award fee plan - energy.gov...this plan covers the period from october 1, 2014 through july 25,...

Paducah Remediation Contract Award Fee Plan

Contract Number: DE-AC30-10CC40020

AWARD FEE PLAN FOR

LATA Environmental Services of Kentucky, LLC

DE-AC30-10CC40020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. DEFINITION OF TERMS 1

3. AWARD FEE STRUCTURE 1

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2

5. RESPONSIBILITIES 3

6. AWARD FEE AMOUNTS AND PERIODS 3

7. AWARD FEE PROCESS 4

8. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE 7

EXHIBITS

1. Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) Members and Advisors 8

2. Award Fee Rating Table, Award Fee Conversion Chart, Award Fee 9 Calculations and Performance Based Incentives

3. Rating Criteria 14

4. Rating Summary Tables 21

5. PBI Evaluation Form 22

6. Award Fee Process Flowchart 23



1

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this award fee plan is to define the methodology and responsibilities associated with determining the fee to be awarded to the contractor. The plan outlines the organization, procedures, evaluation criteria and evaluation periods for implementing the award fee provisions of the contract. The objective of the award fee is to motivate the contractor to substantially exceed standards and to emphasize key areas of performance without jeopardizing minimum acceptable performance in all other areas.

This plan covers the period from October 1, 2014 through July 25, 2015.

This is a cost plus award fee contract and was awarded in 2010 with a five year term with an award fee percentage of 5.5% and a base fixed fee percentage of 2%. The contract provides remediation services for the Paducah Site. The award fee amounts are provided in Section 6.

2. DEFINITION OF TERMS

a. Contracting Officer (CO): The individual authorized to commit and obligate the government through the life of the contract. The CO is an advisor to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB).

b. Fee Determining Official (FDO): The individual who makes the final determination of the amount of fee to be awarded to the contractor.

c. Performance Evaluation Board (PEB): The group of individuals who review the contractor’s performance and recommend an award fee to the FDO. The PEB chairperson is the DOE Site Lead, Paducah. Members of and advisors to the PEB are indicated in Exhibit 1.

d. Project Team Evaluators (PTE): The individual(s) assigned to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis. The PTE’s evaluation is the primary point of reference in determining the recommended award fee, especially the technical support area of performance. The PTE is an advisor(s) to the PEB.

e. Technical Lead (TL): The individual who is most directly responsible for the satisfactory performance of the remediation services. The TL manages the award fee evaluation process, coordinates the development of the award fee plan and subsequent revisions, and also serves as the recorder, who is responsible for insuring the PEB is properly convened, which includes meeting place, time, advising all PEB members, preparing the agenda, and taking minutes. The TL is an advisor to the PEB.

3. AWARD FEE STRUCTURE

The award fee is structured into two sections: categories of performance section (subjective) and a performance based incentive section (objective). In addition to the award fee, the contract also has a base fixed fee percentage of 2% which is not addressed in this plan.



2

a. The first section has been divided into the following general categories of performance: quality of documents and associated support functions, quality and effectiveness of Environment, Safety, Health and Quality Assurance (ESH&QA) Program, quality and effectiveness of project support, and quality and effectiveness of project management (including cost management). Each category will be evaluated separately and will receive a grade ranging from Unsatisfactory to Excellent. Safety will be a “gate criteria” where the contractor must maintain quarterly Paducah Site cumulative Days Away, Restrictions and Transfers (DART) and Total Recordable Cases (TRC) rates at or below the Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Goal by the end of each reporting period. The Fiscal Year (FY15) Goal for DART is 0.6 and for TRC is 1.1.If the contractor fails to meet this “gate criteria”, 25% of the available subjective award fee will be unavailable to be earned during that evaluation period. The percent of fee placed on this section will be 40%.

b. The second section will include specific performance based incentive (PBI) criteria based on work to be performed during the annual evaluation period. PBIs will be determined prior to the annual evaluation period and an award fee amount assigned. Grades will be assigned from Unsatisfactory to Excellent for each specific PBI. The percent of fee placed on this section will be 60%. These PBIs will be determined during the third quarter of the evaluation period for the upcoming evaluation period. This Award Fee Plan will be updated annually to include the new PBIs and approved by the Portsmouth/ Paducah Project Office Manager.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

a. The Manager, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, will serve as the FDO and will establish a PEB. The PEB will assist the FDO in the award fee determination by recommending an award fee for the contractor’s performance. If a PEB member is absent, the FDO will approve substitute(s) with similar qualifications. Technical and functional experts, as required, may serve in an advisory (non-voting) capacity to the PEB. See Exhibit 1 for members and potential advisors.

b. The award fee for this contract shall be awarded upon the unilateral determination of the FDO that an award fee has been earned. The unilateral decision is made solely at the discretion of the Government. This determination shall be based upon the FDO's evaluation of the Contractor's performance, as measured against the evaluation criteria set forth in the award fee plan. Provisional payment of a proportional quarterly amount equivalent of an amount up to 75% of the available award fee for the period may be permitted

c. A copy of the Award Fee Plan shall be provided to the contractor 30 days prior to the start of the first evaluation period. This Award Fee Plan shall include both categories of performance and specific performance-based incentive award fee criteria (i.e., PBIs) as described in Section 3. Changes which do not impact the award fee criteria or process,



3

such as editorial or personnel changes may be made and implemented without being provided to the contractor 30 days prior to the start of the evaluation period.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. The PTE(s) will monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance. The PTE(s) will work closely with the CO and Technical Lead (TL) in performing surveillance duties. PTE(s) will use Exhibit 2, Award Fee Rating Table and Exhibit 3, Rating Criteria, in monitoring and evaluating contractor’s performance. Monitoring and evaluating performance will include but not be limited to the routine interface and oversight of the contractor and the review of the provided services and work products submitted to DOE by the contractor. PTE(s) will also evaluate quarterly input by the contractor.

b. The TL will use the Award Fee Rating Table in Exhibit 2 to determine the adjective ratings to be reported to the PEB. The TL will be thoroughly familiar with current award fee policy, guidance, regulations, and correspondence pertinent to the award fee process.The TL will coordinate administrative actions required by the PTE(s), the PEB, and the FDO. Administrative actions include receiving, processing, and distributing performance evaluation inputs, scheduling and assisting with internal milestones, i.e., PEB briefings, and other actions as required for the smooth operation of the award fee process.

c. The PEB members will review the PTE’s evaluation reports and the TL’s recommended adjectival rating, consider information from other pertinent sources, and develop a fee recommendation. The PEB chairperson will provide the fee recommendation to the FDO.

d. The FDO will review the PEB’s recommendations, consider all appropriate data, and notify the CO in writing of the final fee determination. The CO will prepare a letter for FDO signature notifying the contractor of the award fee amount. The CO will modify the contract to reflect the earned award fee for the performance evaluation period.

6. AWARD FEE AMOUNTS AND PERIODS

The award fee that is available to be earned for the sixth period is $2,338,1891. An annual amount will be available for each fiscal year subject to contract adjustments through modification of the contract.

1 Once the FY15 Budget Request is approved and work elements are adjusted, including definitizing Change Orders that have been issued to LATA Kentucky, the remaining award fee that can be earned will also be adjusted. LATA Kentucky’s contract will be modified to add work FY15 and the award fee will be adjusted accordingly.



4

a. Following are the amounts currently available for each evaluation period:

Annual Period Amount Available* Sixth 10/01/2014-07/25/2015 $2,338,189

* Award fee amount includes fee that will only be available if work scope is authorized by the Contracting Officer.

b. The amounts corresponding to each evaluation period is the maximum amount that may be earned during that particular period unless the amount is increased by contract modification. In accordance with the Contract Clause B.2 (d), a “provisional payment of a proportional quarterly amount equivalent of an amount up to 75% of the available award fee for the payment period may be permitted.” Any portion of award fee not awarded for an evaluation period may not be transferred to another evaluation period.

c. If the CO reduces fee in accordance with the Contract Clause I.131 entitled “DEAR 952.223.76 Conditional Payment of Fee or Profit – Safeguarding Restricted Data and Other Classified Information and Protection of Worker, Safety and Health (AUG 2009)”, the award fee pool for the evaluation period shall be decreased by the equivalent amount.

d. The Government may unilaterally revise the distribution of the award fee, as indicated in paragraph 6b above, in any subsequent evaluation periods. The CO will notify the contractor in writing of such changes in distribution before the relevant evaluation period begins and the award fee plan will be modified accordingly. After an evaluation period has begun, changes may only be made by mutual agreement of the parties. While the Government may unilaterally change the award fee amounts for each period or each rated criteria area prior to the start of each award fee period, the total amount of award fee available may not be unilaterally changed once established at the beginning of each evaluation period.

7. AWARD FEE PROCESS (See Exhibit 5, Award Fee Process Flowchart)

a. PTE Actions

1) PTE(s) will continually monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance using the criteria contained in Exhibit 3, Rating Criteria. Monitoring and evaluating performance will include but not be limited to the routine interface and oversight of the contractor and the review of the provided services and work products submitted to DOE by the contractor. PTM(s) will also evaluate quarterly input by the contractor.

2) For the Category of Performance (CP) items, the PTE will evaluate these items on a quarterly basis. The PTE will use the appropriate CP rating criteria in Exhibit 3 to



5

evaluate the contractor’s performance. The PTE will review and evaluate each evaluation criteria for each CP item to determine the performance level of the contractor. If a weakness appears in any way to negatively impact ES&H performance or the safeguarding of restricted data pursuant to the contract, the PTE shall notify the Site Lead and the CO. A weakness for any Category of Performance is defined as any failure to meet CP evaluation criteria. The PTE will maintain all documentation for file maintenance. The PTE will use the documentation to ensure contractor has established adequate procedures to prevent recurrence of weaknesses.

3) At the end of each quarter the PTE will submit to the TL the rating criteria, Exhibit 3, for all Category of Performance items. Based on the above evaluation results, the PTE will select the appropriate adjective rating with written notes on the strengths and weaknesses of the contractor to report to the TL.

b. Technical Lead’s Actions

1) The Technical Lead (TL) will select an adjective rating for each of the CP items based on his/her personal observations of performance and on the adjective rating reported by the PTE.

2) The TL will use Exhibit 4, Adjective Rating Summary Table, to record the PTE’s adjective rating for the quarter and the TL’s adjective rating. The TL is not permitted to change the PTE’s adjective rating. In addition to reporting the PTE’s notes on the strengths and weaknesses of the contractor, the TL will annotate his/her rationale for selecting a particular adjective rating.

3) The TL will use Exhibit 4, Annual Adjective Rating, to compute the annual adjective rating average for the award fee.

4) The TL will submit a completed Exhibit 4, Annual Adjective Rating, for presentation to the PEB, along with a draft Performance Evaluation Report (PER).

5) The TL prepares functional area evaluation reports in a briefing format as determined by the PEB chairperson. The area report briefing should include a mix of specific and global evaluation comments so the PEB can get a holistic assessment of the contractor’s performance.

6) The TL notifies PEB members and any advisors of the date and time of the PEB meeting in accordance with the schedule established by the PEB chairperson. Additionally, the TL notifies the contractor of the date and time of PEB meeting and advises the contractor of when and how (written, oral, or both) he/she will be permitted to address the PEB as determined by the PEB chairperson. Generally, the contractor will be provided the opportunity to provide written materials (limited to no more than 20 pages) and make an oral presentation of up to 30 minutes. The presentation should be provided in advance and should be in the form of a self-assessment measured against each award fee criteria section. Prior to the PEB



6

meeting, the TL will provide the PEB members with a page-numbered binder to include, at a minimum, the input for the fiscal year from the PTE members, functional area evaluation reports, the forms required to be filled out during the evaluation meeting, the contractor’s award fee presentation, and the draft PER.

c. PEB Actions

1) Site Lead, Paducah will chair the PEB. The FDO may approve the PEB members recommended by the chairperson. The PEB chairperson will establish dates, times, and places for the PEB meeting and notify the Technical Lead (TL) for appropriate notification to members, advisors, and the contractor. The chairperson will schedule the PEB meeting to ensure the PEB’s recommended fee is presented to the FDO within 30 days following the close of the evaluation period.

2) PEB members will consider all information from the following sources in determining its award fee recommendation to the FDO:

a. Evaluations submitted by the PTEs and TL. Chairperson may require oral briefings by the functional area personnel.

b. Information submitted by other sources as considered appropriate by the PEB. c. Contractor's written or oral (or both as determined by chairperson) self- assessment of performance.

3) Using Exhibit 4, Annual Adjective Rating Table; each member will document their adjective rating from Exhibit 2, Award Fee Rating Table, and provide their rationale by attaching notes to Exhibit 4 for their selection.

4) The chairperson will collect members' Annual Adjective Rating Table, Exhibit 4, and review them. If any member’s adjective rating is “below standards” and this rating is lower than a PTE(s) adjective rating for that same area, appropriate discussions with that member(s) should be conducted to determine the member’s rationale. Lowering the adjective rating requires specific reasons, since the contractor will be aware of all weaknesses from the PTE’s quarterly evaluation. Once the chairperson is satisfied with the PEB’s rating results, the chairperson will pass the individual member’s rating sheets to the TL.

5) The TL summarizes individual member’s adjective ratings for the rating criteria using Exhibit 4, Summary of PEB’s Rating and provides a summary of the adjective rating to ensure PEB consensus with the resulting overall rating. The PEB will then strive to gain consensus on a fee/fee range recommendation to the FDO. The chairperson will have the TL update the draft Performance Evaluation Report (PER) with changes based on PEB input, as necessary.

6) The chairperson will prepare or will have the TL prepare a cover letter to transmit Exhibits 3 and 4; Summary of PEB’s Rating, and the final PER to the FDO.



7

7) The PEB Chair will meet with the contractor’s manager quarterly (the first through third quarters) to discuss PTE and TL ratings, upon request. If issues have not been previously communicated by DOE to the contractor, this gives the contractor an opportunity to make corrective actions prior to the fourth quarter meeting of the PEB.

d. FDO’s Actions

1) The FDO determines the final fee based upon all the information furnished and assigns a final percent of award fee earned for the evaluation period using the Exhibit 2 Award Fee Conversion Chart.

2) The FDO obtains Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) concurrence and notifies the CO in writing or via electronic correspondence of his/her final determination of award fee.

e. CO’s Actions

1) The CO will prepare a letter for the FDO’s signature notifying the contractor of the amount of award fee earned for the annual period. Additionally, the letter will identify any specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in the contractor’s performance.

2) The CO will unilaterally modify the contract to reflect the FDO’s final determination of award fee. This modification will decrease the total value of the contract commensurate with the amount of the fee unearned. The modification will be issued to the contractor within 14 days after the CO receives the FDO’s decision.

3) In accordance with Head of Contracting Activity, Office of Environmental Management Directive, (EM HCA Directive 2.6, dated June 11, 2012), the CO will post on the local Portsmouth/Paducah website the (a) Modification (if applicable), (b) one-page scorecard, (c) Award Fee Determination Letter, (d) final Performance Evaluation Report.

8. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE

In the event that the contract is terminated for the convenience of the government (Clause I.114), the remaining award fee payable for the current period may be available for equitable adjustment in accordance with the termination clause of the contract. The remaining fee for all periods after the termination shall not be considered earned and therefore shall not be paid.


Exhibit 1 Contract Number: DE-AC30-0CC40020

8

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD MEMBERS AND ADVISORS

Fee Determining Official:

Manager, PPPO Lexington William E. Murphie

Following are PEB members and advisors:

Site Lead, Paducah (Chairperson) Jennifer Woodard

Deputy Manager, PPPO Lexington Robert E. Edwards III

Lead Contracting Officer, PPPO Lexington Pamela Thompson

*Contracting Officer William Creech *Technical Lead David Dollins

*Project Team Evaluators2 Cindy Zvonar Tom Hines Lisa Santoro Russell McCallister Deborah Kerner

Reinhard Knerr Rich Bonczek

Buz Smith

*Attorney Advisor Bert Gawthorp

*Advisors Only - Non-Voting Participants

2 The PEB Chair may add, remove or replace additional PTEs throughout the contract period of performance, as appropriate.

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 2

C

ontra

ct N

umbe

r: D

E-A

C30

-10C

C40

020

9

AW

AR

D F

EE

RA

TIN

G T

AB

LE

AD

JEC

TIV

E R

AT

ING

D

EFI

NIT

ION

EX

CE

LL

EN

T91

%-1

00%

C

ontra

ctor

has

exc

eede

d al

mos

t all

of th

e si

gnifi

cant

aw

ard-

fee

crite

ria a

nd h

as m

et o

vera

ll co

st, s

ched

ule,

and

tech

nica

l pe

rfor

man

ce re

quire

men

ts o

f the

con

tract

in th

e ag

greg

ate

as d

efin

ed

and

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t the

crit

eria

in th

e aw

ard-

fee

plan

for t

he

awar

d-fe

e ev

alua

tion

perio

d.

VE

RY

GO

OD

76%

-90%

C

ontra

ctor

has

exc

eede

d m

any

of th

e si

gnifi

cant

aw

ard-

fee

crite

ria

and

has m

et o

vera

ll co

st, s

ched

ule,

and

tech

nica

l per

form

ance

re

quire

men

ts o

f the

con

tract

in th

e ag

greg

ate

as d

efin

ed a

nd

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t the

crit

eria

in th

e aw

ard-

fee

plan

for t

he a

war

d-fe

e ev

alua

tion

perio

d.

GO

OD

51%

-75%

C

ontra

ctor

has

exc

eede

d so

me

of th

e si

gnifi

cant

aw

ard-

fee

crite

ria

and

has m

et o

vera

ll co

st, s

ched

ule,

and

tech

nica

l per

form

ance

re

quire

men

ts o

f the

con

tract

in th

e ag

greg

ate

as d

efin

ed a

nd

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t the

crit

eria

in th

e aw

ard-

fee

plan

for t

he a

war

d-fe

e ev

alua

tion

perio

d.

SAT

ISFA

CT

OR

YN

o G

reat

er T

han

50%

Con

tract

or h

as m

et o

vera

ll co

st, s

ched

ule,

and

tech

nica

l per

form

ance

re

quire

men

ts o

f the

con

tract

in th

e ag

greg

ate

as d

efin

ed a

nd

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t the

crit

eria

in th

e aw

ard-

fee

plan

for t

he a

war

d-fe

e ev

alua

tion

perio

d.

UN

SAT

ISFA

CT

OR

Y

0%

Con

tract

or h

as fa

iled

to m

eet o

vera

ll co

st, s

ched

ule,

and

tech

nica

l pe

rfor

man

ce re

quire

men

ts o

f the

con

tract

in th

e ag

greg

ate

as d

efin

ed

and

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t the

crit

eria

in th

e aw

ard-

fee

plan

for t

he

awar

d-fe

e ev

alua

tion

perio

d.



10

AWARD FEE CONVERSION CHART

ADJECTIVE RATING EVALUATION RATINGS POTENTIAL FEE EARNED

EXCELLENT 23-25 91 to 100% VERY GOOD 19-22 76 to 90% GOOD 14-18 51 to 75% SATISFACTORY 8-13 No Greater Than 50% UNSATISFACTORY* 0-7 0% *For those elements receiving a score of 50% or below, no fee will be earned. Any unearned fee will be forfeited and not available in subsequent evaluation periods.”

CATEGORY OF PERFORMANCE (SUBJECTIVE) Weightings1. Quality and Effectiveness of Documents and Associated Support 25%

2. Quality and Effectiveness of Environment, Safety, Health and Quality Assurance (ESH&QA)

30%

3. Quality and Effectiveness of Project Support (Reference Section C.1.10 of the contract)

15%

4. Quality and Effectiveness of Project Management (30%) (includes cost control)

Cost Control and Funds Management (20%) – Complete all scope of work identified in FY 15 Work Plan within 100% of $64,205K (FY15 contract value).

94% will earn Excellent 96% will earn Very Good 98% will earn Good 100% will earn Satisfactory >100% will earn unsatisfactory

Project Management (10%) - The effective and timely performance of tasks in the most cost effective manner utilizing cost savings and efficiencies.

30%



11

PERFORMANCE BASED INCENTIVES (OBJECTIVE) (October 1, 2014 to July 26, 2015)

Available Fee (Mod 0087) $1,925,767

1. C-400 Phase IIb $233,819 (10%) 2. C-746-B Doors 1 & 2 $233,819 (10%) 3. Southwest Plume SWMU 1 $701,457 (30%) 4. GDP Transition Support – Boiler Construction $350,728 (15%) 5. GDP Transition Support – Cell Treatment Carts $467,638 (20%) 6. GDP Transition Support – Cascade Heaters and Panels $350,728 (15%)

Subjective3 (40% of Available Fee) + PBI (60% of Available Fee) = Total Available Fee (100% of Available Fee)

Performance Based Incentive Summaries4:

1. C-400 Phase IIb:Complete field work, including demobilization and waste disposal for the C-400 Phase IIb Treatability Study by 6/10/15. This requires the project to be executed as described in the approved regulatory documents. Upon completion of the treatability study, demobilize all equipment and perform required site restoration activities. Package and dispose of all waste generated by this project. Consideration will be given for work completed if delayed by DOE.

2. C-746-B Doors 1 & 2: Complete characterization, removal, packaging and disposal of all material in C-746-B, Doors 1&2 (including relocation of the UF6 pipe) by 11/30/2014. The UF6 Pipe shall be relocated to the DOE agreed-to storage location and safely configured for long-term storage.

3. Southwest Plume SWMU 1:Complete remediation of all identified soil associated with the Southwest Plume SWMU 1 Soil Mixing, excluding waste disposal and demobilization by 07/15/2015.

4. GDP Transition Support – Boiler Construction: Complete all activities, including construction, permitting, startup testing, and associated commissioning activities of the six or more portable (~25,000 lbs/hr each) dual fuel capable (natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil) steam package boilers such that the system is 100% functional (i.e.,

3 Failure to stay below DART/TRC Rates, as specified in Section 3a of this Award Fee Plan will result in an automatic 25% reduction of the Subjective Award Fee pool available to be earned.

4 DOE will inspect site conditions to determine whether actions have been completed. In the event the contractor has not adequately completed 100% of the PBI, DOE may, at its sole discretion, allow partial fee for any completed sub-elements listed within the overall PBI, based on the amount and quality of work completed.



12

all punch list items closed and system operating at designed capacity) by 6/30/15. All contractual specifications/requirements must be met.

5. GDP Transition Support – Cascade Heaters and PanelsComplete installation of Cascade Heaters and Power Panels to supplied power that meet DOE’s specifications and functional requirements 30 days after USEC de-lease.

Award Fee Calculation Methodology:

1. PTE assigns rating (0-25) for each Category of Performance. 2. Multiply weighting percentage to each CP to arrive at weighted result. 3. Add weighted results together to arrive at overall weighted result.

Example:

PTE Ratings: Quality and Effectiveness of Documents and Support – 23 Quality and Effectiveness of ESH&QA – 22 Quality and Effectiveness of Project Support– 24 Quality and Effectiveness of Project Management (To include cost management) – 20

Weighted Result: (23 x 25%) + (22 x 30%) + (24 x 15%) + (20 x 30%)= 5.75 + 6.6 + 3.6 + 6 = 21.95 Overall Weighted Result: 21.95; round up to 22 Adjective rating (Award Fee Conversion Chart): Very Good

Rounding Rule: .5 and above is rounded up to the next whole number.

FDO Decision

The earned award-fee amount indicated by the use of a conversion table or graph is a guide to the FDO. Use of the Award Fee Conversion Chart does not remove the element of judgment from the award fee process.

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

13

Proj

ect T

eam

Eva

luat

or (P

TE

) Nam

e: _

____

____

____

____

_ FY

: ___

____

Qua

rter

: ___

____

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E -

SUB

JEC

TIV

E

(EV

AL

UA

TIO

N W

EIG

HT

ING

)

EXC

ELLE

NT

VER

Y G

OO

D

GO

OD

SA

TISF

AC

TOR

Y

UN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

N

/A

1.

Qua

lity

and

Eff

ectiv

enes

s of

D

ocum

ents

and

Ass

ocia

ted

Supp

ort

(2

5%)

23-2

5 19

-22

14-1

8 8-

13

0-7

EVA

LUA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

C

heck

App

ropr

iate

Box

N

OTE

S O

N S

TREN

GTH

S A

ND

WEA

KN

ESSE

S

1.a

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e qu

ality

, tim

elin

ess a

nd su

ffic

ienc

y of

thei

r doc

umen

ts a

nd

subm

ittal

s; th

e le

vel o

f qua

lity

of D

0 do

cum

ents

; the

pe

rcen

tage

of D

1 do

cum

ents

app

rove

d by

regu

lato

rs;

perm

it su

bmitt

als a

nd m

odifi

catio

ns; s

tand

ard

repo

rts

such

as o

pera

ting

and

quar

terly

gro

undw

ater

repo

rts.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

1.b

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e qu

ality

and

tim

elin

ess o

f res

pons

e to

inqu

iries

from

regu

lato

ry

agen

cies

, sta

keho

lder

s and

any

oth

er p

arty

. Q

ualit

y w

ill

be d

eter

min

ed w

ith re

fere

nce

to e

lem

ents

such

as c

larit

y,

com

plet

enes

s, ac

cura

cy a

nd su

bsta

ntiv

e re

spon

sive

ness

of

resp

onse

s to

inqu

iries

.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

1.c

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e qu

ality

, tim

elin

ess a

nd su

ffic

ienc

y of

thei

r abi

lity

to e

nsur

e th

at

all e

nviro

nmen

tal r

egul

ator

y do

cum

ents

hav

e re

ceiv

ed

adeq

uate

lega

l rev

iew

for s

uffic

ienc

y, a

ccur

acy

and

stra

tegi

c im

pact

s bef

ore

bein

g su

bmitt

ed to

DO

E an

d th

en to

the

regu

lato

ry a

genc

ies.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

14

Proj

ect T

eam

Eva

luat

or (P

TE

) Nam

e: _

____

____

____

____

_ FY

: ___

____

Qua

rter

: ___

____

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E -

SUB

JEC

TIV

E

(EV

AL

UA

TIO

N W

EIG

HT

ING

)

EXC

ELLE

NT

VER

Y G

OO

D

GO

OD

SA

TISF

AC

TOR

Y

UN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

N

/A

2.

Qua

lity

and

Eff

ectiv

enes

s of

E

nvir

onm

ent,

Safe

ty, H

ealth

, and

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce (E

SH&

QA

) (3

0%)

23-2

5 19

-22

14-1

8 8-

13

0-7

EVA

LUA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

C

heck

App

ropr

iate

Box

N

OTE

S O

N S

TREN

GTH

S A

ND

WEA

KN

ESSE

S

2.a

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e su

ffic

ienc

y of

thei

r pol

icie

s, pl

ans,

and

proc

edur

es g

over

ning

ES

H&

QA

pro

gram

s.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

2.b

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

eir a

pplic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

of E

SH&

QA

prin

cipl

es a

nd

requ

irem

ents

into

wor

k sc

opes

and

spec

ific

prog

ram

s an

d ef

forts

, inc

ludi

ng b

ut n

ot li

mite

d to

Inte

grat

ed S

afet

y M

anag

emen

t, ra

diol

ogic

al p

rote

ctio

n, e

nviro

nmen

tal

prot

ectio

n, in

dust

rial s

afet

y, se

curit

y (in

clud

es C

yber

-Se

curit

y), n

ucle

ar sa

fety

, was

te sh

ippi

ng, e

mer

genc

y m

anag

emen

t, w

aste

min

imiz

atio

n, C

ondu

ct o

f O

pera

tions

, QA

, and

wor

k pl

anni

ng in

itiat

ives

.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

2.c

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

eir a

bilit

y to

ef

fect

ivel

y an

d tim

ely

iden

tify,

man

age,

pre

vent

or

corr

ect,

repo

rt an

d re

solv

e de

ficie

ncie

s with

in th

e IS

MS

prog

ram

. C

ontra

ctor

will

als

o be

eva

luat

ed o

n th

e th

orou

ghne

ss o

f the

ir re

spon

se to

def

icie

ncie

s to

prev

ent

recu

rren

ce o

f the

def

icie

ncy

incl

udin

g th

e m

anne

r and

ad

equa

cy o

f tra

ckin

g, tr

endi

ng, a

nd ro

ot c

ause

/less

ons

lear

ned

anal

yses

, rep

ortin

g, a

nd fo

rmal

clo

sure

pr

oces

ses.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

15

2.d

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

eir a

bilit

y to

ef

fect

ivel

y m

anag

e an

d im

plem

ent t

he P

olyc

hlor

inat

ed

Bip

heny

l (PC

B) p

rogr

am in

clud

ing

iden

tific

atio

n an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of a

ny c

ost s

avin

gs in

itiat

ives

.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

2.e

The

Con

tract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on it

s abi

lity

to

effe

ctiv

ely

man

age

and

impl

emen

t the

Env

ironm

enta

l M

onito

ring

Prog

ram

incl

udin

g id

entif

icat

ion

and

impl

emen

tatio

n of

any

cos

t sav

ings

initi

ativ

es.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

16

Proj

ect T

eam

Eva

luat

or (P

TE

) Nam

e: _

____

____

____

____

_ FY

: ___

____

Qua

rter

: ___

____

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E -

SUB

JEC

TIV

E

(EV

AL

UA

TIO

N W

EIG

HT

ING

)

EXC

ELLE

NT

VER

Y G

OO

D

GO

OD

SA

TISF

AC

TOR

Y

UN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

N

/A

3.

Qua

lity

and

Eff

ectiv

enes

s of P

roje

ct

Su

ppor

t (15

%)

23-2

5 19

-22

14-1

8 8-

13

0-7

EVA

LUA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

C

heck

App

ropr

iate

Box

N

OTE

S O

N S

TREN

GTH

S A

ND

WEA

KN

ESSE

S

3.a

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e ef

fect

iven

ess,

timel

ines

s and

suff

icie

ncy

of su

ppor

t pro

vide

d to

DO

E as

iden

tifie

d in

sect

ion

C.1

.10

of it

s con

tract

.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

3.b

Cus

tom

er re

latio

ns g

iven

prio

rity

cons

ider

atio

n.

Exam

ples

of c

usto

mer

rela

tions

incl

ude,

but

are

not

lim

ited

to, c

oord

inat

ion

with

DO

E on

subm

ittal

of

docu

men

ts o

r inf

orm

atio

n w

ithin

site

prio

ritie

s;

coor

dina

tion

with

oth

er D

OE

cont

ract

ors t

o en

sure

site

pr

iorit

ies a

re m

et; t

imel

y no

tific

atio

ns o

f site

or p

roje

ct

issu

es; s

eeki

ng fe

edba

ck o

n pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd

impl

emen

tatio

n of

pla

ns to

impr

ove

cus

tom

er re

latio

ns,

etc.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

3.c

Prov

ides

eff

icie

nt a

nd e

ffec

tive

engi

neer

ing

serv

ices

, ad

min

istra

tive

serv

ices

, pro

ject

con

trol t

asks

and

in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t ser

vice

s. E

xam

ples

wou

ld

incl

ude,

but

not

be

limite

d to

, dev

elop

men

t of

engi

neer

ing

anal

yses

and

eva

luat

ions

; mod

elin

g ef

forts

; tim

ely

upda

tes t

o w

ebsi

tes,

adm

inis

trativ

e re

cord

s, an

d da

taba

ses;

mai

ntai

ning

up-

to-d

ate

and

accu

rate

ba

selin

es, c

ost p

roje

ctio

ns, E

VM

S da

ta; t

imel

y de

velo

pmen

t of c

ontra

ct p

ropo

sals

and

bas

elin

e ch

ange

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

17

prop

osal

s; e

tc.

3.d

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e qu

ality

(in

clud

ing

effe

ctiv

enes

s), t

imel

ines

s and

ade

quac

y of

im

plem

enta

tion

of it

s pub

lic re

latio

ns p

rogr

am.

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

18

Proj

ect T

eam

Eva

luat

or (P

TE

) Nam

e: _

____

____

____

____

_ FY

: ___

____

Qua

rter

: ___

____

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E -

SUB

JEC

TIV

E

(EV

AL

UA

TIO

N W

EIG

HT

ING

)

EXC

ELLE

NT

VER

Y G

OO

D

GO

OD

SA

TISF

AC

TOR

Y

UN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RY

N

/A

4.

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t (10

) %)

Cos

t Con

trol

(20%

) 23

-25

19-2

2 14

-18

8-13

0-

7

EVA

LUA

TIO

N C

RIT

ERIA

C

heck

App

ropr

iate

Box

N

OTE

S O

N S

TREN

GTH

S A

ND

WEA

KN

ESSE

S

4.a

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on h

ow p

roje

cts a

re

man

aged

, cos

ts a

re tr

acke

d an

d re

porte

d. (P

roje

ct

Man

agem

ent)

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

4.b

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on o

vera

ll an

d sp

ecifi

c pr

ojec

t sta

tus a

gain

st th

e co

ntra

ct a

nd b

asel

ine,

m

ilest

ones

and

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of p

roje

ct re

porti

ng

tool

s and

syst

ems.

(Cos

t Con

trol a

nd F

unds

M

anag

emen

t)

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

4.c

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on it

s abi

lity

to

succ

essf

ully

man

age

GFS

&I,

incl

udin

g co

ordi

natin

g w

ith th

e en

titie

s pro

vidi

ng th

e co

ntra

ctor

with

GFS

&I t

o en

sure

tim

ely

and

cost

-eff

ectiv

e de

liver

y an

d ut

iliza

tion

of th

e G

FS&

I, in

clud

ing,

but

not

lim

ited

to, u

pon

requ

est

of D

OE,

revi

ewin

g in

voic

es fo

r GFS

&I t

o en

sure

cos

ts

for s

ervi

ces a

re a

ccur

ate.

(Pr

ojec

t Man

agem

ent)

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

19

4.d

Pres

ents

real

istic

initi

ativ

es w

hich

resu

lt in

tang

ible

sa

ving

s to

DO

E (c

ost,

sche

dule

or r

isk)

. (C

ost C

ontro

l an

d Fu

nds M

anag

emen

t)

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

4.e

The

cont

ract

or w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

on th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

and

timel

ines

s of

its a

bilit

y to

per

form

task

s in

mos

t co

st e

ffec

tive

man

ner c

onsi

sten

t with

app

rove

d ba

selin

es.

(Cos

t Con

trol a

nd F

unds

Man

agem

ent)

Exce

llent

Ver

y G

ood

G

ood

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y

Uns

atis

fact

ory

N

/A

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 3

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

20

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 4

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

21

Adj

ectiv

e R

atin

g Su

mm

ary

Tab

le

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E (S

UB

JEC

TIV

E) -

T

echn

ical

Lea

dA

DJE

CT

IVE

RA

TIN

G

1st Q

tr

2nd Q

tr

3rd Q

tr

4th Q

tr

RE

Rat

ing

1. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess o

f Doc

umen

ts a

nd S

uppo

rt

2.

Qua

lity

and

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of E

nviro

nmen

t, Sa

fety

, Hea

lth

and

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce (E

SH&

QA

)

3. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess o

f Pro

ject

Sup

port

4. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t (to

incl

ude

cost

man

agem

ent)

AN

NU

AL

AD

JEC

TIV

E R

AT

ING

-PT

EC

AT

EG

OR

Y O

F PE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

(SU

BJE

CT

IVE

)A

DJE

CT

IVE

RA

TIN

G1st

Qua

rter

2nd Q

uart

er

3rdQ

uart

er4th

Qua

rter

PTE

Rec

omm

ende

d R

atin

g fo

r th

e Y

ear

1. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess o

f Doc

umen

ts a

nd S

uppo

rt

2.

Qua

lity

and

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of E

nviro

nmen

t, Sa

fety

, H

ealth

and

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce (E

SH&

QA

)

3. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess o

f Pro

ject

Sup

port

4. Q

ualit

y an

d Ef

fect

iven

ess o

fPro

ject

Man

agem

ent (

to

incl

ude

cost

man

agem

ent)

SUM

MA

RY

OF

PTE

’S R

AT

ING

Mem

ber

Doc

umen

ts a

nd

Supp

ort

Env

iron

men

t, Sa

fety

, Hea

th &

Q

ualit

y (E

SH&

Q)

Proj

ect S

uppo

rt

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t

Inse

rt N

ame

of V

oter

Inse

rt N

ame

of V

oter

Inse

rt N

ame

of V

oter

Inse

rt N

ame

of V

oter

In

sert

Nam

e of

Vot

er

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 5

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

22

PBI E

valu

atio

n - F

Y _

__

Qtr

___

PBI S

umm

arie

s M

et/

Not

Met

C

omm

ents

1.

C-4

00 P

hase

IIb:

Com

plet

e fie

ld w

ork,

incl

udin

g de

mob

iliza

tion

and

was

te

disp

osal

for t

he C

-400

Pha

se II

b Tr

eata

bilit

y St

udy

by 6

/10/

15.

This

requ

ires t

he p

roje

ct to

be

exec

uted

as d

escr

ibed

in th

e ap

prov

ed re

gula

tory

doc

umen

ts.

Upo

n co

mpl

etio

n of

the

treat

abili

ty st

udy,

dem

obili

ze a

ll eq

uipm

ent a

nd p

erfo

rm

requ

ired

site

rest

orat

ion

activ

ities

. Pa

ckag

e an

d di

spos

e of

all

was

te g

ener

ated

by

this

pro

ject

.2.

C-7

46-B

Doo

rs 1

& 2

: C

ompl

ete

char

acte

rizat

ion,

rem

oval

, pac

kagi

ng a

nd d

ispo

sal o

f al

l mat

eria

l sto

red

in C

-746

-B, D

oors

1&

2 (in

clud

ing

relo

catio

n of

the

UF6

pip

e) b

y 11

/30/

14.

The

UF6

Pip

e sh

all b

e re

loca

ted

to th

e D

OE

agre

ed-to

stor

age

loca

tion

and

safe

ly c

onfig

ured

for

long

-term

stor

age.

3.So

uthw

est P

lum

e SW

MU

1:

Com

plet

e re

med

iatio

n of

all

iden

tifie

d so

il as

soci

ated

with

the

Sout

hwes

t Plu

me

SWM

U 1

Soi

l Mix

ing,

exc

ludi

ng w

aste

di

spos

al a

nd d

emob

iliza

tion

by 7

/15/

15.

4.G

DP

Tra

nsiti

on S

uppo

rt –

Boi

ler

Con

stru

ctio

n:

Com

plet

e al

l act

iviti

es, i

nclu

ding

con

stru

ctio

n, p

erm

ittin

g,

star

tup

test

ing,

and

ass

ocia

ted

com

mis

sion

ing

activ

ities

of t

he si

x or

mor

e po

rtabl

e (~

25,0

00 lb

s/hr

eac

h) d

ual f

uel c

apab

le (n

atur

al

gas a

nd N

o. 2

fuel

oil)

stea

m p

acka

ge b

oile

rs su

ch th

at th

e sy

stem

is 1

00%

func

tiona

l (i.e

., al

l pun

ch li

st it

ems c

lose

d an

d sy

stem

ope

ratin

g at

des

igne

d ca

paci

ty) b

y 6/

30/1

5. A

ll co

ntra

ctua

l spe

cific

atio

ns/re

quire

men

ts m

ust b

e m

et.

5.G

DP

Tra

nsiti

on S

uppo

rt –

Cel

l Tre

atm

ent C

arts

: C

ompl

ete

deliv

ery

of te

n (1

0) P

orta

ble

Cel

l Tre

atm

ent C

arts

and

te

n (1

0) te

st b

uggi

es th

at m

eet D

OE’

s spe

cific

atio

n sh

eets

and

Padu

cah

Rem

edia

tion

Con

tract

A

war

d Fe

e Pl

an

Exhi

bit 5

Con

tract

Num

ber:

DE-

AC

30-1

0CC

4002

0

23

PBI S

umm

arie

s M

et/

Not

Met

C

omm

ents

appr

oved

test

pla

ns b

y 11

/28/

14.

6.G

DP

Tra

nsiti

on S

uppo

rt –

Cas

cade

Com

plet

e in

stal

latio

n of

Cas

cade

Hea

ters

and

Pow

er P

anel

s tha

t m

eet D

OE’

s spe

cific

atio

ns a

nd fu

nctio

nal r

equi

rem

ents

30

days

af

ter U

SEC

de-

leas

e.



24

AWARD FEE PROCESS

PTE PERFORMS QUARTERLY EVALUATIONS

TECHNICAL LEAD RECORDS PTE ADJECTIVE RATING

AND SELECTS OVERALL ADJECTIVE RATING

TECHNICAL LEAD COMPLETES ANNUAL ADJECTIVE RATING AND DRAFT

PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE PEB

TECHNICAL LEAD NOTIFIES PEB AND CONTRACTOR OF THE DATE OF THE PEB

MEETING; ALSO ADVISES CONTRACTOR ON HOW THEY WILL ADDRESS PEB (WRITTEN, ORAL OR BOTH)

PEB MEMBERS REACH CONSENSUS WITH CHAIR AND PROVIDES ADJECTIVE RATING TO TECHNICAL LEAD

TECHNICAL LEAD SUMMARIZES INDIVIDUAL PEB MEMBER’S RATING

PEB CHAIR RECOMMENDS FEE/FEE RATING BASED ON ADJECTIVE RATING

TECHNICAL LEAD PREPARES COVER LETTER FOR PEB CHAIR

TRANSMITTING SUMMARY RATING, FINAL PER AND RECOMMENDED FEE/FEE RANGE TO FDO

FDO DRAFTS FINAL FEE DETERMINATION MEMORANDUM & OBTAINS HCA COORDINATION

CO PREPARES LETTER FOR FDO SIGNATURE TO NOTIFY THE CONTRACTOR OF THE AWARD FEE DECISION; CO

MODIFIES CONTRACT REFLECTING FDO’S DETERMINATION

CO POSTS: THE MODIFICATION (IF APPLICABLE), ONE PAGE SCORECARD AND AWARD FEE DETERMINATION LETTER WITH THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

REPORT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER HCA CONCURRENCE

�