6 Month Work Contract by jge11109

VIEWS: 58 PAGES: 36

More Info
									Performance Evaluation Board
Recommendation to the
Fee Determination Official


                    Contract Name
                   Contract Number
                  Award Fee Period XX
                   Month Day, Year



     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   1
         PEB/FDO Template Components

   Purpose
   Contract Overview
   Award Fee Overview
   Overview of 6 months mission/Performance
        Areas of Emphasis
   *Technical Performance Evaluation
        Metrics
        Subjective Performance
   *Management Performance Evaluation
   *Safety Evaluation
   *Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation
   *Cost Evaluation
   PEB Recommendation for Period XX
   Back Up Information

   * Can also be arranged using Areas of Emphasis

                 Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   2
      Purpose

   Provide overview of the Contractor’s performance for
    the 6-month period ending _________
   Recommend an Adjective Rating and Numerical Score
   Assure communications and understanding of the award
    fee criteria between the Government and Contractor
   Obtain FDO Adjective Rating and Numerical Score




           Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   3
        Insert Contract Name

   Contract Features
       Prime Contractor: Insert Contractor Name
       Key Subcontractors: Insert Subcontractor Name & Type
       Period of Performance: Contract Start Date – Contract End Date
       Contract Type: Insert Contract Type
       Options: Insert Term & Value
   Contract Scope:
       Insert brief paragraph
   Contract Work Breakdown Structure or Functional Areas




              Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   4
      Work Breakdown Structure/Statement of Work
                                  Insert Contract Name
                                   Statement of Work


      1.0                   2.0                           3.0                6.0




1.1         1.2             2.2                          3.1.1.1       6.1         6.2




1.3         1.4                                                        6.3         6.4




1.5         1.6




            Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data               5
        Insert Contract Name

   Award Fee Period XX Summary
       Evaluation Period: Period Start Date – Period End Date

       Maximum Award Fee Value: Insert Max Available Award Fee for
        Period




                 Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   6
      Award Fee Process Overview

   Evaluators/Surveillance Structure
   Performance Evaluation Board Members
   Areas of Emphasis for the Period
   Scoring Summary by Evaluation Factor, including
    weightings




            Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   7
        Evaluators/Surveillance Structure
                                                              COTR
                                                          Insert Name
                                                  Insert SOW Responsibility

                        Contracting Officer                                                   DCMA
                            Insert Name                                                   Insert Name


         TMR                                                     TMR                                                       TMR
    Insert Name                                             Insert Name                                               Insert Name
   Insert SOW Responsibility                               Insert SOW Responsibility                                Insert SOW Responsibility


                                    TMR                                                       TMR
                               Insert Name                                               Insert Name
                                                                                        Insert SOW Responsibility



         TM                          TM                            TM                           TM                           TM
   Insert Name                 Insert Name                    Insert Name                 Insert Name                     Per TO
Insert SOW Responsibility   Insert SOW Responsibility     Insert SOW Responsibility    Insert SOW Responsibility

                                                                                                                        Insert SOW Responsibility


                        Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                                              8
Performance Evaluation Board Members

         Fee Determination Official
                Insert Name


      Performance Evaluation Board
             Insert Name, Chair
Insert Name           Insert Name                       PEB Recorder
Insert Name           Insert Name                        Insert Name
Insert Name           Insert Name
 Insert Name          Insert Name
Insert Name           Insert Name
Insert Name


          PEB Integration Team
         Insert Name, Chair (COTR)
Insert Name (CO)
Insert Name
Insert Name
Insert Name
Insert Name


         Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   9
      Areas of Emphasis for Period XX

   Insert each Area of Emphasis for the period




            Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   10
      Period XX Scoring Summary
                                                      Adjective
                                                       Criteria   Numerical         Weight
                  Evaluation Element                   Rating       Score     X     Score
A – Technical
      1. Safety




B – Management
   1. Small Business

C. Cost




Cumulative Score
                   Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data            11
Technical Performance Evaluation




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   12
      Technical Evaluation - Metrics

   Insert statement as to how the contract metrics were
    used in the evaluation.




            Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   13
            Metrics - Example

                                                   IDIQ Metrics
                                                                                    Current   Metric   Weighted
WBS/ Number                             Title          Org.       OPR   Weighting   Status    Score     Score
Program Management (X%)                                                     [5.0]
                                                                             4.0      G       100%       4.0
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
Business Management (X%)                                                    [4.0]
                                                                             4.0      G       100%       4.0
Configuration Management/Data Integration (X%)                               [9]
                                                                             2.0      G       100%       2.0
                                                                             2.0      G       100%       2.0
                                                                             2.0      G       100%       2.0
                                                                             1.5      G       100%       1.5
                                                                             1.5      G       100%       1.5
Information Technology (X%)                                                [12.5]
                                                                             4.5      G       100%       4.5
                                                                             4.0      G       100%       4.0
                                                                             4.0      G       100%       4.0
Systems Analysis and Integration (X%)                                       [14]
                                                                             2.5      G       100%       2.5
                                                                             2.0      G       100%       2.0
                                                                             3.0      G       100%       3.0
                                                                             3.5      G       100%       3.5
                                                                             3.0      Y       75%        2.3
Safety and Mission Assurance (X%)                                           [5.5]
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
                                                                             0.5      G       100%       0.5
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
                                                                             1.0      G       100%       1.0
    Total                                                                   50                           49


                          Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                          14
      Technical Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

Identify Strengths in Evaluation Factor, WBS, or AOE order
STRENGTHS




WEAKNESSES




              Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   15
Management Performance Evaluation




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   16
    Management Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

STRENGTHS




WEAKNESSES




             Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   17
Safety Evaluation




      Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   18
              Safety & Health Requirements

            Category                                  Expectation                              Strengths                    Weaknesses

           Leadership                       “Safety” is an integral part of great     Provided by S&MA TMR and      Provided by S&MA TMR and
                                          leadership – “leadership” is an integral    COTR                          COTR
                                            part of an effective safety & health
                                                          program


           Prevention                      You must have a S&H Program that           Provided by S&MA TMR and      Provided by S&MA TMR and
                                          meets the requirement of the JSC S&H        COTR                          COTR
                                                         Handbook
                                            (i.e. a pro-active, leadership and
                                           employee involvement based S&H
                                                         Program)



           Reaction                      You are expected to achieve injury/illness   Provided by NS - based on     Provided by NS - based on
                                          rates below the industry average and to     metrics as compared to        metrics as compared to
      (Trailing Indicators)
                                             keep trying to reduce them to zero       industry averages and other   industry averages and other
 NOTE: Zero injuries/illnesses may
                                                                                      metric factors (e.g. type A   metric factors (e.g. type A
 only mean that you are either lucky                                                  mishaps)                      mishaps)
or under-reporting. Zero by itself has
no meaning – it does have meaning,
however, if there is a proactive S&H
              Program




              Issues                        Manage “issues” and implement             Provided by S&MA TMR and      Provided by S&MA TMR and
                                          appropriate risk mitigation/control and     COTR                          COTR
                                                    corrective action.



                                 Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                                   19
             Safety & Health Requirements
             OSHA Safety Summary
                 CON TRA CTOR - XYZ
             CONTRA CT NUMBER- NAS9-012344

                DA TA THROUGH - 7/1/99 - 12/31/99                        **Example**
          SIC CODE (from 1997) - 8711

MISHA P SUMMA RIES                   CONTRA CTOR           RA TING             DOES NOT MEET                          MEETS
   TYPE A                                 0                MEETS                 greater than 1                          0
   TYPE B                                 0                MEETS                 greater than 1                          0
   TYPE C                                 2
   INCIDENT                               5

COUNTS                               CONTRA CTOR                                                          RA TE HISTORY (3 Previous Years)
 LWDC - DA YS A WA Y                      2                                   LWDC Days A way             LWDC D.A & R.D.              OSHA Recordable
 LWDC - RESTRICTED                        2                     Year 3               1                                2                       4
   LWDC - TOTA L                          4                     Year 2              0.9                              1.8                      3
   MED. TREA T. - TOTA L                  3                     Year 1             0.85                              1.7                     2.5
HOURS                                  500000          Avg (3 year)                0.91                              1.8                     3.2

PROPERTY DA MA GE                    CONTRA CTOR
   # CA SES                               0
   DOLLA RS                             $0.00

                                                                         | ---------------------------------------RATING CRITERIA--------------------------------------- |
                                     CONTRA CTOR           RA TING               DOES N   OT MEET                      MEETS                         EXCEEDS
LWDC (Days Away Only)
   INDUSTRIA L A VERA GE                  0.90                             greater than 50% of the        50% to 25% of the Industrial         less than 25% of the
   FREQUEN CY RA TE                       0.80               DNM              Industrial Average                   Average                       Industrial Average
LWDC (Days Away & Restricted)
   INDUSTRIA L A VERA GE                  1.70                                                                                               50% below the Industrial
                                                                         above the Industrial Average below the Industrial Average
   FREQUEN CY RA TE                       1.60              MEETS                                                                                   Average
OSHA RECORDA BLE
   INDUSTRIA L A VERA GE                  6.00                                                                                               50% below the Industrial
                                                                         above the Industrial Average below the Industrial Average
   CONTRA CTOR RA TE                      2.80             EXCEEDS                                                                                  Average

OSHA / EPA                           CONTRA CTOR           RA TING             DOES NOT MEET                          MEETS                           EXCEEDS
   VIOLA TIONS                            0                MEETS          greater than or equal to 1                     0                               N/A


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :

 __3__ of ___6__ 288 Reports were submitted on-time.   FALSE - Data submitted was regularly accurate.




                                Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                                                               20
Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   21
         Small Business Subcontracting Goals

                            Percentage of Total Contract Dollars

                                                                                                  Strength/
                      Category                             Goal      Period X*      Cum to Date    Meets/
                                                                                                  Weakness
Small Business (SB)                                        XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)                         XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)                          XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Hub-Zone Small Business                                    XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB)                        XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Service Disabled VOSB (SDVO)                               XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W


Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCU)         XX%          XX%            XX%         S/M/W

                                     * - Use invoiced expenditures or SF 294 data

                      Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                          22
      Small Business Subcontracting Goals

   Insert Strengths for Mentor-Protégé Program or other
    means to promote small businesses
   A summary of any extenuating circumstances should be
    provided.




           Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   23
Cost Evaluation




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   24
Level-of-Effort Cost Evaluation – Example

                            COST EVALUATION PERIOD NO. X


                        Contract Baseline           Actuals                    Delta
                       Rate       Total      Rate          Total        Rate           Total

      Hours

 Cost Elements
 Labor
 Overhead/Fringe
 Facilities
 Travel
 Training
 OT Premium
 Other
     Subtotal
 G&A
 Subs
 Material
        Total

   Grand Total
 Less Maint & Travel
 Subs Travel
 G&A Travel
 Evaluated Total

                                        $0                         $0                          $0   0.00%




            Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                  25
    Level-of-Effort Cost Analysis – Example

Variances:
 Labor Dollars:

 Facilities:

 OT Premium:

 Wrap Rate:



Narrative would address which variances
  considered within contractor’s control and
  contractor’s overall performance based on total
  cost (cost per hour for hours delivered).


         Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   26
Performance Based Contract Cost Evaluation
with no EVMS




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   27
         Variance Detail Chart

Cost Element            Actual    Baseline   Variance $    Variance        Variance Narrative

Direct Labor ($)

Direct Labor (Hrs)

Materials/Equipment

Subcontractor

Other Direct Costs

Travel

Overhead

G&A                                                   $0




                      Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data            28
        Cost Summary & Write-up

Summary :
 The Contractor’s actual cost for this 6-month period was under the
  negotiated contract baseline by xx%.
       Underrun experienced in direct labor, materials/equipment, other direct costs,
        and G&A costs.
       Overrun experienced in subcontract costs, travel costs, and overhead costs.

Assessment:
  Contractor was able to keep costs in check while performing at a high
   quality level meeting all critical schedules.
  Factors to consider:
       A majority of the overruns in the cost elements were NASA-driven. Subcontract
        costs and overhead were the significant overruns. They were the result of work
        done that was not specifically included in the baseline.
       Underruns were the result of contractor efficiencies and deferral of ISS
        purchases

Recommended Score:                                                           XX


                Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data           29
Performance Based Contract Cost Evaluation
Using Performance Measurement (EVM)


                             Example




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   30
                   Sample I PBC with EV Graph with Write-up


      1.2
                   Behind Schedule     Ahead of Schedule
                                                                                     Monthly
                                                                                     FY start
                                                                                                    Based on cum period CPI of 1.049
                                                                                     Per. end       Excellent – Initial grade: 100



                                                           Underspent
                                                                                     Per. cum.
      1.1                                                                            EOY est.       Contractor exhibited outstanding cost
                                                                                     TCPI            control
                                       G                                       Prev. mo.            Cost variance indicates ACWP was
                                                                                                     $300k (about 7%) less than planned.
CPI




      1.0                                                                     SPI:    0.994
                                                                                                     This translates to actual savings to
                                                                              CPI:     0.976
                                                                                                     the program that will be realized this
                         Y                                                     Proj. EOY             year if current contractor performance
                                                           Overspent




      0.9                                                                     SPI:    1.001          is sustained.
                                                                              CPI:    0.989
              R                                                                  TCPI
      0.8                                                                        0.939
            0.8      0.9             1.0        1.1                     1.2
                                     SPI                                         3.7%


                  CPIcum: 0.973            CPIper: 1.049




                                     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                           31
 Example of PBC with EV Graph (CPI only)


                              AF Period Cum CPI


              2.00

              1.00

              0.00
                          1           2           3          4             5      6

AF Period Cum CPI       1.25        1.06        1.05        1.03          1.03   1.05


                               > 1.0 Underspent
                               < 1.0 Overspent

         Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                 32
           PEB Recommendation for Period XX
  0                                60               70                         80                    90              100%
      POOR/UNSATISFACTORY                  SAT             GOOD                              VG                   EX

                                                                                                      XX%




                                                                                                                   Percentile Score

                                                                                                                                       Weighted Score
                                                                               Weaknesses




                                                                                                      Weighting
                                                                   Strengths
                Evaluation Factors/AOEs                                                     Rating
A. Performance, Compliance with S&H, and Subcontracting Goals      X           X              XX     70%           XX                 XX
B. Cost Performance                                                X           X              XX     30%           XX                 XX


                    RECOMMENDED ADJECTIVE RATING = EXCELLENT
                         RECOMMENDED NUMERICAL SCORE = XX


             .XX x $Y,YYY,YYY (available fee pool for the period) = $Z,ZZZ,ZZZ
                    Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                                                       33
FDO Presentation Back-up




     Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   34
Award Fee Pool for Period XX
                                 Award Fee Pool:   $5,000,000

               Numerical Score       Percent       Earned Fee
                    100               100%         $5,000,000
                     99                99%          4,950,000
                     98                98%          4,900,000
                     97                97%          4,850,000
                     96                96%          4,800,000
                     95                95%          4,750,000
                     94                94%          4,700,000
                     93                93%          4,650,000
                     92                92%          4,600,000
                     91                91%          4,550,000
                     90                90%          4,500,000
                     89                89%          4,450,000
                     88                88%          4,400,000
                     87                87%          4,350,000
                     86                86%          4,300,000
                     85                85%          4,250,000
                     84                84%          4,200,000
                     83                83%          4,150,000
                     82                82%          4,100,000
                     81                81%          4,050,000
                     80                80%          4,000,000
                     79                79%          3,950,000
                     78                78%          3,900,000
                     77                77%          3,850,000
                     76                76%          3,800,000
                     75                75%          3,750,000
                     74                74%          3,700,000
                     73                73%          3,650,000
                     72                72%          3,600,000
                     71                71%          3,550,000
                     70                70%          3,500,000
                     69                69%          3,450,000
                     68                68%          3,400,000
                     67                67%          3,350,000
                     66                66%          3,300,000
                     65                65%          3,250,000
                     64                64%          3,200,000
                     63                63%          3,150,000
                     62                62%          3,100,000
                     61                61%          3,050,000
                     60                 0               0
    Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data   35
            Historical Performance Comparison


Award Fee Period            1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8    9     10     11   12   13   14


Quality
Business Management
Safety
SB Goals
Program Provisioning

PEB Recommended Score

FDO Final Score




                       Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data                  36

								
To top