Welcome to the NCMA Conference SLPT/LPTA Updates Breakout Wednesday, November 20, 2013 Gilruth Center 12:45 p.m.

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. 2

Objective To communicate the key features of the JSC Source Selection processes to provide a more thorough understanding for acquisition professionals and to help Industry better prepare and respond to the JSC Request for Proposals. 3

Agenda 4 SpeakerSubject Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office Streamlined Procurement Team Process J. R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process

Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) Process Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office 5

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions SLPTSEB Dollar ValueGenerally under $50MGenerally over $50M Technical Evaluation Technical Acceptability, (both PPT & LTO), Pass/Fail basis Mission Suitability, Score from 0 to 1,000 Technical ProposalOptional (SLPT determines) Yes Trade-Off FactorsValue Characteristics (Optional), Past Performance, and Cost/Price Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Past PerformanceAdjectival Level of Confidence Rating 6

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued SLPTSEB Cost/Price EvaluationYes Eligibility for AwardYes * Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle” Yes * All cost-reimbursable acquisitions require adequacy of accounting systems regardless of dollar value. Some cost-reimbursable acquisitions will require adequacy of Disclosure Statements (DS) for Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) covered contracts. The solicitation will advise the offerors as to the specific eligibility requirements. Other eligibility requirements unique to each procurement are possible as well. 7

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued SLPTs are typically used for less complex procurements. For SLPTs, trade-off factors (past performance, cost/price, and value characteristics, if applicable) are not evaluated for unacceptable proposals. Draft RFPs are typically not issued for less complex proposal requirements.  Draft Statements of Work may be posted instead. This process envisions award without discussions  Submit your best offer first! 8

When is SLPT Not Used? We generally do not use the SLPT source selection method for:  Sole source acquisitions  Sealed bidding  Technically complex acquisitions Examples 9 SLPT  Engineering Fabrication Services (EFS)  Safety & Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC) SEB  JSC Protective Services Contract (JSCPSC)  JSC Engineering, Technology, Science (JETS)

Types of SLPT source selection methods The Performance Price Trade-off (PPT) process is a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits a tradeoff between past performance and cost/price in reaching the award decision. The Limited Trade-Off (LTO) process is also a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits a tradeoff between past performance, cost/price, and Predefined Value Characteristics (VCs), if applicable.  Predefined Value Characteristics are over and above the baseline requirement that the Government considers advantageous and may be willing to pay more to obtain. 10

Unique Features of Streamlined Procurement Team Process May or may not request technical proposal  Where market research shows a robust pool of qualified offerors with excellent past performance, past performance alone is sufficient as a discriminator not only for best value, but ability to perform the work. Technical Acceptability is a pass/fail gate. Source Selection Authority trade-off decision made on value characteristics (optional), past performance, and cost/price. Trade-off performed in accordance with the relative importance of factors, “the riddle,” as established in the Request for Proposal (RFP). 11

Overview of SLPT Process NFS Identification of Unacceptable Proposals NFS Identification of Unacceptable Proposals Technical Acceptability Determination Determine Acceptability (A, PA, or U) “A” and “PA”: Evaluation of Past Performance & Cost/Price (VCs if applicable) Hold Discussions w/ Offerors in Competitive Range “U”s are out Award or Competitive Range Award: Present Findings to SSA for Selection Competitive Range: Present to SSA for Decision on Who is in Competitive Range Final Proposals Received & Re-evaluated Final Proposals Received & Re-evaluated Determine Acceptability (A or U) Determine Acceptability (A or U) “U”s are out “A”s are Evaluated Against Past Performance & Cost/Price (VCs if applicable) Award: Present Findings to SSA for Selection 12

SLPT Ratings Technical Acceptability Factor (pass or fail basis)  Acceptable (A)  Potentially Acceptable (PA)  Unacceptable (U) Trade-off Factors  Cost/Price  Past Performance - Level of Confidence  Very High Level of Confidence  High Level of Confidence  Moderate Level of Confidence  Low Level of Confidence  Very Low Level of Confidence  Neutral  Value Characteristics (if Limited Trade-off is used) - Value Added  Significant Value Added  Value Added  No Value Added 13

Definition of SLPT Ratings A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ALL subfactors are individually rated acceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor where ANY subfactor is individually rated unacceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. 14

Definition of SLPT Ratings, Continued A proposal will be rated “Potentially Acceptable (PA)” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, when after the initial evaluation, the proposal does not fully meet the definition for an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating and the Government anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable”. A rating of TA or PA does not guarantee inclusion in the Competitive Range. Contracts may be awarded without discussions. Please note that PA is a rating only under the SLPT process. It is not utilized in the SEB or LPTA process which will be discussed later in this presentation. 15

An assessment of the offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the RFP. Typically this involves an evaluation of the offeror’s technical narrative including processes and methodology, and basis of estimates for skill mix and Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). Examples of Subfactors include:  Management Approach  Management and Staffing Plan  Total Compensation Plan  Phase-In Plan  Technical Approach  Technical Implementation Approach  Safety and Health Plan  Technical Resources Template  Small Business Utilization 16

Predefined Value Characteristics Predefined Value Characteristics (VCs) are used when qualities that are over and above the baseline requirements exist – particularly as they apply to technical requirements – and the Government is willing to pay extra, if applicable, for this added value beyond the minimum/baseline requirements. Any proposed VCs may be incorporated into the awarded contract. For Example:  Lighter Weight  Smaller Dimensions  Greater Functionality 17

An assessment of NASA’s confidence in the Offeror’s (prime and major subcontractors) ability to perform the solicitation requirements based upon relevant performance under previously awarded contracts. Each solicitation will include specific guidelines for Past Performance evaluation.  Is it relevant to the requirements in the SOW/PWS?  Is it recent? The Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources including:  Past Performance Information Retrieval System  Defense Contract Management Agency  Interviews with government and commercial clients  Other Sources 18

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle” FAR : all evaluation factors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation, and the solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors for technically acceptable offerors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Examples include:  Past performance is more important than the combined value of the predefined value characteristics. Past performance and predefined value characteristics, when combined, are significantly more important than cost.  Past performance is significantly more important than cost/price. 19

Questions? 20

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process J.R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office 21

LPTA Price is ranked lowest to highest, then technical acceptability is strictly a pass/fail (no potentially acceptable) Award is made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable, responsible offeror A firm-fixed price contract is more common and is the process flow that is illustrated in this presentation Past Performance is generally not considered except in regard to FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors Generally a shorter overall acquisition schedule Less complex solicitations –Human Health & Institutional Management Support (HHIMS) recently utilized the LPTA process 22

LPTA Process Government issues RFP Proposals received on time in accordance with RFP instructions Proposals then ranked by total price, lowest to highest Lowest priced proposal is then reviewed by the Procurement Team (PT) for RFP compliance, then reviewed for technical acceptability If the lowest priced proposal is technically acceptable, no more proposals are evaluated and PT moves to award phase 23

LPTA Process (Cont’d) If the lowest priced proposal is not technically acceptable, PT begins review of second lowest priced proposal and continues until a RFP compliant, technically acceptable proposal is reviewed All proposals may be reviewed if it is in the best interest of the Government (low # of proposals received, close grouping in price) Debriefs will be done if requested, however, data provided may be limited based on whether or not a particular proposal was reviewed In the event of two equal low prices, a supervised coin toss will be used to determine the low price offer to proceed to technical acceptability evaluation 24

LPTA Process Flow Proposals received Rank by price/determine lowest price Determine gross acceptability Is proposal technically acceptable? Competitive Range/Hold Discussions w/ Offerors (if applicable) Reasonable iterations? Award Phase: Present Findings to SSA for Selection Review 2 nd lowest priced proposal (or 3 rd, or 4 th, etc.) Award Phase: Present Findings to SSA for Selection Yes 25 No Yes No Confirm timeliness Yes Unacceptable are out

When to use LPTA? Re-competes or follow-ons where there is good historical data Technical Requirements: Well defined, low-risk, objective metrics Generally not used if Past Performance is a key factor in evaluation 26

LPTA Information Be aware that RFP evaluation criteria may look different  Carefully review the RFP language as Government is looking to minimize evaluation time. 27

Questions? 28

How to Get Connected NASA’s Business Opportunities Home Page NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) JSC Procurement Website JSC Industry Assistance Office (IAO) JSC Source Selection Information Website 29