Draft_AwardFeePerformancePlan 10SEP10.pdf

AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE PLAN

FOR

RESEARCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (ROSS) II

10 SEPTEMBER 2010

Contractor’s Name

FA9300-10-R-0001

APPROVED BY: _______________________________________________________

MICHAEL T. HUGGINS, AFRL/RZS DATE

Fee Determining Official (FDO) Chief, Space & Missile Propulsion Division

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 ORGANIZATION

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

4.0 AWARD-FEE PROCESSES

5.0 AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

6.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

ANNEX

1 - AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

2 - AWARD-FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

3 - AWARD-FEE PER CLIN AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

4 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

5 - PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

6 - AWARD REVIEW EVALUATION WORKSHEET

AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General.

This Award-Fee Performance Plan (AFPP) contains the criteria and processes for evaluating the contractor’s performance on the Research and Operations Support Services (ROSS) II, Contract Number FA9300-10-C-0001. The AFPP combines the award-fee plan and performance plan into one document as allowed for by AFI 63-124 paragraph 1.4.4.

1.1.1 This ROSS II AFPP will be used to determine the award-fee earned over the contract period and is designed to motivate and reward Exceptional performance while ensuring effective controls are in place for evaluating Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, Cost Management, Schedule and Quality of Product or Service. This AFPP describes specific activities involved for determining award-fee earned. Eligibility for an award-fee includes meeting performance standards and metrics required by this plan with areas of evaluation rated at or above Satisfactory.

1.2 Award-Fee Performance Plan Concept

The AFPP describes the processes for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance, assist the FDO in determining the amount of award-fee earned in accordance with the AFMCFARS 5352.216-9003 Award-Fee clause in Section I of the contract. The ROSS II Government Program Manager (GPM) will be responsible for implementing the program in accordance with the provisions of this plan. All FDO decisions regarding the award-fee include but are not limited to: 1) the contractor’s entitlement to the award-fee and the amount of the award-fee earned, if any; 2) the methodology used to calculate the award-fee; 3) the calculation of the award-fee; and 4) the nature and success of the contractor’s performance.

1.2.1 This AFPP incorporates the considerations described in the Assistance Secretary of Air Force (SAF/AQ) Memorandum, entitled “Air Force Policy for Award-Fee Contracting,” 15 Jun 2007 and Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition Technology and Logistics Memorandum, entitled “Proper use of Award-Fee Contracts and Award-Fee Provisions,” 24 April 2007. For this contract, a Determination and Finding (D&F) was initiated and approved by Col Wayne Patterson on 24 May 2010.

1.2.2 The specific criteria and procedures used to monitor and assess contractor performance and arrive at specific award-fee payments are described in this plan. The Air Force does not intend to reward unsatisfactory performance. There is neither a requirement nor a presumption that the fee set for a given period will become a baseline for the fee applicable to future periods. All fees awarded are subject to this plan only and not any provision of the “Allowable Cost, and Payment” or “Termination (Cost Reimbursement)” clauses of the subject contract. Actual award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award-fees are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

1.2.3 For award-fees to be fully effective there needs to be on-going communication between the program office and the contractor. Contractors should be kept apprised of how the government views their performance and GPM should provide a fair and honest assessment between award-fee sessions and at the close of the award-fee period. There should be no surprises at the end of the award-fee period.

1.3 Effective Date

The AFPP for this contract has been revised to standardize award-fee rating criteria per Department of Defense (DoD) guidance. The effective Award-Fee period for the Basic effort is 01 April 2011 through 31 March 2014. The effective Award-Fee period for the Option 1 effort is 01 April 2014 through 31 March 2016.

1.4 Scope Changes to Award-Fee

The total award-fee pool available is based on the initial, definitized estimated cost of the contract. In the event work is added to or deleted from the contract in a modification, the award-fee pool may be increased or decreased by the same pool percentage negotiated at the start of the contract (i.e., new scope/new requirement, descope). An award-fee shall not be added to the award-fee period for cost growth experienced by the contractor or for increases in funding to complete the work in the underlying Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1.4.1 New Scope/New Requirement. An increase of the award-fee pool requires an increase of scope or a new requirement be added to the underlying Statement of Work. For example, if the negotiated award-fee for the contract is 8%, and a new task is added to the PWS for $100,000, then $8,000 will also be added to the award-fee pool for consideration. The increase to the award-fee pool will be added to the period in which the work will be performed.

1.4.2 Descope. A decrease of the award-fee pool requires work to be descoped from the underlying PWS. For example, if the negotiated award-fee for a CLIN is 8% and a $100,000 task is removed from the Statement of Work, and then $8,000 will also be deleted from the award-fee pool for consideration. The decrease to the award-fee pool will be from the period in which the task was scheduled to be performed.

1.4.3 Changes. An award-fee shall not be added to the award-fee period for cost growth experienced by the contractor or for increases in funding to complete the work in the underlying statement of work. This funds increase is not the basis for changing the award-fee pool, and the award-fee pool remains the same.

1.5 Earned Award-Fee

The amount of the award-fee “earned” by the contractor will be determined by the Government’s evaluation of the specific evaluation criteria and weightings used to assess the contractor’s performance and the extent that the contractor exceeds the minimum acceptable performance criteria as stated within this document.

1.6 Management Emphasis

This AFPP enables the Government to place management emphasis in particular areas of importance and to transmit those emphases to the contractor. The AFPP is flexible enough to allow the Government to shift emphasis from one area to another during the life of the contract, as areas of emphasis increase or decrease in importance.

1.7 Payment of Award-Fee

Payments of Award-Fee. The award-fee earned on this contract will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications and is in addition to the Cost Plus Award-Fee (CPAF) 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.

1.8 Standards of Performance

The ROSS II contract is a CPAF contract. The evaluations standards in this AFPP are samples of contract standards based on the mandatory contractual documents such as integrated master schedule and cost reports. The contract will contain a Performance-Based Statement of Work with metrics developed to address the unique significant events of its requirements.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The award-fee organization consists of: the Fee Determining Official (FDO); an Award-Fee Review Board (AFRB) which consists of a Chairperson, the Government Program Manager (GPM), the Contracting Officer (CO), a Recorder, and Legal Counsel. The FDO, AFRB members, and advisors are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Fee Determining Official (FDO)

The FDO for this AFPP will be the Associate Director, Propulsion Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/RZ-West). In the absence of the FDO, the person officially acting in their position may act as FDO. The FDO approves the contract AFPP and any significant changes. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award-fee amount for each evaluation period. Only the FDO may change the numerical and adjectival AFRB recommended rating.

3.2 Award-Fee Review Board (AFRB)

The AFRB evaluates the contractor’s overall performance for the award-fee evaluation period, and recommends the earned award-fee amount to the FDO. The AFRB reviews the Performance Monitors’ (PM) evaluations; the contractor’s self-assessment, if any; and other pertinent information to arrive at an overall evaluation of the contractor's performance. The AFRB may request PM’s to discuss their evaluations so that the AFRB gains further insight into the contractor's performance.

The AFRB may also recommend changes to the AFPP to the appropriate approval authority.

3.3 AFRB Chairperson

The AFRB Chairperson (1) selects the AFRB members; (2) ensures the AFRB membership provides representation that reflects all appropriate aspects of the program and that the contractor’s performance is adequately evaluated against the award-fee areas and weightings; (3) briefs the FDO on recommended earned award-fee amounts and the contractor’s overall performance; and (4) recommends significant AFPP changes to the FDO.

3.4 Government Program Manager (GPM)

The GPM coordinates the oversight activities of the PMs for performance and is responsible for reviewing their evaluations and documentation against the established AFPP criteria for consistency and adherence to this plan. The GPM assures PMs are assigned to each assessment area and are trained. The GPM provides leadership for the award-fee performance process, briefs the AFRB on the assessments during the award-fee period, solicits AFRB performance feedback and provides timely feedback to the contractor. The GPM prepares the Award Review Evaluation Worksheet in Annex 7 for the AFRB.

3.5 Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO is the contracting official for the Government, and is responsible for modifying the contract to officially incorporate the award-fee earned, as determined by the FDO. The CO also serves as a member of the AFRB. The CO is the liaison between the contractor and Government personnel.

3.5.1 The CO is the only individual authorized to monetarily obligate the Government. The CO ensures the award-fee amount is certified and administratively reserved prior to the beginning of the applicable award-fee evaluation period and that all unearned award-fee be de-committed. The CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any change in the AFPP.

3.6 AFRB Recorder

The AFRB recorder coordinates administrative actions required by the PMs, the AFRB and the FDO, including: (1) receiving, 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; and (4) scheduling all meetings of the AFRB and notification to the members of the meetings.

3.7 Performance Monitor(s) (PM(s))

Performance Monitors maintain written records, as described in Annex 6, of the contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained.

PMs also prepare interim evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. If, at any time during an evaluation period, the contractor’s performance is considered unsatisfactory, the PMs will notify the CO in writing of the unsatisfactory performance. The CO shall then promptly notify the contractor in writing with specific details on the unsatisfactory performance. A plan of action, to return to a satisfactory or above rating, must be documented and agreed to by both the PMs and the contractor.

3.7.1 The PMs must use all the resources of their teams in order to successfully implement these new award-fee policies. This would include close involvement of the assigned program counsel in development of award-fee criteria, review of AFRB evaluation results and all award-fee documentation prior to submission to the FDO. PMs are prohibited from being AFRB members.

4.0 AWARD-FEE PROCESSES

4.1 Available Award-Fee Amount

Annex 2 lists the award-fee allocations for each evaluation area. There is a 1:1 ratio between the total award-fee score and earned award-fee percentage of 51 and above. For Satisfactory ratings (1 – 50%), the FDO will determine the appropriate award-fee based on the AFRB’s recommendation. The FDO may award, at his or her sole discretion, any amount from zero to 50% for satisfactory ratings.

Unsatisfactory ratings (0%) are ineligible for any award-fee. This relationship between the rating and the award-fee percentage is described in Annex 3.

4.1.1 Unearned award-fee from any evaluation period shall not be rolled forward or added to the next award-fee allocation. There is no base fee associated with this contract award-fee amount. The earned award-fee will be paid based on the GPM’s recommended evaluation (as approved by the FDO) of the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

4.2 Evaluation Criteria

If the CO does not give specific notice in writing to the contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the following award-fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and notifying the contractor before the start of the award-fee period where the changed criteria will be effective. Changes in the Plan during an award-fee period require a bilateral modification.

4.3 Interim Evaluation Process

The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and PMs within 14 calendar days before the mid-point of the evaluation period. PMs submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 7 calendar days after the notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period. The CO may also issue letters at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

4.4 Progress Reporting

The Government will conduct end-of-period evaluations. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and PMs fourteen (14) calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. PMs submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB seven (7) calendar days after the end of the evaluation period.

The AFRB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award-fee. The AFRB briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB Chairperson may also recommend any significant changes to the AFPP for approval. The FDO determines the overall grade and award-fee earned amount for the evaluation period within forty-five (45) calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the award-fee earned amount. The CO issues a contract modification within fifteen (15) calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made authorizing payment of the award-fee earned amount.

4.5 Contractor Self-Assessment

If the contractor chooses to submit a self assessment, a copy will be submitted to the GPM within 7 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The GPM will provide a copy to the AFRB Chairperson. The self assessment of the contractor’s performance may contain information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFRB in evaluating the contractor’s performance. The self assessment consists of a written narrative not to exceed 15 written pages and a briefing not more than 45 slides and not to exceed 30 minutes in length.

5.0 AWARD-FEE PERFORMANCE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes to the AFPP are approved by the FDO; the AFRB Chairperson approves minor 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 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of such changes to the plan by the CO, in writing, before the start of the effected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual agreement of both parties.

6.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

6.1 Termination for Convenience

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

6.1.1 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.

6.1.2 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.

6.1.3 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.

6.2 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 AFPP (e.g., negative incentives) require payback of previously earned fee.

7 Annexes

1. Award-Fee Organization

2. Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

3. Award-Fee per CLIN and Evaluation Criteria

4. Standards of Performance

5. Performance Monitor’s Plan and Report

6. Award Review Evaluation Worksheet

ANNEX 1 - AWARD-FEE ORGANIZATION

FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL OFFICE SYMBOL

Director, Propulsion Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory AFRL/RZ

AWARD-FEE REVIEW BOARD (AFRB) MEMBERS

Chairperson: Space & Mission Propulsion Division Deputy Director AFRL/RZS *Chairperson (alternate): Experimental Demonstration Branch Chief AFRL/RZSO *Government Program Manager AFRL/RZSO *Contracting Officer AFFTC/PKT Spacecraft Branch Chief AFRL/RZSS Motor Branch Chief AFRL/RZSB Engine Branch Chief AFRL/RZSE Information Technology Branch Chief AFRL/RZOI Propellants Branch Chief AFRL/RZSP

*These are mandatory members.

NON-VOTING AFRB MEMBERS

*Recorder AFRL/RZSO

ADVISORS

Performance Monitors as determined by the AFRB Chairperson Legal Counsel AFFTC/JA

ANNEX 2 - AWARD-FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

PERIOD START DATE END DATE AVAILABLE AWARD-FEE

BASIC

1 1 APR 11 30 SEP 11 TBD

2 1 OCT 11 31 MAR12 TBD

3 1 APR 12 30 SEP 12 TBD

4 1 OCT 12 31 MAR 13 TBD

5 1 APR 13 30 SEP 13 TBD

6 1 OCT 13 31 MAR 14 TBD

OPTION 1

7 1 APR 14 30 SEP 14 TBD

8 1 OCT 14 31 MAR 15 TBD

9 1 APR 15 30 SEP 15 TBD

10 1 OCT 15 31 MAR 16 TBD

TOTAL TBD

ANNEX 3 - AWARD-FEE PER CLIN AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN)

TOTAL AWARD-

FEE POOL

0002 (BASIC PERIOD) 100%

0013(OPTION PERIOD 1) 100%

1.0 AWARD-FEE PER CLIN. The award-fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the successful completion of the evaluation periods/technical milestones as designated within the contract. The percentage and dollars assigned to each period/milestone shall be the maximum available award-fee amount that can be earned for that particular period.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA. The following evaluation areas will be used in making award-fee decisions. The Government will notify the contractor by letter if the priority of evaluation areas will change for any subsequent period. The specific scores are subjectively assigned based on the AFRB’s recommendation. The overall rating, based on the total of the rating points awarded for each evaluation area, is used to determine the award-fee according to paragraph 4.2 and Annex 4. The following table summarizes the percentages available for each evaluation area:

Performance Category Total Award Fee Pool

I. BUSINESS RELATIONS (40%)

- Provide Effective Management (50%)

- Accurate Invoicing (50%)

II. MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL

(60%)

- Effective Security Program (25%)

- Safety (25%)

- Staffing (10%)

45% Award Fee Pool

III. COST CONTROL – Aggregate of All LOTDs

- LOTD Cost Variance (33.3%)

- Indirect Rates (Overhead Control)

(33.3%)

- Direct Labor Rates (33.3%)

15% Award Fee Pool

IV. SCHEDULE – Aggregate of All LOTDs

- Milestone Management (50%)

- Response to Schedule Changes (50%)

10%

V. QUALITY OF PRODUCT/SERVICE –

Aggregate of All LOTDs

- Products (33%)

- Service (67%)

30%

ANNEX 4 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

Areas of Consideration (I – V):

I. Business Relations (two standards)

1. Standard: Provide Effective Management This standard provides a subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of the management team to: a) meet contract requirements, PWS and LOTD, b) partner to understand requirements, c) apply appropriate resources, d) solve issues/problems, e) communicate risks/mitigations with customers, f) ensure the contractor provides timely feedback in addressing any deficiencies,

g) reacting to customer requests with the appropriate application of resources when and where required, and h) ensures acceptable MIS accessibility during regular contract performance hours. The Monthly Contractor In-House Reviews Report will be used to document performance.

Threshold: Meets or exceeds “Satisfactory” as defined

Objective: Meets or exceeds “Exceptional” as defined

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for achieving or exceeding the threshold up to the objective and X to X points for achieving or exceeding each objective.

2. Standard: Accurate and Timely Invoicing This standard provides an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the management team to provide accurate, timely, complete, and consistent invoices. Invoices will be submitted at least monthly and will be compared against the standard as described below. The results are tracked against the threshold on a monthly basis.

Metric 1: Accurate invoicing represents a combination of quality and accuracy, which is the primary measure of the excellence and suitability of the contractor's invoice. An invoice is considered acceptable when the government receives the product that meets the government’s requirements.

Accuracy is defined as including but not limited to: a) correct invoice totals, b) no double billing, c) billed to the appropriate CLINs, d) charges billed in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e.

travel/Joint Travel Regulation), e) no unallowables, and f) no billing for work not yet performed.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

Metric 2: Timely submission is defined as the measure of the contractor's responsiveness and dependability for providing an invoice in the required time frame. An invoice is considered timely when the government receives it on or before the date it is due.

Threshold: Invoice received by AFRL seven business days after contractor’s billing cycle.

Objective: Invoice received by AFRL within five business days after contractor’s billing cycle.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

II. Management of Key Personnel (two standards)

3. Standard: Effective Security Program

This standard assesses the contractor’s capability to establish, implement, and maintain a security program. This standard provides a subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of the management team to: a) handle classified materials, b) ensure contractor personnel have appropriate National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI), and c) effective use of contractor’s Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan (OCIMP).

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 5 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

4. Standard: Safety This standard assesses the contractor’s capability to establish, implement, and maintain a safety, health, and environmental protection program. This standard provides a subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of the management team to: a) meet contract requirements, PWS and LOTD, b) training & certifications, c) Day Away, Restricted, and/or Transfer Case (DART) rate, d) Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR), and e) environmental compliance. The Monthly Contractor In-House Reviews Report will be used to document performance.

DART is defined as the measure of the contractor's responsiveness for ensuring < 2.5 recordable injuries and illness cases per 100 full time employees in any twelve month period.

TCIR Measures contractor’s ability to meet or exceed the industry average TCIR of < 4.7.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

5. Standard: Responsive Staffing This standard assesses the contractor’s capability to recruit, fill and retain specialized, critical and unique personnel to maintain a stable, highly qualified workforce. This standard, which focuses on the time to source qualified candidates, will mitigate project schedule delays due to lack of personnel and minimize cost variances in project budgets due to vacant positions. The contractor must attract qualified candidates with the required skill sets to excel in the technical challenges and fluid schedules.

Threshold: Vacancies filled with qualified personnel within two months of vacancy opening.

Objective: Vacancies filled with qualified personnel within one month of vacancy opening.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 7.5 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

III. Cost Control (three standards)

6. Standard: Effectively Control Project Cost (LOTD BUDGET VS ACTUALS) This standard measures the contractor’s ability to a) provide accurate Estimate at Completion (EACs) of final project cost and b) provide an accurate budget. These two measures provide the most complete information needed to provide oversight of projects. Accurate final cost estimates based on actual and updated projected expenses allow projects to incrementally fund just what is needed. This standard minimizes loss of funds due to funding to artificially high budget estimates. The following two metrics are used to measure against this standard.

Metric 1: Measures ability to provide accurate EACs. EACs are collected monthly, but bi-annually the EAC for the award-fee period (or project end) will be recorded and used to compare against the actual award-fee period cost. This standard is measured bi-annually and requires the contractor EAC cost estimates to be within the threshold identified below.

Actual vs. EAC

Threshold: < 7% under

Objective: < 4% under

Metric 2: Measure of the approved budget per LOTD to the actual costs for the award-fee period.

This is measured bi-annually and requires the contractor’s costs to be within the threshold as noted below. Note: The sum of all budgets shall not exceed the contract value. If work is added, deleted or changed, the contract value may be adjusted.

Actual vs. Budget Threshold: < 5% Under Objective: < 3% Under

Weights and Scoring Points: Each of these two metrics is equal and can total no more than 5 points each. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for achieving or exceeding the threshold up to the objective and X to X points for achieving or exceeding each objective.

7. Standard: Effectively Control Indirect Rates This standard measures the contractor’s ability to keep indirect rates within the annual projection.

This standard tracks indirect costs in the short-term. The metric for the contractor’s indirect rate is a multiplier that is a compilation of the G&A, fringe benefits, and overhead. The multiplier is in the form 1.XX where XX represents the indirect compilation rate. The use of the multiplier metric provides an easy way to track and apply the compilation of indirect costs. Actual labor costs times the multiplier provides the actual burdened labor cost (without award fee). Prior to each year, the contractor establishes a target burden rate that will be applied to the budget for all projects in the coming year. The contractor will collect actual indirect cost information on a monthly basis and generate an actual multiplier that will be tracked against the target multiplier to provide an internal leading indicator of indirect performance.

Metric 1: Short-term indirect rate performance is a measure of final year-end rate against the prior year target rate (actual vs. projected). For example, if the target rate is 1.70, the contractor would need to perform at or below 1.785 to meet the threshold, and at or below 1.7 to meet the objective.

Threshold: < 5 burdened points above target rate Objective: < target rate

Weights and Scoring Points: Each of these two metrics is equal and can total no more than 5 points each. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for achieving or exceeding the threshold up to the objective and X to X points for achieving or exceeding each objective.

8. Standard: Effectively Control Direct Labor Cost This standard measures the contractor’s ability to control the escalation of ROSS II direct labor costs.

Escalation in direct labor should be reasonable to reflect the increases in inflation. This is essential to ensure the contractor recruits and retains talented employees. This measure ensures that these escalatory increases are reasonable and controlled. Global Insight provides a solid and independent standard for measuring annual direct labor escalation. Escalation of ROSS II direct labor rates will be controlled at or less than the Global Insight index rate. The metric is the difference in escalation of ROSS II direct labor costs compared to the Global Insight index rate. The overall calculation will use the weighted average unburdened direct labor rate.

Index: Global Insight’s California, Average Annual Wage for compensation of professional, scientific, and technical workers (escalation rate)

Threshold: < Global Insight escalation Objective: 0.1 < Global Insight escalation

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

IV. Schedule (two standards)

9. Standard: Milestone Management This standard measures the contractor’s ability to start projects on time and complete milestones as planned that support the overall project’s schedule. All projects will have significant milestones that will be used to measure progress. Milestones are significant events and deliverables. As these milestones are completed, the contractor’s project management system is updated. A report is provided monthly that indicates the number of milestones completed versus the total milestones planned. This report is at the ROSS contract level to roll up all ongoing projects to support this standard. Milestones are considered “complete” when the government representative (Project Manager and/or COTR) agrees a milestone event has been accomplished. This standard measures the contractor’s agility and responsiveness, their ability to meet commitments, and effectively allocate resource capacity in a dynamic multi-project environment, and provide customer insight into project status. The metric data is the number of milestones completed within the projected timeframe versus those planned (projected vs. actual). The results are tracked against the threshold on a monthly basis.

Threshold: > 95% Objective: > 98%

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

10. Standard: Effectively Respond to Schedule Changes This standard measures the contractor’s ability to accurately and in a timely manner; report project status, respond to priority changes and effectively communicate, and implement mitigation plans. It provides a subjective standard to complement the objective standard of Meet Project Milestones to support the evaluation of schedule performance towards the award fee. Schedule performance takes into account the ability to react to schedule changes and how effectively the contractor communicates and implements mitigations to changes. This includes the contractor’s ability to meet schedule requirements that are not defined milestones on the project schedule. The Monthly Contractor In- House Reviews Report will be used to document performance.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 5 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

V. Quality of Product/Service (two standards)

11. Standard: Provide Quality Products This standard measures the contractor’s ability to provide formal deliverables that meet product timeliness and product acceptability quality levels and are accepted by the government for content and accuracy.

Product timeliness is defined as the measure of the contractor's responsiveness and dependability for providing products in the required time frame. The delivery requirement for standard contract deliverables is established by the contract. Other deliverable timelines are established by government-approved LOTDs. A deliverable is considered timely when the government receives the product on or before the date the product is due.

Product acceptability represents a combination of quality and accuracy, which is the primary measure of the excellence and suitability of the contractor's products. A deliverable is considered acceptable when the government receives the product that meets the government’s requirements.

Deliverables are tracked and reported monthly. Deliverables that are rejected, and subsequently corrected and redelivered, will not represent an additional deliverable. However, deliverables that are rejected will be tracked as delivered and rated against the final acceptance in order to reduce rework and the associated costs for getting the deliverable to meet quality and accuracy levels. The metric data used is the number of deliverables final acceptance against the initial delivery date (delivered vs.

accepted). The results are tracked against the threshold on a monthly basis.

Threshold: < 90% on time and acceptable

Objective: < 95% on time and acceptable

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 10 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

12. Standard: Provide Quality Service This standard measures the contractor’s ability to proactively identify problems/issues and alternative approaches to products/services in support of the LOTDs. This standard is subjective and complements the objective standard of Provide Quality Products. The Monthly Contractor In-House Reviews Report will be used to document performance.

Weights and Scoring Points: This metric is worth no more than 5 points. To earn ANY points, the contractor must achieve the threshold. The contractor earns X to < X points for

ANNEX 4 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE (CONT’D)

Standards of Performance. The following standards of performance that relate objective ratings to the range of award-fee percentages, shall be used for determining the amount of award-fee the contractor has earned for each evaluation event:

Rating Definitions of Ratings AF Percentage

Outstanding

Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period 91% - 100%

Excellent

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period 76% - 90%

Good

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period 51% - 75%

Satisfactory

Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period 0% - 50%

Unsatisfactory

Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period 0%

ANNEX 5 - PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

The purpose of the Performance Monitoring Plan is to describe the methodology for monitoring contractor performance. A Performance Monitoring Plan is developed by each Performance Monitor (PM).

GENERAL: This Performance Monitoring Plan establishes the procedures for monitoring, evaluating and reporting the contractor performance. Contractor information, method of performance evaluation, performance report, and reporting requirements follow.

1. CONTRACTOR NAME:

2. CONTRACT INFORMATION:

• Title: Research Operations Support Services (ROSS) II

• Contract Number: FA9300-11-C-0001

• Area of Support:

3. MONITORING: Methods of Performance Evaluation

• Performance will be evaluated by using one or more of the methods below.

__ A. Performance by walk-through __ I. Review and analysis of technical reports __ B. Regularly scheduled meetings __ J. Tracking of schedules, cost reports, milestones, and accomplishments __ C. Review of records and reports __ K. Personal observations of tests and work areas __ D. Review of standards, plans, __ L. Review of customer surveys procedures and contract for compliance __ E. Random sampling __ M. Review of maintenance related activity __ F. Review of project plans for __ N. Contractor metrics technical adequacy __ G. 100% Inspections __ O. Third-party audits or assessments __ H. Trend analysis and tracking __ P. Other (i.e., Contractor Productivity, Technical Competence, Quality, etc.)

ANNEX 5 - PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN (CONTD)

4. MONITORING: PROCESS DETAILS

• The Performance Monitors (PM) will describe details of the process utilized to monitor contractor performance relative to each LOTD. The PM must at least address the frequency, format, and content of reporting.

5. EVALUATING: MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT (MPR)

• The PMs will complete a MPR and forward it to the GPM and the contractor by the 15th of the following month. The PM will evaluate contractor performance relative to the following performance criteria:

• I. Business Relations (20%)

• II. Management of Key Personnel (25%)

• III. Cost Management (15%)

• IV. Schedule (10%)

• V. Quality of Product or Service (30%)

6. REPORTING: TIMELY FEEDBACK TO CONTRACTOR

• The PM will provide timely feedback regarding any deficiencies or substandard work for contractor corrective action. All corrective action with performance data will be documented in the MPR.

PREPARED BY:

PM:

Organization:

Phone:

Date:

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of the Monthly Performance Report is to document the results of contractor performance and provide documented feedback to the contractor and government representatives. Each PM evaluates contractor performance and documents the results in a Monthly Performance Report.

Instructions

• SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Describe any special conditions, which may have influenced contractor monthly performance. Special conditions may include aspects of the technical, economic, and schedule environment under which the contractor was required to perform and the effect they had on contractor performance. If any action initiated by the government or outside source results in the contractor’s inability to perform their designed functions IAW contract, it shall be considered a special condition.

The contractor shall not be held accountable for conditions that are outside the scope of the contract or their span of control if in scope (e.g. government induced environment, etc.)

• AREAS OF CONSIDERATION: Describe contractor performance relative to each of the award fee area of consideration (Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, Cost Management, Schedule or Quality of Product or Service) include strengths, weaknesses, performance trends (i.e., worsening, steady, or improving), etc., describe any corrective actions that are being planned or taken, if appropriate.

• DEFICIENCIES: Identify contractor performance deficiencies. For example: discuss any areas where repeated government intervention was required, particularly if such intervention still failed to resolve the problem.

• NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS: Identify any areas where the contractor exceeded contract requirements, particularly if yielding cost, time, energy, or process/product-related savings to the government.

• AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: Describe any areas where the contractor needed improvement, follow-up, etc. Be specific, cites areas that could result in potential negative impact to the task or program execution if not appropriately addressed. Include specific examples of contractor performance (not isolated incidents) that substantiate the overall narrative. Indicate the contractor’s progress in showing demonstrated performance improvement, as applicable, from previous Monthly Performance Reports.

• Use the Award Fee Performance Plan to assist in documenting the contractor’s performance. At the end of the award fee period, these Monthly Performance Reports will be used to assist in determining the award fee earned.

• Document the contractor’s performance against the PWS/LOTD requirement only and do not use employee names. Use the “Insight” approach to performance monitoring unless a deeper level of scrutiny is warranted, on a case-by-case basis only.

• If required, attach the Monthly metrics data, to include actual performance information and supporting data, to the Monthly Performance Report, prior to submission to GPM.

• CONTRACTOR COMMENTS: Briefly describe any comments to the areas listed above.

ROSS II Monthly Performance Report (MPR)

PM: Report Month:

Organization: Date Submitted:

LOTD Name: LOTD #:

Name of Contractor Representative Notified:

1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (Describe any special conditions, which may have influenced contractor monthly performance. Special conditions may include aspects of the technical, economic, and schedule environment under which the contractor was required or unable to perform and the effect they had on contractor performance).

2. AREAS OF CONSIDERATION: (Assess contractor performance and accomplishment of the contracts task requirements. Be specific, give examples, and identify benefits. Identify strengths, weaknesses, performance trends (i.e., improving, steady, or worsening); describe any corrective actions that are being planned or taken, if appropriate. Use the Performance Monitoring Plan and the Award Fee Performance Plan for criteria and additional guidance.)

� I. Business Relations:

� II. Management of Key Personnel:

� III. Cost Control:

� IV. Schedule:

� V. Quality of Product/Service:

3. DEFICIENCIES: (Briefly describe any areas where repeated government intervention was required, particularly if such intervention failed to resolve the problem).

4. NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS: (Briefly describe any areas where the contractor exceeded contract requirements, particularly if yielding cost, time, energy, or process-related savings to the government).

5. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: (Briefly describe any areas where the contractor needed improvement, follow-up, etc. Be specific, cites areas that could result in potential negative impact to task or program execution if not addressed. Include specific examples of contractor performance [not isolated incidents] that substantiate the overall narrative. Indicate the contractor’s progress in showing demonstrated performance improvement, as applicable, from previous Monthly Performance Reports).

6. CONTRACTOR COMMENTS: (Briefly describe any comments to the areas listed above).

ATTACHMENT

Actual Supporting Data (if required)

Completed by Government Program Manager (Name):

Award Fee Performance Period:

Evaluator (PM) Technical

Performance Task

Management Cost

Control Weighting

Total Weighted

Score

1. 0 0 0 0

2. 0

3. 0

4. 0

5. 0

6. 0

7. 0

8. 0

9. 0

10. 0

11. 0

12. 0

13. 0

14. 0

15. 0

16. 0

17. 0

18. 0

19. 0

20. 0

21. 0

22. 0

23. 0

24. 0 Total Score 0

Total Score (points) is the total of the weighted scores of all LOTDs active during the award fee perio

ANNEX 6 - AWARD REVIEW EVALUATION WORKSHEET

d

ANNEX 6 - AWARD REVIEW EVALUATION WORKSHEET