SEB Process Chris Whyte NASA GSFC SEB Manager Feb 22, 2010
Getting Started <ul><li>SEB Appointment Memo and OGE 450s should be complete.  Inform legal of changes between anticipated...
Key Roles & Responsibilities <ul><li>Source Selection Authority  (SSA)  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Appoints SEB Members,  as so...
Key Roles & Responsibilities <ul><li>Voting Members </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Include SEB Chairperson, Senior Key Technical Re...
Solicitation Phase <ul><li>Approved SEB Board Members </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial Disclosure Statement per SEB </li></...
Solicitation Phase <ul><li>Inform Legal Counsel of offerors received  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal Counsel will notify CO w...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Proposals must be protected at ALL times </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Locked up whenever NOT under direc...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Preliminary Evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of unacceptable proposals </li></ul><...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clarifications  – Limite...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Initial Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Competitive Range/Selection on Initial Proposals </li></ul>...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Identify link between RFP requirement and propo...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Minor irregularities or apparent clerical mista...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Findings shall be clear and concise with suppor...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate proposal thoroughly against eval...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Identification and documentation of propo...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Cost/Price Factor </li></ul><ul><li>Cost Realism evaluates elements of proposed cost estimate </l...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Past Performance Factor </li></ul><ul><li>Past Performance assesses offeror’s record of performin...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>SEB Scoring   </li></ul><ul><li>Identified in RFP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Suitability -  Su...
Evaluation Phase –  Mission Suitability Subfactors Only <ul><li>. </li></ul>18 A comprehensive and thorough proposal of ex...
Evaluation Phase <ul><li>SEB Scoring Process </li></ul><ul><li>Consensus on adjectival rating must be achieved </li></ul><...
Recent Protest Issues <ul><li>Past Performance: PAAC and SCNS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Failure to adequately consider and doc...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Written SEB Report, Charts, Selection Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CO to coordinate wi...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Source Selection Statement (SSS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NASA Source Selection Statement Devel...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Actions Requiring Administrator Notification (change from Administrator's Notice of Signific...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preaward Notices </li></ul></ul...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Debriefings Process  </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(NASA Procurement Debriefing Guide – PIC 04-1...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Debriefings Continued </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modified Practices Effective 1/2003 </li></ul></...
Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Transition Project Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dedicated to coordinating and leading all aspe...
Milestone Chart – Provide to SEB Manager and Procurement Associate 27 Evaluation Milestones Start Date Completion Date # o...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

SEB Process Chris Whyte NASA GSFC SEB Manager

1,566
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,566
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SEB Process Chris Whyte NASA GSFC SEB Manager

  1. 1. SEB Process Chris Whyte NASA GSFC SEB Manager Feb 22, 2010
  2. 2. Getting Started <ul><li>SEB Appointment Memo and OGE 450s should be complete. Inform legal of changes between anticipated offerors and actual offerors after proposal receipt, including significant subcontractors. </li></ul><ul><li>See William Brown (SEB IT Support) for demonstration of AES software evaluation tool, if needed. If not using AES, develop your own evaluation form/tool. </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinate Keys/Keycards with Candace Carlsen (SEB Assistant) </li></ul><ul><li>All SEB members should review the RFP Instructions and Evaluation Criteria (RFP Sections L&M). </li></ul><ul><li>CO should coordinate proposal receipt with shipping/receiving. If possible, CO or designated team member should be at shipping receiving approximately 15 minutes before/after due date/time. </li></ul><ul><li>Designate initial proposal compliance review team to review the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with page limits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offeror signature on proposal cover form and acknowledgement of amendments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completion of offeror fill-ins, section K, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receipt of all required proposal volumes and attachments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business size status, if applicable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any prime or subcontractor deviations/exceptions to RFP terms and conditions – contact SEB Mgr and Legal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Request or follow-up on DCAA Audit ASAP </li></ul></ul>1
  3. 3. Key Roles & Responsibilities <ul><li>Source Selection Authority (SSA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Appoints SEB Members, as soon as possible in the acquisition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes selection at completion of evaluation phase </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Should not receive communication during evaluations, except for schedule delays or significant issues that may require amendment or competitive range </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SEB Chairperson </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Principal Operating Executive of the SEB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensures proposals are evaluated fairly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manages team efficiently </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensures schedules are met </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resolve s procedural matters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensures proposals and SEB Information are safeguarded </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consultants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual s ha ve specialized knowledge or experience, provide findings to SEB, do not attend SEB deliberations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals have specialized resources experience to verify/validate realism of cost proposal and consistency with technical proposal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ex-Officios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Center Management Officials, advisory role, not part of rating process, generally only involved to support resolution of unanticipated problems/issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SEB Recorder </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative Assistant to SEB </li></ul></ul>2
  4. 4. Key Roles & Responsibilities <ul><li>Voting Members </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Include SEB Chairperson, Senior Key Technical Representative, Experienced Procurement Representative, Senior Safety and Mission Assurance Representative (as appropriate) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited to a maximum of seven </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Should be assigned on a full-time basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assist Source Selection Authority (SSA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide expert analysis of proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare and present findings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid trade-off judgments among offerors or evaluation factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work closely with Cost Team members to ensure consistency between the technical proposal and cost proposal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not make recommendation for selection </li></ul></ul>3
  5. 5. Solicitation Phase <ul><li>Approved SEB Board Members </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial Disclosure Statement per SEB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documentation, Evaluation Tree, and Training for AES NLT 2 weeks before proposal receipt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 methods for using AES (1 recorder versus individual evaluators input data) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal, Security, SEB Briefings required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SEB Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Keys, Keycards, Badges </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposal must be received in Building 16W and coordinated with the logistics services contractor personnel </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E nsures timely/untimely receipt of proposals is documented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E nsures logging of proposal volumes actually received </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensures secure control of volumes until secure transport to evaluation site(s) is coordinated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Remember to inform Shipping and Receiving and SEB facility personnel of your proposal due date (and extensions) and date/time of transport from Bldg. 16W to Bldg. 25) </li></ul></ul>4
  6. 6. Solicitation Phase <ul><li>Inform Legal Counsel of offerors received </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal Counsel will notify CO whether any conflict of interest is present based upon review of SEB members financial disclosure statements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If no conflict of interest is evident, SEB may proceed with evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Document Control </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish log to track all proposal volumes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must insure all are accounted for when evaluation phase is completed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distribute only to authorized team members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposals must be marked “Contractor Bid or Proposal Information See FAR 3.104” </li></ul></ul>5
  7. 7. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Proposals must be protected at ALL times </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Locked up whenever NOT under direct, personal control of evaluator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No discussions outside of controlled areas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No information shared with non-team personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No writing on the proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Telephone communications should be on the secure phone system (STU-III)(see SEB Manager for exceptions) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposals should be evaluated serially </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Read proposal by proposal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>After each proposal evaluated in series, then horizontal and vertical consistency check </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposals are compared to RFP evaluation factors and subfactors—NOT compared against each other </li></ul>6
  8. 8. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Preliminary Evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of unacceptable proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In R&D acquisitions, a substantial design drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually an entire new technical proposal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CO/Chair shall consult with SEB Manager and Legal Counsel before proceeding </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CO shall document the rationale for discontinuance of initial evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul>7
  9. 9. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clarifications – Limited Exchanges (relevance of past performance, adverse past performance, resolve minor or clerical errors). Award without discussions is contemplated as cited in RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communications (before establishment of CR)– Exchanges leading to establishment of competitive range. Held only with (1) offerors whose past performance is the determining factor preventing them from being placed in CR and (2) offerors whose exclusion from, or inclusion in , the CR is uncertain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enhance understanding, allow reasonable interpretation, facilitate evaluation process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, alter technical or cost elements, revise proposal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Used for the purpose of addressing issues that must be explored to determine whether a proposal should be placed in CR </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communications (after establishment of CR)– Negotiations are exchanges with intent of allowing offeror to revise proposal. Deficiencies, significant weaknesses, adverse past performance, cost/price elements that do not appear to be justified are revealed. Final Proposal Revision (FPR) is page limited. </li></ul></ul>8
  10. 10. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Initial Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Competitive Range/Selection on Initial Proposals </li></ul><ul><li>Final Proposal Revision </li></ul><ul><li>Final Evaluations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposals re-scored based on FPR evaluations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scoring changes between initial and FPRs shall be clearly traceable </li></ul></ul>9
  11. 11. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Identify link between RFP requirement and proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Classify findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>Include words from definitions in each finding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant Weakness – a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strength ­ a proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government (this could be associated with a process, technical approach, materials, facilities, etc.). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant Strength ­ a proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government. </li></ul></ul>10
  12. 12. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes are not weaknesses and are identified to offerors during clarifications </li></ul><ul><li>Combine findings when appropriate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Several findings should be considered for accumulation as a significant finding, when related and appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Document with confidence and courtesy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings will be disclosed during debriefings and protests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not retain technical notes, documents, early drafts. Retain latest version of evaluator findings and ultimately, the final report/presentation (and all documents presented to the SSA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do retain backup documentation related to cost realism analysis and past performance evaluation details </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluators work as team to consolidate findings as consensus findings </li></ul></ul>11
  13. 13. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Documenting Evaluation Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Findings shall be clear and concise with supporting rationale (avoid simple conclusory statements) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure of a finding : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusion (1 to 2 sentences) – A broad statement based on many facts. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ex. Demonstrates an excellent understanding of……; </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed design exceeds the requirement of/for…. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facts (most lengthy) – specific examples, relevant to conclusion and direct from proposal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Impact Statement (1 to 2 sentences) – relates directly to risk/benefit to the Government (technical, schedule, cost, safety). Evaluations must consider the probability of success and the impact of failure and must identify associated risks or benefits with an identified weakness or strength </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ex. Proposed approach requires repeated critical testing resulting in a substantial delay for delivery; High employee turnover rate would adversely impact effective/efficient operations </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Risks which impact cost must be considered in the Cost/Price evaluation (Cost Realism Adjustment) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Include words from findings definitions in each finding </li></ul></ul></ul>12
  14. 14. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate proposal thoroughly against evaluation criteria in RFP and develop findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Remember to complete proposal evaluations serially, not concurrently </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Horizontal consistency check will involve some comparison only in terms of ensuring accuracy and fairness across proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Helps avoid comparing proposals against the “best” proposal versus the RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All team members (voting) must read entire proposal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Insures full participation and all relevant findings will be identified (many pairs of eyes) </li></ul></ul>13
  15. 15. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Mission Suitability Factor Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Identification and documentation of proposal strengths and weaknesses (evaluation findings) is vital </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basis for initial selection or determination of competitive range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Framework for discussions with offerors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Basis for trade-offs for SSA to justify cost differentials between proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Framework for debriefing of unsuccessful offerors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After consensus on findings, the next steps are the adjective ratings for each subfactor, followed by numerical scoring (if applicable) </li></ul>14
  16. 16. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Cost/Price Factor </li></ul><ul><li>Cost Realism evaluates elements of proposed cost estimate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are costs realistic for the work to be performed as required by the contract? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do costs reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are costs consistent with offeror’s technical proposal? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Under cost reimbursement competitions, offerors may hope to improve chance of selection by proposing unrealistically low costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compromises the integrity of the competition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compromises contractor cost performance after award </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost Realism Adjustments </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Verification/Validation of proposal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Verification/Validation of DCAA audit report (Cognizant ACO); Request for DCAA audit report early in process (NASA Form 1434) ), be clear in request and follow-up regularly with DCAA on status </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technical Adjustments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indicate level of confidence in probable cost assessment for each proposal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Resource Realism” findings may be in Mission Suitability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Procurement Policy POC for Cost/Price expertise is available for support </li></ul>15
  17. 17. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>Past Performance Factor </li></ul><ul><li>Past Performance assesses offeror’s record of performing services similar to those in the relevant procurement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Team determines appropriate adjectival rating but no point score </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negative past performance evaluations must be shared with offerors (potential clarifications or discussions) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Findings (not classified as strengths or weaknesses) documented and consensus achieved </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation considers many sources of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must consider both prime and subcontractor data (depending on RFP Evaluation Criteria) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All Information should be updated after “Discussions”, if applicable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offeror’s listed contracts and performance descriptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questionnaires submitted by offeror’s references </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Past Performance data bases (NASA PPDB, PPIRS) Award Fee Ratings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>See SEB Manager for Senior Management Input Process </li></ul></ul>16
  18. 18. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>SEB Scoring </li></ul><ul><li>Identified in RFP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Suitability - Subfactors adjectival rating and numerical weights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost/Price – proposed cost and probable cost (with confidence assessment) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Past Performance – adjectival rating (level of confidence) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scoring consistency (consistently applied) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subfactor Strengths and Weaknesses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition of adjective ratings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Numerical scoring philosophy </li></ul></ul>17
  19. 19. Evaluation Phase – Mission Suitability Subfactors Only <ul><li>. </li></ul>18 A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists. Adjective Rating Numerical Equivalent (%) Definition Excellent 91-100 Very Good 71-90 A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist. Fair Poor 51-70 31-50 0-30 A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror's response. A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct. Good
  20. 20. Evaluation Phase <ul><li>SEB Scoring Process </li></ul><ul><li>Consensus on adjectival rating must be achieved </li></ul><ul><li>Consensus on percentile score within adjectival rating required (averaging individual percentages not permitted) </li></ul><ul><li>Subfactor point scores are calculated by multiplying subfactor weight by consensus percentile </li></ul><ul><li>Subfactor scores are totaled to establish Mission Suitability point score – no adjective rating for total score </li></ul>19
  21. 21. Recent Protest Issues <ul><li>Past Performance: PAAC and SCNS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Failure to adequately consider and document size relevance to justify Excellent Ratings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GAO Guidance from SCNS indicates prime contracts must be approximately 30% or larger in comparison to the proposed effort to be at least somewhat relevant in size, although this is not a strict rule </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Mission Suitability: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Failure to evaluate in accordance with RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of consistency between offerors for similar content/findings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unreasonable weakness for incumbent capture rates based on Government data that was unclear </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost/Price: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inaccurate Calculations and/or erroneous data </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Written SEB Report, Charts, Selection Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CO to coordinate with Code 210 Assoc. Division Chief re: a request to the PO to waive the review and approval of contract award dependent upon the nature and extent of changes included in the model contract. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EEO Preaward Clearances </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Required for contracts and subcontracts of $10M or more (excluding construction) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CO shall request clearance from OFCCP regional office before award of any contract, unless: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed contractor is listed in OFCCP’s National Preaward Registry via Internet (PIC 99-2); </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Projected award date is within 24 months of the proposed contractor’s Notice of Compliance completion date in the Registry; and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CO documents the Registry review in the contract file </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Central Contractor Registration (CCR) issued Cage Codes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective December 31, 2001, a contractor must supply a Cage Code in order to be awarded a contract. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cage Codes need to be specific to the contracting entity by name and address. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CCR may be accessed via Procurement Library website to verify Cage Code </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exemption apply per NFS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>VETS – 100 Report (Federal Contractor Veterans’ Employment Report) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicable to awards of $25K or more (N/A for commercial items or contracts that do not exceed simplified acquisition threshold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CO can not obligate or expend funds with a contractor that has not submitted required annual Form VETS-100 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Performance Evaluation Plan - For award fee contracts, Performance Evaluation Plans must be completed/approved prior to contract award </li></ul><ul><li>Need a Funded PR (or PRs if you also have a phase-in PO) – If you were previously working from a planning PR with no funds, you need to get funding prior to award! </li></ul>20
  23. 23. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Source Selection Statement (SSS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NASA Source Selection Statement Development Guide – PIC 04-10 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The signed SSS is released to all offerors, and is not redacted . The SSS is posted to NAIS after contract award. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Contracting Officer drafts the SSS, Legal Counsel and the SEB Coordinator provides input, assistance, and review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The SEB Technical Members should review the draft SSS for accuracy and to ensure that no proprietary information is included </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>See GSFC Procurement Circular 98-2 for official review requirements </li></ul></ul>21
  24. 24. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Actions Requiring Administrator Notification (change from Administrator's Notice of Significant Contract Action (ANOSCA) and NASA Public Announcement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public Announcement required over $5M ($25M for options), ANOSCA required over $25M – Must inform Center Director First via SEB Manager! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CO should work with HQ Office of Procurement for unique actions that are below these threshold levels, but may still be appropriate for Public Announcement and/or ANOSCA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single template used for HQ Public Announcement and/or ANOSCA. http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/vpo/vpo_matrix.cgi </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Template is coordinated through HQ Office of Procurement via encrypted e-mail (PKI) as soon as possible after the selection meeting and at least 5 workdays prior to planned public announcement. The SEB Manager and Assistant have PKI capability, if needed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For GSFC (Not 210.H) Public Announcements over $25M, a Draft press release should be coordinated through the installation PAO (Cynthia O’Carroll)1-3 days prior to the final selection meeting, but only after the successful dry run for the selection meeting. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Press release draft shall include general procurement information, but shall not include information on any anticipated successful offeror(s). Successful offeror information shall be provided to the PAO after the selection meeting/decision. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coordination of 210.H press release information will occur after the template has been submitted to the HQ Office of Procurement. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>See NASA Procurement Notice 04-08 and the GSFC SEB Manager for more detailed information </li></ul></ul>22
  25. 25. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preaward Notices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exclusion from competitive range </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Small Business Programs (SB Set-Aside, SDB benefit, HUBZone) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>See FAR 15.503(2) for required pre-award selection notice 5 days prior to set-aside awards </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Postaward Notices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Within 3 days after contract award to those in competitive range and not selected </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Notification to successful offeror(s) and unsuccessful offerors via phone calls from SSA must be coordinated along with Administrator Notification and Public Announcement </li></ul></ul></ul>23
  26. 26. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Debriefings Process </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(NASA Procurement Debriefing Guide – PIC 04-11) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GSFC does not release point scores (see SEB Manager for exceptions) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GSFC has “debriefing official” position at least one level higher than the CO, and equal to the solicitation approval level, unless delegated </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For GSFC, legal counsel and the SEB Manager do not typically attend, although it is considered on a case-by-case basis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consult with SEB Manager prior to debriefings to review the debriefing process and schedule the debriefing preparation meeting </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate open, appropriate and meaningful information exchanges that reduce misunderstandings and protest </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preaward </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Written request submitted within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from competition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limited information disclosed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Postaward </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Written request submitted within 3 days after the date offeror has rec’d notification of contract award </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Substantial information disclosed </li></ul></ul></ul>24
  27. 27. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Debriefings Continued </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modified Practices Effective 1/2003 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Redacted charts, agenda, source selection statement provided in advance of debriefing meeting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Redacted charts contain general procurement information (excluding Cost Estimate/budget, schedule, etc) and specific evaluation information on offeror being debriefed . Total probable cost/price inclusive of fee/profit and total contract value inclusive of fee/profit is provided. Mission Suitability information is provided without point scores. Written relevant questions accepted in advanced and answered orally at debriefing. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Protest </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shall be filed 10 calendar days after contract award or within 5 days after debriefing date, whichever is later </li></ul></ul>25
  28. 28. Selection/Award Phase <ul><li>Transition Project Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dedicated to coordinating and leading all aspects of contract transition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Team members include home organization management, contracting officer (CO), Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), Resource Analyst, IT representative, Security representative, and representatives from major user organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role is to establish, publish, and maintain a comprehensive and coordinated schedule of all events and activities necessary to contract transition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Transition Handbook has been developed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transition Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keeping track of all technical equipment, intellectual property (software and data) and end items required from the incumbent contractor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider ing the potential impact of computers/data for transition of follow-on service support contracts. Government software and individual personal data cannot be taken on contractor computers. These issues need to be coordinated with the CIO Office and legal counsel. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinating with Security for badges and keys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying property to be transferred to the new contractor </li></ul></ul>26
  29. 29. Milestone Chart – Provide to SEB Manager and Procurement Associate 27 Evaluation Milestones Start Date Completion Date # of work days         Technical Evaluation       - Complete Contractor 1 Draft Findings       - Complete Contractor 2 Draft Findings       - Complete Contractor 3 Draft Findings       - Complete Contractor 4 Draft Findings       Past Performance Evaluation       Cost/Price Evaluation       Horizontal/Vertical Review of Findings       Probable Cost Adjustments       Technical Adjective Ratings/Scores       Horizontal Review of Ratings/Scores       Selection Report and SSA Slide Prep       Reviews (SEB Mgr, Legal, Proc Assoc)     5 SSA Presentation Dry Run     1 Revisions and Presentation to SSA     5 SSA Selection     1 Award Review, ANOSCA, Press Release     10

×