Presentation on theme: "Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom"— Presentation transcript:
1Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates BriefingTuesday, August 13, 2014Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
3This 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.
4ObjectiveTo communicate the key features of the JSC Source Selection processes to help Industry better prepare and respond to the JSC Request for Proposals.
5Agenda Speaker Subject Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection OfficeIntroductionsMelanie Saunders, Associate DirectorJohnson Space CenterWelcome to JSC Source Selection Updates BriefingsDebra L. Johnson, DirectorJSC Office of ProcurementJSC Office of Procurement 2.0Brad Niese, Team LeadOffice of ProcurementStrategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF)Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support OfficeStreamlined Procurement Team ProcessShine Lin, Contract Specialist Institutional Procurement OfficeJ. R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement OfficeLowest Price Technically Acceptable ProcessWally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection OfficeDisclosure Statements (DS)Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)Offeror's Responsibility for Submitting DSSheela Logan, Pricing Team Lead JSC Source Selection OfficeJSC Pricing Template ChangesKirby Condron, Contracting Officer Space Station Procurement OfficeTips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in ProposalsSuzan Thomas, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office
6Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefing Melanie Saunders, Associate DirectorJohnson Space Center2
7JSC Office of Procurement 2.0 Debra Johnson, DirectorJSC Office of Procurement2
8Procurement Customer Support Workforce Performance Transparency 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)TransparencyAwareness (no surprises)Communication (feedback, open and continuous)WorkforceTrainingSolution & 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/ProcessesTransition to paperless contractingUser friendly database of all contracts to make informed recommendations/decisions
9Procurement BA Management Team Directorate Suite 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 SuiteProvide the Vision, Environment and Framework for successContinuous Self Assessment (SEB process/lessons learned, Reviews, etc)Balance ScorecardGovernance Structure
10Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF) Brad Niese, Team LeadJSC Office of Procurement2
11SAF Framework Objectives: Efficient & Effective manner to acquire goods & services to meet goals/mission of the center and the programsLonger-term, strategic acquisition outlook with an integrated center-wide focus with goals to optimize interdependencies and reduce redundanciesLeverage flexibilities to develop integrated business and acquisition solutions
12Acquisition Forecast Team SAF ProcessDeep Dive RequestRequires fwd WorkAcquisition Forecast TeamDirectorate Offices work with Procurement Offices to determine new requirements and initial prospective acquisition strategyBoard of DirectorsASMDecision(s)Funding and affected DirectoratesAcquisition Team Prescreen/Prepare RecommendationsBA, AM, AL, Requirements OrgRecommendationsApprove Establishes JSC Acq. Forecast & Kicks off Procurement ProcessAcquisition ForecastJSC Procurement Portfolio DatabaseProcurement Process:PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)PDT(s)Contract Mods/OptionsIDIQ OrdersOther
13Streamlined Procurement Team Process Christina Hibbs, Contracting OfficerOperations Support OfficeShine Lin, Contract SpecialistExploration Systems Procurement Office2
14SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions Dollar ValueGenerally under $50MGenerally over $50MTechnical EvaluationTechnical Acceptability, (both PPT & LTO), Pass/Fail basisMission Suitability,Score from 0 to 1,000Technical ProposalOptional (SLPT determines)YesTrade-Off FactorsValue Characteristics (Optional), Past Performance, and Cost/PriceMission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/PricePast PerformanceAdjectival Level of Confidence Rating
15SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued Cost/Price EvaluationYesEligibility for AwardYes *Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”* 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.
16SLPT 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 discussionsSubmit your best offer first!
17When is SLPT Not Used?We generally do not use the SLPT source selection method for:Sole source acquisitionsSealed biddingTechnically complex acquisitionsExamplesSLPTEngineering Fabrication Services (EFS)Safety & Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC)SEBJSC Protective Services Contract (JSCPSC)JSC Engineering, Technology, Science (JETS)
18Types 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.
19Unique Features of Streamlined Procurement Team Process May or may not request technical proposalWhere 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).
20Overview of SLPT Process Determine Acceptability (A, PA, or U)“A” and “PA”: Evaluation of Past Performance & Cost/Price (VCs if applicable)NFSIdentification of Unacceptable ProposalsTechnical Acceptability Determination“U”s are outAward or Competitive RangeAward: Present Findings to SSA for Selection“U”s are outDetermine Acceptability(A or U)Final Proposals Received &Re-evaluatedHold Discussions w/ Offerors in Competitive RangeCompetitive Range: Present to SSA for Decision on Who is in Competitive RangeAward: Present Findings to SSA for Selection“A”s are Evaluated Against Past Performance & Cost/Price (VCs if applicable)
21SLPT Ratings Technical Acceptability Factor (pass or fail basis) Acceptable (A)Potentially Acceptable (PA)Unacceptable (U)Trade-off FactorsCost/PricePast Performance - Level of ConfidenceVery High Level of ConfidenceHigh Level of ConfidenceModerate Level of ConfidenceLow Level of ConfidenceVery Low Level of ConfidenceNeutralValue Characteristics (if Limited Trade-off is used) - Value AddedSignificant Value AddedValue AddedNo Value Added
22Definition 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.
23Definition 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.
24Technical Acceptability Factor 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 ApproachManagement and Staffing PlanTotal Compensation PlanPhase-In PlanTechnical ApproachTechnical Implementation ApproachSafety and Health PlanTechnical Resources TemplateSmall Business Utilization
25Predefined 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 WeightSmaller DimensionsGreater Functionality
26Past Performance Factor 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 SystemDefense Contract Management AgencyInterviews with government and commercial clientsOther Sources
27Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle” FAR : 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.
29LPTAPrice 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 offerorA firm-fixed price contract is more common and is the process flow that is illustrated in this presentationPast Performance is generally not considered except in regard to FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective ContractorsGenerally a shorter overall acquisition scheduleLess complex solicitationsHuman Health & Institutional Management Support (HHIMS) recently utilized the LPTA process
30LPTA Process Government issues RFP Proposals received on time in accordance with RFP instructionsProposals then ranked by total price, lowest to highestLowest priced proposal is then reviewed by the Procurement Team (PT) for RFP compliance, then reviewed for technical acceptabilityIf the lowest priced proposal is technically acceptable, no more proposals are evaluated and PT moves to award phase7
31LPTA 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 reviewedAll 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 reviewedIn 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 evaluation7
32LPTA Process Flow Yes No Yes No Yes Determine gross acceptability ConfirmtimelinessDetermine gross acceptabilityUnacceptable are outIs proposal technically acceptable?Proposals receivedRank by price/determine lowest priceYesNoYesReasonable iterations?Award Phase: Present Findings to SSA for SelectionNoYesAward Phase: Present Findings to SSA for SelectionCompetitive Range/Hold Discussions w/ Offerors (if applicable)Review 2nd lowest priced proposal (or 3rd, or 4th, etc.)
33When to use LPTA?Re-competes or follow-ons where there is good historical dataTechnical Requirements: Well defined, low-risk, objective metricsGenerally not used if Past Performance is a key factor in evaluation
34LPTA InformationBe aware that RFP evaluation criteria may look differentCarefully review the RFP language as Government is looking to minimize evaluation time.8
35Wally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office Disclosure Statements (DS) Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Offerors’ Responsibility For Submitting DSWally Khan, Cost/Price AnalystJSC Source Selection Office2
36What 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 measuredMeans of measuring consistency and compliance of day-to-day cost accounting with applicable CASMust be adequate – accurately describe the practices and procedures i.e. current, accurate and completeMust be compliant – with FAR, CAS
37What 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 contractsThere are currently 19 standardsRef: 48 CFR (CAS Applicability)
38Why a Disclosure Statement is Important at Contract Award FAR (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.”
39Relationship: DS & CASDS required of entities subject to CAS Board’s Rules and RegulationsEntities subject to CAS are subject to either:Full coverage - Subject to all 19 CAS StandardsModified Coverage – Subject to 4 StandardsCAS 401, 402, 405, 406Ref FAR (a) (1)
40CAS Coverage Determine when a contract is: Not subject to CAS Subject to Modified CASSubject to Full CAS
41Exemptions from CASNegotiated contract / subcontract for $700,000 or lessSealed bid contractFirm Fixed Price (FFP) contract / subcontract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without the submission of cost or pricing dataFFP contracts / subcontracts for commercial itemsContracts / subcontracts price set by lawContracts / subcontracts with small businessCurrent contract less than $7.5M or business unit NOT currently performing on CAS-covered contract or subcontract of $7.5M or more
42Determination of Modified CAS Coverage Three questionsIs the current award $50M or more?Did the business receive $50M or more in net CAS covered awards in the preceding accounting period?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
43Modified CoverageModified CAS covered contracts are subject to the following Cost Accounting Standards:CAS Consistency in Estimating, Accumulating, and Reporting Costs;CAS Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same Purpose;CAS 405 – Accounting for Unallowable Costs;CAS 406 – Cost Accounting Period
44Determination 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
45When is a Disclosure Statement Required? DS required for fully CAS-covered contractsFor 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 requiredIf 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 “Yes” - DS is required
47Responsibility 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.
48Responsibility of DCAA & DCMA FAR (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 (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.
49Tracking Disclosure Statements Offeror Prepares Disclosure StatementDCAA Audits & Reports to DCMADCMA Determines AdequacyContract can be AwardedDetermination ofAdequacyDetermination of InadequacyContract cannot be Awarded
50Summary Determine CAS Coverage No CAS coverage Modified Coverage Full CoverageDetermine need for Disclosure StatementNo CAS coverage No DS required (Exemptions)Modified Coverage May require DSFull Coverage DS requiredPlan ahead for obtaining an Adequate determinationGenerally it takes 1-3 Months for DCAA to complete DS adequacy audit
52Incumbent 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 inProlonged discussion periodsA slip in planned award dateChanges to how incumbent data is captured in solicitations:TC(e) revisionTechnical Resources Template (TRT) revisionInclusion of ‘incumbent’ definition in RFP: “current person performing same or similar function on current contract”
57Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals Kirby Condron, Contracting OfficerSpace Station Procurement OfficeSuzan Thomas, Contracting OfficerJSC Source Selection Office2
58Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals Ask questions earlyIf anything in the draft RFP or RFP is unclear, submit questions to the Contracting Officer.Follow page count and formatting requirements exactlyPay 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.
59Tips 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 handForgetting 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 evaluationProposing 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.
60Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d) Past PerformanceExplain 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 requirementsMake sure that information provided for Key Personnel is detailed and relevant to the effort requestedFollow up with Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) respondents to ensure timely submittals – Be aware of Limited Communications Notice effect at JSCFollow 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 postedMake sure that the listed POCs are up-to-date and aware that you are proposing
61Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d) Cost/PricePropose a realistic cost/price that is consistent with your technical proposal.Common Cost/Price Volume Errors:Proposals with omissions:Lack of detail on Overhead, G&A, and Other Indirect RatesLack of narrative supporting rationaleLogic IssuesInconsistent content within the cost proposalFailure to follow template instructions:Using hard numbers instead of formulas where appropriatePlacing Fully Burdened Labor Rates where Direct Labor Rates are Required
62Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d) Eligibility and Model Contract RequirementsSubmit 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 , General Standards
63Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d) FAR : “Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to thevarious job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retaincompetent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure tocomprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.”Total Compensation Plan and TemplatesClarify which subcontractors meet the criteria in NFS (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?
64Tips 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 thoroughlyReview 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 clearStress the importance of timeliness and proper location with your courierWhen delivering a proposal in person, remember to deliver the proposal through Gate 4, and not through the Central JSC Gate 1Allow at least 48 hours to over-night a proposal through a mail carrierIf 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
65How to Get Connected NASA’s Business Opportunities Home Page NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)JSC Procurement WebsiteJSC Industry Assistance Office (IAO)JSC Source Selection Information Website
66Acronyms A – Acceptable CAS – Cost Accounting Standards CFAO – Cognizant Federal Agency OfficialCFR – Code of Federal RegulationsDCAA – Defense Contract Audit AgencyDCMA – Defense Contract Management AgencyDRD – Data Requirements DescriptionDS – Disclosure StatementFAR – Federal Acquisition RegulationFFP – Firm Fixed PriceJSC – Johnson Space CenterLPTA - Lowest Price, Technically AcceptableLTO – Limited TradeoffPA – Potentially AcceptablePPT – Performance Price TradeoffRFI – Request for InformationRFP – Request for ProposalSB – Small BusinessSEB – Source Evaluation BoardSLPT – Streamlined Procurement TeamSSA – Source Selection AuthorityTC – Total CompensationTRT – Technical Resources TemplateVC – Value CharacteristicsU – Unacceptable