Welcome to the Johnson Space Center (JSC)

Pricing Forum

Tuesday, June 28, 2005Gilruth Center, Alamo Ballroom

1:30 – 3:30 PM

Safety and Administrative Information

Restrooms can be found in the hallway outside this ballroom

Fire exits are the front entrance and side exit doors. In the event of a fire, you must move at least 75ft. away from the building

Fire Exits

Fire Exit

Fire Exit

Restrooms

3

General Information

Office of Procurement

External Web PageURL: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/procpub.htm

4

Agenda

• The Past – Where we were.• The Present – Where we are.

– SEB pricing process– Cost realism probable cost adjustments– Offerors proposals: Observations– Technical Resources – Efficiencies– Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

• The Future – Where we want to be.

5

NASA Business Forecast Published

Acquisition Plan and

SOW

Draft RFP Released

Respond to DRFP

Questions

Preproposal Conference

Receive Proposals

Receive FPRs

Discussions with

Remaining Offerors

Request Final

Proposal Revisions

Award Contract

Post Award Debriefings

Pre Award Debriefings

SEB Process

Industry Day ASM SYNOPSIS

Respond to RFP Questions

Competitive Range

Determination

RFP Released

Debriefings

6

The Past

• It was a “Less Complicated” World– Generally had single Contract Type Proposals– LOE was common– Fewer SEBs

• Technical Resources were included in the Cost Volume– Did not facilitate technical analysis very well– Supporting BOE narrative not traceable to

resource templates• Weaknesses were not disclosed to offerors

7

The Present

• Complexity– Multiple Contracting Methods in each Solicitation– High Volume of SEBs/SECs and competitors – Shift from LOE contracting to Performance Base

Contracting requiring more analysis• Need for speed, accuracy, and consistent

treatment• Weaknesses disclosed to offerors in the

competitive range• Discriminators imperative in very competitive

procurements

8

Benefits of Standardization

• Speed– Government starts evaluation on day one– Offerors know what to expect– Offerors have more time to work on substance (objective

requirements)• Accuracy –

– Standardized templates designed to only receive pertinent data– Electronic Pricing Models designed to produce accurate, error-free,

estimates– Offerors can estimate cost early to perform internal assessments

and to be prepared for final proposal submittal• Consistency

– Standardization leads to an apples to apples cost comparison– Ensures no offeror omits cost that may be required– Allows for standard presentation to the Source Selection Authority

9

The SEB Pricing Process

• What is done with your cost/price proposal once it is submitted:– Request DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency)

audit– Read cost proposal – Validate each offeror’s pricing model – Integrate and automate Team pricing models – Test model for errors to ensure consistency with

approach– Make probable cost adjustments– Develop pricing presentation charts for SSA

10

Cost Realism Probable Cost Adjustments

• Errors and reconciliations• Labor

– Incumbent labor rates/salary assumptions, if proposed– Escalation– Productive factor– Uncompensated/compensated overtime– DOL wage determination compliance

• DCAA input• Non-technical in-house analysis (indirect cost, DOL

WD fringe compliance, etc)• Technical analysis (FTE quantity, skill mix, non-labor

resources)

11

Offerors Proposals: Observations

• Offerors not bidding to the solicitation:

– Ensure that their proposal reconciles to the new solicitation, not the current work

– Don’t make assumptions if differences exist, ask questions

• Proposals with omissions:– All offerors may consider working to a checklist– If the Government is requiring information you may

not be able to provide, ask questions

12

Offerors Proposals: Observations

• Proposals with references to old or other Agency solicitations

• Lack of adequate supporting rationale in narrative form:– The basis of any estimate needs to be explained. Be

specific and objective

• Lack of reconciliation between different areas of the proposal– The technical and management approach should be

consistent with each other and the staffing and respective cost should reflect those approaches

13

Prior to Technical Part 2

Management and Technical Volumes

Cost/Price Volume

• Detailed Technical resources captured in the Cost Volume

• Technical and Mgmt Volumes only addressed resources at the total contract level

• Difficult to determine if the costs reflected the technical and management approaches?

• Difficult to make accurate probable adjustments to cost for inconsistencies?

14

Technical Part 2

Management and Technical Approach

w/ Resource Data

Cost/Price Volume=

Detailed Technical Resources included in the technical volume

Resources drill down to specific areas of the SOW and only relevant selection critical information is requested

Technical Evaluator checks if resources reflect technical and management approaches

Strengths and Weaknesses tied to resources

Costs reflect the impact of Tech/Mgmt Approach

15

Proposed Efficiencies

• Goal: Efficiencies proposed are realistic, adequately supported and reconcilable to the technical & management approach.

• Ensure that the benefit is explained with words and numbers

• Explain the timeframe of the efficiency’s benefit

16

This gap needs to be explained in terms of efficiencies or cost savings.

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1 2 3 4 5

Contract Year

FT

E

Proposed Baseline

Efficiencies should explain this gap.

Basis of estimate should explain this gap.

Staffing Profile

17

Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

2.0 7 Eng. 2 Tech

2.1 3 Eng 1 Tech

2.2 2 Eng

2.3 2 Eng 1 Tech

2.0 7 Eng. 2 Tech

SEB Internal RFP

At JSC, the IGE for FTE (Full Time Equivalents) and the skill mix is published in the solicitation generally at one WBS level higher than where you are required to estimate.

18

Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

• IGE represents the government’s best estimate to satisfy the requirements – Does not necessarily represent current or historical

experience.– The IGE does not represent a ceiling or a baseline. If

you believe an area of the WBS requires additional FTE over the IGE, don’t simply lower other areas to compensate.

• IGE FTE and skill mix represent total estimated personnel (direct & indirect) to satisfy requirements.

• Even if the IGE is proposed, all proposed FTE levels should adequately support the proposed technical & management approach.

19

The Future

• Questions?– Are we asking for information in the most effective

manner?– Are we using the best practices?

• Answers– Internal Pricing Team sweep of templates and

practices– Benchmarking JSC practices – Government-Contractor working group discussion

Forums

20

Results of Pricing Sweep

• Standardized the names of all JSC Pricing Templates– Discovered we had multiple names for some

Templates

• Standardized the format of workbooks– Technical Workbook and the Pricing Workbooks– IDIQ and LOE workbooks will use same set of

templates

• Templates will still be customized to reflect the individual specifications of each contract.

21

Benchmarking

• Currently collecting and analyzing the templates and instructions of other NASA Centers– Looking for things similar and different and

investigating why other centers have adopted their processes

– Looking for things we do that others do not do and ensuring that additional JSC requirements add value

22

Future Dialogue Forums

Audience: Contract Personnel involved in preparing competitive proposals

Format: Smaller working group to discuss specific pricing issues

Topics:• Technical Resources Part 2• Pricing Templates• Evaluation Methodology and Cost

Adjustments

23

Contact Information

Deputy Manager Procurement Policy & Systems Office

José Garcia 281-483-4117

Price AnalystDavid Wilson 281-483-3385