performance evaluation guidance - sensitive predecisional data 1 performance evaluation board...

Performance Evaluation Guidance - Sensitive Predecisional Data

1

Performance Evaluation Board Recommendation to theFee Determination Official

Contract NameContract Number

Award Fee Period XXMonth Day, Year


2

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


3

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


4

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


5

Work Breakdown Structure/Statement of Work

Insert Contract NameStatement of Work

1.0

2.0

3.0

6.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.2

3.1.1.1

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4


6

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


7

Award Fee Process Overview

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

weightings


8

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


9

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


10

Areas of Emphasis for Period XX

Insert each Area of Emphasis for the period


11

Period XX Scoring Summary

Evaluation Element

AdjectiveCriteriaRating

Numerical

Score XWeightScore

A – Technical

1. Safety

B – Management 1. Small Business

C. Cost

Cumulative Score


12

Technical Performance Evaluation


13

Technical Evaluation - Metrics

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


14

Metrics - Example

WBS/ Number Title Org. OPR WeightingCurrent Status

Metric Score

Weighted Score

Program Management (X%) [5.0]4.0 G 100% 4.01.0 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% 2.02.0 G 100% 2.02.0 G 100% 2.01.5 G 100% 1.51.5 G 100% 1.5

Information Technology (X%) [12.5]4.5 G 100% 4.54.0 G 100% 4.04.0 G 100% 4.0

Systems Analysis and Integration (X%) [14]2.5 G 100% 2.52.0 G 100% 2.03.0 G 100% 3.03.5 G 100% 3.53.0 Y 75% 2.3

Safety and Mission Assurance (X%) [5.5]1.0 G 100% 1.01.0 G 100% 1.00.5 G 100% 0.51.0 G 100% 1.01.0 G 100% 1.01.0 G 100% 1.0

Total 50 49

IDIQ Metrics


15

Technical Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

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

WEAKNESSES


16

Management Performance Evaluation


17

Management Evaluation – Subjective Write-ups

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES


18

Safety Evaluation


19

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

Provided by S&MA TMR and COTR


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)



Reaction

(Trailing Indicators)

NOTE: Zero injuries/illnesses may only mean that you are either lucky

or under-reporting. Zero by itself has no meaning – it does have meaning, however, if there is a proactive S&H

Program

You are expected to achieve injury/illness rates below the industry average and to keep trying to reduce

them to zero

Provided by NS - based on metrics as compared to industry averages and other metric factors (e.g. type A mishaps)

Provided by NS - based on metrics as compared to industry averages and other metric factors (e.g. type A mishaps)

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

corrective action.




20

Safety & Health Requirements OSHA Safety Summary

CONTRACTOR - XYZCONTRACT NUMBER- NAS9-012344

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

MISHAP SUMMARIES CONTRACTOR RATING DOES NOT MEET MEETSTYPE A 0 MEETS greater than 1 0TYPE B 0 MEETS greater than 1 0TYPE C 2INCIDENT 5

COUNTS CONTRACTOR RATE HISTORY (3 Previous Years)LWDC - DAYS AWAY 2 LWDC Days Away LWDC D.A & R.D. OSHA RecordableLWDC - RESTRICTED 2 Year 3 1 2 4

LWDC - TOTAL 4 Year 2 0.9 1.8 3MED. TREAT. - TOTAL 3 Year 1 0.85 1.7 2.5

HOURS 500000 Avg (3 year) 0.91 1.8 3.2

PROPERTY DAMAGE CONTRACTOR# CASES 0DOLLARS $0.00

| ---------------------------------------RATING CRITERIA--------------------------------------- |CONTRACTOR RATING DOES NOT MEET MEETS EXCEEDS

LWDC (Days Away Only)

INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE 0.90FREQUENCY RATE 0.80 DNM

LWDC (Days Away & Restricted)

INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE 1.70FREQUENCY RATE 1.60 MEETS

OSHA RECORDABLEINDUSTRIAL AVERAGE 6.00CONTRACTOR RATE 2.80 EXCEEDS

OSHA / EPA CONTRACTOR RATING DOES NOT MEET MEETS EXCEEDSVIOLATIONS 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.

50% below the Industrial Average

above the Industrial Average below the Industrial Average

above the Industrial Average below the Industrial Average50% below the Industrial

Average

50% to 25% of the Industrial Average

less than 25% of the Industrial Average

greater than 50% of the Industrial Average


21

Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation


22

Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Category Goal Period X* Cum to Date

Strength/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

Percentage of Total Contract Dollars

* - Use invoiced expenditures or SF 294 data


23

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.


24

Cost Evaluation


25

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


26

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).


27

Performance Based Contract Cost Evaluation with no EVMS


28

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


29

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


30

Performance Based Contract Cost Evaluation Using Performance Measurement (EVM)

Example


31

Sample I PBC with EV Graph with Write-up

Based on cum period CPI of 1.049 Excellent – Initial grade: 100 Contractor exhibited outstanding

cost control 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


32

Example of PBC with EV Graph (CPI only)

AF Period Cum CPI

0.00

1.00

2.00

AF Period Cum CPI 1.25 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.05

1 2 3 4 5 6

> 1.0 Underspent< 1.0 Overspent


33

PEB Recommendation for Period XX

Evaluation Factors/AOEs

Str

engt

hs

Wea

knes

ses

Rating

Wei

ghtin

g

Per

cent

ile S

core

Wei

ghte

d S

core

A. Performance, Compliance with S&H, and Subcontracting Goals X X XX 70% XX XXB. Cost Performance X X XX 30% XX XX

EXVGGOODSATPOOR/UNSATISFACTORY0 60 70 80 100%90

XX%

RECOMMENDED ADJECTIVE RATING = EXCELLENT

RECOMMENDED NUMERICAL SCORE = XX

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


34

FDO Presentation Back-up


35

Award Fee Pool for Period XX

Numerical Score Percent Earned Fee100 100% $5,000,00099 99% 4,950,00098 98% 4,900,00097 97% 4,850,00096 96% 4,800,00095 95% 4,750,00094 94% 4,700,00093 93% 4,650,00092 92% 4,600,00091 91% 4,550,00090 90% 4,500,00089 89% 4,450,00088 88% 4,400,00087 87% 4,350,00086 86% 4,300,00085 85% 4,250,00084 84% 4,200,00083 83% 4,150,00082 82% 4,100,00081 81% 4,050,00080 80% 4,000,00079 79% 3,950,00078 78% 3,900,00077 77% 3,850,00076 76% 3,800,00075 75% 3,750,00074 74% 3,700,00073 73% 3,650,00072 72% 3,600,00071 71% 3,550,00070 70% 3,500,00069 69% 3,450,00068 68% 3,400,00067 67% 3,350,00066 66% 3,300,00065 65% 3,250,00064 64% 3,200,00063 63% 3,150,00062 62% 3,100,00061 61% 3,050,00060 0 0

$5,000,000Award Fee Pool:


36

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 1 performance evaluation board...

Documents

insert contract

summary evaluation period

type period of performance

safety evaluation

evaluation factor

period slide

contractors performance

month period