JE-1_Award_Fee_Award_Option_Plan.pdf

Attachment JE-X

N62742-13-R-1150

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR PART 2.101 & 3.104

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Organization

3.0 Responsibilities

4.0 Evaluation Periods

5.0 Award-Fee/Award-Option Processes/Rating Guidelines

6.0 Award of an Award-Option

7.0 Award-Fee/Award-Option Plan Changes

8.0 Contract Termination

9.0 Signatures

Attachments

Attachment Title

1 Evaluation Criteria – Award Fee

2 Evaluation Criteria – Award Option

Attachment JE-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

a. The Guam Base Operations Support (BOS) Services, Joint Region Marianas (JRM) contract includes this Award-Fee/Award-Option Plan, to describe the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance, cost management, subcontracting utilization and cost savings initiative and is the mechanism to provide an assessment to the Award Fee/Award Option Determining Official (AFAODO). This Award- Fee/Award-Option Plan describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor’s performance, cost management and cost savings initiative and to determine the amount of award-fee/award-option earned. Actual award-fee/award-option determinations and the methodology for determining award-fee/award-options are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

b. The contract performance-period includes a twelve-month base period, which includes a four

(4) month mobilization period, four (4) 12-month option periods, three (3) 12-month award-option periods, and a six-month FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services period. The final option period of performance will include a 4 (four) month demobilization period.

c. The award-fee incentive is intended to assess the Contractor’s performance, cost management and subcontracting utilization. The award-fee pool is a fixed amount but is subject to equitable adjustments based on contract modifications. If the Contractor fails to maintain an acceptable level of performance in any one Annex/Sub-Annex, the Government reserves the right to issue no award-fee for that performance-period.

d. The award-option incentive is intended to reward measurable cost-savings resulting from the Contractor’s cost savings initiatives. Contractor shall submit cost savings initiatives in Option Years 1, 2 and 3. There are three (3) Award-option periods. The Government’s ability to exercise award-option periods is subject to the availability of funds/continuation of the Government’s requirements.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

The organization consists of: the Award Fee/Award Option Determining Official (AFAODO), the Award-Fee/Award-Option Evaluation Board (AFAOEB) and Award-Fee/Award Option Performance Assessment Board (AFAOPAB).

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Award-Fee/Award-Option Determining Official. The AFAODO is the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas (NAVFAC Marianas). The AFAODO approves the award-fee/award option plan and any modifications. The AFAODO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFAOEB and AFAOPAB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award-fee amount or award-option as applicable to each evaluation period.

b. Award-Fee/Award-Option Evaluation Board Chairperson. The AFAOEB Chairperson is a senior NAVFAC Marianas representative who is appointed by the AFAODO, selects the remaining AFAOEB members. . The Chairperson briefs the AFAODO on recommended earned award-fee amounts/award-options and the Contractor’s overall performance and recommends significant award-fee plan changes to the AFAODO.

c. Award-Fee/Award-Option Evaluation Board. The AFAOEB 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. The AFAOEB is limited to no more than six (6) voting members comprised of key representatives from the following commands: JRM; Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas (NAVFACMAR); Navy Base Guam; 36 Mission Support Group (MSG); Naval Hospital, Guam; and Naval Munitions Command, Guam. The AFAOEB will evaluate the Award-Fee/Award-Option Performance Assessment Board’s (AFAOPAB) summary report of findings and recommendations; the Contractor’s self-evaluation; and other sources of information the Board deems pertinent. The AFAOEB can also recommend changes to the AFAO Plan for the next evaluation period. The AFAOEB will prepare and forward a report summarizing its findings with a recommended award-fee amount and proposed changes to the Award-Fee/Award-Option Plan, if applicable, to the AFAODO. The AFAODO approves contractor Cost Savings Initiative (CSI) plans for each evaluation period.

d. Award-Fee/Award-Option Performance Assessment Board (AFAOPAB). The

Commanding Officer, NAVFAC Marianas will appoint an AFAOPAB consisting of not less than five (5) members. The Senior Performance Assessment Representative (SPAR) will be the Chairman of the AFAOPAB. The Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) will be the Co-Chair. The Facilities Support Contract Manager (FSCM), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and representatives (minimum of two) from major tenant activities on JRM will be voting members of the AFAOPAB. The CO NAVFAC Marianas may appoint other members to assist the AFAOPAB in performing its functions.

Primary responsibilities of the AFAOPAB are:

(1) Review Contractor evaluations submitted by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Performance Assessment Representatives (PAR).

(2) Prepare and forward to the AFAOEB a report summarizing the findings of the committee along with a recommended award fee score and amount.

(3) Propose changes to the Award Fee/Award Option Plan for consideration and validation by the COR. The COR will forward all validated proposals to the AFAOEB for review/consideration.

(4) Reviews contractor submitted CSIs and recommends to the AFAOEB for approval.

e. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Duties of the COR will be in accordance with the requirements included in the appointment letter. The COR is also an AFAOPAB member who has a broad technical background. The COR incorporates the Contractor’s performance evaluations into the applicable performance assessment database (i.e. CPARS).

f. Performance Assessment Representatives (PAR). PARs are the on-site representatives of the Contracting Officer who assess Contractor performance. They will be selected on the basis of their expertise relative to the prescribed Annex/Sub-Annex area. Duties of the PARs will be in addition to, or an extension of their regular responsibilities. Each PAR will be responsible for complying with specific instructions of the Contracting Officer, and duties include the following: monitor, evaluate and assess Contractor performance in assigned Annex/Sub-Annex area(s); establish and maintain a Contractor performance file and transfer/retain files as directed by the Contracting Officer; prepare and submit a monthly Performance Report through the COR for consolidation and review. PARs will periodically assess services for conformance to contract performance objectives and standards using periodic sampling, validated customer complaints, unscheduled visits and customer evaluations. These assessments will be used to determine an adjectival rating for each annex. PARs maintain written records of the Contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s), so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. PARs prepare evaluations for the AFAOPAB that outline the Contractor’s strengths and weaknesses that support the recommended rating. PARs may be required to provide oral responses to inquiries from the Board.

g. Senior Performance Assessment Representative (SPAR). Reviews all the PARs’ performance documentation for completeness and accuracy, consolidate the reports for all annexes and submit performance reports to the COR. The SPAR shall make a verbal presentation of the PARs’ evaluation of the contractor’s performance to the AFAOPAB.

h. Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). The ACO is a member of the AFAOPAB and is responsible for receiving, processing, and distributing evaluation reports and accomplishing other actions required for the smooth operation of the award-fee board. The ACO incorporates the Contractor’s performance evaluations into the applicable performance assessment database (i.e., CPARS). The ACO will appoint all board members in writing. Finally, the ACO is the liaison between the Contractor and Government personnel.

4.0 EVALUATION PERIODS

a. The first Award-Fee evaluation period will cover the Mobilization period of four months from XX August 2014 – 31 December 2014. The subsequent Award-Fee evaluation periods will occur every four months thereafter. At a minimum, monthly performance meetings will be conducted between the Government and the Contractor to ensure quality performance and positive communication. Evaluation of compliance with the small business subcontracting plan will be done once a year concurrently with the evaluation of the final period of the base and option years. A contractor may earn award fee in each option/award option exercised.

b. The first Award Option will be evaluated at the end of the first option period. The remaining evaluation periods will be conducted in the last evaluation period of Option 2 and Option 3. The award-option will be determined in conjunction with the last award fee meeting of the 1st – 3rd Option Periods.

5.0 AWARD-FEE/AWARD-OPTION PROCESSES/RATING GUIDELINES

a. Available Award-Fee Amount. The available award-fee is established by setting aside a pool relates to the amount of the negotiated estimated cost.

b. 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 Attachment 1 and notifying the contractor.

c. General Characteristics of Levels of Performance: “The General Characteristics of Levels of Performance,” contained in Attachment (1) Evaluation Criteria is a guide that describes performance characteristics attributed to a level of performance and a correlating range of award-fee pay-out percentages. Use Attachment (1) as a tool to select the level of performance that best characterizes the Contractor’s overall performance for the evaluation period.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations. The AFAOPAB submits its evaluation report to the ACO 20 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. (For Contractor submissions see paragraph 5.0 (e) below.) The Contractor and Government each give an oral presentation describing the contractor’s performance to the AFAOEB. Any question posed by the AFAOEB to either presenter and the response must be documented for the ACO’s file. After both presentations, the AFAOEB will prepare and forward its evaluation report summarizing the Board’s findings and recommended award-fee amount/award option determination to the AFAODO.

e. Cost Savings Initiatives. The contractor shall submit a CSI plan to the AFAOPAB for review.

During the last evaluation period of the Option Year 1, 2, and 3 the AFAOPAB evaluation report shall include a summary of all the Cost Savings Initiative (CSI) proposals submitted by the contractor and accepted by the government. The CSI evaluation should describe the savings proposed by the contractor, state whether the goals were met and provide an analysis of the most likely reason(s) the goals were not met. The Contractor shall submit a summary report to the AFAOPAB demonstrating cost savings realized during the evaluation period (e.g. base, Option Year 1 & 2) and may supplement the written summary with an oral presentation describing the results of the approved CSI Plan.

The AFAOEB chairperson briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the AFAODO. During this briefing, the AFAOEB may recommend changes to the Award-Fee/Award-Option plan and request AFAODO approval to modify the plan. The AFAODO determines the overall grade, earned award-fee amount and award-option determination for the evaluation period.

e. Contractor’s Self-Assessment. The contractor may submit a self-evaluation, to the Contracting Officer no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period should contain information reasonably expected to assist the AFAOEB in evaluating the contractor’s performance and cost savings initiative. It is highly recommended that the contractor address conformance to the Award-Fee/Award- Option Plan criteria in the self-assessment, and propose a rating on their performance for the period. The contractor’s self-assessment may not exceed twelve (12) pages.

f. AFAODO Determination. The AFAODO must render a final written determination of the overall fee and award-option granted the Contractor, if any. The AFAODO shall render a decision within 45 calendar days after the end of each evaluation period. The AFAODO has the flexibility to increase or decrease the overall award-fee recommended by making adjustments to:

(1) the fee allocated due to extraordinary performance and based upon input from the activity or other sources;

(2) the overall award-fee based on trends in performance on all Annex/Sub-Annexes or any general economic or business trends that may affect performance capability; or

(3) any other information the AFAODO determines is applicable to a final fee determination.

The AFAODO’s written determination must explain any adjustment to the fee or option recommendation.

g. Deferred Award-Fee: If the AFAODO determines insufficient information exists to make a proper evaluation the AFAODO, may postpone or defer the evaluation of a particular award-fee period and request the Contracting Officer direct the supplementation of evaluation criteria. In the event an evaluation is postponed or deferred, the applicable award-fee will remain available until the evaluation for the period is completed.

h. Earned Award-Fee/Award-Option: The payment of award-fees will be based on the AFAODO’s conclusions as to the sufficiency of Contractor’s performance of individual Annex/Sub- Annexes utilizing the criteria in Attachment 1, Evaluation Criteria for Award Fee, and the available award-fee amount. Award-Options will be awarded based on the demonstrated cost savings utilizing the criteria in Attachment 2, Evaluation Criteria for Award Option.

i. Unearned Fee/Option: Unearned award-fee will be deobligated from the contract by modification. Unearned award-options will not be available in subsequent years.

j. Duration of Evaluation: The estimated time for the completion of the Navy's evaluation is approximately (45) days after the conclusion of the evaluation period, notwithstanding a deferral as set out in paragraph g.

6.0 AWARD-OPTION

a. A Contractor must meet the CSI goals established in Attachment 2 to earn an award-option. The earning of an award option period under this plan does not guarantee that the Government will exercise that option to extend the term of the contract. The Government retains full discretion to exercise each option unilaterally in accordance with FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, and FAR 17-207, Exercise of Options. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any equitable adjustment in contract cost/price or fee should the Government elect not to exercise an option period, including an award-option that has been awarded by the AFAODO.

b. The Contracting Officer must satisfy the written determination requirement in FAR 17.207 and ensure the Contractor meets the responsibility requirements in FAR 9.104-1, before exercising an award-option period.

7.0 AWARD-FEE/AWARD-OPTION PLAN CHANGES

Changes to the Award Fee/Award-Option plan must be approved by the AFAODO. The contractor may recommend changes to the Contracting Officer no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. The Contracting Officer may make unilateral changes to the Award-fee/Award- Option plan by providing the contractor written notification at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of the evaluation period. During an evaluation period, changes to the Award Fee/Award-Option plan must be by mutual agreement of the parties.

Performance Areas: The Contracting Officer may notify the contractor of other areas of emphasis for contract performance prior to commencement of an evaluation period. These areas will be selected to enhance the delivery of services and motivate the contractor to continuously make best use of all resources. Changes in performance areas and emphasis may occur over time. The Contracting Officer's notice will remain in effect until changed.

8.0 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 AFAODO using the normal award-fee evaluation process. After termination for convenience, the remaining award-fee amounts cannot be earned by the Contractor and, therefore, shall not be paid. The fee amount available for award for the shortened period will be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the performance period.

ATTACHMENT 1

Evaluation Criteria for Award Fee

1. The Government will evaluate Contractor’s performance using the performance standards of each Work Breakdown Structure contained in the contract Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government’s overall expectation is that the Contractor will provide, as a minimum, the types, levels and quality of services that would support the continued operation of the Joint Region Marianas (JRM) in a safe and reliable manner; maintain a reasonable quality of life for the region’s workforce and residents;

preserve the long-term viability of the buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure; and protect the Government’s image.

2. Evaluation components are as follows:

a. Standard of Performance. Each Annex/Sub-Annex will be analyzed to determine whether Contractor is meeting or exceeding performance objectives and standards, and demonstrating proactive project management, schedule control and efficient use of resources (labor, materials and equipment).

b. Weighting of Annexes/Sub Annexes. The Government has determined certain Annex/Sub- Annexes are more critical than others and as such, the relative order of importance of annexes is shown below. Group A is the first order of importance and the most critical. All other annexes are part of Group B. All annexes within the groups are of equal importance.

Group A

TS 0200000 – Management and Administration

TS 0600000 – Port Operations TS 0700000 – Ordnance Services

TS 1501000 – Facilities Management TS 1502000 – Facility Investment

TS 150200A – Facility Investment Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB) TS 1602000 – Electrical TS 1605000 – Steam TS 1606000 –Water

c. Length of Performance Period.

A. Full performance period evaluation criteria. During a full performance period, two major components of the contractor’s Performance will be scored. These components are (1) Work Performance and (2) Subcontracting Utilization. The Work Performance score will be the sum of the individual annexes and cost management. The relative weights of the two components in deriving a score are:

Component Weight Work Performance 90% Subcontracting Utilization 10%

The method to derive the score for the evaluation period will be the raw score of the two components and the sum of the two weighted scores. For example, raw scores of 90 and 95 for Work Performance and Subcontracting Utilization, respectively, would result in weighted scores of 81 (90 X 90% =81.0) and

9.5(95 X 10% = 9.5) with a total points score of 90.5. The total points score will equate to the percentage of the award-fee pool earned. Any score lower than 50 will not obtain any award-fee.

(1) Work Performance (90%).

a. Technical Performance/Project Management (50%).

The technical performance will be evaluated by meeting or exceeding performance objectives and standards, proactive project management, schedule control and overall management. The Government will perform an overall analysis of the contractor’s technical performance for all annex requirements in the contract. Some of the specific areas the Government will assess are adherence to individual Annex/Sub-Annex performance standard requirements, quality of work, minimization of disruption to Government operations, timely completion of requirements, performance of work, flexibility and responsiveness to the Government’s requirements, and adapting to scope changes and fluctuating workload. Emphasis will be given to Annexes in Group A.

The Government will assess whether the contractor pursues a proactive approach to directing, organizing, controlling, staffing and inspecting in accordance with the requirements of individual annexes/sub-annexes and overall contract requirements and the success of those efforts. Some of the specific areas the Government will assess are efficient coordination of work (including existing work and modifications to that work); ability to effect continuous incremental improvements; responsiveness to and cooperation with the Government; effectiveness in problem resolution; life cycle cost management; operational safety; contractor’s quality management program; contractor’s compliance and maintenance of personnel and certifications/permits/licenses.

The Government will consider whether contractor or subcontractor technical performance jeopardized the health or safety of any person. The following information may be evaluated:

- Conviction in a criminal proceeding by a Court of the United States, 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)).

- 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)).

The AFAODO may reduce or deny award fees for the evaluation period, if after investigation, the AFAODO concludes contractor or subcontractor actions resulted in the serious bodily injury to or death of any person during such period. The contracting officer's evaluation also shall consider recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.

b. Cost Management (50%). The cost management score will be based on how the contractor uses innovation and aggressively controls cost; submission of timely, accurate and complete monthly progress reports, invoices, cost proposals and 75% budget notification to the Program Management Office; and how the Contractor minimizes cost and schedule impacts resulting from changes in field conditions and requirements. The contractor’s Financial Management System should comply with the requirements, ensure accurate data for customers and audits, and improve cost control over time.

(2) Subcontracting Utilization (10%). See the narrative in Table 1.

Table 1, Full Performance Evaluation Criteria, Scores and Outcomes contain narrative summaries of possible performance outcomes.

B. Mobilization period evaluation criteria. During the initial mobilization period of the contract, increased emphasis will be placed on management efforts toward a smooth transition of the contract. The Mobilization Performance components and weights are:

In addition to any applicable areas described in paragraph 2.b.(1)(a) & (b) of this plan, the Government will evaluate the contractor’s dedication to a smooth and successful transition of all annexes, whether the contractor has established effective communication with the incumbent contractor, how the contractor is communicating and cooperating with the Government, transfer of and contractor compliance to all contractor employee certifications/permits/licenses and how the contractor is controlling cost.

In addition to the above, a review of contractor and subcontractor actions that jeopardize the health or safety of Government personnel, through gross negligence or reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel will be included in the evaluation, as is determined through-

- 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

The evaluation will consider reducing or denying award fees for a period, if contractor or subcontractor actions cause serious bodily injury or death of civilian or military Government personnel during such period. The contracting officer's evaluation also shall consider recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.

Table 2, Mobilization Period Evaluation Criteria, Scores and Outcomes contains narrative summaries of possible performance outcomes.

C. Demobilization period evaluation criteria. During the final phase of the contract, increased emphasis will be placed on management efforts toward a smooth transition out. If there is no contractor turnover, the demobilization period will be evaluated as if it were a full performance period. The transition-out components and weights are:

In addition to any applicable areas described in paragraph 2.b.(1)(a) & (b) of this plan, the Government will evaluate the contractor’s dedication to a smooth and successful transition of all annexes, whether the contractor has established effective communication with the new contractor and how the contractor is communicating and cooperating with the Government and controlling costs.

In addition to the above, a review of contractor and subcontractor actions that jeopardize the health or safety of Government personnel, through gross negligence or reckless disregard for the safety of such personnel will be included in the evaluation, as is determined through-

- 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

The evaluation will consider reducing or denying award fees for a period, if contractor or subcontractor actions cause serious bodily injury or death of civilian or military Government personnel during such period. The contracting officer's evaluation also shall consider recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.

Table 3, Demobilization Period Evaluation Criteria, Scores and Outcomes contains narrative

3. General Characteristics of Levels of Performance

PARs will report the Annex/Sub-Annex performance in accordance with each Performance Work Statement element and the AFAOEB will determine an overall Annex/Sub-Annex rating by taking into consideration the evaluation criteria in paragraph 2 (1) & (2). A narrative will support the overall Annex/Sub-Annex rating. Descriptive and numerical guidelines for the overall ratings are provided below:

Adjectival Ratings for Evaluation of Work Performance

Award-Fee Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee Pool

Available To Be Earned

Description

Excellent 91%--100% Contractor meets and has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, subcontracting utilization 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 meets and has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, subcontracting utilization and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Good 51%--75% Contractor meets and has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, subcontracting utilization and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50%. Contractor meets overall cost, subcontracting utilization 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, subcontracting utilization 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.

An overall Award-Fee adjectival rating above satisfactory requires a satisfactory or higher rating in all Annexes.

TABLE 1. FULL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA, SCORES/PERCENTAGE OF AWARD-FEE POOL AND OUTCOMES

Category

Satisfactory

No Greater than 50% Good

51 - 75% Very Good 76 – 90%

Excellent 91 – 100%

Work Performance (90%)

Work Performance - Technical performance/co ntract management (50%)

Contractor meets the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. There are no major problems, but the contractor needs Government guidance before taking action and some areas need improvement.

Acceptable quality of workmanship. No major problems, but Government guidance needed before taking action, some areas need improvement. Contractor meets some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded some of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate.

Contractor is proactive in some areas, still needs some Government guidance to take action. High quality of workmanship with minor deficiencies. Contractor sometimes exceeds schedule and sometimes is behind schedule. Contractor meets most response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded many of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor is proactive in many areas, needs little to no Government guidance to take action. Higher quality of workmanship with no minor to no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule. Contractor meets many and exceeds some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded almost all of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor proactive in all areas, contractor consistently exceeds Government expectations. Superior quality of workmanship with no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule and meets all deadlines. Contractor anticipates tasking and adjusts resources accordingly, consistently exceeds Government expectations.

Work Performance - Cost Management (50%)

Provides measures for controlling costs.

Controls subcontractor cost performance to meet program objectives.

Funds and resources are sometimes used inefficiently in pursuing program goals.

Occasional minor resource management

Provides a measure for controlling all costs at or slightly below contract estimated costs. Provides good cost management of all costs during contract performance. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner.

No major resource management problems

Provides measures for controlling all costs below contract estimated costs.

Considers logistic and long-term costs in recommendations to the Program Office. Funds and resources are always used in a cost-effective manner. No resource management problems.

Reductions in direct costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.

Provides detailed cost analysis in recommendations to Program Office for resolution to problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available. Documented savings are apparent.

problems. apparent.

Subcontracting Utilization (10%)

Contractor rarely meets the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan. Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Contractor has generally implemented its subcontracting plan with minor exceptions. Contractor consistently meets the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan and meets the goals for all other small business categories.

Significant effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level.

Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Contractor has generally implemented its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 1 to 9 percent and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories. Additional effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level. There are a few areas that could be improved upon, however, these areas are offset by superior performance in other areas.

Contractor has been highly successful in implementing all elements of its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 10 percent or greater and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories (i.e., small disadvantaged, woman-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned, etc.).

Promotes the opportunities available for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Provides a superior mentoring program for small businesses through outreach and counseling efforts.

N62742-05-C-3501

TABLE 2. MOBILIZATION PERIOD EVALUATION CRITERIA, SCORES/PERCENTAGE OF AWARD-FEE POOL AND OUTCOMES

Category Satisfactory No greater than 50%

Good 51 - 75%

Very Good 76 – 90%

Excellent 91 - 100 %

Work Performance

Work Performance - Technical performance/contr act management (50%)

Contractor meets the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. There are no major problems, but the contractor needs Government guidance before taking action, some areas need improvement.

Acceptable quality of workmanship. No major problems, but Government guidance needed before taking action, some areas need improvement.

Contractor meets some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded some of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate.

Contractor is proactive in some areas, still needs some Government guidance to take action. High quality of workmanship with minor deficiencies. Contractor sometimes exceeds schedule and sometime behind schedule. Contractor meets most response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded many of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor is proactive in many areas, needs little to no Government guidance to take action. Higher quality of workmanship with no minor to no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule. Contractor meets many and exceeds some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded almost all of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor proactive in all areas, contractor consistently exceeds Government expectations. Superior quality of workmanship with no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule and meets all deadlines. Contractor anticipates tasking and adjusts resources accordingly, consistently exceeds Government expectations.

Work Performance - Cost Management (50%)

Provides measures for controlling costs.

Controls subcontractor cost performance to meet program objectives. Funds and resources are sometimes used inefficiently in pursuing program goals. Occasional minor resource

Provides a measure for controlling all costs at or slightly below contract estimated costs. Provides good cost management of all costs during contract performance. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner.

No major resource management problems apparent.

Provides measures for controlling all costs below contract estimated costs.

Considers logistic and long-term costs in recommendations to the Program Office. Funds and resources are always used in a cost-effective manner. No resource management problems.

Reductions in direct costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.

Provides detailed cost analysis in recommendations to Program Office for resolution to problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available. Documented management problems.

Subcontracting Utilization (10%)

Contractor rarely meets the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan.

Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Contractor has generally implemented its subcontracting plan with minor exceptions. Contractor consistently meets the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan and meets the goals for all other small business categories.

Significant effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level.

Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Contractor has generally implemented its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 1 to 9 percent and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories. Additional effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level. There are a few areas that could be improved upon, however, these areas are offset by superior performance in other areas.

Contractor has been highly successful in implementing all elements of its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 10 percent or greater and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories (i.e., small disadvantaged, woman-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned, etc.).

Promotes the opportunities available for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Provides a superior mentoring program for small businesses

TABLE 3. DEMOBILIZATION PERIOD EVALUATION CRITERIA, SCORES/PERCENTAGE OF AWARD-FEE POOL AND OUTCOMES

Category Satisfactory No greater than 50%

Good 51 - 75%

Very Good 76 – 90%

Excellent 91 - 100 %

Work Performance

Work Performance - Technical performance/con tract management (50%)

Contractor meets the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. There are no major problems, but the contractor needs Government guidance before taking action, some areas need improvement.

Acceptable quality of workmanship. No major problems, but Government guidance needed before taking action, some areas need improvement.

Contractor meets some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded some of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate.

Contractor is proactive in some areas, still needs some Government guidance to take action. High quality of workmanship with minor deficiencies. Contractor sometimes exceeds schedule and sometimes is behind schedule. Contractor meets most response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded many of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor is proactive in many areas, needs little to no Government guidance to take action. Higher quality of workmanship with no minor to no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule. Contractor meets many and exceeds some response times.

Contractor meets and has exceeded almost all of the award-fee criteria in the aggregate. Contractor proactive in all areas, contractor consistently exceeds Government expectations. Superior quality of workmanship with no deficiencies.

Contractor often ahead of schedule and meets all deadlines. Contractor anticipates tasking and adjusts resources accordingly, consistently exceeds Government expectations.

Work Performance - Cost Management (50%)

Provides measures for controlling costs.

Controls subcontractor cost performance to meet program objectives. Funds and resources are sometimes used inefficiently in pursuing program goals.

Occasional minor resource management problems.

Provides a measure for controlling all costs at or slightly below contract estimated costs. Provides good cost management of all costs during contract performance. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner.

No major resource management problems apparent.

Provides measures for controlling all costs below contract estimated costs.

Considers logistic and long-term costs in recommendations to the Program Office. Funds and resources are always used in a cost-effective manner. No resource management problems.

Reductions in direct costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.

Provides detailed cost analysis in recommendations to Program Office for resolution to problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available. Documented

Subcontracting Contractor rarely meets Contractor has generally Contractor has generally Contractor has been highly

Utilization (10%) the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan. Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

implemented its subcontracting plan with minor exceptions. Contractor consistently meets the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan and meets the goals for all other small business categories.

Significant effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level.

Contractor requires significant improvement in providing opportunities for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

implemented its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 1 to 9 percent and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories. Additional effort is required for the Contractor to be rated at the Exceptional level. There are a few areas that could be improved upon, however, these areas are offset by superior performance in other areas.

successful in implementing all elements of its subcontracting plan.

Contractor consistently exceeds the overall small business subcontracting goals provided in their approved subcontracting plan by 10 percent or greater and exceeds the goals for all other small business categories (i.e., small disadvantaged, woman-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned, etc.).

Promotes the opportunities available for small business subcontractors in the performance of the contract requirements.

Provides a superior mentoring program for small businesses

N62742-05-C-3501

ATTACHMENT 2

Evaluation Criteria for Award Option

1. Cost Savings Initiatives.

The Cost Savings Initiative (CSI) will focus on the amount of savings realized based on the Contractor’s CSI Plan.

The Government desires that the Contractor be very active in cost management, by suggesting, designing and implementing cost savings and revenue generating initiatives, and reengineering base operations to be more efficient and cost effective. The Government is interested in lowering the base infrastructure and support costs, especially those that are driven by population (both Contractor and Government personnel), throughout the life of the contract. All such ideas, proposals or plans are referred to as “Cost Savings Initiatives.” In determining the score for this criterion the AFAOB will consider both the quantity and quality of cost savings and reengineering initiatives submitted by the Contractor. Quality will be assessed subjectively and Government evaluators will consider the amount of proposed savings or revenue, the potential to successfully implement the ideas, and the increased efficiency, effectiveness, or added value to contract and base operations if the ideas are implemented.

2. Evaluation Criteria for Cost Savings Initiative (CSI)

The Government will separately evaluate the contractor’s success in implementing all elements of its CSI Plan.

At the beginning of each performance period, the contractor shall submit, for the Government’s approval, a Cost Savings Initiative Plan that describes the contractors’ initiatives to save costs according to each annex/sub-annex. The plan shall detail each cost savings initiative and associated justification, the viability of the initiative to the government, the amount of savings proposed and how the contractor intends to achieve the savings. The plan shall also establish a schedule of milestones in which the cost saving are planned to occur. See Attachment 1 for a sample plan.

The Government may unilaterally reject one or more proposed initiatives within the plan. The Government shall accept/reject each cost savings initiative no later than 30 days after the beginning of the evaluation period. At each Performance period midpoint, the Contractor will meet with the government to discuss the progress to date and if the goals proposed are on target to be met.

No later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the end of the evaluation period, the Contractor shall prepare their Cost Saving Initiative self-assessment. The assessment must demonstrate, in detail, how each cost savings initiative was met and the amount of savings realized.

To earn an award option, the contractor must meet or exceed the majority of the accepted CSIs for each period. Each CSI must demonstrate at least 75% of the proposed cost savings for each CSI met.

If a CSI does not demonstrate a 75% cost savings for the proposed period, it may be reconsidered for a subsequent period, however the savings must start at $0.

Any rejected CSIs may also be re-considered for a subsequent period provided the justification and proposed cost savings are reevaluated.