Award Fee Plan

Document Sample
Award Fee Plan Powered By Docstoc
					                    DRAFT
               Award Fee Plan
                 GMASS II




APPROVED:


            __________________________________________

            AWARD FEE DETERMINING OFFICIAL
                                                      Table of Contents



1     INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3
2     ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................. 3
3     RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................. 3
    3.1       Award Fee Determining Official. ................................................................................... 3
    3.2       Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB). ........................................................................... 4
    3.3       AFEB Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. ..................................................................... 4
    3.4       Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). ............................................................................ 4
    3.5       AFEB Recorder(s)........................................................................................................... 4
    3.6       Performance Monitors..................................................................................................... 5
      3.7.1    Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) ...................... Error! Bookmark not
      defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
      3.7.2    Quality Assurance Representatives (QAR) and Contracting Officer
      Representatives (COR) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
4     AWARD FEE PROCESSES .................................................................................................. 5
    4.1       Evaluation Boards ........................................................................................................... 5
      4.1.1          End-of-Period (Final) Evaluations. ......................................................................... 5
      4.1.2          Interim Evaluation Process. .................................................................................... 6
      4.1.3          Monthly Performance Evaluation Boards............................................................... 6
      4.1.4          Informal Feedback. ................................................................................................. 6
    4.2       Available Award Fee Amount ........................................................................................ 6
    4.3       Award Fee Ratings.......................................................................................................... 7
    4.4       Award Fee Scoring.......................................................................................................... 8
    4.5       Contractor’s Self- Assessment. ........................................................................................ 9
5     AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE ................................................................... 9
6     TASK ORDER TERMINATION ........................................................................................... 9
7     FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................................................... 9
1     INTRODUCTION
        This Award Fee Plan (AFP) is the basis for evaluation of the contractor’s performance
and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Award Fee Determining Official
(AFDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s
performance and to determine the amount of award fee earned. Actual award fee determinations
and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the
discretion of the Government.
        The award fee will be provided to the contractor through formal contract modifications
and is in addition to the Cost Reimbursement provisions of the contract. The award fee earned
and payable will be determined by the AFDO based upon review of the contractor’s performance
against the criteria set forth in this plan. The AFDO may unilaterally change the plan before the
beginning of an evaluation period. If the AFDO makes a unilateral change to the plan, the
contractor will be notified of changes by the Contracting Officer, in writing, before the start of
the affected evaluation period. Changes to the plan after the start of the period will be
incorporated by mutual consent of both parties (Govt and contractor).
        The award fee plan establishes the approach and criteria the Government will utilize
when making award fee determinations that provide positive incentives for execution of services
that exceed task order performance requirements. Award fee determinations for Task Order 0001
will be made every four months. The primary objective of this process is for the
Government/contractor team to recognize the importance of exceptional performance on a single
task order in support of theater requirements.
        The Task Order Evaluation will be based on contractor overall performance at the Task
Order level during the four month award fee period being evaluated. In assessing each period’s
performance, monthly performance reviews evaluating contractor task order performance will be
consolidated, and a summary evaluation of overall task order performance will be produced.
Specific key task order areas are discussed in Annex 1.


2     ORGANIZATION
The award fee organization consists of: the Award Fee Determining Official, AFDO; an Award
Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB); and the Performance Monitors. The AFDO, AFEB members and
performance monitors will be listed in a separate document.


3     RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1   Award Fee Determining Official.
The AFDO approves the award fee plan and any significant changes. The AFDO reviews the
recommendations(s) of the AFEB, considers all pertinent data, including overall contract metrics
performance and makes the final determination as to the earned award fee amount for each
evaluation period. The AFDO will notify the Contractor, in writing, of the earned award fee for
the award fee period with a description of the Contractor’s strengths, weaknesses, and “watch”
items for the future. Within five (5) days after receipt of the AFEB recommendations, the AFDO
will authorize the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) to issue a contract modification for the
award fee amount.




                                                                                                 3
3.2   Award Fee Evaluation Board (AFEB).
AFEB members review the Performance Monitors’ evaluation of the contractor’s performance,
consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports, and will
arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented to the AFDO within five (5) days
after receipt of Performance Monitor evaluations. The AFEB may also recommend changes to
this plan.


3.3   AFEB Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
 The AFEB Chairperson will ensure that the Contractor performance review is thorough and
covers all areas required to support the award fee determination. The Chairperson will lead the
AFEB meetings and resolve any significant differences in ratings. If rating differences cannot be
resolved for a particular area, the Chairperson will determine the rating for the area in dispute
and document the issue in the report to the AFDO. The results of the AFEB review will be
written in the AFEB Report and transmitted to the AFDO within 30 calendar days of the end of
the evaluation period.


3.4   Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).
The PCO transmits the AFDO letters to the Contractor. The PCO prepares and distributes the
modification awarding the fee authorized by the AFDO within 30 calendar days after the date of
the AFDO decision letter. The PCO ensures that the appropriate award- fee amount is financially
committed prior to the beginning of the applicable award- fee evaluation period. The PCO
ensures that all unearned-award- fee funds are de-committed after each evaluation period. The
PCO notifies the Contractor of any change(s) to the Award Fee Plan (AFP), after AFDO/AFEB
Chairperson approval. The PCO ensures the AFEB recommendation and the AFDO final
decision is formally documented. In addition to the required documents already in the official
contract file such as the AFEB and appointment letters, the official contract file will also contain
the following documentation for each separate evaluation period: a copy of the AFDO briefing; a
copy of the AFDO decision letter to the Contractor providing the earned-award- fee amount as
well as strengths, areas for improvement, and future areas of emphasis, if any; s upporting
rationale if the AFDO final decision of earned-award- fee amount differs from the AFEB
recommendation; the interim evaluation letter, if applicable; Contractor’s self assessment, if any;
and applicable funding documents.


3.5   AFEB Recorde r.
The ACO will serve as the AFEB Recorder who is responsible for coordinating the
administrative actions required by the Performance Monitors, the AFEB, and the AFDO,
including: 1) receipt, processing, and distribution of evaluation reports (briefing charts) from all
required sources; 2) scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as
briefings; and 3) accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the
award fee (e.g. maintaining the official award fee files).




                                                                                                       4
3.6     Performance Monitors.
Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) and Quality Assurance Representatives (QAR) will
serve as Performance Monitors. COR/QARs will gather data concerning the Contractor’s
performance and the impact of the Contractor’s performance on the ir area of responsibility. The
monitors will also provide formal, timely monthly feedback to their contractor counterpart on
performance as evaluated against the subjective criteria. It is optional to provide monthly written
feedback for the months immediately preceding the interim and final briefings. This is based on
the fact the monitor is preparing inputs to interim and final briefing charts that capture the
feedback for these months.
The COR/QAR will provide contractor evaluation inputs to the ACO. Performance Monitors
maintain written records of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation areas and
will provide the AFEB an evaluation of the contractor’s performance in their assigned evaluation
area within fifteen (15) days after the end of each Award Fee Period.


3.6.1     Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).
The ACO will maintain overall responsibility for award fee administration. The ACO will
advise the AFEB Chairperson of any deficiencies or inconsistencies in the AFEB assessment,
and assist the AFEB Chairperson in coming to a final recommendation. The ACO is the liaison
between the Government and the Contractor. The ACO will request inputs from the
Performance Monitors 30 days prior to the AFEB, consolidate and finalize the award fee briefing
to be presented to the AFEB.


4     AWARD FEE PROCESSES


4.1     Evaluation Boards
The Award Fee Process will be comprised of four related components. They are Informal
Feedback, Monthly Performance Evaluations, Interim Evaluations, and End of Period (Final)
Evaluations.


4.1.1     End-of-Period (Final) Evaluations.
The AFEB Recorder notifies each AFEB member and performance monitors 15 calendar days
before the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to
the AFEB 15 calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFEB prepares its
evaluation report and recommendation of earned award fee. The AFEB briefs the evaluation
report and recommendation to the AFDO. At this time, the AFEB may also recommend any
significant changes to the award fee plan for AFDO approval. The AFDO determines the overall
grade and earned award fee amount for the evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each
evaluation period. The AFDO letter informs the contractor of the earned award fee amount. The
PCO issues a contract modification within 15 calendar days after the AFDO’s decision is made
authorizing payment of the earned award fee amount.




                                                                                                 5
4.1.2    Inte rim Evaluation Process.
The AFEB Recorder notifies each AFEB member and Performance Monitor 15 calendar days
before the midpoint of the evaluation period. Performance Monitors submit their evaluation
reports (for subjective criteria only) to the AFEB 10 calendar days after this notification. The
AFEB determines the interim evaluation results and notifies the contractor of the following:
strengths and weaknesses for the current evaluation period and watch items for the remainder of
the evaluation period. The PCO may also issue letters at any other time when it is deemed
necessary to highlight areas of concern.


4.1.3    Monthly Pe rformance Evaluation Boards.
The Performance Monitors will also provide formal, timely monthly feedback to their contractor
counterparts on performance as evaluated against the subjective criteria. The Government will
use feedback during monthly performance evaluation discussions to form the basis of both
interim and End of Period Evaluations. It is optional to provide monthly written feedback for the
months immediately preceding the interim and final briefings. This is based on the fact the
monitors are preparing inputs to interim and final briefing charts that capture the feedback for
these months.


4.1.4    Informal Feedback.
The Government may provide informal feedback during Program Reviews and
Technical/Functional Meetings. While feedback provided to the Contractor in these forums may
relate to performance issues, it will not relieve the Contractor from meeting established
performance objectives.


4.2     Available Award Fee Amount


4.2.1    Task Order Award Fee.
 Award Fee Determinations will be made at the Task Order level on a semi- annual basis and will
take into consideration overall task order performance for each evaluation period. The award fee
for each CPAF task order awarded under this contract shall be composed of an award fee pool of
based upon the final negotiated estimated cost of the task order. The pool will consist of the
negotiated percentage for award fee of the final negotiated estimated cost minus all non fee
bearing cost elements. While not all inclusive the following cost elements will not be included in
the base when the Government computes the pool:
                     Facilities Capital Cost of Money
                     Value Added Tax
                     Incentive Pay above Applicable Department of State Guidelines
                     Equipment
                     DBA Insurance




                                                                                                   6
The PCO will authorize payment of the award fee consistent with the Award Fee CLINs
contained in the task orders. The Award Fee CLINs under the task order will identify the
amount of Task Order Award Fee authorized for payment from the Award Fee Pool, the Award
Fee funding codes, and the award fee period for which Award Fee payment is being made
against. The award fee dollars for the Task Order award fee pool will also be identified in a
narrative of each task order. The offeror must verify in writing that it carried out due diligence
in determining the appropriate exclusions were taken into account in developing the award fee
pool.



4.3   Award Fee Ratings
The same criteria listed for the preceding period will be used in the following award fee
evaluation period unless the AFDO or PCO gives specific notice in writing to the Contractor of
any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period. Revisions to
the current period award fee criteria may only be implemented with the Contractor’s
concurrence. Prior to the start of the period, the Contractor may submit proposed changes to the
Award Fee Plan to the PCO or DPD for consideration by the AFDO.


The definitions below describe the level of performance that will lead to the rating assessment.


        EXCELLENT: Performance is of the highest quality that could be achieved under the
contract. There are no areas of deficiencies or problems encountered during the evaluation
period. The contractor must average among the subfactors an “Excellent” rating at each level of
the award fee evaluation.


       VERY GOOD : Performance is of high quality and approaching the best that could be
performed by the Contractor. Execution of required functions greatly exceeds an average
performance level. A few minor problems are experienced d uring the evaluation period without
impacting the overall level of performance. The contractor must average among the subfactors a
“Very Good” rating at each level of the award fee evaluation.


        GOOD: Contractor exceeds some contract or task order requirements in a manner
demonstrating an overall commitment to achieve above average results. Overall Performance is
much better than acceptable quality levels. Areas of deficiency and minor problems are more
than off-set by areas of good performance. The contractor must average among the subfactors a
“Good” rating at each level of the award fee evaluation.


        AVERAGE: Contractor’s performance has achieved the minimum acceptable quality
levels. Areas of good performance are offset by deficiencies and problems, which reduces
performance to a level below established acceptable quality levels in the task order or Contract.
The contractor averages among the subfactors an “Average” rating at each level of the award fee
evaluation.



                                                                                                     7
4.4   Award Fee Scoring
The award fee evaluation for the CPAF Task Order and subsequent fee earned will be governed
by the following scoring system:


       Performance           Numerical                  Percent of Available
       Standard              Rating                      Award Fee Earned
       Average               0-70                       0
       (Range: 0 to 70)
       Good                  71                         4
       (Range:               72                         8
       Greater than          73                         12
       70 to 80)             74                         16
                             75                         20
                             76                         24
                             77                         28
                             78                         32
                             79                         36
                             80                         40
       Very Good             81                         44
       (Range:               82                         48
       Greater than          83                         52
       80 to 90)             84                         56
                             85                         60
                             86                         64
                             87                         68
                             88                         72
                             89                         76
                             90                         80
       Excellent             91                         82
       (Range:               92                         84
       Greater than          93                         86
       90 to 100)            94                         88
                             95                         90


                                                                                              8
                                96                          92
                                97                          94
                                98                          96
                                99                          98
                                100                         100




4.5   Contractor’s Self-Assessment.
The Contractor shall submit a self-assessment to the ACO within five working days prior to the
end of the evaluation period. This written assessment of the Contractor’s performance
throughout the evaluation period should contain any information that may be reasonably
expected to assist the AFEB in evaluating the Contractor’s performance. The Contractor’s self-
assessment may not exceed 10 pages, double spaced, and not be written in less than 12-point
font. The Contractor will also be afforded the opportunity to conduct a self assessment briefing
to the AFEB at the end of the reporting period. The Contractor must submit the briefing to the
ACO within five working days prior to the end of the evaluation period. The Contractor’s self-
assessment briefing may not exceed 30 slides per briefing without prior approval of the AFDO.


5     AWARD FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE
The AFDO approves all significant changes; the AFEB Chairperson approves all other changes.
Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria; adjusting performance
evaluation area weighting ranges to redirect contractor’s emphasis areas needing improvement,
and revising the distribution of award fee dollars. The Contractor may recommend changes to
the KO no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval,
the KO shall notify the Contractor, in writing, of any change(s). The AFDO may unilaterally
change the criteria prior to the beginning of an evaluation period. The Contractor will be
notified of changes to the plan by the KO, in writing, before the start of the affected evaluation
period. Changes to this plan within the period and throughout the period will be incorporated by
mutual consent. Increases in the Contract Award Fee Pool resulting from the contractor
receiving additional work under a CPAF Task Order is not considered a significant change and
will not require AFDO approval.


6     CONTRACT /TASK ORDER TERMINATION
If the task order is terminated for the convenience of the Government after the start of an award
fee evaluation period, the award fee deemed earned for that period shall be determined by the
AFDO using the established award fee evaluation process.


7     FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The Factors and Performance Category Criteria attached will serve as guidelines for the
evaluators and AFDO to evaluate Contractor performance. Criteria will be categorized as
Objective or Subjective. If the PCO does not give specific notice in writing to the contractor of


                                                                                                    9
any change to the subjective or objective criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period,
then the same criteria listed for the preceding period will by used in the subsequent award fee
evaluation period. The Task Order objective and subjective evaluation criteria are contained in
Annexes 1.


Annexes
1. Task Order Evaluation Criteria




                                                                                                    10
Annex I

Task Order Evaluation Criteria


                                              Area                               Weight
                       Technical Performance                                       40%
                       Project Management                                          20%
                       Cost/Schedule Management                                    20%
                       Cost Control                                                20%
                                                                    Total         100%
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE (40%)
EXCELLENT          All contractor-controlled schedules are met. Concerted effort made to anticipate and meet all schedule changes
                   caused by the Government. Contractor is responsive. Contractor is proactive in communication of schedules
                   and impacts of changes
                   Work is of the highest caliber. No rework is required. Changes are incorporated resulting in enhancing
                   program accomplishment. There are no Quality concerns.
                   Technical Proposals are realistic.
                   Government direction is not required.
                   The contractor responds to program schedule changes with no adverse impact to supportability, cost, or
                   schedule. Definitizes action within 120 days from task order award. Contractor exceeds all surge requirements
                   easily.
VERY GOOD          All contractor-controlled schedules are met. Concerted effort made to meet all schedule changes caused by the
                   Government. Contractor is proactive in communication of schedules and impacts of changes.
                   Work is of the highest caliber. Very little rework is required. Changes are incorporated resulting in enhancing
                   program accomplishment. There are no Quality concerns.
                   Technical Proposals are realistic.
                   Very little Government direction is required.
                   The contractor responds to program schedule changes with very little impact to supportability, cost, or
                   schedule. Definitizes action within 120 days from task order award. Contractor exceeds all surge requirements.
GOOD               All contractor-controlled schedules are met. Concerted effort made to meet all schedule changes caused by the
                   Government. Contractor communicates schedules and impacts of changes.
                   Caliber of work is good. Very little rework is required. Changes are incorporated resulting in enhancing
                   program accomplishment.
                   Technical Proposals are realistic, very few changes are necessary.
                   Very little Government direction is required.
                   The contractor responds to program schedule changes with little impact to supportability, cost, or schedule.
                   Definitizes action within 120 days from task order award. Contractor meets all surge requirements with few
                   problems.
AVERAGE OR BELOW   Most contractor-controlled schedules are met. Effort is made to meet all schedule changes caused by the
                   Government. Contractor communicates schedules and impacts of changes.
                   Caliber of work is good. Some rework is required. Changes are incorporated resulting in enhancing program
                   accomplishment.
                   Technical Proposals are often unrealistic, changes are often necessary.
                   Government direction is required.
                   The contractor responds to program schedule changes with some impact to supportability, cost, or schedule.
                   Definitizes most actions within 120 days from task order award. Contractor has difficulty meeting surge
                   requirements.




                                                                                                                                     11
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (30%)
EXCELLENT          Contractor proactively communicates with the Government. Develops efficient working relations at key levels
                   which eliminates delays. PCO/ACO is provided an in depth, timely, and comprehensive briefing on program
                   status and is informed of potential problems well in advance.
                   Problem resolution never requires Government assistance. Corrective actions are taken before issues become a
                   problem.
                   Contractor is proactive in maintaining the integrity of the program.
                   Contractor is responsive to Government requests request for proposals.
                   Contractor exceeds subcontracting goals in subcontracting plan. Contractor demonstrates active recruiting and
                   attention to small business programs. Contractor exceeds the 15% subcontracting goals overall and in each
                   designated small business categories.
                   Contractor demonstrates readiness and capability to surge to requirements.
                   Contactor utilizes sound accounting practices that identify and implement many cost reduction strategies,
                   which result in significant savings for the program.
                   Contractor manages personnel and deployment issues quickly and efficiently and has a plan to mitigate risk on
                   issues which could arise.
VERY GOOD          Contractor communicates well with the Government and the LOGCAP Planning Contractors. Develops many
                   working relations at most key levels which eliminates delays. Program Director/PCO/ACO is provided an in
                   depth briefing on program status and is informed of potential problems in advance.
                   Problem resolution does not require Government assistance. Corrective actions are taken before issues become
                   a problem.
                   Contractor maintains integrity of the program.
                   Contractor is responsive to Government requests.
                   Contractor exceeds subcontracting goals in subcontracting plan. Contractor demonstrates active recruiting and
                   attention to small business programs. Contractor exceeds the 15% subcontracting goals overall and in each
                   designated small business categories.
                   Contractor demonstrates capability to surge to requirements.
                   Contactor utilizes sound accounting practices that identify and implements some cost reduction strategies,
                   which result in savings for the program.
                   Contractor manages personnel and deployment issues quickly and efficiently.
GOOD               Contractor communicates with the Government and the LOGCAP Planning Contractors. Develops some
                   working relations at some levels which help to eliminate delays. Program Director/PCO/ACO is briefed on
                   program status and is informed of most potential problems in advance.
                   Problem resolutions require some Government assistance. Corrective actions are taken before issues become a
                   problem.
                   Contractor is responsive to Government requests.
                   Contractor meets subcontracting goals in subcontracting plan, and presents satisfactory plan to meet the 15%
                   CONUS and OCONUS subcontracting goals. Contractor meets the 15% subcontracting goals overall and in
                   most of the designated small business categories. Contractor is proactive in attaining set goals.
                   Contractor demonstrates capability to surge to requirements.
                   Contactor utilizes sound accounting practices that identify and implements occasional cost reduction
                   strategies.
                   Contractor manages personnel and deployment issues.
AVERAGE OR BELOW   Contractor has some difficulty with communication with the Government and the LOGCAP IV Contractors.
                   Develops very few working relationships which help to eliminate delays. Program Director/PCO/ACO is
                   briefed on only the basic program status and is not informed of potential problems in advance.
                   Problem resolutions often require Government assistance. Corrective actions are not always taken before
                   issues become a problem.
                   Contractor is generally unresponsive to Government requests.
                   Contractor fails to meet the 15% subcontracting goals.
                   Contractor demonstrates inadequate capability to surge to requirements.
                   Contactor demonstrates accounting practices that identify and implements very few cost reduction strategies.
                   Contractor has some difficulty managing personnel and deployment issues. Contractor has some difficulty



                                                                                                                                   12
                    managing personnel and deployment issues.




COST/SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT (20%)
EXCELLENT           Substantially meets the requirements of “very good” below, plus:
                    Contractor consistently submits high quality cost reports and schedule forecasts which permit early
                    identification and resolution of problem areas.
                    Funds requirements data and projections reported are accurate and received ahead of schedule.
                    Cost/schedule variances are fully explained and resolved without impact to overall task order cost and
                    schedule goals.
                    Consistently anticipates possible sources of cost/schedule growth and implements corrective action to avoid or
                    resolve potential cost/schedule problems.
                    Proposes innovative and thoroughly cost effective approach to problems with which the Cdr, AFSBn agrees.
                    Maintains a cost management system which identifies problem areas and implements solutions to maintain
                    cost and manpower growth levels below the negotiated levels.
VERY GOOD           Substantially meets the requirements of “good” below”, plus:
                    Funds requirements reflect constant scrutiny to assure accuracy.
                    Cost savings are considered and reported in change proposals.
                    Prepares and develops program cost/schedule data which provides clear program office visibility into current
                    and future task order costs.
                    Performs necessary contingency planning and keeps close and timely communication with the program office
                    on cost and schedule issues.
                    Baseline integrity is consistently maintained and all changes are fully documented. Narratives explaining data
                    variances (cost to completion) are current, accurate, explicit, and relevant to the variances observed.
                    Narratives address anticipated program impacts and fully describe both current and future cost impacts of the
                    current cost performance.
                    Plans, develops and executes viable procedures that incorporate the flexibility necessary to be responsive to
                    changing priorities without adversely affecting overall cost.
GOOD                Adjustments or other perturbations are fully and clearly explained.
                    All requirements for additional funding are thoroughly documented and justified.
                    Takes measures to avoid cost/schedule growth.
                    Reasonable corrective actions are briefed to the ACO/DPD for review. Contractor recognizes where
                    cost/schedule growth may occur and provides timely and well documented justification of actual problems and
                    projections for additional resources.
                    The Contractor provides accurate cost and schedule estimates for tasks and gives timely notices to the
                    Government if it anticipates significant variances. Expeditiously validates and properly maintains Earned
                    Value Management criteria.
AVERAGE OR BELOW    Does not meet good criteria for this evaluation category.




COST CONTROL (20%)

Scoring of Cost Control

The contractor's success in controlling costs will be measured against task order estimated costs.

Whenever there is a significant cost overrun that was within its control, a contractor will be
given a score of zero. Cost underruns within the contractor's control will normally be rewarded.


                                                                                                                                     13
However, the extent to which an underrun is rewarded will depend on the size of the underrun
and the contractor's level of performance in the other award fee evaluation factors. Contractors
will not be rewarded for excelling in cost control to the detriment of other important performance
factors. For that reason, whether a cost underrun is rewarded in the evaluation process and, if so,
the degree to which it is rewarded depends, not only on the size of the underrun, but also on how
well the contractor is performing overall in the other evaluation areas.

COST CONTROL (20%)
EXCELLENT            The contractor's average score for all other evaluation factors is Excellent and it
                     achieves a cost underun. Score within the range will depend on the size of the
                     underrun
VERY GOOD            The Contractor’s average numerical score for all other factors Very Good and an
                     underrun is achieved. Score within the range will depend on the size of the underrun.

GOOD                 The Contractor’s average numerical score for all other factors is good and an underrun
                     is achieved. Score within the range will depend on the size of the underrun

AVERAGE OR BELOW     Regardless of score in other areas , the contractor meets or exceeds the negotiated
                     estimated cost of the contract.




                                                                                                              14