Attachment 6 Award Fee Plan.docx

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) Award Fee Plan

06/08/2011

Prepared By: Electronic Systems Center C2ISR Missile Warning, Defense and Wideband Sensors Branch ESC/HSIG 11 Barksdale Street, Building 1614 Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts 01731-1700

This Page Intentionally Left Bank

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents Page(s)

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 6

2. Objective……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6-7

3. Organization………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7-9

4. Program Award Fee Process..……………………………………………………………………... 9-10

5. Changes to the Award Fee Plan…………………………………………………………………… 10

6. Contract Termination………………………………………………………………………………... 11

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) program is sponsored by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and is responsible for initially locating enemy missiles clearing the horizon and launched against the United States and the United Kingdom. The US Air Force is pursuing an upgrade to add a missile defense capability to the existing missile warning and space surveillance missions for the Clear, Alaska radar site.

The radar located at Clear, AK consists of ‘dual-faced’ radars that provide 240 ºazimuth coverage with an 85º maximum elevation in the search and track mode. The early warning capability is unprecedented in radar mission performance and missile warning functionality. The missile warning and defense sensors consist of Ultra High Frequency (UHF), solid-state, and phased array radars. The Solid-state, phased-array, all-weather, long-range radars provides the following Integrated Tactical Warning / Attack Assessment:

· Provides real-time information to BMDS Command and Control nodes

· Provides threat ballistic missile tracking data to commit the launch of interceptors and to update the target tracks to the interceptor while the interceptor is in flight

· Provides estimated launch and impact points

· Detects objects out to 3000 miles

· Provides midcourse coverage for BMDS

· Detects sea-launched or intercontinental ballistic missiles

· Supports Space Surveillance Network

· Classifies re-entry vehicle and other space objects

· Detects, tracks, and identifies man-made objects in orbit

As the UEWR perceive incoming threat detection and confirmation, the UEWRs send track data to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Fire Control/Communications (GFC/C) node, forwarding the information to other system elements, including the UEWRs ground-based interceptor missiles. The missile defense mission run concurrently with existing missile warning and space surveillance missions strategically placed in the northern hemisphere. The UEWR program replaces electronic hardware and computer software in support of the GMD program. Hardware modifications include replacement of existing computers, graphic displays, communications equipment, and the radar receiver. In addition, software has been rewritten to incorporate missile defense functions, thus allowing for the acquisition and tracking of small objects near the horizon. The UEWRs are able to search for different types of incoming missiles, distinguish hostile warheads from non-hostile objects, and transfer this data to other missile defense elements via improved communications software.

In addition to its missile warning mission, the radar supports Space Surveillance Network (SSN) by providing metric and limited Space Object Identification (SOI) data on near-earth space objects. This information is used to track and catalog sizeable objects in space.

2.0 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this Award Fee Plan is to incentivize the contractor to complete the Integration and Deployment phase for the Clear Air Force Station Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) CLIN 0002; resulting in certification and availability for Ballistic Missile Defense use while maintaining the ITW/AA legacy capability during the process.

This award fee plan identifies the performance areas to be evaluated, the evaluation criteria, performance periods, and a methodology for evaluating the contractor’s performance. The plan also defines the organizational structure and process to direct and execute contract award fee clauses contained in contract HQ0147-11-R-0002 CLIN 002.

2.1Sub-Objectives supporting the overall objective:

· Provide seamless support with all agencies, contractors, and sub-contractors to minimize performance impacts, Category I deficiencies, and repeat deficiencies through a cohesive collaborative effort for the Integration & Deployment phase

· Incentivize contractor utilization of small business at all tiers and further development of small business capabilities through inclusion of various initiatives designed to improve and grow the small business industrial base

· Meet or exceed the quality requirements, schedule, and cost associated with the delivery of the Integration and Deployment phase

· Adhere to corporate best practices. (NOTE; Need to add a place where the contractor can provide applicable Corporate Best Practices, maybe add an attachment place holder for successful offeror.)

· Develop innovative, cooperative, and cost effective solutions addressing possible negative impacts to cost, schedule, or baseline performance of the Integration and Deployment phase

The plan also describes the processes for presenting an assessment of the Contractor’s 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 "Award Fee" clause in Section H of the contract. The UEWR Program Director (SPD) 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.

3.0 ORGANIZATION

The Award Fee organization consists of the Fee Determining Official (FDO), an Award Fee Advisory Council (AFAC), an Award Fee Review Board (AFRB), the Award Fee Secretariat (AFS), and the Performance Monitors. The Award Fee Review Board Members and Advisors Table is located at- Attachment 1.

3.1 Specific Responsibilities of Award Fee Participants

1) The Fee Determining Official (FDO) will:

· approve the award fee plan and any significant changes

· approve the appointment of AFRB members

· ensure the award fee decision process is thorough and fair

· determine the amount of fee earned

· provide the contractor a written award fee decision that discusses contractor performance, specifies the amount of fee earned, and reiterates the areas of emphasis included in the Expectations Letter within 35 days after the end of the prior period

· direct the Contracting Officer to make changes to the award fee plan as necessary

· issue an award fee expectations letters

2) The Award Fee Advisory Council (AFAC):

· advises the FDO on matters pertaining to the consistent application of award fees

· reviews and coordinates on the AFRB recommendation prior to the FDO briefing

· reviews award fee plan revisions and modifications

3) Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) will:

· evaluate contractor performance

· prepare an interim award fee performance briefing or letter to the contractor

· convene no later than 14 days after the close of the award fee period

· recommend an award fee amount to the AFRB Chair

· ensure fee recommendation is consistent with CPARS and presented at the FDO briefing

· recommend the criteria, percentages, and emphasis areas for the next award fee period

4) The AFRB chairperson will:

· structure the AFRB so as to include members who are familiar with the project and work performed by the Contractor in order to ensure a fair and reasonable assessment of the Contractor’s performance

· direct the efforts of the AFRB in analyzing performance data

· provide a fee recommendation to the FDO.

· approve and issue a mid-term/interim award fee assessment letter and/or briefing to the contractor. Specifically notifying the FDO if the interim assessment is below 75%

5) The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)/Assistant Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) is responsible for:

· the overall award fee process, this includes assigning Performance Monitors and the Recorder and requesting any other support required

· assembling an AFRB working group after each evaluation period to review, analyze, and provide recommendations to the AFRB

· ensuring that all evaluations are conducted consistently in accordance with Award Fee performance objectives and criteria

6) Performance Monitors: The COR will appoint Performance Monitors to evaluate contract performance. These may include Integrated Product Team leads, other MDA Supporting Directorates, and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Conduct all assessments according to contract requirements and the award fee plan so that evaluations are fair and accurate; maintain written records of the contractors’ performance in their assigned evaluation areas; prepare interim and end-of-period evaluations addressing the contractor’s weaknesses and strengths; brief the AFRB on their specific evaluation area(s); recommend changes to the award fee plans, as needed; understand and measure the contractor performance in accordance with the contractor’s command media corporate best practices as referenced in the award fee plan; and take refresher training annually.

7) Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO): The PCO is the liaison between the contractor and the Government personnel. The PCO will execute the required award fee contractual provisions into the BMDS Radar contract. Additionally, the PCO is responsible for notifying the contractor of changes to the award fee plan, providing an award fee decision letter to the Contractor, and issuing contract modifications awarding any award fee authorized by the FDO.

8) AFRB Recorder: The recorder is a non voting member of the AFRB and is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFRB and the FDO, including: 1) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation inputs from all required sources; 2) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and 3) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process. The recorder will assemble the draft ratings for interim, end of award fee period, and key/mission success events from the ratings submitted by the performance monitors and provide these to the AFRB chairman for action.

9) Award Fee Secretariat (AFS): The AFS participates in the Expectations Letter, AFRB, and FDO briefings, establishes centralized management of the award fee process, and maintains agency’s award fees policies, practices, and procedures. The AFS will facilitate timely award fee determinations by scheduling all award fee activities including Expectations Letter, and FDO briefings. The AFS will notify the AFRB chairperson and Program Director to conduct the interim award fee assessment.

4.0 PROGRAM AWARD FEE PROCESSES

4.1. Award Fee Approach

The intent of this plan is to:

· give the contractor an incentive to exceed Agency requirements

· identify the maximum award fee percentage the contractor can potentially earn

· establish award fee periods for evaluation

· implement a positive fee scale with whereby the available award fee pool for a period must be earned for performance and results rather than decremented for non-performance

· not provide any award in any evaluation period where the Government rates the Contractor’s overall performance for all performance elements below satisfactory.

Award Fee Distribution, displays a summary of award fee available approximately through mid FY16. This attachment will be updated by contract modification as awards are finalized. At all times at least 40 percent of the total award-fee pool will be available for the final evaluation. This ensures that the Contractor is incentivized to perform through the completion of the contract.

Award fee deals with those elements under the control of the contractor, which are susceptible to subjective as well as qualitative and objective evaluation. Award fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government Fee Determining Official (FDO). The specific elements, criteria, and procedures used to assess contractor performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned are described below.

4.2 Performance Elements

Contractor performance will be evaluated in two performance elements: Contract Performance and Mission Success. Both categories of performance elements will be evaluated with the scale and ratings definitions found in attachment 6. NOTE: according to MDA Award Fee Directive Key Event Performance Element is also a mandatory performance element. The Directive also states the FDO can change at their discretion. However, is Key Event Performance Element is not applicable for this effort, I’ll need a short blurb on why it isn’t applicable for my SSS.

4.2.1 Contract Performance Element (CPE)

This element assesses the contractor’s performance in four elements, technical performance, schedule management, cost management, and small business utilization. Attachment 2 contains the details of how the contractor’s performance in this element will be evaluated.

4.2.2 Mission Success Element (MSE)

This element measures the contractor’s timely and effective performance of events critical to successful Integration and Deployment phase completion. Overall program execution and the successful delivery of Integration and Deployment capabilities are the focus of these events. This element will not be evaluated as part of the award fee periods but will be evaluated at the period of performance. Attachment 5 contains the details of how the contractor’s performance in this element will be evaluated.

4.3 Award Fee Periods

The total award fee pool will be available to be earned as described in attachment 4. MSEs will be evaluated for payment as they are completed. The Award Fee Periods are described below (MDA Award Fee Directive requires award fee periods to be one year in length and end on Sep 30th. (Obviously exceptions are made when the first or last period would be exceptionally short but otherwise the Sep 30th end date should be used.):

· Period 1 covers approximately mid July 2015 through 31 July 2016

· Period 2 covers approximately 01 August 2016 through approximately Feb 2017

4.4 Interim Feedback

The AFRB chairman will also provide the contractor an interim assessment for each award fee period. These interim assessments will be accomplished in writing.

4.5 New Work

Award Fee associated with new work added to the contract by contract modifications will be added to the appropriate performance elements.

4.6 Expectations Letter

A letter to the contractor detailing the Agency’s expectations of the Contractor’s performance for the next award fee period must be presented to the Contractor prior to the beginning of the new award fee period. The expectations letter will:

· Contain criteria that clearly define MDA’s expectations of the Contractor

· Identify special focus areas for the applicable award fee period

· Address cost, schedule, and performance risk as applicable

· Emphasize the Contractor’s adherence to corporate best practices

4.7 Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) Process (End of Period, MSEs)

· The contractor shall not provide either formal written or verbal contractor self-assessments for mid-term and final periods to the Award Fee Review Board. The IPT process should be utilized to informally and frequently discuss strengths and weaknesses.

· Approximately three weeks prior to the end of the period, Performance Monitors will provide a written evaluation report of the Contractor's performance based on the award fee criteria to the AFRB Recorder. For MSEs, the Recorder will consolidate evaluation inputs upon completion of each MSE.

· Prior to the close of an award fee evaluation period, or upon completion of a KPE or MSE, the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) may convene the Performance Monitors to analyze all written evaluation reports against the Award Fee Criteria. The objective of the COR and Performance Monitors is to prepare a draft recommendation to the AFRB. Performance Monitors and other support personnel will provide clarification of evaluations and/or provide additional information to the AFRB

· Approximately two weeks after the close of an award fee evaluation period or upon completion of a KPE or MSE, the AFRB Chairperson will convene the AFRB. The contractor must be present at the AFRB as a non-voting member to discuss any discrepancies, clarifications, etc. The contractor will leave the AFRB prior to final deliberations.

· Within fifteen (15) days after the AFRB, the AFRB will present to the FDO the recommended award fee percentage and rationale for the recommendation consistent with the award fee criteria.

· The FDO will make the final decision regarding the Contractor's performance rating and the resultant award fee amount. Following the FDO’s final decision, the program office will prepare a letter of award fee determination. The award fee letter will include a discussion of contractor performance, award fee earned, and describe areas of emphasis for the next award fee period. An FDO designee if requested, will also brief the Contractor on the results to include strengths and weaknesses. The Government will make its best effort to issue a contract modification implementing the award fee within thirty-five (35) days after period end or event completion.

5.0 CHANGES TO THE AWARD FEE PLAN

The FDO will approve all significant changes; the AFRB Chairperson approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include: changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising distribution of award fee dollars. After approval the PCO will notify the contractor in writing of any changes. Content of this award fee plan and criteria in the expectations letter for the current period is considered binding. Content affecting future periods will be reviewed at the end of each award fee period and updated as necessary. MSE content, at a minimum, are reviewed along with the award fee period in which they occur. Unilateral changes affecting future periods or events may be made by the FDO to the award fee plan prior to the beginning of each award fee period. Changes to the award fee plan after the start of the evaluation period will be implemented by a bilateral contract modification.

6.0 CONTRACT TERMINATION

If the contract is terminated for convenience of the government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed 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, will not be paid.

ATTACHMENT 1

Award Fee Review Board Members and Advisors

UEWR Fee Determining Official (FDO)

Office symbol

AWARD FEE REVIEW BOARD (AFRB) MEMBERS and ADVISORS

Chairperson: ESC/HSIG UEWR System Program Director

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

Office symbol

Chairman, Program Director for Sensors

Office symbol

Deputy for Acquisition Management, MDA/DA or designee

Deputy Program Director, MDA/SN Sensors Program

Program Manager/Contracting Officer’s Representative

850 ELSG/KD, Hanscom AFB, MA

Commander DCMA or designee

Director of Quality, Safety, and Mission Assurance, MDA/QS or designee

Program Director, BMDS Worldwide Deployment (MDA/DFW) or designee

Representative(s) of customer organizations as determined by the AFRB Chairperson Program office Senior Cost Analyst MDA/DOB

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

Director of Contracting, MDA/DAC, or designee Contractor Program Manager Contractor Program Manager Boss Award Fee Secretariat

ADVISORS

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE ELEMENT

The Contract Performance Element measures the contractor’s performance in three weighted functional performance areas, technical performance, schedule management and cost management. Within the Contract Performance Element, equally weighted criteria contained under each performance area provide guidelines for evaluation of the contractor's performance. The criteria for each performance area are as follows:

Area A: Technical Performance The first evaluation factor is TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE with a relative weight of 35%. Technical Performance is defined as successful completion of all tasks set forth in the performance statement of work (SOW) for the period of performance being evaluated and it demonstrates the functional requirements provided with the Statement of Work. Areas that will be evaluated include:

· Executing and maintaining a seamless support with all agencies, contractors, and sub-contractors to provide smooth integration, installation, and mission success

· (Seems like these are both covered in Small Business evaluation factor below)

· Executing resource management that provides effective near and long term allocation, and best source assessments and decisions on using Government, contractor, and sub-contractor resources

· Controlling to meet or exceed the quality requirements, schedule, and cost associated with the delivery of the Integration and Deployment phase

· Executing innovative, cooperative, and cost effective solutions addressing possible negative impacts to cost, schedule, or baseline performance of the Integration and Deployment phase without adding risk

· Exercising risk and quality management to maintain standardization of the configuration between the UEWR at Clear and previous upgrades of Thule, Beale and RAF Fylingdales

Area B: Schedule Management The second evaluation criterion is SCHEDULE with a relative weight of 35%. The Schedule evaluation will be based on the achievement of planned events that are listed in the Integrated Master Schedule and are to be completed during the award fee period. Factors which may be used to evaluate this are:

· Effective management of a contractor Integrated Product and Cross Product team (IPT/CPT) demonstrating a cohesive collaboration with other contractors, agencies, and subcontractors to minimize impact from external sources

· Effective management of flow-down team providing timeliness of data deliverable submissions

· Effective management in timeliness of interim milestone deliveries (e.g., prototypes, design reviews, etc.)

· Effective resource management that provides effective near and long term allocation, best source assessments and decisions on using Government, contractor, and sub-contractor resources Area C: Cost Management The third evaluation criterion is COST with a relative weight of 30%. Cost control is defined as the management of resources to effect the completion of tasks within the confines of the negotiated estimated contract cost agreed to during negotiations. Included in cost control is the maintenance of an effective and informative reporting system that appropriately reflects the Contract Work Breakdown Structure, a baselined Integrated Master Plan and Schedule, and useful Earned Value Management data to ascertain essential contract work values. The extent to which actual costs are confined to negotiated costs and the quality of the cost reporting system will be evaluated to determine the rating and grade given by the performance monitors. Each potential rating, its associated grade, and the criteria defining that rating follow:

· Degree to which functionally complete integrated or modernized capability or work products are delivered as planned. Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS) versus Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP) and within agreed Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) to Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP) cost and Estimate at Completion (EAC).

· Degree in which the Contractor has control over planning work, controlling resources, measuring performance, recording cost, and controlling contract changes.

· Degree of proactive and innovative solutions in pursuit of program cost reduction in life cycle and redesign cost objectives.

· Degree to which costs are kept at estimate or below estimate of Earned Value Management Plan

· Degree to which proactive and innovative demonstrations of program cost reduction; introduction of concepts or initiatives which produce demonstrable reductions in total program cost without adding risk

Area D: Small Business

Small Business Utilization Process:

Implement and provide MDA small business office with a copy of contract specific Small Business Utilization Strategy to achieve MDA small business objectives and planned results as outlined in the table below:

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE

Small Business Cumulative Utilization Small Business Utilization Exceeds Contract Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals Exceptional Small Business Utilization is within 10%(1st yr) 7% (2nd yr) 3% (3rd yr) 1% (4th yr) meets (5th yr) Contract Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals Very Good - Satisfactory Small Business Utilization is Not within 10% (1st yr), 7% (2nd yr) 3% (3rd yr) 1% (4th yr) does not meet (5th yr) ) Contract Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals Unsatisfactory

Seek out, identify and act on new opportunities to accomplish the following MDA small business objectives in support of MDA/SN mission requirements:

(1) Expand the pool of qualified small businesses to reap the benefits of increased competition for production of components and piece parts in MDA acquired systems.

(2) Engage small businesses to serve as second sources in order to mitigate the risks of single point failures in the supply chain and increase the quality of supplies or services.

(3) Leverage investments in the Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer programs to transition appropriate technologies into operational or planned systems.

Proposed Small business evaluation criteria and metrics for UEWR award fee plans.

Criteria:

Implement a contract specific Small Business Utilization Strategy to exceed subcontracting plan goals and accomplish MDA small business objectives outlined in the Award Fee Expectations Letter. Identify and act on new opportunities to increase competition and reduce single-point failures throughout the supply chain, and leverage Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) investments to meet MDA/SN mission requirements and strengthen the BMDS industrial base.

Metric:

Excellent 91%-100% In addition to requirements of FAR 16.401 (e) (iv) Table 16-1 description, the Contractor has:

- Demonstrated outstanding progress in achieving objectives.

- Has exceptional success with contract specific and small business program initiatives to assist, promote and utilize small business concerns.

- Exceeded all goals and requirements of the subcontracting plan while showing positive trends in attaining all objectives.

Very Good 76%-90% In addition to requirements of FAR 16.401 (e) (iv) Table 16-1 description, the Contractor has:

- Demonstrated very significant progress in achieving objectives.

- Has significant success with contract specific and company small business program initiatives to assist, promote and utilize small business concerns.

- Met all goals and requirements of the subcontracting plan while showing positive trends in attaining all goals and most objective.

Good 51%-75% In addition to requirements of FAR 16.401 (e) (iv) Table 16-1 description, the Contractor has:

- Demonstrated significant progress in achieving objectives.

- Has success with contract specific and company small business program initiatives to assist, promote and utilize small business concerns.

- Met all goals and requirements of the subcontracting plan while showing positive trends in attaining some objectives.

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% In addition to requirements of FAR 16.401 (e) (iv) Table 16-1 description, the Contractor has:

- Demonstrated little progress in achieving objectives.

- Met all of its goals and requirements of the subcontracting plan but has not met the rigorous criteria for a Good or higher rating.

Unsatisfactory 0% In addition to requirements of FAR 16.401 (e) (iv) Table 16-1 description, the Contractor has:

- Demonstrated little to no progress in achieving objectives.

- Performance results indicate a disregard for small business utilization improvements.

ATTACHMENT 3

MISSION SUCCESS ELEMENT

The Mission Success Element measures the contractor's ability to successfully execute each of two Integration and Deployment System Level Events. To successfully achieve a mission success event, the contractor is required to meet the event objectives and exit criteria within 30 days of the scheduled event. The projected event and success criteria dates will be determined based upon the coordinated Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). This Award Fee Plan will be updated to reflect agreed upon changes to the IMS. Activities or actions by the contractor and outside influences that affect the projected event date will be presented to the FDO for consideration in determining the award fee amount. The Government will evaluate mission success events considering whether the contractor’s performance meets objectives or success criteria defined for the event, and the contractor’s performance in task execution.

Due to the importance the Government places on completing these two mission success events, if either event is not successfully completed on schedule, the FDO may elect to award no fee for a delayed or failed event.

It is incumbent upon the contractor to immediately notify the Government Program Manager when the date for an MSE is likely to slip outside the award fee period. Immediate notification is defined as within 45 days before the event was scheduled to start. Prompt notification will be a consideration for the FDO in determining whether all, some, or none of the fee associated with the affected MSE Events will remain available to be earned.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the process defined in paragraph 4.0. of the Award Fee Plan. The contractor will be notified via a FDO letter similar to that issued at the end of a period.

MSEs are identified in attachment 5. The contractor will be notified of any changes to the MSEs using the Change Process defined in paragraph 5 of the Award Fee Plan.

ATTACHMENT 4

AWARD FEE PER CLIN AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Cost Management Small Business Utilization 30%

XX%

Technical Performance (35%)

Schedule Management (35%)

Cost Management (30%)

ATTACHMENT 5

Mission Success Event

Date Scheduled

Actual Date

Fee Available

Fee Earned

Mid September FY16

3/4

Mid February FY17

1/4

MSE Total:

Mission Success Event Criteria

Description: USAF completes testing and certifies that the common baseline UEWR system meets all ITW/AA requirements.

Summary Objective:

· Successful Completion of the FDE and Trial Period approximately mid September FY2016

· Meets legacy ITW/AA requirements during FDE

· Successful operational acceptance for ITW/AA operations

Success Criteria:

· Formal Run On-Site DT&E complete (less any PIDS “shalls” that require either completion of construction or operation throughout the trial period before sign off)(date TBD)

· All operator, analyst, and maintenance training complete consistent with the Approved Training Plan

· Agreed FDE entry criteria satisfied

· Successful completion of FDE

· Successful completion of Trial Period (TBD)

· All “in-scope” Cat 1 Deficiency Reports shall be closed

· All “in-scope” Cat 2 Deficiency Reports shall have agreed closure plan

· Successful operational acceptance for ITW/AA operations

Mission Success Event Criteria

Description: Legacy equipment is removed and facility is restored to operational condition.

Summary Objective: UEWR meets all specification requirements after de-modification of Legacy hardware and restoration of facility to operating condition.

Success Criteria:

· FDE & Trial Period Successfully Completed approximately mid February FY2017

· Contractor Completes the facilities modifications on or ahead of schedule

· All facilities sub-systems are installed, tested and meet all performance requirements necessary to support the installation and checkout phase

· All “in scope” documented Deficiencies are corrected or otherwise accounted for by the Government

· The Quality Control/Assurance Program has been well managed and adherence to Final Plans and Specifications is documented

· All UEWR Hardware and Software are operating according to specification

· All documented UEWR hardware and software Cat 1 Deficiencies are corrected or otherwise accounted for by the Government

ATTACHMENT 6

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:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

ATTACHMENT 6.1

PERFORMANCE MONITOR’S REPORT

Name of Evaluator: _________________________ Contract Number: HQ0147-11-R-0002 Award Fee Period: ___________________________

Criteria Area Rating. Each evaluated area will be assigned a numeric rating. Specific strengths and weaknesses will be described for each area. The Lead Performance Monitor will use these points earned to compute and overall recommended rating score and recommended award fee percentage.

EVALUATION AREA

Technical Performance (35% of Total Award Points)

Schedule Management Performance (35% of Total Award Points)

Cost Management Performance (30% of Total Award Points)

ATTACHMENT 6.2

AWARD REVIEW AND EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Completed by Lead Performance Monitor (Name):__________________________ Period of Performance: _______________________________________

Performance Cost Management Performance TOTAL Rating Score

Evaluation (PM)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

TOTAL by Category

TOTAL Award

Total Rating Score (Points) is the total of the averages for each category.

The specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award-fee earned in accordance with the “Award Fee” clause in Section H of the contract.

Competitive Sensitive For Official Use Only Page 9

Competitive Sensitive For Official Use Only HQ0147-11-R-0002 image1.png