MGS_3_Award_Fee_Plan_SIGNED_14_Oct_20.pdf

Award Fee Plan

For the

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

Minuteman III Missile Guidance Set Repair Contract

Fiscal Year 2021 – Fiscal Year 2039

Contract Number: FA8214-21-R-1234

12 October 2020

Approved:

ERIK N. QUIGLEY, Col, USAF Date Director, MMIII Systems Directorate Fee Determining Official

REVISION PAGE

REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION PAGES

1 8 Nov 16 Updated Evaluation Standards and Criteria to reduce/tighten

Quality Performance Indicators Metrics Values Attachments 4

(a) pg. 13, Items: 1-5

2 21 Jun 18 Updated Award Fee Board based on the delegation of FDO from AFNWC to ICBM Systems Directorate. Changed the contractor self-assessment from 1 hour to 30 minutes.

Pages: 1, 4, 6, 3 13 Apr 20 Updated Award Fee Board membership based on a recent reorganization. Updated Performance Evaluation Area Weights based on direction from the Award Fee Board.

Updated Area III Cost Performance and Business Development based on direction from the Award Fee Board. Updated Attachment 6 Sample computation based on changes to the area weight factors.

Pages: 7, 9, 14, 15, 19

4 12 Oct 20 Fee Determining Official changed to Col Erik N Quigley (1) Office Symbol designations updated (7) Evaluation Periods updated (8) Performance Evaluation Area Weights amended (9) Number of serviceable monthly spares vault level amended (13) Award Fee eligibility on under run or over run dollars amended (15) Sample Computation numbers updated to reflect amended Performance Evaluation Area Weights (19)

Pages: 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 19

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Organization

3.0 Responsibilities

4.0 Award Fee Processes

5.0 Award Fee Plan Change Procedure

6.0 Contract Termination

Attachment Title Page

1 Award Fee Organization 2 Award Fee Periods and Allocations 3 Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship, and Weights 4 & 4(a) Evaluation Standards and Criteria

(a) MMIII MGS Evaluation Standards & Criteria 5 Strengths and Weaknesses 6 Sample Computation

Award Fee Plan

1.0 Introduction

This Award Fee Plan is for the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Minuteman III (MMIII) Missile Guidance Set (MGS) Repair Contract’s program evaluation of the contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). This plan implements DFARS Clause 252.216-7005, Award Fee, of this contract.

The specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned are described herein. All FDO decisions regarding the award fee, including but not limited to: the amount of the award fee, if any; the methodology used to calculate the award fee; the calculation of the award fee; the contractor's entitlement to the award fee; and the nature and success of the contractor's performance, shall not be subject to the "Disputes" clause nor reviewed by any Board of Contract Appeal, court, or other judicial entity.

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, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by bilateral agreement.

2.0 Organization

The award fee organization consists of: the FDO and the Award Fee Review Board (AFRB).

The AFRB consist of: the MMIII Sustainment Division Chief (Chairperson), Contracting Office Chief, Guidance Branch Chief, Guidance Branch Chief Engineer, Air Force Global Strike, and a (non-voting) recorder. This award fee organization is listed in Attachment 1.

3.0 Responsibilities

a. Fee Determining Official (FDO). The FDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. The FDO reviews the recommendations of the AFRBs, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award fee amount for each workload during each evaluation period.

b. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB). AFRB members review performance monitors’ evaluation of 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 will also recommend changes to this plan.

c. AFRB Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members.

(1) Schedule all meetings of the AFRB and notify its members of the meetings

(2) Brief the FDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB

d. AFRB Recorder. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB and the FDO and accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process.

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

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

g. Lead Program Manager (LPM). The LPM is the individual responsible for the management of work at the contractor’s facility. The LPM is also responsible for:

1) receipt, processing, and distribution of evaluation reports; 2) preparation and presentation of a briefing to the AFRB which highlights results of the evaluation reports; 3) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones.

4.0 Award Fee Processes

a. Available Award Fee Amount: Payment of Award fee dollars shall be made on an annual payment based on the FDO determination. The evaluation areas, and the weights assigned to these areas are shown in Attachment 3, Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship, and Weights.

b. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are located in Attachment 4, Evaluation Standards and Criteria. If the PCO 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 following award fee evaluation period. Any changes to area weight or the evaluation criteria will be made by revising Attachment 3, Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship, and Weights and/or Attachment 4, Evaluation Standards and Criteria and notifying the contractor.

c. End-of-Period Evaluations: The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and the LPM not less than 15 calendar days before the end of each evaluation period. The LPM then notifies the evaluators who will, in turn, evaluate and describe the contractor’s strengths and weaknesses, using the criteria in this plan, and indicate the impact using the indicator codes reflected in Attachment 5, Strengths and Weakness Indication Chart. Evaluators submit their evaluation reports to the LPM not later than 15 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period with the exception of Cost

Performance, which will be 27 calendar days. The LPM consolidates the information in these evaluation reports and then prepares and presents a briefing to the AFRB. The AFRB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. Then, the AFRB Chairperson briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO.

At this time, the AFRB Chairperson may also recommend any significant changes to the award fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall rating(s) and earned award fee amount from the award fee pool. This determination will normally be completed within 60 calendar days after the end of each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the earned award fee amount and other relevant issues.

d. Contractor’s Self-Assessment: The contractor may provide a written self-evaluation to the PCO within 15 working days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance 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 will be limited to 15 pages, and will be provided to each of the AFRB members. The PCO may also request a verbal self-assessment briefing from the contractor. The self-assessment briefing will be limited to 30 minutes.

5.0 Award Fee Plan Change Procedure

Forward all significant changes to the FDO for approval; other changes are approved by the applicable AFRB Chairperson. After approval, the PCO will 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.

6.0 Contract Termination

If the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee evaluation period, the award fee earned for that period shall be determined by the FDO using the normal award fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, no further orders will be placed and no award fee can be earned or paid.

Attachment 1 Award Fee Organization

Members

Fee Determining Official:

Director, MMIII Systems Directorate

AFNWC/NM

Award-Fee Review Board Chairperson:

MMIII Sustainment Division Chief or Deputy

AFNWC/NMS

Award-Fee Review Board Members MMIII Chief Engineer or Deputy AFNWC/NMS

Contracting Division Chief or Deputy AFNWC/PZB Guidance Branch Chief AFNWC/NMSG Guidance Engineering Chief AFNWC/NMSG AF Global Strike Command AFGSC/A4M Recorder (Non-voting member) AFNWC/NMSG

Advisors Staff Judge Advocate/Designee 75 ABW/JAQ Procuring Contracting Officer AFNWC/PZBB

Performance Monitors

Area of Evaluation Performance Monitor(s)

I. Quality and Repair Performance & AFNWC/NMS: LPM, PMS, IM, ES, TA, Risk Mitigation and DCMA

II. Cost Performance & Business AFNWC/NMS: LPM, IM, ES, TA, Development and DCMA

III. ICBM Team Relationships AFNWC/NMS: LPM and ES

IV. Proactive Recommendations

ES Equipment Specialist IM Item Manager PMS Production Management Specialist TA Technical Advisor

Attachment 2 Award Fee Periods and Allocations

The award fee evaluation periods will consist of a single 12-month period for each fiscal year of contract performance (see table below). Each award fee pool will consist of the contract specified award fee amount on the fee bearing Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) for each workload.

The contractor may bill for award fee payment on an annual basis. The following sections describe award fee pools for orders placed by quantity, lot, and over and above:

Orders place by quantity: The total award fee available is dependent on the number of end items delivered and the allocated cost of other fee bearing CLINs placed on order during the evaluation period.

Orders placed by lot: Award fee payment of lot orders shall be annual and if the lot crosses more than one award fee period, the award fee amounts will be established for each period at the point of award.

Order placed as over and above/Unprogrammed: The payment scheme of over and above award fee shall be specified in each applicable delivery order and shall take into account projected completion of the task, associated spread across multiple award fee periods, and dollar value.

Award Fee Evaluation Periods

Evaluation FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Period Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Start 28-Sep-21 28-Sep-22 28-Sep-23 28-Sep-24 28-Sep-25 28-Sep-26 End 27-Sep-22 27-Sep-23 27-Sep-24 27-Sep-25 27-Sep-26 27-Sep-27

Evaluation FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33

Start 28-Sep-27 28-Sep-28 28-Sep-29 28-Sep-30 28-Sep-31 28-Sep-32 End 27-Sep-28 27-Sep-29 27-Sep-30 27-Sep-31 27-Sep-32 27-Sep-33

Evaluation FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39

Start 28-Sep-33 28-Sep-34 28-Sep-35 28-Sep-36 28-Sep-37 28-Sep-38 End 27-Sep-34 27-Sep-35 27-Sep-36 27-Sep-37 27-Sep-38 27-Sep-39

Attachment 3 Evaluation Areas, Ratings Relationship, and Weights

The Government will evaluate contractor performance with respect to the criteria identified in Attachment 4, Evaluation Standards and Criteria. Area weights are assigned based on the relative importance of the area to the workload. Performance Evaluation Areas and their respective weights are listed for the ICBM workload in the table below.

ICBM Workload

Performance Evaluation Area Weights

Area Performance Evaluation Area Weight I. Quality and Repair Performance & Risk

Mitigation 70%

II. Cost Performance & Business Development

10%

III. ICBM MMIII MGS Repair Team Relationships

10%

IV. Proactive Recommendations for Effective Guidance Repair

10%

Performance monitors will document their findings regularly and submit them to the LPM in the format and at the frequency prescribed by the AFRB.

The Task Orders for the yearly MGS Guidance Repair are issued annually for a 12-month period of performance. As the AFRBs are conducted annually, this complies with the requirement in DFARS 216.405-2, Cost-Plus Award-Fee Contracts which requires at least 40% of the award fee pool be reserved for the final award fee period on each effort. For any other add-on programs or unprogrammed work, this requirement will also be followed when allocating the award fee pools across multiple award fee periods.

The following chart depicts the relationship between the overall performance ratings, the points spread of the ratings, and the percentage of the award fee payable.

Overall Points vs. Ratings

Overall Rating

Total Points

Percent of Award Fee Available to be Earned

Excellent 91-100 91-100% Very Good 76-90 76-90% Good 51-75 51-75% Satisfactory 1-50 1-50% Unsatisfactory 0 0%

During the evaluation, the AFRB will award points for the contractor’s performance as measured against the criteria established in this plan. The points awarded in each evaluation area will be multiplied by the respective area weight. The weighted area points will then be summed to provide the total weighted points earned. If this number is 51 points or greater, it equals the percentage of the award fee to be paid. If the number of points is 50, the contractor will receive no greater than 50% of the available fee. If the number of points is 0, the contractor will receive no award fee for this period. A contractor whose performance is less than satisfactory shall not be rewarded with any award fee. (See FAR Part 16.401—Table 16.1)

Attachment 4 Evaluation Standards and Criteria

This Attachment consists of "General Standards of Performance" and "Specific Evaluation Criteria and Standards." The General Standards of Performance will be used in conjunction with the Specific Evaluation Criteria and Standards to determine to what extent the contractor has earned an award fee.

Note: The numbers in parentheses represent the point range that relates to the rating.

General Standards of Performance

1. Excellent Performance (91-100):

Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government. The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

2. Very Good Performance (76-90):

Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is consistently above standard and provides numerous significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations).

Although some areas may require improvement, these areas are minor and are more than offset by better performance in other areas. Few, if any, recurring deficiencies have been noted, and contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

3. Good (51-75): Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks meets standard with some tangible benefits to the Government due to contractors’ effort or initiative.

4. Satisfactory Performance (1-50):

Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is adequate. Although there are areas of good or better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas.

5. Unsatisfactory Performance (0):

Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is inadequate and/or inconsistent. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective. Overall unsatisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee.

Attachment 4(a) MMIII MGS Evaluation Standards and Criteria

AREA I. QUALITY AND REPAIR PERFORMANCE AND RISK MITIGATION

Due to the possibility of non-contractor influence on the metrics described below in section 4(a), evaluators will be careful to avoid placing too much emphasis on meeting the exact numbers provided. Impacts beyond control of the contractor will be considered and other metrics will be consulted as the situation warrants. For example, the contractor maybe additionally evaluated on subsystem rejection rates, instrument stability/performance, and field vault verified rates, and any other criteria deemed appropriate.

In accordance with DFARS 216.405-2-70, the AFRB and the FDO will review the contractor and subcontractor’s actions that jeopardized the health or safety of Government personnel, through gross negligence or reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel, as determined through:

(1) Conviction in a criminal proceeding, or finding of fault and liability in a civil or administrative proceeding (in accordance with section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84)); or

(2) If a contractor or a subcontractor at any tier is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, a final determination of contractor or subcontractor fault resulting from a DoD investigation (in accordance with section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383)).

A. Quality Performance Indicators

Three metrics are defined. Serviceable spares, the total number of zero and short time rejections for the deployed force, and the total number of repeat rejections for the deployed force.

Serviceable Spares The serviceable spares metric is the calendar monthly averages of the total number of serviceable spares for all wings. “Daily Serviceable Spares” are calculated for each wing each working day by the Item Manager. They are the total number of assets in all wing vaults, minus committed to the field, plus reroute from the depot. These numbers are added for all wings and averaged over the days recorded to calculate the serviceable spares metric.

Zero and Short Time Rejections The total number of zero and short time rejections for the operational wings is defined as assets rejected with zero to 720 operational hours. A rejection, which occurs on an asset prior to installation, can only be counted against the contractor if the rejection is due to depot workmanship.

Repeat Rejections A repeat rejection is defined as a rejection with similar rejection symptoms with less than 2000 hours on a specific system, GCA, PIGA, G6B4, or GI-T1-B.

1. Excellent (91-100):

The contractor consistently produces enough MGSs so that the serviceable monthly spares vault level is always at least 30. The total number of zero and short timer rejections is 23 or less annually. The total number of repeat rejections is 5 or less.

2. Very Good (76-90):

The contractor consistently produces enough MGSs so that the serviceable monthly spares vault level is always at least 24. The total number of zero and short time rejections is 23 or greater but less than 29. The total number of repeat rejections is greater than 5 and less than 12.

3. Good (51-75):

The contractor consistently produces enough MGSs so that the serviceable monthly spares vault level is always at least 20. The total number of zero and short time rejections is at least 29 or greater but less than 38. The total number of repeat rejections is 12 or greater but less than 19.

4. Satisfactory (1- 50):

The contractor consistently produces enough MGSs so that the serviceable monthly spares vault level is always at least 16. The total number of zero and short time rejections are 38 or greater but less than 53 or the total number of repeat rejections is 19 but less than 26.

5. Unsatisfactory (0):

The contractor consistently produces enough MGSs so that the serviceable monthly spares vault level is always at least 5. The total number of zero and short time rejections are 53 or greater or the total number of repeat rejections is 26 or greater.

B. Risk Identification and Mitigation

1. Excellent (91-100):

The contractor proactively and formally identifies any areas of technical or management risk, develops a mitigation plan, and then thoroughly resolves identified risk, in accordance with the Work Specification. The contractor demonstrates an in-depth understanding of potential risks and implements risk avoidance processes. The contractor also demonstrates exceptional response to technical, cost, or schedule problems when they occur.

2. Very Good (76-90):

The contractor's solutions to management problems demonstrate initiative, require little revision, and are successful for the most part. Most program problems are anticipated and subsequently mitigated.

3. Good (50-75):

The contractor identifies management problems, many unanticipated, and puts in the effort needed to mitigate to a successful end for the most part.

4. Satisfactory (1-50):

The contractor identifies and prioritizes program and management risk, and then resolves any critical areas.

5. Unsatisfactory (0):

Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

AREA II. COST PERFORMANCE & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

A. Cost Performance The contractor manages total cost (direct and indirect) in a manner which contributes to meeting Government cost objectives for the program. The contractor leverages a combination of process efficiency improvements and addition of non-MMIII MGS business to offset overhead cost, necessary to achieve and under run target prices.

1. Excellent (91-100):

For Severable Orders, total period cost between *97% and 100% end of period contract value* (excluding travel and rate adjustment withholds)**. During the award fee period there have been a minimum of 5 specific examples where cost performance has been improved without any sacrifice to quality. The contractor takes initiative to forecast, provide identification of potential cost performance and funding issues, and aggressively pursues solutions to potential problems to minimize the impact to overall program cost performance objectives. The estimates at completion (EAC) are consistently maintained and include cost performance to date. Any inconsistencies between the EACs and cost performance to date are always fully explained. Cost reports are submitted ahead of or on schedule. Cost report analysis indicates thorough understanding of cost performance and contains fully explained cost variances that include explicit reasons for the variances and recovery plans. Notifications of funds status and funds requirements are submitted in a timely manner. Current year cost performance is under or at target price and projected out-year cost performance is at or near target price. The contractor implements business development activities, addressing internal and external potential non- MMIII MGS workloads. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

2. Very Good (76-90):

For Severable Orders, total period cost between *95% and 97% end of period contract value* (excluding travel and rate adjustment withholds)**. During the award fee period there have been between 3-4 examples where cost performance has been improved without any sacrifice to quality. The contractor identifies potential cost performance and funding issues, and pursues solutions of potential problems to minimize the impact to overall program cost performance objectives. EACs are maintained and include cost performance to date. Inconsistencies between the EACs and cost performance to date are satisfactorily explained. Cost reports are submitted on schedule. Cost reports analysis indicates an understanding of cost performance and contains narrative cost variance analysis. Notifications of funds status and funds requirements are submitted in a timely manner. Current year cost performance is at or near target and projected out-year cost performance is at or near target price. The contractor implements business development activities, addressing internal and external potential non-MMIII MGS workloads.

The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

3. Good (51-75):

For Severable Orders, total period cost between *90% and 95% end of period contract value* (excluding travel and rate adjustment withholds)**. During the Award Fee period there have been between 1-2 examples where cost performance has been improved without any sacrifice to quality. The contractor identifies potential cost performance and funding issues in a timely manner, and implements solutions of potential problems. EACs are maintained and include cost performance to date. Inconsistencies between the EACs and cost performance to date are satisfactorily explained. Cost reports are submitted on schedule. Cost reports analysis indicates an understanding of cost performance and contains narrative cost variance analysis.

Notifications of funds status and funds requirements are submitted in a timely manner. Current year cost performance is at or near target and projected out-year cost performance is at or near target price. The contractor implements business development activities, addressing internal and external potential non-MMIII MGS workloads. The contractor does not minimize compliance with contract requirements as a means to control cost.

4. Satisfactory (1-50):

For Severable Orders, total period cost between *85% and 90% end of period contract value* (excluding travel and rate adjustment withholds)**. The contractor identifies potential cost performance and funding issues, and implements possible solutions of potential problems. EACs are maintained and considered cost performance to date. Inconsistencies between the EACs and cost performance to date are explained. Cost reports are submitted near to schedule. Cost report analysis indicates an understanding of cost performance and contains narrative cost variance analysis. Notifications of funds status and funds requirements are submitted in a timely manner.

Current year cost performance is near target. The contractor implements business development activities, addressing the means to achieve the target prices.

5. Unsatisfactory (0) Overall performance that does not meet the above criteria is considered unsatisfactory.

*If period cost equals a criteria limit, the higher rating will apply. For example, 95% will result in a Very Good Rating.

**Any travel or rate adjustment withhold increase within an Award Fee Period must be coordinated with and approved by the Government.

AREA III. ICBM MMIII MGS Repair Team Relationships

1. Excellent (91-100):

Contractor develops an effective and efficient contractor team that demonstrates exceptional team working relationships (including coordination of changes in program requirements and/or addition of new requirements). Team member and/or program conflicts and risks are identified and resolved in a timely manner with minimum or no assistance from the Government.

Contractual relationships with team members are in place in a timely manner and flexible enough to appropriately support dynamic program requirements. Conflicts with team members over such issues as material qualification, schedules, etc., are resolved with little or no Government involvement.

2. Very Good (75-90):

Contractor demonstrates very good team working relationships (including coordination of changes in program requirements and/or addition of new requirements). Team member and/or program conflicts and risks are identified and resolved in a timely manner with occasional assistance from the Government. Contractual relationships with team members are in place in a timely manner and flexible enough to appropriately support dynamic program requirements.

Conflicts with team members over such issues as Government-furnished material (GFM), material qualification, schedules, etc., are resolved with little or no Government involvement.

3. Good (51-75) Contractor demonstrates good team working relationships (including coordination of changes in program requirements and/or addition of new requirements). Program conflicts and risks are identified and Government assistance is nearly always needed for resolution. Contractual relationships with team members are in place and flexible enough to appropriately support dynamic program requirements. Conflicts with team members over such issues as Government Furnished Material (GFM), material qualification, schedules, etc., are resolved mostly with Government involvement.

4. Satisfactory (1-50):

Contractor demonstrates reasonable working relationship with the team members (including coordination of changes in program requirements and/or addition of new requirements).

Program conflicts and risks are identified and resolved with Government assistance. Contractual relationships with team members are in place and structured appropriately to support program requirements. Conflict resolution with team members over such issues as GFM, material qualification, schedules, etc., requires Government involvement.

5. Unsatisfactory (0):

Contractor does not have effective working relationships with the team members. Program conflicts and risks are identified and resolved only with substantial Government assistance and oversight. Contractual relationships with team members are either not in place or are not structured adequately to meet Government requirements or mitigate program risks. Conflict resolution with team members over such issues as GFM, material qualification, schedules, etc., requires Government contracting officer’s direction.

AREA IV. Proactive Recommendations for Effective Guidance Repair

The contractor manages processes effectively and efficiently and provides recommendations for effective Guidance Repair.

1. Excellent (91-100):

The contractor continuously monitors and assesses processes for effectiveness and efficiency.

The contractor employs techniques to identify inefficiencies, redundancies, and/or low-value activities. The contractor develops prospective solutions/improvements, performs assessment of potential impacts and accomplishes cost/benefit analysis. The contractor proactively makes cost-effective recommendations that will increase productivity, reduce cycle-time, and reduce costs through efficiency. The contractor implements, with little to no assistance from the Government, and validates the recommendation(s) has achieved the desired results.

2. Very Good (75-90):

The contractor monitors and assesses processes for effectiveness and efficiency. The contractor employs techniques to identify inefficiencies, redundancies, and/or low-value activities. The contractor develops prospective solutions/improvements, performs assessment of potential impacts and accomplishes cost/benefit analysis. The contractor proactively makes cost-effective recommendations that will increase productivity, reduce cycle-time, and reduce costs through efficiency. The contractor implements with occasional assistance from the Government. The contractor recommendation(s) have had very good success in achieving the desired results.

3. Good (51-75) The contractor monitors and assesses processes for effectiveness and efficiency. The contractor employs techniques to identify inefficiencies, redundancies, and/or low-value activities. The contractor develops prospective solutions/improvements, performs assessment of potential impacts and accomplishes cost/benefit analysis. The contractor makes cost-effective recommendations that will increase productivity, reduce cycle-time, and reduce costs through efficiency. The contractor implements with minimal assistance from the Government. The contractor recommendation(s) have had good success in achieving the desired results.

4. Satisfactory (1-50):

The contractor monitors and assesses processes for effectiveness and efficiency. The contractor employs techniques to identify inefficiencies, redundancies, and/or low-value activities. The contractor develops prospective solutions/improvements, performs assessment of potential impacts and accomplishes cost/benefit analysis. The contractor makes cost-effective recommendations that will increase productivity, reduce cycle-time, and reduce costs through efficiency. The contractor implements with moderate assistance from the Government. The contractor recommendation(s) have had satisfactory success in achieving the desired results.

5. Unsatisfactory (0):

The contractor is inconsistent in identifying inefficiencies, redundancies, and/or low-value activities. The contractor makes no recommendations, or the contractor’s recommendations are inadequate to effectively increase productivity, reduce cycle-time, and reduce costs through efficiency. The contractor’s recommendations have been ineffective in achieving desired goals.

Attachment 5 Strengths and Weaknesses

Code:

Strengths:

+ Minor: Contributed to mission success through attention to detail, ownership, or pride in product.

++ Moderate or Potentially Moderate Impact: Positively contributed to an activity and showed an understanding of how the activity supports the successful execution of a program.

+++ Major Impact: Significantly contributed to the execution of a program and showed a high degree of understanding about the program.

Weaknesses:

- Minor: Instances that should not have happened, resulting from inattention to detail, inadequate coordination, etc.

-- Moderate or Potentially Moderate Impact: Cause for significant concern. If not corrected, may lead to significant, but workable, program problems.

--- Major Impact: Reflects lack of understanding of the program, objectives, and a critical lack of communications. If not corrected, there is a serious threat to successful program accomplishment.

Attachment 6 Sample Computation

ICBM

Evaluation Area Points Earned

Area Weight

Weighted Points

I. Quality and Repair Performance & Risk Mitigation 91 70% 63.7

II. Cost Performance & Business Development 92 10% 9.2 III. ICBM MMIII MGS Repair Team

Relationships 99 10% 9.9

IV. Proactive Recommendations for Effective Guidance Repair 95 10% 9.5

Total Weighted Points 92.3 Total Points Earned 92.3

Formulas:

Area Weight * Points Earned = Weighted Area Points Sum of Weighted Area Points = Total Points Earned.

Computation Method: (FDO Score * Total Annual Award Fee Dollars) to be paid on an Annual basis.

The FDO determines to accept the AFRB’s recommendations and modifications authorizing issue of payment, as well as a FDO letter to the contractor advising of strong and weak areas of performance.