300 likes | 673 Views
INCENTIVE CONTRACTS David Dudley (ESC Pricing Chief) Paul Hovsepian (Raytheon VP, Contracts). Incentive Contracts. Changing Environment Incentivizing Acquisition Outcomes Understanding CPIF & FPIF Incentive Structures in Negotiations. Changing Environment. December 2005, GAO Report
E N D
INCENTIVE CONTRACTS David Dudley (ESC Pricing Chief) Paul Hovsepian (Raytheon VP, Contracts)
Incentive Contracts Changing Environment Incentivizing Acquisition Outcomes Understanding CPIF & FPIF Incentive Structures in Negotiations
Changing Environment • December 2005, GAO Report • “DOD Has Paid Billions in Award and Incentive Fees Regardless of Acquisition Outcomes” • 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec 814) • “…award fees link such fees to acquisition outcomes (which shall be defined in terms of program cost, schedule, and performance)” • “…no award fee may be paid for contractor performance that is judged to be below satisfactory performance or performance that does not meet the basic requirements of the contract”
Changing Environment • April 2007, OSD AT&L Memo • “It is the policy of the Department that objective criteria will be utilized, whenever possible, to measure contract performance” • 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec 867) • Substantially similar language as 2007 NDAA
Changing Environment • Award fee contracts (CPAF) became a popular contract type for efforts where Firm Fixed Price (FFP) was not suitable. CPAF provided a mechanism to incentivize many areas of performance – subjective and objective. • Traditional incentive contracts (CPIF / FPIF) have been used infrequently for many years.
Transitioning to IF Contracts • The transition from CPAF to CPIF and FPIF has been difficult for many. • How can the Government incentivize acquisition outcomes previously incentivized through the use of Award Fees?
Incentivizing Acquisition Outcomes • Gov’t program teams must decide on the behaviors they wish to motivate and incentivize contractors accordingly. • Cost, Schedule, Technical Performance, etc. • These should be clearly defined, objective criteria (i.e. easy to evaluate) that meet or exceed the requirement.
Motivating Contractors • A contractor wants to put a quality product in the warfighter’s hands at a fair and reasonable price. • A contractor wants to satisfy their customer. • The acquisition office • Good past performance ratings are important • Ability to meet schedule is critical
Contract Types • The contractor’s goal is to meet the requirements as efficiently and quickly as possible. • Cost and schedule often have a direct correlation • Programs that finish ahead of schedule are often under budget and vice versa
Multiple IncentivesProceed with Caution • Competing incentives and contractor behavior • Competing incentives often force trade-offs to maximize incentive $ earned • The contractor and the Government may not agree on the priority/importance of incentives
“All or Nothing” Incentives • “All or Nothing” incentives are powerful but can also have unintended consequences. If incentive becomes unattainable, all motivation for contractor is lost. • Instead consider a tiered/scaled approach.
“All or Nothing” Incentives • “All or Nothing” never makes sense for a cost incentive. • Example: • Contractor earns $1,000,000 incentive if he completes effort at or below a certain cost • The best financial outcome for the Govt is if the contractor misses the incentive by 1 dollar. (Govt pays $999,999 less) • Govt should never establish an incentive where it is not in Govt’s best interest for contractor to earn the entire incentive (i.e. rooting against the contractor)
Incentives • How does CPIF and FPIF work? • How and when are contractor’s are motivated in the IF environment? • Why do contractor’s like IF contracts?
Cost Incentive Graphs • Graphing Cost Incentives is critical in understanding how they work. • Graph becomes very important when comparing alternatives and offers and provide insight into the contractor’s thought process.
CPIFReview • Target Cost: The anticipated cost of the effort • Target Fee: The fee earned if the final cost equals the Target Cost • Share Ratio: The share of each dollar of overrun or underrun borne by the Gov’t/Contractor ratio • Min/Max Fee: The min or max fee the contractor receives regardless of the amount of cost overrun (min fee) or underrun (max fee) • Range of Incentive Effectiveness: Area under the curve where the contractor is most incentivized
Target Fee Target Cost Target Cost $100.00 Target Fee 9.00 (9.0%) Target Cost & Fee $109.00 Minimum Fee $ 4.00 Maximum Fee $ 14.00 Share Ratio: Over 80 /20 Under 80 / 20 100 / 0 Max Fee 80 / 20 (under) 80 / 20 (over) 100 / 0 Min Fee
Target Cost $100.00 Target Fee 9.00 (9.0%) Target Cost & Fee $109.00 Minimum Fee $ 4.00 Maximum Fee $ 14.00 Share Ratio: Over 80 /20 Under 80 / 20 100 / 0 Max Fee 80 / 20 (under) 80 / 20 (over) 100 / 0 Min Fee
Target Cost $100.00 Target Fee 9.00 (9.0%) Target Cost & Fee $109.00 Minimum Fee $ 4.00 Maximum Fee $ 14.00 Share Ratio: Over 80 /20 Under 80 / 20 100 / 0 Max Fee 80 / 20 (under) 50/50 Share Line 80 / 20 (over) 100 / 0 Min Fee
FPIFReview • Target Cost: The anticipated cost of the effort • Target Profit: The profit earned if the final cost equals the Target Cost • Ceiling Price: The max amount the Gov’t is obligated to pay the contractor • Share Ratio: Same as CPIF • Point of Total Assumption: The point on the cost overrun share line where cost plus profit equals Ceiling Price – share line becomes 0/100
Target Profit Target Cost PTA Target Cost $100.00 Target Profit 12.00 (12.0%) Target Price $112.00 Ceiling Price $130.00 (130%) Share Ratio: Over 70 / 30 Under 70 / 30 70 / 30 (under) 70 / 30 (over) 0/100
Cost Incentive Geometry • Cost Incentives are not one-size-fits-all • Each element of cost incentive structure is important • Don’t just focus on Target Cost & Target Fee or Profit • The geometry (Share Lines, Min & Max Fees, Ceiling Price) is what creates the incentive • The geometry can be a powerful tool in the reaching settlement
Incentive Geometry FPIF Financially, which offer is the best for the Govt?
Target Profit Target Cost Target Cost $100.00 Target Profit 12.00 (12.0%) Target Price $112.00 Ceiling Price $130.00 (130%) Share Ratio: Over 70 / 30 Under 70 / 30 70 / 30 (under) Offeror B Offeror A 70 / 30 (over) Offeror C 0/100 All three offers are financially identical
Incentive Geometry Understanding Share Lines • Any point along the same share line is financially equal as long as: • CPIF: Min & Max Fee $ are held constant • FPIF: Ceiling Price $ are held constant
Incentive Structures In Negotiations • Alternative Settlement Offers: Which would Contractor choose? Answer: It depends
Target Profit B Target Profit A Target Cost B Target Cost A Offer A Offer B Target Cost $10.00 $ 9.50 Target Profit 1.00 (10%) 1.14 (12%) Target Price $11.00 $10.64 Ceiling Price $12.50 (125%) $12.83 (135%) Share Ratio: Over 70 / 30 80 / 20 Under 70 / 30 80 / 20
Offer A Offer B Target Cost $10.00 $ 9.50 Target Profit 1.00 (10%) 1.14 (12%) Target Price $11.00 $10.64 Ceiling Price $12.50 (125%) $12.83 (135%) Share Ratio: Over 70 / 30 80 / 20 Under 70 / 30 80 / 20 If Ktr expects final cost to be more than $9.5M he should choose Offer B If Ktr expects final cost to be $9.5M or less he should choose Offer A
Incentive GeometryIn Source Selection • Competition can drive overly aggressive incentive geometry • Government should seriously consider specifying incentive geometry in RFP (except Target Cost). • Target Fee % / Profit % • Min & Max Fee % / Ceiling Price % • Share Ratios • Lessens risk of unrealistically: • narrow RIE or • low ceiling price
Summary • Select right contract type • Incentivize acquisition outcomes • Create arrangements that fairly reflect risk • Keep it as simple as possible