Attachment_2_Award_Fee_Plan_26JUL16.doc

W911SR-17-R-0002, Attachment #2

JEM Award Fee Plan

Award Fee Plan & Procedures PMW 150 / Joint Project Manager Information Systems (JPM IS) Joint Effect Model (JEM)

31 INTRODUCTION

32 STRUCTURE

73 SCHEDULES FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

84 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

115 CHANGING AWARD FEE DISTRIBUTION

116 COMPUTATION OF AWARD FEE

117 FINALITY OF FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL'S DECISION

11The amount of award fee, if any, shall be determined on a unilateral basis in the sole discretion of the Government.

118 OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF AWARD FEE

119 TERMINATION

13ACRONYM LIST

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance and administration for the award fee provisions, as defined in special contract clauses of solicitation W911SR-16-R-0006. The Research Development Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) (PWS C.3.1) CLINs will be Cost-Plus Award Fee contract type.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this plan are:

a. To provide incentive(s) to the Contractor to perform in an effective and economical manner to facilitate excellence in contract performance.

b. To establish appropriate standards for measuring performance which are sufficiently flexible to allow for changes.

c. To provide procedures which ensure that the Contractor's performance is evaluated fairly and equitably and provides award fees commensurate to that performance.

1.3 Applicability

This plan shall be used by the ACC / JPM IS Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) to administer award fee evaluations and determinations under this contract.

1.4 Order of Precedence

In the event of any inconsistency between this plan and other provisions of the contract, the contract will have precedence.

1.5 Subcontractor Responsibility

The prime contractor is solely responsible for Subcontractors' cost, schedule, and technical performance.

2 STRUCTURE

2.1 Fee Determining Official (FDO)

The FDO is the JPM IS Joint Project Manager. The primary responsibilities of the FDO are to:

a. Determine the award fee payable for each evaluation period.

b. Determine if the plan should be changed and request that the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) implement all required changes.

2.2 Performance Evaluation Board

2.2.1 PEB Responsibilities

The primary responsibilities of the PEB are to:

a. Conduct ongoing evaluations of the Contractor's performance and submit a

Performance Evaluation Board Report to the PEB Chairperson defining the Board's specific findings and recommendations for each evaluation period; and

b. Consider proposed changes to this plan and make recommendations to the FDO.

c. Document all ratings and the method used to evaluate the contractor’s performance and derive the ratings. Such documentation shall be included in the PEBR.

2.2.2 PEB Members

The PEB shall consist of the following government members:

a. Chairperson, JEM Acquisition Product Manager

b. Deputy Acquisition Program Manager (DAPM)

c. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

d. JSTO Technical Manager

e. JEM Engineering Staff

f. JSTO Thrust Area Managers

g. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

2.2.3 Chairperson

The Chairperson is responsible for:

a. Proper operation of the PEB in accordance with the Award Fee Plan.

b. Reviewing the performance rating, based on the PEB's findings and recommendations, and furnishing a written recommendation to the FDO.

c. Chairing each board meeting.

d. Scheduling all meetings and notifying members of time and place.

e. Resolving any disputes and/or stalemates between members.

f. Appointing non-voting Performance Monitors to assist the Board in performing its function.

2.2.4 PCO

The PCO is responsible for the following:

a. Assuring compliance with the contract, the award fee plan, and applicable law and regulations.

b. Calculating the award fee payable to the Contractor based on the FDO's determination of the Contractor's performance rating.

c. Preparing the appropriate contract modifications to incorporate the award fee for each period.

2.2.5 PEB Members Responsibilities

All PEB members are responsible for the following:

a. Establishing a system of periodic performance evaluation reviews using inputs from program office personnel and advice from selected support personnel working on the program in the various functional areas.

b. Coordinating, compiling, evaluating, and documenting the inputs received from program and selected support personnel.

c. Preparing a written evaluation report for each period to be included in the recommendation to the FDO with a copy to the Contractor.

d. Recommending to the FDO contract performance objectives for each evaluation period.

2.2.6 Evaluation Periods

The evaluations will be conducted on the RDT&E CPAF CLINs approximately every six (6) months but as agreed upon by the Technical Instruction (TI).

The Government will meet with the Contractor to draft a TI and determine the content of the specific deliveries, scheduled milestones, and evaluation period objectives. The TI will be drafted and signed bilaterally by both the Government and Contractor. The Government reserves the right to unilaterally execute the TI an agreement has not been met between the parties by the fifth (5) calendar day upon receipt of Draft TI.

The Government shall submit a draft TI ten (10) days prior to the end of the previous evaluation period.

2.2.7 Award Fee Criteria

For each evaluation period, the Government will evaluate the Contractor's performance against evaluation criteria in four major categories:

1. Quality

2. Cost

3. Schedule

4. Management.

Each category will have evaluation criteria as defined in the Table 2 below. The award fee score for that category will be determined by the number of the criteria the contractor is determined to have satisfied. For example, if the contractor is determined to have satisfied all of the four criteria within Quality, the contractor would have achieved 100% of the Award-Fee Pool within Quality. If the contractor is determined to have satisfied three of the four criteria within Quality, the contractor would have achieved 75% of the Award-fee Pool within Quality.

The Contractor will only earn an Award Fee for performance that is rated overall as Satisfactory, Good, Excellent or Outstanding per Adjectival Ratings defined in Table 1. If the Government rates the contractor’s performance as Unsatisfactory for any evaluation criteria, the Contractor will not be entitled to any Award Fee during that evaluation period. The categories are weighted as follows:

Quality 50%

Cost 10%

Schedule 20%

Management 20% Accordingly, the “Quality” category has the capacity to earn up to 50% of the award fee pool. The “Cost” category has the capacity to earn up to 10% and the “Schedule” and “Management” categories each has the capacity to earn up to 20% of the award fee pool.

a. “Quality” is the measure of the quality of the deliverables and/or services the Contractor provides during the course of the contract.

b. “Cost” is the Contractor’s ability to manage funds provided by the Government during the period of performance under this contract.

c. “Schedule” is the effectiveness of the Contractor’s ability to adhere to milestones and delivery requirements of the IMS and the Contractor’s responsiveness to TI’s.

d. “Management” measures the efficiency of the processes the Contractor implements to maintain program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment of tasks, advanced identification of problems and problem resolution integrating total program concept and a comprehensive management approach.

2.2.8 Changes to the Award Fee Plan

The Government may, at its discretion and unilaterally, revise the award fee plan, including evaluation criteria, at any time prior to the beginning of a new Task Order or the next issuance of a TI. If the Government chooses to revise the criteria, the revised criteria will be provided to the contractor prior to the start of the next award fee evaluation period. Changes to evaluation criteria may be proposed by the contractor. All contractor proposed changes, and changes initiated by the Government for evaluation periods that have already begun, shall be bilaterally negotiated.

3 SCHEDULES FOR DETERMINING AWARD FEE

3.1 Award Fee Evaluation

The Award Fee Evaluation shall be conducted as follows:

a. The PEB shall complete its evaluation and the PEB Chairperson shall submit to the FDO results of the evaluation, a recommendation of Award Fee, with supporting justification, in writing, no later than twenty (20) working days after the completion of the evaluation period.

b. The FDO shall notify the PEB Chairperson of the decision, within ten (10) working days from receipt of the Award Fee recommendations.

c. The PEB Chairperson shall present a briefing to the Contractor on the Contractor's performance during the period under evaluation, within ten (10) working days of the FDO's decision. This briefing will include details on the Contractor's performance, accomplishments, problems, recommendations and any other data that the Government considers to be appropriate for the award fee evaluation.

d. A contract modification to the contract to provide the award fee shall be issued ASAP from receipt of the FDO’s final decision.

4 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

The Award Fee for each period shall be determined by the PEB assigning an adjectival rating based on the results for the overall evaluation period. See attached Award-Fee Calculation Spreadsheet for better understanding of how the Contractor will be evaluated. Assigned weights shall be applied to each of the four criteria to determine the overall percent of the fee pool earned.

Outstanding (90%-100%)

Excellent (75%-89%)

Good (50%-74%)

Satisfactory (<50%)

Unsatisfactory (0%)

Table 1. Adjectival Ratings Quality 50% of Award Fee Pool Cost

10% of Award Fee Pool Schedule

20% of Award Fee Pool Management

20% of Award Fee Pool

1. Quality of delivered software, documentation, data, and technical/periodic reports exceeds JPM IS Software Deliveries Process, SOP 31 requirements and is complete, clear, concise, technically accurate and easily understood. No clarification or rework was required

2. No priority 1 or 2 PCRs exist for the delivered products as identified in the JPM IS PCR database. The product installs without error.

3. Priority 1 software defects in delivered products are corrected, with fixes delivered in less than 5 working days to JPM IS CM or as defined in a Technical Instruction (TI).

4. Priority 2 software defects in delivered products are corrected, with fixes delivered in less than 20 working days to JPM IS CM or as defined in a Technical Instruction (TI).

1. Contractor consistently submits accurate cost forecasts, clearly providing early identification of cost problem areas.

2. Contractor demonstrates efficiency and program cost savings by delivering additional required capabilities prior to end of agreed upon evaluation period. Efficiency is defined by the Contractor’s ability to complete more required capabilities without additional funding.

1. Software, documentation, data, and technical/periodic reports are delivered on time and in compliance with JPM IS SOP 31 and CDRL.

2. Contractor consistently submits high quality schedule forecasts and identifies any schedule issues in the MSR.

3. Schedule Variances from the TI are identified early and are fully explained in the MSR and recovered without schedule impact to overall program goals.

4. Schedule milestone tracking and projections are observed to accurately reflect CDRL delivery dates.

1. Contractor demonstrates the highest degree of IMS resource planning, identifies and resolves problems, and provides a comprehensive management approach. Contractor consistently identifies both new and latent software defects as they arise and proposes resolutions in a timely manner.

2. Contractor develops an effective, efficient team that is properly resourced to accomplish required technical and schedule objectives. Contractor maintains open lines of communication between all parties required to achieve objectives. Contractor supports program activities in a consistent and cooperative manner.

3. Contractor demonstrates real time initiative and foresight in planning, analyzing, and assessing risk. Contractor consistently documents plans and identified risk in the MSR. Contractor consistently submits accurate cost forecasts, clearly providing early identification of cost problem areas.

4. Contractor utilizes proactive, innovative, continuous business process improvements to reduce cost, execute timely and accurate invoices, improve quality, and reduce time to complete tasks.

Table 2. Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

5 CHANGING AWARD FEE DISTRIBUTION

The Award Fee Pool distribution described in the table below is structured to reflect the evaluation criteria. Nothing in the above paragraphs shall be construed in any way as diminishing or waiving the Government's right to unilaterally determine award fee dollar amounts for any period in accordance with paragraph 6 below.

Table 3. MAXIMUM POTENTIAL AWARD FEE POOL

Note* Award fee ceiling subject to negotiation (0-10%).

6 COMPUTATION OF AWARD FEE

The award fee earned for each award fee period will be computed as follows:

Table 4.

Adjectival Rating Percent of Potential

Award Fee Pool Earned

7 FINALITY OF FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL'S DECISION

The amount of award fee, if any, shall be determined on a unilateral basis in the sole discretion of the Government.

8 OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF AWARD FEE

Upon determination of the award fee earned for each period, the PCO shall obligate funds for payment of such award fee as soon as practicable. No payment shall be made to the Contractor from such funds except pursuant to modifications to the Contract, signed by the PCO. Unearned award fee will not be obligated in advance.

9 TERMINATION

In the event of termination of this contract pursuant to the "TERMINATION" clause, the Contractor shall be entitled to that amount of award fee that has already been awarded plus such additional amounts as may be determined by the FDO. The amount of such additional award fee, if any, shall be determined on a unilateral basis and not subject to the "DISPUTES" clause.

ACRONYM LIST

APM

Assistant Program Manager

FDO

Fee Determining Official

JEM

Joint Effects Model

JPMIS

Joint Project Manager Information Systems

IPR

Interim Program Review

MSR

Monthly Status Report

PEB

Performance Evaluation Board

PERB

Performance Evaluation Review Board

PEBR

Performance Evaluation Board Report

PCO

Procuring Contracting Officer

PCR

Problem Change Report

PDR

Preliminary Design Review

PM

Program Manager

PWS

Performance Based Work Statement

SOP

Standard Operating Process

SPS

System Performance Specification

TI

Technical Instruction

TOM

Task Order Manager

WAWF

Wide Area Work Flow