1. ROME Presolicitation Conference Contracting Officer’s Charts May 15, 2003

2. Communications with LaRC Communications regarding ROME with all NASA LaRC personnel are allowed through the issue date of the final RFP –All LaRC personnel will be encouraged to interact with industry, but some may feel uncomfortable and thus might refer inquiries to the C.O. or the S.E.B. All communications after the final RFP is issued must come through Lisa Harvey or Dave Jones in the LaRC Office of Procurement

3. Award Term Contracting NASA Pilot Program –In place about two years –Currently six award term contracts are in place across the Agency –ROME will be LaRC’s 2 nd AT contract; the Consolidated Logistics, Administrative and Scientific Information Contract (awarded Feb. 2002) was the first LARC AT contract

4. Award Term Contracting Differences between ROME AT and Dept. of Defense (specifically AEDC) AT –AEDC’s award terms are option periods –ROME award terms are NOT options Additional term MUST be EARNED Once earned, term can only be lost three ways –Through AT process for “Poor/Unsatisfactory” rating –Termination for Convenience of the Government –Termination for Default

5. Award Term Contracting Reasons for differing lengths in ROME award terms (6-mo. And 12-mo. lengths) –AT Plan “designed by committee”; everyone had different ideas on what would best motivate a contractor to perform) –However, time needed to compete the NEXT ROME contract ultimately drove the AT structure in terms of period lengths

6. Award Term Contracting Award Term Evaluation Factors: –Represent what is most important to LaRC –May change if our priorities change, or if we feel that they are not properly motivating the ROME contractor –We would like industry input on the award term evaluation factors before the final RFP is issued

7. NASA Set Fee Initiative Another NASA Pilot Program –Rolled out in the past year –Designed to counter the trend of shrinking fees in competitive procurements Fee levels are insufficient in some cases to promote innovation or technical excellence Evidence of this seen at LaRC Worsening economy could drive the fees bid in competitive procurements even lower

8. NASA Set Fee Initiative 3 Set Fee Options –Government sets the fee level – PERIOD –Government sets a fee floor (AEDC did this) –Government recommends a fee level, then evaluates proposed fee under the Mission Suitability factor LaRC is undecided on ROME (3 rd option has been ruled out), so we want your input

9. Oral Past Performance Presentations WHY??? –Past Performance is an important evaluation factor; it is considered essentially equal to Mission Suitability and Cost –Despite this importance, we usually have much less past performance information than we would like, and end up having to expend a great deal of effort to obtain adequate information

10. Oral Presentations (cont’d) Orals are your chance to: –Blow your own horn! –Show us how your experience on other contracts is relevant to ROME The 90-minute presentation time is yours –Past Performance information only –Use as many or as few charts as you wish –No video – we don’t want to introduce video or film production expenses into the proposal process –Photos and illustrations are OK –Use your time wisely, and keep your eye on the Past Performance evaluation criteria in Section M

11. Award Without Discussions Many people here at LaRC and in the contractor community have told me there is NO WAY that we will award ROME without discussions Two recent examples here at LaRC counter that argument:

12. Award Without Discussions Example 1: Research Instrumentation and Measurement Support (RIMS) contract – awarded in March 1998 –LaRC had not previously awarded a contract without discussions; prior to 1998 NASA procedures mandated discussions –Many were skeptical about the process, but… –RIMS was awarded without discussions

13. Award Without Discussions Example 2: Atmospheric Sciences Research and Technology Support Services (ASRATSS) contract – awarded in December 2001 –The customer, the SEB, and many potential bidders said that ASRATSS was WAY too technically complex to award without discussions, but in spite of that and a very close competition… –ASRATSS was awarded without discussions

14. Award Without Discussions The ROME RFP says that we intend to award a contract without discussions, so DO NOT count on being able to fix proposal weaknesses through the discussion process The C.O. decides whether to hold discussions, and my intention is to hold discussions only if absolutely necessary GIVE US YOUR BEST SHOT WITH YOUR INITIAL PROPOSAL!!!