ATT 3 CTAAS Award fee plan.doc

AWARD FEE AND AWARD FEE PLAN

FOR

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

ADVISORY & ASSISTANCE SERVICES

HDTRA1-10-R-0003

TASK ORDER 0001

APPROVED:

John T. Byrd

Fee Determining Official

Director

Cooperative Threat Reduction

Table of Contents

AWARD FEE PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION

2.0 ORGANIZATION

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Fee Determining Official (FDO)

3.2 ARB Chairperson

3.3 Award Review Board

3.4 CT A&AS Team Leader

3.5 ARB Recorder

3.6 Evaluation Monitors (EMs)

3.7 Task Order Contracting Officer

4.0 TASK ORDER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1 General

4.2 Basic Evaluation Criteria

4.2.1 Quality of Product or Service

4.2.2 Business Relations

4.2.3 Management of Personnel

4.2.4 Schedule

4.2.5 Cost Control

4.3 Rating Factors and Scale

4.4 Numerical Score and Description

5.0 AWARD FEE PROCESS

5.1 General

5.2 Award Fee Period

5.3 End-of-Period Evaluations

5.3.1 Contractor’s Self-Assessment

5.3.2 Evaluation Monitors’ Input

5.4 Award Review Board

5.5 Formula for Awarding Fee

5.6 Weights of Award Fee Criteria

6.0 AWARD FEE CHANGE PROCEDURE

7.0 CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER TERMINATION

AWARD FEE PLAN

1.0 introduction and administration

This award-fee plan is the basis for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Advisory & Assistance Services evaluation of the contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based upon review of the contractor's performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

Actual Award Fee determinations and the methodology for determining Award Fee are decisions within the sole discretion of the Government. The basic philosophy underlying the Award Fee Plan emphasizes that the process is not a punitive one in which the contractor starts with a perfect score and loses points for less than satisfactory performance. Rather, the contractor earns points based on their performance relative to the plan's evaluation criteria. To achieve a score of Outstanding (90 or higher), the criteria requires the contractor to perform well above and beyond the minimum satisfactory level. The Award Fee will be calculated and awarded semi-annually.

The administration of the A&AS Award Fee provisions requires that the contractor’s task order performance be evaluated twice in a given year. The A&AS Award Review Board (ARB) will evaluate the contractor’s last 6 months of performance on all task orders containing an Award Fee provision. Evaluations will include both narrative elements and numerical scores. The evaluations serve as the primary data used by the Fee Determining Official (FDO) to decide the amount of fee to be awarded. Additionally, both narrative and numerical evaluations may be used in the development of Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) inputs.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The following personnel are involved with the award fee process:

AWARD FEE PRINCIPALS

· Fee Determining Official (FDO): Director, Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)

· Award Review Board Chairperson: Deputy Director, CTR

· Award Review Board Members:

-Program Manager, Biological Threat Reduction Program -Program Manager, Chemical Weapons Elimination

-Program Manager, Nuclear Weapons Safety & Security

-Program Manager, Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination

-Program Manager, WMD Proliferation Prevention

-Chief, CTR Integration

-Chief, CTR Contracting Although the FDO and ARB Chairperson will remain the same for all ARBs, the specific ARB membership will vary depending on the specific task order being evaluated.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Fee Determining Official (FDO)

The FDO approves the Award Fee Plan and any significant changes. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the ARB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the amount of award fee earned by the contractor. The FDO may delegate this authority. The FDO also may designate an alternate ARB Chairman if the Deputy Director, CT is unable to perform the duty.

3.2 ARB Chairperson

The Deputy Director, CTR will serve as the ARB Chairperson, and will conduct the ARB. The chairperson will ensure that all ARB members understand and follow award fee processes. The chairperson will also:

· Review the ratings and comments of the members and evaluation monitors,

· Reconcile wide disparities in the evaluations,

· Recommend an award fee amount to the FDO, and

· Approve the delegation of the duties of other members of the ARB.

3.3 Award Review Board

ARB members will review the Evaluation Monitors’ appraisals of contractor performance for task orders within their purview. The ARB voting members will consider all information from pertinent sources and arrive at award fee recommendations to be presented to the FDO. The ARB may also recommend changes to this plan.

3.4 CT A&AS Team Leader

The CT A&AS Team Leader (CTTL) has the overall responsibility for administration of the award fee program for these contracts. Tasks include scheduling events and meetings, recommending changes to the award fee plan to the FDO for approval, updating the award fee plan, collecting inputs from Evaluation Monitors and the contractor, preparing correspondence to the contractor for coordination and signature, and training. The CTTL will also ensure that award fee funding packages are initiated and processed. The CTTL will also execute the letters to the contractor notifying them of the FDO decision, and coordinate with DTRA’s Business Enterprise, Contracting (BCO) regarding the publication of the contract modifications announcing the award fee.

3.5 ARB Recorder

The ARB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the ARB and the FDO. This includes, but is not limited to the following: l) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources; 2) acting as a liaison between the Government and the contractor, and 3) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

3.6 Evaluation Monitors (EMs)

EMs are Government personnel having knowledge of the contractor’s performance on the task order who provide inputs to the ARB. EMs may include the Task Order Project Manager, Award Review Board members, the Task Order Contract Specialist, DCMA representatives, and other DTRA/Government Agency representatives who have knowledge of the contractor's performance.

Evaluation monitors should maintain detailed written records of the contractor's performance to assist them in completing the evaluations and templates. They will reference correspondence, reports, data items, meetings, and conversations that demonstrate the contractor's day-to-day performance of the contract objectives. Evaluation monitors will submit any proposed changes to the award fee plan to the CTTL not less than 60 days prior to the beginning of the applicable evaluation period.

3.7 Task Order Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the liaison between the contractor and Government personnel on the task order. The CO will ensure funds are available and modify the contract accordingly after each award fee period as applicable.

4.0 Task Order Performance Evaluation Criteria

4.1 General

Performance will be evaluated on a task order basis. The criteria to be used in these evaluations will be the criteria discussed herein.

4.2 Basic Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria provide the basis for evaluations of contractor performance on the A&AS Contract Task Order. Although general in nature, their format is intended to mirror CPARS requirements.

· Quality of Product or Service

· Business Relations

· Management of Key Personnel

· Schedule

· Cost Control The evaluation assesses the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship. This evaluation is subjective because the evaluators must make distinctions of merit between outstanding, excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory performance.

Using evaluation templates, EMs will provide thorough assessments that address each of the five evaluation criteria in the following format:

Quality of Product or Service

· Strengths

· Areas for Improvement

Business Relations

· Strengths

· Areas for Improvement

Management of Key Personnel

· Strengths

· Areas for Improvement

Schedule

· Strengths

· Areas for Improvement

Cost Control

· Strengths

· Areas for Improvement

4.2.1 Quality of Product or Service

The Quality of Product or Service evaluation will consider all or some of the following elements:

· Program management

· Technical task performance

· Quality of deliverables

· Communications The evaluation will be based on the Task Order requirements. The highest scores will be awarded when the contractor:

· Exceeds Task Order requirements in a manner beneficial to the Government; for example, by suggesting and implementing process improvement(s), undertaking quality initiative(s), or improving reporting efficiency;

· Provides deliverables that contain very few, non-repetitive minor errors that are quickly and effectively corrected by the contractor;

· Performs the tasks effectively with minimal Government oversight;

· Communicates effectively (formal and informal) in person or by telephone, facsimile, and E-mail to prevent surprises and provide advance notification of significant incidents, project difficulties, achievement of Task Order milestones, and anticipated changes to the schedule or budget; and

· Keeps the Government informed about CTR program activity, personnel, or policy changes that could impact current or future tasks.

The Government may review all contractually required reports such as training records, weekly narrative reports and other available information in order to assess the contractor’s performance in this area.

4.2.2 Business Relations

This evaluation assesses the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; for example, the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans and proposal submittals; the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior; customer satisfaction; and timely award and management of subcontracts.

4.2.3 Management of Personnel

This evaluation assesses the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, reassigning, and replacing personnel. The highest scores will be awarded to the contractor when it:

· Assigns properly qualified personnel to key positions;

· Supports personnel so they are able to work effectively;

· Takes prompt and proper corrective action if a person did not perform well;

· Replaces a key person when necessary, with a replacement who meets or exceeds the qualifications required by the position; and

· Manages the size and composition of the A&AS support team relative to the work being supported

4.2.4 Schedule

The contractor will be evaluated on the timeliness of completing the task order requirements, meeting milestones, achieving delivery schedules, accomplishing administrative requirements, and responsiveness to change. The highest scores will be awarded when the contractor demonstrates it has managed its operations in such a way as to meet contract schedule milestones insofar as they are under the contractor’s control. Early anticipation of events that impact schedule outside of the contractor’s span of control, how and when these events and their repercussions are reported, and suggested remediation will also be considered.

4.2.5 Cost Control

The contractor will be evaluated on managing the elements of cost that are under contractor control and adherence to estimated costs of the individual task orders. The highest scores will be awarded when the contractor demonstrates it has initiated process improvements and other initiatives that result in cost reductions without sacrificing schedule, product, or performance and takes all reasonable measures to constrain cost while maintaining high levels of product and service quality. The Cost Performance Report will be examined to determine the accuracy of the contractor’s cost estimates. Disparity between actual cost and the contractor’s task order estimate will also be considered.

4.3 Rating Factors and Scale

The applicable ARB member will rate the contractor on each of the award criteria for the task order using the following scale. Each score will be multiplied by the weight assigned to each criterion. The sum of those products will constitute the combined score for award fee determination at the task order level.

The numerical range shown for each description below is a guide to help evaluators assign values to their evaluations. The ARB member’s score will be input into the evaluation matrix by the ARB Recorder during the Board’s deliberations.

4.4 Numerical Score and Description

Outstanding (O) 90-100 – Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract. Further, performance is consistently outstanding, providing noteworthy tangible or intangible benefits to the Government. Identified areas for improvement are minor or unnoticed, and there are no recurring problems. If Award Fee Criteria have been identified in terms of quantifiable objectives for the period, the contractor has met at least 90% of the criteria.

Excellent (E) 80-<90 – Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract. Further, performance is consistently excellent, providing noteworthy tangible or intangible benefits to the Government. Identified areas for improvement are minor, and there are no recurring problems. If Award Fee Criteria have been identified in terms of quantifiable objectives for the period, the contractor has met at least 75% of the criteria.

Very Good (VG) 70-<80 – Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract. Further, performance exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were prompt and effective. If Award Fee Criteria have been identified in terms of quantifiable objectives for the period, the contractor has met at least 50% of the criteria.

Satisfactory (S) 60-<70 – Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contain some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Unsatisfactory (U) 0-<60 – Contractor has not met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which corrective action(s) (if any) taken by the contractor were ineffective.

5.0 award fee process

5.1 General

The Task Order will receive fee determinations twice a year. Award fee will be determined for the Task Order and provided by modifications to the Task Order. Formal award fee evaluations will be made only at the end of the semiannual award fee periods. This does not preclude normal contract monitoring activities and performance discussions with the contractor during award fee periods.

5.2 Award Fee Period

The normal award fee period will be 6 months starting from contract award with the second period covering the subsequent 6-month period

5.3 End-of-Period Evaluations

5.3.1 Contractor’s Self-Assessment

The Contractor shall submit a written self-evaluation of performance for the evaluation period to the CO and Project Manager by the first business day following the end of each award fee evaluation period specified in this plan. The written statement shall include a summary of costs incurred during the period, and a summary of progress on task requirements. The contractor’s self-assessment will not exceed ten pages per task order, and may include a contractor proposed point score for each criterion. Margins shall be no less than ¾ inch, and the contractor shall not use smaller than a 10 point font. Any material beyond the ten pages will not be considered.

5.3.2 Evaluation Monitors’ Input

Evaluation Monitors will evaluate the task order eligible for award fee consideration independent of contractor performance on other task orders.

5.4 Award Review Board

Within 30 days following the end of each evaluation period, the ARB Chairperson shall convene the ARB. The contractor may be permitted to present a formal briefing to the ARB. The ARB shall consider the contractor’s self-assessment as well as information provided by the Evaluation Monitors. The ARB will assess the contractor’s performance on the task order and subjectively assign a point score to each of the separate award fee criteria. After adjusting for the weight of each criterion, the aggregate score will then be inserted into the award fee formula to determine the total number of points to be recommended by the ARB to the FDO. At this time, the ARB may also recommend any significant changes to the award fee plan for FDO approval.

The FDO determines the overall grade and earned award fee amount for the evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO informs the contractor of the earned award fee amount by letter. Within 15 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made, the CO issues a unilateral Task Order modification authorizing payment of the earned award fee amount, or a modification decreasing the obligated funding by the amount of the unearned award fee.

5.5 Formula for Awarding Fee

The following formula for calculating the award fee shall be built into the award fee matrix:

Aggregate Score (Sum of Weighted Scores: “X” in the formula below)

X = Combined score for award fee criteria

Y = Percent of award fee pool earned

If 0 ≤ X < 60 then Y = 0

If 60 ≤ X < 70 then Y = 25 + [2.5*(X-60)]

If 70 ≤ X < 80 then Y = 50 + [2.5*(X-70)]

If 80 ≤ X < 90 then Y = 75 + [1.5*(X-80)]

If 90 ≤ X < 98 then Y = X If 98 ≤ X ≤ 100 then Y = 100 The following graph depicts the relationship between the ARB scores and the award fee.

5.6 Weights of Award Fee Criteria

The award fee criteria are weighted as follows:

· Quality of Product or Service 45%

· Business Relations 5%

· Management of Personnel 20%

· Schedule 10%

· Cost Control 20%

6.0 AWARD FEE CHANGE PROCEDURE

Proper and fair evaluation of a contractor’s performance requires that the contractor have full understanding of the evaluation criteria during execution. This section describes how changes to the award plan and its criteria are made in an equitable manner.

All significant changes are approved by the FDO, while the ARB Chairperson approves changes that are only administrative in nature. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the formula for calculating the award fee. 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 will notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). The CO may make unilateral changes to the award fee plan before the start of the upcoming evaluation period by providing the contractor written notification. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

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 subsequent Award Fee evaluation period. If the FDO determines that an Award Fee criterion cannot be evaluated during a specified Award Fee period, the Award Fee points allocated to that criterion will be reapportioned to the other applicable criteria in direct proportion to the weights of the remaining criterion.

Example:

Original Weight Reallocated Weights

Criterion One:

50%

55.55%

Criterion Two:

30%

33.33%

Criterion Three:

10%

Deleted

Criterion Four:

5%

5.56%

Criterion Five:

5%

5.56%

(10 points deleted; 55.55% Criterion One -- 50/90; 33.33% Criterion Two -- 30/90; 5.56% Criterion Four -- 5/90; 5.56% Criterion Five -- 5/90)

7.0 Contract or Task Order termination

If the contract or a Task Order is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the award fee earned for that period will be determined by the FDO using the normal award fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid.

Award Fee Examples

Score

Percent of Award Fee Pool

Percent of Award Fee Pool

_1320239080