0. Welcome to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Pricing Forum
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Gilruth Center, Alamo Ballroom
1:30 – 3:30 PM

1. Safety and Administrative Information
Restrooms can be found in the hallway outside this ballroom
Fire exits are the front entrance and side exit doors. In the event of a fire, you must move at least 75ft. away from the building
Fire Exits
Fire Exit
Fire Exit
Restrooms

2. URL: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/procpub.htm
General Information
Office of Procurement
External Web Page
URL:

3. Agenda The Past – Where we were. The Present – Where we are.
SEB pricing process
Cost realism probable cost adjustments
Offerors proposals: Observations
Technical Resources
Efficiencies
Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
The Future – Where we want to be.
Process Improvements and Streamlining where warranted

4. SEB Process Industry Day ASM SYNOPSIS Respond to DRFP Questions
NASA Business Forecast Published
Acquisition Plan and SOW
Industry Day
ASM
SYNOPSIS
Respond to DRFP Questions
Preproposal Conference
Draft RFP Released
RFP Released
Competitive Range Determination
Respond to RFP Questions
Receive Proposals
Discussions with Remaining Offerors
Receive FPRs
Request Final Proposal Revisions
Award Contract
Debriefings
Post Award Debriefings
Pre Award Debriefings

5. The Past It was a “Less Complicated” World
Generally had single Contract Type Proposals
LOE was common
Fewer SEBs
Technical Resources were included in the Cost Volume
Did not facilitate technical analysis very well
Supporting BOE narrative not traceable to resource templates
Weaknesses were not disclosed to offerors

6. The Present Complexity
Multiple Contracting Methods in each Solicitation
High Volume of SEBs/SECs and competitors
Shift from LOE contracting to Performance Base Contracting requiring more analysis
Need for speed, accuracy, and consistent treatment
Weaknesses disclosed to offerors in the competitive range
Discriminators imperative in very competitive procurements
Volume of competitors includes Primes and Subs

7. Benefits of Standardization
Speed
Government starts evaluation on day one
Offerors know what to expect
Offerors have more time to work on substance (objective requirements)
Accuracy –
Standardized templates designed to only receive pertinent data
Electronic Pricing Models designed to produce accurate, error-free, estimates
Offerors can estimate cost early to perform internal assessments and to be prepared for final proposal submittal
Consistency
Standardization leads to an apples to apples cost comparison
Ensures no offeror omits cost that may be required
Allows for standard presentation to the Source Selection Authority

8. The SEB Pricing Process
What is done with your cost/price proposal once it is submitted:
Request DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) audit
Read cost proposal
Validate each offeror’s pricing model
Integrate and automate Team pricing models
Test model for errors to ensure consistency with approach
Make probable cost adjustments
Develop pricing presentation charts for SSA

9. Cost Realism Probable Cost Adjustments
Errors and reconciliations
Labor
Incumbent labor rates/salary assumptions, if proposed
Escalation
Productive factor
Uncompensated/compensated overtime
DOL wage determination compliance
DCAA input
Non-technical in-house analysis (indirect cost, DOL WD fringe compliance, etc)
Technical analysis (FTE quantity, skill mix, non-labor resources)

10. Offerors Proposals: Observations
Offerors not bidding to the solicitation:
Ensure that their proposal reconciles to the new solicitation, not the current work
Don’t make assumptions if differences exist, ask questions
Proposals with omissions:
All offerors may consider working to a checklist
If the Government is requiring information you may not be able to provide, ask questions

11. Offerors Proposals: Observations
Proposals with references to old or other Agency solicitations
Lack of adequate supporting rationale in narrative form:
The basis of any estimate needs to be explained. Be specific and objective
Lack of reconciliation between different areas of the proposal
The technical and management approach should be consistent with each other and the staffing and respective cost should reflect those approaches

12. Prior to Technical Part 2
Management and Technical Volumes
Cost/Price Volume
Detailed Technical resources captured in the Cost Volume
Technical and Mgmt Volumes only addressed resources at the total contract level
Difficult to determine if the costs reflected the technical and management approaches?
Difficult to make accurate probable adjustments to cost for inconsistencies?

13. Management and Technical Approach w/ Resource Data
Technical Part 2
Management and Technical Approach w/ Resource Data =
Cost/Price Volume
Detailed Technical Resources included in the technical volume
Resources drill down to specific areas of the SOW and only relevant selection critical information is requested
Technical Evaluator checks if resources reflect technical and management approaches
Strengths and Weaknesses tied to resources
Costs reflect the impact of Tech/Mgmt Approach

14. Proposed Efficiencies
Goal: Efficiencies proposed are realistic, adequately supported and reconcilable to the technical & management approach.
Ensure that the benefit is explained with words and numbers
Explain the timeframe of the efficiency’s benefit

15. Staffing Profile Efficiencies should explain this gap.
This gap needs to be explained in terms of efficiencies or cost savings.
Efficiencies should explain this gap.
Basis of estimate should explain this gap.

16. Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
At JSC, the IGE for FTE (Full Time Equivalents) and the skill mix is published in the solicitation generally at one WBS level higher than where you are required to estimate.
SEB Internal
RFP
2.0
7 Eng. 2 Tech
2.1
3 Eng 1 Tech
2.2
2 Eng
2.3
2 Eng 1 Tech
2.0
7 Eng. 2 Tech

17. Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
IGE represents the government’s best estimate to satisfy the requirements
Does not necessarily represent current or historical experience.
The IGE does not represent a ceiling or a baseline. If you believe an area of the WBS requires additional FTE over the IGE, don’t simply lower other areas to compensate.
IGE FTE and skill mix represent total estimated personnel (direct & indirect) to satisfy requirements.
Even if the IGE is proposed, all proposed FTE levels should adequately support the proposed technical & management approach.

18. The Future Questions? Answers
Are we asking for information in the most effective manner?
Are we using the best practices?
Answers
Internal Pricing Team sweep of templates and practices
Benchmarking JSC practices
Government-Contractor working group discussion Forums

19. Results of Pricing Sweep
Standardized the names of all JSC Pricing Templates
Discovered we had multiple names for some Templates
Standardized the format of workbooks
Technical Workbook and the Pricing Workbooks
IDIQ and LOE workbooks will use same set of templates
Templates will still be customized to reflect the individual specifications of each contract.
Goal: Standardize all templates to be consistent and only ask for relevant and pertinent data for each procurement. This means customizing specific templates for specific procurements; however, general format of templates and instructions to remain constant.

20. Benchmarking
Currently collecting and analyzing the templates and instructions of other NASA Centers
Looking for things similar and different and investigating why other centers have adopted their processes
Looking for things we do that others do not do and ensuring that additional JSC requirements add value

21. Future Dialogue Forums
Audience: Contract Personnel involved in preparing competitive proposals
Format: Smaller working group to discuss specific pricing issues
Topics:
Technical Resources Part 2
Pricing Templates
Evaluation Methodology and Cost Adjustments

22. Deputy Manager Procurement Policy & Systems Office
Contact Information
Deputy Manager Procurement Policy & Systems Office
José Garcia
Price Analyst
David Wilson