18R3003_Attachment_M_-_Award_Fee_Plan.pdf

Attachment M – Award Fee Plan N32205-18-R-3003

ATTACHMENT M

AWARD FEE PLAN

1.0 – Introduction

This award-fee plan is the basis for the Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) program (Solicitation

N32205-18-R-3003) evaluation of the Contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government, although the determination is subject to the Disputes clause.

This plan will be used by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) in the administration of award fee provisions under the contract resulting from solicitation N32205-18-R-

3003. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the AFDO based upon review of the

Contractor’s performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The AFDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The Contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period.

2.0 – Organization

The Award-Fee organization consists of the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO) and an Award

Fee Review Board which consists of the MPS Project Officer (Chairperson), the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer Representative (COR), a Recorder, and the Performance Monitors. The AFDO is the Prepositioning (PM3) Program Manager. The Government reserves the right to make unilateral substitutions for award fee organization members.

3.0 – Responsibilities

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

b. Award Fee Review Board. AFRB members review the 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 AFDO. The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Award Fee Review Board Chairperson. The AFRB Chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members. The Chairperson is responsible for:

(1) scheduling all meetings of the AFRB;

(2) conducting the briefing of the AFDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB.

d. Award Fee Review Board Recorder. The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFRB, and the AFDO, including:

(l) maintaining records of all meetings in developing the award fee evaluations (a copy of which will be provided to the CO for retention in the contract file);

(2) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources;

(3) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and

(4) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the AFRB.

e. Contracting Officer (CO). The CO is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel on all issues. The CO is responsible for forwarding the AFDO decision to the Contractor and maintaining the contract file.

f. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The COR collects and evaluates the records provided by the Performance Monitors. If there is a difference of opinion in a given evaluation area, the COR will adjudicate the difference to establish one rating for the evaluation area. The COR may perform the duties of a Performance Monitor for his/her area of expertise.

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

4.0 -- Award-Fee Processes

a. Available Award-Fee Amount. This Award-Fee plan has a maximum value of $250,000 for both ships, per evaluation period. Performance periods that are less than one year will have a prorated award-fee according to the number of days of performance. The award fee evaluation periods for the

ESDs will be aligned with each year of the performance period. The award fee earned will be paid based on the Contractor’s performance during each evaluation period. Performance during a contract extension due to FAR 52.217-8 will be eligible for an award fee only if the Contracting Officer provides written notice prior to the start of that period. The decision to allow or prohibit award fee during a 52.217-8 period is exclusively at the option and discretion of the Government and may not be the basis of any request for equitable adjustment or dispute. Award fee may not be earned for performance provided under FAR 52.237-3.

b. Evaluation Criteria. If the CO does not give specific notice in writing to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the subsequent award-fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by issuing a unilateral modification to the Contractor.

c. End-of-Period Evaluations. The contractors shall submit a written self-evaluation of its performance, (not to exceed 20 pages), to the CO within thirty(30) calendar days after the closure of each evaluation period. The contractor may also give a presentation to the AFRB. If the contractor desires to make a presentation, he/she should notify the CO within (10) days prior to the end of the evaluation period. The contractor must submit an electronic copy of the presentation slides no later than (5) working days prior to the presentation date.

Performance Monitors submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB Recorder within (30) calendar days after the contractor submits the self-evaluation or gives a presentation, whichever is later. The AFRB

Recorder then consolidates a summary evaluation and provides it to the AFRB.

Next, the Chairperson briefs the AFDO on the AFRB’s recommendations of the earned award-fee amount and any significant changes to the award-fee plan. The briefing includes discussion of the contractor’s performance during the rating period. After the AFDO decides an overall rating and the award-fee amount for the evaluation period, an AFDO summary evaluation will be sent to the contractor via cover letter from the CO. The CO’s determination letter should be clear and concise, informing the contractor of the earned award-fee amount, the rating received in each category and a summary of its performance during award-fee evaluation period. The CO shall issue within (15) calendar days after the AFDO’s determination, a unilateral contract modification to authorize payment of the earned award-fee amount. The CO shall de-commit or de-obligate, as appropriate, all unearned award-fee funds for that evaluation period.

These procedures and timelines are projected; therefore, failure by the Government to abide by these timelines and procedures shall not form the basis of a Request for Equitable Adjustment or claim.

5.0 -- Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure

All significant changes shall be approved by the AFDO. The AFRB Chairperson shall approve other changes. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect Contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of the award-fee dollars. The Contractor may recommend changes to the award-fee plan to the CO no later than (60) days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. The CO may make unilateral changes to the award-fee plan if the Contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer (30) days 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 deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the AFDO using the normal award-fee evaluation process with an appropriate pro-rated amount. After termination for convenience, the remaining award-fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award-fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the Contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid.

7.0 – Evaluation Categories

The award fee rating will be based upon a subjective evaluation by the Government of the effectiveness and quality of the Contractor’s performance in the following categories and subcategories. All categories are equally weighted. If the Government determines that the Contractor’s performance in any one of the evaluation categories is Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory, the Contractor shall receive

NO award fee for that evaluation period.

Award-Fee Evaluation Criteria

A - Quality of Service

Ships' Appearance

Unsatisfactory The ships' exteriors are not maintained, resulting in excessive generalized rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are not maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.

Satisfactory The ships' exteriors are minimally maintained, leading to significant areas of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in a somewhat clean and sanitary manner.

Good Ships' exteriors are maintained with typical small areas of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in an adequately clean and sanitary manner.

Very Good Ships' exteriors are maintained with a minimum amount of rust and active corrosion. Ships' interiors are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.

Excellent Ships' exteriors are maintained with a few or minor amounts of rust and active corrosion.

Ships' interiors are maintained in an exceedingly clean and sanitary manner.

B - Schedule

Task Management

Unsatisfactory The Contractor fails to submit plans of action or task schedules when requested. The

Contractor fails to comply with established POA&M or task deadlines. Contracting officer intervention is necessary to obtain corrective action.

Satisfactory Contractor meets the minimum contract requirements for POA&M compliance, report submittal requirements, and task management.

Good Contractor meets contract requirement for POA&M compliance, report submittal requirements, and task management and exceeds performance expectations, which provides benefit to the Government in areas of schedule and/or mission accomplishment.

Very Good Contractor meets contract requirement for POA&M compliance, report submittal requirements, and task management and sometimes exceeds requirements. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are sometimes offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to accommodate Government priorities.

Excellent Contractor exceeds contract requirement for POA&M compliance, report submittal requirements, and task management. Unsolicited plans of action or task schedules are frequently offered. Contractor’s task prioritization is aligned with mission requirements, and timelines are designed to anticipate and accommodate Government priorities.

C - Cost Control

Cost Avoidance Initiatives

Unsatisfactory The Contractor repeatedly undertakes unauthorized, poorly conceived, or poorly executed initiatives. These initiatives are not in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives are ineffective and result in a net increase in cost to the government.

Contracting Officer intervention is always required to obtain corrective action.

Satisfactory The contractor meets the minimum cost avoidance requirements of the contract.

Good The contractor occasionally undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government. These initiatives are effective and are in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives result in a net decrease in cost to the Government. Contractor provides an example in its self-assessment.

Very Good The contractor often undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government. These initiatives are frequently effective and are in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives usually result in a net decrease in cost to the Government. Contractor provides two or more specific examples in its self-assessment.

Excellent The contractor aggressively undertakes cost-saving, cost-avoidance, or efficiency initiatives with the advice and consent of the Government. These initiatives are always effective and are in compliance with contract requirements. These initiatives always result in a significant net decrease in cost to the Government. Contractor provides five or more specific examples in self-assessment.

D - Business Relationship

Obtaining Contracting Officer Consent and Approvals

Unsatisfactory Contractor’s management approach produces deficiencies in various aspects of contract execution, and often requires Government intervention to resolve problems. Contractor’s management fails to provide timely, accurate, or important information to the Government.

Satisfactory Contractor’s management approach produces acceptable levels of contract performance.

Contractor management regularly provides timely, accurate, and important information.

Good Contractor’s management approach is proactive and responsive, allowing for the effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates demonstrable benefits for the Government.

Very Good Contractor’s management approach is proactive, responsive, and adaptive, allowing for the effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates continual demonstrable benefits for the Government.

Excellent Contractor’s management approach is proactive, responsive, and adaptive, allowing for the effective handling of contingencies, emergencies, management of Government property, and risk in a manner that creates significant and demonstrable benefits for the Government.

E - Management of Key Personnel

Shipboard Crew and Key Shipboard/Shoreside Billets

Unsatisfactory The contractor is unable or unwilling to retain personnel assigned to key billets shoreside or shipboard, causing significant breaks in continuity, loss of corporate knowledge, and/or impacting vessel operations to the detriment of the Government. Contractor is unable or unwilling to properly train personnel in accordance with Contract Training requirements. There are prolonged gaps in key personnel positions and/or crew billets. Some or all contractor personnel do not meet contract training requirements. Contracting Officer intervention is required to obtain corrective action.

Satisfactory Contractor meets contract requirements for retention and training of shoreside and shipboard key billets.

Good The contractor is able to retain and train shipboard personnel on a relatively permanent basis with some turnover due to typical personnel changes. The contractor is able to retain and train shoreside personnel on a relatively permanent basis with some turnover due to typical personnel changes.

Very Good The contractor is able to retain and train personnel assigned to both shoreside and shipboard key billets creating demonstrable benefit to the Government. The contractor leverages corporate knowledge maintained by key personnel to capture and disseminate lessons learned.

Excellent The contractor is able to retain and train personnel assigned to both shoreside and shipboard key billets creating demonstrable benefits to the Government. The contractor leverages corporate knowledge maintained by key personnel to capture and disseminate lessons learned and improve the readiness and reliability of assigned vessels.

F – Overhaul, Engineering Maintenance and Repair

Overhaul and Repair Management

Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to include required maintenance and alteration items in the work packages.

Contractor often fails to manage availabilities and industrial assistance such that the full work scope is completed on time or within original budget. The cost of growth to existing work items often exceeds the originally budgeted Supplemental Labor and Materials line item.

Satisfactory Contractor manages availabilities, preventative maintenance and industrial assistance in accordance with the minimum requirements of the contract.

Good Contractor manages availabilities, preventative maintenance and industrial assistance such that actions that they take in the planning and/or execution of the work demonstrates results in some reductions to the overall cost and/or duration of the work and/or an increase in the ship’s readiness and/or reliability are realized. Contractor provides an example in their self-assessment.

Very Good Contractor manages availabilities, preventative maintenance and industrial assistance such that actions that they take in the planning and/or execution of the availability demonstrates results in substantial reductions to the overall cost and/or duration of the availability and/or an increase in the ship’s readiness and/or reliability are realized. Contractor provides two or more specific examples in their self-assessment.

Excellent Contractor manages availabilities, preventative maintenance and industrial assistance such that actions that they take in the planning and/or execution of the work demonstrates results in multiple instances where substantial reductions to the overall cost and/or duration of the work and/or an increase in the ship’s readiness and/or reliability are realized. Contractor provides five or more specific examples in self-assessment.

8.0—Award Fee Pool Allocation

Award-fee may be earned in accordance with the following:

Award-Fee Maximum Values

A) Quality of Service

Ship's Appearance $41,666.66

B) Schedule

Task Management $41,666.66

C) Cost Control

Cost Avoidance Initiatives $41,666.66

D) Business Relationship

Obtaining Contracting Officer Consent and Approvals $41,666.66 E) Management of Key Personnel

Shipboard Crew and Key Shipboard/Shoreside Billets Retention

$41,666.66

F) Overhaul, Engineering Maintenance and Repair

Overhaul and Repair Management $41,666.66

Total Award-Fee Value $250,000.00

Each category is weighted equally, accounting for 16.67% of the total potential award fee.

Each adjectival rating assigned to one of the categories above will be assigned a numerical value as follows:

UNSATISFACTORY = 0

SATISFACTORY = 1

GOOD = 2

VERY GOOD = 3

EXCELLENT = 4

The amount of award fee earned will be determined at the category level using the category ratings and allocation ranges below. Each category may receive up to ~16.67% of the total available award fee

($41,666.66). The specific amount of award fee earned in each category will be solely within the discretion of the Award Fee Determining Official.

Award-Fee Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be Earned

Description

Excellent 91%--100% Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract 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

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

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 against the