J-6_Determination of AF and SBSIF_08.22.22.pdf

Attachment J-6 N00024-22-R-4100 Determination of Award Fee/ SBIF

PAYMENT OF AWARD FEE/SMALL BUSINESS INCENTIVE FEE (Applicable to CLINs 0013 and 0025)

Fee payable under this contract shall be issued under CLIN 0013 for contract years one through five (1-5) and CLIN 0025 for contract years six through seven (6-7).

FEE DEFINED:

The award fee evaluation will be based on the Contractor’s performance in the areas of management and technical.

Award Fee (AF) maximum is two percent (2%) broken down as one percent (1%) maximum for management and one percent (1%) maximum for technical. There will be no roll-over of any unearned fees.

AWARD FEE (Applicable to Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 through 0003, 0005 through 0012, 0014 through 0024)

The Contractor may earn an AF for performance in the management and technical areas as determined by the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The Government’s purpose in granting an AF is to encourage and reward superior Contractor effort directed toward performance in the management and technical areas of this contract. The specifics for evaluation are set forth in the following paragraphs:

A. AF Evaluation Period: An AF Evaluation Period shall be established on an annual basis or as determined by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), beginning at contract award. The AF Evaluation will be conducted for orders which have completed the associated performance period.

B. In the event of discontinuance of the work, the AF otherwise payable shall be determined in accordance with the Section H clause 5252.249-9015 of the Special Contract Requirement’s, entitled

“AWARD FEE DETERMINATION IN EVENT OF TERMINATION OR DISCONTINUANCE”.

C. AF Process: The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated in two (2) categories: management and technical. Specific AF Pool values will be available to the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) after award and/or exercise of option(s), provided that, in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 216.405-2(1), in any annual contract period, a minimum of 40% of the potential AF available for the full contract year shall be allocated to the AF pool for the final evaluation period, defined as the last evaluation period within each one (1) year period.

D. AF Evaluation: Each Delivery Order (DO) will be evaluated independently and based on its own merit.

1. Scope of Work Evaluated: The AF Evaluation will include CLINs 0001 through 0003, 0005 through 0012, 0014 through 0024.

2. Evaluation Categories and Factors: The Contractor’s performance during each AF Evaluation Period will be evaluated in the following areas:

a. Management (50%)

b. Technical Performance (50%)

The Contractor will be notified of changes in the evaluation categories and factors as well as any adjustments to the weighing of categories, if any, prior to commencement of each evaluation period.

Unsatisfactory performance under an AF criterion may result in an increased weight for that factor in subsequent evaluation periods.

3. Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB): The Contractor’s performance for AF Evaluation Periods will be conducted by an AFEB consisting of a minimal of five (5) voting members but not more than eight (8):

• Chairperson (MARMC Code 100 or designated representative)

• ACO (MARMC Code 400 or designated representative)

• Type Commander (TYCOM) Representative

• PEO Carriers Representative

• MARMC Code 300 (Waterfront Ops)

• NNSY Representative

• Recorder (MARMC Representative, Non-voting)

4. FDO: The FDO, PEO Carriers In-Service Aircraft Carrier Program Manager (PMS312), shall make determinations of AF due to the Contractor based upon the performance evaluation conducted by the AFEB established pursuant to paragraph three (3) above.

5. AF Determination and Reclaim Procedures:

a. Within sixty (60) working days after the end of each evaluation period under the associated DO, the Contractor shall furnish to the AFEB such information as may be reasonably required, including a statement of cost incurred, to assist the AFEB in evaluating the Contractor’s performance during the evaluation period.

b. Within ninety (90) calendar days after end of each evaluation period under the associated DO, the AFEB shall meet to assess and derive an evaluated AF earned for that period as determined by reports submitted by the Contractor as well as Government agents.

c. Within ten (10) working days after the AFEB meeting, the AFEB shall prepare the performance evaluation letter and present it to the FDO. A copy will be provided to the Contractor upon transmittal to the FDO.

d. Within five (5) working days from receipt of the copy of the performance evaluation letter, the Contractor may submit to the FDO any comments with respect thereto. In support of the FDO comments, the Contractor may furnish a written description of their performance during the period under consideration. This description shall clearly identify specific evaluation categories, factors and elements, and the Contractor’s own rating thereof.

e. Within five (5) working days from the receipt of the Contractor evaluation comments, the FDO shall provide the ACO a final performance evaluation and determination of the AF.

f. Within five (5) working days from receipt of the final determination, the ACO shall notify the Contractor in writing of that final determination and issue a unilateral modification to the DO to provide for the AF.

6. Finality of FDO’s Determination: Determinations of FDO with respect to the amount of the AF to be paid to the Contractor are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

7. AF Computation:

a. The AFEB may use any information, Contractor deliverables, or other materials available to evaluate the Contractor in the categories of management and technical, as illustrated herein. The categories will have appropriate weights assigned, which were established, prior to the state of the AF Evaluation Period.

b. The AFEB shall determine through the use of information, contractor deliverables, or other materials, specific adjective grade to be assigned for each category as follows:

(i) Dark Blue (Excellent)

(ii) Purple (Very Good)

(iii) Green (Good)

(iv) Yellow (Satisfactory)

(v) Red (Unsatisfactory)

c. The AFEB shall determine and assign a numerical score within each adjective category.

d. A weighted average will be computed by multiplying the numerical score assigned within each adjective category by the weight assigned to the specific overall category. The weighted average for each of the two (2) categories will be summed to derive a numerical performance rating which will represent the overall rating for AF calculation.

e. The actual amount of AF will be calculated in accordance with the performance rating section below, in addition to the management and technical charts that follow.

(i) Performance Ratings: The following performance ratings are derived from Table 16-1 under FAR 16.401:

Performance Ratings: FAR 16.401

Award Fee

Adjective Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available to be

Earned

Description

DARK BLUE

(Excellent)

91% - 100%

Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant AF 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 AF plan for the AF evaluation period.

PURPLE

(Very Good)

76% - 90%

Contractor has exceeded many of the significant AF 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 AF plan for the AF evaluation period.

GREEN

(Good)

51% - 75%

Contractor has exceeded some of the significant AF 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 AF plan for the AF evaluation period.

YELLOW

(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 AF plan for the AF evaluation period.

RED

(Unsatisfactory)

0%

Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the AF plan for the AF evaluation period.

(ii) AF Determination: The relationship of the percent of AF pool paid for each CLIN evaluated during the AF Evaluation Period (subject to the determination of the FDO) to the performance rating will be as follows:

AF = Numerical score (expressed as a percentage with a maximum of 100%) X AF Pool for that period

For numerical scores 91-100, the fee earned by the Contractor will be 100% of the AF Pool for that period.

For numerical scores 76-90, AF = Numerical score (expressed as a percentage with a maximum of 90%) X AF Pool for that period.

For numerical scores 51-75, the AF earned by the Contractor will be 50% of the AF Pool for that period.

For numerical scores 1-50, the AF earned by the Contractor will be 25% of the AF Pool for that period.

For numerical scores 0, the AF earned by the Contractor will be 0% of the AF Pool for that period.

Note: A performance rating of 0 is deemed unsatisfactory. The Contractor is not entitled to any AF for a rating of 0.

MANAGEMENT (50%)

DARK BLUE PURPLE GREEN YELLOW RED

91-100% 76-90% 51-75% No Greater Than 50% 0%

CONTRACTOR'S

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

CONTRACTOR'S

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

CONTRACTOR'S

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

CONTRACTOR'S

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

CONTRACTOR'S

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

Management System

Effectiveness Management System

Effectiveness Management System

Effectiveness Management System

Effectiveness Management System

Effectiveness The Contractor met contractual requirements, and the management team demonstrates a policy of total corporate commitment across all levels of the organization.

The management team effectively develops and implements process improvements in support of planning and production efforts, and proactively facilitates a coordinated and integrated production effort across their area of authority.

Upper management is actively involved in management of the availability, efficiently coordinating all production efforts.

The Contractor met contractual requirements, and the management team actively engages in continuous process improvements throughout the organization to improve planning and production efforts.

Management fosters a cooperative customer service program that anticipates and responds to the Government requirements.

Contractor integrates ship’s work, training and habitability requirements into the overall production plan, maximizing efficiencies and maintaining schedule and cost.

The Contractor met contractual requirements, and the management team effectively utilizes lessons learned to identify and preclude adverse incidents that impact schedule, cost or quality.

The contractor manages schedules and tracks all availability activities, identifying problems and coordinating resolutions while maintaining schedule.

Contractor establishes management procedures to identify behind schedule conditions and unfavorable variances.

Contractor applies systems and procedures and provides timely identification of scheduling problem areas to permit prompt management action to correct unsatisfactory conditions.

Contractor management team is unavailable and ineffective, requiring Government intervention to prevent avoidable incidents and schedule disruptions.

Management does not provide adequate response to changes in work scope, operational or crew training requirements, and have major impact to schedule or cost.

Production efforts are not coordinated.

Contractor progress met or exceeded 97.5% of scheduled work, with no delays caused to key events and milestones as delineated in Section C SOW Tables C-2 thru C-5.

Contractor progress met or exceeded 95% of scheduled work, with all work completed to all but 1 key events and milestones as delineated in Section C SOW Tables C-2 thru C-5.

Contractor progress met or exceeded 92.5% of scheduled work, with all work completed to all but 2 key events and milestones as delineated in Section C SOW Tables C-2 thru C-5.

Contractor progress met or exceeded 90% of scheduled work, with all work completed to all but 3 key events and milestones as delineated in Section C SOW Tables C- 2 thru C-5.

Contractor progress failed to meet 90% of scheduled work, or caused delays to more than 4 key events and milestones as delineated in Section C SOW Tables C-2 thru C-5.

Contractor provided notification of excess funds before the 50% duration point of the availability for all CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in duration.

Contractor provided notification of excess funds before the 60% duration point of the availability for all CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in duration.

Contractor provided notification of excess funds before the 75% duration point of the availability for all CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in duration.

Contractor did not provide notification of excess funds before the 90% duration point of the availability for all CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in duration.

Contractor did not provide notification of excess funds by the completion date of the availability for all CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in duration.

Contractor completed documentation of CFRs and RCCs on time and did not delay or affect the overall availability schedule.

Average turnaround time for pricing growth was within three

(3) days or less from determination of the growth work.

Cost proposals were submitted with sufficient data to support the accuracy and derivation of the price.

Contractor completed documentation of CFRs and RCCs on time and did not delay or affect the overall availability schedule.

Average turnaround time for pricing growth was within three (3) days or less from determination of the growth

Cost proposals were submitted with sufficient data to support the accuracy and derivation of the price.

Contractor completed documentation of CFRs and RCCs on time and did not delay or affect the overall availability schedule.

data to support the accuracy and derivation of the price.

Contractor completed documentation of CFRs and RCCs on time and did not delay or affect the overall availability schedule.

data to support the accuracy and derivation of the price.

Contractor average turnaround time for completion of work item/CFR/RCC pricing growth exceeded 15 days and negatively affected the end date of the availability.

Contract costs are documented and the program is on schedule relating to the task milestones and/or completion dates.

EAC/ BAC ratio remained within +5% for the last 25% of the availability for CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in length and +10% for all other availabilities.

Contract costs are documented and the program is on schedule relating to the task milestones and/or completion dates.

EAC/ BAC ratio remained within +10% for the last 25% of the availability for CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in length or +20% for all other availabilities.

Contract costs are documented and the program is on schedule relating to the task

Contractor did not provide final EAC/ BAC ratio until after the end of the availability.

Contract costs are documented and the program is on schedule relating to the task

Documentation identifies variance analysis information for each work item with a variance of +15% and variances in excess of $10,000, whichever is higher, for CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in length or +24% for all other availabilities.

Contractor did not provide final EAC/ BAC ratio until after the end of the availability.

Contract costs were not documented or provided as required, and the program is not on schedule relating to the task milestones and/or

EAC to BAC ratio was greater than 20% for CNO availabilities greater than 90 days in length or greater than 25% for all other availabilities.

90% or more of the COPAs received provided detailed estimates with all trades and subcontractor breakdowns and complied with cost/pricing data submission requirements of FAR 52.215-21. COPAs were submitted in accordance with the RFP target date, proposal deemed complete with all supporting documentation included technical and cost review within 10% of the independent government estimate and ready to put on contract at submission with no revisions necessary.

67-89% of the COPAs received provided detailed estimates with all trade and subcontractor breakdowns and complied with cost/pricing data submission requirements of FAR 52.215-21. COPAs were submitted in accordance with the RFP target date, proposal deemed complete with all supporting documentation included technical and cost review within 10% of the independent government estimate and ready to put on contract at submission with no revisions necessary.

51-66% of the COPAs received provided detailed estimates with all trade and subcontractor breakdowns and complied with cost/pricing data submission requirements of

FAR 52.215-21.

COPAs were submitted in accordance with the RFP target date, proposal deemed complete with all supporting documentation included technical and cost review within 10% of the independent government estimate and ready to put on contract at submission with no revisions necessary.

Contractor submitted cost proposals with sufficient data to support the accuracy and derivation of the price.

Justification provided for costs were inadequate or did not comply with cost/pricing data submission requirements of FAR 52.215-21.

The milestone plan and production schedule was submitted in accordance with NAVSEA Standard Item 009-60 with no discrepancies. Minor issues were highlighted and updated accurately as they occurred

The milestone plan and production schedule was submitted in accordance with NAVSEA Standard Item 009-60 with no discrepancies. Significant issues were highlighted and updated accurately as they occurred.

The milestone plan and production schedule was submitted in accordance with NAVSEA Standard Item 009-60 with minor discrepancies. Planned activities supported contract milestones.

Contractor provided milestone plan was not sufficient to integrate planned activities from multiple providers.

Progress updates were inaccurate or late.

A formal scheduling system was not maintained, or the scheduling system did not integrate planned activities by multiple maintenance providers, or no progress updates provided.

TECHNICAL (50%)

DARK BLUE PURPLE GREEN YELLOW RED

91-100% 76-90% 51-75% No Greater Than 50% 0%

CONTRACTOR'S

TECHNICAL

PERFORMANCE

CONTRACTOR'S

TECHNICAL

PERFORMANCE

CONTRACTOR'S

TECHNICAL

PERFORMANCE

CONTRACTOR'S

TECHNICAL

PERFORMANCE

CONTRACTOR'S

TECHNICAL

PERFORMANCE

Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical

Reports, execution planning products, Reports, execution planning Reports, execution Reports, execution Reports, execution procedures and data requirements products, procedures and planning products, planning products, planning products, were comprehensive, accurate, and data requirements were procedures and data procedures and data procedures and data delivered on time or early. Reports comprehensive, accurate, requirements were requirements were requirements lacked identified all potential problem areas and delivered on time or comprehensive, accurate, comprehensive, accurate, specificity and were and the path(s) to resolve them. early. Reports identified and delivered early with and delivered on time. delivered late or after potential problem areas. no deficiencies. documented issues could be resolved.

Inspection rejection rates are less than 2.5% for availabilities

Inspection rejection rates are less than 5% for availabilities

Inspection rejection rates are less than 7.5% for availabilities

Inspection rejection rates are less than 10% for availabilities

Inspection rejection rates exceeded 10% for availabilities

Contractor-procured material was correct, available, and supported all planned work.

No contractor-responsible material issues affecting production schedules.

Any few. minor issues were communicated and quickly resolved without impact to availability end date and internal milestones.

Contractor-procured material was correct, almost always available, and supported all planned work.

No contractor-responsible material issues affecting production schedules. Few minor issues were communicated and quickly resolved without impact to availability end date. Minor impacts to internal milestones resulted.

Contractor-procured material adequately supported planned work with some delay but did not impact ship delivery.

Some delays to internal milestones resulted.

Contractor-procured material supported planned work with some delays.

With Government assistance, delays did not impact ship delivery. Some material issues had a significant impact to cost.

Contractor-procured material was delayed and correction required Government participation to resolve. Some issues were not disclosed in sufficient time to apply corrective actions within the availability period.

A comprehensive quality assurance program was documented and executed.

Contract Action Report (CAR) average response time was 2 days or less and the greater majority provided acceptable responses.

A comprehensive quality assurance program was documented and executed.

CAR average response time was 3 days or less and the greater majority provided acceptable responses.

A quality assurance program successfully utilized with only minor faults. CAR response time was, on average, within 5 days of issuance.

Contractor submitted quality assurance forms in accordance with the Quality Management System (QMS) and CAR response time was, on average, within 10 days of issuance.

No comprehensive quality assurance program was Provided or CAR response time was, on average, within 14 or more days of issuance.

The Contractor notified the The Contractor notified the The Contractor notified The Contractor notified the The Contractor Government of routine or recurring Government of routine or the Government of Government of routine or documented repair repairs and a path for process recurring repairs and a path routine or recurring recurring repairs and a path requirements in a CFR, but improvement. The Contractor for process improvement. repairs and a path for for process improvement. did not assess the potential developed written recommendations The Contractor developed process improvement. When tasked, the for process or design for corrections or improvements for written recommendations for The Contractor developed Contractor developed improvement, nor further translation into detailed corrections or improvements written recommendations written recommendations document repair processes engineering changes, and completed for further translation into for corrections or for corrections or as lessons learned.

the work, where appropriate and detailed engineering improvements for further improvements for further possible. Over 90% of the Condition changes, and completed the translation into detailed translation into detailed

Found Reports were: correct, work, where appropriate and engineering changes, and engineering changes.

submitted on or ahead of time, possible. 66-89% of the completed the work, completed in accordance with the Condition Found Reports where appropriate and specification, and included a were: correct, submitted on possible. 50-65% of the recommendation repair, with the or ahead of time, completed Condition Found Reports impact to the availability production in accordance with the were: correct, submitted schedule, ready to put on contract. specification, and included a on or ahead of time, recommendation repair, with completed in accordance the impact to the availability with the spec, and production schedule, ready included a to put on contract. recommendation repair, with the impact to the availability production schedule, ready to put on contract.

The Contractor provided the Government work specifications for approval to MARMC greater than one week prior to the due date. The Contractor ensured the necessary management, material and resources are available to execute the maintenance were on-site prior to the availability. The Contractor developed a production schedule to help ensure on-time completion.

Further, the Contractor bundled work to improve efficiencies in execution and to minimize impact to the ship during execution.

The Contractor provided the Government work specifications for approval to MARMC one week prior to the due date. The Contractor ensured the necessary management, material and resources are available to execute the maintenance were on-site prior to the availability. The Contractor developed a production schedule to help ensure on-time completion.

The Contractor provided the Government work specifications for approval to MARMC a few days before the required due date. The Contractor ensured the necessary management, material and resources were available to execute the maintenance were on-site prior to the availability. The Contractor developed a production schedule to help ensure on-time completion.

The Contractor provided the Government work specifications for approval to MARMC by the required date. The Contractor ensures the necessary management, material and resources were available to execute the maintenance. The Contractor developed a production schedule to help ensure on-time completion.

The Contractor did not provide the Government work specifications for approval by the required date. The Contractor did not have the necessary management, material and resources available to execute the maintenance.

The Contractor did not develop or provide the Government a production schedule.

All systems disturbed for awarded work and limited to the areas directly affected by the repairs were fully operational at contract completion.

Ship’s force was able to operate all equipment that the contractor repaired as designed.

No Casualty Reports (CASREPS) submitted on contractor work.

Assistance to meet ship’s force needs during the availability (i.e. temp A/C, power, and ventilation) was outstanding. All services were provided ahead of the requested dates.

Ship was able to meet scheduled commitments.

All systems disturbed for awarded work and limited to the areas directly affected by the repairs were fully operational at contract completion.

Assistance to meet ship’s force needs during the availability (i.e. temp A/C, power, ventilation) was very good. Most services were provided ahead of the requested dates with the remaining provided by the requested dates.

No Casualty Reports (CASREPS) submitted on contractor work.

Ship was able to meet scheduled commitments.

All systems disturbed for awarded work and limited to the areas directly affected by the repairs were fully operational at contract completion.

availability (i.e. temp A/C, power, ventilation) was good. Most services were provided by the requested dates. Those that were not did not have any significant impact to ship’s force milestones.

No Casualty Reports (CASREPS) submitted on contractor work.

All systems disturbed for awarded work and limited to the areas directly affected by the repairs were fully operational at contract completion.

availability (i.e. temp A/C, power, and ventilation) was adequate. Some services were provided by the requested dates. Those that were not had minor impacts to ship’s force milestones with none slipping by more than a week.

One or more Casualty Reports (CASREPS) submitted on contractor

Ship unable to meet scheduled commitments due to faulty systems/equipment specified for repairs by the contractor.

Assistance to ship’s force needs during the availability (i.e. temp A/C, power, ventilation) was inadequate. Services were not provided by requested dates and led to significant delays of more than a week to ship’s force milestones.

Deviation: The FDO may deviate from the AF derivation method described above to address unique considerations, or circumstances, not otherwise incorporated. Such unique considerations, or circumstances, must be documented and relevant to the applicable AF Evaluation Period under consideration.

NOTE: FEE EVALUATION PERIODS WILL BE PROMULGATED FOLLOWING CONTRACT AWARD.

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND SBSIF DETERMINATION (Applicable to all CLINs except 0004; payable under CLINs 0013 (years 1-5) and 0025 (years 6-7))

The Government will evaluate the extent which the Contractor meets or does not meet the forty percent (40%) small business subcontracting requirement described in Section H clause, “Small Business Subcontracting Requirement.” The fee determination covers the Contractor’s subcontracting performance over a range of all repair and alteration work, to give the Contractor flexibility in meeting the Small Business Subcontracting requirement.

(a) Evaluation Process:

1. Program Executive Office (PEO) Carriers is committed to increasing small business participation in development, production and support efforts consistent with cost/benefit considerations and attainment of acquisition objectives. Therefore, of the total dollars the Government plans to obligate each contract year under this contract, the Contractor shall intend to award forty percent (40%) or more to first-tier, small businesses. In addition, the Contractor may earn SBSIF under this contract for meeting the Small Business Subcontracting Goals identified in the table below. Evaluation based on the utilization of Small Business Subcontracting opportunities will be conducted to the extent which the prime contractor meets or does not meet the forty percent (40%) Small Business Subcontracting requirement as stipulated in the contract. If not met, the amount of the total fee (incentive) calculated will be adjusted as set forth in the contract. No SBSIF will be earned unless the Contractor is making timely deliveries and is in compliance with the specification for the services rendered. The ACO will make the determination of whether the Contractor’s performance is satisfactory. If the ACO determines The Contractor’s performance is not satisfactory, The Contractor will not be eligible for the Special Incentive.

(b) Small Business Subcontracting Goals:

The Government desires at least a forty percent (40%) overall small business participation goal to be set by the Offeror, inclusive of the congressionally mandated five percent (5%) minimum for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns.

The following table identifies percentages for the purposes of demonstrating how the SBSIF may be accomplished for the evaluation period under each respective CLIN.

Table 5- SBSIF Goal

Subcontract Category Goal* Small Business (SB) overall 40.0% HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone) 7.5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 10.0% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 10.0% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.0% Historically Black Colleges & Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)** 7.5%

* Base for measurement is total subcontract dollars, SBSIF may be earned for meeting these goals.

** HBCU/MI obligations above 7.5% may be counted toward the SDB goal.

(c) SBSIF Available:

The SBSIF pool contingency in each of these periods will be two percent (2%) of the total amount obligated against estimated cost (excluding fee) available for all CLINs except 0004, 0013, and 0025.

(i) The incentive fee under this clause will be earned or not earned on an individual order basis. Failure to earn the amount available under one (1) CLIN does not preclude the Contractor from earning fee available under the remaining CLIN/periods.

2. Procedures:

(i) Within one (1) month of the end of each evaluation period identified in paragraph (c), the Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and ACO of each delivery order a Subcontracting Program Performance Report that includes the information required for the Government to determine the amount of SBSIF earned. At a minimum, the Contractor’s report shall include the total amount obligated against target cost for the applicable CLIN, the total labor hours worked during the evaluation period by CLIN, and any other data required for the Government to evaluate the Contractor’s Small Business Subcontracting performance.

(ii) Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the Contractor’s Report, the COR for each DO will review and evaluate the Contractor’s report to determine if all required data was provided and if any SBSIF was earned. If the

Contractor’s input is inadequate, the COR will ask the Contractor to correct the inadequacies of their report and to submit a revised report.

(iii) Within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the Contractor’s report, the COR of each DO will meet with the ACO to make a final determination of whether any such special incentive has been earned. The ACO will issue a unilateral modification providing earned special incentive.

(e) Finality of ACO’s Determination:

The parties agree that determinations of the ACO with respect to the amount of special incentives to be paid to the contractor are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government. Notwithstanding other terms or conditions of the contract, a payment under this incentive is not incurred or earned until the effective date of a written contract modification.

(f) Payment of Special Incentive:

The Contractor will be paid the special incentive amount(s) earned upon submittal of proper invoices to the cognizant payment office. The Contractor’s invoice shall show the amount of special performance incentives payable by CLIN. The Contractor’s invoice must cite the appropriate accounting data in order for payment to be effected.

(g) Single Point of Contact.

The Contractor shall establish a single point of contact to deal with the Government on its small business subcontracting activities relating to this contract. The Government encourages the Contractor to pursue activities that will support increasing the level of small business subcontracting participation under this contract including, but not limited to, internal education and training, participation in matchmaking conferences and other outreach efforts to post subcontracting opportunities.

3. Fee Adjustment Computation: The Government will evaluate actual performance for the fee evaluation period using the information in paragraphs (a) and (b) below reported by the Contractor IAW Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Data Item A014 and applying the formula in paragraph (c) below.

a. Direct costs related to all efforts within the fee evaluation period,

b. Total dollars, with corresponding percentages of direct during the fee evaluation period will be determined for the following:

(i) Small business concerns;

(ii) VOSB;

(iii) SDVOSB;

(iv) HUBZone;

(v) SDB;

(vi) WOSB, and

(vii) HBCU/MI.

c. Divide (b) by (a) to compute a percentage of subcontracted work (e.g., $1,600,000/$4,000,000 = .40 X 100 = 40.0%).

NOTE: FEE EVALUATION PERIODS WILL BE PROMULGATED FOLLOWING CONTRACT AWARD.