1 / 40

Welcome to the Johnson Space Center NCMA Small Business Conference Suzan P. Thomas

Welcome to the Johnson Space Center NCMA Small Business Conference Suzan P. Thomas. The Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) Source Selection Process April 11, 2013 South Shore Harbor. 1. Presentation Goals. Introduce JSC’s Source Selection Office Provide a background of the SLPT Process

elinor
Download Presentation

Welcome to the Johnson Space Center NCMA Small Business Conference Suzan P. Thomas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to theJohnson Space Center NCMA Small Business ConferenceSuzan P. Thomas The Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) Source Selection Process April 11, 2013 South Shore Harbor 1

  2. Presentation Goals • Introduce JSC’s Source Selection Office • Provide a background of the SLPT Process • Give helpful hints for proposal preparation • Show you where to go for more information 2

  3. SLPT Source Selection Process - Agenda 3

  4. JSC Source Selection Office (SSO) • The SSO was established in January of 2010 to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of competitive procurements over $10M. • The SSO consists of the Acquisition Planning and Advisory Team (APAT) and the Pricing Team • The APAT supports Competitive Procurements with: • Infrastructure Support • Scheduling • Training • Advocacy • Virtual Procurement Office (VPO) Website • Review Responsibilities • The Pricing Team provides cost and pricing support to competitive acquisitions over $10M. 4

  5. Source Selection • The process wherein the requirements, facts, recommendations, and policies relevant to an award decision in a competitive procurement of a system/project are examined and the decision made. • The objective of the source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the government. 5

  6. What are types of SLPT source selection methods? • The Past Performance 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. • Predefined value characteristics are over and above the baseline requirement that the Government considers advantageous and may be willing to pay more to obtain. 6

  7. Unique Features of SLPT • 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 is the first gate and is pass/fail • 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, as established in the request for Proposal, “The Riddle”. 7

  8. When is SLPT Not Used? • We do not use a SLPT Past Performance Trade-off or Limited Trade-off source selection method for: • Sole source buys • Sealed bidding • Technically complex acquisitions 8

  9. SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions 9

  10. SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued * 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 Contract Accounting System (CAS) covered contracts. The solicitation will advise the offerors as to the specific eligibility requirements. 10

  11. SLPT Advantages • SLPTs are typically used for less complex procurements, which allow for smaller evaluation teams. • Internal review meetings may be combined, thus saving time. • For SLPTs, trade-off factors are not evaluated for Unacceptable proposals, thus saving evaluation time. • In SLPTs we are documenting to a technically acceptable evaluation standard as compared to writing strengths and weaknesses in SEBs (less labor intensive and easier reviews). • Draft RFPs are typically not required on the less complex proposal requirements. • Given the less complex proposal requirements, award without discussions are more probable. 11

  12. SLPT Disadvantages • SLPTs are a new procedure to JSC and with any new procedure a learning curve applies. • The L&M Template, evaluation examples and the number of current SLPTs ongoing will help to mitigate this risk. • In SEBs significant strengths can be negotiated into the model contract. The SLPT does not assign strengths or significant strengths. • This risk is mitigated because the plans and approaches that we ask for or in terms of Type 1 DRDs. Type 1 DRDs “lock in” the good stuff. • In addition, Value Characteristics allow for the capture of value over the “acceptability level”. 12

  13. SLPT Ratings • Technical Acceptability Factor (pass or fail basis) • Acceptable (A), • Potentially Acceptable (PA) • Unacceptable (U) • Trade-off Factors • 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

  14. 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

  15. Definition of SLPT Ratings, Continued • A proposal will be rated “Potentially Acceptable” 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”. 15

  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.   • While establishing the predefined value characteristics, we focus on the minimum number of VCs that act as clear and concise discriminators. • Such VCs should be simple and easy to identify and evaluate. • We have a goal of no more than three (3) predefined value characteristics in order to easily evaluate and perform a trade-off among offerors. 16

  17. 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 and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. 17

  18. Example of a Riddle • For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between predefined value characteristics, past performance, and cost/price. • Past performance is more important than the combined value of the predefined value characteristics. • The predefined value characteristics are considered of equal value to one another. • Past performance and predefined value characteristics, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost/price. 18

  19. Overview of SLPT Process Determine Acceptability (A, PA, or U) “A” and “PA”: Evaluation of Past Performance & Cost/Price NFS 1815.305-70 Indication 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 for “PA”s (A or U) Final Proposals Received & Re-evaluate Hold Discussions w/ Offerors in Comp. range Competitive Range: Present to SSA for Decision on Who is in Comp. Range Award: Present Findings to SSA for Selection “A”s are Evaluated Against Past Performance & Cost/Price 19

  20. Review of Office of Procurement Website • Your acquisition’s website will be posted at: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/. • Your acquisition’s website is a primary means of communication with the SLPT throughout the acquisition process. • The following items are typically posted: • Acquisition Schedule • Requests for Information (RFIs) • Sources Sought Synopsis • Technical Library • Industry Day Information and Presentation • Interested Parties List • Draft and Final RFP • Anonymous Questions to the Contracting Officer • Source Selection Sensitive information is not posted to the website. 20

  21. Proposal Formatting • Instructions for proposal arrangement, page limitations, copies and the due date are specified in Section L. • Offerors shall submit their proposals in strict accordance with those instructions. • Pages and foldouts not conforming to the definition of a page and pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified will not be evaluated by the Government, will not be adjusted by the Government to conform to the RFP requirements, and will be returned to the Offeror. • For example, Volume I has a requirement for a page limit of 50 pages with Times New Roman 12 point font and one-inch margins. • If an Offeror submits this volume with 52 pages, two of which contain tables with 10 point font [if those two pages of tables in 10 point font were not removed as a result of excess pages] the 2 pages will be returned to the Offeror, and will not be adjusted or evaluated. 21

  22. Proposal Formatting, Continued • 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. • Please note page limitations. • Some volumes/sections are subject to page limitations and others are not. • In the Past Performance Volume, the Past Performance Information is usually subject to a specific page limitation, but the Environmental Non-Compliance, OSHA Forms 300 and 300A, Insurance Carrier Information, and Consent Letter are not subject to the page limitation. • Proposal information must be provided in the correct volume. • Proposal information in a page-limited volume or section should not be moved to another volume/section without such page limitations. • Having non-conforming pages returned may affect the government’s evaluation of a proposal, and how this proposal is ultimately rated. 22

  23. Tips for Proposal Timeliness  • For your proposal to be considered timely, your package must be delivered to Building 420 by the due date and time stated in the RFP. • Review all proposal delivery instructions with your courier to stress the importance of timeliness and the proper location of delivery. • Shipping and Receiving will give your courier a receipt of delivery. • When delivering a proposal in person, remember to deliver the proposal through Gate 4, and not through the Central JSC Gate 1. • Directions to Gate 4 are in the proposal instructions. 23

  24. Tips for Proposal Timeliness, Continued • Allot at least 48 hours to over-night a proposal through a mail carrier. • A commercial/government mail carrier may have a mechanical breakdown or otherwise fail to deliver in a timely manner. • 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. • Review the proposal instructions, coordinate with the point of contact in advance of the delivery, and ask questions if any instructions are not clear. • Review paragraph (c)(3) of FAR 52.215-1,“Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition”. 24

  25. Discussions • Discussions are detailed exchanges between the government and offerors in a competitive acquisition after establishment of the competitive range. • Discussions can be written, oral, or a combination of the two. • The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. • The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. • Therefore, your initial proposal should contain your best terms. • The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with the most highly rated offerors if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 25

  26. Discussions, Continued • During discussions, the Contracting Officer may discuss: • Potentially Acceptable items from your Technical proposal; • Adverse past performance information to which you have not yet had an opportunity to respond; • Other aspects of your proposal, that in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, could be altered or explained to enhance the proposal’s potential for award. • Cost and price proposal issues • Clarifications on the Model Contract 26

  27. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) • If Discussions are held, then the offerors will be provided an opportunity to re-submit their proposals, i.e. “Final Proposal Revision (FPR)” at the conclusion of discussions. • The final evaluation and rating will be based on the FPR, and not on the initial proposal. • Any proposed changes resulting from both the written and oral discussions must be incorporated into the FPR for the Government to consider in the final evaluation of your proposal. • Details will be provided in FPR letter. 27

  28. FPRs, Continued • FPR proposals shall be evaluated and re-rated in accordance with RFP instructions. • There are no “Potentially Acceptable” items in the final proposal evaluation; each Potentially Acceptable item will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. • A final evaluation will be performed for Past Performance and Cost/Price for offerors with an “Acceptable” technical proposal. • Once discussions are closed, discussions cannot be re-opened without a valid reason, and the approval of the JSC Procurement Officer or NASA Assistant Administrator for Procurement. • Ensure your FPR addresses each item raised during discussions. 28

  29. Labor Relations Issues – Common Findings • The Total Compensation Plan DRD states: • “The Total Compensation Plan and Total Compensation Templates (a) through (e) will be required for both the prime team members and all subcontractors that meet the criteria in NFS 1852.231-71(d).” • Oftentimes, the proposals do not clarify which subcontractors meet this criteria. • Offerors frequently omit Compensation Templates for their subcontractors. • Be specific when describing employee fringe benefits. • Is the benefit employer versus employee paid? • What is the specific benefit? • When are employee eligible for this benefit? 29

  30. Labor Relations Issues – Common Findings, Continued • Compensation Templates findings: • 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. 30

  31. Tips for Past Performance • (1) Explain which divisions, business units, segments, or other organizations of your company are proposed to perform the effort. • (2) Provide information regarding the relationship and types of resources shared (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) between any divisions, business units, groups, segments, or other organizations in your company which are proposed to perform the effort. • (3) Provide an organizational chart displaying the relationships between divisions, business units, groups, segments, or other organizations which are proposed to perform the effort. • For example: If you reference contracts in your past performance volume from your parent company, be prepared to answer all three items above in your past performance volume. 31

  32. Tips for Past Performance, Continued • Why are these questions relevant? • “An agency properly may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror's parent or affiliated companies where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror. See, e.g., Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906, Nov. 1, 2000, 2002 CPD para. 68 at 4; Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.305(a)(2)(iii).” 32

  33. Tips for the Eligibility Considerations • 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 • Here are some common evaluation statements: • Your Government Property Plan and Safety and Health Plan must be acceptable. • For cost-reimbursable contracts, your accounting system must be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order (FAR 16.301-3). 33

  34. Tips for the Model Contract • The Model Contract is not evaluated for selection purposes; however it will be reviewed to ensure it accurately captures the content as set forth in your proposal. • Here are some common evaluation statement issues: • Is the SF33 signed by 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? • Did your proposal include the value of your phase-in plan? • Are all fill-ins completed? • 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? 34

  35. Size Standard Protest • FAR 15.503(a)(2), requires Contracting Officers to provide written notification to offerors of the apparent successful offeror. • This step is performed after the selection decision is made, and the responsibility determination is made. • No response to the size standard protest letter is required unless an offeror decides there is a basis to challenge the small business size status of the apparent successful offeror in accordance with FAR 19.302. • In accordance with FAR 19.302(d), to be timely, a protest must be received by the Contracting Officer within 5 business days after receipt of this letter. • If there are no protests to the apparent successful offeror’s size standard, the government will proceed with the formal contract award. 35

  36. Why Request a Debriefing? • You spent substantial sums of money and time to participate in the acquisition process and deserve to receive a thorough and meaningful debriefing;  • To obtain a clear understanding of NASA’s evaluation process and the basis for the selection decision;    • To obtain meaningful feedback to help you be successful for future acquisitions (even if you are the successful offeror); and • To provide NASA with feedback on the acquisition process. 36

  37. Requesting a Debriefing, FAR 15.505 & 15.506 • Submit a written request for a pre-award debriefing to the contracting officer within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition. • At the your request, this debriefing may be delayed until after award. • If the debriefing is delayed until after award, it shall include all information normally provided in a postaward debriefing. • Submit a written request for post-award debriefing to the contracting officer within 3 days after receipt of the notice of contract award. • You are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. • An offeror that was notified of exclusion from the competition but failed to submit a timely request, is not entitled to a debriefing. • Untimely debriefing requests may be accommodated, and if so, will likely take place after contract award. 37

  38. Source Selection Statements • FAR 15.308: “The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs.” • The SSS serves two purposes: • Demonstrates that the SSA made a rational source selection decision. • Provides a publicly releasable overview of the selection process that includes a description of the acquisition process and the Government’s assessment of each proposal. • JSC Source Selection Statements are posted to: • http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/sorsel.html 38

  39. How to Get Connected • NASA/JSC Business Opportunities Home Page - Set up your user profile • http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=73 • NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) http://procurement.nasa.gov • JSC Procurement Website http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ • Industry Assistance – JSC Bldg. 1 at (281) 244-0925 39

  40. Thank you for attending! 40

More Related