Award_Term_Plan.pdf

DRAFT

NNJ16589301R SECTION J-1

J-D-1

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

AWARD TERM EVALUATION PLAN

Logistics Contract

Award Term Evaluation Plan

J-D-2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA and JSC policies, an Award Term (AT) evaluation procedure is hereby established to evaluate Contractor performance and determine the AT to be earned under this contract. The AT incentive outlined in this plan has been established to motivate Contractor performance during the life of the contract in the quality and timeliness of performance, safety, and cost. The AT incentive is designed to foster long-term relationships by rewarding the Contractor with additional period(s) of performance in compensation for achieving desired objectives at high levels of performance and reduced costs. The earning of any AT is contingent upon compliance with contractual requirements and performance to the degree specified in Appendix 1, Evaluation Definitions.

The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the procedures set forth below and at the expiration of each period specified in Appendix 4, Award Term Schedule. The evaluation to be performed by the Government will be based on the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s accomplishment of the various areas of work covered by the SOW in accordance with the criteria, weightings, procedures, and other provisions set forth below. The AT evaluation process will include both objective and subjective assessments of Contractor performance.

Performance determination schedule as follows:

Evaluated Performance: Performance Duration: Term Earned: With Rating of:

Contract Year 1 7 Months Contract Year 3 Very Good Contract Year 2 12 Months Contract Year 4 Excellent Contract Year 3 12 Months Contract Year 5 Excellent Contract Year 4 12 Months Contract Year 6 Excellent Contract Year 5 12 Months Contract Year 7 Excellent Contract Year 6 12 Months Contract Year 8 Excellent

Since no additional AT can be earned in CY 7 – 8, CPARS evaluations will replace AT evaluations for the final 29 months. The total potential period of performance on this contract is eight years. Any changes, deletions, or additions to the plan and/or evaluation factors for a specific period may be made unilaterally by the Government, and will be provided in writing to the Contractor at least 15 days prior to the commencement of the AT period.

An overall performance evaluation determination of zero may be made for any evaluation period when there is a major breach of safety or security as defined in NFS 1852.223- 75, Major Breach of Safety or Security. Failure of the Contractor to earn any individual term forfeits all subsequent AT thereafter.

J-D-3

2.0 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

2.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD INTEGRATION TEAM (PEB-IT)

The Performance Evaluation Board Integration Team (PEB-IT) will be composed of the contract management team, including the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The COR will be the focal point for the accumulation and development of award term evaluation technical reports, reviews, and presentations. The Contracting Officer will be the focal point for Contractor performance evaluations relating to contract management. The PEB-IT will evaluate Contractor performance using the evaluation factors listed in Section 4.0, Evaluation Criteria and Weighting, of this plan.

The PEB-IT will provide the Contractor interim performance evaluations a minimum of every six months (three months for the first evaluation period to include phase-in). The intent of these interim evaluations is to discuss specific areas where future performance improvement is necessary or where performance has excelled.

The PEB-IT will prepare an evaluation report for review by the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) for each evaluation period. This report will include a recommended adjective rating and numerical score representing the Contractor’s performance for the period evaluated.

2.2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD (PEB)

The PEB Chairman and members will be appointed by the Award Determination Official (ADO) or designee. A PEB, comprised of selected technical and contract management personnel of NASA, will evaluate the Contractor's performance after each evaluation period to determine whether, and to what extent, the Contractor's performance during the evaluation period is deserving of earning an additional award term year. The PEB, at the end of each evaluation period, reviews any information available to the Board and will submit its evaluation and performance recommendation, including adjective rating and numerical score, to the ADO.

2.3 AWARD DETERMINATION OFFICIAL (ADO)

The ADO is the Deputy Director of the Johnson Space Center or designee. The ADO will determine the Contractor's performance score in accordance with the procedures set forth below. After considering available and pertinent information and recommendations, the ADO will make a performance determination for each period in accordance with the provisions of this plan and of Contact Section B.3, "Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Award Term."

J-D-4

3.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

AT evaluation periods shall be 12 months in length; except for period 1 which is seven months in length (which includes a 58 day phase-in). Contractor performance will be assessed at the end of each evaluation period. The Government may provide Contractor performance feedback to the Contractor at any time during the evaluation period.

a. The Contractor may provide recommended Areas of Emphasis (AOE) and weightings for consideration by the Government to be used for the ensuing evaluation period no later than 45 days prior to the start of each AT evaluation period. Consideration will be given to the Contractor’s recommendations;

however, it is the Government’s responsibility to establish the specific areas of emphasis for each evaluation period.

b. The Government may unilaterally identify selected AOE and prioritize their relative importance. These AOE will be communicated to the Contractor by the CO in writing 30 days prior to the beginning of the applicable evaluation period (for the first evaluation period this shall be construed as five days prior to the end of the phase-in period). Emphasis will be directed at particular areas under the contract, which appear to the Government to deserve special attention and will be used in judging the Contractor’s performance. These AOE will not necessarily cover the entire spectrum of performance that will be evaluated in determining award term years earned. Other pertinent factors included under the contract and general factors bearing upon overall performance will be considered as the facts and circumstances of each period may require.

c. The Contractor may provide a self-evaluation report to the CO within five days after the end of a performance period.

d. The PEB shall meet and consider all of the performance information it has obtained. At the PEB meeting, the Contractor may provide a self-evaluation presentation (a copy of which shall be provided to the PEB) not to exceed 30 minutes in length.

e. The PEB Chair will summarize the PEB preliminary findings and recommendations which will be presented to the ADO.

f. The Contractor will be notified of the PEB evaluation and provided with the Preliminary AT Determination. The Contractor shall provide a written response to the CO within five calendar days stating acceptance or indicating a need for further ADO consideration. If the Contractor takes exception to the PEB findings, such exception shall be stated in writing and provided to the CO within five working days from the date that the PEB findings were provided to the Contractor. The Contractor may provide additional information for consideration by the ADO. Such information shall be delivered in writing to the CO within five calendar days of notification to the Contractor of the ADO recommendation.

J-D-5

g. The ADO determination of the scores will be stated in a written AT Determination and provided to the Contractor by the CO.

h. The ADO will not make a performance determination prior to the expiration of the five calendar day period prescribed above for Contractor submissions unless the Contractor has indicated in writing that no further Contractor submission will be made.

i. The Contractor shall submit to the CO a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for identified weaknesses noted in the PEB report or adverse objective performance metrics identified by the Government as part of the evaluation. The CAP shall be submitted within 10 working days after the final performance determination for each evaluation period for concurrence by the CO and the COTR.

3.1 Award Fee/Award Term Incentive Structure

The Award Term contract incentive will be structured as per Section H, Clause H.7 Award Term.

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING

Contractor performance evaluations will be based upon objective and subjective assessments of major elements of Contractor performance including cost. Objective performance metrics will be developed and used together with subjective AT evaluations to arrive at an overall recommended numerical and adjective rating for the period.

The criteria for evaluation of Contractor performance for determination of AT is listed below. The Government may unilaterally modify the AT performance evaluation factors and performance evaluation areas applicable to the evaluation period. The CO shall notify the Contractor in writing of any such changes prior to the start of the relevant evaluation period.

Evaluation Criteria Award Term Weighting

1) Technical Performance

- Quality of Work (all subparts of the SOW)

- Performance Metrics

50%

2) Management Performance 40%

- Program Management (including ACA’s)

- Schedule Performance

- Customer Work Control Management

- Customer Satisfaction

- Cost Performance

3) Safety & Health Performance 10%

Total

100%

J-D-6

4.1 Evaluation Criteria for Award Fee and Award Term Performance Evaluation

Factors

1) Technical Performance (Factor Weight = 50%) – Technical Performance evaluation factors will be used to measure the performance of the Contractor in meeting the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) in areas of quality of work and the performance metrics identified and described in DRD MO-1-3, Performance Metrics and Workload Data.

2) Management Performance (Factor Weight = 40%) – Management

Performance evaluation factors will be used to measure Contractor performance in the areas of project management, schedule performance, customer work control management, and customer satisfaction in meeting the requirements of the SOW.

Effective Cost Performance is a key evaluation criteria component for the Contractor to earn additional AT years. AT requires that the “Cost Gate” be met in order for the Contractor to earn additional term. The Cost Gate is based on the Core cost baseline, as modified through contract changes, if any. The Contractor must meet or under-run cost for the evaluation periods before an AT year can be earned. The cost baseline will be established for annual periods. If an agreement between the Government and the Contractor on the cost baseline is not reached, the Government will unilaterally determine the cost baseline and apprise the Contractor.

All Contractor costs associated with the purchasing of Supply Warehouse items, which includes Store Stock, furniture, and Critical Spare items as required by the SOW, shall be excluded from the cost performance criteria in the determination of AT.

3) Safety & Health Performance (Factor Weight = 10%) – The Safety and

Health Performance factor will be used to measure the Contractor’s effectiveness in meeting the safety and health requirements of the contract. See Appendix 3, Safety and Health Performance Evaluation Factors.

Notwithstanding any of the above, a major breach of safety or security, as defined by NFS Clause 1852.223-75 of this contract, may result in an AT score of zero for the affected evaluation period.

Appendix 1, Evaluation Definition, provides the performance level definition adjective ratings and corresponding numerical scores that will be used in performance evaluations.

J-D-7

APPENDIX 1 – EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

ADJECTIVE

RATING

RANGE

OF

POINTS

DESCRIPTION

Excellent

100 - 91

Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient and economical manner; very minor (if any) deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance.

Very Good

90 - 76

Very effective performance, fully responsive to contract; contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient and economical manner for the most part; only minor deficiencies.

Good

75 - 51

Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Satisfactory

≤50

Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results;

reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.

Poor/Unsatisfactory

Does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas;

deficiencies in one or more areas, which adversely affect overall performance.

NNJ07156871J SECTION J-1

J - 2 - 12

APPENDIX 2 – AWARD TERM SCHEDULE

Contract Year

Period of Performance

Performance Duration

Review Period

Fee Type

Evaluation to Determine

17 Months

Fixed Fee

LOGISTICS CONTRACT AWARD TERM SCHEDULE

12 Months Each

Contract Year 8

03/01/18 - 09/30/18

10/01/18 - 09/30/19

10/01/19 - 09/30/20

10/01/20 - 09/30/21

10/01/21 - 09/30/22

Contract Year 1

Contract Year 2

Contract Year 3

Contract Year 4

Contract Year 5

19 Mo. BASE PERIOD

7 Months

Initial 1 2

Contract Year 6

Contract Year 7

Contract Year 8

Contract Year 3

Contract Year 4

Contract Year 5

CPARS Only3 4 5

10/01/22 - 09/30/23

10/01/23 - 09/30/24

10/01/24 - 02/28/26

Contract Year 6

Contract Year 7

J - 2 - 13

APPENDIX 3 – SAFETY AND HEALTH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTORS

No.

Evaluation Factor Poor/

Unsatisfactory Score:

Satisfactory Score:

≤50

Good Score:

51 - 75

Very Good Score:

76 - 90

Excellent Score:

91 - 100

Surveillance

Method

The Contractor’s Days Away Case Rate

(DACR), Days Away Plus Restricted Duty (DART), and Total

Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) must meet

OSHA rates of their peers in the North America Industry

Classification category of the contract.

Calculate points as described in the for

Safety Rate Classification below.

0 Points 1 Point 2 Points 3-4 Points More than 4 Points

COR and Safety and Mission Assurance Review of Contractor supplied data per DRD.

Property damage arising directly from

Contractor operations, failure to protect

Government assets or property, or as owner of record for property.

One or more Type A or B mishap or more than 1 Type C mishap or total damage equal to or greater than

$75,000.

No Type A or B mishap; no more than 1 Type C mishap; or less than $75,000 in total damage.

No Type A, B, or C mishaps and less than $40,000 in total damage.

No Type A, B, or C mishaps and less than $25,000 in total damage.

No property damage.

COR and Safety and Mission Assurance review of

Contractor

J - 2 - 14

APPENDIX 3 – SAFETY AND HEALTH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTORS (Cont’d)

Unsatisfactory

Score:

Satisfactory Score:

≤50

Good Score:

51 - 75

Very Good Score:

76 - 90

Excellent

OSHA violations (any violation may result in a zero).

1 violation

PASS/FAIL Evaluation Factor

No violations

COR and Safety and Mission Assurance review of

Contractor

EPA violations (any violation may result in a zero).

1 violation

PASS/FAIL Evaluation Factor

No violations and Mission Assurance review of

Contractor

J - 2 - 15

Unsatisfactory

Score:

Satisfactory Score:

≤50

Good Score:

51 - 75

Very Good Score:

76 - 90

Excellent

Documented cases of noncompliance (not resulting in a mishap as defined in NPR 8621.1 revision B) with the approved Safety and health Plan as described in DRD and determined by the Risk Assessment Code

(RAC) Matrix listed in

JPG 1700.1, JSC

Safety and health

Handbook (a poor rating means automatic zero on performance fee;

otherwise 25% of score is affected by this rating).

One RAC 1or RAC 2 case.

One RAC 3 or RAC 4 case.

Not Available

No cases of noncompliance.

and Mission

Assurance review of Contractor supplied data per DRD,plus review of overall program, close calls, etc.

J - 2 - 16

Unsatisfactory

Score:

Satisfactory Score:

≤50

Good Score:

51 - 75

Very Good Score:

76 - 90

Excellent

Safety and Health Leadership

(Management leadership and employee involvement)

No visible management leadership or involvement

Some evidence of management leadership or involvement

Marginal leadership or employee involvement with minor weaknesses

Successful leadership or employee involvement with strengths and minor

Very successful management leadership or employee involvement with strengths & no

Strengths and weaknesses in the safety and health program per the judgment of the CO, COR, and SMA. Use Balanced

Safety Scorecard.

Injury & Illness Prevention

(Inspections, employee reports, hazard identification and control, safety & health training, etc.)

No visible prevention activities

Some evidence of prevention activities

Marginal activities with minor

Successful activities with strengths and minor

Very successful prevention activities with strengths & no weaknesses

Strengths and weaknesses in the safety and health program per the judgment of the CO, COR, and

SMA. Use Balanced

Safety Scorecard.

J - 2 - 17

TABLE for Safety Rate Classification (OSHA rates of peers in the North America Industry Classification category of the Contract)

Rate Title

Exceeds (2 points)

Meets (1 point)

Does Not Meet (0 points)

DACR 25% or less of the Industry Average

Between 25% and 50% of the Industry Average

50% or greater of the Industry Average

DART 75% or less of the Industry Average

Between 75% and 150% of the Industry Average

150% or greater of the Industry Average

TRIR 50% or less of the Industry Average

Between 50% and 100% of the Industry Average

100% or greater of the Industry Average