ATTACHMENT 8
TO
F04701-96-R-0012
AWARD FEE PLAN
NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
(NPOESS)
SENSOR PAYLOAD AND ALGORITHM DEVELOPMENT
17 March 1997
This attachment including the
cover page consists of 24 pages
AWARD FEE PLAN
FOR
NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
(NPOESS)
(DATE OF APPROVAL)
(CONTRACTOR)
Award Fee Review Board Chairperson Director of Contracting SMC/PK
_______________________________
THOMAS A. IMLER, Col., USAF
Associate Director for Acquisition
APPROVED:
Fee Determining Official:
_______________________________
JAMES T. MANNEN, DOC
NPOESS System Program Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph Number and Title Page
1. 4
INTRODUCTION.......................................................
.........................................
2. ORGANIZATION 4
RESPONSIBILITIES...................................................
.........
3. AWARD FEE 4
PROCESS............................................................
........................
4. AWARD FEE CHANGE 5
PROCEDURE..........................................................
..
5. AWARD FEE REVIEW 6
BOARD..............................................................
.........
6. TIMELINESS OF EVALUATIONS AND FEE DETERMINATIONS............. 6
7. AWARD FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION 6
PERIOD............................
8. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 7
CATEGORIES....................................................
9. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF AWARD FEE 8
PARTICIPANTS..............
10. INTERIM 9
LETTERS............................................................
................................
11. AWARD FEE 9
INTEGRITY..........................................................
.......................
12. TERMINATION FOR 9
CONVENIENCE........................................................
....
ANNEXES
1. AWARD FEE REVIEW BOARD 10
MEMBERSHIP............................................
2. PERFORMANCE 11
MONITORS...........................................................
...............
3. GRADE 12
DEFINITIONS........................................................
............................
4. PERFORMANCE 13
CRITERIA...........................................................
.................
5. SAMPLE AWARD FEE 24
COMPUTATION.......................................................
AWARD FEE PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This award fee plan will be the basis for the NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) evaluation of the Contractor's performance and will be the basis for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The specific criteria and procedures used to assess Contractor performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned are described herein. All FDO decisions regarding the award fee performance, shall not be subject to the "Disputes" clause nor reviewed by any Board of Contract Appeal (BCA), court, or other judicial entity.
2.0 ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITIES
The award-fee organization consists of: the Fee Determining Official (FDO) and Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) which consists of a chairperson, the contracting officer, a recorder, other functional area participants, advisor members, and the performance monitors. The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annexes 1 and 2 to this attachment.
a. Fee Determining Official (FDO). The FDO duties are the responsibility of the System Program Director (SPD). The FDO approves the award-fee plan and any significant changes. The FDO will establish an AFRB to assist by making award fee recommendations. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and unilaterally determines the earned-award-fee amount for each evaluation period. The process whereby award fee determinations are normally made is outlined in paragraph 3 below.
b. Award Fee Review Board (AFRB). AFRB members will review performance monitors' evaluation of the Contractor's performance, consider all information obtained from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and arrive at an earned-award-fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO. The AFRB will also recommend changes to this plan.
c. Contracting Officer (CO). The Contracting Officer is the liaison between Contractor and Government personnel.
e. Integrated Program Office (IPO) The AFRB Chairperson will designate Performance Monitors (PMs) who will perform the initial evaluation of the Contractor's performance. The performance monitors will be assigned specific performance evaluation areas and criteria to evaluate. The IPO, through the Contracting Officer, will implement the required award fee contractual actions.
3.0 AWARD-FEE PROCESS The award fee process consists of the following:
a. Continual performance evaluation by designated performance monitors (PMs).
b. An interim evaluation of Contractor performance is required approximately halfway through each evaluation period if the award fee period is more than six months. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and PM 14 (fourteen) calendar days before the midpoint of the evaluation period. PMs submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 7 (seven) calendar days after this notification. The AFRB determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the Contractor in writing of the strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period. The Contracting Officer may also issue letters at any other time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern.
c. The Contractor's self-evaluation is optional and may be submitted to the Contracting Officer within 5 (five) working days after the end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the Contractor's performance throughout the evaluation period may also contain any in formation that may be reasonably expected to assist in evaluation of the Contractor's performance. The Contractor's self-assessment may not exceed 10 (ten) pages.
d. The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and PM 14 (fourteen) calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. The performance monitor reports are consolidated by the recorder at the end of the evaluation period for presentation to the AFRB. PMs submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB 7 (seven) calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB prepares an evaluation report with recommendations of earned award fee.
e. The AFRB briefs the evaluation report and its recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the Award Fee Plan for FDO approval.
f. Within 30 days following the close of the evaluation period, the FDO will give a written decision to the Contractor that includes the award fee amount and an evaluation on the Contractor's performance in terms of the evaluation criteria.
g. The FDO letter informs the Contractor of the earned-award-fee amount.
h. The Contracting Officer issues a contract modification within 15 (fifteen) calendar days after the FDO's decision is made authorizing payment of the earned-award-fee amount. If the Contracting Officer does not give specific notice in writing to the Contractor of any change to the performance evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the following award-fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising paragraph 8 of this plan and by notifying the Contractor prior to the beginning of the next period. Award-Fee Plan change procedures are listed under paragraph 4 of this plan.
j. Government debriefing of Contractor's performance.
4.0 AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE
Changes may occur because subsequent evaluation periods will have performance evaluation criteria that require greater or lesser emphasis, or other performance evaluation criteria may surface as the effort becomes clearer or as emphasis shifts. Any changes to performance evaluation criteria and/or percentage weightings will be made by revising paragraph 8 and Annex 4 of this plan, and these changes will apply when the Contracting Officer advises the Contractor in writing. Unilateral changes may be made to any aspect of the Award Fee Plan if the Contractor is provided written notification by the Contracting Officer prior to the start of the upcoming evaluation period; otherwise, subsequent to the commencement of a period, changes may only be made by mutual agreement of the parties.
5. AWARD FEE REVIEW BOARD (AFRB): The Associate Director of Acquisition will chair the AFRB (Annex 1). The AFRB Chairperson and members are approved by the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The AFRB will convene at the time, date and place established by the Chairperson, and will consider information submitted by the following sources to make an award fee recommendation to the FDO:
a. Evaluations submitted by designated performance monitors.
b. Assessments or inputs from other sources (e.g., DCMC, DCAA, GAO, IG and users) as considered appropriate by the AFRB.
c. Optional written Contractor self-assessment of performance may be submitted to the AFRB Chairperson through the Contracting Officer for each evaluation period under consideration. Self-assessments shall be no more than 10 pages in length and shall be submitted no later than 5 working days following the close of an evaluation period.
d. The AFRB members, after receiving the presentations of the performance monitor's evaluations and point score recommendations and reviewing all available information as appropriate, shall individually vote on each criteria category by signed ballot (each member shall have only one vote).
The AFRB will complete its evaluation and make a recommendation to the FDO. Within 30 calendar days following the close of the evaluation period, the FDO will give a written decision to the Contractor that includes the award fee amount and an evaluation of the Contractor's performance in terms of the evaluation criteria. Within 15 calendar days following the FDO's determination, the Contracting Officer will unilaterally modify the contract. Contractor receipt of the modification will formalize notification of the amount of award fee earned as determined by the FDO.
7. AWARD FEE ALLOCATION BY EVALUATION PERIOD:
The award fee earned by the Contractor will be determined at the completion of evaluation periods shown below. The percentage and dollars shown corresponding to each period is the maximum amount that can be earned during that particular period. Any unearned portion of award fee for a period is not transferable to a subsequent period.
EVALUATION AWARD FEE
PERIOD* FROM** TO** AVAILABLE***
1 Contract Award SRR (or 1 year from contract award) 25%
2 SRR SFR (or 1 year from end of prior period) 35%
3 SDR PDR(or 1 year from end of prior period ) 40%
100%
* The Government may unilaterally revise the distribution of the remaining award fee dollars among subsequent periods. The Contractor will be notified of such changes, if any, in writing by the Contracting Officer before the period is started and the Award Fee Plan will be modified accordingly. Subsequent to the commencement of a period, changes may only be made by mutual agreement of the parties.
** Specific dates will be determined depending on the sensor awarded in the contract.
*** Will be computed and expressed in dollars using % shown.
**** Whichever is sooner
NOTE: The above period schedule and/or pools will be adjusted as necessary by the Contracting Officer upon exercise of any of the following options:
EXERCISE@ AWARD FEE
OPTION# DESCRIPTION DATE AVAILABLE
Sensor-1 Sensor (PDR to CDR) TBD*****
$TBD
Sensor-2 Sensor (CDR to Flight Units) TBD*****
$TBD
***** Award Fee periods will be determined in the Call for Improvement
@ The option description will be modified to reflect the specific sensor identification (i.e. VIIRS, CMIS, CrIS, OMPS or GPSOS).
8. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA CATEGORIES:
a. The performance evaluation areas will be evaluated using the performance criteria contained in Annex 3. For the evaluation period, the performance evaluation areas with their corresponding percentage weightings are set forth below:
AREA A: Program Management 40%
AREA B: Technical Performance 40%
AREA C: Cost/Schedule Management 20%
Total 100%
b. CPAF Effort (Completion): The Contractor will earn award fee by achieving a level of effectiveness in accordance with the award fee standards set forth below. Contractor's effort in a particular area rated below the award fee standard of "Satisfactory" shall receive zero award fee dollars ($0) for that area. (See Annex 4 for sample computation). In addition, if the Contractor's "overall performance" is rated 50% or below the Contractor shall receive zero award fee dollars ($0) for the award fee period and be rated "Unsatisfactory".
Description Point Score CPAF
Excellent 91-100 91-100%
Very Good 81-90 81-90%
Good 66-80 66-80%
Satisfactory 51-65 51-65%
Unsatisfactory 1-50 0%
c. FPIF/AF : The following applies only if FPIF/AF CLINs are exercised in Option 2 (see paragraph 7). The Contractor will earn award fee by achieving a level of effectiveness in accordance with the award fee standards set forth below. Contractor's effort in a particular area rated below the award fee standard of "Good" shall receive zero award fee dollars ($0) for that area. (See Annex 4 for sample computation). In addition, if the Contractor's "overall performance" is rated 65% or below the Contractor shall receive zero award fee dollars ($0) for the award fee period.
Description Point Score FPIF/AF
Excellent 91-100 91-100%
Very Good 81-90 81-90%
Good 66-80 66-80%
Satisfactory 51-65 0%
Unsatisfactory 1-50 0%
9. AWARD FEE EVALUATION PROCESS
SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF AWARD FEE PARTICIPANTS:
a. Performance Monitors (PMs): PMs from each of the organization's functional areas will maintain a continuous written record of the Contractor's performance in their evaluation area(s) of responsibility (see Annex 2 for functional areas). Within 5 workdays of the end of each evaluation period, the AFRB Recorder will request that performance monitors submit an evaluation report and will rate the Contractor in performance criteria, covering strong and weak performance. The evaluation report is to include a recommended award fee rating.
b. Award Fee Review Board: AFRB members will review evaluation reports, consider all information obtained from pertinent sources, and arrive at a fee recommendation to be given to the FDO by the AFRB Chairperson.
c. Fee Determining Official: The FDO will review the recommendation of the AFRB, consider all appropriate data, and advise the Contractor and Contracting Officer of the award fee determination.
d. Recorder: The Recorder is a non-voting member of the AFRB and is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB and the FDO, including: 1) receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation inputs from all required sources; 2) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefing; and 3) accomplishing other actions required to insure the smooth operation of the award fee process.
10. INTERIM LETTERS: At approximately the midpoint of the evaluation period, if the award fee period is more than six months, the AFRB Chairperson will send an interim letter or letters to the Contractor which address the Contractor's performance with emphasis on areas needing improvement. The Contracting Officer may also issue letters at any time when it is deemed necessary to highlight areas of Government concern. For each letter issued, the Contractor is required to provide a written response within 30 days. The response should set forth plans for increasing effectiveness in the areas addressed or explain why it is not feasible to do so.
11. AWARD FEE INTEGRITY: The award fee process is recognized to be subjective in nature, but every effort will be made to assure fairness. The written records of the performance monitors, the inputs from other pertinent sources (e.g., DCMC, DCAA, GAO, IG and users) and the Contractor's self-assessment (if provided) assist in providing the checks and balances necessary to assure award fee integrity. Disclosure statements must be signed by performance monitors and AFRB members.
12. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: In the event the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award fee period, the award fee deemed earned and to be paid for this period will be determined by the FDO using standard procedures outlined above. The remaining award fee dollars for all periods subsequent to this termination shall not be considered available or earned and, therefore, shall not be paid.
Annexes:
1. Award Fee Review Board Membership 2. Performance Monitors
3. Grade Definitions
4. Performance Criteria
5. Sample Award Fee Computation
ANNEX 1
AWARD-FEE REVIEW BOARD MEMBERSHIP
Award Fee Review Board Chairperson: Associate Director for Acquisition
Award Fee Review Board Members:
Deputy System Program Director (IPO)
Procuring Contracting Officer (SMC/CIK )
Director of Contracting or designee (SMC/PK)
Judge Advocate or designee (SMC/JA)
Associate Director for Operations or designee (IPO/ADO)
Associate Director for Technical Transition or designee (IPO/ADTT)
IPO System Engineering Representative (IPO/SE)
IPO Program Control Representative (IPO)
DCMC Representative
*Recorder
* Non-voting member
ANNEX 2
PERFORMANCE MONITORS
Area of Evaluation Performance Monitor(s)
Cost and Schedule Management..................................... IPO (Program Control),
ADA(Project Officer)
Program Management...................................................... ADA (Project Officer)
CIK(Contracting),
SMC/AXL (Logistics)*
Technical Performance.................................................... ADA (Project Officer),
SE (Systems Engineering),
ADTT (NASA),
ADO (Operations),
SMC/AXL (Logistics) *
ANNEX 3
GRADE DEFINITIONS
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. For cost reimbursable CLINs, overall unsatisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee.
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE: Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is adequate with some tangible benefits to the Government due to Contractor's effort or initiative. Although there are areas of good or better performance, these are more or less offset by lower-rated performance in other areas. For Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) CLINS, overall unsatisfactory or satisfactory performance shall not earn an award fee.
GOOD PERFORMANCE: Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is better than adequate and provides some tangible benefits to the Government in several significant areas. While the remainder of the Contractor's effort generally meets the contract requirements, areas requiring improvements are more than offset by better performance in other areas.
VERY GOOD PERFORMANCE: Contractor's performance of most contract tasks is consistently above standard and provides significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government (e.g. improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although some areas may require improvement, these areas are minor and are more than offset by better performance in other areas. Few, if any, recurring problems have been noted, and the Contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.
EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE: Contractor's performance of virtually all contract tasks is consistently noteworthy and provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government. The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor's management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.
ANNEX 4
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
This annex contains the list of evaluation criteria for the categories of performance. The page numbers on which they can be found are listed below.
Performance Category Grades Page
COST/SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT 5 15
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 5 17
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE 5 21
COST/SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT
I. UNSATISFACTORY
a.. Contractor does not control expenditures for direct charges (i.e., services); and/or:
b. Contractor does not meet cost estimate for original work or overall cost exceeds estimate by 30%; and/or:
c. Does not meet satisfactory criteria under this evaluation category.
II. SATISFACTORY
a. Essentially meets the requirements of the contract for this area.
b. Demonstrates conscientious control of all expenditures.
c. All cost reports are clear and reconcile to a common data base.
d. Funds requirements data are projected accurately and clearly and are received in a timely manner.
e. Cost/schedule variances (including subcontractor) are identified early and plans for recovery revised, reported, and implemented.
f. Contractor insures all proposal data, including subcontractor data, is adequate for technical review and cost analysis.
g. Changes are suggested in a timely manner to achieve maximum cost savings when implemented.
h. Cost/schedule data is consistent and logical and based on program requirements.
i. Variations between cost elements and requirements affecting the variation are explained with clarity.
III. GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of II above, plus:
b. Adjustments or other perturbations are fully and clearly explained.
c. All requirements for additional funding are thoroughly documented and justified.
d. Takes measures to avoid cost/schedule growth. Reasonable corrective actions are briefed to the IPO for review .
e. Contractor recognizes where cost/schedule growth may occur and provides timely and well documented justification of actual problems and projections for additional resources.
f. The Contractor provides accurate cost and schedule estimates for tasks and gives timely notices to the Government if it anticipates significant variances.
g. Expeditiously validates and properly maintains Earned Value Management criteria.
IV. VERY GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of III above, plus:
b. Funds requirements reflect constant scrutiny to assure accuracy.
c. Cost savings are considered and reported in change proposals.
d. Prepares and develops graphic program cost/schedule data which provides clear program office visibility into current and future program costs.
e. Performs necessary contingency planning and keeps close and timely communication with the program office on cost and schedule issues.
f. Baseline integrity is consistently maintained and all changes are fully documented.
g. Narratives explaining data variances (cost to completion) are current, accurate, explicit, and relevant to the variances observed and provides consistent indications of program development.
h. Narratives address anticipated program impacts and fully describe both current and future cost impacts of the current cost performance.
i. Plans, develops and executes viable procedures that incorporate the flexibility necessary to be responsive to changing priorities without adversely affecting overall sensor cost.
j. Provides a resource allocation system that is well defined and logically matrixed to program schedule milestones.
k. Controls costs within resources allocated.
V. EXCELLENT
a. Substantially meets the requirements of IV above, plus:
b. Contractor consistently submits high quality cost reports and schedule forecasts which permit early identification and resolution of problem areas.
c. Funds requirements data and projections reported are accurate and received ahead of schedule.
d. Cost/schedule variances are fully explained and resolved without impact to overall program cost and schedule goals.
e. Consistently anticipates possible sources of cost/schedule growth and implements corrective action to avoid or resolve potential cost/schedule problems.
f. Proposes innovative and thoroughly cost effective approach to problems with which the IPO agrees.
g. Maintains a cost management system which identifies problem areas and implements solutions to maintain cost and manpower growth levels below the negotiated levels.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
I. UNSATISFACTORY
a. Contractor's planning for staff utilization goals is left up to designers and is incomplete; and/or:
b. Program planning does not contain a logical flow of activities. No program status and visibility into near term actions provided; and/or:
c. No clear lines of authority or effective communication with Government and other agencies; and/or:
d. Contractor defines problems without factual supporting information and rationale; and/or:
e. Failure to maintain control of subcontract performance and schedule. Subcontractor proposals are not received in a timely manner; and/or:
f. Fails to identify short-comings of subcontractor efforts and does not take corrective action; and/or:
g. Does not meet satisfactory criteria under this evaluation category.
II. SATISFACTORY
a. Essentially meets the requirements of the contract for this area.
b. Program planning is comprehensive and contains a logical flow of activities. Program status and visibility into near term actions is provided through schedules and status of contract tasks.
c. Establishes clear lines of authority and provides effective communication with the Principle Investigator (PI) and other agencies. Minimal programmatic or technical impacts experienced because of communication problems.
d. Implements management control systems that provide for identification of problems to the appropriate management level. Clearly defines problems with factual supporting information and rationale.
e. Responsive to the IPO in supporting programmatic and technical issues. Responds to Government direction in compliance with industry standards and modes of operation. Provides timely, logical response to IPO concerns.
f. Flows down all applicable contract requirements to subcontractors and ensures that subcontractor management has effective programs to implement those requirements.
III. GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of II above, plus:
b. Provides adequate person-loading levels and qualified personnel for program to proceed smoothly. Re-evaluates man loading and resources to reforecast requirements to meet long range contract replanning with minimum inefficiency due to re-allocated resources. Constantly evaluates manpower needs to support meetings and takes action to ensure appropriate attendance.
c. Plays a key role in identifying issues and recommendations for sensor improvements. Work-arounds are incorporated well before critical need dates thereby avoiding unnecessary work.
d. Demonstrates strong leadership through effective internal communications. Inter-organization coordination and planning is used to the maximum.
e. Ensures the program office is informed of all upcoming decisions which will potentially impact schedule, technical performance, and/or cost.
f. Ensures the IPO is asked to participate in meetings and functions, when appropriate. Initiates early communication with IPO management on problem developments, schedule changes, and required decision points.
g. Provides visibility to the IPO of resource concerns and solutions.
h. Closely monitors all subcontractor key tasks and activities and ensures subcontractor completion within specification and schedule.
IV. VERY GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of III above, plus:
b.. Seeks knowledge regarding pertinent data from every aspect of the program to assist each organization in defining solutions to critical problems. Has effective communication with other IPO contractors.
c. Maintains complete and comprehensive discrepancy tracking systems and provides accessibility to the Government.
d. Actively seeks status information from all subcontractors to identify early problem definition and resolution.
e. Anticipates potential program impacts concerning subcontractor activities and incorporates solutions into subcontract efforts well before critical need dates; thereby minimizing work-around activities.
f. Accommodates changing schedules and program activities with minimal impact to the overall program. Makes decisions and recommendations which demonstrate a high level of sensitivity to identifying cost avoidance opportunities which could reduce overall program costs.
g. Demonstrates positive management control over program resources; minimizes conflicts with allocation of corporate resources to other programs.
h. Design, development, validation, and/or production activities provide for increased performance, reliability, maintainability, and supportability without additional cost or risk. Requires minimum program office intervention with tasks and schedules.
i. Responds effectively to directed program changes, thereby accomplishing procurement actions in a timely basis within the constraints of the Contractor's system and in a cost effective manner.
j. Demonstrates initiative and foresight in planning for potential problems, analyzing program impact, resolving program problems and instituting prompt corrective actions.
k. 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.
l. 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.
m. Provides regular assessments of subcontractor performance, including expected slips/early delivery, anticipated impacts to the program, and mechanism for avoidance/resolution of future problems.
**Paragraph n. below will be incorporated as an additional criteria after PDR.
n. Maintains vigorous, formal control over tests, discrepancies, reporting, technical evaluation, and closure disposition.
V. EXCELLENT
a. Substantially meets the requirements of IV above, plus:
b. Management demonstrates the highest degrees of foresight into program planning, depth of analysis, accomplishment of tasks, advance identification of problems and problem resolution.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. Develops an effective, efficient contract team which demonstrates strong, open lines of communication. Improvements to the planned program result from high quality communication with the IPO and other external focal points with no program impacts attributed to poor communication.
f. Maintains complete and effective coordination and liaison with Government counterparts and other IPO contractors.
g. Demonstrates initiative in planning, analyzing, and assessing the total impact of potential problems. Identifies high-risk/problem areas early, plans alternative/parallel courses of action, and keeps the IPO well informed of developments. Life cycle costs are minimized by problem solutions.
h. Demonstrates to the IPO 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.
i. Contractor's team consists of highly qualified and motivated personnel, with an emphasis on productivity.
j. Demonstrates initiative in support of the IPO by taking a leadership role in identifying issues and providing significant, timely recommendations and actions for program improvements.
k. Anticipates and initiates actions prior to key Government and Contractor decision points to minimize program impacts.
l. Sensor performance, cost, or schedule are improved due to active management of subcontract design and development.
m. Exceeds the minimum subcontracting goals with small and small disadvantaged businesses as stated in the Contractor's Subcontracting Plan, Attachment 6 of the contract (not applicable to small business prime contractor), by __*__%.
*Only applies to sole source award.
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
I. UNSATISFACTORY
a. Deficiencies adversely impact the Contractor's ability to complete tasks resulting in project delays, increased costs to the Government, and/or failure to meet objectives in the Statement of Objectives (SOO); and/or:
b. Technical/periodic reports and other deliverable data are not submitted in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements List and are in formats not easily understood. Discrepancies are major and require time and effort to correct; and/or:
c. Change proposals are submitted late, are sometimes unacceptable and the change process does not proceed without adverse impact to estimated cost and schedule; and/or:
d. Does not meet satisfactory criteria under this evaluation category.
**Paragraph e. below will be incorporated as an additional criteria after PDR.
e. Shop submittals and/or drawings do not meet specifications. Deficiencies impact schedule and cost.
II. SATISFACTORY
a.. Essentially meets the requirements of the contract for this area.
b. Prepares and submits test plans and procedures for validating sensor and algorithm performance in accordance with the CDRL.
c. Identifies and assesses major risk areas. Describes how risk areas will be mitigated.
d. Incorporates results of trade studies and analysis into sensor definition.
**Paragraphs e., f., and g. below will be incorporated as additional criteria after PDR.
e. Identifies subsystem configuration items (CI) in developing the sensor design.
f. Establishes requirements and standards for an adequate subcontractor test program.
g. Ensures test engineering facility maintenance and security requirements are met.
III. GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of II above, plus:
b. Sensor definition trade studies are well thought out, relevant, and provide conclusive resolution of issues.
c. Sensor design requirements are clearly stated. Traceability to SRD is clear.
d. Test planning and procedures for validating sensor and algorithm performance reflect insight into system and mission operations.
e. All major test objectives are satisfied with no negative impact to program schedule.
g. Algorithm design requirements are clearly stated. Traceability to EDRs is clear.
IV. VERY GOOD
a. Substantially meets the requirements of III above, plus:
b. Contractor's proposal(s) for potential preplanned product improvements (contained in appendix G of the SRD) provides plausible solutions to obtain these EDRs.
c. The Contractor's EDR algorithm efforts show an in-depth knowledge of phenomenology. Contractor identifies areas of algorithmic applications that need further development in order to meet data requirements.
d. Trade studies and analyses demonstrate comprehensive systems engineering approach with clear benefits to the system/sensor definition.
**Paragraphs e., f., g., and h. below will be incorporated as additional criteria after PDR.
e. Test and failure reports exceed CDRL requirements in terms of clarity of content and timeliness.
f. Test plans for validating sensor and algorithm performance are viable documents that provide the basic management tool for the test program. d. Takes initiative to provide viable work-around to avoid schedule impacts.
g. Test management provides effective controls in test deviations.
h. Test approach and philosophy is sound, well organized and cost effective. Effectively uses concurrent engineering to incorporate life cycle cost management and other systems engineering disciplines into the sensor definition efforts.
V. EXCELLENT
a. Substantially meets the requirements of IV above, plus:
b. Is highly effective in anticipating problems and gives specific emphasis to these areas during testing.
c. Monitors and reduces the need for rework and overtime.
d. Responsive to IPO requests for additional data/testing during tests. Retest plans are fully coordinated and approved prior to the start of retest.
e. Test program/flow designed to maximize assurance of flight integrity rather than merely providing the vehicle meets or exceeds specifications and/or milestones.
f. Contractor proposal(s) for potential preplanned product improvements (contained in appendix G of the SRD) provides attainable solutions that are cost effective, with a minimum increase in risk and schedule impact.
**Paragraphs g., h., i., j., and k. below will be incorporated as additional criteria after PDR.
g. Parts lists generated for production effort require no significant revisions.
h. Anticipates new test requirements and incorporates additional tests well before critical data are needed.
i. The test management provides for effective controls in test deviations.
j. Maintains vigorous and formal control over tests, discrepancies, method of reporting, technical evaluation and closure disposition.
k. Requires a thorough, comprehensive understanding of all test anomalies and malfunctions prior to proceeding with the test.
ANNEX 5
COMPUTATION OF AWARD FEE EARNED
SAMPLE
COMPUTATION FOR CPAF CLIN:
AVAILABLE POINT AWARD FEE
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AWARD EVALUATION PERCENTAGE AMOUNT
CRITERIA WEIGHT FEE POOL POINT% EARNED EARNED
-------------------- ----------- --------------- ------------------ --------------------- -----------------
Program Management 40% $160,000 90 90% $144,000
Technical Performance 40% $160,000 50 0% 0
Cost Management 20% $ 80,000 60 75% $60,000
100% $400,000 51%* $204,000
*The overall rating is the total amount earned divided by total pool.
(NOTE: If the overall rating is 50% or less which is then unsatisfactory. (no award fee is awarded.)
COMPUTATION FOR COMBINATION CLIN (FPIF/AF):
AVAILABLE POINT AWARD FEE
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AWARD EVALUATION PERCENTAGE AMOUNT
CRITERIA WEIGHT FEE POOL POINT% EARNED EARNED
----------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------------------
Program Management 40% $160,000 90 90% $144,000
Technical Performance 40% $160,000 85 85 $136,000
Cost Management 20% $ 80,000 60 0___ ____0____
100% $400,000 OVERALL 70%* $280,000
RATING
*The overall rating is the total amount earned divided by total pool.
(NOTE: If the overall rating is less than 66% , no award fee is awarded.)