SOL-617-14-000010.Attachment_J.7-Award_Fee_Plan.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.7 Award Fee Plan

A) AWARD-FEE DETERMINATION PROCEDURES

1. Fee Determination Official (FDO)

The Fee Determination Official (FDO) is the USAID/Uganda Contracting Officer. The FDO approved this Award Fee Plan.

2. Award Fee Board (AFB)

An Award Fee Board (AFB) will be constituted under the direction of the USAID/Uganda Contracting Officer and will consist of the following three members:

1. Service Delivery Team Leader, Development Objective (DO) 3, Investing in People - Chairperson

2. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

3. A USAID/Uganda employee, nominated by the CO, who works in another DO

The AFB is responsible for conducting the award fee evaluation.

3. Procedures for Evaluating Award Fee

For the 5-year period of the contract, the amount negotiated as the award fee will be divided into twenty equal portions.

The AFB will meet quarterly to review the performance of the Contractor. The Contractor will be invited to the quarterly review meeting to present their self-assessment and hear recommendations and findings of the AFB. Following the meeting, the Chairperson will submit a report to the FDO documenting the findings of the AFB, including their proposed grade (Table D, below) for the quarter reviewed. The AFB will also make an annual report of findings and discuss them with the FDO.

On an annual basis, the FDO will take into account the self-assessment of the Contractor, the reports of the AFB and any other pertinent technical or management reports.

The weighing of performance factors, the grading charts and conversion table, shown in Sections C and D below, will be used to produce a percentage to be applied to the total amount of award fee available for the period. In this manner, the FDO will make his/her annual award fee determination.

The annual award fee determination will be communicated to the Contractor via a letter from the FDO.

The letter will authorize the contractor to invoice the approved annual fee.

4. Performance Monitoring (PM)

The Contractor will be responsible for submitting, as part of its regular quarterly report, its self-assessment of progress toward achieving indicators and milestone as established in the Annual Work Plan approved by the COR. Monitoring reports prepared by the COR, as well as written comments prepared by the COR on the self-assessment will also form part of the record for the award fee review. Using these materials, the AFB will prepare a report on its assessment of the Contractor’s achievement of progress.

This report will be a foundation document for use of by the FDO in establishing the award fee. The Contractor will have access to this report and be given the opportunity to comment on it before the award fee determination decision is made.

B) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria used in making award fee decisions under the proposed contract are divided into three major parts: technical, business management, and cost considerations:

1. Technical

Technical achievements under the contract are equated with progress toward achieving the intermediate results and milestones which fall under each intermediate result in the contract.

The Contractor and USAID will agree on the overall structure of expected results, and associated milestones through the annual work planning process under the contract. Each Annual Work Plan will define the technical results and milestones to be achieved over each three-month interval, to correspond to the planned timing of award fee decisions. These technical results and benchmarks are divided into several categories (see Sections C), which correspond with the results framework:

The evaluation criteria that will be applied to each of these technical elements are:

On-time achievement of the indicators or milestones;

Overall assessment of the volume of results achieved vs. those planned;

Effectiveness of relationships with partners and others whose work is critical to achievement of overall results under the framework.

Compliance with environmental regulations in the performance of the work.

2. Business Management

Achievement of technical results will be accelerated or impeded by the relative effectiveness of the business management functions of the contract. Therefore, a number of evaluation criteria in this general area are judged pertinent in award fee decisions:

On-time deployment and effective management of key personnel;

Utilization of small business based upon Contractor’s subcontracting plan;

On-time reporting of progress and results;

Quality of data collection and reporting; and

Effective control of property

3. Cost Considerations

Proper financial management and prudent use of Government resources are also critical to efficient contract operation. The following criteria will apply to award fee decisions:

Accuracy of contract financing projections;

Timeliness and accuracy of financial reporting;

Costs presented are allowable and allocable under the contract; and

Economies are demonstrated in the use of personnel and materials.

C) WEIGHTING OF PERFORMANCE AREAS

The following weights are assigned to the performance areas defined above:

Primary Performance Area

Weight Sub-factors Max Pts.

Technical 40 On-Time Achievement of Result 1 Key Indicators 10 On-Time Achievement of Result 2 Key Indicators 10 On-Time Achievement of Result 3 Key Indicators 10 Results achieved versus Planned for Result 1 10 Results achieved versus Planned for Result 2 10 Results achieved versus Planned for Result 3 10 Partner and Stakeholder Relations 20 Compliance with Environmental Regulations 20

Business Management 30 Key personnel deployed 20 Utilization of small business 20 On-time reporting 20 Effective Management capacity 20 Control of property 20

Cost Consideration 30 Financial projections 25 Accurate reports 25 Allowable costs 25 Financial efficiency 25

Total Possible Performance Score

Technical (100 x 40) = 4,000 Business (100 x 30) = 3,000 Cost (100 x 30) = 3,000

10,000

D) GRADING TABLE & AWARD FEE COVERSION CHART

Adjective Grade Performance Score

Award Fee (%)

Superlative

Superlative level of performance; achievement of distinguished results and effectiveness. No deficiencies. Example, displays ability to anticipate problems and effective remedies.

9,501 – 10,000

Exceptional

Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient and economical manner-very minor deficiencies-no negative effect on overall performance.

9,001 – 9,500 90 - 99

Excellent

Very effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; more than adequate results; reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

8,001 – 9,000 80 - 89

Good

Effective performance; responsive to contract requirements; adequate results. Reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial effects on overall performance.

7,001 – 8,000 60 - 79

Satisfactory

Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; useful levels of performance, but suggest remedial action. Reportable deficiencies which adversely affect overall performance.

6,001 – 7,000

30 - 59

Poor

Below minimum acceptable standards; poor performance; inadequate results; requires prompt remedial action. Significant deficiencies.

5,001 – 6,000 1 - 29

Unsatisfactory 5,000 and below

With the exception of the Superlative category, which receives 100% of award fee, award fee is calculated on a proportional scale within the category according to the formula (rounded to the nearest percentage point):

Score Category Percentage = (Evaluated Score – Score Low Range) / (Score High Range – Score Low Range)

Award Fee Percentage = [Score Category Percentage x (Award % High – Award % Low)] + Award % Low

Award Fee = Award Fee Percentage x Available Award Fee

For example:

If the evaluated score is 7,775, then, it is within the “Good” performance category which has a range of 7,001 – 8,000. :

Score Category Percentage = (7,500 – 7,001) / (8,000 – 7,001) = 50%

Award Fee Percentage = 50 x (79 – 60) + 60 = 70%

Note that a score halfway between the high and low of a category results is an award fee percentage that is also halfway between the high and low Award Fee Percentage of that category.

Any factor/sub-factor receiving a grade of unsatisfactory will be assigned zero performance points for purposes of calculating the award fee amount