Welcome to the NCMA Conference

SLPT/LPTA Updates Breakout

Wednesday, November 20, 2013Gilruth Center

12:45 p.m.

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.

2

Objective

To communicate the key features of the JSC Source Selection processes to provide a more thorough understanding for acquisition professionals and to help Industry better prepare and respond to the JSC Request for Proposals.

3

Agenda

4

Speaker SubjectChristina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office

Streamlined Procurement Team Process

J. R. Carpentier, Contracting Officer Projects Procurement Office

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process

Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) Process

Christina Hibbs, Contracting Officer Operations Support Office

5

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions

SLPT SEBDollar Value Generally under $50M Generally over $50MTechnical Evaluation

Technical Acceptability, (both PPT & LTO), Pass/Fail basis

Mission Suitability,Score from 0 to 1,000

Technical Proposal Optional (SLPT determines)

Yes

Trade-Off Factors Value Characteristics (Optional), Past Performance, and Cost/Price

Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price

Past Performance Adjectival Level of Confidence Rating

Adjectival Level of Confidence Rating

6

SLPT versus Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Acquisitions, Continued

SLPT SEBCost/Price Evaluation Yes Yes

Eligibility for Award Yes * Yes *Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”

Yes 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.

7

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!

8

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

9

SLPT Engineering Fabrication Services

(EFS) Safety & Mission Assurance

Engineering Contract (SMAEC)

SEB JSC Protective Services Contract

(JSCPSC) JSC Engineering, Technology,

Science (JETS)

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.

10

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).

11

Overview of SLPT Process

NFS 1815.305-70Identification 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

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 Selection12

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 13

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.

14

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.

15

• 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 Full Time Equivalents (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

Technical Acceptability Factor

16

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

17

• 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

Past Performance Factor

18

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors, “The Riddle”

• FAR 15.101-1: 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.

19

Questions?

20

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process

J.R. Carpentier, Contracting OfficerProjects Procurement Office

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

LPTA Process Flow

Proposals receivedRank 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 2nd lowest priced proposal (or 3rd,

or 4th, etc.)

Award Phase: Present

Findings to SSA for Selection

Yes

25

No

Yes

No

Confirmtimeliness

Yes

Unacceptable are out

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

26

LPTA Information

• Be aware that RFP evaluation criteria may look different Carefully review the RFP language as Government is looking to

minimize evaluation time.

27

Questions?

28

How to Get Connected

• NASA’s Business Opportunities Home Pagehttp://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/link_syp.cgi

• NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi

• JSC Procurement Websitehttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/

• JSC Industry Assistance Office (IAO)http://officeofprocurement.jsc.nasa.gov/small-business.asp

• JSC Source Selection Information Websitehttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/sorsel.html

29