Sol HR0011-11-R-0003 Attach 2 Award Fee Plan docx.pdf

HR-0011-11-R-0003

AWARD FEE PLAN

For

Contractor Support Services for the

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Support Services Office, (SSO), Security and Intelligence

Directorate (SID)

Date Approved: xx xxxxx xxx

Approved By: Fee Determination Official

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This plan covers the administration of the award fee provisions of the contract for: Contractor Support Services for the Support Services Office /Security and Intelligence Directorate of DARPA. It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of DARPA. The Fee Determining Official (FDO) may 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 affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

2. This document outlines the process for evaluating performance of the Statement of Work (SOW) and identifies how award fee under the contract will be apportioned. Evaluation management will be accomplished through a process which will measure and examine performance and provide feedback in order for the contractor to implement corrective actions where necessary and continually improve the services provided..

DARPA reserves the right to engage independent contractors to monitor, investigate and evaluate contractor performance. DARPA, or its designees, will conduct periodic, unannounced audits in support of the data gathering process.

Any Award Fee not earned in an award period WILL NOT roll over to the next award period.

B. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR AWARD FEE ADMINISTRATION

The following organizational structure is established for administering the award fee provisions of the contract. Note that this structure is subject to change at the discretion of DARPA.

1. Fee Determination Official (FDO)

a. The FDO is the Director of the Support Services Office (SSO), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The FDO reserves the right to consult advisors in addition to those named in this document without notifying the contractor.

b. Primary FDO responsibilities are:

(1) Determining the award fee earned and payable for each evaluation period.

(2) Approving the Award Fee Plan (AFP) and any significant changes. Any significant changes shall be implemented via a bilateral contractual modification to incorporate the revised AFP.

2. Award Fee Board (AFB)

a. The Award Fee Board is made up of the following members:

Chairperson - Director, Security and Intelligence Directorate Assistant Director, Program Management (ADPM) for SSO Contracting Officer (CO) Primary Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and

Non-voting Award Fee Coordinator

b. Primary Award Fee Board Members’ Responsibilities are:

(1) Evaluate contractor performance based on recommendations provided by DARPA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and other personnel, as appropriate.

(2) Make earned award fee recommendations to be presented to the FDO

(3) May also recommend changes to the AFP. Any significant changes shall be implemented via a bilateral contractual modification to incorporate the revised AFP.

3. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)

a. DARPA Subject Matter Experts will be assigned to report to the Award Fee Board on the contractor’s performance of the SOW tasks during the period. SME assignments may be changed at any time without notice to the contractor. DARPA reserves the right to consult independent contractors to assist and conduct performance evaluation.

b. Primary SME performance monitoring responsibilities are:

(1) Monitoring, evaluating and assessing contractor performance in assigned areas.

(a) SMEs will conduct all assessments in an open, objective and cooperative spirit so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Positive performance accomplishments may be identified as well as negative ones. The information provided, both positive and negative, through the AF process should assist the contractor with the execution of their performance during the next award fee period.

(b) SMEs shall prepare written Performance Evaluation Reports. SMEs will discuss the assessment results with the COR and Award Fee Coordinator (AFC), as appropriate, noting any observed positive accomplishments and/or deficiencies as well as accompanying recommendations.

(c) SME discussions with contractor personnel are not to be used to instruct, to direct, to supervise, or as an attempt to control these personnel in the performance of the contract.

The role of the SME is to monitor, assess, and evaluate, not to manage the contractor's effort.

(2) Periodically SMEs may be asked to provide verbal reports to the AFB or FDO.

(3) Recommending to the FDO, through the AFC and COR, appropriate changes in this plan for consideration. Any significant changes shall be implemented via a bilateral contractual modification to incorporate the revised AFP.

4. Award Fee Coordinator (AFC)

a. The AFC may also be the Primary Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

b. The AFC is the DARPA official who handles administrative actions required by the AFB and FDO in order to assure smooth execution of the Award Fee Plan and that the overall evaluation process is conducted in accordance with the AFP. These AFC duties include:

(1) Assuring SME evaluation reports and contractor self-evaluations are provided on time and are made available to the AFB and FDO,

(2) Coordinating and arranging the AFB meetings,

(3) Taking notes during AFB meetings and preparing the AFB’s recommendation reports,

(4) Preparing the FDO’s official correspondence on the fee determination, and

(5) Coordinating the development of and changes to the AFP. Any significant changes shall be implemented via a bilateral contractual modification to incorporate in the revised RFP.

c. The AFC will assure that each SME receives the following:

(1) A copy of the contract and all modifications.

(2) A copy of this plan along with any subsequent changes thereto.

(3) Appropriate orientation and guidance.

(4) Specific instructions applicable to SME-assigned performance areas.

d. On an informal basis, the AFC shall provide to the contractor, upon concurrence of the COR, information pertaining to adverse items or areas of poor performance to afford the contractor an opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings and to correct or resolve deficiencies prior to completion of the award fee period .

C. METHOD FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

A determination of the award fee earned for each evaluation period will be made by the FDO after the end of the period. The method to be followed in monitoring, evaluating, and assessing contractor performance during the period, as well as for determining the award fee earned, is described below.

1. SMEs will monitor, evaluate, and assess contractor performance.

2. SMEs provide Performance Evaluation Reports assessing the contractor’s performance to the COR and AFC. The written reports shall be briefed to the COR.

3. SMEs provide verbal presentations to the AFB or FDO, as requested.

4. As appropriate, the AFB or FDO may request and obtain performance information from other units or personnel normally involved in observing contractor performance.

5. The contractor may conduct and submit a self-evaluation to the AFC and FDO or their designated representative 15 days after the Mid-Year and Overall Evaluation Periods. Refer to Section G of the AFP for a description of the Mid-Year and Overall Evaluation Periods.

6. Approximately 21 days after the Mid-Year and Overall Evaluation Periods, the COR or his/her designee will meet with the contractor and discuss preliminary findings and recommendations. As requested by the COR, SMEs and other personnel involved in performance evaluation will attend the meeting and participate in discussions. At this meeting, the contractor will be given an opportunity to submit or respond to any additional matters.

7. The Mid-Year evaluation conducted midway through the Overall evaluation period will not result in a determination and disbursement of Award Fee funds. This period is designed to be an assessment of work to date.

8. Approximately 30 days after the end of the Overall Evaluation Period, the AFC will convene the AFB to discuss the award fee with the Board Members and other personnel, as appropriate. At the request of the AFB, the contractor may present its self-evaluation to the AFB.

The AFB will consider the contractor’s self-evaluation, if any, information from the SMEs, and other performance information identified in paragraph 4 above when making a recommendation to the FDO for the contractor’s earned award fee. If requested by the AFB, other personnel involved in performance evaluations may be required to attend the meeting. The Board will issue an Award Fee Recommendation Report to the FDO.

9. Within 45 days after the end of the Overall Evaluation Period, the FDO, will determine the amount of award fee earned during the Evaluation Period within the guidelines specified herein.

The FDO’s determination of the amount of award fee earned and the basis for this determination will be stated in the Award Fee Determination Report (AFDR). The report will be signed by the FDO. and forwarded to the Contracting Officer. Within 14 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made, the Contracting Officer will issue a unilateral contract modification which identifies the amount of the award fee earned.

D. AWARD FEE EVALUATION CATEGORIES & CRITERIA

1. Categories of Performance and Weights

The award fee evaluation areas and their respective weights are shown below:

SOW

SECTION/

Paragraph

EVALUATION CATEGORIES

SOW Sub-

Section Weight’s

OVERALL

WEIGHTS

Security Operations Overall 30 % 2/6 Personnel Security 10 % 2/7 & 2/8 Information Assurance (IA) 15 % 2/9 Security Education, Training, Awareness/OPSEC Program 5 % 2/10 International Security Program 15 % 2/11 International Cooperation 15 % 2/12 Intelligence/Counterintelligence Support 15 % 2/14 Plans Policies and Procedures 5 %

2/15 FOIA 5 %

2/16 Data Base /Web System Administration 5 % 2/18 Privacy Analyst 10 % Program Security Overall 30 % 2/2 Program Security Representatives 50 % 2/3 Security Assistants 15 % 2/4 Security Assistants in the Special Security Office 5 % 2/5 Security Assistants Performing Personnel Security Tier II Adjudication 5 % 2/13 Information/ Industrial Security Program 15 % 2/17 Polygraph Support 5 % 2/19 Budget Analyst (SAP) 5 % Program Management Overall 40 % 2/1 Program Management 100/90 % 1/2.4 Special Project, Study, Assessment or Analysis 0/10 % Total Weight 100%

2. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation categories and criteria are intended to cover all tasks and subtasks in the Statement of Work. A subtask will be considered to have met the standard in an evaluation period if no work under that subtask was assigned and/or performed.

The following evaluation criteria and their applicable weights within the SOW Subtasks will be used in measuring the standard of performance.

Evaluation Criteria For SOW Sections/Paragraphs 2/2-19 & 1/2.4

Weight

a. Quality of Product/Service:

Assess the contractor’s performance of contract requirements. Assess the accuracy of reports as well as technical excellence.

35 %

3.5% for 1/ 2.4)

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance:

Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of administrative requirements. Assess the contractor’s adherence to the delivery of work products by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect schedules. Also consider whether the contractor is reliable and responsive to direction.

30 %

3.5% for 1/ 2.4)

c. Business Relations:

Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, reasonable and cooperative behavior. The extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination needed to execute the contract. Responsiveness to requirements, professional correspondence and administration, prompt notification of problems, flexibility, cooperativeness, and proactive solutions.

35 %

3.5% for 1/ 2.4)

Evaluation Criteria For SOW Section/Paragraph 2/1 Only

Weight

a. Quality of Product/Service:

Assess the contractor’s performance of contract requirements. Assess the accuracy of reports as well as technical excellence.

17.5/14 %

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance:

Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of administrative requirements. Assess the contractor’s adherence to the delivery of work products by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect schedules. Also consider whether the contractor is reliable and responsive to direction.

17.5/14 %

c. Business Relations:

Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, reasonable and cooperative behavior. The extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination needed to execute the contract. Responsiveness to requirements, professional correspondence and administration, prompt notification of problems, flexibility, cooperativeness, and proactive solutions.

17.5/14 %

d. Management of Key Personnel:

Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing (when necessary) key personnel.

17.5 %

e. Cost Control:

Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Also consider whether the work performed was within budget; if billings were current, accurate, and complete; and if any change orders or contract modifications were implemented in a timely manner.

30%

* When SOW Sec 1/2.4 is being evaluated as part of Program Management, use 3.5 % for criteria a,b,c for 1/2.4 and 14% for criteria a,b,c for 2/1. In the absence of a 1/2.4 evaluation, use the full 17.5 % for the 2.1 criteria a,b,c evaluation.

3. Standards of Performance

These standards of performance or performance grades will be used, in conjunction with the categories of performance, weights, and evaluation criteria, in determining whether and to what extent the contractor has earned or may be entitled to receive any award fee.

a. Excellent performance – Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met 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.

b. Very Good performance – Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met 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.

c. Good performance – Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met 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.

d. Satisfactory performance – Contractor has met 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.

e. Unsatisfactory performance – 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.

f. Performance grades will be converted to percentages of award fee, rounded up to the nearest whole number, and payable as follows:

Performance Grades Percent of Award Fee Payable for Evaluation Period

Excellent - 5 4-5 91% - 100% Very Good - 4 3-4 76% - 90%

Good - 3 2-3 51% - 75% Satisfactory - 2 1-2 1% - 50%

Unsatisfactory - 1 <1 0%

E. CHANGES IN PLAN COVERAGE

1. Right to Make Unilateral Changes

Any matters covered in this plan not otherwise requiring mutual agreement under the contract, may be changed via a unilateral contract modification by the Contracting Officer. The changes will be made before the start of the applicable evaluation period.

2. Method for Changing Plan Coverage

a. Personnel involved in the administration of the award fee provisions of the contract are encouraged to recommend changes in plan coverage with a view toward changing management emphasis, motivating higher performance levels, or improving the award fee determination process. Recommended changes should be sent to the AFC for consideration and drafting.

b. Prior to the end of each evaluation period, the AFC will submit changes applicable to the next evaluation period for approval by the FDO with appropriate comments and justification, or inform the FDO that no changes are recommended for the next period.

c. The FDO will notify the Contracting Officer before the beginning of the next evaluation period what changes, if any, are to be applied and the Contracting Officer will make the changes via a unilateral contract modification as stated in paragraph E.1 above or, if the changes are significant, via a bilateral contract modification. If the contractor is not provided with this modification before the beginning of the next period, the existing plan coverage will continue in effect for the next evaluation period. The changes may be provided by facsimile.

F. CONTRACT TERMINATION

If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award-fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the FDO using the normal award-fee evaluation process on a prorated basis. 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.

G. AWARD FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

The award fee earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion of the evaluation periods shown below*. The dollars shown corresponding to each period is the maximum available-award-fee amount that can be earned during that particular period.

Period Base Effort Mid-Year Evaluation 1 Jan 2012 – 1 June 2012 Available Award Fee*: $o.oo Overall Evaluation 1 Jan 2012 – 31 Dec 2012 Available Award Fee**: $TBD

Period Option I Effort Mid-Year Evaluation 1 Jan 2013 – 1 June 2013 Available Award Fee*: $o.oo Overall Evaluation 1 Jan 2013 – 31 Dec 2013 Available Award Fee**: $TBD

Period Option II Effort Mid-Year Evaluation 1 Jan 2014 – 1 June 2014 Available Award Fee*: $o.oo Overall Evaluation 1 Jan 2014 – 31 Dec 2014 Available Award Fee**: $TBD

Period Option III Effort Mid-Year Evaluation 1 Jan 2015 – 1 June 2015 Available Award Fee*: $o.oo Overall Evaluation 1 Jan 2015 – 31 Dec 2015 Available Award Fee**: $TBD

Period Option IV Effort Mid-Year Evaluation 1 Jan 2016 – 1 June 2016 Available Award Fee*: $o.oo Overall Evaluation 1 Jan 2016 – 31 Dec 2016 Available Award Fee**: $TBD

* The Mid-Year Evaluation will not result in a determination and disbursement of Award Fee funds. This period is designed to be an assessment of work to date.

** Any Award Fee not earned in any award period WILL NOT roll over to the next award fee period.