013 5 Aug 2013 N Y F

4 10 Aug 2013 10 Aug 2013 Y N P

SSI Score 75%

Because USA 3 was not completed IAW the agreed-to schedule, and because it resulted in a Cat I A deficiency after DT&E, the USA fails, bringing the SSI score down to 75%.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C4: SSI 4 Scoring Sheet

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI quarterly. At the completion of each

At the conclusion of each quarter, the COR will determine whether or not the required IA Control reviews were completed during the quarter in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and the system’s Authority to Operate (ATO). The COR will then assess a grade of Pass or Fail for each assessment. The assessment fails if the following condition is met: the COR determines that less than 95% of all required IA Control reviews were completed during the quarter IAW FISMA and the system’s ATO.

Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by dividing the number of

Quarter 95% of required IA Control reviews completed (Y/N)

Pass/Fail

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 4 Example

The COR determined during Quarter 1 and Quarter 4 that the Contractor completed only 90% of the required IA Control reviews IAW FISMA and the applicable ATO.

Quarter 95% of required IA Control reviews completed (Y/N)

Pass/Fail

Q1 N F

Q2 Y P

Q3 Y P

Q4 N F

SSI Score 50%*

* Note 1: The LISC OMS Incentive Plan imposes minimum acceptable levels of performance. Any SSI that achieves a score less than 70% upon completion of the performance period will be scored as a 0 (Zero).

The Contractor’s failure to complete 95% of all IA Control reviews for Q1 and Q4 dropped the overall SSI score down to 50%. Since this falls below 70%, it counts as 0 percent.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C5: SSI 5 Scoring Sheet

1 ROPS, 2 ROPS

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI per launch attempt. At the completion of each

For each launch attempt, the COR will enter the Launch Attempt date & mission number and the assessment score using the scoring criteria below. Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by averaging all assessment scores. Because this SSI may be assessed by CORs at multiple sites, the Quality Assurance Program Lead will be responsible for consolidating all reports and determining the final SSI score.

Launch Attempt

Assessment

Notes

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Scoring Criteria for SSI 5

This metric provides a method to evaluate contractor support of pre-launch operations. It includes several factors which are weighted to reflect government priorities.

Each launch attempt is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support. Points are cumulatively deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW caused by range items under the Contractor’s control. The table below identifies the point deductions.

Criteria Deduction

If range item caused a red range, but can be recovered to support launch without delay

-0

If range item caused unplanned Hold, and range items are recovered to support a launch during planned window. Note: This delay may lead to a scrub due to weather moving in or other issue than range items.

-10

If range item caused scrub, and range items are recovered to support a launch window within 24 hours Note; This does not mean a launch must occur in the next 24 hours; however, the range items must be available to support the launch within 24 hours

-40

If range item caused scrub, and range items are recovered to support a launch window after 24 hours and within 72 hours

-60

If range item caused scrub, and range items are not recovered within 72 hours

-100

If range item prevented entering into a planned count and are recovered within 24 hours.

-40

If range item prevented entering into a planned count and are recovered after 24 hours and within 72 hours.

-60

If range item prevented entering into a planned count and are not recovered within 72 hours.

-100

Failure to report outages to government within established timelines (within 10minutes in count prior to L-120 minutes, within 5 minutes after L-120, and less than 30 seconds for mission critical terminal count reports). Deduction per instance and in addition to other deductions.

-5

Note: Repeat failure of a Range Item on a subsequent attempt will double the assessment reduction

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 5 Example

The first two launch attempts follow the scenario below. Sample data is provided in the Scoring Sheet below for the remaining launch attempts to demonstrate how the overall SSI score is calculated.

The Range has entered a countdown on 1 May 2013 for a Delta IV mission. At L-110, CT-1 goes off-line for faulty tone generation. The contractor notifies the Range Engineer and dispatches a maintenance team. At L-105 the issue is resolved by the CT-1 operator cycling power on the transmitter, CT-1 is brought back on-line and the Range Engineer concurs the site is operational. At L-10, CT-1 again goes off-line for faulty tone generation. The contractor dispatches maintenance, but waits for the result of the operator cycling power to advise the Range Engineer. At L-4, the power cycling did not restore the system and the contractor notifies the Range Engineer.

The Range is Red, the count is held, pending the result of maintenance. The maintenance team arrives and takes 15 minutes to troubleshoot the problem and then another 20 minutes to replace the faulty power supply.

Unfortunately this mission had a short window and the mission must be scrubbed for that day. The following day, weather was an issue and the mission was scrubbed before entering the countdown. On day three, 3 May 2013, the mission launched without incident.

Scoring results:

Launch Attempt #1 (1 May 2013) – No reduction for first failure of CT-1. A 5 point deduction for the second failure of CT-1 as a result of the delay in notifying the Range Engineer. An additional 40 point reduction for Range asset failure which caused a scrub.

Score = 55*

Launch Attempt #2 (3 May 2013) – No deduction. Score = 100

Launch Attempt

Score Notes

1 May 2013

(WR)

5 point reduction for second failure of CT-1 as a result of the delay in notifying Range Engineer. An additional 40 point reduction for Range asset failure which caused a scrub. Launch reattempted on 3 May 2013

3 May 2013

(WR)

100 No deductions

1 Jun 2013 (ER) 100 No deductions

10 Jun 2013

(WR)

100 No deductions

20 Jun 2013

(ER)

0* 100 point deduction because range asset caused a scrub, and range assets were not recovered within 72 hours. Launch reattempted on 24 Jun 2013

24 Jun 2013

(ER)

100 No deductions

1 Jul 2013 (WR) 90 10 point deduction because range asset caused unplanned Hold, and range assets were recovered to support the launch during planned window

15 Jul 2013 (ER) 100 No deductions

25 Jul 2013

(WR)

100 No deductions

15 Aug 2013

(WR)

100 No deductions

10 Sep 2013

(WR)

10 point deduction because range asset caused unplanned Hold, and range assets were recovered to support the launch during planned window

SSI Score 85

* Note 1: The LISC OMS Incentive Plan imposes additional penalties for subpar performance in critical areas.

Any launch attempt with a hard score of 0 (meaning there was a deduction of at least 100 points during the launch attempt) will result in the Quality Performance Index score being reduced by an additional 4 percentage points.

This reduction is not reflected in this table but would be reflected in the calculation of the QPI score IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan.

The overall SSI score is: (55 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 0 + 100 + 90 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 90) / 11 = 85.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C6: SSI 6 Scoring Sheet

1 ROPS, 2 ROPS

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI per launch. At the completion of each

For each launch, the COR will enter the Launch date & mission number and the assessment score using the scoring criteria below. Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by averaging all assessment scores. Because this SSI may be assessed by CORs at multiple sites, the Quality Assurance Program Lead will be responsible for consolidating all reports and determining the final SSI score.

Notes

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Scoring Criteria for SSI 6

This metric provides a method to evaluate contractor support of plus count operations. It includes several factors which are weighted to reflect government priorities.

Each launch is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support. Points are cumulatively deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW. The table below identifies the point deductions.

Table B2-1

Category Condition Deduction

Command

Loss of any single criteria on one committed string -10

Loss of any single criteria on multiple strings, but not all committed strings

-30

Loss of any single criteria on all committed strings -100

Telemetry Loss of any required data -10

Loss of any mandatory data -50

Radar Loss of any required data -10

Loss of any mandatory data -50

Metric Optics

Loss of criteria on a single site -5

Loss of criteria on optics solution during a Normal Launch event -10

Loss of criteria on optics solution during an Anomalous Launch event

-25

Communications

Comm degradation resulting in loss of real time required voice, video, or data

-10

Comm degradation resulting in loss of real time mandatory data -50

Comm degradation resulting in loss of Range Safety Solution -100

Range Safety Loss of range safety solution (loss of both mandatory solution) -100

Timing and Sequencing

Degradation of timing to any required range asset -5

Degradation of timing to any mandatory range asset -10

Count/First Motion (liftoff) not received by all committed range assets

-10

Notes Repeat failures will double the assessment reduction

Table B2-2

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Category Criteria

Command Destruct

Transmitted EIRP that produces calculated Signal margin of +9dB / +12dB at vehicle(vehicle dependent) @ elevation ≥ 0 degree

CRD (Command Receiver Decoder) capture maintained

Metric Optics

Vehicle visible within telescope’s reticle field of view with valid closure angles at each optics site (ER Only)

Triangulation solution with a minimum of 4 sites with closure angles of 30o – 150° (ER Only)

The Instrumentation Coverage Plan (ICP) establishes the criteria and anticipated operation of the range. The system performance report (SPR) is then used to assess the actual performance of the range as compared to the anticipated operation in the ICP. Deductions are based on assessments from the SPR.

The criteria referenced above comes from the EWR 127-1 and AFSPCMAN 91-710, is documented in the ICP and should be checked prior each launch.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 6 Example

The following launches occurred during the period. During the 1 Jun 2013 launch, the System Performance Report (SPR) shows a loss of required telemetry data resulting in a 10 point deduction for that assessment.

During the 10 Sep 2013 launch, the SPR shows a loss of required radar data resulting in a 10 point deduction for that assessment.

Score Notes

3 May 2013 (WR) 100

1 Jun 2013 (ER) 90 10 point deduction for loss of required telemetry data

10 Jun 2013 (WR) 100

24 Jun 2013 (ER) 100

1 Jul 2013 (WR) 100

15 Jul 2013 (ER) 100

25 Jul 2013 (WR) 100

15 Aug 2013 (WR) 100

10 Sep 2013 (WR) 90 10 point deduction for loss of required radar data

SSI Score 98

The scores for all launch assessments are averaged to calculate the overall SSI score:

(100 + 90 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 90) / 9 = 98.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C7: SSI 7 Scoring Sheet

30 RMS; 45 RMS

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI monthly. At the completion of each

At the conclusion of each month, the COR will enter the score for each Metric using the scoring criteria in below.

Because this SSI may be assessed by CORs at multiple sites, the Quality Assurance Program Lead will consolidate the reports and average the scores for each metric (i.e. the score for Metric 1 during any specific month will be the average of the Western Range score for Metric 1 and the Eastern Range score for Metric 1).

The three metric scores will then be averaged to calculate the monthly composite score.

Upon completion of the performance period, the final SSI Score will be calculated by averaging the monthly composite scores.

Month Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3* Composite

Score

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

* Note: Metric 3 assesses Operational Availability (AO). Due to the lack of AO data that will initially exist, and in order to prevent punishment for factors outside of the Contractor’s control, this metric will not be assessed during Contract Year 1. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of this metric during Contract Year 1 and, if feasible, begin assessing this metric in Contract Year 2. Accordingly, for Contract Year 1, the scores for Metric 1 and Metric 2 only will be averaged to calculate the monthly composite score.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Scoring Criteria for SSI 7

This metric provides a method to evaluate contractor performance of organizational maintenance activities. It includes three metrics from organizational maintenance which are independently assessed and then averaged to calculate a composite score each month.

Metric #1: Preventive Maintenance Inspections (PMI) Timeliness

Each month this metric is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support for PMI timeliness. Points are deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW. The table below identifies the point deductions

Criteria Deduction

If the percent of PMIs completed correctly IAW applicable TO and on schedule is greater than or equal to 98%

-0

If the percent of PMIs completed correctly IAW applicable TO and on schedule is less than 98% but greater than or equal to 96%

-10

If the percent of PMIs completed correctly IAW applicable TO and on schedule is less than 96% but greater than or equal to 94%

-30

If the percent of PMIs completed correctly IAW applicable TO and on schedule is less than 94%

-70

Metric #2: Response to and Restoration of Communications Trouble Tickets

Each month this metric is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support for response and restoration of communications trouble tickets. Points are cumulatively deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW. The table below identifies the point deductions.

Failure to respond to a P-1 communication outage within 10 minutes -10

Failure to restore a P-1 communication capability within 4 hours -10

Failure to respond to a P-2 communication outage within 4 hours -5

Failure to restore a P-2 communication capability within 1 working day -5

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Metric #3: Maintaining Ao

Note: Due to the lack of AO data that will initially exist, and in order to prevent punishment for factors outside of the Contractor’s control, this metric will not be assessed for Contract Year 1. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of this metric during Contract Year 1 and, if feasible, begin assessing this metric in Contract Year 2.

Each month this metric is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support for AO. Points are deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW. The table below identifies the point deductions.

Criteria Deduction

If the average AO of all Range Items is greater than or equal to 90% -0

If the average AO of all Range Items is less than 90% but greater than or equal to 85% -5

If the average AO of all Range Items is less than 85% but greater than or equal to 80% -10

If the average AO of all Range Items is less than 80% but greater than or equal to 75% -15

If the average AO of all Range Items is less than 75% -20

Additionally, the following points are cumulatively deducted.

For every subsystem average AO less than 75% -10

For every Range Item AO less than 60% -10

Note: Guidance for calculating AO is found in the LTRS RMA Guide and AFMAN 63-128.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 7 Example

Scenario for Month 1:

Eastern Range

Metric 1: The Contractor completed a total of 20 PMIs on the Eastern Range. All PMIs were completed on schedule. The COR determined that 1 out of the 20 PMIs was completed incorrectly IAW the applicable Technical Order (TO). Therefore only 95% of the PMIs were completed correctly IAW the applicable Technical Order (TO) and on schedule. This results in a 30 point deduction IAW the scoring criteria above.

Metric 2: The Contractor completed a total of 3 P-1 trouble tickets and 2 P-2 trouble tickets on the Eastern Range. All P-1 trouble tickets were responded to within 10 minutes and restored within 4 hours. The Contractor failed to restore one P-2 trouble ticket within 1 working day. All other P-2 trouble tickets were responded to within 4 hours and restored within 1 working day. Failure to restore the one P-2 trouble ticket within 1 working day results in a 5 point deduction IAW the scoring criteria above.

Metric 3: Not assessed during Contract Year 1

Month Metric 1 (ER) Metric 2 (ER) Metric 3 (ER)

1 70 95

12 … …

Western Range

Metric 1: The Contractor completed a total of 20 PMIs on the Western Range. The COR determined that all 20 PMIs were completed correctly IAW the applicable Technical Order (TO) and on schedule. This results in no deductions IAW the scoring criteria above.

Metric 2: The Contractor completed a total of 2 P-1 trouble tickets and 5 P-2 trouble tickets on the Western Range. The Contractor failed to respond to a P-1 trouble ticket within 10 minutes. All other P-1 trouble tickets were responded to within 10 minutes and restored within 4 hours. The Contractor failed to restore one P-2 trouble ticket within 1 working day. All other P-2 trouble tickets were responded to within 4 hours and restored within 1 working day. Failure to respond to the one P-1 trouble ticket within 10 minutes results in a 10 point deduction and failure to restore the one P-2 trouble ticket within 1 working day results in a 5 point deduction IAW the scoring criteria above.

Metric 3: Not assessed during Contract Year 1

Month Metric 1 (WR) Metric 2 (WR) Metric 3 (WR)

1 100 85

12 … …

The SMC/RND Quality Assurance Program Lead will average WR and ER results to complete the SSI Scoring Sheet. For month 1, using the sample data above, the score for Metric 1 is: (70 + 100) / 2 = 85; the score for Metric 2 is: (95 + 85) / 2 = 90. The composite score for each month is calculated by averaging the individual metrics. For month 1, the composite score is (85 + 90) / 2 = 87.5.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

The overall SSI Score for the performance period is the average of all composite scores. The remainder of the Scoring Sheet is filled in below with sample data to demonstrate this process.

Month Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3

Score

1 85 90 87.5

2 100 100 100

3 70 100 85

4 100 100 100

5 100 100 100

6 100 100 100

7 70 100 85

8 85 90 87.5

9 100 100 100

10 100 100 100

11 100 100 100

12 100 90 95

SSI Score 95

The overall SSI Score for the performance period is the average of all composite scores:

(87.5 + 100 + 85 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 85 + 87.5 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 95) / 12 = 95%.

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C8: SSI 8 Scoring Sheet

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI quarterly. At the completion of each

At the conclusion of each quarter, the COR will enter the score for each Metric using the scoring criteria below.

The two metric scores will be averaged to calculate the quarterly composite score.

Upon completion of the performance period, the final SSI Score will be calculated by averaging the monthly composite scores.

Quarter Metric 1 Metric 2

Score

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Scoring Criteria for SSI 8

This metric provides a method to evaluate contractor support of depot maintenance activities. It includes two metrics from depot maintenance which are independently assessed and then averaged to calculate a composite score each quarter.

Metric #1: Planned Depot Maintenance (PDM) Timeliness

Each quarter this metric is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support for Planned Depot Maintenance timeliness. Points are deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW.

The table below identifies the point deductions.

If percent of PDMs completed on-time IAW the TO is greater than or equal to 98%

-0

If percent of PDMs completed on-time IAW the TO is less than 98% but greater than or equal to 95%

-10

If percent of PDMs completed on-time IAW the TO is less than 95% but greater than or equal to 90%

-20

If percent of PDMs completed on-time IAW the TO is less than 90% -60

Metric #2: Depot Repair Times (stock-listed and non stock-listed items)

Each quarter this metric is valued at 100 points which represents perfect support for Depot Repair Times. Points are cumulatively deducted from 100 to reflect impact to the operational mission of the 30SW and 45SW. The table below identifies the point deductions.

If in-house quarterly average is greater or equal than 60 calendar days but less than 70 calendar days

-10

If in-house quarterly average is greater than or equal to 70 calendar days -25

If other than in-house quarterly average is greater than or equal to 100 calendar days but less than 115 calendar days

-10

If other than in-house quarterly average is greater than or equal to 115 calendar days

-25

SSI 8 Example

Scenario for Quarter 1:

Metric 1

The Contractor completed a total of 20 PDMs during Quarter 1. The COR determined that 1 out of the 20 PDMs was not completed on-time IAW the TO. Therefore only 95% of the PDMs were completed on time. This results in a 10 point deduction IAW the scoring criteria above.

Metric 2

The Contractor completed a total of 50 in-house depot repairs and 60 other than in-house depot repairs during Quarter 1. The average depot repair time for in-house depot repairs was 50 days. This results in no deductions for in-house repair times IAW the scoring criteria above. The average depot repair time for other than in-house depot repairs was 105 days. This results in a 10 point deduction for other than in-house repair times IAW the scoring criteria above.

For Quarter 1, using the sample data above, the score for Metric 1 is 90, and the score for Metric 2 is 90. The composite score for each quarter is calculated by averaging the individual metrics. For Quarter 1, the composite score is (90 + 90) / 2 = 90.

The overall SSI Score for the performance period is the average of all composite scores. The remainder of the Scoring Sheet is filled in below with sample data to demonstrate this process.

Quarter Metric 1 Metric 2

Score

1 90 90 90

2 80 100 90

3 100 100 100

4 100 100 100

SSI Score 95

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

Appendix C9: SSI 9 Scoring Sheet

To facilitate scoring of the Quality Performance Index IAW the LISC OMS Incentive Plan in order to calculate Contractor profit.

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will assess this SSI per EDLM. At the completion of each

For each EDLM, the COR will enter the location of the EDLM and the Contractor’s response time. The COR will then assess a grade of Pass or Fail for each EDLM. The assessment fails if the following condition is met: COR evaluation of EDLM records indicates that the Contractor did not meet the applicable response time standard.

For launch head sites, the applicable response time standard is “on site within 2 hours IAW the integrated Maintenance Plan.” For up-range sites, the applicable response time standard is “in transit within 2 hours or provide the appropriate response within 2 hours IAW the integrated Maintenance Plan.” For down-range sites, the applicable response time standard is “in transit within 24 hours IAW the integrated Maintenance Plan.” For purposes of this SSI, “in transit” is defined as arranging confirmed travel for the next available flight within 24 hrs.

Upon completion of the performance period, the SSI Score will be calculated by dividing the number of

EDLM Location Response time Pass/Fail

ATTACHMENT 4: PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

SSI 9 Example

The Contractor completed 10 EDLMs during the performance period. The list below shows the location and response time for each EDLM.

EDLM Location Response time Pass/Fail

1 Kennedy Space Center On site in 2 hours P

2 JDMTA In transit in 1.5 hours P

3 Antigua AS In transit in 23 hours P

4 Pillar Point AFS In transit in 1.5 hours P

5 VAFB On site in 6 hours F

6 Ascension AAF In transit in 38 hours F

7 PAFB On site in 3.5 hours F

8 PAFB On site in 1.5 hours P

9 Kennedy Space Center On site in 1 hour P

10 Pillar Point AFS In transit in 2 hours P

SSI Score 70%

EDLMs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 meet the applicable standards for launch head, up-range, and down-range sites.

EDLMs 5 and 7 fail to meet the…