Welcome to the JSC Office of Procurement’s Industry Day July 22, 2014 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 JSC Award Fee Process Associate Director, Johnson Space Center Director, Office of Procurement JSC Award Fee Process JSC’s Electronic Contracting Initiatives “JSC Connections” Question & Answer Session

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

Agenda Welcome and Introduction JSC Award Fee Process Associate Director, Johnson Space Center Director, Office of Procurement JSC Award Fee Process JSC’s Electronic Contracting Initiatives “JSC Connections” Question & Answer Session

Award Fee Process Jim Gips, Contracting Officer Procurement Policy & Systems Office Cynthia Maclean, Contracting Officer Operations Support Procurement Office Rochelle Overstreet, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office

Award Fee Agenda What is Award Fee? Award Fee for Service Contract Clause Award Fee for End Item Contract Clause Award Fee Participants and Roles Award Fee Process Overview Award Fee Adjectives and Definitions Use of Award Fee Data Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Policy Award Fee Reference Points

What is Award Fee? Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts include an estimated cost and an award fee amount that is paid based upon periodic subjective evaluations of contractor performance. Contractor performance is evaluated by a team of Government technical and procurement personnel.

Award Fee for Service Contracts Award Fee for Service Contracts NFS 1852.216-76 (Services) AF periods may not exceed 1 year in length, periods typically 6 months. Provides for monthly provisional payments and a final payment for each AF period. Amount of AF available for provisional payments shall not exceed 80% of the available payment or the prior period AF score, whichever is less. Final payment for the period will supersede the provisional payments. AF not earned in a period cannot be rolled into future periods. Evaluations resulting in poor/unsatisfactory ratings receive no fee. AF determinations are unilateral decisions made by the Government. Base Fee is not permitted. 15% or $100K whichever is smaller shall be held back to ensure support of closeout activities.

Award Fee for End Item Contracts Award Fee for End Item Contracts NFS 1852.216-77 (Hardware) Base fee is permissible and is based on percent complete. AF periods may be less than or greater than 6 months, periods should be tied to contract milestones but may not exceed 12 months. Provides for monthly provisional payments and an interim payment for each AF period. Amount of AF available for provisional payments shall not exceed 80% of the available payment or the prior period AF score, whichever is less. Interim payment for the period will supersede the provisional payments. Interim payments superseded by final determined contract performance. No AF or base fee will be paid if the final evaluation is poor/unsatisfactory. AF determinations are unilateral decisions made by the Government. 15% or $100K whichever is smaller shall be held back to ensure support of closeout activities.

Award Fee Participants and Roles The Performance Evaluation Board – Integrated Team (PEB-IT) is comprised of the Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Officer Representative (COR), and Technical Monitor Representatives (TMRs). These individuals monitor contract performance throughout the AF period and will evaluate the contractor’s performance including their self evaluation after each evaluation period and prepare a summary of the evaluations for review by the PEB. The Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) is comprised of senior level managers from the acquiring organization and contract stakeholders from other organizations. The PEB will evaluate the PEB-IT’s findings and the contractor’s performance, including the self evaluation, after each evaluation period and will prepare a summary of the evaluation for review by the Fee Determination Official (FDO). The FDO can be a senior-level HQ manager, the JSC Deputy or Associate Director, or in cases for smaller dollar contracts where the responsibility has been delegated, lower level senior managers. The FDO will make a performance and score determination for each period after considering available and pertinent information and recommendations.

Award Fee Process Overview The AF Plan is developed as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The Government determines Areas of Emphasis prior to the beginning of the AF period. The Government will monitor contractor performance during the evaluation period. The contractor can provide a self assessment. The PEB-IT presents its findings and evaluation to the PEB. The contractor is invited to present their self evaluation to the PEB. The PEB reviews the contractor’s self evaluation and the PEB-IT’s findings and makes recommendations to the FDO. The contractor is offered an opportunity to reclama. The FDO makes a final decision. Payment is then made to the contractor.

Award Fee Adjectives & Definitions (FAR 16.401(e)

Use of Award Fee Data First and foremost, the AF evaluation is used to determine performance and fee commensurate with performance. Second, AF performance evaluations are used to augment Past Performance data in competitive procurements. AF performance data is entered into Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) by the CO. During evaluation of Past Performance, the CO will query Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIPRS) for available AF data on contract performance. AF data found in PPIPRS will be used to help establish an offeror’s performance history.

CPARS Policy Communications with contractors are vital to improved performance and this is NASA’s primary objective in evaluating past performance. Other objectives include providing data for future source selections. (NFS 1842.1501) Contracting officers shall ensure that the Government discusses all evaluations with contractors and shall record the date and the participants on the evaluation form. (NFS 1842.1503) Contracting officers shall sign and date the evaluation after considering any comments received from the contractor within 30 days of the contractor’s receipt of the evaluation. (NFS 1842.1503) If a contractor in its timely comments disagrees with an evaluation and requests a review at a level above the contracting officer, it shall be provided within 30 days. (NFS 1842.1503)

Award Fee Reference Points Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.401 (e), (f), and (g), Incentive Contracts NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 16.405-2, Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts NFS 1842.1501 and 1842.1503, Contractor Performance Information

Questions or Comments?

Electronic Contracting Initiatives and their Impacts on Industry Wendy S. Crisman, Contracting Officer Procurement Policy & Systems Office

What is the Electronic Contracting Initiative? JSC’s Office of Procurement has chartered an Electronic Contracting Team (E-Team) to explore and initiate electronic procurement processes The team’s goal in implementing these electronic processes is to ensure cost and time savings for both the Government and Industry, smoother workflows, and a reduced carbon footprint for contract actions by reducing, and ultimately eliminating, paper

E-Processes Implementation Processes Being Implemented: E-Data Requirements Deliverable (DRD) submissions E-invoice submission and processing E-submit only, via the method outlined in your contract Digital signatures Only on certain documents at this time E-distribution of all award documents E-Purchase Order files Upcoming E-Processes: E-submission of proposals

Expected Benefits to Industry Cost Savings Elimination of requirements to print, mail, or hand carry hard-copy letters, certain deliverables, and proposal data will lead to: Lessened time required to print and compile hard-copy documents Elimination of “re-printing” and “re-mailing” submissions in the event of RFP Amendments Lower bid and proposal costs Quicker turnaround times achieved by both Government and Industry

Expected Benefits to Industry Other Benefits Smoother workflow processes, as there will be less administrative burden associated with preparing and handling hard-copy proposals, invoices, and deliverables Overall reduced carbon footprint and increased environmental responsibility If you believe your company could benefit from use of these processes, contact your Contracting Officer to initiate discussions with contract stakeholders and implement contract modifications, where applicable

Questions or Comments?

Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office JSC Connections Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office

What is JSC Connections? JSC’s Office of Procurement has identified a way to provide a platform for collaboration and innovation through the use of “JSC Connections”. This web link will allow the Office of Procurement to post new ideas and solicit feedback from Industry, aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future competitive processes, as well as allow businesses to submit questions and feedback on existing competitive processes. JSC Connections will allow Industry to submit their input directly to the Office of Procurement. The desire is to foster working-level exchanges, in addition to executive communiques. While the source of any Industry input will remain anonymous when published, when engaging with the Government, Industry will have an opportunity to either remain anonymous or provide contact information to allow further collaboration if necessary. The intent of JSC Connections is to publish information based on those topics or ideas that would better serve the contracting community as a whole.

Intended Uses This tool will provide the Office of Procurement an avenue to seek feedback and/or socialize new processes or initiatives. Thumb drives vs. CDs for data submission Strengths in Discussions Average SLC rate data in the technical library Allows the contracting community to ask generic questions about JSC procurement processes. Responses of interest to the overall contracting community will typically be provided within 4 working days This tool is not intended to solicit feedback or questions about ongoing competitive acquisitions.

Where can I find “JSC Connections”? JSC Connections can be found in the “Feedback & Guides” section of the Office of Procurement website http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/

Office of Procurement Website “Feedback & Guides” section

Disclosing Average Composite Direct Labor Rates The Government anticipates providing historical average composite direct labor rates in the applicable Source Evaluation Board (SEB) or Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) technical library. The Government also anticipates providing information on the approximate seniority profile of incumbent employees. Please note that any incumbent compensation information provided would be for historical purposes only, and should therefore not be construed as the Government’s requirements or preferences regarding contract staffing or compensation.

Strengths in Discussions The goal is to allow for an exchange during discussions, if held, where strengths may be enhanced or broadened to other areas of the statement of work, thereby increasing best value to the Government.    The scope and extent of the strengths negotiations are a matter of Contracting Officer discretion. 

Flash Drives for Proposal Submission As an offeror, what is your preference – to submit your electronic copies via CD or flash drive and why?  Would you prefer that we give offerors the option of submitting proposals in either CDs or flash drives? Which method (CDs or flash drives) is more cost effective? Are there any unique Information Technology security issues associated with submitting proposals on flash drives? Are there any other issues associated with submitting proposals on flash drives of which the JSC Office of Procurement needs to be made aware?

JSC Source Selection Updates

Solicitation Updates This briefing is provided for informational purposes only and does not apply to any specific solicitation. Each solicitation has its own set of Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors and Evaluation Factors for Award. When submitting proposals in response to a solicitation, carefully read the Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors and Evaluation Factors for Award for that particular solicitation.

Section L The solicitation language for section L has been revised to clarify the instructions regarding sections of the proposal that are page limited and sections of the proposal which are not subject to page limitations.

Section L.13 Instructions for Proposal Preparation L.13.X Proposal Arrangements, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Dates Page Limited - content in the page limited proposal sections shall comply with the page limitation requirements set forth in the solicitation Unlimited Pages - the offeror should ensure readability of content in the proposal sections that are not subject to page limitation requirements

Questions or Comments?

Question & Answer Session

Thank you for coming, and please drive safely.