Attachment_8_Award_Term_Plan.pdf

AWARD TERM PLAN

for the

U.S. Army Marketing and Advertising Program

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This award term plan is for the U.S. Army Advertising and Marketing Program. This plan encompasses an adaptation of the marketing and advertising industry practice of establishing long-term relationships with a quality Agency. The purpose of this award term incentive will assist in maintaining a relationship with a proven and reliable Agency and promote sustained superior performance.

1.2 The award term procedures described herein are a preliminary part of the process for the Contracting Officer (“KO”) to make a decision of whether the designated option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government’s needs in the respective award term. It does not alleviate the necessity for making additional determinations under, and in accordance with, FAR Subpart 17.2 and 52.217-9.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Term Determining Official (TDO). The TDO approves the Award Term Plan and any changes. The TDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the ATRB, and considers all pertinent data. The TDO appoints the ATRB Chairperson.

2.2 Award Term Review Board (ATRB). The ATRB members review the performance monitors’ evaluation of the Agency’s performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, and arrive at an award term recommendation to be presented to the TDO. The ATRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

2.3 ATRB Recorder. The ATRB Recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the ATRB, and the TDO.

2.4 Contracting Officer. The KO is the liaison between the Agency and

Government personnel. The KO reviews the recommendation by the TDO, determines whether it is within the Government’s best interest, and modifies the contract award term if necessary to reflect the decision.

2.5 Performance Monitors. Performance Monitors maintain written records of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation area(s) so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Monitors prepare the interim and end-of-period (EOP) evaluation reports directed by the KO.

3.0 ORGANIZATION

3.1 The Award Term organization consists of the Term Determining Official (TDO); an Award Term Review Board (ATRB) which consists of a chairperson, the KO, a recorder, and functional area experts.

3.2 The TDO and ATRB members, to include each assigned area of evaluation, are named in Appendix 1.

3.3 Award Term Review Board

4.0 AWARD TERM PROCESSES

4.1 The Agency will not “earn” an award term option solely by meeting the criteria of this plan. For each Award Term, the Term Determining Official and KO will only consider whether the Award Term can be exercised once. Specifically, at the end of the first and second Evaluation Period as set out at Annex 2, the TDO and KO will make an affirmative or negative decision as to whether the Award Term Optional Ordering Period can be converted to a firm Optional Ordering Period. If the decision is against an Award Term conversion, the decision will not be reconsidered at a later date. Additionally, a negative decision after the first Evaluation Period will also eliminate any review at the end of the second Evaluation Period and will nullify the second Award Term Optional Ordering Period. Likewise, a negative decision after the second Evaluation Period will not be reconsidered later time. The current schedule for award term decisions allows for adequate acquisition lead-time to ensure

Term Determining Official

Performance Monitor

Performance Monitor

Performance Montior

Contracting Officer

Award Term Review Board

Recorder time permits to complete a new acquisition in the event the contractor fails to meet the criteria established in the Award Term Plan.

4.2 Planned Award Term Decision Points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year

Base Period

Decision Point #1

Decision Point #2

AT

Single Year Options

ATAT

Award Term Decision Point

I

M Contract Modification Extending Ordering Period

M M

Decision Point #1 Decision Point #2

Contract Length

Interim Evaluation

4.3 Evaluation Criteria. If the KO does not provide specific notice in writing to the contractor of changes to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of an evaluation period, the same criteria from the preceding period will be used in the subsequent evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and notifying the contractor.

4.4 Interim Evaluation Process. The ATRB Recorder notifies the performance monitors 30 calendar days before the midpoint of the evaluation period.

Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the ATRB 7 calendar days after the midpoint of the evaluation period. The ATRB Chairperson determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period. At this time, the ATRB may also recommend any changes to the award term plan for TDO approval. The KO may also issue letters at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.

4.5 End-of-Period Evaluations. The ATRB Recorder notifies each performance monitor 30 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period.

Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the ATRB 14 days after the end of the evaluation period. The contractor presents its self-assessment to the KO 14 days after the end of the evaluation period. The ATRB Chairperson prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of the award term. The ATRB Chairperson briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the TDO. The TDO determines the overall rating for the award term evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The TDO letter informs the contractor of the award term evaluation results. Upon receipt of the award term evaluation results, the KO makes their decision and issues a modification within 15 calendar days after the TDO’s recommendation is made to convert the award term to an option period. A modification to the contract is only made if the award term is recommended by the TDO.

4.6 Contractor’s Self-Assessment. The contractor’s self-evaluation is submitted to the KO within 14 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor’s performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain additional information that may be reasonably expected to assist the ATRB in evaluating the contractor’s performance.

Additional information can include areas that have not been presented in COR Reports, IPRs, PMRs, and Process Improvement Proposals (PIPs).

The contractor’s self-assessment may not exceed 15 pages.

5.0 AWARD TERM PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

The Government may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. In addition, the contractor may recommend changes to the plan no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of a new evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the KO, in writing, no later than 30 days before the start of the affected evaluation period. Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by the mutual consent of both parties.

ANNEX 1

AWARD TERM ORGANIZATION

Members

Term Determining Official: _______________

Award Term Review Board Chairperson: _______________

Award Term Review Board Members:

Technical Representative: AMRG Technical Representative: US Army Reserves Technical Representative: US National Guard Contracting Officer: MICC-Fort Sam Houston Recorder: MICC-Fort Sam Houston

PERFORMANCE MONITORS

Area of Evaluation Performance Monitor(s)

Cost MICC-Fort Sam Houston Contracting Staff Schedule AMRG COR Quality of Services AMRG COR Small Business MICC-Fort Sam Houston Contracting Staff

ANNEX 2

AWARD TERM ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIODS

The interim evaluation is used to inform the contractor of their strengths and weakness for the current evaluation period. The award term earned by the contractor will be determined at the completion evaluation periods shown below.

Evaluation Period From To Available Award

Term Interim Evaluation Contract Start Fifteen (15)

Months

End of Period Contract Start End of Year 3 of Base Ordering Period

Award Term 1

Interim Evaluation Start of Optional

Ordering Period 1 Six (6) Months

End of Period Start of Optional Ordering Period 1

End of Year 1 of Optional Ordering Period

Award Term 2

Additionally, always schedule the award term decision(s) “acquisition” lead-time away to ensure time permits to complete a new acquisition (if needed). In this example, the FDO makes two award term decisions, one decision at the three-year point and the other after six years. If the contractor is successful, the Contracting Officer will issue a contract modification extending the ordering period. If unsuccessful, the Contracting Officer will not issue the modification and is unable to issue orders after the four-year or seven-year point. This “irrevocable re-competition point” is a key concept to consider when structuring non-cost incentives. When triggered, the requiring activity needs to initiate actions to put a new contract in place. Again, plan the award term decision(s) well in advance of the ordering period’s expiration to allow for re-acquisition.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS – AWARD TERM PROCESS

Interim Evaluation (IE) (15 months [Award Term 1]/6 months [Award Term 2])

30 days prior to IE Recorder notifies COR

7 days after IE

COR submit evaluation reports to ATRB

14 days after IE

ATRB Chairperson determines interim evaluation results and notifies the KO of contractor strengths and weaknesses.

The KO notifies the contractor of the IE results.

Normally at least 30 days prior to the End of Period (EOP)

ATRB may recommend any changes to Award Term Plan to TDO

End-of-Period (EOP) (End of 3 year evaluation period [Award Term 1]/End of 1 year Evaluation period [Award Term 2])

30 days prior to EOP Recorder notifies COR 14 days after EOP COR submits evaluation reports to ATRB.

KO forwards a copy to the contractor.

14 days after EOP Contractor submits self-assessment to

KO.

21 days after EOP Contractor has opportunity to address Performance Monitor Evaluation Reports.

30 days after EOP ATRB briefs evaluation report and recommendation to the TDO. Contractor has opportunity to brief TDO.

45 days after EOP TDO informs contractor and KO of the award term evaluation. KO notifies contractor of the award term results.

15 days after TDO’s recommendation KO issues a contract modification reflecting the award term decision.

ANNEX 3

EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. The contractor will be required to perform to the Government’s established performance standards, as specified in the PWS. The Government-developed Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) will serve as the basis to ensure contract standards are achieved. Contractor performance will be evaluated based upon the Performance metrics, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) reports, contract deliverables, on-site inspection of services, and the Award Term Plan.

The Government’s performance measurements are critical in assuring that standards are meaningful and achievable in order to attain successful contract performance.

Although award-fee and award term use subjective evaluation, objective measurement of contractor performance to support the evaluation is a unique approach that more clearly articulates to the contractor what is expected to be achieved for program success during the evaluation period. Using this approach, categories of performance are still identified, but measurable outputs are determined before the evaluation period begins to communicate what performance level is necessary to achieve a particular rating. For instance, if improving productivity/performance is established as an objective, metrics are established to measure performance within that productivity/performance category. Within each metric, performance levels are identified to rate contractor performance. If completion of productivity initiatives is identified as a metric for improving productivity/performance, it could be predetermined that 90% - 100% is an excellent, 80% - 90% a very good, etc. The metrics provide an indication of contract performance for a particular category and are an input for the overall subjective evaluation of that category. (See Performance Assessment Matrix Template in Annex E for further information.) As contract work progresses from one evaluation period into the next, the relative importance of specific performance criteria may change. The award-fee or award term plan may indicate the relative priorities assigned to the various categories of performance through percentage weightings. If weights are used to communicate relative priorities, the total assigned weights must equal 100 percent.

B. The areas to be monitor include those identified above and the following: Cost, Schedule, Quality of Services, and Small Business Participation. In order to be eligible for the first Award Term, an overall rating of “Good” must be achieved in two of the first three areas, and a “Satisfactory” rating must be achieved for Small Business Participation. For the second Award Term, a rating of “Good” must be achieved in all three of the first three areas and a “Satisfactory” rating must be achieved for Small Business Participation. Once an Award Term has been earned, a unilateral modification to the contract will be completed converting the Award Term to an Optional Ordering Period.

AFMCFARS 5316.405-2 (90) (1) (ii) for CPAF contracts requires when points are assigned to the grades, that the range of points for unsatisfactory be a minimum of 50% of the total points. For example, the “unsatisfactory” range would be at least 0-75 if there are a total of 150 points assigned. However, the “unsatisfactory” range could be 0-100 points depending on the grading scale and the corresponding level of performance expected. Unsatisfactory performance is usually inadequate to accomplish the contractual requirements. Therefore, unsatisfactory performance should not be rewarded.

For award term, points should be used to grade the contractor’s performance. In cases where term reduction is part of the award term clause, the point scale should include negative points to indicate unsatisfactory performance. For example, if a -/+ 100 point scale is used, -100 to –1 could be unsatisfactory, 0 to +70 satisfactory and +71 to +100 excellent.

Objective Award fee criteria Measurement tool Evaluation criteria

Performance Communication Effectiveness Based on Copy Testing (Immediate and Long Term Impact) Market Motivation and Breakthrough

Minimum performance to meet PWS: average level of market penetration Good – 1-3% over the average Very Good – 4-6% over average Excellent – 7% or greater increase over the average

Performance Performance Assessment Customer Satisfaction (based on customer surveys)

Minimum performance to meet

PWS: 70-79%

Good – achievement of 80-90% Very Good – achievement of 91-94% Excellent – achievement of 95% or greater

Performance Media Execution/Innovation Based on Web Hits and Leads (based on monthly reports of web usage and lead generation by marketing medium on an annual basis)

Minimum: Total Required hits and leads from the AMP Good – 10-19% over required projections Very Good – 20-29% over required projections Excellent – 30% over required projections

Schedule Timeliness Market Timing and Customer Satisfaction (based on customer surveys)

Minimum performance required:

90% Good – achievement of 91-93% Excellent – achievement of 94- 97% Outstanding – achievement 98- 100%

Cost Employment of Cost Effective Measures

Cost savings derived from project execution

Minimum performance required:

NTE proposed cost - Satisfactory Good – 10-12% under proposed cost Very Good – 13-14% under proposed cost Excellent – 15% or more under proposed cost

Small Business Goal Performance will be measured by results from eSRS submission

Minimum: 100% of goal attainment for the six SB categories identified (considered Satisfactory) Good – meeting all categories and exceeding total SB goal by 5% Very Good - meeting all categories and exceeding total SB goal by 10%

Excellent - meeting all categories and exceeding total SB goal by 15%

i. Cost: Sample areas of interest include: efficiencies in use of funds for reimbursable CLINs; reduction in overhead costs; timely identification of excess funds for deobligation; no cost overruns on original estimates; cost management system automatically identifies problem areas and implements solutions to maintain staff and growth levels below the negotiated levels, contract administration, estimating system surveillance, and oversight monitoring resulting in no deficiencies or audit problems in maintaining compliance with the FAR.

ii. If the maximum score for cost control is given when the contractor achieves the negotiated estimated cost of the contract, there may be no incentive for cost underruns. Some lesser score may be assigned indicating the degree to which the contractor has prudently managed costs while meeting contract requirements.

iii.

iv. - Cost underruns within the contractor's control will normally be rewarded. However, cost underruns may not indicate good cost control unless the actual effort during the evaluation period matches that originally proposed or planned. The extent to which the underrun is rewarded will depend on the size of the underrun and the contractor's level of performance in the other categories of performance.

v.

Unsatisfactory The contractor does not have an adequate cost control program in place and is unable to reduce cost impact resulting from schedule delays no matter who caused the delay. Additionally, the contractor fails to identify problem areas.

Satisfactory A cost control program is in place that provides a mechanism to reduce overall cost of the contract.

Good The contractor has a clear understanding of the need to maintain cost control and actively pursues cost containment.

ii. Schedule: Sample areas of interest include phase-in/phase-out is accomplished ahead of schedule with no compromise to quality of services; inventory of Government Furnished Property is completed ahead of schedule and Contractor’s Property Management System is approved by Defense Contract Management Agency Property Administrator; contract deliverables are detailed, comprehensive, accurate, error free, and are submitted ahead of contractual due dates; contract staffing levels are consistently above the Acceptable Quality Levels in the Performance Metrics and are adjusted to meet mission need without redirection required by the Government; position vacancies are filled expeditiously with no lapse in services; surge requirements are met consistently.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet contractually required delivery schedules for services and deliverables. Does not meet customer expectations for satisfying contractual requirements.

Satisfactory Meets contractually required delivery schedules for services and deliverables.

Meets customer expectations for satisfying contractual requirements.

Good Substantially reduces contractually required delivery schedules for services and deliverables. Exceeds customer expectations for satisfying contractual requirements.

iii. Quality of Services: Sample areas of interest include: XXXXX; proposes additional contract metrics for meeting performance, schedule, and cost requirements.

Unsatisfactory No corporate involvement in, and support of, quality control efforts to evaluate performance and effect overall improvement. Problems are no anticipated or acted upon and there are adverse impacts to cost, schedule or performance. Contract requirements overall are not met

Satisfactory Some corporate involvement in, and support of, quality control efforts to evaluate performance and effect overall improvement. Problems are anticipated most times and acted upon to eliminate impacts. Some changes requiring adverse impacts to cost, schedule, or performance planning are needed to meet contract requirements.

Good Strong corporate involvement in, and support of, quality control efforts to evaluate performance and effect overall improvement. Problems are anticipated and acted upon to eliminate any impact.

No significant changes requiring adverse impacts to cost, schedule, or performance planning are needed to meet or exceed contract requirements.

iv. Small Business Participation (SB): Areas of interest include meeting SB participation goals.

Unsatisfactory Contractor fails to meet SB participation plan requirement.

Satisfactory Contractor meets SB participation plan requirement.

SAMPLE AWARD FEE EVALUATIONS:

The below samples award fee determinations are for illustrative purposes only:

1. Assuming the award fee pool is set at $2,000,000.00, and assuming that the contractor received the following ratings in the evaluation criteria from the AFDO for the base year:

Performance – 92% Communication – 88% Recruitment/Leads – 75% (Web Hits and Leads) Accessions Mission Met by Army Small Business – 97% The award fee for the evaluation period would be determined as follows:

$2,000,000 x .55 x .80 = $880,000 (Performance) $2,000,000 x .30 x .65 = $390,000 (Communication) $2,000,000 x .10 x .50 x 0 = $0 (Web Hits and Leads) $2,000,000 x .10 x .50 x 75 = $75,000 (Accessions Mission Met – Award amount subjectively determined by consideration of factors in paragraph 3b of Award Plan) $2,000,000 x .05 x .97 = $97,000 (Small Business) Total Award Fee: $1,367,000

2. Assuming the award fee pool is set at $1,500,000.00, and assuming the contractor received the following ratings in the evaluation criteria from the AFDO for the base year:

Performance – 82% Communication – 69% Recruitment/Leads – 85% (Web Hits and Leads) Accessions Mission Not Met by Army Small Business – 89% The award fee for the evaluation period would be determined as follows:

$1,500,000 x .55 x .50 = $412,500 (Performance) $1,500,000 x .30 x 0 = $0 (Communication) $1,500,000 x .10 x .50 x .6 = $45,000 (Web Hits and Leads) $1,500,000 x .10 x .50 x 0 = $0 (Accessions Mission Not Met by Army) $1,500,000 x .05 x .70 = $70,000 (Small Business) Total Award Fee: $0 (In that Communication was rated below Satisfactory)

For Three Grades

Unsatisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is inadequate and inconsistent. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.

Overall unsatisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee. (Note: last sentence applies only to use with award fee.)

Satisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract tasks is adequate with some tangible and intangible benefits to the Government due to contractor’s effort or initiative. Although there are areas of better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas.

Excellent Performance: Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

COST AND SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT

UNSATISFACTORY

1. Cost and schedule reports are unclear and not easily reconcilable to a common data base.

2. Funds requirements data are not received timely.

3. Cost and schedule variances (including subcontractor) are not identified early.

4. Contractor does not ensure all proposal data, including subcontractor data, is adequate for technical review and cost analysis.

5. Contractor does not meet schedule identified in the contract.

SATISFACTORY

1. All cost and schedule reports are clear and reconcile to a common data base.

2. Funds requirements data are projected accurately and clearly and are received timely.

3. Cost and schedule variances (including subcontractor) are identified early and plans for recovery revised, reported, and implemented.

4. Contractor ensures all proposal data, including subcontractor data, is adequate for technical review and cost analysis.

5. Changes are suggested timely to achieve maximum cost savings when implemented.

6. Schedule milestone tracking and projections are accurate with only minor impacts occurring.

7. Contractor meets schedule identified in the contract.

GOOD

1. Cost reports are submitted with full traceability within and between reports.

Adjustments are fully and clearly explained.

2. All requirements for additional funding are thoroughly documented and justified.

3. Contractor takes measures to avoid cost growth. Corrective actions are briefed to the Government and are generally accepted without changes.

4. Cost data is consistent and logical and based on program requirements. Contractor recognizes where cost growth may be occurring and provides timely and well-documented justification of actual problems that would require application of additional resources.

5. Cost proposals are well organized and provide visibility to the Government.

6. Risk analyses of all proposed or required schedule changes, including the impact on all levels of the program, performed accurately and timely. Contractor employs early corrective action and planning to preclude potential delays in the schedule.

Contractor communicates schedule risk areas and proposed action to the Government well in advance of required action.

7. Contractor plans, develops and executes procedures that meet the existing timetable.

VERY GOOD

1. Funds requirements reflect constant scrutiny to ensure accuracy.

2. Cost savings are considered and reported in change proposals.

3. Contractor prepares and develops graphic program cost and schedule data that provides clear Government visibility into current and forecast program costs and schedules. Variances recovered without serious impact to technical or schedule goals when recovery plans are implemented. Schedule variances are well explained and recovered with minor impact to overall program goals.

4. Contractor performs necessary contingency planning and keeps close and timely communication with the Government on cost and schedule issues.

5. Baseline integrity is consistently maintained, and all changes are fully documented.

Narratives explaining data variances (cost/schedule at completion) are current, explicit, and relevant to the variances observed. They are fully accurate and a consistent indication of the program development. Narratives address anticipated future program impacts and fully describe both current and future programmatic and cost impacts of the current cost/schedule performance.

6. Schedule milestone tracking and projections are very accurate and reflect true program status.

7. Plans, develops and executes viable procedures that incorporate the flexibility necessary to be responsive to changing priorities and schedules without adversely effecting overall system cost and completion schedule. Contractor executes innovative resource management and planning to minimize the adverse impact on the program of any scheduled slip.

8. Contractor is ahead of schedule with no adverse effect on cost or performance.

EXCELLENT

1. Contractor consistently submits high quality cost and schedule forecasts. Contractor prepares and develops comprehensive, clear schedule data that provides excellent correlation with cost performance reports and permits early identification of problem areas.

2. Funds requirements data and projections reported are extremely accurate and received ahead of schedule.

3. Change proposals stand alone and require no iteration for Government understanding.

4. Cost variances are fully explained and recovered without impact to overall program goals.

5. Contractor consistently anticipates possible sources of cost growth and seeks ways to avoid potential cost problems. Contractor proposes innovative and thoroughly cost-effective approaches to problems with which the Government agrees.

6. Cost management system automatically identifies problem areas and implements solutions to maintain cost and staff growth levels below the negotiated levels. No support or redirection required by the Government to control cost growth.

7. Contractor plans, develops and executes procedures that allow completion of major milestones ahead of schedule with no adverse impact on coordination, performance or cost and which cause the accrual of benefits to the program.

8. Schedule milestone tracking and projections are extremely accurate and prevent program impact.

COST CONTROL

1. Contractor’s planning for staff utilization goals left up to designers on drafting board.

2. Contractor does not control expenditures for direct charges (i.e., services).

3. Contractor does not meet cost estimate for original work or changes 30% of the time.

SATISFACTORY

1. Contractor’s management sets and reviews staff utilization goals.

2. Contractor’s management occasionally reviews expenditures for control direct charges (i.e., services).

3. Contractor does not meet cost estimate for original work or changes 20% of the time.

GOOD

1. Contractor’s management sets staff utilization goals by system planning that are reviewed by engineering.

2. Contractor sets direct charges (i.e., services) and accounts for them on each work package.

3. Contractor exceeds original estimate on change orders 10% of the time and meets original design costs.

VERY GOOD

1. Contractor’s system engineers establish design parameters that are held in design plans.

2. Contractor provides services as part of normal design function without extra charges.

3. Contractor exceeds original estimate on change orders 5% of the time and meets original design costs.

1. Contractor limits modifications to the design plan to less than 5% that result from lack of engineering system correlation.

2. No cost overruns on original estimates.

3. Contractor never exceeds original estimate on original design package or change orders.

COST CONTROL/REPORTING

UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

The contractor does not have an adequate cost control program in place and is unable to reduce cost impact resulting from schedule delays. Additionally, the contractor fails to identify problem areas.

A cost control program is in place that provides a mechanism to reduce the overall cost of the program.

The contractor has clear under-standing of the need to maintain cost control and actively pursues cost containment and reduction through innovative approaches and superior management of resources.

When problems are discovered, the contractor often fails to take actions to minimize cost/ schedule impacts or to notify the Government of the situations. As a result of the contractor's inaction, the program experi-ences cost/schedule impacts.

The contractor recognizes and timely advises of problem areas and assists the Air Force in implementing corrective action to reduce cost. Resources are utilized to ensure that contract performance results in completion with minimal schedule disruption and impact to overall program cost.

The contractor is proactive in assisting the Air Force with problem identification. Potential problems are identified, and corrective action is implemented to minimize cost/schedule impacts. The Government is notified immediately of significant problems and the contractor interacts with the Government to develop viable resolutions and overcome delays without additional cost.

Cost proposals are not traceable, and the proposals typically do not contain sufficient detail to support a thorough cost analysis. Basis of estimates for cost elements and detailed analyses for subcontractor costs are sometimes missing. The con-tractor is uncooperative regarding Government requests for missing information.

Cost proposals are traceable and the proposals customarily contain sufficient detail to support a thorough cost analysis. Bases of estimates are provided for cost elements and detailed analyses are regularly provided for subcontractor costs. When insufficient detail exists, the contractor readily provides it to the Government upon request.

Cost proposals are timely, well constructed, and contain suffi-cient detail to support an in-depth cost analysis. The bases of estimates are provided for all cost elements and detailed analyses are provided for subcontractor costs.

Cost data reports are continually late, frequently incomplete, or incorrect and do not provide an accurate overview of overall contract cost. Contract admini-stration and oversight reflect significant deficiencies and non-compliance with FAR. Lack of corrective actions to resolve outstanding noncompliance issues causes additional cost to the Government.

Cost data reports are accurate, complete, and current, and timely submitted. The data submitted provides information relative to overall contract cost. The contractor demonstrates sensitivity to compliance with FAR by timely responding to contract administration and audit inquiries and provides resources to resolve issues raised by Government personnel.

Cost data reports are always complete, accurate, and under-standable. The reports are consistently submitted on or ahead of scheduled due dates and provide reliable detail as to specific elements of program costs. The contractor takes initiative to provide all useful and necessary data to the Govern-ment in a comprehensive manner. Contract administration, estimating system surveillance, and oversight monitoring result in no deficiencies or audit problems in maintaining compliance with

FAR.

COST PERFORMANCE

UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY VERY GOOD EXCELLENT

Contractor provides some measures for controlling staff costs and controls some subcontracting cost performance to meet program objectives.

Contractor provides measures for controlling all costs at estimated costs. Provide cost control of all travel, material and staff costs during the performance of the contract. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner. No major resource management problems are apparent.

Contractor provides measures for controlling all costs below esti-mated costs. Contractor considers logistic and long-term costs in recommendations provided to the Govern-ment. Funds and resources are used in a cost-effective manner.

There are no resource management problems.

Reductions in direct costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy. Contractor provides detailed cost analysis in recommen-dations to Government for resolution to problems identified.

Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available.

Documented savings are apparent.

Funds and resources are used inefficiently in pursuing program goals and result in resource management problems.

Problems and/or trends may be addressed.

When provided, analyses of problems or trends are usually accurate.

Contractor takes the initiative to reduce costs, including travel, where feasible. Financial reporting is clear and accurate. Problems and/or trends are addressed, and an analysis is also submitted.

Contractor provides day-to-day visibility into cost performance. Financial reporting is clear and accurate. Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the analyses include recommendations for solutions and/or corrective plans.

Contractor is responsive to cost control measures implemented by the Government. Financial reporting is clear, accurate, and pro-active.

Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the contractor’s recommen-dations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Contractor fails to identify problems timely. Solutions, when and if implemented, have a negative impact on cost and schedule.

Problems are identified by the contractor timely. Contractor provides sufficient information on alternate solutions. Solutions are implemented with limited adverse impact to estimated cost and schedule.

Contractor practices proactive management to identify and anticipate problems prior to adverse impact. Contractor provides organized and detailed alternatives including risk assessments, trade off analysis between cost, schedule and performance, plan of action and implementation schedule.

Solutions are implemented with no impact to estimated cost and schedule.

Organizational structure fails to assign qualified personnel with duties, responsibilities and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communi-cation fail to facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual in order to meet project goals.

Organizational structure provides for qualified personnel assigned with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communi-cation facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual in order to meet project goals.

Organizational structure provides for highly qualified personnel assigned with duties, responsi-bilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals ahead of schedule and within estimated cost. Lines of communication are well defined, clearly understood, and always facilitate rapid exchanges of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

The contractor fails to meet percentage of total actual sub-contracting dollars established herein at 20% for small business and, at 5% for small disadvan-taged business.

The contractor meets the per-centage of total actual subcon-tracting dollars established herein at or above 20% for small business and, at or above 5% for small disadvantaged business.

The contractor exceeds the percentage of total actual sub-contracting dollars established herein at 40% for small business and at 15% for small disadvan-taged business.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

1. Program planning does not contain a logical flow of activities. No program status and visibility into near term actions provided.

2. No clear lines of authority or effective communication with Government, other agencies, and associate contractors.

3. Contractor defines problems without factual supporting information and rationale.

SATISFACTORY

1. Program planning is comprehensive and contains a logical flow of activities.

Program status and visibility into near term actions are provided through schedules and status of contract tasks.

2. Contractor establishes clear lines of authority and provides effective communication with Government, other agencies, and associate contractors. Minimal programmatic or technical impacts experienced because of communication problems.

3. Contractor implements management control systems that provide for identification of problems to the appropriate management level. Contractor clearly defines problems with factual supporting information and rationale.

4. Responsive to Government in supporting programmatic and technical issues.

Contractor responds to Government direction in compliance with industry standards and modes of operation. Contractor provides timely, logical response to Government concerns.

GOOD

1. Contractor plays a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements.

2. Contractor makes decisions and recommendations that demonstrate sensitivity to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

3. Contractor anticipates, assesses, and makes only necessary changes to program milestones.

4. Contractor provides pertinent planning data to Government management.

5. Contractor provides efficient management and control over program resources.

6. Contractor properly maintains Earned Value Management System (EVMS).

7. Management initiates and promotes strong two-way communication with

Government counterparts and associate contractors. Contractor seeks continual interaction with Government representatives on contract status, goals, and objectives. Contractor coordinates with the Government to ensure contractor interpretation of contract tasking is correct. Takes the initiative to see that all relevant personnel are kept informed.

8. Management identifies problems, causes and solutions that have a potential for impact on program cost, schedule or performance. Solutions minimize impacts and life cycle costs. Contractor implements an effective program to identify and resolve internal problems that adversely effects contractor's performance in meeting Government needs. Contractor takes corrective action to minimize impacts.

9. Contractor provides adequate staffing levels and selection of personnel for program to proceed smoothly. Contractor re-evaluates staffing and resources to re-forecast requirements to meet long range contract replanning with minimum inefficiency due to reallocated resources. Contractor constantly evaluates staff needs to support meetings and takes action to ensure appropriate attendance.

10. Responsive to Government technical and business management requests, such as

Requests for Proposals, cost/schedule reporting, and forecast information.

Contractor responds effectively to directed program changes accomplishing procurement actions on a timely basis within the constraints of the contractor's system and in a cost effective manner. Responses to special studies authorizations are submitted timely, within budget, fulfilling the specific requirements of the special study task. Contractor makes maximum use of informal reporting to provide timely data.

11. Contractor identifies open items and risk resolution alternatives and defines preferred solutions. Contractor provides comprehensive status of open items and risk items at management level and provides results to the Government. Takes the initiative in coordinating scheduled meetings and reviews and responds quickly to action items and questions.

VERY GOOD

1. Contractor plays a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for program improvements. Contractor anticipates new requirements and incorporates them well before critical need dates, thereby avoiding unnecessary work. Contractor accommodates changing schedules, program activities, and associate contractors with minimal impact to the overall program. Contractor makes decisions and recommendations that demonstrate a high level of sensitivity to identifying cost-avoidance opportunities that could reduce overall program costs. Contractor demonstrates positive management control over program resources; minimizes conflicts with allocation of corporate resources to other programs. Design, development, and production activities provide for increased performance, reliability, maintainability, and supportability without additional cost or risk. Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) 2000 principles are effectively implemented.

2. Contractor demonstrates strong leadership through effective internal communications. Inter-organization coordination and planning are exploited to the maximum. Contractor ensures the Government is informed of all upcoming decisions that will potentially impact schedule, technical performance, and/or cost.

Early coordination with Government management to keep the Government informed of problem developments, schedule changes, and required decision points.

3. Contractor demonstrates initiative and foresight in planning for potential problems, analyzing program impact, resolving program problems and instituting prompt corrective actions. Contractor's positive management control over problem areas results in early problem resolution and minimal program impacts. Proposed solutions require little revision or Government intervention and consider life cycle costs. Contractor anticipates most associate contractor's potential problem areas and provides alternative resolutions that clearly consider and identify impact to schedule and cost to all parties.

4. Contractor continuously reviews labor resource allocations in order to minimize labor usage, while maintaining adequate staffing levels to maintain schedule, an acceptable quality of work, and maximum productivity. Contractor provides visibility to Government of resource concerns and solutions.

5. Contractor maintains a complete and comprehensive discrepancy tracking system and provides easy access to the Government. Contractor maintains vigorous, formal control over tests, discrepancies, reporting, technical evaluation, and closure disposition.

1. Management demonstrates the highest degree of foresight into program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment of tasks, advance identification of problems and problem resolution, integrating total program concept and a comprehensive management approach. Critical milestones are planned as early as possible to provide for maximum program contingency time. Many milestones are met early, to the benefit of the program, with no adverse effect on performance, schedule, cost, or risk. Contractor demonstrates a concern for the correct understanding of contract tasking and cost growth avoidance, and is responsive to the changing nature and levels of work. The Contractor's R&M organization participates to an extraordinary degree in the implementation of R&M 2000 concepts.

2. Contractor develops an effective, efficient contractor team that reflects strong, open lines of communication. Improvements to the planned program result from high quality communication with Government and other external focal points with no program impacts attributed to poor communication. Contractor maintains complete and effective coordination and liaison with Government counterparts and other contractors. Contractor independently supports program activities in a consistent and cooperative mode.

3. Contractor demonstrates initiative in planning, analyzing, and assessing the total impact of potential problems. Contractor identifies high-risk/problem areas early, plans alternative/parallel courses of action, and keeps the Government well informed of developments. Life cycle costs are minimized by problem solutions.

4. Contractor demonstrates to the Government how net reduction in labor loading and overtime will be effected and how these reductions will produce cost and schedule savings to the program without degrading performance. Contractor's team consists of highly qualified and motivated personnel, with an emphasis on productivity.

Contractor minimizes changes of key individuals.

5. Contractor demonstrates initiative in support of the Government by taking a leadership role in identifying issues and providing significant, timely recommendations and actions for program improvements.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

1. Responsibilities for ensuring quality in design not described in written procedures.

2. Planning to implement quality in design is incomplete. Environmental, contamination, corrosion, and other special controls are not identified.

3. Producibility, inspectability and testability are not evaluated prior to design release.

4. Contractor does not ensure that appropriate suppliers evaluate producibility, inspectability and testability prior to design release.

SATISFACTORY

1. Responsibilities for ensuring quality in design are assigned, described in written procedures and implemented.

2. Planning to implement quality in design is complete and includes provisions for employing appropriate fixtures, tooling, and skills. Environmental, contamination, corrosion, and other special controls are identified.

3. Producibility, inspectability and testability are evaluated prior to design release and result in no major related impact to contract requirements.

4. Handling, packaging, packing and transporting of materials and products are considered during the design resulting in no major related impacts on the contract performance.

5. Contractor ensures that appropriate suppliers evaluate producibility, inspectability and testability prior to design release.

6. Contractor strives to increase quality management effectiveness by promoting continuous process improvement.

7. Contractor promotes an attitude of continuous process improvement to subcontractors.

GOOD

1. The results and influence of functional participant (i.e., manufacturing, reliability, testing and quality) from design development through production are formally documented.

2. Planning is based on the results of research from past experiences of similar product lines and incorporates preventive measures to avoid recurrence of previous problems.

3. Quality in design is considered throughout life cycle; any changes to facilitate producibility, inspectability and testability after design are released for manufacturing are incorporated immediately.

4. Handling, packaging, packing, storing and transporting of materials and product result in no damage or delays attributable to a design deficiency or omission.

5. Contractor participates with appropriate suppliers to ensure quality in design is emphasized and effected.

6. Contractor strives to increase process quality by the use of many of the following tools: statistical process control (SPC), training, continuous process improvement and defect reduction programs, subcontract process improvement teams, and other self-initiated enhancement techniques.

7. Departures from standard procedures rarely impact contract performance, cost or critical product assurance milestones.

8. Contractor establishes effective techniques to shift focus of quality assurance from defect detection and reduction to defect prevention. Contractor further increases quality improvement by establishing an affirmative program for defect prevention through quality in design, producibility, and manufacturing process controls.

Contractor increases product quality and production efficiency by developing methodologies designed to reduce product variability and the production of defective material.

9. Contractor realizes cost savings from reductions in the cost of quality; number of part or material rejects; line rework; and scrap, rework, and repair dispositions.

10. Contractor emphasizes continuous quality improvement through quality in design, producibility, manufacturing…