Presentation on theme: "March 9, 2012. HISTORY ◦ NASA HQ & JSC Lean 6 Sigma Teams Recommended various ways to streamline process JSC STREAMLINED TEAM CHARTER ◦ Document."— Presentation transcript:
March 9, 2012
HISTORY ◦ NASA HQ & JSC Lean 6 Sigma Teams Recommended various ways to streamline process JSC STREAMLINED TEAM CHARTER ◦ Document and communicate clear guidance for the legal office, procurement, and technical communities ◦ Develop and implement a more streamlined acquisition process than current SEB process for less complex procurements under $50 million Reduce number of procurements using the more complex SEB process Result in shorter acquisition time
FAR (b) Competitive acquisitions. When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101) Best Value Continuum. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary...
4 Best Value Continuum FAR Part 8 and 12 FAR Part 15 Full Trade-Off PPT Performance/ Price Trade-Off LPTA Low-Price/ Tech Acceptable Simplified & Sealed Bid FAR Part 13 & 14 Low Price Non-Cost Cost PricePerf Trade-off Tech Acceptable GreaterImportance of PriceLesser LesserTechnical ComplexityGreater *Option to evaluate past perf but no comparative assessment or ranking. FAR (b) Limited Tradeoff (LTO) ( old midrange v/c) SEB Process
Typically for technically complex requirements ◦ “Demonstration of understanding” that offerors can do the job ◦ Typical SEB Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability (MS) Cost/Price Past Performance (PP) SEB presents evaluation results to Source Selection Authority (SSA). ◦ SSA will make a best value “tradeoff decision” using the factors and the relative importance of those factors as detailed in the RFP.
If the solicitation allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to Government and are considered proposal strengths may be incorporated into the contract.
Typically used for less complex requirements ◦ Any competitive negotiated acquisition for which it is unnecessary to distinguish all levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision. Firm fixed price and cost type contracts Not appropriate for sole source, sealed bidding, technically complex acquisitions. Typical SLPT Evaluation Factors: ◦ Technical Acceptability ◦ Cost/Price ◦ Past Performance ◦ Value Characteristics – if deemed necessary
The SLPT presents its evaluation results to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). ◦ The SSA will make a best value “tradeoff decision” using the factors and the relative importance of those factors as detailed in the RFP. If the solicitation allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to Government and are considered proposal strengths may be incorporated into the contract.
TRADE OFF FACTORS ◦ MISSION SUITABILITY - uses a 1000 point system, with subfactors that are scored and rated adjectivally – findings used to support scoring (SS, S, SW, W, D) ◦ 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
Price/Past Performance Trade-Off (PPT) May or may not request technical proposal Technical acceptability is the first gate, and it is pass/fail, with Potentially Acceptable SSA Trade-off decision made on past performance and cost/price Trade-off performed in accordance with the relative importance of evaluation factors established in the Request for Proposal
PPT with Limited Tradeoff (LTO) Same as PPT, but adds predefined value characteristics (VCs) to the trade-off VCs are above the minimum requirement and act as a clear and concise discriminators VC Example: Technical Acceptability- Widget cannot weigh more than 6 lbs VC- We are willing to pay more for a lighter widget VCs must be captured in the contract in order for offeror to receive any rating of value
FACTORS TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY- Pass/fall 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 LTO IS USED)- Value Added Significant Value Added Value Added No Value Added
SEB PROCESS USING MS SLPT - BOTH PPT & LTO Trade Off Factors Factor – Mission Suitability ◦ Subfactor: Management S&W ◦ Subfactor: Technical S&W ◦ Subfactor: Small Business S&W ◦ Subfactor: Safety & Health S&W Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Riddle: Yes Factor – Technical Acceptability ◦ Pass/Fail Trade-off Factors Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor – Value Characteristics (LTO only) ◦ V/C #1 Significant Value ◦ V/C #2 Value ◦ V/C #3 No Value Riddle: Yes
14 PPT/LTO Evaluation Process Evaluation Factors EvaluatIonEvaluatIon EvaluatIonEvaluatIon Ratings: Technical Past Perf. VCs Initial Evaluation Debrief Offeror Proposals Award w/o Discussion Award w/o Discussion Initial Evaluation Discussions Competitive Range Determination Competitive Range Determination Discussions Final Proposal Final Proposal ES’s Final Evaluation Revise Ratings Award Final Evaluation Briefing Best Value Decision ES’s
15 PPT/LTO Pros and Cons Pros Allows for simpler technical acceptability criteria Recognizes good performers by eliminating marginal and unsatisfactory performers Potentially greater opportunity to award without discussions Short evaluation period For LTO: Adds Value Characteristics (VCs) Cons Technical superiority not basis for award Initial learning curve must be factored into the new process