Welcome to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Pricing Forum Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Gilruth Center, Alamo Ballroom 1:30 – 3:30 PM

Safety and Administrative Information Restrooms can be found in the hallway outside this ballroom Fire exits are the front entrance and side exit doors. In the event of a fire, you must move at least 75ft. away from the building Fire Exits Fire Exit Fire Exit Restrooms

URL: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/procpub.htm General Information Office of Procurement External Web Page URL: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/procpub.htm

Agenda The Past – Where we were. The Present – Where we are. SEB pricing process Cost realism probable cost adjustments Offerors proposals: Observations Technical Resources Efficiencies Independent Government Estimate (IGE) The Future – Where we want to be. Process Improvements and Streamlining where warranted

SEB Process Industry Day ASM SYNOPSIS Respond to DRFP Questions NASA Business Forecast Published Acquisition Plan and SOW Industry Day ASM SYNOPSIS Respond to DRFP Questions Preproposal Conference Draft RFP Released RFP Released Competitive Range Determination Respond to RFP Questions Receive Proposals Discussions with Remaining Offerors Receive FPRs Request Final Proposal Revisions Award Contract Debriefings Post Award Debriefings Pre Award Debriefings

The Past It was a “Less Complicated” World Generally had single Contract Type Proposals LOE was common Fewer SEBs Technical Resources were included in the Cost Volume Did not facilitate technical analysis very well Supporting BOE narrative not traceable to resource templates Weaknesses were not disclosed to offerors

The Present Complexity Multiple Contracting Methods in each Solicitation High Volume of SEBs/SECs and competitors Shift from LOE contracting to Performance Base Contracting requiring more analysis Need for speed, accuracy, and consistent treatment Weaknesses disclosed to offerors in the competitive range Discriminators imperative in very competitive procurements Volume of competitors includes Primes and Subs

Benefits of Standardization Speed Government starts evaluation on day one Offerors know what to expect Offerors have more time to work on substance (objective requirements) Accuracy – Standardized templates designed to only receive pertinent data Electronic Pricing Models designed to produce accurate, error-free, estimates Offerors can estimate cost early to perform internal assessments and to be prepared for final proposal submittal Consistency Standardization leads to an apples to apples cost comparison Ensures no offeror omits cost that may be required Allows for standard presentation to the Source Selection Authority

The SEB Pricing Process What is done with your cost/price proposal once it is submitted: Request DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) audit Read cost proposal Validate each offeror’s pricing model Integrate and automate Team pricing models Test model for errors to ensure consistency with approach Make probable cost adjustments Develop pricing presentation charts for SSA

Cost Realism Probable Cost Adjustments Errors and reconciliations Labor Incumbent labor rates/salary assumptions, if proposed Escalation Productive factor Uncompensated/compensated overtime DOL wage determination compliance DCAA input Non-technical in-house analysis (indirect cost, DOL WD fringe compliance, etc) Technical analysis (FTE quantity, skill mix, non-labor resources)

Offerors Proposals: Observations Offerors not bidding to the solicitation: Ensure that their proposal reconciles to the new solicitation, not the current work Don’t make assumptions if differences exist, ask questions Proposals with omissions: All offerors may consider working to a checklist If the Government is requiring information you may not be able to provide, ask questions

Offerors Proposals: Observations Proposals with references to old or other Agency solicitations Lack of adequate supporting rationale in narrative form: The basis of any estimate needs to be explained. Be specific and objective Lack of reconciliation between different areas of the proposal The technical and management approach should be consistent with each other and the staffing and respective cost should reflect those approaches

Prior to Technical Part 2 Management and Technical Volumes Cost/Price Volume Detailed Technical resources captured in the Cost Volume Technical and Mgmt Volumes only addressed resources at the total contract level Difficult to determine if the costs reflected the technical and management approaches? Difficult to make accurate probable adjustments to cost for inconsistencies?

Management and Technical Approach w/ Resource Data Technical Part 2 Management and Technical Approach w/ Resource Data = Cost/Price Volume Detailed Technical Resources included in the technical volume Resources drill down to specific areas of the SOW and only relevant selection critical information is requested Technical Evaluator checks if resources reflect technical and management approaches Strengths and Weaknesses tied to resources Costs reflect the impact of Tech/Mgmt Approach

Proposed Efficiencies Goal: Efficiencies proposed are realistic, adequately supported and reconcilable to the technical & management approach. Ensure that the benefit is explained with words and numbers Explain the timeframe of the efficiency’s benefit

Staffing Profile Efficiencies should explain this gap. This gap needs to be explained in terms of efficiencies or cost savings. Efficiencies should explain this gap. Basis of estimate should explain this gap.

Independent Government Estimate (IGE) At JSC, the IGE for FTE (Full Time Equivalents) and the skill mix is published in the solicitation generally at one WBS level higher than where you are required to estimate. SEB Internal RFP 2.0 7 Eng. 2 Tech 2.1 3 Eng 1 Tech 2.2 2 Eng 2.3 2 Eng 1 Tech 2.0 7 Eng. 2 Tech

Independent Government Estimate (IGE) IGE represents the government’s best estimate to satisfy the requirements Does not necessarily represent current or historical experience. The IGE does not represent a ceiling or a baseline. If you believe an area of the WBS requires additional FTE over the IGE, don’t simply lower other areas to compensate. IGE FTE and skill mix represent total estimated personnel (direct & indirect) to satisfy requirements. Even if the IGE is proposed, all proposed FTE levels should adequately support the proposed technical & management approach.

The Future Questions? Answers Are we asking for information in the most effective manner? Are we using the best practices? Answers Internal Pricing Team sweep of templates and practices Benchmarking JSC practices Government-Contractor working group discussion Forums

Results of Pricing Sweep Standardized the names of all JSC Pricing Templates Discovered we had multiple names for some Templates Standardized the format of workbooks Technical Workbook and the Pricing Workbooks IDIQ and LOE workbooks will use same set of templates Templates will still be customized to reflect the individual specifications of each contract. Goal: Standardize all templates to be consistent and only ask for relevant and pertinent data for each procurement. This means customizing specific templates for specific procurements; however, general format of templates and instructions to remain constant.

Benchmarking Currently collecting and analyzing the templates and instructions of other NASA Centers Looking for things similar and different and investigating why other centers have adopted their processes Looking for things we do that others do not do and ensuring that additional JSC requirements add value

Future Dialogue Forums Audience: Contract Personnel involved in preparing competitive proposals Format: Smaller working group to discuss specific pricing issues Topics: Technical Resources Part 2 Pricing Templates Evaluation Methodology and Cost Adjustments

Deputy Manager Procurement Policy & Systems Office Contact Information Deputy Manager Procurement Policy & Systems Office José Garcia 281-483-4117 Price Analyst David Wilson 281-483-3385