ML20150F147
| ML20150F147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/27/1988 |
| From: | Mace M, Priegel R NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F135 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-02-88-005, CON-NRC-2-88-5 NUDOCS 8807180150 | |
| Download: ML20150F147 (18) | |
Text
,-,
ti a
e v
l AMENDMENT OF fiOLICITATION/MOOlFICATION OF CONTRACT
- 3. CONT RACT 40 COOL PAGL OF PAGLS I
- 2. AMLitOMLNT/MOOeF 8CATIOM NO.
l 3
- 3. LF F L T4VE T
- 4. REQUs54 TION /YUHCHASC HEQ. NO.
S. PROJLCT NO. (t/ epphce63<1 h D oo Mod 7 NRC-02-88-005/Rtv.7 dra r/2/88 6.1550LO UY CODEI
- 7. AOMINISTEREO BY (flother then / tern 6)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CODE lt Division of Contracts AR-2223 Washington, D.C. 20555
- 8. N AML AND AOORL55 OF CONT RACTOR'(No., street, county. State and 21/* Code)
(g) 9A. AMENOMENT OF SOLICtT ATlON NO.
Southwest ResearCh Institute 6220 Culebca Road s,s.OAieO (sEr,rEArJs)
San Antonio, Texas 78284 10A. MOO 4F ICATION OF CON T H ACT/OH OLA NO.
X NRC-02-88-005 108. DAT LO (SEE ITEM J 3)
CoOE l FACILITY COOE 10/15/87
- 11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS T be abow numbered sohcitation is amended as set forth in Itern 14. Tre hour r od date specified for reaipt of offer:
len& d.
is em tendas, is not em.
Of fe
QM d>f N,~,, m i.ist.,o
~
t i.
NRC-02-88-005 Modification No. 7 Page 2 of 3 The purpose of this modification is to provide incremental funding in the amount of $26,000 and to revise the award fee plan to reflect revised fee pools.
Subsection 8.2, paragraphs B., C., and D., are revised as follows:
B.
The amount presently obligated by the Government with respect to the contract is increased by $26,000 from $4,125,200 to
$4,151,200.
Estimated reimbursable costs are increased by $24,074 from $3,819,629 to $3,843,703.
The available award fee is increased by $1,926 from $305,571 to $307,497.
The base fee remains 0.
Notwithstanding the award fee as-referenced above, the actual award fee pool will be as stated in the award fee plan. The award fee plan will reflect the actual fee pool based on. cumulative estimated costs for performance of approved operations plans in year one of the contract.
C.
Evaluation of the award fee earned will be accomplished in accordance with the attached Award Fee Determination Plan (AFDP),
see Attachment 18 dated May 1988.
Neither the determination as to the amount of fee available during a given period, the amount of award fee earned, nor the determination of the criteria under which the subject award fee will be made shall be subject to FAR Subpart 52.233 Disputes.
D.
Total funds currently obligated are as follows:
APPN:
31X0200.508 APPN:
31X0200.508 B&R:
50-19-03-01 B&R:
50-19-02-01 FIN:
01035-8 FIN:
01070-8 AMOUNT: $3,375,000 AMOUNT:
$176,200 APPN:
31X200608 B&R:
601940 FIN:
86666 AMOUNT:
$600,000 Total Amount Obligated:
$4,151,200 l
- 1--
i, NRC-02-88-005 Modification No. 7 Page 3 of 3 Subsection B.2., Paragraph E under RES delete the amount of "$113,826" and insert the amount of "$163,826" in lieu thereof.
Section J - List of Attachments is amended as follows:
Attachment Number Title
?9 CNWRA Award Fee Plan - is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the attach.d Award Fee Determination Plan dated May 1988 l
.. =
h't l
i ATTACHMENT 18 The award fee determination plan for Contract No. NRC-02-88-005 with the Southwest Research Institute for the period October 15, 1987 through October 14, 1988 is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in iteu thereof.
AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PLAN FOR CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH THE SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15, 1987 THROUGH OCTOBER 14, 1988
\\
MAY 1988 f
. ~ -.
' s,, **
AWARD FEE DETERMINATION PLAN,FOR CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15, 1987 THROUGH OCTOBER 14, 1988.
Contents Part A.
Introduction 4
B.
Organization Structure for Award Fee Administration C.
Evaluation Requirements D.
Methods for Determining Award Fee E.
Change in Plan Coverage i
i.
A.
Introduction 1.
This plan covers the adml.iistration of the awardJ.*ee provisions of Contract No. NRC-02-88-005 with Southwest Research Institute for the evaluation period October 15, 1987 through October 14, 1988.
2.
The following matters, among others, are covered in the contract.
The contractor is required to establish a Federally Funded a.
Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the operation of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA).
b.
The award fee pool is $238,880, The estimated cost and award fee pool are suSject to c.
equitatie adjustments on account of changes or other contract modifications.
d.
The award fee earned and payable will be'determ'ned as specified elsewhere in this plan by the Fee Determination Official (FDO) in accordance with this plan.
The F00 is Mr. Hugh L, Thompson, 'Jr., or his designee, Award fee determinations are not subject to the Disputes e.
clause of the contract.
f.
Alterations of the award fce plan will be mada thirty days prior to the start of the evaluation period to be effected.
3.
This award fee is provided for the establishment and maintenance of a high level of technical expertise for effective performance of functions for the NRC related to the NWPA waste management program.
This award fee plan affords the contracsor an opportunity to earn increased fee commensurate with the achievement of optimum performance in pursuit of contract objectives and goals.
Optimum performance is not necessarily equated with the highest level of performance achievable in all incentivized areas.
Rather, it represents the most favorable degree of performance obtainable considering the achievement of contract objectives in light of the complexities of the tasks, the difficulties of the schedules agreed upon, and the con;ractor's most effective utilization of available resources.
e e
~ ii
~
B.
Organization Structure for Award Fee Administration The following organi7ational structure is established for administering the award fee provisions of the contract.
1.
Fee Determination Official-(FDO)
The FD0 is Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., or his designee.
a.
b.
Primary FD0 responsibilities are:
(1) Determining the award fee earned and payable for each evaluation period as addressed 'in Part D.
(2) Changing the matters covered in this plan as addressed in Part E, as appropriate.
2.
Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) a.
The Chairman of the PE8 will be:
Robert E. Browning The PE9 will consist of the following members:
Ronald L. Ballard Donald F. Hassell Joseph 0. Bunting Charles E. MacDonald Frank A. Costanzi B. Joe Youngblood Timothy F. Hagan b.
The Chairman may recommend the appointment of non-voting members to assist the Board in performing its functions.
c.
Primary responsibilities of the Board are:
(1) Conducting ongoing evaluations of contractor performance and the submission of a Performance Evaluation Board Report (PEBR) to the FD0 covering the Board's findings and recammendations for each evaluation period, as addressed in Part D.
(2) Considering croposed changes in this plan and recomme.-dir
+ hose it determines appropriate for advption by the TDO, as aJdressed in Part E.
e 3.
Performance Monitors (PM)
PMs will be all Program Element and Sub-Element Managers, a.
the Deputy Program Manager and the Contracting Officer.
~
e w
e g-yy yiy 'wr y-w-syW-w-
p y-
---ww-
- y'"-
M F-g y
Rg+-
g r-egiy=--
r r
-yr-9 s-g=
w-9 w
- 7*-
p pi-N y
l b.
Each PM will be responsible for. complying with the General Instructions for Performance Monitors, Attachment D-1, and any :.oecific instructions of the PEB Chairman as addressed in Part D.
Primary PM responsibilii.ies are:
(1) Monitoring, evaluating and assessing contractor performance in assigned areas.
(2) Periodically preparing a Performance Monitor Report (PMR) for t.he PEB, as appropriate.
(3) Recommending appropriate changes in this plan for-consideration, as addressed in Part E.
i l
l l
l l
l l
e l
i l
l l
l l
t
~.
s.
C.
Evaluation-Requirements The applicable evaluation requirements are attached ~as indicated below:
Reautrement Attachment 1.
Evaluation Periods and Maximum C-1 Available Award Fee for Each 2.
Evaluation Criteria for Year 1 C2 i
Performance 3.
Grading Table C-3 The weights indicated in Attachment C-2 and the grading table under Attachment C-3 are quantifying devices whose sole purpose is to provide guidance to NRC in the form of a general indication of the amount of award fee earned.
In no way do they impute an arithmetical precision to any judgemental determination of the contractor's overall performance and the amount of award fee earned.
4.
Award Fee Schedule C-4 4
f 4
i
'l i
l' O
-. - m.
m -
mi- -
m u
s,
~
~
C
,i D.
Method for Determining Award Fee A determination of the award fee earned for each evaluation period will be made promptly by the FDO-after the end of the period.
The method to be followed in monitoring, evaluating and assessing contractor-performance during the period as well as for determining the award fee earned, is described below.
t 1.
The FD0 will designate the Performance Monitors.
Duties and responsibilities of PMs will be in addition to, or an extension of, regular ~ responsibilities.
2.
The PEB Chairnian will require that each PM receives the following:
A copy of the contract and all modifications from the o
t Contracting Officer.
Appropritte orientation and guidance from the Contracting o
Officer.
A copy of this plan along with any changes made.in accordance o
with Part E.
Specific instructions applicable to PM assigned performance o
areas.
3.
0Ms will monitor, evaluate and assess contractor performance in accorcance with the General Instructions for Performance Monitors, Attachment D-1, and the specific instructions and guidance furnished by the Pl!B Chairman.
4.
PMs will submit monthly Performance Monitor Reports.(PMRs)-to the Evaluation Coordinator and, if required,'make verbal presentations to the PEB.
1 5.
As appropriate, the PE8 Chairman will request and obtain performance information from other units or personnel normally j
involved in observing contractor-performance.
i 6.
Periodically, the PEB will consider PMRs and other performance information it obtains and discuss the reports and information with PMs or other personnel, as appropriate.
7.
Af ter the end of each evaluation period, the contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer and the Evaluation Coordinator a e
written self-as>cs2 cent of its performance during the evaluation period including the amount of award fee it feels it has earned.
Af ter receipt of the contractor's self-assessment report, the contractur may be requirsd to meet with the PEB to discuss overall performance during' the period.
As requested by the PEB Chairman, PMs and other personnel involved in performance i
evaluations will attend the meetings and participate in discussions.
i
u
]
,- i i
8.
After any such meettag with the contractor, the PEB will consider matters presented by the contractor and establish its findings and recommendations to be included in the PEBR.
9.
The PEB Chairman will prepare the PEBR for the period and submit it to the FD0 for use in determining the award fee earned.
The report will include a recommended award fee with supporting documentation.
Prior to submitting the PEBR, the Chairman will discuss the PEB recommendation with the contractor and shall afford the contractor the opportunity to present any additional informat;on for the FD0's consideration. When submitting the report, the Chairman will inform the FD0 whether or not the contractor desires to present any matters to the FD0 before the award fee determination is made.
10.
The FD0 will consider the PEBR and discuss it with the PE8 Chairman or other personnel, as appropriate.
If requested by the contractor, or if the FD0 considers it appropriate, the' FD0 will meet with the contractor for discussions.
if requested by the FDO, the PEB Chairman and any other personnel involved in performance evaluation may be required to attend the meeting with the contractor.
11.
The FD0 will determine the amount of award fee earned during the period.
The amount determined will not result solely from mathematical summing, averaging or the application of a formula.
The FD0's determination of the amount of award fee earned and the basis for this determination will be stated in the Award Fee Determination Report (AFDR).
The report will be signed by the FD0 and given to the contractor for attachment to its voucher requesting payment of the award fee.
-l i
i'
__4 v
f --
.L-E.
Changes In Plan Coverage 1.
Right to Make Changes Any matters covered in this plan may be changed by mutual agreement of the parties 30 days prior to the beginning of an evaluation period by timely notice to the contractor in writing.
.The changes will be made by formal modification of the contract.
2.
Method of Changing Plan Coverage The method to be followed for changing plan coverage is described below.
Personnel involved in the administration of the award fee a.
provisions of the contract are encouraged to recommend changes in plan coverage with a view toward changing management emphasis, motivating higher performance levels, or improving the award fee determination process.
Recommended changes should be sent to the PEB for consideration and dra f ting.
b.
The PEB will coordinate proposed changes with the contractor, Prior to the end of each evaluation period, the PEB will c.
submit changes applicable to the next evaluation period for approval by the FD0 with appropriate co'ments and m
justification.
e i
1 l
. ~..._,
i ATTACHMENT C-1 TO AFDP CONTRACT N0. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE EVALUATION PERIOOS AND MAXIMUM AVAILABLE AWARO FEE FOR EACH Evaluation Period Maximum Available No.
Duration Ending Award Fee 1
6 months April 14, 1988
$102,009 2
6 months October 14, 1988
$136,871 W
1 l
i l
e 1
i i
2 ATTACHMENT C-2 TO AFDP FOR CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR YEAR 1 PERFORMANCE AREA WEIGHT 100 Description of Arua:
1.
Start-up - 35 points To what extent has the contractor effected a full start-up of the Center?
Determining factors shall include:
timeliness of establishment of facilities, cost effective management, quality, technical ingenuity, and implementation of appropriate management and administrative procedures needed to successfully operate an FFROC and implementation of appropriate management systems and computer facilities.
2.
Performance of Assigned Tasks - 25 points Has the contractor performed all assigned tasks for this evaluation e
period and met all requirements defined in the contract for this evaluation period?
Assessment of each project shall be based, as a minimum, on quality, timeliness, cost effective management, responsiveness and technical ingenuity.
3.
Staffing - 25 points Has the contractor successfully implemented its proposed staffing plan, in.cluding provisions for the key personnel, in a timely manner, enabling the Center to function to fulfill its mission?
This also includes staffing to meet the Center's established and revised needs and staffing to support long-term operations of the Center.
In all cases quality of staff provided shall be considered.
l 4.
Contract Administration - 15 points Has the Center executed contract administration in a responsive and 4
I effective manner?
6
i I
ATTACHMENT C-3 GRADING TABLE PROPOSED EVALUATION GRADES Adjective Grade Numerical Grade Lifinition Excellent 90 to 100 Performance.is outstanding in essentially all respects, and represents the very best which could be expected from the Center.
This grade represents a ' practical goal, to be awarded for a degree of
. performance which is real and-attainable, not theoretical.
Fully 75 to 5'O Performance ranges from Sa ti s factory substantially better than average to good.
In this range the contractor has carried out all facets of his operation at a level beyond that described for the range below.
The contractor has met or exceeded planned schedules, output, and overall performance. Areas of deficiencies are few and overall are considered relatively unimportant.
Contractor shows initiative in executing the job and in invoking improvements.
The degree to which the contractor meets or exceeds schedules, achieves objectives, eliminates areas of deficiency, etc., determines the grade in this range.
i i
I i
Adjective Grade Numerical Grade Definition t
Acceptable 65 to 75 This grade, the to acceptable range, p of the represents average performance and the point of reference for the grading system.
The contractor at this point has met-most needs,-schedules, and expectations in a fashion which corresponds to average or standard performance.
Areas of below-average performance are approximately balanced by areas of above-average performance.
However, areas of minimally acceptable performance should be especially noted to the Contractor as areas where improvement is needed because of the serious nature of an overall rating of minimally acceptable.
Minimally Acceptable 55 to 65 Performance is below the average or standard performance expected of a qualified contractor.
A rating ef Minimally Acceptable constitutes a warning to the contracter that its performance is close to the border of the unsatisfactory range.
Unsatis factory below 55 There is zero award fee for a performance in this range.
f
- g -
- i a
- e C-4 AWARD FEE SCHEDULE CONTRACT NO. NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Award Fee Schedule The base fee for this contract'shall.be 0%.
-the fee awarded'shall be as follows:
Based on the evaluation.' scale, Performance Rating Fee Awarded 4
Excellent 5% to 8%
Fully Satisfactory 4% to 5%
Acceptable 2% to 4%
Minimally Acceptable 1% to 2%
Unsati s f actory 0%
i Use of Award Fee for Center Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
A Fee Awarded Minimum % of Fee Set Aside_for Center IR&D.
1 l
8%
35%
i 7%
30%
i 6%
25%
5%
20%
+
4%
15%
3% or less 0%
I i
i l
1 i
i
}
v t
P ATTACHMENT 0-1 TO AFDP FOR CONTRACT NO NRC-02-88-005 WITH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORS PMs will conduct all assessments in an open, objective and a.
cooperative spirit so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained.
This will enhance contractor receipt of information from which to plan improvements in performance.
Positive performance accomplishments should be emphasized just as readily as negative ones, b.
After an assessment, the PM will discuss the results with appropriate PEB personnel, noting any observed deficiencies and/or accompanying recommendations.
This is not to be confused with the duties and resp >nsibilities of the CNWRA Program Manager, Program Element Managers and Sub-Element Managers, whose responsibility it is to bring problems to the immediate attention of the Contracting Officer.
After reviewing the PM reports, the PEB will afford the contractor an opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings to correct or resolve deficiencies.
When evaluating the Contractor's performance for purposes of award fee determination, the PM's shall not discuss their findings with the Contractor, PMs must remember that contacts and visits with contractor personnel c.
are to be accomplished within the context of official contractual relationships.
PMs will avoid any activity or association which might cause, or give the appearance of causing, a conflict of interest.
d.
PM discussions with contractor personnel are not to be used to instruct, to direct, to supervise, or as an attempt to control these personnel in the performance of the contract.
The role of the PM is to monitor, assess and evaluate, not to manage the contractor's ef fort.
Evaluation / Assessment Reports PMs will prepare a formal PMR in accordance with the following instructions and submit it to the PEB, and others, as directed by the j
PEB.
)
Beginning March 14, 1988 the PMs will prepare a report on the contractor's performance using the attached form.
The first repcrt will cover the period t
October 15, 1987 through March 14, 1988 and is to be prepared monthly thereafter. A numerical score as well as a written narrative is required.
The reports shall be submitted to the Evaluation Coordinator within one week e
following the evaluation period.
Verbal Reports PMs will be prepared to make verbal reports as required by the PEB Chairman.
i