09_of_19_DRFP_Att_J.1-F_Performance_Evaluation_Plan.docx

ATTACHMENT J.1-F

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN

for

CONTRACT TBD

With

TBD Contractor For the

Design, Development, Test, Evaluation and Delivery of the Space Launch System (SLS) Universal Stage Adapter (USA)

Contracting Officer’s Representative

Universal Stage Adapter Sub Element Manager

Concurrence:

Contracting Officer

Stephen D. Creech SLS Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution Manager Date

Approved:

Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Board

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

Purpose The purpose of this plan is to provide guidelines and to establish criteria and methodology for evaluation of the Contractor’s performance against the requirements identified by USA contract, TBD. This plan was prepared in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 16.4, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1816.405, and the NASA Award Fee Contracting Guide. The Space Launch System (SLS) Performance Evaluation Board is the governing board for the USA contract. The MSFC Work Instruction, 5116.1, Evaluation of Contractor Performance Under Contracts with Award Fee Provisions, will be utilized as noted for defining the processes for evaluating the USA performance. This Performance Evaluation Plan defines the scoring system, weights, the organization, and the measurable factors, sub-factors, and criteria, as applicable, and the definitions of strengths and weaknesses (including significant strengths, significant weaknesses and observations) to be used for the evaluation of the USA Contractor’s performance.

The Government may make changes unilaterally to any area of this plan, as appropriate.

Description of the Contract The Universal Stage Adapter (USA) is an integral part of the Space Launch System (SLS), which is the heavy- lift launch vehicle capability that NASA is developing and operating to support a wide and varied complement of both cargo and human missions to Low Earth Orbit and beyond. The USA contract provides the SLS USA that supports the Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B configuration for crewed Exploration Missions (EM) starting with EM-2 that requires a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) to adapt the 8.4 m diameter Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) to the 5.5 m diameter of the Orion spacecraft. The USA performs post Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) separation to allow Orion extraction of Co-manifested Payloads.

Contract TBD was competitively awarded to TBD for the Universal Stage Adapter effort as a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for all Contract Line Items (CLIN) items except for tasks issued under CLIN 4 that are Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The CLIN 4 tasks can be either FFP or CPAF to be determined by the government based on the specific task to be performed.

The USA contract is organized into the following CLINs:

CLIN 1 – USA EM-2 DDT&E and Associated Data CLIN 2 – USA EM-2 Flight Unit Production, Acceptance, and Delivery CLIN 3 – Post-Delivery Vehicle Integration and Support CLIN 4 – Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

· Covers Contract Award to EM-8 Flight Unit Delivery

· The Contractor will perform tasks as directed by NASA to support special USA-related studies, analyses and/or integration support not covered under CLIN 3.

CLIN 5 - Option 1 – USA EM-3 Flight Unit CLIN 6 - Option 2 – USA EM-4 Flight Unit CLIN 7 - Option 3 – USA EM-5 Flight Unit CLIN 8 - Option 4 – USA EM-6 Flight Unit CLIN 9 - Option 5 – USA EM-7 Flight Unit CLIN 10 - Option 6 – USA EM-8 Flight Unit This Performance Evaluation Plan addresses CLINs 1 through 10, except FFP IDIQ tasks issued under CLIN 4.

Contract Fee Structure This is a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) type of contract.

An award fee arrangement will be utilized for management, technical performance, cost management, and small business where a score is given at the end of each award fee evaluation period. Award Fee for the respective CLINs will be evaluated under NFS clause 1852.216-77 Award Fee for End Item Contracts.

The amount of available Award Fee is subject to equitable adjustments arising from changes or other contract modifications.

Breakdown of the Estimated Cost and Award Fee The total earned and potential award fee for the performance of this contract can be found within Enclosure 1, which will be updated to reflect the current amounts available for each award fee period.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated in terms of the following factors, as defined in subsequent paragraphs. It should be noted that the definitions provided for the factors are representative of what will be evaluated, but are not intended to restrict evaluation of any aspect of the Contractor’s performance.

Award Fee Evaluation Factors Management Cost Management Technical Performance Schedule Management Small Business / Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Goals Management This factor includes an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in all areas of Management performance. It reflects overall contract leadership and direction, and includes, but is not limited to:

Management of risk. Contractor performance evaluation includes the Contractor risk management processes and products in compliance with the risk management data requirement, the overall risk management approach to identifying how technical, cost, safety, and schedule risks and issues will be identified, managed, reviewed and mitigated throughout the lifecycle of the USA. Contractor performance evaluation includes strategic balancing of technical and programmatic risks; rigor of risk assessments; implementation and tracking of planned risk activities; and risk posture determination for future major events.

Productive working relationships with the Government. Contractor performance evaluation includes working relationships with NASA management, Peer-to-Peer Insight teams, cohesion with Level 3 SLS Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE), Level 2 SLS Integration and operations, government auditors, and government and industry partners across the SLS Program and Associate Contractors for Orion and Ground Systems Development & Operations (GSDO) Test & Operations Support contractors. Includes contractor project management responsiveness to Government project management direction, and innovation of management solutions.

Contractor efficient and effective integration with the SPIE, the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development & Operations (GSDO) Test & Operations Support contractors. Contractor performance evaluation includes accurate and timely requirements for clear interface definition.

Subcontractor and supply chain management to include management of supply chain deliverables.

Complying with contract requirements, terms and conditions. This area includes timely submission of proposals with sufficient data necessary to conduct appropriate analysis, subsequent negotiations as required, and processing of contractual changes.

Cost Management This factor includes an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in all areas of cost management performance. This includes:

Cost performance. Contractor performance evaluation includes an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance against the negotiated estimated cost of the contract, its ability to adhere to cost limitations set forth in any Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA), its ability to control costs, its ability to avoid and predict cost overruns and to offer the Government solutions to overcome cost increase situations. The Contractor will also be evaluated on its ability to manage and control costs with cost as a key parameter when evaluating trade-offs between requirements, cost, and schedule.

Cost Savings. The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to identify and achieve cost savings and how well it takes advantage of circumstances that could result in cost savings. Relative to the evaluation of direct labor hours, indirect expenses, and major subcontract charging to the contract, the contractor’s ability to ensure that actual costs incurred are at or below the planned mark will be assessed. As part of the Contractor’s self-assessment report for each evaluation period, the Contractor shall clearly identify achieved cost savings as evidenced by Earned Value Management (EVM) data and/or 533 submissions. Contractor’s effectiveness to make financially sound business decisions to protect and wisely use Government funding will also be assessed.

Effective change planning. The contractor performance evaluation includes the effective planning of changes for maximum project benefit. The contractor will seek to minimize overall project cost, schedule, and risks including the effective use of government resources.

Execution year funding efficiency. Contractor performance evaluation includes the effectiveness of forecasting future year budget needs and then holding to the spend plan to accomplish as much work as possible while meeting budget phasing plan targets. This includes all elements of cost, not limited to direct labor hours, indirect labor hours or other expenses (e.g., overhead and general & administrative), Bill of Material cost (BOM), Interdivisional Work Authorization (IWA) cost, and any subcontract cost not accounted for in BOM. This also includes evaluation of EVM data and effectiveness of workforce tracking against planning targets.

The Contractor’s decisions and overall effectiveness in supply chain management.

Contractor responsiveness to budget-related actions and information requests. The contractor’s performance evaluation includes timely responses and effective interactive coordination with the NASA GRC USA Project Planning and Control (PP&C) lead to provide quality budget related products including the completeness of Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates and the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process.

Technical Performance This factor includes an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in all areas of technical performance. This includes:

Design and Development Approach. The Contractors performance will be evaluated for the USA design and development in meeting all requirements, including the following areas:

· Developing a flexible integrated design responsive to current and future mission needs.

· The Contractor will be evaluated on the effectiveness of its mass management approach and ability to identify and achieve mass savings.

· Addressing all reliability requirements assuring the USA performs as required throughout the life cycle

· Designing for co-manifested payload environmental control from launch through USA separation Qualification and Acceptance Approach: The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated for a USA qualification and acceptance approach in the following areas:

· Ability to reconfigure access doors and other intrusions to meet mission specific requirements.

· Plan and implementation for acceptance testing and hardware delivery that is responsive to mission needs.

· Control of design features, materials, supply chain management, and manufacturing/assembly processes.

· Timely investigation and implementation of corrective actions for addressing noncompliances or problems Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance. The Contractor performance will be evaluated for an effective quality assurance program and systems safety that supports decision making aimed at ensuring human safety, asset integrity, and mission success to include

· Reliability and systems safety assessments and influence on design and development process; critical items retention rationale; problem reports and corrective actions; safety and quality of product; and focus on flight safety through all development and operational project phases; and management of risks associated with safety, health and mission success.

· Hazard and safety analysis: Adequacy and completeness of hazard analysis and reports that reflect the level of maturity commensurate with the milestone for which they are developed for.

· Adequacy of process control, hazard controls, and product inspection. Contractor performance evaluation includes comprehensive manufacturing controls and inspections highlighting activities related to USA manufacturing and assembly.

· Product quality. Contractor performance evaluation includes efficiency and completeness of flight units meeting configuration requirements while minimizing errors, defects, and rejected hardware.

· Overall quality and timeliness of delivered products.

Systems Engineering & Integration. Contractor performance evaluation includes the effectiveness of a disciplined SE&I approach for the definition, implementation, integration and operations of the USA to include allocation of design requirements; effectiveness of internal contractor integration and communication; verification planning, documentation, and reporting; systems analyses; integrated management of design allocations and margins; rigor of deliverable documentation; technical support for major reviews and follow-through activities; interface definition; planning and operations support rigor with commitment and timeliness in support of system tests and flights, support for integration.

· Application of prescribed design and construction standards and human rating requirements including contractor’s assessments of applicable documents; design implementation; and rationale for non-incorporation (if any).

Innovation with benefit to cost, schedule, design, coordination or communication, without adverse effects on performance, safety, reliability, cost or schedule.

Schedule Management This factor includes an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in all areas of schedule management and performance against the USA Integrated Master Schedule, and includes, but is not limited to:

Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to adhere to the schedule and ability to produce and manage a schedule that includes schedule health indicators, clear logic and interdependencies, schedule threat management, critical path management, integration with subcontractor schedules, adaptability to delivery slips and hardware problems, and aggressive pursuit of Government schedule goals.

Schedule Savings. The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to identify and achieve schedule savings and how well it takes advantage of circumstances that could result in schedule savings.

Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Goals The Contractor’s performance against the subcontracting plan incorporated in the contract will be evaluated. Emphasis will be placed on the Contractor’s accomplishment of its goals for subcontracting with small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. The Contractor’s achievements in subcontracting efforts as well as performance under the Mentor-Protégé Program will also be evaluated.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS, DEFINITIONS, EVALUATION SCORING AND SPECIAL EMPHASIS

WEIGHTS

Evaluation factor percentage weights will be used for the sole purpose of communicating relative priorities of the Evaluation Factors. They are in no way intended to imply an arithmetical precision to the judgmental determinations of overall performance quality and the amount of award fee earned. The percentage weights will be prepared by the USA CO and USA COR for each of the Evaluation Factors defined in Section 2 of this document within 30 days of contract start and 45 days prior to each subsequent evaluation period. The Evaluation factor weights will be reviewed by the USA Sub-Element Manager and submitted for approval by the PEB Chairperson at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to each evaluation period. Cost control will always be a substantial factor of at least 25 percent of the total award fee. No other single factor will be less than 10 percent. This ensures that the factors are balanced and, when making trade-offs, the contractor assigns the proper importance to all factors. Once approved, the CO will communicate the weights to the Contractor.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

5.1 The PEB organizational flow is depicted in Enclosure 4. The existing SLS PEB will be utilized. For USA performance evaluation board meetings the Board membership will include the addition of the GRC Space Flight Systems Director or his designee. The USA Sub-Element manager or the USA Contracting Officer Representative (COR)) will present the USA government evaluation to the SLS PEB. In addition to the USA Sub Element Manager, the Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) Manager, the USA Contracting Officer (CO), the USA COR, and USA Discipline Evaluation Monitors (DEM) may be in attendance to support the PEB. The PEB chairperson will brief the SLS Program manager (SLS PM) on the evaluation results.

5.2 The SLS PM may require the PEB to reconvene to consider additional programmatic information. If reconvened, the PEB will determine if revisions to the PEB report are necessary based upon the PEBs analysis of the additional information. The PEB report will then either be revised or it will be noted that the PEB did reconvene and the programmatic advice received by the SLS PM, along with the PEB disposition of the additional information.

5.3 The SLS PM will ensure that due consideration has been given to all programmatic aspects of the Contractor’s performance, including areas such as consistency in program assessment of contract performance across all SLS contracts. The SEB Chair will conduct the evaluation and present the evaluation results to the Fee Determination Official (FDO) {ESD-HEO Deputy Associate Administrator}.

5.3 Evaluations and reporting by the Government and Contractor will be performed in accordance with MWI 5116.1.

DRAFT Request for Proposals 09 of 19 – DRFP Att J.1-F Performance Evaluation Plan

NNC16ZMX004R

DRAFT Request for Proposals 09 of 19 – DRFP Att J.1-F Performance Evaluation Plan

NNC16ZMX004R

5.4 The letter utilized to appoint the Discipline Evaluation Monitors (DEM) is included in Enclosure 5.

Evaluation Periods The estimated cost of CLINS 1 – 3 and 5 – 10 is $TBD and available fee is $TBD. Milestones will be used to delineate evaluation periods. CLIN 4, IDIQ potential and earned award-fee amounts will be tracked within TBD. PEB’s will be conducted for each milestone and the resulting score will be applied to the potential award-fee for the applicable milestone / period and will also be applied to the potential award-fee amount for the applicable task orders issued within TBD.

Effort

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

0. Definition of Adjective Ratings and Evaluation Score

Score

Notes

1. As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated "Excellent" overall, the contractor would typically be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and providing outstanding technical performance.

2. If a significant weakness (See Enclosure 3) is identified under a criterion, that criterion shall not receive a score higher than 75% with a rating of Good. However, an Excellent or Very Good rating may still be assigned as the overall rating, provided the scores in the other criteria add up to 76% or higher.

3. Any factor or sub-factor receiving an adjective rating of Poor/Unsatisfactory (less than 50%) shall be assigned zero (0.0) performance points for purposes of calculating the numerical evaluation score and award fee percentage.

Adjective Definitions for Observations Used for Performance Evaluation Significant Strength Accomplishment exceeding even the best expectations Technical innovation that positively impacts the entire exploration architecture Work that enables significant schedule savings Strength Accomplishment beyond the expected work level of fulfilling the contract Something that earns kudos from both those inside the project and outside Work used as an example for other development efforts to follow Weakness Accomplishment that did not live up to the normal expectations of contract fulfillment Something that impacts negatively the work of other elements within the exploration architecture Work needing remedial activity or recovery efforts in order to get the effort back on track Significant Weakness Failure that endangers the overall success of the development effort or the exploration architecture Something that elicits negative response from the upper echelons of NASA or the public and therefore reflecting poorly on the Spacecraft Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) Office, the USA Sub- Element Office, the USA Project, MSFC, GRC, or the SLS Program.

Performance Evaluation Organizational Structure

Fee Determination Official

(FDO)

SLS

Performance Evaluation Board

(PEB)

USA COR

USA Discipline Evaluation Monitors Technical Monitor Project Management Monitor Safety and Mission Assurance Monitor

Responsibility denoted in Enclosure 5

APPOINTMENT LETTER FOR DISCIPLINE EVALUATION MONITORS

See Attached

TO:

FROM: TBD/Contracting Officer Representative, Universal Stage Adapter

SUBJECT: Contract Administration Designations under Project Universal Stage Adapter, Contract TBD

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of your designation as a Discipline Evaluation Monitor (DEM) on the subject contract. Enclosed is the DEM Designation form outlining your responsibilities. Section TBD, paragraph TBD, limits your responsibilities to Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph XX, functional area XYZ.

The Contracting Officer has delegated certain contract responsibilities to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), TBD. Due to statutory limitations, these responsibilities may not be redelegated by the COR. However, the use of supporting personnel to assist the COR in performance of the delegated duties may be appropriate so long as the final authority for review, monitoring, inspections, and other responsibilities relative to this contract remains with the COR. The COR may issue DEM designations for assistance in monitoring contractor progress and gathering information.

While DEMs define technical content within the contract, only Contracting Officers have the authority to issue changes to the contract, including modifications, deletions, or additions to the SOW.

All DEMs must receive contract training. If you have not had training, the DEM designation is contingent upon you completing training within the next 90 days. In addition, annual refresher training is required to continue in the role as a DEM. The GRC Procurement Office will conduct the training. If you need training, please contact TBD to schedule a training class as soon as possible.

Please sign an original of the attached form indicating your acceptance as a DEM and send to the COR, TBD. Also, send a copy to the Contracting Officer, TBD and retain a copy for your files. The CO will provide a copy of the designation to the USA contractor.

If, at any time, you are unavailable to fulfill your role as a DEM, immediately contact the COR and supply an alternate that can represent you in your designated duties.

If you have any questions, please contact the CO, Jeffrey D. Hoyt at (216) 433-5576 or the undersigned at (216) 433-yyyy.

Original Signed by:

TBD

Contracting Officer Representative

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Universal Stage Adapter Evaluation Discipline Evaluation Monitor (DEM) Designation

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

CONTRACTOR

CONTRACT NO.

TBD

2. The DEM is to immediately notify the COR if unavailable to serve in the designated responsibilities.

3. For Type 1 and Type 2 contract deliverables (DRD’s) applicable to assigned area of responsibility, recommend approval or justification for disapproval in a timely manner.

3.

This appointment is effective upon your acknowledgment and shall remain in effect until closeout and final payment of the assigned contract or until terminated in writing by the COR or other authorized representative acting in his behalf.

THE ABOVE DUTIES ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED BY:

THE ABOVE DESIGNATION IS HEREBY ACCEPTED BY:

DESIGNATION CONCURRENCE BY:

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

The DEM is requested to sign and return the original of this document to the COR, submit one copy to the CO, and retain one copy for his or her file. The Contractor is requested to retain this letter in its official file.