J-2 Award Fee Evaluation Plan.pdf

RFP: 75FCMC24R0010

Attachment J-2, Contact Center Operations Award Fee Evaluation Plan

1 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

CMS’s Contact Center Customer Service (CCCS) objective is to establish a Contact Center Operations (CCO) environment that will provide customer service functions which are able to efficiently handle and answer inquiries with a high level of service across the United States and its territories. The operations include offering the same range of services and quality across multiple contact channels, such as telephone, mail, email, TDD/TTY, fax, and web chat, enabling multi-channel access.

2.0 Scope of Performance

The CCO contractor shall provide accurate and high quality customer service for all inquiries.

The contractor will operate multi-channel operations to receive and respond to inquiries, providing information and services through various channels including telephone, mail, email, TDD/TTY, fax, and web chat.

The CCO contractor shall provide services in all communication channels in both English and Spanish, and shall utilize CMS-provided real-time phone translations for other languages as necessary.

3.0 Evaluation Functional Areas

The following performance categories will be evaluated:

• Performance Metrics

• Inquiry Resolution & Customer Service

• Operations & Program Management

• Business Trends & Analysis

• Small Business Utilization

• Contract Compliance

• Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility

4.0 Award Fee Evaluation Plan

This Award Fee Evaluation Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) describes how the contractor will be evaluated and how the award fee process will be administered. The contractor shall satisfy the contract requirements by meeting or exceeding, when cost effective, all performance standards specified within the contract.

For purposes of this award fee evaluation, data in the National Data Warehouse (NDW) is considered final unless the contractor or some other third party contractor notifies CMS of errors and provides corrected data and explanation of the error.

2 | P a g e

5.0 Performance Based, Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Description

The CCO contract is structured as a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract with the award fee elements determined by performance based standards.

A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement type contract, which provides a tiered fee incentive to the contractor based on metrics and expectations. This fee consists of the minimum base fee fixed at award of the contract, and an award fee that may be granted in whole, in part, or not at all, based on evaluated performance. The purpose of the award fee is to provide motivation for excellence on the part of the contractor.

5.1 CPAF Contract Elements Descriptions

The basic elements of a cost-plus-award-fee pricing arrangement are as follows:

Estimated Cost The estimated cost is the contract cost negotiated and awarded or as subsequently adjusted via modification. The contractor will be evaluated on the level of variance between the negotiated estimated costs and the actual costs incurred by the contractor. The Government is committed to providing fiscally responsible customer service to constituents. The ability of the contractor to accurately estimate and reduce costs while maintaining customer service integrity and performance is a direct reflection on the efficiency of services provided. CMS recognizes that unexpected outside influences (such as increased call volumes due to new legislation) may impact the original estimated costs. The contractor is responsible for proactively notifying CMS when these situations occur, and the contractor will have the ability to explain cost variances +/- 5% at the CLIN level in the monthly invoices and the tri-yearly self-evaluations.

Base Fee The base fee can be viewed as the minimum compensation for the resources a contractor uses or the investment it may undertake in order to perform the contract. The base fee will be defined at the time of contract award. The base fee is normally paid to the contractor on a scheduled, partial payment basis during the life of the contract.

Award Fee The earned award fee amount is determined based on the Government's evaluation of the contractor's performance. This determination is made unilaterally by the Government Fee Determination Official.

The maximum award fee pool that will be made available during the period of performance will be negotiated and established at the time of contract award. The contractor is not guaranteed a minimum amount of award fee. In other words, some, none, or the entire maximum available award fee may be earned. The Contract Specialist shall keep the contractor informed of the award fee pool available for each evaluation period (See Also Section 9).

3 | P a g e

6.0 Responsibilities

The Contractor and the Government have specific areas of responsibility in implementing, adhering to, and administering the Plan.

6.1 Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is the Government official designated to assess the Contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance standards. The responsibilities of the COR are:

• Provide technical direction to the contractor and monitor the contractor's efforts

• Communicate on a regular basis with the contractor and discuss the contractor's performance

• Conduct progress review meetings with the contractor

• Evaluate the contractor's performance via a Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and present information bearing on the award fee recommendation to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB)

6.2 Performance Evaluation Board (PEB)

The PEB is typically a panel of management officials who perform a review of the contractor’s performance and recommend an award fee to the Fee Determination Official (FDO). The PEB also recommends contract administration changes to the Contracting Officer and COR. PEB members will be appointed by the FDO.

The responsibilities of the PEB are:

• Approve the Plan

• Ensure that the award fee process is completed timely

• Perform a tri-yearly in-depth review of the contractor's performance

• Recommend the award fee to the FDO

• Substantiate the award fee in a report to the FDO

• Prepare an award fee letter

• Recommend contract administration changes to the Contracting Officer and COR.

The PEB will perform an in-depth review of the information provided by the COR, Contract Specialist, and Contractor along with any other pertinent information and shall arrive at the award fee recommendation. The PEB shall arrive at a consensus and shall prepare a written summary. This report is forwarded to the FDO.

The PEB may also review the Plan performance categories and weights and make recommendations and approval changes for future evaluation periods. Any changes shall be reviewed by the FDO and the Contracting Officer. The contractor shall be provided an updated version of the Plan prior to the effected evaluation period.

4 | P a g e

Any award fee recommendation may be more or less than the percentages recommended by the COR and Contract Specialist.

The use of weighted factors to calculate an award fee is an evaluation aid only and the total weighted scored does not necessarily represent the final earned award fee amount. The PEB has the discretion to recommend more or less than the total weighted score.

6.3 Fee Determination Official

The Government’s FDO shall make the final determination of the award fee. The FDO may determine a different award fee than what is recommended by the PEB, however any change in the award fee shall be documented with explanation by the FDO.

This determination shall be made within forty five (45) calendar days after the end of the evaluation period.

Upon receiving written notification of the award fee determination from the FDO, the contractor may submit an invoice for that amount.

NOTE: Unearned award fee shall not be carried over into subsequent evaluation periods.

6.4 Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer is the Government official who bears the legal responsibility for the contract. The Contracting Officer alone can take action to enter into, terminate, or change a contractual commitment on behalf of the Government. The Contracting Officer will act in an advisory capacity during the award fee evaluation process and may also serve on the PEB.

6.5 Contract Specialist

The Contract Specialist is responsible for the day-to-day interaction with the COR and contractor in resolving contractual issues. The Specialist is also responsible for:

• Creating the Plan and amendments, and obtaining approvals

• Ensuring that the award fee process is completed timely

• Attending progress review meetings with the Contractor and the COR

• Evaluating the contractor’s performance in the following categories: Contract Compliance, Budget Planning, Adherence, and Fiscal Responsibility.

6.6 CCO Contractor

The CCO contractor shall:

• Successfully perform the specific responsibilities defined in the Statement of Work

• Provide complete and accurate information, monthly or as requested by CMS, in order for its performance to be effectively measured and evaluated

• Provide timely deliverables as specified in the Statement of Work

• Prepare a tri-yearly self-evaluation report and provide to CMS

5 | P a g e

• Correct any deficiencies discovered by CMS during performance and documented in the Award Fee Evaluation Report.

7.0 Award Fee Criteria

The award fee will be determined according to performance among the following performance categories. At the start of Transition, the contractor will work with CMS to ensure the necessary Genesys and CMSnet circuits and will be evaluated with the full set of criteria once transition is complete.

Transition:

TRANSITION ACTIVITIES PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Ramping Up To Take 100% Of All Medicare and Marketplace Inquiries In All Communication Channels

Transition shall not exceed 12 months

Evaluation Criteria Breakdown:

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY Transition Operation

OPTION YEARS

WEIGHT

PERFORMANCE METRICS (OBJECTIVE) 10%

ASA, Unhandled Calls, Transfers 80%

Business Continuity 10% Other Channels 10%

INQUIRY RESOLUTION & CUSTOMER SERVICE 30%

OPERATIONS & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 80% 30%

BUSINESS TRENDS & ANALYSIS 10% 10%

SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION 10%

CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 5% 5%

BUDGET PLANNING, ADHERENCE & FISCAL

RESPONSIBILITY

5% 5%

TOTAL 100% 100%

7.1 Objective Performance Metrics

The objective metrics quantify and measure the caller experience with the CCO. The total value of the Objective Metrics Section is 10%. The Performance Metrics category consists of five primary metrics. (The performance metrics targets can be found in the Statement of Work under Section 14 entitled “Performance Metrics.”)

6 | P a g e

1. Average Speed of Answer (ASA) (Bundled with Unhandled CSR Calls and Transfers)

2. Unhandled CSR Calls (Bundled with ASA and Transfers)

3. Transfers (Bundled with ASA and Unhandled CSR Calls)

4. Business Continuity

5. Other Channels (Includes Written Correspondence, Web Chat, Offline Research and Casework, Email, Web Complaints)

Non-compliance with any individual metric eliminates the entire award fee for that category for that month. Metrics shall be reported to CMS on a monthly basis. Compliance will be evaluated, and the award fee determined, on a monthly basis.

7.2 Subjective Performance Evaluation

The subjective section of the Plan will be based on overall contractor performance during the evaluation period. This section of the evaluation will not be based on specific metrics but on indicators/guidelines that are found at Section 14 of the SOW. For this part of the evaluation, a key requirement will be communication between functional team leads, the COR and CMS in general.

7.3 Subjective Criteria Description

In addition to the criteria listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above, the following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Inquiry Resolution & Customer Service, Operations & Program Management, Small Business Utilization, Business Trends & Analysis, Contract Compliance, and Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility. CMS reserves the right to modify criteria in order to reflect the current activities of the contract.

7.3.1 Inquiry Resolution & Customer Service

The following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Inquiry Resolution & Customer Service. CMS will consider such things as how well the contractor performed in resolving inquiries, implementing solutions, and maintaining the integrity of performance, quality, customer service, and customer satisfaction.

Criteria Inquiry Resolution & Customer Service Contractor utilized CMS-approved scripting, standardized responses and other materials to respond to all inquiries. Contractor did not utilize unapproved content.

Contractor ensured that accurate, understandable, and consistent information was provided.

Contractor ensured that all contacts were answered and responded to in a respectful, courteous and helpful manner.

7 | P a g e

Contractor proactively created and reviewed customer satisfaction reports as well as complaint reports and made process changes or conducted CSR coaching when necessary.

Results and action taken was reported to CMS on a timely basis.

Contractor identified areas where changes were needed to improve customer service as well as customer satisfaction and implemented accordingly.

Contractor utilized IQA scores and findings to implement quality improvements.

Contractor implemented an internal quality monitoring process to ensure that CMS quality standards are met or exceeded.

Contractor utilized scorecards and listening activities in order to ensure that CSRs receive training and feedback necessary to deliver high quality customer service.

Contractor analyzed reports to discover repeat caller trends and opportunities to improve service as well as took steps to lower repeat callers. (This may include identifying scripting issues/needs, coaching efforts, process or tool changes, etc).

Contractor proactively identified CSRs who needed more training in order to identify all of the beneficiary’s questions on the call as well as delivering correct responses with confidence.

Contractor provided the correct answer the first time, provided completeness of answers and CSRs conveyed confidence in the answer being given.

Contractor identified inquiries that could be handled by CCO CSRs and reduce escalations to additional Customer Service Representative or the Offline Research/Casework team.

Contractor ensured that inappropriate escalations were not being made outside of CMS.

They also ensured that appropriate escalations were correctly being escalated outside of

CMS.

Contractor proactively identified trends of inappropriate transfers or non transfers where updating scripts or coaching would benefit the CCO or CSR.

Contractor ensured that they were able to support unplanned mass mailings and unforeseen events as well as other planned initiatives.

Contractor proactively provided planning ideas and solutions on initiatives brought to the

CCO.

Contractor proactively notified CMS of pilot ideas that were identified by the CCO.

Contractor ensured a plan was in place for how the CCO would handle ad hoc workloads and made sure the plan was followed.

Contractor effectively implemented CSR coaching programs and demonstrated program effectiveness through achieved improvement results over time.

8 | P a g e

Contractor monitored effectiveness of coaching and quality processes to ensure success of the program and continuous improvement.

Contractor effectively monitored and achieved continuous improvement results among program areas and ensured collaboration across all parts of the contract.

7.3.2 Operations & Program Management

The following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Operations & Program Management. CMS will consider such things as how well the contractor planned and managed all program and functional areas, collaborated across all areas, and communicated within the organization, with CMS and other partners.

Operations & Program Management Contractor utilized workforce management tools and techniques to schedule agents and staff call center locations appropriately to handle call volume.

Contractor effectively adjusted staffing and assigned skill sets to handle real time call volume patterns to provide the best service to the callers while meeting other performance goals and maintained consistency across all channels and lines of business.

Contractor proactively planned and ensured enough resources were available to support agents. (This may include headsets, desktops, telecom & IT capacity, connectivity, etc).

Contractor planned and assigned resources most strategically to provide the best service and proactively provided proposed estimates to CMS for upcoming staffing needs (location and seats of CSRs across sites).

Contractor maintained and adjusted supervisor to CSR ratios to known and unforeseen volume patterns and staffing needs while ensuring integrity of oversight, monitoring, and assistance available to CSRs in all channels.

Contractor actively monitored operations on the floor across all sites and proactively communicated to CMS trends happening real-time.

Contractor proactively identified issues (technical, content, process, etc.), communicated those issues to CMS and proactively undertook steps to determine root cause and collaborate with other contractors as appropriate to resolve issues.

Contractor provided recommended solutions and alternatives to CMS for issue resolution and implemented solutions quickly and effectively.

Contractor addressed unforeseen technical, operational, or other issues proactively as they occurred & minimized impacts to continuity, security, infrastructure, etc.

Contractor ensured continuity of business in unforeseen circumstances (metrics were not impacted due to outside influences).

9 | P a g e

Operations & Program Management Contractor efficiently and effectively communicated with all appropriate parties in CMS and other relevant contractors.

Contractor provided timely notification to CMS for key activities.

Contractor collaborated across functional areas to ensure operations were smooth and all areas are working together to provide quality service to beneficiaries.

Contractor developed and implemented readiness plans, proactively anticipated risks, identified risk mitigation strategies, and implemented strategies to minimize impacts to the program and beneficiaries.

Contractor effectively managed inter-relationships between functional requirements and program areas of the contract.

Contractor collaborated and communicated across the CCO and is working together to assess any impacts on all CCO functional areas.

Contractor proactively reviewed SOPs to ensure that they were up to date and accurate, ensured that the CCO was utilizing the approved SOPs and created SOPs for new processes and initiatives.

Contractor provided CMS with a report to show the SOPs that were updated as well as SOPs that have been created.

7.3.3 Business Trends & Analysis

The following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Business Trends & Analysis. CMS will consider such things as how well the contractor analyzed results, improvements, & proposed changes and provided meaningful analysis and information for decision-making and potential opportunities for improvements to operations and processes.

Business Trends & Analysis Contractor monitored and researched key performance indicators, identified variances, and identified root causes for deviations.

Contractor provided recommendations for improvements, next steps and alternatives for business operations based on monitoring and research.

Contractor provided a full explanation of mined data along with correlations and outcomes.

Contractor has identified key business and trend drivers (e.g. satisfaction rates, tenure of CSRs, repeat callers, etc.) and their impact on Call Center Operations.

Contractor identified call center and support function solutions that improve customer service, increase efficiencies and reduce costs.

Contractor provided call and alternate channel forecasting plans (short and long term) based on considerations of past performance, seasonal factors, historical trends, new or changing Medicare and Marketplace or other governmental programs and legislation, and marketing

10 | P a g e

Business Trends & Analysis activities generated by the government or other entities that CMS has no control over (e.g.

broadcast media, news agency, print, newspaper, magazines, etc).

Contractor provided a clear and concise forecast variance analysis of day-to-day operations and recommended or made adjustments as appropriate based on current operational trends.

Contractor informed CMS of any analyses or business process reviews prior to commencing work.

Contractor proactively identified trend analytics which lead to call center and support function solutions that improved customer service, increased efficiencies and reduced costs.

Contractor identified business opportunities through analytics and successfully implemented any opportunities that were given prior approval by CMS.

Contractor produced business analytics which could be used for planning and decision making purposes, resulting in a positive impact on business operations.

Contractor took the analytics process beyond basic data mining and provided comprehensive analyses at a global/enterprise-wide level clearly conveying to CMS what the data means.

Contractor proactively monitored program trends happening on-the-floor across all channels and raised possible trends impacting operations to CMS to adjust staffing, content, training alerts, etc. in order to better serve the callers. (This may include responsively providing anecdotal feedback as to hot topics on contacts today, primary concerns of beneficiaries, capturing a “pulse” snapshot look at what kinds of questions and concerns callers are having real time that are driving volumes or other patterns like satisfaction, long calls, frustrated callers, inappropriate routing or transfers, etc.).

Contractor proactively captured feedback and made recommendations in any and all areas of the contract to improve service to callers or to improve cost-effectiveness of the contract.

This may include recommendations to improve training, content, scripting, processes, or technology.

Contractor participated and collaborated with CMS and other partners on creating and implementing opportunities for improvements to the program or business processes based on anecdotal feedback from program areas and business trend analysis.

Contractor proactively provided innovative ideas and recommendations for initiatives based on industry best practices.

7.3.4 Small Business Utilization

The following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Small Business Utilization.

11 | P a g e

Small Business Utilization CMS will consider the extent to which the contractor made a good faith effort to achieve or surpass the subcontracting goals specified in the subcontract plan.

Contractor utilized small businesses (including Small Disadvantaged, Women Owned, Hubzones, Veteran and Service Disabled Veteran Owned and Service Disabled Veteran Owned) to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., work associated with the functional requirements in Section 4 of the SOW).

7.3.5 Contract Compliance

The contractor will be evaluated on the ability to adhere to the requirements of the contract.

CMS will consider such things as how well the contractor met federal requirements & SOW-specific program requirements, SLAs, and performance targets and objectives.

Contract Compliance The contractor will be evaluated on the ability to meet the contractual requirements of this contract, including but not limited to: compliance with federal statutes, contract clauses, Data Use Agreements (DUA), Joint Operating Agreements (JOA), HIPAA requirements, Privacy Act requirements, Security requirements, Business Continuity Requirements, and other requirements as designated by CMS or HHS.

Contractor’s business operations (e.g., accounting system, compliance with service contract, EEO, HIPAA, Privacy Act, Gov. Property System etc.) worked efficiently and effectively.

Contractor proactively worked with CMS to obtain approval prior to purchasing property and/or equipment, obtaining new subcontractors, and keeping the CMS contract specialist informed of programmatic issues which have contractual implications.

Contractor met all deliverable requirements with regards to submittal schedule, format and mode of delivery (e.g. electronic or hardcopy).

Contractor worked with CMS to establish preferred formats and layouts and to consolidate reports to make them more useful.

Contractor complied with all CMS security requirements, security standards and security regulations, policies and guidelines applicable to the operation of the CCO.

Contractor instituted best practices in implementing all security measures.

Contractor clearly identified all security deficiencies, developed corrective action plans, and validated that all corrective measures were implemented, tested and deemed effective.

Contractor complied with all CMS security certification and accreditation requirements.

Contractor complied with all security requirements with regards to building access and protection of property, sensitive information and employee well being.

12 | P a g e

Contract Compliance Contractor implemented best practices with regards to facility internal and external security with regards to safeguarding the integrity of PHI, PII information, and other sensitive information.

Contractor provided infrastructure required to fully operate the contact center in accordance with all CMS requirements (furniture, telecom equipment, computers, hardware/software, etc) for all channels and inquiry types.

Contractor reported on and achieved performance metrics assuring accuracy and provided explanations for failure to meet any performance standards.

Contractor ensured, at a minimum, that contact center objectives were met by managing operations to meet the established performance metrics.

Contractor successfully met all performance indicator requirements and reported out providing explanations for variances between targets vs. actual with data and information to support the variances.

7.3.6 Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility

The contractor will be evaluated on the Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility including the cost effectiveness of the contractor’s performance. CMS will consider such things as how well the contractor estimated, tracked, analyzed & managed finances and planned for future variations and impacts to program operations

Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility Contractor developed a comprehensive budget plan which could be utilized to make clear decisions on how funds would be allocated.

Contractor ensured that budget planning process was based on a clear and concise strategy.

Contractor ensured that budget was an extension of resource planning (forecasting, staffing, scheduling, cost-analysis).

Contractor considered budgetary impacts in proposing recommendations for improving operational efficiencies and process improvements taking into account tangible and intangible benefits, time duration of initiatives and order of magnitude.

Contractor fully explained budget variances and provided mitigation strategies to prevent large impacts to various CLINS resulting from budget changes.

Contractor was proactive in identifying budget impacts, positive or negative, due to internal and external forces.

Contractor identified opportunities for cost efficiencies while still meeting program area goals and objectives.

13 | P a g e

Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility Contractor cost estimates were accurate for the work performed.

Contractor proactively worked to stay within budget constraints and adhered to the established budget plan.

Contractor proactively identified and implemented cost savings while maintaining high quality service and meeting contract requirements.

Contractor proactively identified cost overruns and worked with CMS to mitigate cost increases.

Contractor reported and trended “Cost Per” metrics and worked with CMS to identify efficiencies to improve cost metrics.

Contractor was consistent in providing regular budget updates as well as backup information, as necessary, to make informed business decisions.

Whenever there is a significant cost overrun that was within the Contractor’s control, a contractor may be given a score of zero. If the overrun is insignificant, a higher score may be given. The reasons for the overrun and the Contractor’s efforts to control or mitigate the overrun will be considered in the evaluation.

Cost underruns within the Contractor’s control will normally be rewarded. However, the extent to which an underrun is rewarded will depend on the size of the underrun and the Contractor’s level of performance in the other award fee evaluation factors. The Contractor will not be rewarded for excelling in cost control to the detriment of other performance factors.

7.4 Definitions

The definitions at section 14.1 of the Statement of Work apply.

14 | P a g e

7.5 Award Fee Scoring Range

Performance will be evaluated according to the following standards. The weighted distribution will then be applied to determine the final award fee.

Grade Award Fee Pool Available

Description

Excellent 91% – 100% Contractor has exceeded all or almost all of the significant award fee criteria; and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate 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, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate 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 in the aggregate 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 in the aggregate 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 in the aggregate as defined and measured aainst the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

8.0 Contractor Self Evaluation

As part of the evaluation process, the contractor shall submit to CMS a self-evaluation report, not to exceed 15 pages in length, summarizing their activities in all evaluation categories during the period. The self-evaluation shall provide data for all performance metrics during the evaluation period, as well as narrative addressing any gaps in performance. Data shall not be aggregated or averaged for the evaluation time period but should be reported according to the reporting frequency required in the contract.

15 | P a g e

The Contractor shall submit reports no later than 10 calendar days after the end of each evaluation period.

9.0 Performance Evaluation Schedule

CMS shall make the award fee determination within 45 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The evaluation periods are as follows:

• End of Transition

• Operational Option Years - Every 4 months

10.0 Award Fee Evaluation Report

At the end of the performance period the COR and the Contract Specialist shall complete an Award Fee Evaluation Report. The COR may also choose to have other technical representatives evaluate the contractor’s performance.

The COR will rate the contractor's performance in each of the categories defined in this Plan.

The CORs assessment of performance will be designated by a numerical point rating system. A brief narrative supporting each rating shall be included.

The Contract Specialist is responsible for evaluating the contractor’s performance in the areas of Contract Compliance and Budget Planning, Adherence & Fiscal Responsibility with feedback & input from the COR. A brief narrative supporting the rating shall be included.

11.0 Converting Performance Points to Award Fee Score

The use of weighted factors to calculate an award fee amount is an evaluation aid. The total weighted score does not necessarily represent the earned award fee amount. The PEB has the latitude to recommend more or less than the total weighted score.

The PEB may choose, for example, to recommend earned award fee as follows:

1) The same percentage as the total weighted score

2) Somewhere in the range into which the weighted score falls (e.g., If the weighted score was 73 the panel could recommended anywhere in the “Good” range (i.e., 51 to 75%))

3) Something less than the total weighted score

The following criteria will be considered by CMS when scoring Small Business Utilization.