Proposed Fee Determination Official Meeting Presentation Template Contractor Briefing December 13,...

Proposed Fee Determination Official Meeting Presentation Template

Contractor Briefing December 13, 2004

Performance Evaluation Board Recommendation to the Fee Determination Official

Contract NameContract Number

Award Fee Period XXMonth Day, Year

Performance Evaluation Template - Contractor Briefing 3

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


Purpose

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


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


Work Breakdown Structure/Statement of Work

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

1.5 1.6

1.0

2.2

2.0

3.1.1 .1

3.0

6.1 6.2

6.3 6.6

6.0

ContractStatem ent o f W ork


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


Award Fee Process Overview

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

weightings


Evaluators/Surveillance Structure

COTR

Insert Name

TMR

Insert Name

TMR

Insert Name

TMR

Insert Name

TMR

Insert Name

Insert SOW Responsibility Insert SOW Responsibility Insert SOW Responsibility

TM

Insert Name

TM

Insert Name

Insert SOW Responsibility

TM

Insert Name

TMR

Insert Name




TM

Insert Name

Insert SOW Responsibility Insert SOW Responsibility

DCMA

Insert Name

Contracting Officer

Insert Name


TM

Per TO


Performance Evaluation Board Members

Performance Evaluation Board

Insert Name, Chair Insert Name Insert NameInsert Name Insert NameInsert Name Insert Name Insert Name Insert NameInsert Name Insert NameInsert Name

Fee Determination Official

Insert Name

PEB Integration Team

Insert Name, Chair (COTR)Insert Name (CO)Insert NameInsert NameInsert NameInsert Name

PEB Recorder

Insert Name


Areas of Emphasis for Period XX

Insert each Area of Emphasis for the period


Period XX Scoring Summary

Evaluation Element

AdjectiveCriteriaRating

Numerical

Score XWeightScore

A – Technical

including Safety

B – Management

including Small Business

C – Cost

Cumulative Score

Technical Performance Evaluation


Technical Evaluation - Metrics

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


Metrics - Example

WBS/ Number Title Org. OPR WeightingCurrent Status

Metric Score

Weighted Score

[5.0]111.1.01 4.0 G 100% 4.0111.1.02 1.0 G 100% 1.0

) [4.0]125.1.01 4.0 G 100% 4.0

[9]131.1.01 2.0 G 100% 2.0131.1.02 2.0 G 100% 2.0131.1.03 2.0 G 100% 2.0131.1.04 1.5 G 100% 1.5132.1.01 1.5 G 100% 1.5

[12.5]142.1.01 4.5 G 100% 4.5142.1.02 4.0 G 100% 4.0142.1.03 4.0 G 100% 4.0

[14]221.1.01 2.5 G 100% 2.5221.1.02 2.0 G 100% 2.0221.1.03 3.0 G 100% 3.0222.1.01 3.5 G 100% 3.5223.1.01 3.0 Y 75% 2.3

[5.5]616.1.01 1.0 G 100% 1.0616.1.02 1.0 G 100% 1.0616.1.03 0.5 G 100% 0.5618.1.01 1.0 G 100% 1.0632.1.01 1.0 G 100% 1.0635.1.01 1.0 G 100% 1.0

Total 50 49

Metrics


Technical Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

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

WEAKNESSES

Management Performance Evaluation


Management Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

Safety Evaluation


Safety & Health Requirements

Category Expectation Strengths Weaknesses

Leadership “Safety” is an integral part of great leadership – “leadership” is an

integral part of an effective safety & health program

Prevention You must have a S&H Program that meets the requirement of the JSC

S&H Handbook(i.e. a pro-active, leadership and

employee involvement based S&H Program)

Metrics You are expected to achieve injury/illness rates below the

industry average and to keep trying to reduce them to zero

Issues Manage “issues” and implement appropriate risk mitigation/control

and corrective action.


Safety & Health Requirements OSHA Safety Summary

CONTRACTOR - Lockheed Martin (MSOC) ** NEW CONTRACT does not have a 3 year historyCONTRACT NUMBER- NAS 9-03056

DATA THROUGH - 1/ 1/ 04 to 6/ 30/ 04SIC CODE (from 2002) - 8731 (873)

MISHAP SUMMARIES CONTRACTOR RATING DOES NOT MEET MEETSTYPE A 0 MEETS greater than 1 0TYPE B 0 MEETS greater than 1 0TYPE C 0INCIDENT 1

COUNTS CONTRACTORLWDC - DAYS AWAY 0 LWDC - DAYS AWAY LWDC (DA & RWD) OSHA RECORDABLELWDC - RESTRICTED 0 2001 N/A N/A N/A

LWDC - TOTAL 0 2002 N/A N/A N/AMED. TREAT. - TOTAL 1 2003 N/A N/A N/AI llness 0 Avg ( 3 year) N/A N/A N/A

HOURS 517064

PROPERTY DAMAGE CONTRACTORCOUNT 0DOLLARS $0.00

CONTRACTOR RATING DOES NOT MEET MEETS EXCEEDSLWDC (Days Away Only)

INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE * 0.6FREQUENCY RATE 0.0 EXCEEDS

LWDC (Days Away & Restricted)

INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE * 1.0FREQUENCY RATE 0.0 EXCEEDS

OSHA RECORDABLEINDUSTRIAL AVERAGE * 2.3CONTRACTOR RATE 0.4 EXCEEDS

OSHA / EPA CONTRACTOR RATING DNM MEETS EXCEEDSVIOLATIONS 0 MEETS greater than or equal to 1 0 N/A

Additional Comments:

6 OF 6 288 Reports were sumitted on time. TRUE Data Submitted was regularly accurate.

below the Industrial Average50% below the Industrial

Average

RATE HISTORY ( 3 Previous Fiscal Years) **

above the Industrial Average

below the Industrial Average50% below the Industrial

Average

greater than 50% of the Industrial Average

50% to 25% of the Industrial Average

less than 25% of the Industrial Average

above the Industrial Average

Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation


Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Category Goal Period X Cum to Date

Small Business (SB) XX% XX% XX% Strength

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) XX% XX% XX% Strength

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) XX% XX% XX% Strength

Hub-Zone Small Business XX% XX% XX% Strength

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) XX% XX% XX% Strength

Service Disabled VOSB (SDVO) XX% XX% XX% Strength

Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCU)

XX% XX% XX% Weakness

Percentage of Total Contract Dollars


Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Insert Strengths for Mentor-Protégé Program achievements, if any

Cost Evaluation


Level-of-Effort Cost Evaluation – Example

Rate Total Rate Total Rate Total

Hours

Cost ElementsLabor Overhead/FringeFacilitiesTravelTrainingOT PremiumOther

SubtotalG&ASubsMaterial

Total

Grand TotalLess Maint & TravelSubs TravelG&A Travel Evaluated Total

$0 $0 $0 0.00%

COST EVALUATION PERIOD NO. X

Contract Baseline Actuals Delta


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 Based Contract Cost Evaluation with no EVMS


Variance Detail Chart

Cost Element Actual Baseline Variance $ Variance

Direct Labor

Materials/Equipment

Subcontractor

Other Direct Costs

Travel

Overhead

G&A

Total Cost (w/o fee) $0


Cost Summary & Write-up

Cost Summary :

Assessment:

Performance Based Contract Cost Evaluation Using Performance Measurement (EVM)

Example


Sample I PBC with EV Graph/Write-up

Based on cum period CPI of ___ Contractor exhibited

(outstanding, highly effective, poor, etc) cost control

Example: Cost variance indicates ACWP was $300k (about 7%) less than planned. This translates to actual savings to the program that will be realized this year if current contractor performance is sustained.

SPI: 0.994

CPI: 0.976

SPI: 1.001

CPI: 0.989

G

Y

R

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.80.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

CP

I

SPI

Prev. mo.

Proj. EOY

Monthly

FY start

Per. end

Per. cum.

EOY est.

TCPI

TCPI0.939

3.7%

Behind Schedule Ahead of Schedule

Ove

rspe

nt

Und

ersp

ent

CPIcum: 0.973 CPIper: 1.049

(fictitious data – illustrative only)


Sample II PBC with EVM Graph

Monthly CPI

0

0.5

1

1.5

Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

> 1.0 Underspent< 1.0 Overspent


PEB Recommendation for Period XX

Management w/ Small Business X X XX XX XXCost X X XX XX XX

EXVGGOODSATPOOR/UNSATISFACTORY0 60 70 80 100%90

RECOMMENDED ADJECTIVE RATING = EXCELLENT

RECOMMENDED NUMERICAL SCORE = XX

.XX x $Y,YYY,YYY (available fee pool for the period) = $Z,ZZZ,ZZZ

Proposed Fee Determination Official Meeting Presentation Template Contractor Briefing December 13,...

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Fee Determination Official Meeting Presentation Template Contractor Briefing December 13,...