Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement

Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing

Tuesday, August 13, 2014Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Introduction

Anna Carter, Contracting OfficerJSC Source Selection Office

2

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.

3

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.

4

Agenda

5

Speaker Subject

Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office

Introductions

Melanie Saunders, Associate DirectorJohnson Space Center Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefings

Debra L. Johnson, DirectorJSC Office of Procurement JSC Office of Procurement 2.0

Brad Niese, Team LeadOffice of Procurement Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF)

Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office

Streamlined Procurement Team ProcessShine 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  

Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefing

Melanie Saunders, Associate DirectorJohnson Space Center

6

JSC Office of Procurement 2.0

Debra Johnson, DirectorJSC Office of Procurement

7

Procurement

• Customer Support– Performance

• 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

Procurement

• BA Management Team– 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

Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF)

Brad Niese, Team LeadJSC Office of Procurement

10

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

11

Procurement Process:

Acquisition Team Prescreen/Prepare Recommendations

BA, AM, AL, Requirements Org

Board of Directors

ASM Decision(s)

Funding and affected

Directorates

Recommendations

Deep Dive Request

Requires fwd Work

PDT(s) PDT(s) PDT(s)

Approve Establishes

JSC Acq. Forecast &

Kicks off Procurement

Process

PDT(s) PDT(s) Contract Mods/Options

PDT(s) PDT(s) IDIQ OrdersPDT(s) PDT(s) Other

Acquisition Forecast

 JSC Procurement Portfolio Database

SAF Process

Acquisition Forecast Team

Directorate Offices work with

Procurement Offices to determine new requirements and initial prospective

acquisition strategy

12

Streamlined Procurement Team Process

Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office

Shine Lin, Contract SpecialistExploration Systems Procurement Office

13

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions

SLPT SEB

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

Adjectival Level of Confidence Rating

14

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued

SLPT SEB

Cost/Price Evaluation Yes Yes

Eligibility for Award Yes * Yes *

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”

Yes 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.

15

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!

16

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

17

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.

18

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).

19

Overview of SLPT Process

NFS 1815.305-70Identification 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

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 Selection20

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

21

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.

22

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.

23

• 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

Technical Acceptability Factor

24

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

25

• 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

Past Performance Factor

26

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”

• FAR 15.101-1: 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.

27

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process

J.R. Carpentier, Contracting OfficerProjects Procurement Office

28

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 29

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

30

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

31

LPTA Process Flow

Proposals receivedRank 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 2nd lowest priced proposal (or 3rd,

or 4th, etc.)

Award Phase: Present

Findings to SSA for Selection

Yes

32

No

Yes

No

Confirmtimeliness

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

33

LPTA Information

• Be aware that RFP evaluation criteria may look different Carefully review the RFP language as Government is looking to

minimize evaluation time.

34

Disclosure Statements (DS)Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)

Offerors’ Responsibility For Submitting DS

Wally Khan, Cost/Price AnalystJSC Source Selection Office

35

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

36

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 9903.201-1 (CAS Applicability)

37

Why a Disclosure Statement is Important at Contract Award

• FAR 30.202-6(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.”

38

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 52.230-3 (a) (1)

39

CAS Coverage

Determine when a contract is:

Not subject to CASSubject to Modified CASSubject to Full CAS

40

Exemptions from CAS

1. Negotiated contract / subcontract for $700,000 or less

2. Sealed bid contract

3. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract / subcontract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without the submission of cost or pricing data

4. FFP contracts / subcontracts for commercial items

5. Contracts / subcontracts price set by law

6. Contracts / subcontracts with small business

7. Current contract less than $7.5M or business unit NOT currently performing on CAS-covered contract or subcontract of $7.5M or more

41

Determination of Modified CAS Coverage

Three questions

1. Is the current award $50M or more?

2. Did the business receive $50M or more in net CAS covered awards in the preceding accounting period?

3. 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

42

Modified Coverage

Modified CAS covered contracts are subject to the following Cost Accounting Standards:• CAS 401 - Consistency in Estimating, Accumulating,

and Reporting Costs;• CAS 402 - Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred

for the Same Purpose;• CAS 405 – Accounting for Unallowable Costs;• CAS 406 – Cost Accounting Period

43

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

44

When is a Disclosure Statement Required?

1. DS required for fully CAS-covered contracts

2. 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 “No” - DS not required

If answer is “Yes” - DS is required45

CAS Coverage and DS Determination

46

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.

47

Responsibility of DCAA & DCMA

• FAR 30.202-6(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 30.202-6(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.

48

Tracking Disclosure Statements

DCMA Determines Adequacy

DCAA Audits & Reports to

DCMA

Offeror Prepares

Disclosure Statement

Determination of Inadequacy

Contract can be

Awarded

Determination ofAdequacy

Contract cannot be Awarded

49

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 50

JSC Pricing Template Changes

Sheela Logan, Pricing Team LeadJSC Source Selection Office

51

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”

52

OLD TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

[ ] Prime Contractor: [ ] Major Subcontractor: [ ] Minor Subcontractor:

Offerors shall select only one option in each category above. Ensure that you provide supportingrationale in narrative form explaining specific details for each selected option shown above.

Compensation Template (e): Incumbency Assumptions

Labor Rates[ ] Proposing to pay current incumbent labor rates. [ ] Proposing to not pay current incumbent labor rates. [ ] Other

Seniority Rights[ ] Proposing to maintain seniority rights for fringe purposes. [ ] Proposing to not maintain seniority rights for fringe purposes. [ ] Other

NEW TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

[ ] Prime Contractor: [ ] Major Subcontractor:[ ] Minor Subcontractor:

Incumbent Retention

Labor Rates Proposing to pay __% of incumbents current incumbent direct labor rates. Proposing to pay __% of incumbents other than current incumbent direct labor rates.

Seniority RightsProposing to maintain seniority rights for fringe purposes for __% of incumbents. Proposing to not maintain seniority rights for fringe purposes for __% of incumbents.

Note 1: Offeror team members shall fill in all fields in each category above. Ensure that you provide supportingrationale with specific details, in narrative form, explaining the proposed approach indicated above.

Compensation Template (e): Incumbency Assumptions

Proposing to fill __% of positions with incumbents. Proposing to fill __% of positions with non-incumbents.

OLD Sample TRTSample TECHNICAL RESOURCES TEMPLATE (TRT) Prime Contractor Name:

SOW 3.0 Engineering Projects

PRIME AND ALL SUBCONTRACT (INCLUDING MINOR SUBCONTRACTORS) RESOURCES COMBINED

NASA (JSC) Incumbent SOW (Roll-up) SOW SOW SOW SOW Skill mixStandard Labor Category Retention % 3.0 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.7 Ratio

WYEsProgram Manager #DIV/0!

Management/Supervisor - - - - - - Engineer V #DIV/0!Engineer IV #DIV/0!Engineer II #DIV/0!Engineer I #DIV/0!Technician III #DIV/0!Technician II #DIV/0!

Technical Professional - - - - - 0IT/Database Professional #DIV/0!

IT Professional - - - - - 0Business Specialist (non G&A) #DIV/0!

Professional/Administration - - - - - 0Administrative Specialist #DIV/0!

Clerical/Secretary - - - - - 0Other: (Specify) #DIV/0!

Other - - - - - 0Total WYE Prime and All Subs - - - - - -

NEW Sample TRTSample TECHNICAL RESOURCES TEMPLATE (TRT) Prime Contractor Name:

SOW 3.0 Engineering Projects

PRIME AND ALL SUBCONTRACT (INCLUDING MINOR SUBCONTRACTORS) RESOURCES COMBINED

NASA (JSC) Incumbent SOW (Roll-up) SOW SOW SOW SOW Skill mixStandard Labor Category Retention % 3.0 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.7 Ratio

WYEsProgram Manager #DIV/0!

Management/Supervisor - - - - - - Engineer V #DIV/0!Engineer IV #DIV/0!Engineer II #DIV/0!Engineer I #DIV/0!Technician III #DIV/0!Technician II #DIV/0!

Technical Professional - - - - - 0IT/Database Professional #DIV/0!

IT Professional - - - - - 0Business Specialist (non G&A) #DIV/0!

Professional/Administration - - - - - 0Administrative Specialist #DIV/0!

Clerical/Secretary - - - - - 0Other: (Specify) #DIV/0!

Other - - - - - 0Total WYE Prime and All Subs - - - - - -

% Incumbents at Current DL Rates

Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals

Kirby Condron, Contracting OfficerSpace Station Procurement Office

Suzan Thomas, Contracting OfficerJSC Source Selection Office

57

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.

58

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.

59

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 proposing60

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:

o Lack of detail on Overhead, G&A, and Other Indirect Rates

o Lack of narrative supporting rationale

Logic Issues

o Inconsistent content within the cost proposal

Failure to follow template instructions:

o Using hard numbers instead of formulas where appropriate

o Placing Fully Burdened Labor Rates where Direct Labor Rates are

Required 61

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 9.104-1, General Standards

62

Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d)

• FAR 52.222-46: 

“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 1852.231-71(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?

63

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

64

How to Get Connected

• NASA’s Business Opportunities Home Pagehttp://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/link_syp.cgi

• NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi

• JSC Procurement Websitehttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/

• JSC Industry Assistance Office (IAO)http://officeofprocurement.jsc.nasa.gov/small-business.asp

• JSC Source Selection Information Websitehttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/sorsel.html

65

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

66