Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

November 20, 2014 Via: Lync Meeting 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (Central Time)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "November 20, 2014 Via: Lync Meeting 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (Central Time)"— Presentation transcript:

1 November 20, 2014 Via: Lync Meeting 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (Central Time)

2 2 Welcoming Remarks Krystine Bui Deputy Manager, Projects Procurement Office

3 TopicPresenter Opening RemarksKrystine Bui OrientationDana Altmon-Cary HPEG Project ObjectivesDana Valish Statement of Work, Value Characteristics, and Deliverables Dana Valish Request for Proposal OverviewRyan Hancock Cost InformationRyan Hancock Questions and AnswersVia HPEG Website 3

4  These slides are not to be interpreted as a comprehensive description of the procurement strategy or requirements in the Draft RFP  To the extent there are any inconsistencies between this briefing and any future RFP, the RFP will govern 4

5 Purpose of Pre-proposal Conference  The purpose of this Pre-proposal Conference is to help industry understand the Government’s requirements  Questions: – Verbal questions will not be entertained during the conference. However, written questions will may be submitted via the HPEG website – Official responses to written questions received by the Contracting Officer will be posted to the HPEG website – The deadline for submitting questions regarding this conference is November 24,

6  Source Selection Authority − Caroline Root, Team Lead Johnson Space Center  Acquisition Team − Dana Altmon-Cary, Contracting Officer − Ryan Hancock, Contract Specialist − Technical Team: − Lindsay Aitchison − Dana Valish − Sarah Walsh 6

7  Contract Specialist: Ryan Hancock Phone number:  Contracting Officer: Dana Altmon-Cary Phone number:  7

8  Ombudsman (NFS ): “…before consulting with an ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the Contracting Officer for resolution … If resolution cannot be made by the Contracting Officer, interested parties may contact the installation ombudsman …”  Address/Phone: Perri Fox NASA Johnson Space Center 2101 NASA Parkway Mail Code: AC Houston, TX (281)

9 9 SOW, Value Characteristics, and Deliverables Dana Valish HPEG Technical Team Member

10  The High Performance EVA Glove (HPEG) project is an element under the Next Generation Life Support Systems Project, funded by the Space Technology Mission Directorate’s (STMD) office of Game Changing Development (GCD).  The overall objective of the HPEG project is to develop advanced EVA gloves for future human space exploration missions and generate corresponding standards by which progress may be quantitatively assessed. ◦ The glove standards being developed by NASA include injury, performance, and environmental protection. ◦ The glove prototypes that result from the successful completion of the project will be compatible with exploration mission requirements & advanced spacesuit being developed by NASA.  This specific HPEG contract takes a step towards this end goal.  As part of the HPEG Project, NASA is already working on a robotic assist glove option in- house and has plans for a mechanical counterpressure (MCP) glove procurement later in the fiscal year. Therefore, robotic assist and MCP options are not the intention of this procurement. 10

11  Objective ◦ Demonstrate the feasibility of incorporating new technologies and manufacturing techniques beneficial to exploration missions without decreasing the capabilities of the current state of the art. ◦ The gloves delivered under this contract are expected to be of sufficient readiness to support the future development of a thermal/vacuum test article for human testing in

12  Emergent Technologies ◦ The HPEG system shall include at least one [1] emergent low TRL Technology from at least two [2] different Categories.  The example technologies are not the only technologies of interest in each category; Offerors may submit other technologies not listed but fall within the listed categories. 12

13  Pre-defined Value Characteristics Offerors are required in their proposal to meet the baseline requirements. Furthermore, Offerors shall address the predefined value characteristics, Attachment L-3, in their proposal. If a predefined value characteristic is not applicable to the Offeror‘s proposal, the Offeror shall state so. The proposal shall clearly mark what information is to be evaluated under the predefined value characteristics and provide sufficient detailed explanation on the method for which the Offeror shall address the value characteristic and the added value of the method which surpass the identified baseline requirements within Section C, Statement of Work and Attachment J.3, Technical Requirements. 13

14  Value Characteristics ◦ Value Characteristic A (VCA)  The minimum expectation for the incorporation of emergent low TRL technologies is outlined in the technical requirements. The incorporation of more than two emergent low TRL technologies will add value to the proposal. The incorporation of more than two categories will add value to the proposal. Outlining methods to advance the technologies toward the goal of having flight ready gloves will add value to the proposal. ◦ Value Characteristic B (VCB)  The minimum expectation for the total weight of the full glove assembly is outlined in the technical requirements. This weight estimate is reasonable based on previously fabricated glove prototypes. Showing a means to lower the weight below the minimum requirement with new methods or technologies will add value to the proposal. ◦ Value Characteristic C (VCC)  The minimum expectation for glove size is to provide two pair of gloves of the same size that will accommodate test subject pool A. Providing two sizes of glove pairs, one pair that will accommodate test subject pool A and one pair that will accommodate test subject pool B as described in the technical requirements, will add value to the proposal. ◦ Value Characteristic D (VCD)  The minimum expectation for the glove sizing and fit strategy is to provide a strategy specific to the gloves being delivered under this contract. Providing a sizing and fit strategy for a fleet of gloves, while considering flight and training logistics, full anthropometric range (1st percentile female to 99th percentile male), and fleet costs, will add value to the proposal. 14

15 15 CategoryTechnology ExamplesFunction Weighted Value % Thermal Insulation for Multiple Environments  Flexible/rubber Aerogel  Aerogel films  Combination of Insulating Materials Optimize thermal insulation that does not rely on vacuum environmental conditions. 20 Dust Management  Active circuits screen printed onto glove outer layers that uses electrostatic pulses to periodically dust off the gloves  Passive materials (lotus coatings, gecko feet) that inherently prevent dust from adhering to outer layers of the glove  Disposable cover layer for use in dust/dirt environments  Increase life of EPG/Restraint Layer  Minimize dust brought into habitable volume  Minimize dust that migrates into various glove components including disconnect/bearing 25 Damage Mitigation  Self-healing bladder  In-Glove sensors  Autonomous repair of cuts/punctures  Real-time damage alert for cuts/puncture/abrasion of the various glove layers 20 Active Materials Shape memory coils embedded into the glove restraint layer for shape morphing/resize at palm and/or fingers Improve glove fit5 E-Textiles  Haptic feedback  Fabric based controls  Generating/transmitting power for glove heaters  Provide crew member with feedback on force exertion  On/off helmet lights/video  Reduce bulk on gauntlet on back of hand 10 Reduction of Material Bulk  Laser sealing instead of traditional heat sealing  Seamless finger knitting.  Thinner materials than RTV to provide grip, abrasion, temperature protection Less bulk, more mobility20

16  Deliverables ◦ HPEG system gloves  Quantity: 2 pairs (total of 4 gloves – 2 left, 2 right)  System consists of bladder/restraint, environmental protection garment (EPG), bearing/disconnect. ◦ 12”x12” Material Layer Stack  Quantity: 2 of each unique softgoods section (layup)  Material layers include bladder/restraint and EPG 16

17  The Technical Requirements section contains the minimum set of requirements and goals for the HPEGs. The Requirements are divided into four (4) subsections defining the gloves: [1] pressure and leakage, [2] structure and mass, [3] size, fit, and mobility, and [4] emergent technologies.  A verification matrix containing all requirements has also been included. The anticipated verification method(s) for each requirement are included. Verification notes have been included in for some requirements to help define specific expectations and guidelines. 17

18 18 Draft RFP Overview Ryan Hancock Contract Specialist

19  Competition: ◦ Full and Open; NAICS Code Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences  Period of Performance: 18 months Projected: February 2, July 30, 2016  Contract Type: ◦ Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) 19

20  Section B – Fill-ins are after award  Section C – Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level of control in table below:  Section F.2- Place of Performance fill-in  Section G.5- Wide Area Work-Flow new billing system  DRD HPEG-02 Contractor Financial Report NF533  Monthly DRDs NF533 Quarterly and Monthly per instruction on the DRL, Management Plan is due with proposal 20 Level 1Level 2Level 3 Glove Components Bladder/Restraint EPG Bearing/Disconnect Design Fabrication Component-level integration Testing Glove Assembly Glove-level integration Glove-level testing Glove documentation N/A ManagementSchedule Financial Reporting Risk Management Reporting (reviews, weekly) N/A

21  When reading the Draft RFP, note that: − Important information is contained in the SF33 and numerous clauses and provisions that have been incorporated, via full text and/or referenced text, throughout the document − Clauses incorporated by reference have the same force and effect as if they were included in their full text ◦ ◦ − Section J includes documents, exhibits, and other attachments 21

22  The System for Award Management (SAM) is a Federal Government owned and operated free web site that consolidated the capabilities in the: ◦ Central Contractor Registration (CCR)/Federal Register; ◦ Online Representations and Certifications Applications (ORCA); and ◦ Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).  Future phases of SAM will add the capabilities of other systems used in Federal procurement and awards processes.  The SAM website is located at: https://staging.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.https://staging.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/  We recommend that you create an account in SAM in order to verify that your information in this database is current or to add information to SAM. 22

23  In accordance with FAR (a)(3), a cost-reimbursable contract may only be awarded when the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) covered approved disclosure statement. This requirement also extends to subcontractors performing under a cost-reimbursable subcontract.  Offerors should review Chapter 8 of the DCAA Audit Manual to determine if they are subject to full or modified Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage and if they require an adequate Disclosure Statement prior to award. The link is: _Cost_Accounting_Standards.pdf. 23

24  Volume I – Technical Acceptability  Management Plan  DRD HPEG-01  Technical Approach  Specific Technical Understanding and Resources  Volume II—Past Performance  Volume III— Predefined Value Characteristics  Volume IV— Cost Proposal  Volume V— Model Contract − SF33 − Contract Clauses (Fill-ins required Sections B through I) − Section J - Attachments − Section K - Representations and Certifications 24

25  The Offeror’s proposals shall: Demonstrate understanding of the overall and specific requirements of the proposed contract Convey the company’s capabilities for transforming understanding into accomplishment Provide in detail, the plans and methods for so doing and Provide the cost/price associated with doing so  Demonstrate that the Offeror understands the requirements and the inherent risks associated with the objectives of this procurement  It is inadequate to simply state that the Offeror understands and will comply with the requirements, or to paraphrase the requirements 25

26  Technical Acceptability : Acceptable – Each element will be at a level of completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. All Technical Acceptability criteria must be passed to be considered technically acceptable Potentially Acceptable – Results when, after the initial evaluation, the evaluator anticipates additional information that could be provided by an Offeror during discussions would result in a proposal rating of acceptable. Although an Offeror may receive a rating of “Potentially Acceptable,” it does not guarantee that discussions will be held or that the Offeror will automatically be included in the competitive range if discussions are held Unacceptable - The proposal does not meet the government’s requirements 26

27  Past Performance information will be gathered from: Reference information submitted to NASA References contacted directly by NASA and Other information NASA obtains, such as information from the Government-wide past performance database  Past Performance will be evaluated for recency and relevancy Very relevant Relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant  An Offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned as High Moderate Low Very Low Neutral 27

28  To ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable the Government will perform price analysis and will also perform cost analysis  Certified cost and pricing data are not required; however other than cost and pricing data are required  Excel Pricing Model (EPM) File ◦ The final RFP will correct Section L.17.D.2 to read, “one workbook” ◦ EPM shall be fully automated and all formulas used in the workbook must be clearly visible in the individual cells and verifiable. ◦ The EPM shall not be locked/protected or secured by passwords 28

29 For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between predefined value characteristics, past performance, and cost. The combined value of the predefined value characteristics are more important than past performance. 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 cost. If all offers are of approximately equal merit, award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest most probable cost or price. The Government will consider awarding to an Offeror with higher merit if the difference in probable cost is commensurate with added value. The Government will consider making award to an Offeror whose offer has lower merit if the probable cost differential between it and other offers warrant doing so.

30  Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint.  The Government preference is to award without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with those Offerors who have made it to competitive range.  If discussions are held, the Offeror will: − have the opportunity to correct weaknesses and; − be requested to resubmit the SF33 with Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) which will include clearly marked changes.  The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. 30

31  In accordance with Section M.8, Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Date: Instructions for proposal arrangement, page limitations, copies and the due date are specified in Section L.16. Offerors shall submit their proposals in 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 25 pages with Times New Roman 12 point font and one-inch margins. If an Offeror submits this volume with 25 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. 31

32  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.16.  Please note page limitations. — Some volumes/sections are subject to a page limitation and others are not. In the Past Performance Volume, the Past Performance Information is subject to the page limit of 10 pages, 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. 32

33 33 Questions can be posted to the acquisition website: When the final RFP is released, the deadline to submit questions website will be posted.

34 34  For your proposal to be considered timely, your package must be delivered to Building 420 by the due date and time stated in the final 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.  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 ,“Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition”.

35 This concludes the Johnson Space Center Pre-proposal Conference Pre-proposal Conference 35


Download ppt "November 20, 2014 Via: Lync Meeting 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (Central Time)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google