Attachment_6_-_Award_Term_Plan.docx
DOCX document 171 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Treasury Dept. & Bureaus Managed Print Services
- Solicitation number
- TIRNO17R00012
About this file
Award Term Plan
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
ATTACHMENT 6
TIRNO-17-R-00012
Internal Revenue Service
Managed Printer Services
Award Term Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| A.1 | Introduction | 1 |
| A.1.1 | Background | 3 |
| A.1.2 | Organization and Responsibilities | 3 |
| A.2 Award Term Process | 5 | |
| A.3 Award Term Evaluation Methodology | 7 | |
| A.3.1 | Award Term Rating | 7 |
A.4 Award Performance factors and Evaluation Criteria ……………………………...8
| A.4.1 Technical Performance | 8 | |
| A.4.2 Management Performance | 9 | |
| A.5 | Scoring for Award Term Eligibility ………………………………………………..10 | |
| A.7 | End-of-Period Evaluation | 11 |
| A.8 | Award Term Plan Change Procedure | 11 |
3)
A.1 Introduction
This Award Term Plan will be used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Award Term Evaluation Board (ATEB) in the administration of award term provisions under the contract resulting from solicitation TIRNO-17-R-00012. It will be used as the basis for the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance and to present an assessment of that performance to the Contracting Officer (CO). The CO will utilize the performance assessment information generated as a result of this plan to determine whether the Contractor has earned an award term extension to the contract’s period of performance. This plan describes specific criteria and procedures used for assessing the Contractor’s performance and for determining extension, if any, earned by the Contractor.
The contract awarded under this solicitation will have a one-year base period, four one-year option periods, and two potential award terms (12 months each). All CO decisions and the methodology used to determine award terms are unilateral actions made solely at the discretion of the Government. This plan may be changed during the contract performance according to the procedures addressed in the terms and conditions section of this document. Any award terms earned will be reflected in unilateral contract modifications based upon determinations by the CO. NOTE: Award terms earned by the Contractor may be cancelled by the Government if the requirement no longer exists, funding is unavailable, or the contract is terminated for any reason.
A.1.1 Background
Award Term is a non-monetary incentive modeled after the award fee incentive described in FAR 16.405-2, but instead of rewarding a Contractor for excellent performance with additional fee, it rewards the Contractor by extending the contract for an additional period of performance. In addition to the fact that non-monetary incentives do not require additional contract funding, they have two other key advantages. First, non-monetary incentives motivate Contractors with the opportunity for increased future business, helping them retain skilled personnel, and enabling them to allocate funds over a more stable performance base. Second, non-monetary incentives based on meeting performance standards satisfy the FAR Part 37 standards and incentive provisions for performance-based acquisitions, and provide a disciplined process for the Government to determine if it wants to continue a long-term business relationship with the Contractor.
A.1.2 Award Term Organization and Responsibilities
a. Organization
The Award Term Approving Official (ATAO) will be Chief, Corporate Support Branch, Office of Information Acquisition. An Award Term Evaluation Board (ATEB) will consist of the following individuals:
| Chairperson | [Name, Organization] – Added at time of award |
| Member | [Name, Organization] - Added at time of award |
| Member | [Name, Organization] - Added at time of award |
| Member | [Name, Organization] - Added at time of award |
| Advisor | Contracting Officer Representative |
The ATDO may designate substitutions to the above identified ATEB as may be necessary without prior notice to the Contractor. The ATEB will make a recommendation to the ATDO, who will forward the final decision to the CO for review and concurrence.
b. Responsibilities
The ATAO is responsible for:
1) Approving the award-term plan and the evaluation factors and scoring methodology.
2) Reviewing the recommendations of the ATEB, considering all pertinent data and determining whether a term is awarded or no change is made; and forwarding the decision to the CO for concurrence and implementation. The CO also advises the contractor of the evaluation results and award term decision in written.
The ATEB Chairperson is responsible for:
1) Selecting members of the ATEB.
2) Leading the ATEB meetings, to include reaching a final consensus.
3) Briefing the ATAO on the Contractor’s overall performance and award term recommendation, when requested.
4) Recommending changes to the Award Term Plan.
The ATEB Members are responsible for:
1) Evaluating the Contractor’s overall performance for the award term period using report data on Contractor’s achievement of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) as defined, measured and periodically reported in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); the Contractor’s self-assessment, if any; and other pertinent information.
2) Arriving at an award term recommendation to be presented to the ATAO.
3) Recommending changes to the Award Term plan.
4) Prepare the evaluation report and accompanying narrative justification.
The CO is responsible for:
1) Acting as liaison between the Contractor and the Government.
2) Transmitting correspondence to the Contractor.
3) Executing the contract modification increasing the term, if earned by the Contractor.
4) Notifying the Contractor in writing of any approved changes to the Award Term plan.
5) Attending ATEB meetings and providing contractual guidance and input to the members.
6) Recommending changes to the Award Term plan.
A.2 Award Term Process
The Contractor will be evaluated on the basis of its Technical and Management performance.
· Technical performance, in accordance with the Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) and/or Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), will be evaluated at the task order level taking into consideration the Contractor’s ability to meet or exceed the Performance Standards in the QASP required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 37.6 and the Technical factors, such as mitigating risk. The QASP shall incorporate, at a minimum, the SLO performance metrics which apply to each task order.
· Management performance will be evaluated with respect to the Contractor’s ability to maintain an open, collaborative, and productive relationship with the Government that accomplishes the Management objectives in a timely and efficient manner, such as reducing cycle time.
The Contractor will submit self-assessments of performance for each period under consideration, including a summary of performance achieved against all SLAs. These self-evaluations will be considered by the ATAO and ATEB in reaching its determination.
a. Evaluation Periods. A formal assessment of the Contractor’s performance will be performed annually, within 6 months after the completion of the prior year’s performance; this annual assessment will be provided as input to the CPAR System. Since the contract initially will have a base year and four one-year options, an unsatisfactory rating on any interim assessment may result in termination at the completion of the unsatisfactory option year.
The first formal Award Term Evaluation will be conducted during Option Year 2 (September 30, 2019-September 29, 2020), and will encompass the entire period of performance to date (Base Year, plus Option Year 1). A determination of Exceptional or Good performance will result in the Contractor earning one additional 12 month award term to be exercised unilaterally by the Contracting Officer at the end of the contract’s final period of performance. A Satisfactory or less rating on performance will result in no change to the term of the Contract.
A second formal Award Term Evaluation will be conducted during Option Year 3 (September 30, 2020-September 29, 2021), and will encompass the entire period of performance to date, including current year’s performance, the previous formal AT evaluation, and continued interim evaluations. A determination of Exceptional or Good performance will result in the Contractor earning one additional 12 month award term to be exercised unilaterally by the Contracting Officer at the end of the contract’s final period of performance. A Satisfactory or less rating on performance will result in no change to the term of the Contract.
Accordingly, the term of this contract may range from one year (if no options are exercised) to 7 years (if Contractor performance warrants exercise of all options and the Contractor earns the maximum amount (2) Award Term extensions).
Note that Award Term extensions earned by the contractor may be cancelled by the Government if the requirement no longer exists, funding is unavailable, or the contract is terminated for any reason.
b. Performance Monitoring. The ATEB Chairperson will appoint performance monitors to monitor the Contractor’s performance throughout each evaluation period and notify the CO of deficiencies (e.g., instances of unsatisfactory performance or other areas of concern to the Government) as soon as they are identified. Notifications will be issued to the Contractor via the CO verbally, or in writing via e-mail or hard copy. Verbal notifications will be confirmed in writing. As part of each Award Term evaluation (interim and formal), the ATEB will document deficiencies, significant accomplishments, and areas of concern and forward the report to the ATEB Chairperson. Copies of the reports will be retained by the Performance Monitor and provided to the Contractor via the CO (within 10 working business days).
c. Interim Evaluations. Interim evaluations may be conducted within 6 months after the completion of the prior year’s performance, or at other times at the discretion of the CO. Contractor self-assessments are not required for interim evaluations, but may be submitted at the Contractor’s discretion.
The ATEB will meet with the Chairperson and conduct the evaluation based on the periodic reports documenting the Contractor’s achievements of the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in the QASP, the Contractor’s written self-assessment (and briefing, if presented), and information from other relevant sources. The ATEB Chairperson will submit the interim evaluation to the CO; the CO will provide the summary report to the Contractor and will provide input to the CPARS. Proposed changes to the award term plan may be raised at this point. The CO will notify the Contractor at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.
d. Formal Award Term Evaluations. Formal AT evaluations will be conducted mid-year of Option Year 2 and mid-year of every subsequent potential Award Term period, if previously earned by the Contractor. The Contractor shall submit a written self-assessment to the CO within 5 working days after any initial award term evaluation has been initiated. It shall contain a brief written documentation (maximum 20 pages) of exceptional work performed in any of the criteria stated in this document to assist the ATEB in evaluating its performance. At the discretion of the ATAO, the Contractor may also be invited to present a briefing to the ATEB/ATAO in order to answer questions regarding the self-assessment or information from other relevant sources.
The ATEB will meet with the Chairperson and conduct the evaluation based on the periodic reports documenting the Contractor’s achievements of the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in the QASP, previous interim evaluation reports, the Contractor’s written self-assessment (and briefing, if presented), and information from other relevant sources. The ATEB Chairperson will conduct the evaluation, prepare a written memorandum to summarize the ATEB findings and document the rationale for the award term recommendation, and brief the recommendation to the ATAO. Within 5 calendar days the ATAO will make a final award term decision and forward the summary of the Contractor’s performance assessment and final decision to the CO for review and concurrence.
Within 45 calendar days after receipt of the ATAO’s decision memorandum, the CO will notify the Contractor of the award term decision and provide an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance as measured against the SLAs. Within 10 calendar days of notification to the Contractor, if the Contractor has earned an Award Term extension, the CO will issue a unilateral modification to add the additional performance term to the contract.
A.3 Award Term Evaluation Methodology
a. General. Evaluation criteria and rating/performance standards are described below. Evaluation criteria may change during the life of the contract. Changes to evaluation criteria will be handled in accordance with Section A.7.
b. Categories. The contractor’s performance will be rated in the categories of Technical and Management using the criteria described below. The Technical category criterion includes the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance of the technical requirements of the contract as measured by achievement of the SLAs in the QASP. The Management category includes the Contractor’s Management Effectiveness, Personnel Attraction/Retention and Program Efficiencies/Innovations.
A. 3.1 Award Term Ratings.
Evaluation of the Contractor’s performance will result in one of the following ratings: Exceptional, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal or Unsatisfactory, as described below. Exceptional or Good performance will result in the Contractor receiving an Award Term extension of the contract and a positive input to the CPAR System. Satisfactory performance will result in the Contractor receiving a positive input to the CPAR System, but no Award Term extension of the contract. Marginal or below performance will result in the Contractor receiving a negative input to the CPAR System for the period evaluated.
The ATEB shall use the following general guidelines in determining the award term rating:
A.4 Award Performance Factors and Evaluation Criteria
The performance factors to be evaluated are identified below: The evaluation criteria for each factor are specified in this section.
| Factors |
| Section |
| Technical Performance |
| A.4.1 |
| Management Performance |
| A.4.2 |
A.4.1 Technical Performance
Description of Factor: For the annual evaluation period, the Contractor's technical performance will be assessed to determine if the work that has been performed meets the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as indicated below:
1. Technical Requirements – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing effective and efficient performance based services to meet the technical requirements and schedules as described in the PWS. This includes a subjective assessment of the quality of performance based services provided, i.e., accuracy of contractor performance in providing services, the timely completion of key milestones and tasks identified, and anticipating and resolving problems; recovery from delays; reaction time and appropriateness of response to changes; and the quality and timeliness of all technical reports and other required deliverables. The Government will make evaluations only on services that have been requested or ordered.
2. Risk Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing risk analysis; its ability to develop and carry out plans for risk mitigation; its ability to track risks and its implementation of mitigation plans; and its ability to assure that risk information is communicated among all levels of a program/project.
3. Innovation and Transformative Technology – Innovations, systems transitions, and improvements in service delivery accomplished during the period will be evaluated. Innovative methods, techniques, or technologies and/or process improvements will be evaluated for their impact on effectiveness and efficiencies under the contract.
4. Thoroughness - The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing appropriate analysis and evaluation of alternative methods, processes, or procedures to accomplish overall requirements within schedule and budget.
A.4.2 Management Performance
Description of Factor: Management is the manner in which the Contractor implements contract provisions. It includes personnel, inter-organizational interfaces, work flow, property and materials controls, and contract management. For each semi-annual evaluation period, business management performance is broadly assessed in meeting the business management requirements for the overall contract as indicated below:
1. Contract Administration and Compliance – The Contractor will be evaluated on the overall administration of the contract. This will include accuracy and timeliness of all reporting requirements, timeliness of special project proposals, subcontract consent documentation and proposal submissions, overall compliance with all terms and conditions of the contract, and responsiveness to contract issues.
2. Customer Service – The Contractor will be evaluated on demonstrating improvements in help desk responses, ticket and knowledge management activities. The evaluation will include the Contractors submission of timely, complete proposals and cooperation in negotiating changes.
Alex Gutierre
3. Responsiveness of Upper Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on the extent to which corporate staffing, strategies, policies, plans, procedures, and actions provide an effective context for the successful performance of the contract and its subcontracts. This includes effective and timely management actions in relationships or interfaces with all major team organizations.
4. Personnel Management – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing staffing at appropriate skill levels to provide effective and efficient performance based services; and the extent to which the Contractor has applied and retained competent and experienced personnel to assure successful and cost effective contract performance.
5. Communications – The Contractor will be evaluated on its performance in providing good communication within its organization and the Government and whether all problems, technical issues and changes were promptly reported to all concerned.
A.5 Scoring for Award Term Eligibility
To be eligible for the award term entitlement, the evaluation team’s consensus rating, using table 5.1-1 Managed Print Service Award Term Rating Scale, shall result in a score of Good or higher in the majority of the evaluation factors. This eligibility score may be raised after the basic year in recognition that efforts to start and transition into the contract may result in a lower score in the first year. If any individual factor is scored Marginal or lower, the contractor will not be eligible for an award term.
Table 5.1-1 Managed Print Service Award Term Rating Scale
Rating
Rating Scale Definition
| Exceptional |
| Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government. The few areas of improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiatives effective corrective action whenever needed. Initiative in executing the job and invoking improvements has been well demonstrated. |
| Good |
| Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is consistently above standard and provides numerous significant tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government. 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 the Contractor takes satisfactory corrective action. |
| Satisfactory |
| 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. |
| Marginal |
| Meets contracts requirements, generally. Occasional delays or difficulty in meeting suspenses. Overall responsiveness could be improved. Quality of delivered service is such that the service cannot be used without some changes. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Does not meet contract requirements. Quality of delivered service is such that the service is seriously flawed and it will be extremely unlikely that the service can be used without significant changes. |
A.6 End-of-Period Evaluations.
The performance monitor (identified in section A.4) notifies the ATEB members 14 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. The contractor presents its self-assessment to the CO within five working days after the end of the current period of performance. The CO will submit this information to the ATEB. The ATEB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation regarding earned or unearned award-term points. The ATEB chair briefs the evaluation report to the ATAO within 30 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. A meeting occurs between the ATAO and procurement representatives meet with the ATEB members to review their findings. The ATAO determines the overall award-term points for the evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The ATAO letter informs the contractor of the earned award-term points and upon the rating the CO issues a contract modification within 15 calendar days after the ATAO’s decision is made authorizing an award extension or reduction based on the earned or unearned award –term points. The contractor is then given an opportunity to address the performance monitor evaluations
A.7 Award Term Plan Change Procedure
Either the Government or the Contractor may propose changes to this award-term plan. The Government may make unilateral changes to the plan for evaluation periods that have not already begun. All Contractor proposed changes, and any changes proposed to take effect in the evaluation period that has already begun, will be bilaterally negotiated. The CO will provide written notification of plan changes to the Contractor prior to the changes taking effect. If the CO does not give written notice to the Contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the following evaluation period.
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .