Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing Tuesday, August 13, 2014 Gilruth Center, The Alamo.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing Tuesday, August 13, 2014 Gilruth Center, The Alamo."— Presentation transcript:

1 Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing Tuesday, August 13, 2014 Gilruth Center, The Alamo Ballroom 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

2 Introduction Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office 2

3 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

4 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

5 Agenda 5 SpeakerSubject Anna Carter, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office Introductions Melanie Saunders, Associate Director Johnson Space Center Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefings Debra L. Johnson, Director JSC Office of Procurement JSC Office of Procurement 2.0 Brad Niese, Team Lead Office of Procurement Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF) Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office Streamlined Procurement Team Process Shine 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 OfficeTips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals Suzan Thomas, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office

6 Welcome to JSC Source Selection Updates Briefing Melanie Saunders, Associate Director Johnson Space Center 6

7 JSC Office of Procurement 2.0 Debra Johnson, Director JSC Office of Procurement 7

8 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

9 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

10 Strategic Acquisition Forecast (SAF) Brad Niese, Team Lead JSC Office of Procurement 10

11 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

12 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) Approve Establishes JSC Acq. Forecast & Kicks off Procurement Process PDT(s) Contract Mods/Options PDT(s) IDIQ Orders 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

13 Streamlined Procurement Team Process Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office Shine Lin, Contract Specialist Exploration Systems Procurement Office 13

14 SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions SLPTSEB Dollar ValueGenerally under $50MGenerally over $50M Technical Evaluation Technical Acceptability, (both PPT & LTO), Pass/Fail basis Mission Suitability, Score from 0 to 1,000 Technical ProposalOptional (SLPT determines) Yes Trade-Off FactorsValue Characteristics (Optional), Past Performance, and Cost/Price Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Past PerformanceAdjectival Level of Confidence Rating 14

15 SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued SLPTSEB Cost/Price EvaluationYes Eligibility for AwardYes * Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle” 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

16 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

17 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)

18 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

19 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

20 Overview of SLPT Process NFS Identification of Unacceptable Proposals NFS Identification 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 Final Proposals Received & Re-evaluated Determine Acceptability (A or U) 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 Selection 20

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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 24

25 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

26 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 26

27 Relative 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. 27

28 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process J.R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office 28

29 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

30 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

31 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

32 LPTA Process Flow Proposals received Rank 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 2 nd lowest priced proposal (or 3 rd, or 4 th, etc.) Award Phase: Present Findings to SSA for Selection Yes 32 No Yes No Confirm timeliness Yes Unacceptable are out

33 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

34 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

35 Disclosure Statements (DS) Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Offerors’ Responsibility For Submitting DS Wally Khan, Cost/Price Analyst JSC Source Selection Office 35

36 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

37 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 (CAS Applicability) 37

38 Why 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.” 38

39 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 (a) (1) 39

40 CAS Coverage Determine when a contract is:  Not subject to CAS  Subject to Modified CAS  Subject to Full CAS 40

41 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

42 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

43 Modified Coverage Modified 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 43

44 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

45 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 required 45

46 CAS Coverage and DS Determination 46

47 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

48 Responsibility 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. 48

49 Tracking Disclosure Statements DCMA Determines Adequacy DCAA Audits & Reports to DCMA Offeror Prepares Disclosure Statement Determination of Inadequacy Contract can be Awarded Determination of Adequacy Contract cannot be Awarded 49

50 Summary Determine CAS Coverage  No CAS coverage  Modified Coverage  Full Coverage Determine need for Disclosure Statement  No CAS coverageNo DS required (Exemptions)  Modified Coverage May require DS  Full CoverageDS required Plan ahead for obtaining an Adequate determination Generally it takes 1-3 Months for DCAA to complete DS adequacy audit 50

51 JSC Pricing Template Changes Sheela Logan, Pricing Team Lead JSC Source Selection Office 51

52 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

53 OLD TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

54 NEW TC(e): Incumbency Assumptions

55 OLD Sample TRT

56 NEW Sample TRT

57 Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals Kirby Condron, Contracting Officer Space Station Procurement Office Suzan Thomas, Contracting Officer JSC Source Selection Office 57

58 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

59 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

60 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 proposing 60

61 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

62 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 , General Standards 62

63 Tips for Avoiding Common Mistakes in Proposals, (Cont’d) FAR : “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 (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

64 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

65 How to Get Connected NASA’s Business Opportunities Home Page NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) JSC Procurement Website JSC Industry Assistance Office (IAO) JSC Source Selection Information Website 65

66 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


Download ppt "Welcome to the Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement Source Selection Industry Updates Briefing Tuesday, August 13, 2014 Gilruth Center, The Alamo."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google