Attachment_0027_-_Award_Term_Plan.pdf

Attachment 0027 September 15, 2018

AWARD TERM PLAN

1. Introduction: The purpose of the Award Term Plan is to incentivize the Contractor to concentrate efficient use of resources in areas critical to the overall program success of LCAAP and to strive for exceptional performance in order to receive the maximum award. This plan is the basis for the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance under the Contract for Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP). The Contractor’s performance will be measured against the evaluation criteria contained herein.

Evaluations will begin 1 October 2020 and be recorded annually. The award term decision will be based on performance with the opportunity to earn up to a three (3) year award term length. The specific criteria and procedures used to assess the Contractor's performance and to determine the amount of award term earned are described herein.

It is understood that exercise of options for further extension to the contract is also subject to funding.

2. Organization: The award term organization consists of the Award Term Determining Official (ATDO); the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO); an Award Term Review Board (ATRB) which consists of a chairperson, a recorder, other functional area participants, and advisor members; and the Performance Monitors.

3. Responsibilities:

3.1. Award Term Determining Official (ATDO) - Reviews the recommendation(s) of the ATRB Chairperson, considers all pertinent data, and determines, if applicable, the additional term length of the contract. Serves as the final authority for approval of the annual performance evaluations.

3.2. PCO – Approves the award term plan and any changes. Serves as the liaison between the Contractor and Government personnel. Modifies the contract term length, if necessary, to reflect the decision of the ATDO.

3.3. Award Term Review Board Chairperson (ATRBC) - Chairs the meetings of the ATRB and the Performance Monitors. Briefs the ATDO on the results of the evaluations, recommends award term length based upon the Contractor's overall performance.

3.4. Award Term Review Board (ATRB) – Members review Performance Monitors’ evaluations of the Contractor’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an earned award term length recommendation to be presented to the ATRBC.

3.5. ATRB Recorder - The ATRB Recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the ATRB and the

PCO.

3.6. Performance Monitors - Performance monitoring will be accomplished by the PCO, ACO, the LCAAP Government Staff, PM Office, and JMC. Performance Monitors will maintain written records of the Contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained.

Performance Monitors prepare annual performance reports for submittal to the

ATRB.

4. Award Term Process:

4.1. Available Award Term – The available extension for the Contract is 1 October 2026 up to 30 September 2029. The award term will be based on the Contractor's performance during the four annual evaluation periods beginning 1 October 2020 and ending 30 September 2024. Each year the Contractor will be awarded a score within each category and those category totals summed for an annual award term score. The four (4) annual award term scores are then averaged and assigned a rating identified in paragraph 6 below. A determination of the length of award term, if any, will be made in Year 6 of the Contract.

4.2. The PCO may issue letters to the Contractor to highlight areas of Government concern at any time; however, it is not required.

4.3. Evaluation Criteria - The following will be evaluated for determination of the award term. The maximum award term points available per annual evaluation period is 100.

4.3.1. Operations Area (40 Pts):

4.3.1.1. Safety Category (9 Pts):

(1) Safety Plan Element

(2) OSHA Visit/Inspection

(3) Injuries/Property Damage/Accident Reporting Element

(4) Illness and Injury Rates

4.3.1.2. Security Category (9 Pts):

(1) Physical Security

(2) Security Technology Systems

(3) Key and Lock Control and Security MEVA/Arms, Ammunition & Explosives (AA&E)

(4) Classified Manufacturing Area

(5) Operations Security (OPSEC) Element

4.3.1.3. Maintenance Category (10 Pts, sum of the following):

(1) Facilities Maintenance Element (7 Pts)

(2) Equipment Maintenance Element (3 Pts)

4.3.1.4. Environmental Compliance Category (7 Pts):

(1) Unauthorized Discharges to the Environment Element

(2) Corrective and Preventive Action Element

(3) Regulatory Compliance Element

4.3.1.5. Schedule Adherence/On-Time Execution of Projects Element (5 Pts)

4.3.2. Production Area (50 Pts):

4.3.2.1. On-Time Delivery Category (25 Pts)

4.3.2.2. Product Quality Category (25 Pts, sum of the following):

(1) Quality of Delivered Material Element (10 Pts)

(2) Critical Defect Escape Element (10 Pts)

(3) Critical Defect Generation Element (5 Pts)

4.3.3. Customer Satisfaction (10 Pts)

4.4. Evaluation Process: Each category, and any associated elements, will be monitored throughout the year, and then evaluated and scored on an annual basis for each category. Those annual category scores will be summed to determine an award term point total for the year.

4.4.1. Interim Evaluations at Program Management Reviews (PMRs) – Small Caliber PMRs will be held no less than twice a year. The Contractor’s performance in the categories, and elements as applicable, within the Award Term Plan will be on the agenda for PMRs. During each PMR, the Contractor will be required to present its accomplishments/self-assessment for the timeframe from the last PMR to the present and the Government will provide informal feedback (not a formal rating) to the Contractor on its performance. The Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance will be considered in determining the annual scores for the categories.

4.4.2. Annual Evaluations: The four (4) annual evaluations will be conducted to determine the performance of the Contractor against the specified criteria for the identified year.

1st evaluation period - 1 Oct 2020 – 30 Sep 2021 (FY21) 2nd evaluation period - 1 Oct 2021 – 30 Sep 2022 (FY22) 3rd evaluation period - 1 Oct 2022 – 30 Sep 2023 (FY23) 4th evaluation period - 1 Oct 2023 – 30 Sep 2024 (FY24)

The ATRB Recorder will notify each ATRB member and Performance Monitor ten

(10) working days before the end of the annual evaluation period. The Contractor will provide its self-assessment to the PCO ten (10) working days after the annual evaluation period ends. Each Performance Monitor will complete their annual performance report and independently develop a score for the given category (or element as applicable) for submittal to the ATRB within twenty (20) working days after the end of the annual evaluation period. The ATRB recorder will provide a composite evaluation report, to include strengths, weaknesses, and scores, for the current year’s evaluation to the PCO within thirty five (35) working days after the end of the annual evaluation period. The PCO will provide the ATRB’s annual composite evaluation report to the Contractor. The annual award term score will be recorded on the Appendix A scorecard and will be used as input for the End-of-Period Evaluation.

4.4.3. End-of-Period Evaluation - The overall rating for the End-of-Period Evaluation will be calculated by averaging the four (4) annual award term scores from 1 October 2020 – 30 September 2024 to arrive at an adjectival rating (see paragraph 6 below). The ATDO will determine the award term length within fifty

(50) working days. The ATDO has the sole discretion to extend, or not extend, the term of the contract up to three (3) years based on the rating achieved by the Contractor. The PCO will provide the ATRB End-of-Period composite evaluation report and notify the Contractor of the additional award term length, if any, in writing and issue a unilateral contract modification within fifteen (15) working days of the ATDO’s decision.

4.4.4. Note: Unless otherwise specified, the use of percentages throughout the award term plan will be to the closest whole percentage by using normal rounding methodology, i.e. 94.4 is rounded down to 94% and 94.5 is rounded up to 95%.

5. Award Term Plan Change Procedure:

5.1. Unilateral Changes - Changes to the Award Term Plan may be made unilaterally by the PCO. Any changes to the plan will be fully documented and provided to the Contractor at least 60 days prior to the start of the next year’s evaluation period.

Unilateral changes to the Award Term Plan shall take effect for the subsequent evaluation period, unless otherwise specified by the PCO. If the PCO does not provide specific notice of changes to the evaluation criteria in writing 60 days prior to the start of the next year’s annual evaluation period, the criteria from the preceding period will be used.

5.2 Bilateral Changes - Bilateral changes to the Award Term Plan shall take effect immediately upon incorporation into the contract.

6. Award Term Measures: The award term will be based on the Contractor's performance during the total evaluation period (1 October 2020 – 30 September 2024).

The average of the four (4) years will be utilized to determine a single cumulative adjectival rating as outlined below.

Rating Scheme:

RATING DEFINITION AWARD TERM SCORE

Exceptional Exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the DoD. Award term of three (3) years to be awarded in full.

An average of 92–100 award term points over the four (4) year evaluation period.

Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance. An award term of two (2) or three (3) years may be provided at the sole discretion of the ATDO.

An average of 80–91 award term points over the four (4) year evaluation period.

Marginal May meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance. No award term, one (1) year, or two (2) years may be provided at the sole discretion of the ATDO.

An average of 70–79 award term points over the four (4) year evaluation period.

Unacceptable Fails to meet specified performance or capability requirements. No award term shall be awarded – contract shall expire at the end of the contract term.

An average of <70 award term points over the four

(4) year evaluation period.

7. Terms and Conditions:

All decisions regarding award term rating factors, the number of rating factors, the methodology used to calculate the evaluation, actual calculations, the Contractor's entitlement to evaluation, and the nature and success of the Contractor's performance are NOT subject to the Disputes clause, nor may any board of contract appeals or other court review them. Unless otherwise terminated under other termination provisions, failure to meet the appropriate incentive levels will constitute grounds for expiration of the contract at the end of the initial award, with no continued liability to the Government.

Should the need for the supplies and/or services no longer exist, as long as performance under an award has not begun, the Government may cancel (rather than terminate), the award term provision; no equitable adjustments will be made as this is NOT a termination for convenience.

8. Evaluation Criteria:

8.1. Operations Area (40 Points):

8.1.1. Safety Category (9 Points):

Graduated Scoring: In the Safety category, the Contractor will begin each annual evaluation period with 100 Safety points, and deductions will occur as described below. Based on the resulting number, the following graduated scoring will be utilized to determine the number of award term points earned for the Safety category as a whole:

o 96 – 100 Safety points = 9 Award Term points awarded o 91 – 95 Safety points = 8 Award Term points awarded o 86 – 90 Safety points = 7 Award Term points awarded o 81 – 85 Safety points = 6 Award Term points awarded o 77 – 80 Safety points = 5 Award Term points awarded o 73 – 76 Safety points = 4 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 72 Safety points = 3 Award Term points awarded o <70 Safety points = 0 Award Term points awarded

8.1.1.1. Safety Plan Element

Scoring Methodology:

o Procedures/Polices Current and Compliant: The Government will select (from the entire safety policy population) a total of five (5) each procedures per quarter. The Contractor will have three (3) Safety points deducted for every policy not in compliance.

o Procedures/Policies Implementation: Any policy not current or not meeting requirements will be identified to the Contractor for rework.

The Government will verify the Contractor has updated the policy and implemented appropriate safety policies within sixteen (16) calendar days (or longer timeline as established by the contractor and agreed upon by the Government) to correct any findings. The Contractor will have five (5) Safety points deducted for every finding that hasn’t been corrected and implemented within the required timeframe.

o Government Identified Deficiencies: The Government will notify the Contractor of Safety deficiencies and require response within the timeframe identified by the Government. Any deficiencies for which the Contractor has not 1) acted upon the identified deficiency 2) provided an alternate solution that mitigates risk or 3) provided rationale for not taking action within the timeframe identified, will have five (5) Safety points deducted per deficiency. If the Contractor chooses an alternate solution to mitigate risk or provides an explanation for not taking action, that response shall be coordinated with and agreed to by the Government. If the Government determines that the response is not sufficient, five (5) Safety points will be deducted.

Scoring Example: During the quarter, the LCAAP Government Safety Office selects five (5) safety policies to be reviewed. Of those, four (4) were found to be compliant. The fifth policy did not reflect current standards, therefore, three (3) Safety points were deducted. The policy was updated but not implemented within the required (16) calendar days, therefore, five (5) additional Safety points will be deducted.

Scoring Example: During a site inspection, the Government identifies deficiencies to safety shielding. The Contractor implements an alternate solution via an equipment redesign, thus mitigating the worker hazard within the timeframe specified by Government. Zero (0) Safety points will be deducted.

8.1.1.2. OSHA Visit/Inspection

Scoring Methodology: Deficiencies cited by OSHA will result in a deduction of one (1) Safety point per de minimus violation, a deduction of three (3) Safety points per serious violation, and ten (10) Safety points per willful violation.

Scoring Example: OSHA identifies various violations that included 3 willful violations. This would result in a loss of thirty (30) safety points.

8.1.1.3. Injuries/Property Damage/Accident Reporting Element

o The Contractor is required to conduct an accident Causation Analysis and identify countermeasures (reference DoD 4145.26-M) for all accidents over $5,000 in Army property damage. Any Causation Analysis Reports not submitted within sixteen (16) calendar days (of the accident) will result in two (2) Safety points being deducted (per report).

o Failure to provide timely notification (within one (1) hour of the accident/incident upon becoming aware of their occurrence) will result in one (1) Safety point being deducted per accident.

o Failure to submit required reports within seven (7) working days for any Army reportable (DA Form 285) accident will result in one (1) Safety point being deducted.

o In the event of a fatality as a result of any Contractor operations, or its subcontractors working onsite, the Contractor will receive Zero

(0) Award Term points for the Safety category as a whole.

o A permanent total disability to a Contractor employee or subcontractor employee is defined as any nonfatal injury or occupational illness that, in the opinion of competent medical authority, permanently incapacitates an employee. Accidents meeting this definition will result in the loss of thirty (30) Safety points. In the event more than one permanent total disability results from a single incident, zero (0) safety award term points will be awarded.

o A permanent partial disability to a Contractor employee or subcontractor employee resulting in one or more of the injuries listed below (per incident) will result in the point deduction identified below; however, the maximum point deduction will be limited to twenty five (25) Safety points per incident.

An amputation of a finger or toe (with bone involvement), or fifty percent (50%) loss of hearing in one ear will result in a deduction of fifteen (15) Safety points.

A total loss of sight in one eye, and/or amputation of foot or hand, 100% loss of hearing, or an industrial burn that results in a loss of thirty (30) working days or more will result in a deduction of twenty (20) Safety points.

An amputation of leg or arm will result in a deduction of twenty-five (25) Safety points.

Scoring Example: During the performance period, the Contractor experienced a fatality. The Contractor would receive zero (0) Award Term points for the Safety category as a whole.

Scoring Example: The Contractor failed to provide a causation report within the sixteen (16) working days, resulting in two (2) Safety points being deducted. The Contractor also was cited (by OSHA) for a single de minimus violation, resulting in one (1) Safety point being deducted.

Cumulatively, this results in three (3) Safety points being deducted.

8.1.1.4. Illness & Injury Rates

o Failure to be at or below the Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) published by the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rates for the NAICS code 332992 will result in five (5) Safety points being deducted.

o Failure to be at or below the Lost Time (LT) case rate published by the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rates for the NAICS code 332992 will result in five (5) Safety points being deducted.

o Failure to be at or below the Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) published by the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rates for the NAICS code 332992 will result in five

(5) Safety points being deducted.

Scoring Example: During the performance period, the Contractor’s TCIR, and DART rate were both above, while the LT case rate was well below the most current publication of the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rates. This would result in ten (10) Safety points being deducted.

8.1.2. Security Category (9 Points):

Graduated Scoring: In the Security category, the Contractor will begin each annual evaluation period with 100 Security points, and deductions will occur as described below. Based upon the resulting number, the following graduated scoring will be utilized to determine the number of award term points earned for the Security category as a whole:

o 96 – 100 Security points = 9 Award Term points awarded o 91 – 95 Security points = 8 Award Term points awarded o 86 – 90 Security points = 7 Award Term points awarded o 81 – 85 Security points = 6 Award Term points awarded o 77 – 80 Security points = 5 Award Term points awarded o 73 – 76 Security points = 4 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 72 Security points = 3 Award Term points awarded o <70 Security points = 0 Award Term points awarded

8.1.2.1. Physical Security: The Contractor is required to maintain overall Physical Security of the installation to include Access Control Point/Patrol Coverage and Mission Essential Vulnerable Areas (MEVA). Access Control Point/Patrol Coverage per the Plant Protection Plan includes access control, FPCON elevation measure implementation, installation closures, civil disturbance response, mail handling procedures, breach response, and emergency response. Physical Security deficiencies not corrected within re-inspection timelines as established by the Government will result in three (3) Security points deducted for each deficiency.

Scoring Example: The Contractor failed to correct three deficiencies identified during a MEVA inspection within established re-inspection time lines. This results in a total deduction of 9 Security points.

8.1.2.2. Security Technology Systems: The Contractor is required to administer, maintain, and monitor the Intrusion Detection and Closed Circuit Television security systems. Failure to report system failures and implement mitigation/corrective actions within current established Standard Operating Procedures will result in three (3) Security Points deducted for each incident.

8.1.2.3. Key and Lock Control and Security of MEVA/AA&E: The

Contractor is required to maintain and implement a comprehensive Key and Lock Control program, and Secure MEVA facilities and AA&E per the Security PWS and current Standard Operating Procedures as established in accordance with AR 190-11. Unsecured MEVA facilities and AA&E found more than once in the quarter will result in three (3) Security Points deducted for each deficiency. Any MEVA/AA&E key and lock control deficiencies identified within a quarter will result in three (3) Security Points deducted for each deficiency. A facility is defined as a building, series, complex or group such as the 121 Warehouses; 19 Series Storage Igloos; 130 D, E, F Series;

68 Series storage bunkers; Building 1; Building 2; Building 85; and Building 35.

8.1.2.4. Classified Manufacturing Areas: The LCAAP has classified ammunition production programs. The Contractor is required to maintain physical security of all facilities/materiel, and security of information and classification levels per current established Standard Operating Procedures and applicable Army Regulation. Physical security deficiencies, breaches of information, or loss of product control will result in twenty five (25) points deducted for each incident.

Scoring Example: The Contractor failed to maintain physical control of a classified program product per program procedures. Classification of the product has been potentially compromised. A total of 25 points deducted.

8.1.2.5. OPSEC Element: The Contractor is required to prepare, implement, maintain and manage an OPSEC program. The Government will review the Contractor’s OPSEC program to ensure the Contractor reviewed 100% of the documentation for release external to LCAAP. Deficiencies will result in two

(2) Security points being deducted for each incident.

8.1.3 Maintenance Category (10 points):

8.1.3.1. Facilities Maintenance Element (7 Points):

Graduated Scoring: The number of Award Term points in the Facilities Maintenance element will be based on the percentage of successfully completed facilities maintenance tasks versus scheduled tasks as outlined in the Maintenance Plan. Additionally deductions may be made for deficiencies not addressed in the previous quarter The following graduated scoring shall be used for Facilities Maintenance:

o 94 – 100% = 7 Award Term points awarded o 88 – 93% = 5 Award Term points awarded o 78 – 87% = 3 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 77% = 1 Award Term point awarded o < 70% = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Methodology: The Government will monitor the Facilities Maintenance requirements quarterly. If the Government identifies task(s) not included in the Maintenance schedule, the Contractor shall include and complete those task(s) no later than the next quarter. If not completed, each missing task will be considered a deficiency and will result in a reduction of one (1) percentage point. At the end of the annual evaluation period, the Contractor shall submit a report of completed and uncompleted facilities maintenance tasks, to include unscheduled or abnormal maintenance. The Government will conduct a sample audit of scheduled tasks. Should there be disagreement(s) (such as classification of abnormal maintenance, facility end-of life, etc.) between the Contractor and Government, the final adjudicator will be the PCO. If the Government determines that the Contractor has certified work as complete that is not complete, zero (0) Award Term points will be awarded for the Facilities Maintenance element. Failure to provide a proposed maintenance plan to the Government for review 45 days prior to the beginning of an award term cycle will result in a 5 percent deduction in the Facilities Maintenance element per business day after the 45 day deadline until the proposed maintenance plan is submitted. The Contractor will be allowed one update to the proposed maintenance plan to address the Government’s comments/concerns. Resubmittals of the maintenance plan after that will result in five (5) percentage point deduction for each resubmittal.

Scoring Example: Contractor successfully completed 96% of scheduled inspections and maintenance activities outlined in the approved Maintenance Plan during the reporting period for Facilities Maintenance, resulting in seven (7) Award Term points for the Facilities Maintenance element.

8.1.3.2. Equipment Maintenance Element (3 Points):

Graduated Scoring: The number Award Term points in the Maintenance element will be based on the percentage of successfully completed equipment maintenance tasks versus scheduled tasks as outlined in the Maintenance Plan. Additionally deductions may be made for deficiencies not addressed in the previous quarter The following graduated scoring shall be used for Facilities Maintenance:

o 92 – 100% = 3 Award Term points awarded o 78 – 91% = 2 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 77% = 1 Award Term point awarded o < 70% = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Methodology: The Government will monitor the Equipment Maintenance requirements quarterly. If the Government identifies task(s) not included in the Maintenance schedule, the Contractor shall include and complete those task(s) no later than the next quarter. If not completed, each missing task will be considered a deficiency and will result in a reduction of one (1) percentage point. At the end of the annual evaluation period, the Contractor shall submit a report of completed and uncompleted equipment maintenance tasks, to include unscheduled or abnormal maintenance. The Government will conduct a sample audit of scheduled tasks. Should there be disagreement(s) (such as classification of abnormal maintenance, equipment end-of life, etc.) between the Contractor and Government, the final adjudicator will be the PCO. If the Government determines that the Contractor has certified work as complete that is not complete, zero (0) Award Term points will be awarded for the Maintenance element. Failure to provide a proposed maintenance plan to the Government for review 45 days prior to the beginning of an award term cycle will result in a 5 percent deduction in the Facilities Maintenance element per business day after the 45 day deadline until the proposed maintenance plan is submitted. The Contractor will be allowed one update to the proposed maintenance plan to address the Government’s comments/concerns. Resubmittals of the maintenance plan after that will result in five (5) percentage point deduction for each resubmittal.

Scoring Example: Contractor successfully completed 94% of the scheduled inspections and maintenance activities during the reporting period, however, failed to include and complete two (2) deficiencies (scheduled maintenance activities not successfully performed) in the next quarter’s plan. Therefore, the total percentage is 92%, resulting in three (3) points for the Equipment Maintenance element.

8.1.4. Environmental Compliance Category (7 Points):

Graduated Scoring: In the Environmental Compliance category, the Contractor will begin each annual evaluation period with 100 Environmental Compliance points, and deductions will occur as described below. Based on the resulting number, the following graduated scoring will be utilized to determine the number of award term points for the Environmental Compliance category as a whole.

o 96 – 100 Environmental points = 7 Award Term points awarded o 91 – 95 Environmental points = 6 Award Term points awarded o 86 – 90 Environmental points = 5 Award Term points awarded o 81 – 85 Environmental points = 4 Award Term points awarded o 77 – 80 Environmental points = 3 Award Term points awarded o 73 – 76 Environmental points = 2 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 72 Environmental points = 1 Award Term point awarded o < 70 Environmental points = 0 Award Term points awarded

8.1.4.1. Unauthorized Discharges to the Environment Element

Scoring Methodology: The Contractor is required to notify the Government IAW the PWS for all discharges to the environment, including National Response Center (NRC) reportable quantity (RQ) and non-RQ spills. Ten (10) Environmental Compliance points will be deducted for each failure to notify the Government by the required method or within 24 hours for non-RQs and 15 minutes for RQs.

Scoring Example: One RQ release occurred during the annual evaluation period; it was not reported within 15 minutes, resulting in ten

(10) Environmental Compliance points being deducted.

Scoring Example: One RQ spill and one non-RQ spill occurred during the annual evaluation period. The RQ spill was reported within 15 minutes, resulting in zero (0) environmental compliance points being deducted. The non-RQ spill was not reported within the 24 hour timeframe, therefore ten (10) environmental compliance points were deducted. In this example, ten (10) Environmental Compliance points are deducted as a result of the two spills.

8.1.4.2. Corrective and Preventive Action Element

Scoring Methodology o The Contractor is required to notify the Government of nonconformities identified through audits, inspections, and environmental program requirements by completing and submitting Corrective/Preventative Action Requests. If the Contractor fails to provide a copy of the proposed corrective and preventive action request to the Government within the required five (5) business days of detecting the nonconformance or violation, five (5) Environmental Compliance points will be deducted per corrective/preventive action.

o If the Contractor and Government cannot reach an agreement to

Environmental PWS nonconformities, the Government will issue a Corrective Action Report (CAR). If the Contractor fails to complete the corrective/preventive action by the date directed by the Government, five (5) Environmental Compliance points will be deducted.

o Upon Contractor notification of completion of the corrective/preventive action, should the Government determine that the action was not properly completed in accordance with (IAW) the plan, ten (10) Environmental Compliance points will be deducted.

Scoring Example: Contractor provided the Government four (4) notices of corrective actions. Two notices were provided within the five (5) business days of detecting the nonconformity; and two were provided later than five

(5) business days subsequent to the nonconformity and the Contractor did not request or receive Government approval for an extension. In this example, a total of ten (10) Environmental Compliance points are deducted (five (5) for each occurrence).

Scoring Example: Government audited a Contractor-closed corrective action and found that the action was not implemented IAW the agreed-to plan, resulting in a deduction of ten (10) Environmental Compliance points for the annual evaluation period in which the audit was completed.

8.1.4.3. Regulatory Compliance Element

o Acute or chronic adverse effects to human health or to the environment. Examples include, but are not limited to: discharging hazardous substances to the environment and contaminating soil, groundwater or surface water that results in damage to the environment either on or off the facility; and serious and immediate risk to health or safety. When a violation results in acute or chronic adverse effects, the Contractor will receive zero (0) Award Term points for the Environmental Compliance category for the annual evaluation

Scoring Example: Contractor discharges a substance that results in contamination of the wastewater treatment plant and subsequently resulting in acute or chronic adverse effect. Zero

(0) Award Term points are awarded for the Environmental Compliance category.

o Failing to execute a regulatory requirement or permit condition that result in the loss of mission capability (impact to schedule, cost, or performance). Examples include, but are not limited to: not obtaining a permit; or not applying for a permit as required by permit or regulation.

A violation will result in fifteen (15) Environmental Compliance points being deducted for each failure to execute a regulatory requirement or permit condition.

Scoring Example: Contractor failed to obtain a construction permit required by regulation that had an adverse schedule impact to the Government, resulting in fifteen (15) Environmental Compliance points being deducted.

o Violating a regulatory requirement or permit condition. Examples include, but are not limited to: improper disposal of hazardous waste;

inadequate documentation of waste treatment or disposal; and treatment of materials without a permit. A violation will result in ten

(10) Environmental Compliance points being deducted for each violation.

Scoring Example: Contractor improperly treats and/or disposes of regulated wastes, resulting in ten (10) Environmental Compliance points being deducted.

8.1.5 Schedule Adherence/On-Time Execution of Projects Element (5 Points):

Graduated Scoring:

o 90 – 100% = 5 Award Term points awarded o 80 – 89% = 3 Award Term points awarded o 70 – 79% = 2 Award Term points awarded o <70% = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Methodology: The score for this element will be the sum of scheduled ATMs completed on time divided by the sum of Award Term Milestones (ATMs) scheduled (for all projects). ATMs for each project will be established by the project team (Contractor and Government) no later than 60 days after contract award of the individual projects. The Government reserves the right to unilaterally establish ATMs if an agreement is not reached within the required timeframe. The Government will review the Contractor’s integrated master schedule to ensure that identified ATMs are included and to verify the milestone status. The scoring will be conducted as a percentage of ATMs scheduled versus the ATMs completed (by due date).

The Contractor shall be allowed a fifteen day grace period for interim ATMs, but the Government reserves the right to identify, on an exception basis, specific ATMs with no grace period. If an ATM date cannot be accomplished due to extenuating circumstances, the Contractor must identify this to the Project OIPT as early as possible. The ATM date may be revised based on the concurrence of the Government. A missed interim milestone does not constitute a rebaseline of the IMS, however, the Government may revise an ATM on a case by case basis. Schedule adherence will be reviewed for progress monitoring at Small Caliber PMRs but only the percentage for the year will be used for the annual evaluation.

Scoring Example: A total of twenty (20) ATMs are scheduled during the rating period and nineteen (19) ATMs were completed on time, the score for this element would be 95%. Utilizing the graduated scoring, five (5) award term points would be earned.

8.2. Production Area (50 Points):

8.2.1. On-Time Delivery Category (25 Points): This category measures the Contactor’s delivery of awarded quantities at the DODIC level, in accordance with the contract delivery schedule, over two six-month increments, known as delivery periods, within the Government Fiscal Year (October–September).

Scoring Methodology: The Government will review the Contractor’s Receiving Reports against the contract delivery schedule, to assess the timeliness of the quantity for each DODIC accepted during the six-month delivery period. A DODIC delivery will be considered "on-time" when Receiving Reports are accepted by the Government representative within the delivery period specified in the contract delivery schedule. However, if the Contractor has delivered any DODICs ahead of schedule, the applicable quantity produced ahead will not offset delinquencies against other DODICs.

Within each six-month delivery period, a percentage will be calculated for each DODIC by dividing the quantity accepted by the contract delivery schedule quantity. Percentages at each calculation will be rounded to the nearest hundredth percent using conventional rounding rules, i.e., 66.567 would equal 66.57%. (Note: the percentage for each DODIC may not exceed 100%).

o The percentages for all DODICs across all families will then be averaged to determine an overall percentage for each six-month delivery period.

o For the annual evaluation, a final average will be determined by averaging the overall percentages for each of the two six-month delivery periods. Points are earned based on assessing the final average against the graduated scoring table.

Graduated Scoring Table

FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

% Points % Points % Points % Points

84-100 25 87-100 25 90-100 25 93-100 25

75-83 22 80-86 22 85-89 22 90-92 22

70-74 19 75-79 19 80-84 19 85-89 19

65-69 16 70-74 16 75-79 16 80-84 16

60-64 13 65-69 13 70-74 13 75-79 13

55-59 10 60-64 10 65-69 10 70-74 10

50-54 7 55-59 7 60-64 7 65-69 7

<50 0 50-54 5 55-59 5 60-64 5

<50 0 50-54 3 55-59 3

<50 0 50-54 1

<50 0

Scoring Example:

1st 6-month Delivery Period (FY21)

Contract Schedule Acceptances %

5.56mm

A071 15,000,000 25,000,000 100.00%

AB57 10,000,000 7,500,000 75.00%

7.62mm

A131 11,000,000 6,000,000 54.55%

A257 5,000,000 5,000,000 100.00%

Cal .50

A557 4,000,000 6,000,000 100.00%

A576 3,000,000 1,000,000 33.33%

Overall Percentage 77.15%

2nd 6-month Delivery Period (FY21)

Contract Schedule Acceptances %

5.56mm

A071 0 5,000,000 N/A*

AB57 10,000,000 10,000,000 100.00%

7.62mm

A131 6,000,000 4,000,000 66.67%

A257 5,000,000 5,000,000 100.00%

Cal .50

A557 4,000,000 6,000,000 100.00%

A576 3,000,000 2,000,000 66.67%

Overall Percentage 86.67%

* A071 is not included in the calculation since there is no scheduled quantity in the contract delivery schedule.

o For this example, the overall percentage for the first six month delivery period in FY21 is 77.15%. For the second six-month delivery period of FY21, the overall percentage is 86.67%. Adding the two percentages and dividing by 2 would equate to a final percentage of 81.91% for FY21, thus resulting in 22 points earned out of 25 total possible points IAW the graduated scoring table.

8.2.2. Product Quality Category (25 points):

8.2.2.1. Quality of Delivered Material Element (10 Points):

Scoring Methodology: When a deficiency is discovered on a lot received by the Government, and determined to be a valid claim, warranty is invoked by the PCO. The letter invoking warranty sent by the PCO will be used to derive the number of award term points as outlined below.

o The Government will assess all lots accepted during the Award Term period (i.e., FY21-FY24). For example, a defect was produced on a lot accepted in April 2021, but the deficiency wasn’t discovered and the warranty wasn’t invoked until March 2022. This lot would be applied to the FY22 Award Term score since the warranty was invoked in March 2022 and the lot was accepted during the Award Term period (e.g., FY21-FY24).

Graduated Scoring: The expectation is that the Contractor will deliver zero (0) deficient lots (material should meet the contractual TDP requirements 100% of the time). The Contractor will be scored in accordance with the table below to derive the number of award term points earned:

Warranty Invoked on Number of Lots o 0-3 = 10 Award Term points awarded o 4-6 = 8 Award Term points awarded o 7-9 = 6 Award Term point awarded o 10-12 = 4 Award Term points awarded o 13-15 = 2 Award Term points awarded o >15 = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Example: Warranty is invoked on two (2) lots during the FY21 Award Term period, resulting in ten (10) award term points earned for the FY21 Quality of Delivered Material Element.

Scoring Example: Warranty is invoked on five (5) lots during the FY23 Award Term period, resulting in eight (8) Award Term points earned for the FY23 Quality of Delivered Material Element. Three (3) of these lots were accepted in FY21 and two (2) of the lots were accepted in FY22.

Since these lots were discovered, verified to be deficient, and the warranty was invoked in FY23, they are assessed against the FY23 Award Term

8.2.2.2. Critical Defect Escape Element (10 Points):

Scoring Methodology: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance relative to its execution of the Critical Characteristics Control requirement for this element by quantifying the number of Critical Defect Escapes. The PCO receives notification of all Critical Defect Escapements. This notification includes the date of the Critical Defect Escape and will be used to derive the number of award term points as outlined below.

Graduated Scoring: The expectation is that the Contractor will allow zero

(0) critical defect escapes. The Contractor will be scored in accordance with the table below to derive the number of award term points earned:

Critical Escapements (occurrences):

0-1 = 10 Award Term points awarded 2-3 = 8 Award Term points awarded 4-5 = 5 Award Term point awarded 6-7 = 2 Award Term points awarded

8-9 = 1 Award Term points awarded

>10 = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Example: Three (3) Critical Defect escapes are documented during the FY21 Award Term period, resulting in eight (8) Award Term points earned for the FY21 Critical Defect Escape Element.

8.2.2.3. Critical Defect Generation Element (5 Points):

Scoring Methodology: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance relative to its execution of this element by comparing the Critical Defect generation rate (defined as the ratio of the total number of critical defects to the total production volume) during the annual evaluation period. The Critical Defect generation rate will be calculated in Parts Per Million (PPM) rounded to the third decimal. The Government will use data extracted from the Contractor’s monthly Critical Generation Report to score this element. The PCO receives a monthly Critical Defect Generation Report from the Contractor. The data extracted from this report will be used to derive the number of award term points as outlined below.

Graduated Scoring: The expectation is that the Contractor will have a Critical Defect Generation rate of less than 130 PPM during the FY21 Award Term period and improve each FY until a rate of less than 100 PPM is reached during the FY24 Award Term period. The Contractor will be scored in accordance with tables below to derive the number of award term points earned:

Graduated Critical Generation Rate Scale – FY21 o Less than 130.000 PPM = 5 Award Term points awarded o 130.000 PPM – 139.999 PPM = 4 Award Term points awarded o 140.000 PPM – 149.999 PPM = 3 Award Term points awarded o 150.000 PPM – 159.999 PPM = 2 Award Term points awarded o 160.000 PPM – 169.999 PPM = 1 Award Term point awarded o Greater Than 169.999 PPM = 0 Award Term points awarded

Graduated Critical Generation Rate Scale – FY22 o Less than 120.000 PPM = 5 Award Term points awarded o 120.000 PPM – 129.999 PPM = 4 Award Term points awarded o 130.000 PPM – 139.999 PPM = 3 Award Term points awarded o 140.000 PPM – 149.999 PPM = 2 Award Term points awarded o 150.000 PPM – 159.999 PPM = 1 Award Term point awarded o Greater Than 159.999 PPM = 0 Award Term points awarded

Graduated Critical Generation Rate Scale – FY23 o Less than 110.000 PPM = 5 Award Term points awarded o 110.000 PPM – 119.999 PPM = 4 Award Term points awarded o 120.000 PPM – 129.999 PPM = 3 Award Term points awarded o 130.000 PPM – 139.999 PPM = 2 Award Term points awarded o 140.000 PPM – 149.999 PPM = 1 Award Term point awarded o Greater Than 149.999 PPM = 0 Award Term points awarded

Graduated Critical Generation Rate Scale – FY24 o Less than 100.000 PPM = 5 Award Term points awarded o 100.000 PPM – 109.999 PPM = 4 Award Term points awarded o 110.000 PPM – 119.999 PPM = 3 Award Term points awarded o 120.000 PPM – 129.999 PPM = 2 Award Term points awarded o 130.000 PPM – 139.999 PPM = 1 Award Term point awarded o Greater Than 139.999 PPM = 0 Award Term points awarded

Scoring Example: In the FY21 Award Term period, the rate of Critical

Defects generated is 142.378 PPM, resulting in three (3) Award Term points for the FY21 Critical Defect Generation Element.

Scoring Example: In the FY23 Award Term period, the rate of Critical Defects generated is 107.553 PPM, resulting in five (5) Award Term points for the FY23 Critical Defect Generation Element.

8.3. Customer Satisfaction (10 Points): The Contractor will be evaluated on overall customer satisfaction and performance in communicating and responding effectively, appropriately, and in a timely manner. Government stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide feedback throughout the annual evaluation period and document both positive and negative levels of Contractor customer satisfaction.

The PCO will review documented input and award zero (0) to ten (10) Award Term points for the Customer Satisfaction element.

Appendix A - Scorecard

Contract: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Contractor: Available Annual

Pts Annual

Pts Annual

Pts Annual

Pts Cumulative

Points Oct 20 - Sep

21 (FY21)

Oct 21 - Sep

22 (FY22)

Oct 22 - Sep

23 (FY23)

Oct 23 - Sep

24 (FY24) Rating

1. Operations 40

1) Safety 9

2) Security 9

3) Maintenance 10

4) Environmental Compliance 7

5) Schedule Adherence On Time Execution 5

TOTAL 40

2. Production 50

1) On Time Delivery 25

2) Product Quality 25

TOTAL 50

3. Customer Satisfaction 10

1) Customer Satisfaction

TOTAL 10

GRAND TOTAL 100