Attachment_D_AWARD_FEE_PLAN.pdf

Attachment D Page 1

AWARD FEE PLAN

December 17, 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Award Fee Plan will be used as the basis for the Program Management element of the Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (MAP) program evaluation of the

Contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of the Contractor’s performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO), and determining the amount of

Award Fee to be payable to the Contractor. This Plan describes specific documents and procedures used to assess the Program Management performance and to determine the amount of Award Fee earned. Actual Award Fee determinations are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

For all new Program Management orders, if it is determined that a task order will include

Award Fee, the total amount of the Award Fee shall be obligated under each task order at time of award. 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 Award

Fee Plan unless stated otherwise in an individual Task Order.

2.0 Definitions

Award fee: An amount of money added to a contract, which a contractor may earn in whole or in part by meeting or exceeding the criteria stated in the Award Fee Plan or otherwise stated in an individual Task Order.

Award fee plan: The document that captures the award fee strategy. The plan details the procedures for implementing the award fee by structuring the methodology of evaluating the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

Award fee pool: The total of the available award fee for each evaluation period for the life of the contract or task order (as applicable).

Award fee review board (AFRB): The AFRB evaluates the Contractor’s overall performance for the evaluation period in accordance with the Award Fee Plan. The board is comprised of Government personnel only whose experience in acquisition and/or the Risk MAP Program allows them to analyze and evaluate the contractor’s overall performance.

Cost-plus-award-fee contract: A cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of a base amount (which may be zero) fixed at inception of the contract and an award amount, based upon a judgmental evaluation

Attachment D Page 2 by the government in accordance with the Award Fee Plan, sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance.

Cost-reimbursable contract: A contract that provides for payment of the contractor’s allowable costs to the extent prescribed in the contract not to exceed a cost ceiling.

Evaluation criteria: The criteria that are used to grade each category of performance. The criteria should emphasize the most important aspects of the program to facilitate the contractor doing its utmost to deliver outstanding performance. The criteria should be specific to the program and clearly stated in the award documents.

Evaluation period: The period of time upon which an award fee is based. This can be a specific increment of time (e.g., one year) or based upon the completion of an event (e.g., preliminary design review). An award fee amount is tied to each task order and period of time, or each event and the award fee board determines the appropriate fee for this period of time subject to approval by the fee determining official.

Fee determining official (FDO): The FDO makes the final determination regarding the amount of award fee earned during the evaluation period by the contractor.

Fixed-price contract: A contract that provides for a price that is either fixed or subject to adjustment obligating the contractor to complete work according to terms and for the government to pay the specified price regardless of the contractor’s cost of performance

Provisional award fee payment: A payment made within an evaluation period prior to a final evaluation for that period. This payment is subject to restrictions and redetermination based on any final FDO award fee determination by the FDO. If the earned Award fee, as determined by the FDO, is less than what is paid on a Provisional basis, the excess amount will be deducted from the first invoice submitted to the Government after the Contractor is notified of the FDO’s decision.

3.0 ORGANIZATION

The Award Fee organization consists of: the FDO, an Award Fee Review Board

(AFRB), and advisors.

The AFRB consists of the Chairperson, the Contracting Officer (CO), the Risk

Analysis Division (RAD) Deputy Director, , and Risk MAP CORs. All of these are voting members.

Attachment D Page 3

Advisers to the CORs and the AFRB may be Program Area Managers (PAMs), RAD Branch Chiefs, Project Monitors the Program Coordination Lead (PCL), and

Subject Area Experts, as necessary. The award fee organization is listed in

Annex 1.

The FDO will be the FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration

(FIMA), RAD Director, or a more senior person with FIMA. The Chairperson of the AFRB will be the Risk MAP Chief Acquisition Coordinator (CAC), or a more senior person with the RAD.

(The Award Fee Organization is shown in Annex 1)

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

a. FIMA Assistant Administrator, Appoints the FDO.

b. FDO. The FDO approves the Award Fee Plan 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.

Upon determining the amount of earned Award Fee, the FDO advises the CO, in writing of this decision and the amount of earned Award Fee.

c. AFRB. AFRB members review the Contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an earned Award Fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

d. AFRB Chairperson. The Chairperson is responsible for oversight of the coordination of administrative actions conducted by the COR(s) required by the AFRB and the FDO, including: l) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports 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.

e. COR(s). The COR is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions with the AFRB Chairperson that are required by the AFRB and the FDO, including: l) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation and performance reports 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.

f. CO. The CO is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel.

Upon receipt of the FDO determination on earned Award Fee; the CO prepares

Attachment D Page 4 the letter informing the Contractor of the earned Award Fee and authorizes the

Contractor to invoice for this amount.

g. Advisors. The Advisors are responsible for consultation with the CORs, the

AFRB, and the FDO as needed (e.g. assist with briefing an award fee issue at an AFRB). Advisors will be asked to assist the CORs to evaluate the

Contractors on the metrics as appropriate.

5.0 AWARD FEE PROCESS

a. Common items

1. Contractor performance will be evaluated by the AFRB utilizing the evaluation criteria included in this Award Fee Plan as noted in each task order (i.e., negotiated performance metrics). If a survey is used as an evaluation criteria, the survey may contain questions that are used for other purposes and not included as part of the performance assessment for Award Fee.

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 subsequent Award

Fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made upon mutual agreement of the parties and formal written modification executed by the CO in accordance with Section 7.0.

3. When a task order is modified (i.e., modification resulting in additional funding and Award Fee), the additional Award Fee will be

“pooled” with the remaining Award Fee in the task order at the time that the modification is effective.

4. During each Award Fee evaluation period, (e.g., quarterly) the

Award Fee that is not earned does not remain in the Award Fee pool for subsequent evaluation periods during the life of that task order.

5. The CAC notifies AFRB members within 5 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period that the evaluation period has ended and establishes a date for the AFRB to meet.

Attachment D Page 5

6. The Contractor’s self-evaluation will be submitted to the CO and copy to the COR and CAC, within 10 calendar days after the last day of the evaluation period or 2 calendar days after receipt of survey data from FEMA, whichever is later. FEMA will provide, to the Contractor, completed survey data that is available 2 weeks after the end of the period of performance, and every 2 weeks thereafter on an ongoing basis. The Contractor will brief the COR on its self-assessment as needed or requested. This written assessment of the Contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain any information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFRB in evaluating the

Contractor’s performance. The Contractor’s self-assessment shall be limited to a maximum of 5 pages unless the Task Order states otherwise, plus any supporting information as attachments. Before the Self-Assessment is submitted to the government, the

Contractor may meet with the individual COR and appropriate

PAMs to discuss preliminary PRS performance data.

7. The COR will provide an assessment of the Contractor’s performance along with the Contractor self-assessment to the CAC, within 15 calendar days of receiving the Contractor’s self-assessment.

8. The COR assessment will be a compilation of input from the PCL and Program Area Managers (PAMs). As a courtesy, the COR will provide the Contractor with a copy of the Government assessment of PRS metrics achievement.

9. The AFRB then considers the Contractor’s and Government’s performance assessments, decides upon a recommendation to the

FDO, and prepares a memorandum recommendation of earned

Award Fee to be submitted to the FDO.

10. If there is a difference in assessments between the Contractor and the COR, the COR will work with the Contractor, the CAC, the PCL, and PAMs to determine whether there is a need for clarification or if there is truly a difference of opinion that cannot be resolved before the assessments are presented to the AFRB. If there remains a difference of opinion, it will be up to the AFRB to determine the final fee recommendation that will be provided to the FDO.

Attachment D Page 6

11. The AFRB Chairperson briefs the evaluation recommendation to the FDO. To the extent permitted by law and regulation, such evaluations will remain confidential.

12. At this time, the AFRB Chairperson, based upon recommendations from the AFRB, may also recommend any significant changes to the Award Fee Plan for FDO approval.

13. The FDO determines the overall performance level and earned

Award Fee amount for the evaluation period within 60 calendar days after the evaluation period and in the case of a task order ending, 60 days after the end of the last task order performance period. The contractor will be notified of the earned award fee within 70 calendar days after the evaluation period ends.

14. If requested by the Contractor, the FDO will debrief the Contractor regarding the Award Fee determination.

b. CPAF Task Orders

1. When a new task order is awarded by the FEMA HQ CO, a new

Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be prepared, and a separate Award Fee pool will be established as negotiated between

FEMA and the Contractor. The Award Fee Plan will also be reviewed and, if needed and agreed to by the Government and the contractor, the Award Fee Plan may be modified.

2. Available Award Fee Amount. The available Award Fee for each evaluation period is determined during negotiations and is stated as a separate line item in the task order. The Award Fee earned will be based on the Contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

6.0 Payment of Award Fee

a. Payment of Award Fee—General

Attachment D Page 7

1. After receiving the FDO’s written determination, the CO should inform the Contractor of the decision in writing within 10 calendar days. This letter shall also serve as authorization for the Contractor to invoice for the earned Award Fee.

2. The Contractor’s invoice for earned Award Fee shall reflect any previously billed Provisional Award Fee.

3. If the COR receives an invoice for Award fee prior to the Contractor submitting a self assessment for the period covered by the invoice, the COR shall reject the invoice, return it to the Contractor and inform the Contractor why it was rejected.

4. If the FDO does not make a final determination of award fee within 120 days after receiving the Contractor’s self assessment, the Contracting Officer shall issue a letter authorizing the Contractor to bill for an amount equal to 90% of the amount recommended by the AFRB. If the AFRB has not yet made a recommendation, the amount authorized will equal 80% of the amount of the Contractor’s Self Assessment.

b. Payment of Award Fee—Provisional Award Fee

1. Provisional award fee payments for unearned Award Fee will be allowed, unless it is specifically not allowed in the Task Order. The Contractor will agree in writing that if the earned Award fee, as determined by the FDO, is less than what is paid on a Provisional basis, the excess amount will be deducted from the first invoice submitted to the Government after the Contractor is notified of the FDO’s decision.

2. The Provisional award fee amount authorized to be billed on a monthly basis will be calculated as 80% of the average Award Fee Score (expressed as a % of the available award fee pool) for the two (2) most recent Award Fee determinations for the subject task order.

Award Fee Determination Process

Attachment D Page 8

Chairperson

Issues End of

Period Reminder

COR/PAMs evaluate

Contractors Self

Assessment

COR/PAMs write

Narrative

Evaluations

COR coordinates with Contractor on

COR/PAMs

Assessment and

Evaluation

Contractor responds to the

COR/PAMs

Assessment and

Evaluation differences

COR and

Contractor determine reasons for differences in

Assessments and reconcile

COR briefs AFRB on Assessment and Evaluation

Contractor resubmits Self

Assessment if necessary

AFRB Chair prepares Award

Fee

Recommendation

Memo for the FDO

AFRB Chairperson briefs the FDO

FDO makes the

Award Fee

Determination and notifies the

Contracting Office in writing

Contracting Officer notifies the contractor of the amount of Award

Fee and to invoice

Contractor submits invoice

COR reviews to ensure invoice is consistent with award fee determination

COR approves invoice for Award

Fee

YES NO

7.0 AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

The FDO may unilaterally change the AFRB organization, periodic AFRB evaluation review schedule and Award Fee Determination Process prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The Contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the CO, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria, to the requirements or schedule for the Contractor’s Self-Assessment submission, or to the schedule for notifying the Contractor of the Award Fee determination, will be made upon mutual agreement of the parties and formal written modification executed by the CO. Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

The Contractor may recommend changes to the CO prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval or denial, the CO shall notify the Contractor in writing of the status of any recommendations.

8.0 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE

If the contract/task order 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 established Award Fee evaluation process.

Attachment D Page 9

Annexes

1. Award Fee Review Board Organization

2. Award Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

3. Evaluation Criteria

Attachment D Page 10

ANNEX 1

AWARD FEE REVIEW BOARD ORGANIZATION

Fee Determining Official – Division Director

Award Fee Review Board:

Chair - Chief Acquisition Coordinator

Members:

Contracting Officer

Deputy Division Director

CORs

Advisors: Branch Chiefs, Program Area Managers, Project Monitors, Program

Coordination Lead, Subject Matter Experts others as required.

Attachment D Page 11

ANNEX 2

AWARD FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

The Award Fee earned by the Contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods described in individual task orders. A table similar to the one below may be used.

Evaluation Period *

Available Award Fee

Dollars ($) **

Dates of initial evaluation

Period

TBD

Dates of second evaluation period

TBD

Dates of third evaluation period

TBD

And so on… TBD

* Changes may be made by mutual agreement of the parties.

** The total available award fee will be computed and expressed above before a task order is awarded, and will show the award fee available for the applicable task order.

The award fee available for each evaluation period will be determined after the

Integrated Baseline Review is conducted for each task order or based on the CO approval of the award fee amount, and the table will then be finalized and approved by the CO/COR.

Attachment D Page 12

Annex 3

Evaluation Criteria

CPAF Task Order

Metric 1: Contract Performance, cumulative SPI and CPI

Metric 2: Regional Program Performance, MIP SPI/ CPI performance

Metric 3: Program level SPI and CPI performance

Metric 4: Program management capabilities – RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE

Metric 5: Percentage of Cost Efficiencies that are in the pipeline

Metric 6: Regional use of Community Engagement process, tools & templates;

Regional perception of effectiveness of toolset

Metric 7: Risk MAP training assessment

Metric 8: Customer Satisfaction Survey

The PM contractor will provide a self assessment of its respective performance to the government in accordance with the award fee plan. The award fee evaluation periods will be documented in each task order.

The overall Award Fee determined by the AFRB will be based on the findings for each individual metric and this table as depicted in the FAR:

Award-Fee

Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee

Pool

Available To

Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% 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.

Very Good 76%-90% Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, Attachment D Page 13 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.

Good 51%-75% 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.

Satisfactory No Greater

Than 50%

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.

Unsatisfactory 0% 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.

Metric 1: Contract Performance, cumulative SPI and CPI This measure assesses the achievement of Cost and Schedule Performance and is based on the cumulative Program SPI and CPI for work performed by TBA during the period of performance. Both indices are required individually to exceed the threshold levels to achieve the rating. SPI/ CPI data will be obtained from the Contractor submitting CPR.

Corrections for performance impacts (SPI/ CPI) due to significant events outside of

Program Management Control may be considered at the discretion of the Deputy

Program Director.

Surveillance Official: Program Management Contract COR

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

Attachment D Page 14

Award-Fee

Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies greater than

.97 SPI and CPI and up to .98 or greater

SPI and CPI

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies greater than

.96 SPI and CPI and up to and including

.97 SPI and CPI

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies greater than .95

SPI and CPI and up to and including .96

SPI and CPI

Satisfactory No Greater Than

50%

A rating of satisfactory signifies .94 SPI and

CPI and up to and including .95 SPI and

CPI

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than

.94 SPI and CPI

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Metric 2: Regional Program Performance, MIP SPI/ CPI performance Regional SPI/ CPI Performance data will be obtained from the Monthly SPI, CPI

Analysis Report developed based on MIP data. This includes Active Risk MAP Projects

Only. Both indices are required individually to exceed the threshold levels to achieve the rating.

Surveillance Official: A.1 Program Area Manager

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

Award-Fee

Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned Description

Attachment D Page 15

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies greater than

.935 SPI and CPI and up to .945 or greater

SPI and CPI

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies greater than

.925 SPI and CPI and up to and including

.935 SPI and CPI

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies greater than .915

SPI and CPI and up to and including .925

SPI and CPI

Satisfactory No Greater Than

50%

A rating of satisfactory signifies .905 SPI and

CPI and up to and including .915 SPI and

CPI

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than

.905 SPI and CPI

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Metric 3: Program level SPI and CPI performance

Achievement of Risk MAP Program cost and schedule performance thresholds. This would include the cumulative Program SPI and CPI for work performed by PM, PTS, and CDS providers during the period of performance. Program SPI/ CPI data represents cumulative non-MIP program performance data for the Risk MAP contracts (PM, CDS, PTS) and is obtained from the Monthly CPR. Both indices are required individually to exceed the threshold levels to achieve the rating.

Corrections for performance impacts (SPI/ CPI) due to significant events outside of

Program Management Control may be considered at the discretion of the Deputy

Program Director.

Surveillance Official: A.1 Program Area Manager

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

Award-Fee

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be Description

Attachment D Page 16

Adjectival Rating Earned

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies greater than

.95 SPI and CPI and up to .96 or greater SPI and CPI

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies greater than

.94 SPI and CPI and up to and including

.95 SPI and CPI

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies greater than .93

SPI and CPI and up to and including .94 SPI and CPI

Satisfactory No Greater Than

50%

A rating of satisfactory signifies .92 SPI and

CPI and up to and including .93 SPI and CPI

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than

.92 SPI and CPI

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Metric 4: Program management capabilities - RESERVED

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100%

Very Good 76%-90%

Good 51%-75%

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50%

Unsatisfactory 0%

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Metric 5: Percentage of Cost Efficiencies that are in the pipeline

The Program Efficiencies Report will be generated on a quarterly basis to determine % of Efficiencies that are in the pipeline (planned and actual efficiencies achieved).

Attachment D Page 17

Surveillance Official: Business Analysis Branch Chief performance will be:

Award-Fee

Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee

Pool

Available To

Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies that the following has been completed or exceeded: The pipeline of efficiency initiatives which have final workbooks and efficiency plans completed represents 4% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas; and up to 5% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas.

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies that the following has been completed or exceeded: The pipeline of efficiency initiatives which have final workbooks and efficiency plans completed represents 3% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas and up to 4% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas.

Good 51%-75% A rating of very good signifies that the following has been completed or exceeded: The pipeline of efficiency initiatives which have final workbooks and efficiency plans completed represents 2% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas; and up to 3% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas.

Attachment D Page 18

Satisfactory No Greater

Than 50%

A rating of very good signifies that the following has been completed or exceeded: The pipeline of efficiency initiatives which have final workbooks and efficiency plans completed represents 1% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas; and up to 2% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas.

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than 1% of annual operational costs across the Risk MAP program in targeted program areas have final workbooks and efficiency plans completed.

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Metric 6: Regional use of Community Engagement process, tools & templates;

Regional perception of effectiveness of toolset

Base Period:

The metric will be based on a survey of each Regional Branch Chief (or delegate) to determine the effectiveness of the Community Engagement Tools, Templates, and

Processes that have been adopted or are being utilized in each region.

The Contractor will work with FEMA to design a questionnaire/ survey that will be distributed to the regions at the end of the period of performance. With FEMA concurrence, the questionnaire may be distributed at an interim point in the period of performance to obtain initial feedback – this will not be considered for Award Fee calculations.

The survey will include questions addressing the number of projects for which Regions plan to use the Community Engagement Process, Regional utilization of the Community

Engagement tools and templates, and the effectiveness of the tools utilized.

Scoring will be based on the following scale:

1=unusable; 2=poor; 3=average; 4=above average; 5=excellent

Option Period: The metric will be based on a survey of Regional Branch Chief (or delegate) from Regions that are identified as users of the community engagement tools and templates. Each region surveyed will report a score based on the equally weighted average of their responses to the 3 questions below.

Attachment D Page 19

The PTS Regional Risk Communications Tool Usage Report work product will be used by FEMA and Contractor to identify the Regions that are using the tools and which tools are being used within each Region.

Contractor score to be based on the average for the Regional scores reported. The following questions will be asked about each tool identified in the PTS work product as being used by the Regions.

1. How usable was <name of template> by your team(s) for <tool or template documented purpose>? (rate 1 to 5 per the criteria below)

2. Please provide feedback on your experience using <name of tool or template>.

Scoring will be based on the following scale:

1=unusable; 2=poor; 3=average; 4=above average; 5=excellent

Scoring Criteria:

Scoring Description

1=unusable Tool structure requires complete modification to meet its stated purpose

2=poor Tool structure requires significant modification to meet its stated purpose

Tool core content not specific to the Region requires complete modification to meet the stated purpose of the tool

3=average Tool structure requires moderate modification to meet its stated purpose

Tool core content not specific to the Region requires significant modification to meet the stated purpose of the tool

4=above average

Tool structure requires minimal modification to meet its stated purpose

Tool core content not specific to the Region requires moderate modification to meet the stated purpose of the tool

5=excellent Tool structure meets its stated purpose with no modification of the tool structure or framework

Tool core content not specific to the Region requires minimal modification to meet the stated purpose of the tool

Attachment D Page 20

Note: Tools and templates are designed to be customized by the Regions through editing the content and document structure to meet Region-specific needs. The tools and templates provide a basic document structure, core content, and messages.

All Periods:

Surveillance Official: Program Area D Manager

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

Award-Fee

Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies the average score is greater than 4.0 and up to 5.0.

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies the average score is greater than 3.0 and up to and including 4.0.

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies the average score greater than 2.5 and up to and including

3.0.

Satisfactory No Greater Than

50%

A rating of satisfactory signifies the average score is greater than 2.0 and up to and including 2.5.

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies the average score is less than 2.0.

Metric 7: Risk MAP training assessment

Attachment D Page 21

The Risk MAP training assessment will be based on three areas: targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained, training effectiveness, % of guidance delivered according to schedule. All three assessment factors must equal or exceed the target to achieve the award for the adjectival rating.

The Surveillance Official using the Risk MAP training plan will determine the extent to which Risk MAP training has been provided to the targeted audiences. The effectiveness of training will be evaluated based on a survey of training participants.

Risk MAP product guidance delivery will be based on the adherence to the schedule for

Procedure Memorandums, Policy Memorandums, and updates to Guidelines and

Specifications components.

Surveillance Official: Program Area B and D Manager

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

Award-Fee

Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee

Pool

Available To

Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies greater than

a. 85% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 85% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 85% of guidance delivered according to schedule and up to

a. 95% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 95% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 95% of guidance delivered according to schedule

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies greater than

a. 75% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 75% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 75% of guidance delivered according to schedule and up to and including

Attachment D Page 22

a. 85% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 85% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 85% of guidance delivered according to schedule

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies greater than

a. 65% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 65% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 65% of guidance delivered according to schedule and up to and including

a. 75% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 75% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 75% of guidance delivered according to schedule

Satisfactory No Greater

Than 50%

A rating of satisfactory signifies greater than

a. 60% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 60% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 60% of guidance delivered according to schedule and up to and including

a. 65% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. 65% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. 65% of guidance delivered according to schedule

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than

a. Less than 60% of targeted audiences/ stakeholders trained

b. Less than 60% of Contractor-delivered training effective

c. Less than 60% of guidance delivered according to schedule

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly.

Schedule Performance for guidance will be adjusted for external dependencies, as necessary. Additionally, Contractor assumes that the PTS will have sufficient resources to execute the guidance updates as planned.

Metric 8: Customer Satisfaction Survey

Attachment D Page 23

A Customer Satisfaction Survey will be completed at the end of each period of performance and averaged for that period. The standard FEMA survey will be completed by: Program Area Managers, Branch Chiefs, CO, CAC, PCL, PM COR, and Program Deputy Director. Assessment factors will be based on performance with respect to the quality of work products and services provided, per the scope and level of support identified in the PM Task Order, and FEMA priorities.

performance will be:

Award-Fee

Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be

Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies the average score is greater than 3.8 and up to 4.0 or greater

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies the average score is greater than 3.4 and up to and including 3.8

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies the average score greater than 3.0 and up to and including

3.4.

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% A rating of satisfactory signifies the average score is 3.0.

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies the average score is less than 3.0.

Weighting of Metrics

Unless noted otherwise in an individual Task Order the weights of the metrics will be:

Metric 1: Contractor Contract Performance, cumulative SPI and CPI - 22%

Attachment D Page 24

Metric 2: Regional Program Performance, MIP SPI/ CPI performance – 11%

Metric 3: Program level SPI and CPI performance – 11%

Metric 4: Program management capabilities – 0%

Metric 5: Percentage of Cost Efficiencies that are in the pipeline – 17%

Metric 6: Regional use of Community Engagement process, tools & templates;

Regional perception of effectiveness of toolset – 11%

Metric 7: Risk MAP training assessment – 11%

Metric 8: Customer Satisfaction Survey – 17%

For Task Orders or evaluation periods in task orders for which a given metric does not apply the weight of that (or those) metric(s) will be 0% and the remaining metrics will be adjusted proportionally to make the total possible award fee 100%.