J.2_-_Award_Term_Plan.pdf

Solicitation SAQMMA14R0319 Attachment J.2

Award Term Plan

AWARD TERM PLAN

FOR

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS

AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS (INL)

AVIATION SERVICES

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Organization

3.0 Responsibilities

4.0 Award Term Process

5.0 Award Term Incentive

6.0 Award Term Determination

7.0 Award Term Plan Change Procedure

8.0 Award Term Extensions

9.0 Award Term Periods and Available Points

10.0 Evaluation Criteria

11.0 Sample Award Point Conversion

1.0 Introduction

This Award Term Plan is the basis for INL Office of Aviation’s evaluation of contract performance and for presenting the evaluation results to the Term Determining Official (TDO) to support recommened actions. The adjustment to the performance period will result in a contract of at least three (3) years but not greater than ten (10) years.

All TDO decisions regarding the award term points shall not be subject to the provisions of

FAR 52.233-1, Disputes, or reviewed by any Board of Contract Appeal (BCA), court, or other judicial entity. This includes but is not limited to: the amount of the award term points, the methodology used to calculate the award term points, the final calculation of the award term points.

The award term will be provided to the contractor through a unilateral contract modification based upon points earned as determined by the TDO.

2.0 Organization

The award term organization consists of the TDO and an Award Term Review Board (ATRB).

The ATRB consists of a chairperson, the Contracting Officer (CO), a recorder, functional area experts, advisors, and the performance monitors. The ATRB will have no less than three (3) voting members.

3.0 Responsibilities

a. Term Determining Official. The TDO approves the Award Term Plan and any significant changes. The TDO also reviews the recommendations of the ATRB, considers all pertinent data, determines the performance rating for each evaluation period, and determines if an award term option is approved. The award term determination will be made by the TDO based upon the criteria outlined in paragraphs 10 – 13, Evaluation Criteria. The TDO also appoints the ATRB Chairperson.

b. Contracting Officer. The CO is the liaison between the Contractor and the Government

Personnel. Subsequent to TDO approval, the CO modifies the contract period of performance to reflect the decision as appropriate.

c. Award Term Review Board Chairperson. The ATRB Chairperson chairs board meetings, and appoints the remaining ATRB members. The ATRB Chairperson briefs the TDO on recommended performance ratings and recommends Award Term Plan changes to the TDO.

The Chairperson also coordinates administrative actions during the award term process, including: 1) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources, 2) scheduling board meetings and briefings, and 3) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award term process.

d. Award Term Review Board Members. ATRB Members review performance monitor evaluations, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance evaluations every four (4) months, and will recommend an overall performance evaluation rating to the TDO on an annual basis. The ATRB Members will also evaluate and recommend changes to the Award Term Plan.

e. Performance Monitors. Government Technical Monitors (GTMs) maintain written records of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) to ensure that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. GTMs utilize the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP), internal and external audits, and verified customer service reports. Monitors prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the ATRB.

f. Award Term Review Board Recorder. The ATRB Recorder assists the Chairperson in his/her administrative duties which include internal evaluation milestones, processing reports, and the scheduling of meetings and briefings. The recorder is a non-voting member.

4.0 Award Term Process

a. Performance Evaluations. The contractor is expected to meet all requirements of the contract from the first date of performance. Accordingly, the ratings received for the transition period and each evaluation period will be considered in the award term determinations under this contract.

b. Interim Evaluation Process. Interim evaluations will occur on a trimester basis. The ATRB

Chairperson will notify the ATRB members fifteen (15) calendar days before each interim evaluation period ends. ATRB members will complete the interim evaluation reports within fifteen (15) calendar days after the interim period ends. The ATRB will determine the preliminary interim evaluation results. The ATRB Chairperson will then brief the Contractor on the interim results to include strengths, weaknesses, and the preliminary estimation of the

Contractor’s interim rating.

The ATRB will review any Contractor self-evaluations, the Contractor’s performance, and consider information from applicable sources in determining an overall rating recommendation which will then be presented to the TDO. The ATRB will prepare and submit a formal interim evaluation report to the TDO within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of each interim evaluation period. The report will include a recommendation as to the overall rating and include a narrative of each element evaluated that supports the recommended rating assigned. If the ATRB is unable to reach unanimous agreement on the content of a report, the Chairperson shall forward minority reports prepared by the dissenting

ATRB member(s).

c. End-of-Period Evaluations. A final evaluation will occur at the end of each evaluation period. The ATRB Chairperson will notify the ATRB members fifteen (15) calendar days before the final evaluation period is complete. ATRB members will complete their final evaluation reports within fifteen (15) calendar days after the evaluation period ends.

The ATRB will review any Contractor self-evaluations, prior interim trimester evaluation reports approved by the TDO, the Contractor’s performance, and consider information from applicable sources in determining an overall rating recommendation to be presented to the

TDO. The ATRB will prepare and submit a final evaluation report to the TDO within thirty

(30) calendar days after the end of each evaluation period. The report will include a recommendation as to the overall rating and include a narrative of each element evaluated that supports the recommended rating assigned. If the ATRB is unable to reach unanimous agreement on the content of a report, the ATRB Chairperson shall forward minority reports prepared by the dissenting ATRB member(s).

d. Contractor’s Self-Evaluation. At its discretion, the Contractor may submit to the CO within ten (10) calendar days after the end of each interim and final evaluation period, a brief written self-evaluation of its performance for that period. This self-evaluation shall not exceed five (5) pages. This self-evaluation will be considered in the ATRB’s evaluation of the Contractor’s performance during this period.

e. TDO Evaluation. The TDO is required to make a final evaluation of the interim and final evaluation rating within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the ATRB evaluation report.

Accordingly, the TDO has the flexibility to change the recommended rating as a result of any relevant factor to include, but not limited to the following:

(1) the rating assigned to an individual function due to extraordinary input from the activity or other sources;

(2) the overall rating based on trends in performance in all functions or any general economic or business trends which may affect performance capability; or

(3) any other information the TDO determines is applicable to the Contractor’s performance evaluation.

Any changes to the ratings recommended by the ATRB must be documented and the documentation shall include the rationale for the change.

f. Duration of Evaluation. The estimated time for the completion of the Government’s evaluation is approximately forty-five (45) days after the conclusion of the evaluation period.

5.0 Award Term Incentive

The primary intent of the award term is to provide incentive for the Contractor to perform the required services in such a manner as to warrant the highest possible rating during each evaluation period. To reward superior and excellent performance the contractor may be awarded two years, or earn back a year previously lost. To reward good performance the contractor may earn a single award term. Conversely, if during an evaluation period the Contractor performance is marginal, an award term is lost from the end of the contract run. Additionally, two successive marginal evaluations will bar the ATRB from conducting further award term evaluations.

Finally, any instance of an unsatisfactory rating will result in the cessation of future award term evaluations. The duration of the contract at the time the Award Term Plan ceases will not exceed the one (1)-year base period, the two (2)-option year periods, and any previously approved one

(1)-year award term option periods.

Rating Consequence

Numerical Adjectival

95–100 Superior Earn two award term periods.

89–94 Excellent Earn one award term period and any lost award term period.

83–88 Good Earn one award term period.

77–82 Marginal

Loss of award term period. Failure to earn the required evaluation rating of eighty-three points in a single evaluation period will result in the loss of one option year at the end of the contract. Failure to earn the required evaluation rating of eighty-three points in two successive evaluation periods will bar the ATRB from conducting future evaluations under the

Award Term Plan.

< 77 Unsatisfactory Failure to earn the required evaluation rating of seventy-seven points in an evaluation period will bar the ATRB from conducting future evaluations under the Award Term Plan.

6.0 Award Term Determination

a. Award Term Determination Criteria. The TDO may only approve the use of an award term option year if the Contractor for the applicable evaluation period earns the following: a minimum score of eighty-three points out of one hundred and five available points, based upon an overall performance rating of up to 100 points, plus up to five discretionary points.

b. Award Term Determination Process. The first award term determinations will be made no later than two months into the first option period of the contract and at one-year intervals thereafter, if applicable. The first award term determination will consider the Contractor’s performance ratings received during the twelve months of the base period and six month transition period. Each of the remaining seven award term determinations will be based upon one-year performance periods. The determination and process for approving an award term option is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the Government.

c. TDO Determination. Unless the Award Term Plan ceases pursuant to its own terms, the

TDO is required to make the award term determinations identified under this plan. If an award term option period is approved by the TDO, the exercise of the award term option is at the discretion of the Government. Favorable determinations by the TDO do not obligate the

Government to exercise an award term option but only provide the CO with the authority and discretion to exercise the option in accordance with FAR 52.217-9.

d. Notification to the Contractor. The TDO will advise the Contractor and the CO of the results of the award term determination and will provide both with a copy of the final evaluation report.

7.0 Award Term Plan Change Procedure

Contractor requested changes to the Award Term Plan shall be forwarded to the CO, who as a mandatory member of the ATRB, will forward the request to the ATRB Chair and Board

Members for coordination. Upon review, the ATRB will forward a recommendation to accept or reject the changes to the TDO. Proposed changes to the Award Term Plan will be negotiated with the Contractor. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached within sixty (60) days prior to the start of the next award term period, the Government has the unilateral right to implement the changes.

Government proposed changes to the Award Term Plan will be made unilaterally if the proposed changes are prior to the start of the award term period. If proposed changes occur during the award term period the changes will be bilaterally negotiated with the Contractor.

8.0 Award Term Extensions

If the contract term ends prior to the TDO approving the use of an award term option year or prior to the CO exercising an award term option period, the Government will incur no costs associated with the award term provision of this contract.

9.0 Award Term Periods and Available Points

The award term points earned by the Contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods as shown below.

Award Term Evaluation Periods:

Period 1: Option Year 3 (Contract Performance Year 4)

Period 2: Option Year 4 (Contract Performance Year 5)

Period 3: Option Year 5 (Contract Performance Year 6)

Period 4: Option Year 6 (Contract Performance Year 7)

Period 5: Option Year 7 (Contract Performance Year 8)

Period 6: Option Year 8 (Contract Performance Year 9)

Period 7: Option Year 9 (Contract Performance Year 10)

The TDO will only make an award term determination for Periods 1 and 2 if the CO exercises the two (2) one (1)-year option periods in accordance with FAR 52.217-9. Any additional award term determination made by the TDO will only be made if the CO exercises additional one (1)-year award term options in accordance with FAR 52-217-9.

Maximum Available Points:

a. The contractor will be evaluated during the evaluation period in each of four (4) functional areas (Management and Administration, Operations, Maintenance, and Logistics) according to paragraphs 10- 13 below. Up to one hundred (100) points may be earned in each functional area based on performance. Each functional area will be assigned the adjectival and numeric score earned in the functional evaluation. As depicted in paragraph G below, Scoring the Performance Areas.

b. All four (4) functional evaluations will be combined, and divided by 4, resulting in the average for the overall point award for the contract.

c. Regardless of the overall points average, a determination of marginal or unsatisfactory performance in any of the 4 areas will result in the loss of award term consideration as depicted in paragraph 5.

10.0 Management and Administration Award Term Criteria

d. Performance Areas and Weights.

Performance Area Maximum

Possible

1. Safety 30

2. Management Information System 30

3. Manage Projects and Contracts 30

4. Continuous Improvement 10

Award Term Period Total 100

e. Performance Areas and Award Term Criteria.

1. Safety: Accomplished all related PWS requirements to the acceptable quality levels

(AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following: Planned, implemented and monitored the

Safety Program. Ensured all organizational activities were performed safely in spite of the austere and hostile environments present throughout INL/A’s operating locations.

The Contractor’s safety program and/or risk management performance must focus primarily on ensuring the safety of personnel, and secondarily to promote operational mission success. The Contractor must be able to show overall process improvement in their safety and/or risk management program.

2. Management Information System: Accomplished all related SOR requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished

DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following: Sufficient progress for the development and implementation of the phase out of the current MIS and replacement

MIS phase in. Maturity (capacity, stability, and availability) of replacement MIS. Status of certification and accreditation of replacement MIS to Federal IT requirements. Sufficient attention and managerial involvement to resolve government’s concerns for issues (i.e. lack of personnel, insufficient communication with external organizations, revisions to existing requirements, etc.) that are not directly related to existing AQLs.

3. Manage Projects and Contracts: Accomplished all related SOR requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor successfully monitored, analyzed and reported on projects and contracts. Consistently applied the defined business processes to collect, synthesize, analyze and present all requisite data, reports, metrics, and deliverables supporting subject projects and contracts for USG consideration and action. Successfully managed the quality levels, cost parameters and time lines, at the project level, within allowable variance tolerances.

4. Continuous Improvement: Met contract requirements pertaining to process improvements resulting in improved efficiencies, customer satisfaction, and cost control. Accomplished related SOR requirements pertaining to acceptable quality levels (AQL). Implemented improvements or modifications which measurably reduced overall aircraft maintenance and material costs, or increased aircraft availability.

11.0 Operations Award Term Criteria

f. Performance Areas and Weights.

1. Flight Operations 40

2. Aircrew Training and Standardization 40

3. Mission Support 20

g. Performance Areas and Award Term Criteria.

1. Flight Operations: Accomplished all related Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following:

Led joint, strategic and tactical, operational planning with associate contractors to formulate, coordinate, disseminate and execute the plans approved by INL/A.

Established and maintained aviation expertise in key positions to plan and execute emergent missions and surge operations at the direction of INL/A. Successfully extended related services to OCONUS operational sites.

2. Aircrew Training and Standardization: Accomplished all related PWS requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following. 1) being able to develop/provide a fully mission qualified aircrew (including both U.S. contractors and host nation aircrew), and 2) oversight/standardization in both CONUS and OCONUS locations IAW with the PWS.

3. Mission Support: Accomplished all related PWS requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following. ALSE, Armament, Passenger and Cargo

Processing, Intelligence, GEOINT, Security, Tactical Communications and Publications.

12.0 Maintenance Award Term Criteria

h. Performance Areas and Weights.

1. Airworthiness Compliance 40

2. Aviation Program Maintenance** 30

3. Aviation Engineering 30

1. Airworthiness Compliance: Accomplished all related related SOR requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL). As a total body of work the contractor accomplished

DOSAW objectives to include, but not limited to the following. Compliance with applicable airworthiness criteria for designs of repairs and alterations. Effective aircraft configuration management of all fleet aircraft. Zero modifications to aircraft or aircraft systems without the written authorization from the DOS Chief of Aircraft Maintenance /

Airworthiness Authority or his representative.

2. Aviation Program Maintenance: The contract Fully Mission Capable (FMC) rate is

80% fleet wide. The exception to this is those aircraft where the contract-wide fleet consists of five (5) or less aircraft and the contract FMC rate is 70%. The contract maximum Not Mission Capable for Maintenance (NMCM) rate is 15%. The contractor is expected to meet or exceed these rates. Quality Control metrics should indicate that maintenance actions and inspections are being managed, maintained and properly documented. Production Control metrics should indicate flight and maintenance schedules are being managed and adhered to, forecast flying hour programs met, life limited components and parts (time between overhaul (TBO), retirement life, etc.) are forecast, monitored, and related maintenance actions completed efficiently Maintenance activity information/data is available and current in the MIS. All material, parts, or equipment utilized on INL/A aircraft are certified and traceable to approved appropriately regulated sources. Maintenance Operational Checks and Test flights are correctly coordinated and documented. No aircraft will be released for missions without having required test flights completed and documented. 100% compliance with all maintenance directives, up to date technical data, and both local and program SOPs.

(**The overall table point totals will make up 20 of the 30 available points)

FMC Rate Adjectival Rating Numerical Rating Points

95.0% or greater Superior 95 + 7.5-10

90.0-94.9 Excellent 89-94 5.0-7.4

85.0-89.9 Good 83-88 2.5-4.9

80.0-84.9 Marginal 77-82 1-2.4

<80.0 Unsatisfactory <77 <1

NMCM Rate Adjectival Rating Numerical Rating Points

5.0% or less Superior 95 + 7.5-10

5.1-10.0 Excellent 89-94 5.0-7.4

10.1-15.0 Good 83-88 2.5-4.9

15.1-20.0 Marginal 77-82 1-2.4

>20.1 Unsatisfactory <77 <1

3. Aviation Engineering Complete and accurate technical data package (drawings and analyses) for each aircraft modification. Technical publications are complete, accurate, and current. Technical publications shall be validated and verified. Reliability and maintainability analyses completed based on aircraft maintenance data and prioritized by cost or downtime drivers.

13.0 Logistics Award Term Criteria

i. Performance Areas and Weights.

1. Aviation Logistics Management 50

2. Logistical Support to Air Wing Operations 30

3. Bill of Materials 20

1. Aviation Logistics Management: As a total body of work the contractor accomplished contract requirements. Maintained acceptable quality levels (AQL) pertaining to the

Non- Mission Capable for Supply (NMCS) rates. The contractor maximum for NMCS is 5%. Quality Control metrics indicated inventory control management, approved vendors, and property accountability criteria and inspections are being managed, maintained and properly documented. Logistics activity information/data is available and current in the MIS.

2. Logistical Support to Air Wing Operations: As a total body of work the contractor accomplished contract requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL) pertaining to the logistical support services to routine operations at all sites. This includes Base

Support Services, Ground Support, and Aviation Services.

3. Bill of Materials: The contractor accomplished contract requirements to the acceptable quality levels (AQL) pertaining to the Bill of Materials at all sites.

Contractor provided a basis of estimate to support the BoM which clearly explained the rationale of the generated BoM to ensure it accurately supported the right-size inventory while ensuring aircraft fleet readiness.

j. Scoring the Performance Areas.

Types of Rating Methods

Numerical Adjectival Rating Descriptors

95–100 Superior Contractor’s performance of virtually all PWS tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the

Government. The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

89–94 Excellent Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is consistently above standard and provides numerous significant tangible and intangible benefits to the

Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although some areas may require improvement; these areas are minor and are more than offset by better performance in other areas. Few, if any, recurring problems have been noted, and contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

83–88

Good Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is better than adequate and provides some tangible benefits to the

Government in several significant areas. While the remainder of the contractor's effort generally meets the contract requirements, areas requiring improvement are more than offset by better performance in other areas.

77–82 Marginal Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for acceptable contract performance, with several moderate-range risk elements identified. There are few tangible benefits to the Government due to contractor’s effort or initiative. Although there are areas of good or better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas.

< 77 Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is inadequate and inconsistent. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action.

Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.

Overall unsatisfactory performance fails to meet performance or capability standards.