J-3_Final_Award_Fee_Plan_AMEND_0013.pdf

AW ARD-FEE PLAN FOR

WEST SOUND BASE OPERATIONS (BOS) SUPPORT CONTRACT

NAVAL BASE KITSAP, WASHINGTON

N62470-18-R-3002

February 2019

APPROVED:

C.M Brooks Captain, CEC, US. Navy

Commanding Officer

N62470-18-R-3002

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE - SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

This page intentionally blank.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Organization 1

3.0 Responsibilities 1

4.0 Award-Fee Processes 2

5.0 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure 3

6.0 Contract Termination 3

Annexes

Annex Title Page

1 Evaluation Criteria and Weightings 5

2 Award Fee Rating Table 6

3 Award Fee Conversion Chart 7

4 Award Fee Process 8

AWARD-FEE PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This award-fee plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor's performance under

Solicitation N62470-18-R-3002, West Sound Base Operation Support Contract (WSBOSC), and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award-fee determinations and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

The contract performance includes a one-year base period and seven (7) one-year option periods.

The work to be acquired under this solicitation is for ongoing Base Operations Support (BOS), at Naval Based Kitsap (NBK) and Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAGII). This requirement includes all labor, supervision, management, and materials, except those specified to be Government furnished, for the following services: fire and emergency services, facility management, facility investment, pavement clearance, utility fuel storage and distribution, transportation, and environmental.

The award fee will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications and is in addition to the recurring work-price provisions of this IDIQ contract. The award fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based upon review of the contractor's performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the

Contracting Officer, at the Contracting Officer’s sole discretion, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that are applicable to an ongoing evaluation period, for which the Contracting Officer previously established a plan, will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The award-fee organization consists of: The Fee Determining Official (FDO); an Award Fee

Evaluation Board (AFEB) which consists of a chairperson, the Contracting Officer, other functional area participants, and other advisory members as required; and the Performance

Monitors. The FDO, AFEB members, and Performance Monitors are listed in Annex 1.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

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

b. Award-Fee Evaluation Board. The AFEB will convene as soon as possible after the end of a performance evaluation period but not more than 45 days after the end of the period.

AFEB members review the Contracting Officer’s Representative’s evaluation of the contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare a report summarizing its findings, and arrive at an earned award-fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO. The

AFEB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. AFEB Recorder. The AFEB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFEB and the FDO, including: l) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources;

2) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and 3) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee.

d. Contracting Officer . The Contracting Officer is the liaison between contractor and

Government personnel and coordinates the administrative actions during the award fee process.

e. Performance Monitors or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The

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

4.0 AWARD-FEE PROCESSES

a. Available Award-Fee Amount. The available award fee for each six-month evaluation period is $500,000. The award fee earned will be paid based on the contractor’s performance during each evaluation period.

b. Evaluation Period. During the first six months of performance, no award fee will be available. The first award fee evaluation period will begin six months after and end one year

(twelve months) after the effective date of the contract. Evaluation periods will end bi-annually thereafter (First evaluation period ends at the end point of the base year, and evaluation periods end at the mid and end points of the option year periods of performance, thereafter). The maximum award fee that will be made available is $500,000 for the base year and $1,000,000 annually thereafter. The award-fee process laid out herein will be carried out for the first six months of performance for informational purposes only.

c. Evaluation Criteria. If the Contracting Officer 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 revising

Annexes 2 and 3 and notifying the contractor.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations. The Contracting Officer’s Representative submits the evaluation reports to the AFEB 30 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The

AFEB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. The AFEB Chair briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFEB may also recommend any significant changes to the award-fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall grade and earned award-fee amount for the evaluation period within 60 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter informs the contractor of the earned award-fee amount. The Contracting Officer issues a contract modification within fifteen calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made authorizing payment of the earned-award-fee amount.

e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. When the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the Contracting Officer no later than five working days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain any information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFEB in evaluating the contractor’s performance. It is highly recommended that the contractor follow the Award Fee Plan criteria in conducting and presenting their self-assessment, and include how they rate themselves on their performance for the period. The contractor’s self-assessment may not exceed ten single-sided pages and shall include a summary of all the evaluation criteria listed in Annex 2. The contractor will not be reimbursed for any effort in preparation of a self-assessment to include the completion of any oral presentations, if applicable.

f. Unearned Award Fee. All unearned award fee will be de-obligated from the contract by modification once the award fee evaluation period is 100% complete. Any unearned award fee will be forfeited and not available in subsequent evaluation periods.

5.0 AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes are approved by the FDO; the AFEB Chairperson approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor’s emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of the award-fee dollars. The contractor may recommend changes to the Contracting Officer no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the

Contracting Officer shall notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). Unilateral changes may be made to the award-fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the

Contracting Officer before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties (contractor and

Government).

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

FDO using the normal award-fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award-fee amounts allocated to all subsequent award-fee evaluation periods cannot be earned by the contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid.

Annexes

1. Award Fee Organization

2. Award Fee Rating Table

3. Award Fee Conversion Chart

4. Award Fee Process

ANNEX 1

AWARD FEE ORGANIZATION

Members

Fee Determining Official: Commanding Officer NAVFAC NW 00

Award Fee Review Board Chairperson: Public Works Officer NAVFAC NW PRB

Award Fee Review Board Members:

Deputy Assistant Regional Engineer NRNW N44

Public Works Business Line Director NAVFAC NW PW

* Administrative Contracting Officer NAVFAC NW ACQ 3.2

* Recorder NAVFAC NW

(Following are other possible members:)

Naval Hospital Bremerton Facility Manager NHB

SWFPAC Facility Manager SWFPAC

Installation Environmental Officer NAVFAC NW PRB4

NUWC Facility Manager NUWC

TRF Facility Manager TRF

* These are mandatory members.

Performance Monitors

Area of Evaluation Performance Monitor(s)

Contracting Officer’s Representative NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 2 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 0402000 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 1501000 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 1502000 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 1502010 SPAR NHB

Annex 1503060 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 1604000 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB23

Annex 17 SPAR NAVFAC NW PW7

Annex 18 SPAR NAVFAC NW PRB41

ANNEX 2

AWARD FEE RATING TABLE

Unsatisfactory - Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Timely Repairs –

Contractor completes 80% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely Repairs -

Contractor completes

90% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely Repairs -

Contractor completes

95% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely Repairs -

Contractor completes 98% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely

Maintenance/Service -

Contractor completes 80% of maintenance within the specified time.

Timely

Maintenance/Service -

Contractor completes

85% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely

Maintenance/Service -

Contractor completes

90% of repairs within the specified time.

Timely

Maintenance/Service -

Contractor completes 95% of repairs within the specified time.

Effectiveness of QM

Program -

Average Quality as documented in the

Management and

Administration Evaluation is rated Marginal. There are Quality issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries that may not have been resolved.

Effectiveness of QM

Program -

Average Quality as documented in the

Management and

Administration

Evaluation is rated Satisfactory. There are minimal Quality issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries that were resolved.

Effectiveness of QM

Program -

Average Quality as documented in the

Management and

Administration

Evaluation is rated Very

Good. There are no

Quality issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries.

Effectiveness of QM

Program -

Average Quality as documented in the

Management and

Administration Evaluation is rated Exceptional. There are no Quality issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries.

Business

Management/Relations -

Average Management as documented in the

Management and

Administration Evaluation is rated Marginal. There are Management issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries that may not have been resolved.

Business

Management/Relations -

Average Management as documented in the

Management and

Administration

Evaluation is rated

Satisfactory. There are minimal Management issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries that were resolved.

Business

Management/Relations -

Average Management as documented in the

Management and

Administration

Evaluation is rated Very

Good. There are no

Management issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries.

Business

Management/Relations -

Average Management as documented in the

Management and

Administration Evaluation is rated Exceptional. There are no Management issues documented in the

Monthly Performance

Assessment Summaries.

Category of Performance Weighting

Timely Repair 30%

Timely Maintenance/Service 30%

Effectiveness of QM Program 20%

Business Management/Relations 20%

ANNEX 3

AWARD FEE CONVERSION CHART

Adjective Rating CP Point Score Evaluation Points (Overall

Weighted Result)

Percentage of Award

Fee Earned

EXCEPTIONAL 100 80-100 80 to 100%

VERY GOOD 75 50-79 50 to 79%

SATISFACTORY 25 25-49 25 to 49%

MARGINAL 10 1-24 0%

UNSATISFACTORY 0 0 0%

Award Fee Calculation Methodology:

1. A rating is assigned (0-100) for each Category of Performance (CP).

2. Multiply weighting percentage to each CP to arrive at weighted result.

3. Add weighted results together to arrive at overall weighted result.

Example:

AFEB Ratings:

Timely Repairs – VERY GOOD / 75

Timely Maintenance/Service – EXCEPTIONAL / 100

Effectiveness of QM Program – SATISFACTORY / 25

Business Management/Relations – VERY GOOD / 75

Weighted Result: (75*30%) + (100*30%) + (25*20%) + (75*20%) = 72.5.

Overall Weighted Result: 72.5; round up to 73.

CP Adjective Rating (Award Fee Conversion Chart): VERY GOOD

Potential Percentage of Award Fee Earned (as determined by the FDO): 50 to 79%

FDO Decision:

The earned award-fee amount indicated by the use of a conversion table or graph is a guide to the FDO.

Use of the Award Fee Conversion Chart does not remove the element of judgment from the award-fee process.

ANNEX 4

AWARD FEE PROCESS

COR SUBMITS EVALUATION REPORT/MPAS TO AFEB WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER

THE END OF THE EVALUATION PERIOD

CONTRACTOR PRESENTS THEIR SELF-ASSESSMENT ORALLY TO THE AFEB, IF APPLICABLE

AFEB PREPARES EVALUATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF EARNED AWARD FEE

AFEB CHAIR BRIEFS THE EVALUATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO FDO

AFEB RECOMMENDS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO AWARD-FEE PLAN FOR FDO

APPROVAL, IF APPLICABLE

FDO DETERMINES OVERALL GRADE AND EARNED AWARD-FEE AMOUNT WITHIN 60

CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

FDO LETTER INFORMS THE CONTRACTOR OF THE EARNED AWARD-FEE AMOUNT

CONTRACTING OFFICER ISSUES CONTRACT MODIFICATION WITHIN FIFTEEN CALENDAR

DAYS OF FDO'S DECISION

CONTRACTOR SUBMITS SELF ASSESSMENT NO LATER THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS FROM

THE END OF THE EVALUATION PERIOD, IF APPLICABLE