Welcome to the JSC Office of Procurement’s Industry Day April 21, 2015 Johnson Space Center Gilruth Center, Alamo Ballroom

Disclaimer These slides are for information and planning purposes only. This presentation shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government or as a description of any future requirements. If any solicitations are released, they will be synopsized on the FedBizOps NASA Acquisition Internet Service websites.

Agenda Welcome and Introduction Associate Director, Johnson Space Center Director, Office of Procurement Safety and Health Plans Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAFE) “Small Business Technical Representatives An Alternative Source Selection Technique-Performance, Price, Value Attributes Tradeoff (PPVAT) Disclosure Statements Average Incumbent Rates Evaluating Competitively Bid Prices

Melanie W. Saunders, Associate Director, Johnson Space Center Welcome Melanie W. Saunders, Associate Director, Johnson Space Center

Director, Office of Procurement Welcome Debra L. Johnson Director, Office of Procurement

Presentations Safety and Health Plans Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAFE) “Small Business Technical Representatives An Alternative Source Selection Technique-Performance, Price, Value Attributes Tradeoff (PPVAT) Disclosure Statements Average Incumbent Rates Evaluating Competitively Bid Prices

Safety and Health Plans David Loyd Safety and Mission Assurance Office and Suzan Thomas Source Selection Office

JSC Industry Day Forum April 21, 2015 Gilruth Center Evaluation of Safety and Health (S&H) Plans for Competitive Procurements Based on Risk JSC Industry Day Forum April 21, 2015 Gilruth Center

JSC’s Approach to Evaluating S&H Plans A S&H Risk Assessment will be performed to determine if the S&H Plan should be evaluated as part of the selection process In doing this assessment , the Government consider: Low, Medium and High Risk definitions (See Attachment 1 for Definitions and Attachment 2 for Examples) Safety Considerations Utilizing NAICS Codes Definition, BLS injury/Illness and fatality data, and hazard exposures. Based on that assessment, the following provides a summary how S&H Plan will be evaluated in the selection process High S&H Risk – Complete S&H Plan will be evaluated as part of selection process Medium S&H Risk – Portions of the S&H Plan will be evaluated as part of selection process Low S&H Risk – No Safety and Health Plan will be evaluated as part of selection process

JSC’s Approach to Evaluating S&H Plans. For all risk scenarios above, request/review of Past Performance Data applies (EMR rate, OSHA Logs, etc.) (unless sole source or LPTA) An approved S&H Plan is required prior to the end of Phase-In and attached to the contract

JSC’s Approach for Low Risk Procurements For Low Risk S&H procurements: Will request/review Past Performance Data (EMR rate, OSHA Logs, etc.) (unless sole source or LPTA) Will include FAR 52.236-13, “Accident Prevention” and its Alternate I in the RFP and resultant contract Will include NFS 1852.223-70, “Safety and Health” and 1852.223-75, “Major Breach of Safety or Security” in the RFP and resultant contract An approved S&H Plan is required prior to the end of Phase-In and attached to the contract Will withhold payment of phase-in until the S&H Plan is acceptable and/or use other remedies as agreed to with technical community to motivate delivery of an acceptable S&H Plan 

JSC’s Approach for Medium Risk Procurements For Medium Risk S&H procurements Will request/review Past Performance Data (EMR rate, OSHA Logs, etc.) (unless sole source or LPTA) Will include NFS 1852.223-70, 1852.223-73 “Safety and Health Plan”, and 1852.223-75 in the RFP and resultant contract Will require a portion of S&H Plan to be evaluated as part of mission suitability or technical acceptability A complete and acceptable S&H Plan is required per DRD prior to the end of Phase-In and attached to the contract Will withhold payment of phase-in until the S&H Plan is acceptable and/or use other remedies as agreed to with technical community to motivate delivery of an acceptable S&H Plan 

JSC’s Approach for High Risk Procurements For High Risk (S&H is a key discriminator) Will request/review Past Performance Data (EMR rate, OSHA Logs, etc.) on competitive procurements (unless sole source or LPTA) Will include NFS 1852.223-70, 1852.223-73, and 1852.223-75 Will require a complete S&H Plan to be evaluated as part of mission suitability or technical acceptability An approved S&H Plan is required prior to the end of Phase-In and attached to the contract Will withhold payment of phase-in until the S&H Plan is acceptable and/or use other remedies as agreed to with technical community to motivate delivery of an acceptable S&H Plan 

Attachment 1 Definition of Low and Medium Risk Services Low Risk Services Activities that engage employees and resources in tasks that are hosted in an office environment and are of a predominantly non-hazardous nature These low risk services are not likely to cause significant disruption of mission operations Includes such services as administrative services; data analysis and software development (if not associated with mission or safety-critical software development) management consulting; and project management and integration services Services where the SSA determines that a S&H Plan is not a key discriminator in the selection process Medium Risk Services Activities that engage employees and resources in tasks that are of routine labor or trades-related nature, but are at times prone to potentially severe injuries and property damages These services may likely cause the loss or disruption of center or facility operations, but are not likely to significantly impact mission operations The collocation of employees in hazardous environments may also increase the risk to these services Includes such services grounds keeping or landscape maintenance; custodial maintenance; Information Technology services; mail services; and public affairs and media activities Services where the SSA determines that an overall S&H Plan is not a key discriminator in the selection process but where key S&H information is needed to be understood in the evaluation process

Attachment 1 Definition of Low Risk Services Activities that engage employees and resources in tasks that are hosted in an office environment and are of a predominantly non-hazardous nature These low risk services are not likely to cause significant disruption of mission operations Includes such services as administrative services; data analysis and software development (if not associated with mission or safety-critical software development) management consulting; and project management and integration services Services where the SSA determines that a S&H Plan is not a key discriminator in the selection process

Attachment 1, Continued Definition of Medium Risk Services Activities that engage employees and resources in tasks that are of routine labor or trades-related nature, but are at times prone to potentially severe injuries and property damages These services may likely cause the loss or disruption of center or facility operations, but are not likely to significantly impact mission operations The collocation of employees in hazardous environments may also increase the risk to these services Includes such services grounds keeping or landscape maintenance; custodial maintenance; Information Technology services; mail services; and public affairs and media activities Services where the SSA determines that an overall S&H Plan is not a key discriminator in the selection process but where key S&H information is needed to be understood in the evaluation process

Attachment 1, Continued Definition of High Risk Services Activities that engage employees and resources in tasks that represent elevated risk of mishap, damage, or mission impact Includes such services and activities that deal with the handing and use of hazardous materials; that involve equipment hazards that can result in severe injury or high value property damages; and/or efforts that could result in the loss or disruption of mission operations For these services the SSA should determine that the S&H Plan is a key discriminator in the selection decision and must be evaluated as part of the selection process

Attachment 2 Examples of Risk Services

Strategic Acquisition Forecast Evaluation Julie Karr and Brad Niese JSC Procurement Policy and Systems Office

Small Business Technical Representatives Chuck Williams JSC Small Business Office and Rick Slater Information Resources Directorate

Alternative Source Selection Technique – Performance, Price, Value Attributes Trade-off (PPVAT) HELLO—TODAY WE WILL TALK ABOUT -- HOW TO WRITE FINDINGS WHICH IS THE BEDROCK OF ALL THINGS TO COME --WE WILL ALSO LOOK AT FINDINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH THEM ==FUTURE ACTIVITES --LASTLY, WE WILL UNRAVEL THE MYSTRY IN HOW TO WRITE FINDINGS ----I WILL THEN PASS THE BRIEFING ON TO LIL CARR, WHO WILL DISCUSS PUTTING THE FINDINGS INTO THE AUTOMATED EVALULTION SYSTEM BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND MUSIC OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE AS A TEAM --HAVE A WEEK TO READ EACH PROPOSAL , THE COMMITTEES WILL WRITE FINDINGS, THEY WILL COME TO CONSENSUS ON THESE FINDINGS, THE VOTING MEMBERS WILL COME TO CONSENSUS ON THE FINDINGS…..STRESS….POSSIBLY A LITTLE FRUSTRATION….REWIRITE ….REWRITE FINDINGS …THIS WILL TEST THE BOARD …..THEN YOU WILL GET TO GO TO THE REIVEW PROCESS

Acronym Legend SEB - Source Evaluation Board SLPT - Streamlined Procurement Team (3 Methods Discussed) PPT - Price and Past Performance Trade-off LTO - Limited Trade-off (NEW) Performance, Price, Value Attributes Trade-off PPVAT WHAT CAN YOU DO TO PREPARE— YOU HAVE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME WRITING INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEORS –SECTION L, AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO EVALUATE THAT INFORMATION PER SECTION M, NOW YOU MUST FOLLOW THAT PLAN THIS PLAN IS ALSO CAPTURED IN YOUR EVALUATION PLAN WHICH FURTHER DISCUSSES THE WORK PROCESSES AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TEAM THROUGH THE END OF THE PROCESS FOLLOWING WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO IS THE BEST DEFENSE FOR WINNING A PROTEST. IT IS AMAZING THE DEFERENCE THE GAO WILL GIVE IF WE FOLLOW WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO IN A REASONABLE FASHION BIG PICTURE IN WRITING FINDINGS— WHAT DID THEY PROPOSE OR FAIL TO PROPOSE AND WHAT WILL THE IMPACT BE. AS LONG AS THIS IS IAW L &M AND IT IS REASONABLE, WE WILL BE JUST FINE.

Comparison of Current SEB and SLPT (PPT and LTO) Factor – Mission Suitability (MS) Ex. Subfactor: Management Ex. Subfactor: Technical MS uses strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies as a basis in developing a MS score (1000 Points) Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor Relative Importance Statement Used (MS/PP/Price Cost) Factor – Technical Acceptability Pass/Fail Trade-off Factors Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor – Predefined Value Characteristics (PVC) (LTO only) Factor Relative Importance Statement Used (PP/Price/PVC for Technically Acceptable Proposals) SEB Process using MS SLPT - Both PPT & LTO

Comparison of Current SEB and SLPT (PPT and LTO) Cont. Advantages Ability to incorporate strengths into the model contract and opportunity to buy a better technical proposal. Ability to “grade” offerors’ demonstration of understanding vs pass/fail scenario on SLPT. SLPT Advantages Time/resource savings of eliminating PP and Cost/Price evaluations on Technically Unacceptable proposals vs evaluation of all factors on SEBs. Less documentation required which lowers transaction costs and acquisition risk and improves chances for award without discussions. SEB Process using MS SLPT - Both PPT & LTO

Issues with Limited Trade-off While our current process allows us to add Predefined Value Characteristics (PVC) as a trade-off factor to the SLPT process – “Limited Trade-off”, in practice it has not occurred on our service contracts. Why? Establishing PVCs for services have been difficult to establish. With more than one PVC, a relative importance difference among them can complicate the trade-off process.

New Approach - PPVAT In a nutshell, it is an SLPT, which in lieu of using “Predefined Value Characteristics”, it uses “Value Attributes” as a trade-off factor with Cost and PP. With “Value Attributes” we open it up to offerors to include any techniques or processes that they consider to increase the efficiency or effectiveness of performance above the baseline requirement.   Offerors must be able to explain why it is of benefit, how it is to be implemented and provide implementing language to the model contract to get credit. Keep page limit small for this factor- Recommend no more than 10 pages.

Notional “L” Language L.XX.X Value Attribute - Volume III The offeror shall describe any technique or process that it considers to increase the efficiency or effectiveness in the performance of NAME OF REQUIREMENT, which it considers above the baseline requirement of the Technical Acceptability factor. The offeror shall describe how these techniques or processes would be implemented and why they are of benefit to the Government. Any proposed technique or process proposed, must be addressed in DRD-XX-XX, Value Attributes, to capture these concept(s) contractually. Duplication of content or concepts that are included under the Technical Acceptability Factor is acceptable.

Notional “M” Language M.XX.X Value Attribute - Volume III Only techniques or processes cited in this Volume and addressed in DRD-XX-XX, Value Attributes, will be evaluated under the Value Attribute Factor. These item(s) will be evaluated for efficiency, effectiveness, reasonableness, suitability and consistency with proposed approach under the Technical Acceptability Factor. This evaluation will be used to rate the overall value of the techniques and processes.

Notional “M” Language ( Continued) A rating will be assessed at the overall factor level Offeror Value Attribute Assessment Ratings will be assigned as follows:   Significant Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that significantly add to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement. Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that add to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement. No/Minimal Value Added – Aspect(s) of the Value Attribute’s proposal that add a minimal amount of value or add no value to the potential for efficiency and/or effectiveness to contract performance above the baseline requirement.

Relative Importance Language-Default Language For those Offerors who are determined to be “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, tradeoffs will be made between Past Performance, Value Attributes, and Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Cost/Price is more important than Value Attributes. Past Performance is significantly more important than Value Attributes. When combined, Past Performance and Value Attributes are more important than Cost/Price.

Point of Contact Information Craig Burridge Team Lead – JSC Source Selection Office Craig.G.Burridge@nasa.gov

Rosa Arevalo, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office Disclosure Statements (DS) Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Offerors’ Responsibility For Submitting DS Accounting System Requirements Rosa Arevalo, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office 2

What is a Disclosure Statement? It is a written description of a contractor’s cost accounting practices and procedures How costs are accounted for: Methods of distinguishing direct from indirect costs Basis used for allocating indirect costs Means of measuring consistency and compliance of day-to-day cost accounting with applicable CAS Must be adequate – accurately describe the practices and procedures i.e. current, accurate and complete Must be compliant – with FAR, CAS

What are Cost Accounting Standards? CAS is a set of standards and rules for use in determining costs on negotiated procurements. CAS addresses cost accounting--the measurement, assignment, and allocation of costs to Government contracts There are currently 19 standards Ref: 48 CFR 9903.201-1 (CAS Applicability)

Why a Disclosure Statement is Required at Contract Award FAR 30.202-6(b) “The contracting officer shall not award a CAS-covered contract until the cognizant Federal agency official (CFAO) has made a written determination that a required Disclosure Statement is adequate unless, in order to protect the Government's interest, the agency head, on a non-delegable basis, authorizes award without obtaining submission of the required Disclosure Statement. In this event, the contractor shall submit the required Disclosure Statement and the CFAO shall make a determination of adequacy as soon as possible after the award.”

Relationship: DS & CAS DS required of entities subject to CAS Board’s Rules and Regulations Entities subject to CAS are subject to either: Full coverage - Subject to all 19 CAS Standards Modified Coverage – Subject to 4 Standards CAS 401, 402, 405, 406 Ref FAR 52.230-3 (a) (1)

CAS Coverage Determine when a contract is: Not subject to CAS Subject to Modified CAS Subject to Full CAS

Exemptions from CAS Negotiated contract / subcontract for $700,000 or less Sealed bid contract Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract / subcontract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without the submission of cost or pricing data FFP contracts / subcontracts for commercial items Contracts / subcontracts price set by law Contracts / subcontracts with small business Current contract less than $7.5M or business unit NOT currently performing on CAS-covered contract or subcontract of $7.5M or more

Determination of Modified CAS Coverage Three questions for Awards Exceeding $7.5M: Is the current award $50M or more? Did the business receive $50M or more in net CAS covered awards in the preceding accounting period? Has the business unit received a single CAS covered award of $50M or more during the current cost accounting period? If answer to all three questions is “No”, then contract is subject to Modified CAS Coverage

Modified Coverage Modified CAS covered contracts are subject to the following Cost Accounting Standards: CAS 401 - Consistency in Estimating, Accumulating, and Reporting Costs; CAS 402 - Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same Purpose; CAS 405 – Accounting for Unallowable Costs; CAS 406 – Cost Accounting Period

Determination of Full CAS Coverage If the answer to any of the three preceding questions is “Yes”, then the award is fully-covered and therefore subject to all 19 Cost Accounting Standards

When is a Disclosure Statement (DS) Required? DS is required if a contractor has a single fully CAS-covered contract For modified CAS-covered contracts, two questions need to be asked: a. Did the company together with its segments receive $50M or more in net CAS-covered awards during the preceding cost accounting period? If answer is “No” - DS not required If answer is “Yes” - Go to b. b. Are the business unit’s CAS-covered awards in the prior year $10M or more AND 30% or more of total segment sales? If answer is “Yes” - DS is required

CAS Coverage and DS Determination Negotiated government contract/subcontract for $700,000 or less

Responsibility of Offeror It is the Offerors’ responsibility to determine if a prospective contract will require the submission of a Disclosure Statement (DS) and complete the Offerors’ fill-ins in Section K Provision 52.320-1 Cost Accounting Standards, Notices, And Certification Plan ahead for obtaining an adequate DS According to the latest information from DCAA, a few months is required to complete an Adequacy audit depending on issues that may arise with the DS

Responsibility of DCAA & DCMA FAR 30.202-6(c) “The cognizant auditor is responsible for conducting reviews of Disclosure Statements for adequacy and compliance.” The DCAA is responsible for performing audits of the DS FAR 30.202-6(d) “The CFAO is responsible for issuing determinations of adequacy and compliance of the Disclosure Statement.” When delegated by the Contracting Officer, DCMA is the CFAO for purposes of the Disclosure Statement

Tracking Disclosure Statements Offeror Prepares Disclosure Statement DCAA Audits & Reports to DCMA DCMA Determines Adequacy Contract can be Awarded Determination of Adequacy Determination of Inadequacy Contract cannot be Awarded

What is Accounting System and Requirements? Accounting System is a company’s business system that allows segregation of costs by contract, by job codes, by type (direct & indirect) and indirect costs by account and pool. Manual or Computerized Records It requires Government Audit and Approval FAR 16.301-3 “Limitations” requires that a contractor’s accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. Adequate Accounting Systems are required regardless of Business Size

Summary Determine CAS Coverage – based on RFP No CAS coverage Modified Coverage Full Coverage Determine need for Disclosure Statement No CAS coverage No DS required (Exemptions) Modified Coverage May require DS Full Coverage DS required Ensure DS and Accounting Systems are Adequate Plan ahead for obtaining Adequacy Determinations for DS and Accounting System Adequate time must be allowed for DCAA to complete Accounting System and DS Adequacy audits

Questions? 2

John Moore Cost/Price Analyst Source Selection Office/BB Disclosing Average Composite Direct Labor Rates During Follow-on Competitions [Applicable to primarily Services-based Contracts] John Moore Cost/Price Analyst Source Selection Office/BB

Current Approach Provide non-proprietary, historical information in the technical library. Note: Not to be construed as the Government’s requirements or preferences regarding contract staffing or compensation Average incumbent direct labor rates by SLC (e.g., current year’s average hourly rate for contractor Engineer IIs) For SLCs with ≤ 5 persons, a rates range is provided Length of service of incumbent employees, bucketed into ranges (e.g., % employees with 0-5 years experience, 6-10 years, 11-20 years, 21+ years) Benefits to Industry Saves time and effort associated with proposal preparation Increases likelihood of shortened timeline from proposal submittal to contract award If there are no proposal issues that require discussions prior to source selection decision, model contract rates that accurately reflect each offeror’s proposed approach allow for ‘award without discussions’ Benefits to Government Saves time and effort associated with proposal evaluation Increases likelihood of ‘award without discussions’, and hence shortened source selection timeline

Questions?

Sheela Logan Pricing Team Lead Source Selection Office/BB Evaluating Competitively Bid Prices: Why the Government asks for Cost/Price data, and what we do with it Sheela Logan Pricing Team Lead Source Selection Office/BB

Why the Government Asks for Cost/Price Data Ensure that the Government contracts for products and services at fair and reasonable Prices [FAR 15.404-1, FAR 15.403-3, NFS 1815.304-70(c)] Ensure consistency between stated Mission Suitability (MS) or Technical Acceptability (TA) approaches and proposed Cost/Price Cost Reimbursement (CR): assessment of the probable Cost of doing business with prospective contractors [FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404-1(d)(2), NFS 1815.305] Fixed Price (FP): assessment of contract performance risks, if any, associated with proposed Price [NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A)] Provide the Source Selection Authority with appropriate level of assessment of Cost/Price, for selection purposes [FAR 15.304(c)(1)]

Mission Suitability/Technical Acceptability Templates (Typically ‘housed’ in Cost/Price Volume) Technical Resources Template (TRT), Technical Resources Summary Template (TRST) – provide insight into staffing approach by WBS or SOW TRT summarizes proposed skill mix and basis of estimates (BOEs) for Contract Year (CY) 1; per Task Order TRST summarizes labor resources and BOEs, and sometimes non-labor resources, for all Task Orders Total Compensation templates [TC(a) through TC(e)] – templates supplement Total Compensation Plan (TCP) narrative Templates provide insight into direct labor rates for exempt and non-exempt employees, fringe packages and associated costs, and assumptions regarding incumbent employee retention and compensation Evaluate for consistency between MS/TA staffing and compensation approaches, and Cost/Price templates Ensure Cost/Price reflects compliance with any applicable labor-related laws, wage and fringe minimums, and/or Collective Bargaining Agreements

Excel Pricing Model - Purpose Excel Pricing Model (EPM): what and why Comprehensive, working model of the Offeror’s proposed Cost Volume; automated to the extent possible Includes Cost/Price templates, as appropriate; common examples listed below Assists with consistency, and hence fairness in Cost/Price evaluation, across all Offerors Reduces opportunity for ambiguities or misunderstandings during proposal evaluation, and therefore the probability of Discussions due to Cost/Price issues Streamlines Cost/Price evaluations What we do with EPM data Make probable cost and/or risk assessments (includes labor and non-labor resources, direct and indirect rates) In the event of a MS finding/TA risk with impact to resources, appropriate template is adjusted (CR); or performance risks associated with Price, if any, are noted (FP) In the event of inconsistencies between Model Contract, MS/TA and Cost/Price volumes, Cost/Price may be adjusted based on order of precedence stated in the RFP (CR); or performance risks associated with Price, if any, are noted (FP) In the event of inconsistencies between Prime and Subcontractor submittals, appropriate template is adjusted to reflect error correction (CR); or performance risks associated with Price, if any, are noted (FP)

Data Typically Requested Cost/Price Templates typically found in EPM (Note: templates used in some combination, as appropriate) Fully Burdened Rates (FBR) Template – provides insight into build-up of FBRs Labor Pricing Template (LPT) – provides insight into labor component of Price; for Completion Form efforts Prime Summary Cost Template (PSCT) – provides insight into Prime’s cost build-up; for Completion Form efforts Major Subcontractor Cost Template (MSCT) – provides insight into Major Subcontractor’s rates/cost build-up; for Completion Form efforts Task Order Pricing Template (TOPT) – provides individual TO pricing build-up; for IDIQ efforts IDIQ Summary Cost Template (ISCT) – provides total IDIQ Cost/Price Overhead Template (OHT) - provides insight into composition of the burden pool and base for proposed Overhead rates; also includes Offeror’s Overhead history Prime and Major Subs provide applicable Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) or complete this template General & Administrative Expense Template (GAT) – provides insight into composition of the burden pool and business base for proposed G&A rates; also includes Offeror’s G&A history Phase-In Template (PIT) – provides insight into resources, including labor skill mix and subcontractor costs, associated with Phase-In Price

October 2015 – next Procurement Industry Forum Join our new mailing list for industry announcements at https://lists.nasa.gov/mailman/listinfo/ jsc-industry-announcements

Questions or Comments?

Thank you for coming, and please drive safely.