1. Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom
Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing
Tuesday, August 13, 2014
Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

2. Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office
Introduction
Anna Carter, Contracting Officer
JSC Source Selection Office 2

3. 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.

4. Objective
To communicate the key features of the JSC Source Selection processes to help Industry better prepare and respond to the JSC Request for Proposals.

5. Agenda Speaker Subject
Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office
Introductions
Melanie Saunders, Associate Director
Johnson Space Center
Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefings
Debra L. Johnson, Director
JSC Office of Procurement
JSC Office of Procurement 2.0
Brad Niese, Team Lead
Office of Procurement
Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF)
Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office
Streamlined Procurement Team Process
Shine Lin, Contract Specialist Institutional Procurement Office
J. R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process
Wally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office
Disclosure Statements (DS)
Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)
Offeror's Responsibility for Submitting DS
Sheela Logan, Pricing Team Lead JSC Source Selection Office
JSC Pricing Template Changes
Kirby Condron, Contracting Officer Space Station Procurement Office
Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals
Suzan Thomas, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office

6. Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefing
Melanie Saunders, Associate Director
Johnson Space Center 2

7. JSC Office of Procurement 2.0
Debra Johnson, Director
JSC Office of Procurement 2

8. Procurement Customer Support Workforce Performance Transparency
Solution & results focused (understanding technical content sufficiently)
Innovative solutions (contract features with on ramps, flexibility, etc)
Alternative acquisition options (SAAs, CA, existing contracts, etc)
Timeliness (lead times, milestones, reviews, etc)
Transparency
Awareness (no surprises)
Communication (feedback, open and continuous)
Workforce
Training
Solution & results based (augmentation to required curriculum)
Analysis & negotiations (Price Fighters)
BALaNCE Program (focus on leadership & innovation)
Integrated member of the requirements organization (understanding the system)
Ability to consult and implement (end to end mentality)
Tools/Processes
Transition to paperless contracting
User friendly database of all contracts to make informed recommendations/decisions

9. Procurement BA Management Team Directorate Suite
Rotation and mobility agility (break down walls)
Motivating workforce (awards, incentives, etc)
Employee development (training, opportunities)
Consistent communication (one voice, advocacy)
Return on Investment (value analysis)
Directorate Suite
Provide the Vision, Environment and Framework for success
Continuous Self Assessment (SEB process/lessons learned, Reviews, etc)
Balance Scorecard
Governance Structure

10. Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF)
Brad Niese, Team Lead
JSC Office of Procurement 2

11. SAF Framework Objectives:
Efficient & Effective manner to acquire goods & services to meet goals/mission of the center and the programs
Longer-term, strategic acquisition outlook with an integrated center-wide focus with goals to optimize interdependencies and reduce redundancies
Leverage flexibilities to develop integrated business and acquisition solutions

12. Acquisition Forecast Team
SAF Process
Deep Dive Request
Requires fwd Work
Acquisition Forecast Team
Directorate Offices work with Procurement Offices to determine new requirements and initial prospective acquisition strategy
Board of Directors
ASM
Decision(s)
Funding and affected Directorates
Acquisition Team Prescreen/Prepare Recommendations
BA, AM, AL, Requirements Org
Recommendations
Approve Establishes JSC Acq. Forecast & Kicks off Procurement Process
Acquisition Forecast
JSC Procurement Portfolio Database
Procurement Process:
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
PDT(s)
Contract Mods/Options
IDIQ Orders
Other

13. Streamlined Procurement Team Process
Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer
Operations Support Office
Shine Lin, Contract Specialist
Exploration Systems Procurement Office 2

14. SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions
Dollar Value
Generally under $50M
Generally over $50M
Technical Evaluation
Technical Acceptability, (both PPT & LTO), Pass/Fail basis
Mission Suitability,
Score from 0 to 1,000
Technical Proposal
Optional (SLPT determines)
Yes
Trade-Off Factors
Value Characteristics (Optional), Past Performance, and Cost/Price
Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price
Past Performance
Adjectival Level of Confidence Rating

15. SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued
Cost/Price Evaluation
Yes
Eligibility for Award
Yes *
Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”
* 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.

16. 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!

17. 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
SLPT
Engineering Fabrication Services (EFS)
Safety & Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC)
SEB
JSC Protective Services Contract (JSCPSC)
JSC Engineering, Technology, Science (JETS)

18. 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.

19. 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).

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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Technical Acceptability Factor
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 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

25. 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

26. Past Performance Factor
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

27. 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.

28. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process
J.R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer
Projects Procurement Office 2

29. 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

30. 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 7

31. 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 7

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

33. 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

34. LPTA Information
Be aware that RFP evaluation criteria may look different
Carefully review the RFP language as Government is looking to minimize evaluation time. 8

35. Wally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office
Disclosure Statements (DS) Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Offerors’ Responsibility For Submitting DS
Wally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst
JSC Source Selection Office 2

36. What is a Disclosure Statement?
A DS is a written description of a contractor’s cost accounting practices and procedures; how costs are accounted for and measured
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

37. What is CAS?
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 (CAS Applicability)

38. Why a Disclosure Statement is Important at Contract Award
FAR (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.”

39. 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 (a) (1)

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

41. 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

42. Determination of Modified CAS Coverage
Three questions
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

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

44. 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

45. When is a Disclosure Statement Required?
DS required for fully CAS-covered contracts
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. Is the company’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

46. CAS Coverage and DS Determination

47. Responsibility of Offeror
It is the Offerors’ responsibility to determine if a prospective contract will require the submission of a Disclosure Statement (DS).
Plan ahead for obtaining an adequate DS.
According to my latest information from DCAA, 1-3 months required to complete an Adequacy audit depending on issues that may arise with the DS.

48. Responsibility of DCAA & DCMA
FAR (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 (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.

49. 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

50. Summary Determine CAS Coverage 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
Plan ahead for obtaining an Adequate determination
Generally it takes 1-3 Months for DCAA to complete DS adequacy audit

51. JSC Pricing Template Changes
Sheela Logan, Pricing Team Lead
JSC Source Selection Office 2

52. Incumbent Retention Data
Total Compensation Template (e): Incumbency Assumptions [TC(e)] being revamped to better support the data collection needed to fully understand an offeror’s strategy regarding incumbent retention and compensation.
Lack of clarity regarding an offeror’s proposed approach can result in
Prolonged discussion periods
A slip in planned award date
Changes to how incumbent data is captured in solicitations:
TC(e) revision
Technical Resources Template (TRT) revision
Inclusion of ‘incumbent’ definition in RFP: “current person performing same or similar function on current contract”

53. OLD TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

54. NEW TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

55. OLD Sample TRT

56. NEW Sample TRT

57. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals
Kirby Condron, Contracting Officer
Space Station Procurement Office
Suzan Thomas, Contracting Officer
JSC Source Selection Office 2

58. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals
Ask questions early
If anything in the draft RFP or RFP is unclear, submit questions to the Contracting Officer.
Follow page count and formatting requirements exactly
Pay close attention to ensure that the number of pages, page margins, font type, font size, and page size are in conformance to Section L. 
Do not submit additional appendices, handouts, etc. which were not requested. These could put you over the page limitations.
Excess and non-conforming pages will be returned to the Offeror without review, which may affect the Government’s evaluation of a proposal, and how it is ultimately rated.
If the designated font sizes for text and tables differ in Section L, do not attempt to convert text information into table format in order to save page space and circumvent the page limitations. Pages and foldouts not conforming to the definition of a page included in the RFP will not be evaluated and will be returned to the Offeror.

59. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
Technical Acceptability (SLPT or LPTA Process)
Submit all deliverables required for the Technical Acceptability Volume and ensure that you cover all topics required to do the task at hand
Forgetting to submit just one DRD or the information required for a key Technical Acceptability factor could result in a rating of Unacceptable, which would immediately eliminate your proposal from further consideration.
Ensure that you have done adequate proposal quality control before submission.
Focus on the solicitation requirements to meet the Technical Acceptability evaluation
Proposing an approach above and beyond the baseline specifications may be reflected in the cost/price volume, and could impact the evaluation of your proposal during the tradeoff process.
If Value Characteristics are proposed, please ensure that adequate detail is submitted to enable evaluators to assess their value.

60. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
Past Performance
Explain which divisions, business units, segments, or other organizations of your company are proposed to perform the effort.
Provide an organizational chart and information regarding the relationship and types of resources shared (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) between these entities.
Ensure that information submitted for the prime contractor and major subcontractors is relevant and recent in accordance with solicitation requirements
Make sure that information provided for Key Personnel is detailed and relevant to the effort requested
Follow up with Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) respondents to ensure timely submittals – Be aware of Limited Communications Notice effect at JSC
Follow up with Contracting Officers on recent and relevant contracts for Prime and Major Subcontractors to ensure recent Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports have been posted
Make sure that the listed POCs are up-to-date and aware that you are proposing

61. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
Cost/Price
Propose a realistic cost/price that is consistent with your technical proposal.
Common Cost/Price Volume Errors:
Proposals with omissions:
Lack of detail on Overhead, G&A, and Other Indirect Rates
Lack of narrative supporting rationale
Logic Issues
Inconsistent content within the cost proposal
Failure to follow template instructions:
Using hard numbers instead of formulas where appropriate
Placing Fully Burdened Labor Rates where Direct Labor Rates are Required

62. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
Eligibility and Model Contract Requirements
Submit your Model Contract in its entirety.  
Have you completed all required fill-ins?
Does the SF33 include a signature of a person that is authorized to commit your company?
Does item 12 of the SF33 state your acceptance period?
Are the rates stated in Section B consistent with the rates in the Cost/Price proposal?
Is the proposed value and fee in Section B consistent with the values proposed in the Cost/Price proposal?
Did your proposal include the value of your phase-in plan?
Did you submit the entire Model Contract and not just the pages with fill-ins?
Does your Model Contract reflect all amendments issued to the RFP?
FAR 9.103(a), Policy: “Purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.”
“Responsible” is defined in FAR , General Standards

63. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
FAR : 
“Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the
various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain
competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to
comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.”
Total Compensation Plan and Templates
Clarify which subcontractors meet the criteria in NFS (d) and submit Compensation Templates for those subcontractors.
Compensation Template (a) captures non-exempt employees and Compensation Template (b) captures exempt employees.
Many templates include all employees on both (a) and (b), making it difficult to determine which proposed labor categories are non-exempt and exempt.
In (a) and (b) state the proposed labor escalation rate proposed (expressed as a %), instead of actual labor rates proposed.
Be specific when describing employee fringe benefits.
Is the benefit employer versus employee paid?
What is the specific benefit?
When are employees eligible for this benefit?

64. Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)
Monitor the website for your particular acquisition very closely.  Any new information will be posted here, including milestone updates, amendments to synopses and/or the solicitation, interested parties lists, questions and answers, etc. Source Selection Sensitive information is not posted to the website.
The deadline for proposal submissions is extremely strict.  Arriving just one minute late means your proposal cannot be accepted.  To avoid this:
Review all proposal delivery instructions thoroughly
Review the proposal instructions, coordinate with the point of contact (Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist) in advance of the delivery, and ask questions if any instructions are not clear
Stress the importance of timeliness and proper location with your courier
When delivering a proposal in person, remember to deliver the proposal through Gate 4, and not through the Central JSC Gate 1
Allow at least 48 hours to over-night a proposal through a mail carrier
If you choose to deliver in person on the due date, remember that late flights, traffic jams, and congestion in the JSC area may affect the timeliness of your proposal

65. 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

66. Acronyms A – Acceptable CAS – Cost Accounting Standards
CFAO – Cognizant Federal Agency Official
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations
DCAA – Defense Contract Audit Agency
DCMA – Defense Contract Management Agency
DRD – Data Requirements Description
DS – Disclosure Statement
FAR – Federal Acquisition Regulation
FFP – Firm Fixed Price
JSC – Johnson Space Center
LPTA - Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable
LTO – Limited Tradeoff
PA – Potentially Acceptable
PPT – Performance Price Tradeoff
RFI – Request for Information
RFP – Request for Proposal
SB – Small Business
SEB – Source Evaluation Board
SLPT – Streamlined Procurement Team
SSA – Source Selection Authority
TC – Total Compensation
TRT – Technical Resources Template
VC – Value Characteristics
U – Unacceptable