2 Patricia Olsen Vice President, Contracts, Pricing & Estimating The Boeing Company – Integrated Defense Systems August 4, 2008 3:00 PM Incentive Fee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Effective Contract Management Planning
Advertisements

Succession and talent management
Policies and Procedures for Proper Use of Non-DoD Contracts Revised April 19, 2005 Deidre A. Lee Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Office.
0 Cost, Price, and Finance DFARS Cases of Interest Date: 24 October 2006 Bill Sain Senior Procurement Analyst Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy,
DCAA – WHO WE ARE and WHAT TO EXPECT
ERM in the Rating Evaluation CAMAR Fall Meeting November 29, 2007 Thomas M. Mount, ACAS, MAAA Andrew Colannino, Vice President A.M.Best Company.
2014/15 National Tariff Payment System & Draft Guidance on Mental Health Currencies and Payment 1.
To be recognized as the best, we must recognize and reward the best in our employees. Pay for Performance & Performance Management System Veterans Health.
Contract Types. Forms of Contracts Completion – A product is delivered –Cost or Fixed Price –Product must be delivered –Contract completed on delivery.
DoD Systems and Software Engineering A Strategy for Enhanced Systems Engineering Kristen Baldwin Acting Director, Systems and Software Engineering Office.
Above and Beyond... The Essential Role of Capture Managers in The New Normal Environment 2014 Mid-Atlantic Conference & Expo Sheraton Premiere.
1 WIN-WIN MANAGEMENT: USING A TASK BASED SYSTEM TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY Berkshire Advisors, Inc.
1 Department of Education Race to the Top Assessment Program Procurement Strategy Discussion Dr. Allan V. Burman President Jefferson Solutions
Incentive Contracts FAR Subpart 16.4 Level II PIP Presentation Ashley McQueen December 6, 2010.
INCENTIVE CONTRACTS David Dudley (ESC Pricing Chief) Paul Hovsepian (Raytheon VP, Contracts)
Introductory to the “Basics” of Contract Types and Their Impact in the Management of Government Property Presented by: Fay K. Schulte, CPPM.
1 Award Fee Evaluation Update to Guidance & Best Practices Industry Briefing October 26, 2011.
Unclassified. Program Management Empowerment and Accountability Mr. David Ahern Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition AT&L(A&T) 14 April 2009 The Acquisition.
Driving Better Outcomes: Aligning State Investments With Completion Needs Typology & Principles to Inform Outcomes-Based Funding Models Presented by: Martha.
Payment by Results for Specialist Alcohol Services Don Lavoie Alcohol Policy Team.
Donald R. Rainey, Sr., CPPB/VCO Director, Office of General Services Virginia Department of Social Services.
1102 Contract Specialist as a Business Manager Debbie Bartlett Defense Acquisition University.
SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 2003 A STATUS REPORT Alan Chvotkin Senior Vice President and Counsel Professional Services Council DEFENSE ACQUISITION.
© 2007 Noblis, Inc. Assessment of Performance-Based Contracting Presented to: 2007 REGION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE / STATES.
1 Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) Dr. Jeffrey Beach Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division; Survivability,
Understanding Industry Defense Acquisition University 13 May 2010 Status Brief to NDIA Program Systems Committee.
Managing Fixed Price Development Programs Presented by John Pritchard Professor of Contract Management Defense systems Management College.
1 Department for Work and Pensions The Work Programme Prospectus Supplier Briefing 8 th December 2010.
Stuart A. Hazlett Deputy Director, OUSD(AT&L) Defense Pricing Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy A Presentation to NCMA Pentagon 8 September 2011.
2 William P. McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets August 4, 2008 NCMA Conference.
Forward-Looking Bank Supervision 2010 Kansas City Region Regulatory Conference Call August 24, 2010.
2 2 Eleanor Spector Vice President, Contracts Lockheed Martin Corporation August 5, :30-10:15AM Industry Acquisition Issues.
Office of Management and Budget NDIA Program Management Systems Committee May 3, 2005 EVMS Compliance Requirements David Muzio.
Earned Value Management Presented By: Steve Krivokopich May , 2006.
OMB’s Management Watch List (MWL) & High Risk Projects List How to More Effectively Track, Analyze and Evaluate Your Agency IT Investments October 9, 2007.
DGS Recommendations to the Governor’s Task Force on Contracting & Procurement Review Report Overview August 12, 2002.
Verification and Validation — An OSD Perspective — Fred Myers Deputy Director, Test Infrastructure Test Resource Management Center November 4, 2009.
Performance Measurement & Management Compensation
Earned Value Management Update Nancy L. Spruill Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology.
Pay for Performance A strategic approach to design Dermot Hand August 2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR ’ S TASK FORCE ON CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT REVIEW Report Overview PD Customer Forum September 2002.
1 NASA Office of Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets April 15, 2008 SMC Brief Bill McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
Driving towards Impact through Development Goals Washington, DC 04/13/2011.
Life Cycle Cost Savings by Improving Reliability Dr. Charles E. McQueary Director, Operational Test and Evaluation January 15, 2009.
Evaluating Engagement Judging the outcome above the noise of squeaky wheels Heather Shaw, Department of Sustainability & Environment Jessica Dart, Clear.
Continual Service Improvement Methods & Techniques.
LOG235/236 Performance Based Logistics Bruce Hatlem Logistics Functional IPT September 2007.
1 Cost Price and Finance Robin Schulze, Senior Procurement Analyst Friday, October 26, 2007 Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Strength through Industry & Technology How is the Government Managing for Value? Program Management Systems Committee March 11, 2007 The Voice of the Industrial.
Understanding Earned Value Management & Analysis Abba Consulting Federal Acquisition Conference & Exposition Washington, DC June 19-20, 2007 Wayne Abba.
Personnel and Readiness Personnel and Readiness Current Issues Dr. David S. C. Chu Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) September 8, 2008.
1. 2 Managing Risk and Reward by Contract Type Breakout Session # 501 Beverly Arviso, CPA, Fellow, CPCM, CFCM, Arviso, Inc. Tuesday, July 31, :30-3:45.
Comparison of Major Contract Types
DoD Template for Application of TLCSM and PBL
Environmental Acquisition Strategy Performance-Based Contracting
SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 2003 A STATUS REPORT
Commercial Item Acquisitions: A Brief Update
Post Award Peer Review Briefing Slides
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Strategic Management of Human Capital FY04 Implementing Projects
Managing Fixed Price Development Programs
DRAFT FOUO PRE-DECISIONAL
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Perspectives on Transforming DT and OT Industry-Government Roundtable
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Post Award Peer Review Briefing Slides
Presentation transcript:

2 Patricia Olsen Vice President, Contracts, Pricing & Estimating The Boeing Company – Integrated Defense Systems August 4, :00 PM Incentive Fee Contracting Best Practices

3 Agenda The Current Playing Field – GAO Report on Award & Incentive Contracting Forces Change Historical Perspective GAO Report GAO Summary Government Response to GAO Report Award Fee Observations & Best Practices Establishment of Objective Criteria – Use Of CPIF, FPI and Multiple Incentive Contracts Objective Criteria Observations & Best Practices Summary

4 The Current Playing Field – GAO Report on Award & Incentive Contracting Forces Change December 2005 GAO Report GAO criticizes Award & Incentive Contracting Paradigm shift for Government and Contractor: –Moving away from traditional CPAF arrangements with subjective Award Fee criteria –Award Fee as an element in FPI/AF, CPIF/AF frameworks Award Fee Pool reflecting a “Bonus Concept” for superior performance –Increased use of CPIF, FPI & Multiple Incentive contracts Cost/Technical/Schedule components tied to Objective criteria

5 Historical Perspective 60’s – CPAF used by NASA as technique to ensure safety was not compromised by contractors pursuit of incentives related solely to cost i.e. used CPAF contract in lieu of Cost Incentive Contracts 70’s - DOD/Service used traditional incentive structures. Award Fees used as an additional incentive pool beyond objective incentives F-15 FPIF/AF Bonus concept for superior performance 80’s. - Fixed Price Development Contracts results in declined use of CPIF and CPAF contracts Unbalanced risk did great harm to industrial base 90’s - Expanded use of CPAF. PEO’s/PM’s preferred CPAF due to direct leverage on contractor 80%+ earned award fee was custom 00’s – Period of GAO report to 2004

6 GAO Report GAO “DoD has paid Billions in Award and Incentive Fees Regardless of Acquisition Outcomes” Observation – GAO Criticism of Award Fees largely focused on historical cost and schedule performance Award Fee historically focused primarily on superior System Performance The Result: Media / Congress widely associate Award Fees as “Bonuses” to Contractors

7 GAO Report GAO Criticizes DoD’s lack of outcome oriented objective criteria Recommended remedial actions: –Payment for above-satisfactory performance –Limited use of rollover –More supervisory review –Develop metrics on use/effectiveness of award fees –Share proven strategies

8 March 2006 – DUSD (A&T) Memo Fiscal Year 2007 – National Defense Authorization Act, Sec 814 December 2006 – DUSD (AT&L) Policy April 2007 – OUSD (AT&L/DPAP) Memo Responses to GAO Report

9 March 2006 DUSD (A&T) Memorandum Endorsed most GAO recommendations, except limiting award fee payments to “above satisfactory” ratings - 3% base fee is insufficient for satisfactory work Use of “rollover” an exceptional case Defers addressing metrics and review recommendations

10 “Linking of Award and Incentive Fees to Acquisition Outcomes” SECDEF to issue guidance: -Link award fees to acquisition outcomes (e.g. cost, schedule, and performance) -Provide guidance for judging performance and % fee to be earned -No award fee for below satisfactory (failure to meet minimum requirements) -Provide direction on use of “rollover Assess and report on independent evaluation mechanisms (FFRDC) Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, Sec 814

11 December 2006 DUSD (AT&L) Policy Discourages the use of traditional Award Fee Contracts No more than 10% of the total available incentive/award fee should be based on subjective criteria Checks and Balances for Award Fee Determinations – secondary review Revise the DFARS and/or its PGI Supplement

12 April 2007 OUSD (AT&L/DPAP) Memorandum “It is the policy of the Department that objective criteria will be utilized, wherever possible, to measure contract performance” -Preference is multiple incentive type contracts -If objective criteria exist and desire is to also use subjective elements - use Award Fee in conjunction with multiple incentive type contracts (Bonus Concept) Acknowledges most development and LRIP contracts contain numerous objective criteria If objective criteria does not exist HCA must sign D&F to use CPAF For CPAF, defines and sets % ranges of award fee pool to be earned for ratings of unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding in terms of: - Minimum essential contract requirements; and - Award fee criteria as established in award fee plan DFARS interim rule on hold (DFARS Case 2006-D021)

13 Award Fee Observations & Best Practices Agree CPAF should no longer be default approach When used: –Make part of multiple incentive structure –Be reflective of “Bonus Concept” for superior performance –Small Dollar Amounts Award Fee Plan should be bilateral: –Agreement on evaluation criteria –Allocation of pool consistent with expenditure profile over contract period of performance –Prospective changes only

14 Establishing Objective Criteria: Use of CPIF, FPI & Multiple Incentive Contracts Implement use of Objective Criteria via CPIF, FPI or Multiple Incentive Contracts arrangements –Cost, schedule and performance incentives to be encouraged Contract Type/Incentives and Risk/Rewards should be commensurate with program phase Include Partners and Subcontractors within overall fee arrangement Avoid Overly complicated incentive structures Will reduce Government flexibility during program execution Need to work with Customers Early

15 Objective Criteria Observations & Best Practices For multiple incentive structures to be meaningful, higher total available fee should be considered Successful performance to objective criteria require: -Adequate requirements definition -Realistic cost estimates (risk based source selection criteria) -Realistic schedule reserves -Funding cost at 80% confidence level -Stable funding Incentive contracting will increase emphasis on Cost and Schedule performance -Target fees and share arrangements should be consistent with risk assessments and complexity of the contracted effort -Sharing arrangements should consider “dead bands”

16 Objective Criteria Observations & Best Practice (continued) Must have robust management of “Constructive Changes” Changes – Plan Ahead – Changes will impact incentive arrangements over the life of the contract Performance Incentives – Criteria for “successful completion” is of utmost importance Effective workforce training essential Balance Potential Risk and Rewards

17 Summary If used, Award Fee must be in context of balanced incentive structure –Limit Award Fee to “Bonus Concept” Incentive arrangements using Objective Criteria preferred contracting approach

18 Questions?