Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of DOE's Office of Environmental Management Report 1 (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Contract Management Metrics
7 Contract Management Metrics
Pages 93-107
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 93... ...
Further, the variety of cleanup activities -- groundwater treatment, demolition, waste treatment and immobilization, etc. -- and the varied path to disposal for the different atomic energy act materials, mixed waste and other descriptors suggests that incentives will vary. This chapter examines the metrics used for contract performance and the award incentives and fees.
|
From page 94... ...
The total available fee in this case is the sum of the base fee and the performance fee. The performance fee can comprise both objective and subjective fee components and must relate to clearly defined performance objectives and performance measures.1 A cost-plus-incentive fee (CPIF)
|
From page 95... ...
Rollover of Performance Fee Some performance evaluation and measurement plans contemplate the rollover of unearned performance fee -- typically the subjective fee component -- from one period to another. Rollover is a fee not earned in an evaluation period available for payment in a subsequent period.
|
From page 96... ...
Performance assessment summaries and fees earned under CPAF, CPIF, and CPFF contracts can be found in the "Scorecards" posted on the applicable DOE field office website, see, for example, DOE-ORP (2018) , as discussed below, "Performance Metrics in PEMPs." Incentive Ratings and Definitions in Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans The committee spent time examining the contracts and PEMPs; see DOE (2012)
|
From page 97... ...
Performance Metrics in PEMPs As noted, certain of the contracts evaluated by the committee -- specifically, CPFF, CPAF and CPIF -- include fees that the department can pay the contractor TABLE 7.1 Award Criteria Used by the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Percentage Adjectival of Award Rating Fee Earned Definition: "Contractor has…" Excellent 91 to 100 "exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria"… Very Good 76 to 90 "exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria"… Good 51 to 75 "exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria"… Satisfactory ≤ 50 "met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements"… Unsatisfactory 0 "failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements"… SOURCE: Table 1 of DOE-ORP (2018, p.
|
From page 98... ...
: Our review of DOE documents showed that the Site-Specific approach has a dif ferent process for determining incentive and award fees, depending on whether the fee is tied to objective or subjective performance criteria. According to agency officials and documents, the Site-Specific approach generally provides more money toward incentive fees tied to objective criteria than to award fees tied to subjective criteria -- about 60 to 75 percent of available fee money goes to incentive fees.
|
From page 99... ...
description of how it makes fee determinations, performance assessment summaries and fees earned under CPAF, CPIF, and CPFF contracts can be found in the "Scorecards" posted on applicable DOE field office websites. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Table 7.2 is an example of a summary of information on fees awarded to Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI)
|
From page 100... ...
: "Incentive structure emphasizes integrated cost and schedule performance; fee for completion milestones declines monthly to a minimum fee after defined period; and performance (award) fee criteria updated annually to emphasize current project phase and priorities." Thus, the award would decline as a function of the project completion date from $179 million in March 2021 to $119 million between October 2021 and April 2022 to $0 after December 2022.
|
From page 101... ...
Tank Operations Contract The committee compared these awards for BNI with those made by the same office for Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) , a limited liability corporation owned by Amentum and Atkins, with Orano as its integrated subcontractor.
|
From page 102... ...
Hanford 222-S Laboratory Analysis Contract Maximum Calendar Year Available Fee Adjectival Rating Averaged Score Fee Awarded 2016 $142,771 Very good 88% $125,782 2017 $191,743 Excellent 96% $184,265 2018 $217,055 Excellent 98% $211,846 2019-PBI $142,317 Very good 83% $118,597 2019-SEA $94,878 Excellent 98% $92,743 2019-TOTAL $237,195 Very good 89% $211,341 NOTE: PBI = performance-based incentives; SEA = special emphasis areas.
|
From page 103... ...
6 DOE EM, 2019, "DOE Awards Hanford Central Plateau Cleanup Contract," December 12, https:// www.energy.gov/em/articles/doe-awards-hanford-central-plateau-cleanup-contract. 7 DOE Hanford Site, "WRPS Contract Modifications," https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/ DOE-ORPPrimeContracts/WRPSContractMods.
|
From page 104... ...
222-S LAB Operate CPAF + CR 5 2/7/2019 not yet TBD Laboratory Complex DFLAW Vitrify Low Unknown NA RFI: 4/12/2020 not yet TBD Activity Waste aThe Department of Energy suspended the award in August 2020.
|
From page 105... ...
The EM field manager is the position charged with the responsibility to "integrate Site level activities for mission accomplishment" and to "Conduct periodic reviews for contracts with segment costs less than $200M." Despite the efficiencies that might be gained by combining smaller contracts into larger ones, there are regulations that apply in specific situations involving smaller business concerns. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 2.101 defines bundling in federal procurement as "consolidation that combines two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller .
|
From page 106... ...
Multiple awards would not be in the best interests of the Government. The committee was not able to determine which of these criteria would apply to EM in making the single-award IDIQ in its end-state contracting model.16 FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION FINDING: DOE-EM's rating of contractor performance in Hanford cleanup contracts does not appear to be consistent either across multiple years in the case of a specific contract or across contracts in a specific year.
|
From page 107... ...
2018. "Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan, Incentive B – Award Fee Design, Construction, and Commissioning of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, Contract No.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.