Attachment_12_Award_Fee_Plan.doc

Attachment 12 - Award Fee Plan

AUTEC Services

Contract TBD Approved:

Contracting Officer

Fee Determining Official Revision History

Original

AWARD FEE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Award Fees 3.0 Organizational Responsibilities

4.0 Performance Evaluation Process

5.0 Contesting Of Performance Evaluation Rating(s) 6.0 Finality of Award Fee Determination and Payment 7.0 Scope of Contractor Performance Evaluations 8.0 Performance Rating Criteria 9.0 PEB Members List

Addendum 1 – Award Fee Pool per Evaluation Period

AWARD FEE PLAN PROCEDURES

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This Award Fee Plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor’s performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It is also the contract’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan of record. 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 are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government and are not subject to the Disputes clause of the contract. The contract type is a Cost Plus Award Fee with some Fixed Price Contract Line Item Numbers. This plan is the contract’s award fee plan.

2.0

AWARD FEES

2.1 Cost-Plus-Award Fee

The contract award fee is variable and is directly dependent upon the Government's evaluation of the Contractor's performance against functional area evaluation criteria as set forth in Section 7.0.

There is no base fee under this contract. No rollover of unearned award fee is permitted. Advance payments or partial payments of anticipated award fee amounts are not authorized.

The award fee shall not exceed X.X% of the adjusted base (Estimated Cost of CLINs 0001, 0011, 0021, 0031, 0041 and 0100-0109).

2.2 Award Fee

2.2.1 The amount of award fee that the Contractor may earn varies, from 0 to 100 percent of the available award fee pool for each evaluation period. Earned award fee will be determined semi-annually and will be dependent upon the Government's rating of the Contractor's performance over the preceding six months of the performance period. The Government's percentage performance rating will be applied to the evaluation period award fee pool to determine award fee earned.

2.2.2 The maximum available award fee for each evaluation period, for the base and all options is provided in Addendum #1 to this plan.

3.0

ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The award fee organization consists of the FDO, the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) with a chairperson and other membership approved by the FDO, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) (or designee), Functional Area Coordinators and Performance Monitors as defined below:

3.1 FDO. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Technical Director will serve as the FDO unless he/she delegates FDO responsibilities. Delegation must be to a NUWC Newport Department Head or equivalent. The FDO reviews the PEB recommendation, considers the contractor’s self-assessment report and other pertinent data, and unilaterally determines the amount of award fee earned and payable to the contractor for each evaluation period. The FDO is responsible for making the final evaluation and determination of performance.

3.2. PEB. The Range Manager will serve as the PEB Chairperson. Any changes to PEB members (Section 9.0 “PEB Members List”) are approved by the PEB Chairperson. PEB Chairperson and members will review the Functional Area Coordinators evaluation of the contractor’s performance, review the contractor’s self-assessment report and other pertinent data, provide briefings as required, and recommend changes to this plan as necessary. The PEB will arrive at a fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO by the PEB Chairperson after consideration of all information obtained from pertinent sources.

3.3. PCO. The PCO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel. The PCO transmits the FDO’s award fee determination letter to the contractor, prepares and distributes the contract modification awarding the fee authorized upon FDO decision, and maintains appropriate award fee documentation as part of the official contract file. The PCO is a voting member of the PEB.

3.4. Functional Area Coordinators. A Government Functional Area Coordinator will be assigned to each of the Functional Areas listed in 4.1.1. Functional Area Coordinators are appointed by Chairperson of the Performance Evaluation Board and are the liaisons between on-site evaluators and the PEB. Functional Area Coordinators continually monitor and maintain written records of the contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Functional Area Coordinators prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the PEB. Functional Area Coordinators shall not be voting members of the PEB.

3.5. Recorder. The Recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions of the Functional Area Coordinators, PEB, and FDO, and accomplishing other actions to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process. The Recorder shall not be a voting member of the PEB.

4.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS

4.1 Areas of Evaluation

4.1.1 The Contractor must perform a large number of diverse but interrelated functions in order to meet the requirements of this contract. Individual functions, operations, and specific events do, however, vary in their relative importance and impact upon the overall success of the AUTEC Program. Recognizing this fact, the major functional areas necessary to meet the intent of this contract and their relative (i.e., weighted) importance for purposes of the performance evaluation process are as follows:

Functional Area

Weight Factor Enterprise

15%

Test Ops

30%

Base Ops

25% Cost

30% No portion of the award fee for any six month period shall be earned or payable if the Contractor's performance score is below 50%.

4.1.2 When evaluating the Contractor's performance, the Government reserves the unilateral right to consider other factors beyond those areas presented in paragraph 4.1.1, revise the weight factors presented in paragraph 4.1.1, or to modify the functional area evaluation criteria presented in section 7.0. In such cases, the Government will provide written notification to the Contractor at least 30 days prior to the start of the affected six-month evaluation period, citing those new factors which will be considered. Such changes will remain in effect for all subsequent evaluation periods unless otherwise stated.

4.2 Evaluation Periods

Although Award Fee Evaluation Periods are of six months duration, the Contractor's performance will be evaluated by the Government every three months. The intent of the interim three-month evaluation is to provide the Contractor with a timely indication of the Government's general assessment of the quality of performance, and thus provide the Contractor an opportunity to improve/correct any deficient areas prior to the end of each Award Fee Evaluation Period. The Performance Evaluation Board will not vote on or provide Section 8.0 performance evaluation ratings for interim three-month evaluations. For the purposes of this contract, the term "Category A evaluation" shall be used to define those evaluations which occur at the end of each six month Award Fee Evaluation Period. A Category A evaluation will include Section 8.0 performance evaluation ratings.

4.3 Evaluation Method

4.3.1 The Contractor's day-by-day performance will be assessed by on-site evaluators, who are principally those NUWC personnel directly concerned with specific functions, within their area of expertise/jurisdiction, for which the Contractor is responsible. On-site evaluators may be assisted by other Government personnel, as may be deemed appropriate to adequately assess the Contractor's performance. Unless the Contractor has been otherwise notified, on-site evaluators will observe the performance of specific tasks/objectives, as shown in Section 7.0, as well as other relevant items, and will make record of facts, events, occurrences or conditions related thereto that have significant bearing upon the adequacy of the Contractor's performance. Observed incidents that an on-site evaluator considers to be important will be reported promptly to the PCO and appropriate Functional Area Coordinator accompanied by supporting information.

4.3.2 A written self assessment may be submitted by the contractor to the PEB through the PCO for each Category A evaluation period under consideration. The contractor shall not submit written self assessments for interim evaluations. Self assessments shall be no more than 20 pages in length and be submitted no later than five working days following the close of an evaluation period in briefing chart format. The contractor will be provided an opportunity each period to present its self-assessment to the PEB for a period not to exceed 60 minutes. After presentation of the self-assessment to the PEB, participation by contractor personnel is limited to providing data or answering questions from PEB members. The contractor shall not be present during Government PEB deliberations or voting.

4.3.3 Functional Area Coordinators, as assigned by the PEB Chairperson, will review performance data submitted by the Government on-site evaluators and the contractor.

4.3.3.1 The PCO shall notify the Contractor, in writing, as soon as possible of any specific facts, events, occurrences, or conditions observed during the evaluation period judged to reflect performance in any functional area that is below the Satisfactory level.

4.3.3.2 Within 15 days of the end of each three month evaluation period and Category A evaluation period, Functional Area Coordinators will prepare and submit individual Functional Area Performance Reports to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB), consolidating observed performance and data provided by the contractor for their Functional Area based upon their evaluation of the Contractor's performance. In the case of Category A evaluation, Functional Area Coordinators will recommend a Section 8.0 adjectival performance ratings for their functional area to the Performance Evaluation Board.

4.3.4 A Performance Evaluation Board, consisting of a Chairman, and those listed in Section 9.0 Members List, will review the individual Functional Area Performance Reports, and such other relevant information as is made available to the Board, and evaluate the overall significance of reported events for both three month interim evaluations and Category A evaluations.

4.3.4.1 In the case of the interim three month evaluations, within 30 days of the end of the interim evaluation period, the Board will prepare a report to the Contractor without specific performance ratings, of the general assessment of the Contractor’s performance, noting any areas of special interest. A copy of the report will be provided to the FDO for information and to the PCO for record purposes.

4.3.4.2 Members of the Board will prepare a consolidated evaluation report within 30 days (or within such time as FDO may otherwise prescribe) of the close of the Evaluation period. In the case of Category A evaluations, the Board will jointly discuss and then assign a numerical score within the range of the adjective ratings described in Performance Rating Criteria (section 8.0) for each of the four functional areas. The Board will then multiply each functional area numerical score by the Section 4.1.1 weight factor. Those four weighted scores are then summed to arrive at a final numerical rating which is the percentage of award fee the Board recommends to the Fee Determining Official as payment to the Contractor. In the case of numerical values, fractional numbers will be rounded to the nearest whole number, i.e. point five and greater will be rounded up and less than point five will be rounded down. If the Board’s adjectival rating for an individual functional area differs from that recommended by the Functional Area Coordinator, the reasons for any differences will be documented in the Board’s report. This report will include sufficient information to substantiate these ratings, and any other recommendations deemed appropriate.

4.4 Determination- Category A Evaluations

4.4.1 Within 15 working days of receipt of the Board’s report, the FDO will make a final evaluation and determination. The determination may or may not be in accord with the Performance Evaluation Board’s recommendation. If it is not in accord with the Board’s recommendation, the FDO must assure that reasons for any differences are fully documented. The FDO final evaluation and determination will cover both the overall and individual functional area ratings assigned, as used to compute the Award Fee, if any, to be paid to the Contractor. Unless the Contractor has been otherwise notified by the PCO, the composite performance rating shall be determined as described in Section 4.3.4.2.

4.4.2 Once made, the FDO’s final determination shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer together with all supporting documentation and rationale. A copy of the FDO’s final determination letter will be forwarded to the Contractor. Supporting documentation shall include a copy of the Performance Evaluation Board’s report, and any other independent FDO evaluation and determination documentation material forming the basis for the final determination.

4.4.3 The Contracting Officer, promptly upon receipt of the FDO’s final determination, will compute the amount of Award Fee, if any, to be paid to the Contractor commensurate with the FDO’s rating. The Contracting Officer will then prepare a unilateral contract modification awarding the earned award fee, and formally forward such modification to the Contractor no later than 45 days after receipt of the FDO’s final determination.

5.0

CONTESTING OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING(S)

5.1 The contractor shall notify the Government as soon as possible, and no later than 15 calendar days after receipt of the final determination, if it is not going to contest the fee determination. However, the Contractor may, within 15 calendar days (or within such time as the FDO and the PCO may otherwise allow) of receipt of such final determination, submit a written reply contesting any such rating as may have been assigned, or contesting any reported deficiencies and providing such additional information or rationale as may be deemed appropriate to justify any proposed changes to the final determination. Such replies shall be addressed to the FDO, with a copy to the PCO. Verbal presentations shall only be permitted as may be required to clarify the written reply.

5.2 Within 30 days of receipt, the FDO will review any such additional information and rationale as the Contractor may have provided, decide whether or not a change to the final determination is warranted, and so advise the PCO. The Contractor will be notified in writing, by the PCO, of this decision no later than 45 days from submission of its original written reply contesting the rating. The PCO shall promptly issue a unilateral modification, if necessary, adjusting the earned award fee based upon the FDO’s decision.

6.0

FINALITY OF AWARD FEE DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT

6.1 The FDO has the final responsibility and authority to determine the performance rating and thus the amount, if any, of the Award Fee to be paid to the Contractor at the end of each Award Fee Evaluation Period.

6.2 The FDO determination and the methodology for determining the Award Fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

6.3 The Award Fee(s) shall not be subject to any withholdings, and shall be paid promptly by the Government upon receipt of an invoice, or voucher, submitted by the Contractor subsequent to receiving the aforementioned contract modification(s).

7.0

SCOPE OF CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

7.1.

The Contractor’s performance of specific tasks and achievement of established objectives within Functional Areas Enterprise, Test Ops and Base Ops will be evaluated against the Performance Objectives and Acceptable Quality Levels included in the PWS.

7.2 The Contractor’s performance within Functional Area Cost will be evaluated against all PWS tasking, the below Performance Objective and Performance Expectation, as well as those specific criteria listed in Section 8.2.

Performance

Objective

Expectation Method of Assessment

Funds and resources are used in a cost-effective manner.

Government assessment, audits, contractor metrics and inspections.

8.0 PERFORMANCE RATING CRITERIA

8.1 The criteria set forth below will be utilized to establish Adjective Ratings describing the Contractor’s performance in all four functional areas.

* No portion of the award fee for any six month period shall be earned or payable if the Contractor's performance score is below Satisfactory.

8.2 The criteria set forth below will be utilized by the Performance Evaluation Board to establish Adjective Ratings describing the Contractor’s performance in functional area Cost.

Very Good

Good

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Performance

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

The contractor provides measures for controlling all costs below contract estimated costs.

The contractor provides a measure for controlling all costs at or slightly below contract estimated costs.

The contractor provides measures for controlling costs, but meets or exceeds estimated costs.

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Limitation of Cost (LOC) and Limitation of Funds (LOF) notifications are provided at the Priced SLIN and CLIN levels in accordance with LOC and LOF clauses. Notifications are accurate and always give the Government more than enough time to address funding and cost shortages in a proactive manner.

LOC and LOF funding notifications are provided at the Priced SLIN and CLIN levels in accordance with LOC and LOF clauses. Notifications require only minor revisions and always give the Government adequate time to address funding and cost shortages in a proactive manner.

LOC and LOF funding notifications are provided at the Priced SLIN and CLIN levels in accordance with LOC and LOF. Notifications sometimes require rework. The Government is rarely caught off guard by a funding or cost shortage.

LOC and LOF funding notifications are provided at the Priced SLIN and CLIN levels in accordance with LOC and LOF clauses and are rarely missed. Notifications sometimes require rework. LOC and LOF notices allow the Government time to react to funding shortages.

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Cost estimates for Technical Instructions (TI) are coordinated with the Government. TI cost estimates are rarely exceeded and never without clear justification of overruns.

Cost estimates for TIs are coordinated with the Government and TI cost estimates are rarely exceeded. Justifications are provided, and are clear.

Cost estimates for TIs are coordinated with the Government. TI cost estimates are sometimes exceeded. Justifications are usually provided and are clear.

Cost estimates for TIs are sometimes coordinated with the Government. TI cost estimates are sometimes exceeded. Justifications for cost overruns are sometimes provided to the Government or are not always clear.

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner. No major resource management problems apparent. Any minor resource management problems are quickly resolved with little impact. The contractor provides good cost control of all costs during contract performance. Takes the initiative to reduce costs, where feasible.

Financial reporting is clear, accurate, and pro-active. Consistently and pro-actively provides visibility into cost performance.

Financial reporting is clear and accurate. Provides very good day-to-day visibility into cost performance to Program Office.

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Problems and/or trends are not only addressed thoroughly, but the contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective action plans are implemented and are effective.

Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly and analyses provide recommendations for solutions and/or corrective action plans.

Problems and/or trends are always addressed and analyses are also submitted. The analyses provide good insight to the Government.

Problems and/or trends are addressed. When provided, analyses of problems and trends are adequate

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

Materials and ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced. Burdened costs are often lower than proposed.

Materials and ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced. Errors are rare and quickly corrected. Burdened costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

Contractor fails to meet criteria for Satisfactory performance.

9.0 PEB MEMBER LIST

Attachment 14

P00006