Award Term Plan 24 Aug 09 signed 14 sep 09.pdf

i;.

SECTION J

Attachment 4

AWARD TERM PLAN

FOR

LRSW SE&I SERVICES

24 Aug 2009

Date of Approval:

Contractor:

APPROVED:

1 . INTRODUCTION

2 . GENERAL

3 . PURPOSE

4 . OBJECTIVES

5 . AWARD TERM REVIEW TEAM (ATRT)

5.1 ORGANIZATION

6 . ELlGlBLlTY AND SCORING

7 . AWARD TERM PROCEDURES

............................................................................. 8 . AWARD TERM INTEGRITY 9

............................................................ AT EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS 11

ANNEX 1

ANNEX 2

AWARD TERM PLAN

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Award Term (AT) Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") serves as the charter which will be used to determine whether the incentive award term (hereinafter referred to as the "AT option" or "Award Term") will be granted. The Launch and Range Systems Wing (LRSW) requires consistent quality performance to meet program requirements. Hence, this Award Term plan is designed to provide an additional incentive to motivate the contractor to perform above the satisfactory level to benefit LRSW.

1.2 The intent of this plan is to provide criteria and a process for awarding Award Term Options that : (1) uses the contractor's performance during Award Term evaluation periods as referenced in paragraph 6.1; and (2) furnishes sufficient data to enable the Award Term Determining Official (ATDO) to determine whether the Award Term Options will be granted.

2. GENERAL

Through this plan, LRSW seeks to provide an additional incentive for the contractor to perform at a level LRSW considers Very Good. The Award Term options will be awarded only if overall performance is assessed at the Very Good level in meeting contractual requirements.

3. PURPOSE

This plan and the specific contract clauses shall serve as a guide to LRSW personnel directly involved in the process for determining Award Term eligibility based upon assessments of the contractor's performance.

4. OBJECTIVES

The objective of this Award Term feature is to incentivize the contractor to perform the contract in a manner higher than "satisfactory". The six key performance parameters are set forth in Section 2.2 of the LRSW SE&I PWS (Attachment 1 to the contract), and as such, reflect the areas for continuing emphasis during contract performance.

5. AWARD TERM REVIEW TEAM (ATRT)

5.1 Organization

The organization of the Team is described in the following paragraphs.

5.1.1. Award Term Determining Official (ATDO). The Award Term Determining Official is AF PEOISPACE which may delegate no lower than LRSWJCC.

5.1.2. Award Term Review Team (ATRT) membership (see Annex 1). The ATDO will appoint a Team to assist in assessing the contractor's performance utilizing data from Monthly Surveillance Reports, Quarterly Feedback, and Interim Annual Assessments to determine eligibility for award of potential additional years of contract period of performance through Award Term options. Annex 1 identifies by position the ATRT membership; however, the ATDO may supplement the team as needed. The ATDO will appoint a Chairman to the Team The team members will ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the contractor's performance is conducted for the period being evaluated. The Team Chairman may also use non-voting advisors as necessary.

5.2 Duties of the Team.

The duties of the Team are as follows:

5.2.1. Implement the plan and propose timely modifications to the Plan if required, throughout the period of contract performance.

5.2.2. Assess contractor eligibility for the granting of Award Term Options based upon the contractor's performance for the period being evaluated.

5.2.3. Prepare and submit to the ATDO a written evaluation of the contractor's eligibility and recommendation for AT period award.

5.3 Responsibilities.

5.3.1. Award Term Determining Official. Approves the Award Term plan and the evaluation areas and scoring methodology. Approves the ATRT Chairperson.

Makes the final determination as to whether the Award Term options will be granted based on the eligibility assessments of the team along with other inputs as applicable in order to make an informed decision. Through the PCO, the ATDO advises the contractor in writing of Interim Award Term evaluation results and Award Term Option decisions and documents the basis for the decision.

5.3.2. Team Chairperson. Structures the Team membership to provide representation that reflects all appropriate aspects of contract performance and provides membership to adequately assess whether contractor's performance during the Award Term Option period meets the criteria for consideration of an Award Term incentive. Conducts the assessment evaluations under this plan. Schedules Team meetings and assigns a recorder at these meetings. Leads the team in developing a consensus evaluation and in resolving significant differences in ratings. Provides summary documentation and recommendations to the ATDO. Shall provide quarterly feedback to the contractor in order to focus the contractor on areas that would lead to improved performance in subsequent periods as specified in the performance plan.

5.3.3. Award Term Review Team (ATRT). Assesses contractor Performance using the FAEICOR Monthly Surveillance Reports, quarterly feedback letters, and Interim AT Evaluations for AT period(s) utilizing the criteria set forth in the AT plan, Attachment 2. Makes written assessment evaluations, completes the evaluation worksheets (Award Term Scoring Form- see attachment 1) and formulates Award Term recommendations. The assessments will be based upon the evaluations fiom the LRSW SE&I Performance Plan. The ATRT will brief the ATDO on assessments of contractor performance and provide supporting dataJdocurnentation.

Prepares the assessment report and accompanying narrative justification including potential improvement areas for the next succeeding evaluation period to the Team Chairperson for later contractor debriefing.

5.3.4. Contracting Officer. Prepares and distributes contract AT correspondence and modifications awarding the Award Term authorized by the ATDO. Maintains Award Term documentation as part of the official contract file. Retains historical files and other documentation relating to Award Term matters for the contract.

5.3.5. Recorder. The recorder is a non-voting member of the ATRT and is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the ATRT and the ATDO, including: 1) receipt, processing and distribution of assessment inputs from all required sources; 2) scheduling and assisting with internal assessment milestones, such as briefings; and 3) accomplishing other actions required to insure the smooth operation of the Award Term process.

6. ELIGIBLITY AND SCORING

6.1 Performance Evaluation Periods

6.1.1. Assessment of eligibility for each performance evaluation period, will be reviewed at years 2,3,4,5, and 6 with years 3 and 6 being AT Option Decision Points (Figure 1). Performance reviews will be held in accordance with the schedule in the H005 clause of the contract entitled "Award Term." LRSW shall evaluate the contractor's eligibility based upon contractor performance in achieving contract requirements for the granting of the potential Award Term option periods below:

AT Option period Period of Performance (notional) AT TERM Period 1 (Contract year)

AT TERM Period 2 (Contract year)

1 Oct 13 - 30 Sep 14 1 Oct 14 - 30 Sep 15 1 Oct 15 - 30 Sep 16

1 Oct 16 - 30 Sep 17 1 Oct 17 - 30 Sep 18 1 Oct 18 - 30 Sep 19

Figure 1

Year .I c3ntrYt LY*h7 8 9 10

Contract Period

AT Decision 1

AT Decision 2

- Contract Base Year @ AT Option Decision Point - Original Option Years 0 - AT Decision 1 Option Years - AT Decision 2 Option Years Interim AT Evaluation

6.1.2. An interim AT assessment of the contractor's performance is accomplished approximately mid-way through first AT evaluation period with two interim assessments between the two AT decision points. An AT interim period of performance letter is sent to the contractor advising them of their strengths and areas for improvement. Additional letters may be sent as required.

6.2 Award Term Option Eligibility

To be considered for an AT under this Plan, the contractor must have overall minimum performance ratings of satisfactory or better for the AT assessment periods (including interim AT periods) preceding the AT decision point. Any instances of unsatisfactory or marginal performance must have been successfully resolved.

6.3 Scoring for Award Term

6.3.1. To be eligible for the first Award Term entitlement, the evaluation team's consensus scoring for the entire evaluation period preceding the AT decision point must result in a score of Very Good or higher (see Step 2 of Para 7.1.1 and 7.1.2) based on the 6 evaluation areas in Annex 2. This evaluation will emphasize more recent performance; however, the overall trend of the contractor's performance during the entire period will be considered. For the base year only, consideration may be given in recognition that efforts to start and transition into the contract may result in a lower score in the first year. If any individual Performance Plan area is scored Marginal or lower, the contractor may not be eligible for the Award Term. If Performance Plan evaluation factor areas fiom the PWS are added/changed in future periods, the Performance plan will be revised accordingly. For the second AT evaluation period, the contractor must earn Very Good or higher scores on the majority of performance evaluation factor areas.

6.3.2. The six Award Term Plan evaluation areas as well as their weightings will be in accordance with Annex 2 to this Plan.

6.4 PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURES

The Government reserves the right to unilaterally change this Award Term Plan as necessary up to 30 days prior to the beginning of an AT evaluation period. If the contracting officer does not give specific notice in writing to the contractor of any changes to the weightings as listed in Annex 2 to this plan prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the allocated weightings for the preceding period will be used in the next Award Term evaluation period. Changes in area weightings will be made by revising Annex 2 to this plan to apply to the next evaluation period, and by the contracting officer advising the contractor in writing prior to the start of the evaluation period. Subsequent to the commencement of a period, changes may only be made by mutual agreement of the parties.

7. AWARD TERM PROCEDURES

Step-by-step Procedures for Evaluation Periods

7.1.1 Interim Evaluation Periods

Step 1. Team members shall individually complete their evaluation worksheets (Award Term Evaluation Form, Attachment 1) within 20 calendar days after the end of each interim evaluation period. Interim Award Term evaluations will be conducted at the end of the Contract Year 2, Year 4 and Year 5. The Interim AT evaluations will include the entire period since the immediate preceding AT Interim period or AT decision Point, whichever is the more recent. Team members shall be prepared to brief their evaluations to the Chairperson if necessary.

Step 2. The Team will develop a consensus eligibility assessment of contractor performance in the appropriate areas for the period, using the monthly surveillance reports and quarterly feedback reports. The Team shall review all LRSW SE&I Performance Plan evaluation material fiom the monthly FAEICOR evaluation reports made during the evaluation period along with supporting documentation and may call additional technical and management advisors to provide supporting information as required. Recommendations of the Team, together with supporting justifications, shall be presented to the ATDO. The team shall additionally prepare a letter for the ATDO's signature documenting the contractor's performance including strengths and weaknesses.

7.1.2 Award Term Evaluation Periods

Step 1. Team members shall individually complete their evaluation worksheets (Award Term Evaluation Form, Attachment 1) within 20 calendar days after the end of each Award Term evaluation period. The Award Term evaluation for eligibility and AT award determination will be conducted at the end of the 3rd quarter of Contract Year 3 and again at the end of the 3rd quarter of Contract Year 6 (see Figure 1 above).

Team members shall be prepared to brief their evaluations to the Chairman if necessary.

Step 2. The Team will develop a consensus assessment of contractor AT eligibility in the appropriate areas for the AT period, using the monthly surveillance reports, quarterly feedback reports, and interim assessment reports. The Team may call additional technical and management advisors to provide supporting information as required. Recommendations of the Team, together with supporting justifications, shall be presented to the ATDO for final decision on the contractor eligibility rating.

Eligibility assessment activities need to be completed at a point no later than 45 calendar days after the end of each AT period in order for the AT decision to be made and announced no later than 75 days after the AT period being evaluated.

Step 3. No later than 10 calendar days after the ATDO receives the Team's recommendations, the ATDO shall make a determination of the contractor's evaluation rating for the AT period. A brief summary narrative report highlighting contractor strengths and weaknesses shall be prepared. The announcement of the ATDO's decision will be made no later than 75 days after the end of each period being evaluated as indicated in Step 4.

Step 4. The Contracting Officer shall provide the ATDO's announcement and summary narrative to the contractor not later than 75 days after the end of the applicable AT evaluation period and the modification adding the Award Term entitlement, if earned, will follow as soon as practicable following the notification.

7.1.3 Award Term Impact Criteria

For each of the six performance areas, all area factors fiom the Performance Plan will be weighted equal within the area unless otherwise noted in the area factor description. The significance of a factor comment will be categorized as follows:

+++I- - - Major or Potentially Maior Program Impact ++I- - Moderate or Potentially Moderate Program Impact +/- Minor Program Impact + denotes Positive impact

- denotes Ne~ative impact

Number of +I-'s denote severity of impact on program

An overall rating for each performance area will be assigned including (+I-) as applicable. These (+I-) impact criteria are also to be used as needed to develop IATRT assessments.

7.1.4 Contractor Self Assessment

The Contractor's self assessment, at the discretion of the ATDO, may be presented as a briefing (limited to 45 minutes, maximum 60 slides) at the ATDO meeting with the ATRT. The contractor may also provide a written report not to exceed 20 pages within 30 days after the end of the AT period.

In addition to the Award Term evaluations, the ATDO will also consider, when making the Award Term decision, the annual final Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARS) or those in the process of being completed for the contractor. Any inconsistencies between the Award Term assessment and the CPARS shall be addressed in the ATDO's announcement and summary narrative decision regarding the Award Term.

8. AWARD TERM INTEGRITY

he Award Term process is recognized to be somewhat subjective in nature, but every effort will be made to assure fairness. The FAEICOR monthly surveillance reports, quarterly feedback letters, interim award term assessments, inputs fiom other pertinent sources (e.g. DCAA, GAO, IG), and the contractor's self-assessment (if provided) assist in providing the checks and balances necessary to assure Award Term integrity.

ATTACHMENT 1

AWARD TERM SCORING FORM

REPARED BY:

"COMMENTS (Explain how Exceptional and Very Good ratings benefited LRSW)

Signature of AT TEAM MEMBER Date

Quality of service

Schedule

Unsatisfactory Most performance requirements are not met

Recovery not likely

Many late deliveries

Negative cost impact / Loss of capability for Government l neffective corrective actions / Not likely to recover

ATTACHMENT 2

AT Evaluation Ratings Definitions

Marginal Some performance requirements not met

Performance reflects serious problem / Ineffective corrective actions

Some late deliveries

Some corrective actions not effectively or timely

Satisfactory Met all performance requirements

Minor problems / Satisfactory corrective actions

On-time deliveries

- Only Minor problems / Did not generally effect delivery schedule Most corrective actions effective and timely

Very Good Met all performance requirements / Exceeded 10% or more

- Minor problems / Effective corrective actions

On-Time deliveries / Some early deliveries to the Government's benefit

Quickly resolved delivery issues / Effective corrective actions

Exceptional Met all performance requirements / Exceeded 20 % or more

Minor problems / Highly effective corrective actions / Improved performance/quality results

Significantly exceeded delivery requirements (All on-time with many early deliveries to the Government's benefit)

No delivery issues

Cost Control

Business Re'ations

Significant cost overruns

- Not likely to recover cost control

Delinquent responses / Lack of cooperative spirit

Unsatisfied user / Unable to improve relations

- Significantly under subcontractor goals

- Excessive unnecessary change proposals to correct poor management

Does not meet cost/price estimates some cost overruns

Inadequate corrective action plans / No innovative techniques to bring overall expenditures within limits

Less Professionalism and Responsiveness . Low user satisfaction / No attempts to improve relations

Unsuccessful in meeting subcontractor goals

Met overall cost/price estimates while meeting all contract requirements No cost overruns Generally resolved cost/price issues

Professional / Reasonably responsive

- Met expectations . Adequate user satisfaction

- Met subcontractor goals Responses are generally on time

Some reductions in overall cost/price while meeting all contract requirements

Use of value engineering or other innovative management techniques

- Quickly resolved cost/price issues / Effective corrective actions to facilitate overall cost/price reductions without jeopardizing performance

Professional / Responsive

Exceeded expectations

User satisfaction

Exceeded subcontractor goals

Significant reductions while maintaining high performance on all contract requirements

Use of value engineering or other innovative management techniques

- Proactively created cost savings solutions/actions

Highly professional / Responsive / Proactive

Significantly exceeded expectations

- High user satisfaction

- Significantly exceeded SB/SDB subcontractor goals

Minor changes implemented without cost impact

Mgt of Key Personnel

Security & IA

Does not meet contract requirements

Does not meet contract requirements

Meets contract requirement generally, but occasional delays or mission impact occurs due to lack of communication, proficiency, high turnover, delays in replacing key personnel or lack of supervision.

Met security and Information Assurance requirements generally, but lacks some of the professional work that LRSW expects No more than three minor security incidents for entire AT period

Met requirements.

Communicative and capable management.

Oversees activities in a competent and professional manner.

Direction of subcontractors or consultants meets and in some instances exceeds all requirements of the contract.

Met security and Information Assurance requirements Oversees Security and IA activities in a very competent and professional manner.

Only two minor security incidents for entire AT period

Highly talented workforce that displays high motivation and successful teamwork. Key Personnel are competent and training is provided to upgrade or improve skills.

Reports are of high quality and completeness.

Efficient recruitment and key personnel management.

Supervision ensures quality performance, teamwork, and work efficiency.

Exceeded some security and Information Assurance requirements Proactively oversees Security and IA activities in a very competent and professional manner.

Only one minor security incident for entire AT period

Provides extraordinarily motivated, competent, and key professional personnel. Positive attitudes. Strong teamwork. Key Personnel need virtually no supervision and are highly proficient in their work. The contractor anticipates and plans for problem areas. Minimal key personnel turnover.

Resources are replaced, when necessary, without impacting workload or mission activities. Team leads assemble a highly organized and successful team in which the members provide LRSW with all needed skills and the members demonstrate strong skills and teamwork

Exceeded several security and Information Assurance requirements Contractor demonstrates very high level of dedication and ability in delivering security and IA services.

No security incidents for entire AT period Provides innovative solutions to Security and IA issues.

ANNEX 1

INCENTIVE AWARD TERM REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Votin~ Members

LRSWICC or CV(Chair)

LRSWICD

LRSWEN (Program Manager) 30th LCGICC 45th LCGICC Chief of Program Control Procuring Contracting Officer Staff Judge Advocate LRSW Chief of Contracting

Aerospace Corporation General Manager Aerospace Corporation Principal Director Recorder

Office

LRSW

LRSW

LRSW

30th LCG 45th LCG

LRSWRC

LRSWPK

SMCIJA

LRSWRK

AEROSPACE

AEROSPACE

LRSW/EN

ANNEX 2

The Award Term Plan evaluation areas will be weighted as follows for Award Term assessment:

Table 1 Award Term Plan Area Weights

Performance Plan Area (Para 2.2) Quality of Service Schedule Cost Control Customer Relations Management of Key Personnel Information Assurance and Security

% Weights