A21AwardFeePlan25Oct.pdf

AWARD-FEE PLAN

FOR

AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)

APPROVED:

DEAN PEEBELS, TCAQ

AT21 PROGRAM MANAGER AND

FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL

Table of Contents

SectionTitle Page

1.0 Introduction to the Award-Fee Plan 03

2.0 Award-Fee Plan Organization 03

3.0 Award-Fee Responsibilities 03

4.0 Award-Fee Processes 04

5.0 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure 05

6.0 Award-Fee Contract Termination Procedures 06

Annexes

Annex Title Page

1 Award-Fee Organization 07

2 Award-Fee Area of Evaluation and Rating Scale 08

3 Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods 09

4 Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria 10

5 Award-Fee Evaluation Summary Report 13

1.0 Introduction to the Award Fee Plan

a. This award-fee plan is the basis for the Agile Transportation for the 21st Century (AT21) 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, if any. Actual award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government. This contract will contain a one year base period and nine 1-year option periods. This award fee process shall apply to all periods of performance.

b. Any earned award fee will be provided to the contractor through an award fee CLIN and is in addition to the price paid for costs invoiced under the Development CLIN. 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 (CO), 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. Unless the CO gives the contractor specific written notice of any changes to this plan 15 days prior to the start of a new evaluation period, the same evaluation criteria and weights listed in this Award Fee Plan will be used.

2.0 Organization

The award-fee organization consists of the FDO; an Award Fee Review Board (AFRB), which consists of a chairperson, the Contracting Officer, a recorder, other functional area participants, and advisor members; and the Performance Monitors. The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 Responsibilities

a. Fee Determining Official. The FDO approves the award-fee plan and any significant changes. AFRB members are approved by the FDO. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and unilaterally determines the earned award-fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for convening the AFRB. The AFRB Chairperson actively facilitates the AFTORB process and reviews action items and monitors follow on action as necessary. Guidance and oversight is provided to other AFRB members.

c. Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review Performance Monitors’ evaluation of the contractor’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and arrive at an earned award-fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to the award fee plan. If the contractor provides written or verbal self-assessment of its performance, the AFRB must consider this assessment when developing the earned award-fee recommendation to the FDO.

d. AFRB Recorder. The AFRB Recorder 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 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.

e. Contracting Officer (CO). The CO is the liaison between the contractor and Government personnel.

f. Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors maintain written records of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB.

4.0 Award-Fee Processes

a. Available Award-Fee Amount. The available award fee for each evaluation period is shown in Annex 3. The award fee earned will be paid determined on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

b. Evaluation Process. Contractor performance will be evaluated after each spiral delivery by the AFRB (Annex 3). Each award fee evaluation criteria to be utilized in accessing the contractor’s performance has been assigned a weighting factor. The assigned weighting factor will be multiplied by the corresponding Criteria Rating Points assigned to obtain the percentage of award fee earned. The percentage of recommended award fee earned will be determined by multiplying the award fee available by the percentage of award fee earned (Annex 6).

c. Interim Evaluation Process. The AFRB recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitor 7 calendar days before the midpoint of the evaluation period.

Performance monitors submit their interim evaluation reports to the AFRB 3 calendar days after this notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of the strength(s) and weakness(es) for the current evaluation period by a letter issued by the CO. The CO may also issue letters at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

d. Evaluation Criteria. The following Award Fee evaluation criteria will be utilized to determine the amount of award fee earned, if any: Program Management, Cost Control, Product Delivery, and Team Integrity.

e. Focus Areas. Prior to the start of each evaluation period, the AFRB Chairperson will identify to the contractor specific areas of performance that the contractor should focus on during that evaluation period. All focus areas identified will be directly related to the contractual performance requirements described in the contract and referred to in the evaluation criteria contained in this Award Fee Plan.

f. End of Period Evaluation. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and Performance Monitor 30 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period.

Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 7 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB, led by the AFRB Chairperson, prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. The AFRB briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the award-fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall earned award-fee amount for the evaluation period within 21 calendar days after the end of each evaluation period. The FDO will issue a letter informing the contractor of the earned award-fee amount. The CO will issue a contract modification within 7 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made authorizing payment of the earned-award-fee amount.

g. Contractor’s Self Assessment. The contractor will be given the opportunity to provide a written self assessment of their performance to the AFRB. When the contractor chooses to submit a self-assessment to the AFRB, it must be submitted to the CO within 7 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. 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 may not exceed 10 pages.

5.0 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure

All significant changes are approved by the FDO; 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 the distribution of the award-fee dollars. The contractor may recommend changes to the CO no later than 14 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). Unilateral changes may be made to the award-fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties, via a bi-lateral modification.

6.0 Award-Fee Termination Procedures

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. 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.

If any option period is not exercised, any remaining award-fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award-fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid.

Annex 1

Award-Fee Organization

Members:

Fee Determining Official USTRANSCOM TCAQ Program Manager

Award Fee Chair USTRANSCOM TCAQ Deputy Program Manager

Award Fee Review Board

AFRB Recorder

Contracting Officer

Annex 2

Areas of Evaluation and Rating Scale

AREAS OF EVALUATION

Program Management Cost Control Product Delivery Team Integrity

RATING SCALE

Rating Points Percent of Award Fee

UNSATISFACTORY 0-50 Points 0% SATISFACTORY 51-70 Points 10%-25% VERY GOOD 71-90 Points 26%-75% SUPERIOR 91-100 Points 76%-100%

Annex 3

Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

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

Evaluation Period Increment Event+ Available Award Fee*

1 I Spiral 1 Not to Exceed 10% of planned Development CLIN

2 I Spiral 2 Same as above 3 I Spiral 3 Same as above 4 I Spiral n Same as above 5 II Spiral 1 Same as above

6 II Spiral 2 Same as above 7 II Spiral 3 Same as above 8 II Spiral 4 Same as above 9 II Spiral n Same as above 10 III Spiral 1 Same as above 11 III Spiral 2 Same as above 12 III Spiral 3 Same as above 13 III Spiral 4 Same as above n III Spiral n Same as above

+Evaluations will be conducted upon the conclusion of each spiral release. The final number of spirals per increment will be determined in the Final Proposal Revision.

*Will be computed in and expressed in dollars after receipt of Final Proposal Revision using percentage shown.

Annex 4

Evaluation Criteria

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 15%

• Program control and reporting

• Quality assurance

• Technical programmatic reviews

• Earned value management reporting

COST CONTROL 25%

• Cost control

• Quality

• Completeness

• Accuracy of work

PRODUCT DELIVERY 50%

• Government accepted on-time deliverables o Functional capability delivered o Technical standards met

• Performance measures met

• Extent to which innovation, designs, processes, and concepts have been introduced that result in operational performance improvements and/or cost reductions.

TEAM INTEGRITY 10%

• Stability of contractor teaming arrangements and personnel as originally proposed

Annex 5

Evaluation Criteria Standards of Performance

Program Management

Unsatisfactory (0-50 Points) – The contractor’s performance is not considered to be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. Program controls and reporting are frequently inadequate, inaccurate, or unreliable. Programmatic reviews do not highlight potential risk areas or program issues. The contractor has not implemented adequate program management or quality assurance processes.

Satisfactory (51-70 Points) – The contractor’s performance is considered to generally be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. The contractor has met program and earned value management reporting requirements, has adequate program control, and has implemented adequate processes for managing the program and assuring quality. The contractor takes reasonable measures to quickly and efficiently resolve program management discrepancies or shortcomings. The contractor utilizes adequate metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements.

Very Good (71 – 90 Points) – The contractor’s performance is compliant with, and sometimes exceeds, the performance requirements of the contract. The contractor takes considerable measures to ensure that any deficiencies are corrected. Corrective measures that are put into place to address program management shortfalls are detailed. The contractor utilizes effective metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements. Program management process improvements that are submitted for consideration are detailed in nature with some positive impact on the overall AT21 effort.

Superior (76 – 100 Points) – The contractor’s performance is compliant with, and regularly exceeds, the performance requirements of the contract. The contractor takes aggressive measures to ensure that any program management or process deficiencies are corrected. Corrective measures that are put into place are comprehensive. The contractor utilizes significant metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements. Program management process improvements that are submitted for consideration are comprehensive in nature with significant positive impact on the overall AT21 effort.

Cost Control

Unsatisfactory (0 – 50 Points) - The contractor’s performance is not considered to be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. Costs are not well controlled. The contractor demonstrates a pattern of cost expenditures that are in excess of costs planned for the period being evaluated. The contractor has not implemented adequate cost control processes.

Satisfactory (51 – 70 Points) - The contractor’s performance is considered to generally be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. The contractor has met reporting requirements, has adequate cost control mechanisms in place, and has implemented adequate processes for managing the costs. The contractor takes reasonable measures to efficiently resolve cost discrepancies or shortcomings. The contractor utilizes adequate metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements.

Very Good (71 – 90 Points) – The contractor’s performance is compliant with the performance requirements of the contract the majority of the time. The contractor takes considerable measures to ensure that any deficiencies are corrected. Corrective measures that are put into place to address cost controls are detailed. The contractor utilizes effective metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements.

Cost control improvements that are submitted for consideration are detailed in nature with some positive impact on the overall AT21 effort.

Superior (91-100 Points) – The contractor’s performance is considered to almost always be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. The contractor takes aggressive measures to ensure that any cost deficiencies are corrected. Corrective measures that are put into place are comprehensive. The contractor utilizes significant metrics to measure achievement of the contractual performance requirements. Cost control improvements that are submitted for consideration are comprehensive in nature with significant positive impact on the overall AT21 effort.

Product Delivery

Unsatisfactory (0 – 50 Points) - The contractor’s performance is not considered to be in compliance with the performance requirements of the contract. Products do not meet the functional requirements specified for the spiral being evaluated.

Satisfactory (51 – 70 Points) - The contractor’s product delivery complies with the performance thresholds identified in the contract. The delivery is on time, functional capabilities are met, and technical standards and performance measures are met. The contractor ensures minimum acceptable standards are met with adequate results. Government software acceptance testing identifies no Category 1 Discrepancy Reports (DRs), any Category 2 DRs are corrected prior to the end of testing and any Category 3 DRs are scheduled for correction in the next spiral, but do not substantially/adversely affect overall performance.

Very Good (71 – 90 Points) – The contractor’s product delivery exceeds some performance thresholds of the contract. Self-initiating actions by the contractor have resulted in performance with identifiable areas which clearly exceed the performance thresholds but not achievement of superior performance. The contractor demonstrates very effective performance and is fully responsive to contract requirements; and requirements are accomplished in a timely, efficient and economical manner. The contractor meets key performance milestones and delivery dates; anticipates and resolves problems; recovers from delays; reaction times are acceptable and responses to changes are appropriate. Government software acceptance testing identifies no Category 1 or 2 DRs, most Category 3 DRs are corrected prior to the end of testing and most Category 4 DRs are scheduled for correction in the next spiral.

Superior (91-100 Points) – The contractor’s product delivery consistently exceeds the performance thresholds of the contract. Innovative actions result in tangible benefit to the government in the form of improved business processes, cost reductions, or generally enhanced supply chain effectiveness through collaboration, consolidation, improved reliability, predictability, and efficiency. Superior performance shall be the highest level of performance considered reasonably attainable by a proficient contractor in the industry in view of the prevailing conditions and degree of work to which such conditions are subject to the contractor’s control. The contractor exceeds some key performance milestones and delivery dates and identified problems are resolved prior to delivery.

Government software acceptance testing identifies no Category 1, 2, or 3 DRs, most Category 4 DRs are corrected prior to the end of testing and most Category 5 DRs are scheduled for correction in the next spiral.

Team Integrity

Unsatisfactory (0-50 Points) – The contractor has not maintained the teaming arrangements proposed in the contract. The contractor has experienced high personnel turnover and does not offer reasonable plans or processes to recruit/maintain experienced personnel with the required skill sets and expertise levels. Personnel turbulence and lack of stability in the teaming arrangements are significantly impacting the contractor’s ability to meet performance thresholds.

Satisfactory (51-70 Points) – The contractor generally has met the requirements for team integrity by demonstrating continuity of its work force and stability of teaming arrangements. The contractor has developed a reasonable plan that provides a streamlined method of recruiting new personnel across the teams, as required to recruit or backfill personnel. The contractor supports open communication and integrated work efforts across its teams and with the government.

Very Good (71 -90 Points) – The contractor has exceeded some requirements for team integrity by demonstrating continuity of its work force and stability of teaming arrangements. Additionally, the contractor shows initiative in anticipating personnel turnover and upcoming personnel requirements. The contractor makes a significant effort to proactively fill personnel shortages and minimize impact to the program. The contractor sponsors open communication and integrated work efforts across its teams and with the government.

Superior (91-100 Points) – The contractor has exceeded the requirements for team integrity. The contractor demonstrates continuity of its work force and stability of teaming arrangements. Additionally, the contractor makes an outstanding effort to assure that the team members communicate and operate as a partnership. Team members operate as one integrated team, with common work processes, integrated efforts, and open communication, both horizontally and vertically, among the teams and with the government.

Annex 6

Evaluation Summary Report

CATEGORY CRITERIA WEIGHTING WEIGHTED

RATING FACTOR POINTS

POINTS

I. Program Management _________ X .15 _________

I. Cost Control _________ X .25 _________

II. Product Delivery _________ X .50 _________

III. Team Integrity _________ X .10 _________

Total: _________

Award Fee Available: __________________

Total Weighted Points: _________ % of Award Fee Earned

Recommended Award Fee $______________

(Award fee available X % of award fee earned = recommended award fee)