Award Fee Study Group Report

Section 814(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess mechanisms that could ensure an independent evaluation of contractor performance supporting award fee determinations. Specifically, the F...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Arnold, Scot A, Christie, Deborah P, Diehl, Richard P, Kendall, Frank, McNicol, David L, Porter, Gene H, Soule, Robert R
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Arnold, Scot A
Christie, Deborah P
Diehl, Richard P
Kendall, Frank
McNicol, David L
Porter, Gene H
Soule, Robert R
description Section 814(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess mechanisms that could ensure an independent evaluation of contractor performance supporting award fee determinations. Specifically, the FFRDC was to assess the advantages of (1) using separate award fee pools controlled by the independent fee determination board and (2) allowing contractor assessments across programs in contrast to their being made solely on the basis of the contractor's performance against the criteria set in the award fee plan. IDA performed the assessment with a study group composed of veteran senior defense acquisition officials. The study group developed a tailored alternative scenario it believed was feasible and satisfied the requirements in the NDAA. Compared to the present award fee process, the proposed change would offer little net benefit at great risk of diluting program management's influence over the contractor's behavior, which would erode rather than improve the effectiveness of the award fee process. Presented as briefing charts with accompanying textual notes. This paper was erroneously issued as a Draft Final under the number P-4276. The correct report number is P-4296. Task no. AH-7-2774. The original document contains color images.
format Report
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>dtic_1RU</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA479202</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ADA479202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA4792023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNrjZJBxLE8sSlFwS01VCC4pTalUcC_KLy1QCEotyC8q4WFgTUvMKU7lhdLcDDJuriHOHropJZnJ8cUlmXmpJfGOLo4m5pZGBkbGBKQBBDwgUA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>report</recordtype></control><display><type>report</type><title>Award Fee Study Group Report</title><source>DTIC Technical Reports</source><creator>Arnold, Scot A ; Christie, Deborah P ; Diehl, Richard P ; Kendall, Frank ; McNicol, David L ; Porter, Gene H ; Soule, Robert R</creator><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Scot A ; Christie, Deborah P ; Diehl, Richard P ; Kendall, Frank ; McNicol, David L ; Porter, Gene H ; Soule, Robert R ; INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA</creatorcontrib><description>Section 814(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess mechanisms that could ensure an independent evaluation of contractor performance supporting award fee determinations. Specifically, the FFRDC was to assess the advantages of (1) using separate award fee pools controlled by the independent fee determination board and (2) allowing contractor assessments across programs in contrast to their being made solely on the basis of the contractor's performance against the criteria set in the award fee plan. IDA performed the assessment with a study group composed of veteran senior defense acquisition officials. The study group developed a tailored alternative scenario it believed was feasible and satisfied the requirements in the NDAA. Compared to the present award fee process, the proposed change would offer little net benefit at great risk of diluting program management's influence over the contractor's behavior, which would erode rather than improve the effectiveness of the award fee process. Presented as briefing charts with accompanying textual notes. This paper was erroneously issued as a Draft Final under the number P-4276. The correct report number is P-4296. Task no. AH-7-2774. The original document contains color images.</description><language>eng</language><subject>Administration and Management ; BRIEFING CHARTS ; CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ; CONTRACT MILESTONES ; CONTRACTOR FEES ; CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ; CONTRACTORS ; CPAF(COST PLUS AWARD FEE) CONTRACTS ; DECISION MAKING ; DEFENSE CONTRACTING ; DEFENSE CONTRACTORS ; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ; Economics and Cost Analysis ; FEE DETERMINATION ; INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT ; Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies ; MILITARY PROCUREMENT ; REGULATIONS</subject><creationdate>2008</creationdate><rights>Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,776,881,27546,27547</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA479202$$EView_record_in_DTIC$$FView_record_in_$$GDTIC$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Scot A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christie, Deborah P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diehl, Richard P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNicol, David L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porter, Gene H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soule, Robert R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA</creatorcontrib><title>Award Fee Study Group Report</title><description>Section 814(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess mechanisms that could ensure an independent evaluation of contractor performance supporting award fee determinations. Specifically, the FFRDC was to assess the advantages of (1) using separate award fee pools controlled by the independent fee determination board and (2) allowing contractor assessments across programs in contrast to their being made solely on the basis of the contractor's performance against the criteria set in the award fee plan. IDA performed the assessment with a study group composed of veteran senior defense acquisition officials. The study group developed a tailored alternative scenario it believed was feasible and satisfied the requirements in the NDAA. Compared to the present award fee process, the proposed change would offer little net benefit at great risk of diluting program management's influence over the contractor's behavior, which would erode rather than improve the effectiveness of the award fee process. Presented as briefing charts with accompanying textual notes. This paper was erroneously issued as a Draft Final under the number P-4276. The correct report number is P-4296. Task no. AH-7-2774. The original document contains color images.</description><subject>Administration and Management</subject><subject>BRIEFING CHARTS</subject><subject>CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION</subject><subject>CONTRACT MILESTONES</subject><subject>CONTRACTOR FEES</subject><subject>CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE</subject><subject>CONTRACTORS</subject><subject>CPAF(COST PLUS AWARD FEE) CONTRACTS</subject><subject>DECISION MAKING</subject><subject>DEFENSE CONTRACTING</subject><subject>DEFENSE CONTRACTORS</subject><subject>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE</subject><subject>Economics and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>FEE DETERMINATION</subject><subject>INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT</subject><subject>Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies</subject><subject>MILITARY PROCUREMENT</subject><subject>REGULATIONS</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>report</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>report</recordtype><sourceid>1RU</sourceid><recordid>eNrjZJBxLE8sSlFwS01VCC4pTalUcC_KLy1QCEotyC8q4WFgTUvMKU7lhdLcDDJuriHOHropJZnJ8cUlmXmpJfGOLo4m5pZGBkbGBKQBBDwgUA</recordid><startdate>200801</startdate><enddate>200801</enddate><creator>Arnold, Scot A</creator><creator>Christie, Deborah P</creator><creator>Diehl, Richard P</creator><creator>Kendall, Frank</creator><creator>McNicol, David L</creator><creator>Porter, Gene H</creator><creator>Soule, Robert R</creator><scope>1RU</scope><scope>BHM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200801</creationdate><title>Award Fee Study Group Report</title><author>Arnold, Scot A ; Christie, Deborah P ; Diehl, Richard P ; Kendall, Frank ; McNicol, David L ; Porter, Gene H ; Soule, Robert R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA4792023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reports</rsrctype><prefilter>reports</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Administration and Management</topic><topic>BRIEFING CHARTS</topic><topic>CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION</topic><topic>CONTRACT MILESTONES</topic><topic>CONTRACTOR FEES</topic><topic>CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE</topic><topic>CONTRACTORS</topic><topic>CPAF(COST PLUS AWARD FEE) CONTRACTS</topic><topic>DECISION MAKING</topic><topic>DEFENSE CONTRACTING</topic><topic>DEFENSE CONTRACTORS</topic><topic>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE</topic><topic>Economics and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>FEE DETERMINATION</topic><topic>INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT</topic><topic>Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies</topic><topic>MILITARY PROCUREMENT</topic><topic>REGULATIONS</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Scot A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christie, Deborah P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diehl, Richard P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNicol, David L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porter, Gene H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soule, Robert R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA</creatorcontrib><collection>DTIC Technical Reports</collection><collection>DTIC STINET</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Arnold, Scot A</au><au>Christie, Deborah P</au><au>Diehl, Richard P</au><au>Kendall, Frank</au><au>McNicol, David L</au><au>Porter, Gene H</au><au>Soule, Robert R</au><aucorp>INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA</aucorp><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>RPRT</ristype><btitle>Award Fee Study Group Report</btitle><date>2008-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><abstract>Section 814(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to assess mechanisms that could ensure an independent evaluation of contractor performance supporting award fee determinations. Specifically, the FFRDC was to assess the advantages of (1) using separate award fee pools controlled by the independent fee determination board and (2) allowing contractor assessments across programs in contrast to their being made solely on the basis of the contractor's performance against the criteria set in the award fee plan. IDA performed the assessment with a study group composed of veteran senior defense acquisition officials. The study group developed a tailored alternative scenario it believed was feasible and satisfied the requirements in the NDAA. Compared to the present award fee process, the proposed change would offer little net benefit at great risk of diluting program management's influence over the contractor's behavior, which would erode rather than improve the effectiveness of the award fee process. Presented as briefing charts with accompanying textual notes. This paper was erroneously issued as a Draft Final under the number P-4276. The correct report number is P-4296. Task no. AH-7-2774. The original document contains color images.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA479202
source DTIC Technical Reports
subjects Administration and Management
BRIEFING CHARTS
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACT MILESTONES
CONTRACTOR FEES
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTORS
CPAF(COST PLUS AWARD FEE) CONTRACTS
DECISION MAKING
DEFENSE CONTRACTING
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Economics and Cost Analysis
FEE DETERMINATION
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies
MILITARY PROCUREMENT
REGULATIONS
title Award Fee Study Group Report
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T16%3A40%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-dtic_1RU&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Award%20Fee%20Study%20Group%20Report&rft.au=Arnold,%20Scot%20A&rft.aucorp=INSTITUTE%20FOR%20DEFENSE%20ANALYSES%20ALEXANDRIA%20VA&rft.date=2008-01&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cdtic_1RU%3EADA479202%3C/dtic_1RU%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true