ESSCA_DRFP_Attachment_J-3_Award_Fee_Evaluation_Plan.docx

NNM16568754R ATTACHMENT J-3

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

ENGINEERING SERVICES AND SCIENCE CAPABILITY AUGMENTATION (ESSCA)

ATTACHMENT J-3

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose

1.1 Description of Contract

1.2 Contract Fee Structure

2.0 Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

2.1 Technical and Management Performance Factor

2.2 Cost Control Factor

2.3 Subcontract Management Factor

3.0 Areas of Emphasis

4.0 Major Breach of Safety

APPENDICES

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

1. Purpose The purpose of this plan is to provide guidelines and to establish the factors and methodology for evaluating the Contractor’s performance against the Performance Work Statement under the Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (ESSCA) contract. This plan was prepared in accordance with NASA Headquarters Award Fee Contracting Guide dated June 2001, Marshall Work Instruction (MWI) 5116.1, Evaluation of Contractor Performance under Contracts with Award Fee Provisions, NASA’s Award Fee Policy as stated in the NASA FAR Supplement, and specifically NFS 1816.405, Cost Reimbursement Incentive Contracts.

The Government may unilaterally change any area of this plan not otherwise requiring mutual agreement under the contract.

Description of Contract ESSCA is a single source Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order contract. The contract includes a base term of 4 years, plus two 2-year options. The contract supports the Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Engineering Directorate to provide a wide range of engineering and science services to support any MSFC activity, program, or project. Primarily, the contract provides support to the MSFC Engineering Directorate, the Space Launch System Program Office, Flight Programs & Partnerships Office, Science & Technology Office as well as other programs and projects across the Center.

TABLE 1

Period of Performance Table

Contract Fee Structure The ESSCA contract utilizes a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) structure for the contract base period and all option periods. The CPAF structure will be comprised of subjective performance evaluation factors for the PWS.

Contract type and allocation of fee distribution methodology is presented in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2

Fee Allocation Table

25% Cost Control Factor 10% Subcontract Management Factor 100% Potential Award Fee

As identified in Clause B.4, Award Fee, evaluations will be conducted at 6-month intervals from the date of contract award through contract year 1 (8/1/2017-7/31/2018) and will include formal mid-term evaluations. Subsequent award fee periods will be conducted at 12 month intervals and will include formal mid-term evaluations. These defined intervals should not preclude more frequent discussions concerning performance in these areas.

Award Fee Evaluation Criteria The Government will utilize subjective evaluations to provide a full and accurate assessment of Contractor performance. Subjective criteria will address customer satisfaction, areas of emphasis, process improvement, management effectiveness, and provide an overarching assessment of performance. The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), in conjunction with the Technical Monitors (TM) who will solicit inputs from each Task Order Initiator and their respective Resource Analyst, will evaluate the areas for quality of work performed, efficient use of resources, timeliness of performance, fidelity of reporting requirements, and customer satisfaction by considering any combination of one or more, or all of the following factors of relevance to the evaluation process. The Contractor's performance will be evaluated in terms of Technical and Management Performance, Subcontractor Management, and Cost Control described in the following paragraphs:

Technical and Management Performance Factor Technical performance will evaluate the Contractor’s work related to understanding requirements and the degree and means by which the requirements are met per the PWS, including all IDIQ task orders. Also relevant is the responsiveness to changing priorities, resolution to problems encountered and the ability to meet schedules and milestones. The ability of the Contractor to utilize resources and incorporate innovations, outreach and technical initiatives will also be considered in this factor.

Management performance addresses the program management of the entire PWS, including all IDIQ task orders. Factors that will be considered during evaluation include but are not limited to: the ability to perform strategic workforce planning and evaluate performance against TO requirements; the responsiveness to customer priorities, contract matters, and technical direction including the flexibility to change planning and execution; the delegation of authority and soundness of decision making; the effective use of resources and the ability to acquire and retain competent personnel; quality assurance management; and risk management and reduction. Successful implementation of proposed innovations leading to productivity improvement, quality enhancement and efficiency will also be evaluated.

The Contractor will be evaluated on the performance, availability, support, and effectiveness of the web-based application, Automated Task Order Management System (ATOMS) which allows for the paperless processing and management of multiple aspects of the contract. This system will be evaluated against requirements defined in Attachment J-8.

Communication and teamwork are to be evaluated in all facets of the contract performance and includes the effectiveness of teaming, the ability to communicate effectively (the appropriate information at the appropriate level at the appropriate time), and participation in collaborative discussions and initiatives.

Compliance with contract provisions will be evaluated to include adherence to contract clauses, general and special provisions, pertinent NASA/MSFC/Federal/State and local regulations and directed actions under the contract terms.

Safety will be measured in terms of the Contractor’s compliance with current contract requirements for system/industrial/occupational safety evaluation, controls implementation, reporting, and documentation. Particular attention will be directed toward safety awareness and effectiveness of effort.

Cost Control Factor Cost factors in the areas of budget management and contract value management will include the Contractor's ability to develop and adhere to cost plans, control the various elements of cost for maximum effectiveness, provide visibility of costs, make cost adjustments within funding limitations, and adhere to funding guidelines and constraints for all PWS areas and IDIQ Task Orders. The Contractor will also be recognized for innovative approaches to reducing overall contract cost.

Although cost control will be evaluated at the contract level, the analysis for the evaluation will include the fidelity of estimates and the Contactor’s ability to track and manage cost at the Task Order level.

Subcontract Management Factor Subcontract management will evaluate the management of all subcontracts and affiliates. The Contractor's performance against Attachment J-4, Small Business Subcontracting Plan 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 high technology efforts, as well as participation in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program, will be evaluated.

Areas of Emphasis The Government will establish areas of emphasis for each performance period. These areas of emphasis are to be based on the established factors of this plan and will be formally transmitted to the Contractor via a letter from the COR. They will be used to more specifically define an area/activity within the factors that requires emphasis during an evaluation period due to its importance, or due to its possible adverse impact (e.g., significant activities, problem areas, goals, objectives). Each area of emphasis shall be addressed in the Government evaluation report and the Contractor’s self-assessment report.

Major Breach of Safety In addition to the evaluation criteria listed above, the evaluation will consider the impact of a major breach of safety or security. A major breach of safety or security is defined in NFS 1852.223-75.

For evaluation purposes, an overall fee determination of zero may be made for any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of safety or security, regardless of Contractor performance in the other criteria. In evaluating a major breach of safety or security, factors leading to the breach as well as the Contractor’s subsequent actions will be taken into consideration.

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS OF RATINGS AND NOMOGRAM

AWARD FEE POOL AVAILABLE TO BE EARNED

Unsatisfactory

Notes:

1. As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated Excellent, the Contractor should be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and have provided excellent technical performance.

2. If a significant weakness is identified under an evaluation factor or subfactor, that evaluation factor should not receive a numerical score higher than 75.0 with an adjectival rating of Good. However, an Excellent or Very Good adjectival rating may still be assigned the overall adjectival rating provided the numerical scores in the other evaluation factors total 76.0 or higher.

3. Any factor or subfactor receiving an adjectival rating of Unsatisfactory (less than 50.0) should be assigned zero (0.0) performance points for purposes of calculating the numerical score and award fee percentage.

4. The Contractor should not be paid any award fee when the overall adjectival rating is “Unsatisfactory” resulting from a total numerical score of less than 50.0.

APPENDIX B

EVALUATION FLOWCHART

FDO

Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) [Chairperson and Members]

CO

COR

PEB Coordinator SMA Monitor Appointed Technical Monitors Business Management Monitor Resource Analyst Task Initiator

J-3-9 image1.png