80JSC018R0036_Amendment_P00001_Ventilation_Loop_Fans_for_the_xPLSS.pdf

OMB Approval #: 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 26

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

P00001 See Block 16C N/A

6. ISSUED BY CODE JSC 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE JSC

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Attn: BT/ Gisela Moreno Attn: BT/ Gisela Moreno

2101 NASA Parkway 2101 NASA Parkway

Houston, TX 77058 Houston, TX 77058

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) (x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

80JSC018R0036

X

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08/29/2018

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SECE ITEM16c )

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning _____ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN

THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc ) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b)

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible )

The purpose of this amendment is to provide (1) offerors with responses to questions received for solicitation

80JSC018R0036, (2) a summary of changes for Amendment P00001, (3) NASA New Technology Points of Contacts, (4)

NASA Patent Representatives and (5) replacement pages to the solicitation as a result of the changes in this amendment.

See Attached.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Gisela Moreno, Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

10/4/18

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

80JSC018R0036, Ventilation Loop Fans for xPLSS

Amendment 00001: Questions & Answers

Q1.

A1.

Q2.

A2.

Q3.

A3.

Q4.

A4.

Q5.

Question and Answers as of 9/18/18

I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

The Ventilation Loop Fan is a new requirement; therefore, there is no incumbent contractor.

In our experience for firm, fixed price competitive bids it is uncommon to provide budgetary details such as material cost, material burdening rate, labor hours, and labor rates current or future. Please would NASA elaborate on the reason these details are requested as part of a firm, fixed price competitive bid? Please provide reference to the source of the requirement (e.g. a

FAR or other text) if available which will help justify providing these details.

Refer to the solicitation Section B, pages B-1 and B-2, FULLY BURDENED LABOR RATE, clause that established the labor rates the Government will utilize in the negotiation of FFP IDIQ delivery orders in accordance with the Section I, Task Ordering Procedure Clause.

The Government will perform price analysis to review proposed rates and prices for all contract years to determine if they are realistic in response to this solicitation. The Government will review the Firm-Fixed-Price Delivery Order to ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable. Refer to solicitation Section M.5, Price.

It is our understanding that only the Fully Burdened Labor Rate, Material Cost, and Material

Burdening Rate are requested. Rates are inclusive of fee. If this is not correct please clarify.

Yes, refer to the solicitation Section B pages B-1 and B-2, FULLY BURDENED LABOR RATE clause that establishes the labor rates the Government will utilize in the negotiation of FFP IDIQ delivery orders in accordance with the Section I, Task Ordering Procedure Clause. The fully burdened labor rates are inclusive of fee.

Are the requested pricing details inclusive of manufacturing labor for the fans or are the requested labor details for engineering deliverables only?

The pricing shall include the labor skill mix and non labor resources required to perform the services for solicitation Attachment L-1, Firm-Fixed-Price Delivery Order. The Offeror may propose additional Labor Categories that cannot be logically mapped into the Standard Labor Categories in Section B, pages B-1 and B-2, FULLY BURDENED LABOR RATE clause. The Offeror is required to provide a job description and qualifying education and experience for all additional labor categories in the “Proposed Labor Categories” section of Attachment J-2, Standard Labor Categories (SLC).

1852.227‐72 DESIGNATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTATIVE AND PATENT

REPRESENTATIVE (APR 2015) The provided hyperlink http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/new_tech_pocs.html directs to a NASA webpage requiring

Smartcard or RSA Token access. Please advise how potential bidders should view this requirement without possession of such a NASA Smartcard or RSA Token.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/new_tech_pocs.html

Amendment 00001: Questions & Answers

A5. The list of NASA New Technology Points of Contact (POCs) and NASA Patent Representatives is enclosed in this amendment.

Q6. Quantity in 52.216‐090 IDIQ vs. pg. L‐25 Table 1: Table of Deliverables. The IDIQ clause stipulates a minimum Quantity of 2 and a maximum of 9. Page L‐25 Table 1: Table of Deliverables stipulates a quantity of 4. What quantity is to be used to come up with total price?

A6. This amendment updates Page L‐25 Table 1: Table of Deliverables to reflect a quantity of 5.

Q7. FIRM‐FIXED‐PRICE (FFP) TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS OF VENTILATION LOOP

FANS FOR THE xPLSS. By the use of the word “additional” it is assumed the table on page B‐3 is for pricing of units in addition to the 4 already specified in Table 1: Deliverables. If this is not correct please clarify. Should we assume these units may be ordered in quantity one or will there only be 2 or more ordered? Are the requested pricing details inclusive of manufacturing labor for the fans or are the requested labor details for engineering deliverables only?

A7. The FIRM-FIXED-PRICE (FFP) TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS OF VENTILATION

LOOP FANS FOR THE xPLSS are additional units from the quantity specified in Attachment L-

1, Firm-Fixed-Price Delivery Order. The Offeror is required to propose pricing according to the units listed in the table, FIRM-FIXED-PRICE (FFP) TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS OF

VENTILATION LOOP FANS FOR THE xPLSS.

Refer to the response provided for question 6 that corrects the Quantity listed in Table 1, Table of

Deliverables.

Q8. Within the spreadsheet “L‐4_Firm‐Fixed‐Price_Template.xlsx” there is a formula for row 79, columns B‐E which adds the “Total Straight‐Time Direct Labor Cost” from row 53 to the “Total

Price” from Row 65. However, “Total Price” from row 65 already includes the direct labor cost of row 53. In this way, the row 79 calculation is double counting the direct labor. Please clarify.

A8. This amendment updates solicitation Attachment L‐4_Firm‐Fixed‐Price_Template.xlsx to correct the formula.

Q9. Within the spreadsheet “L‐4_Firm‐Fixed‐Price_Template.xlsx” there is a formula in row 81 columns B‐E for “Total Price + Profit” which sums the row 79 DO IDIQ with the row 80 below.

However, row 80 has no label and seems to have no values which are to be entered into it. Please clarify.

A9. Refer to the response provided in question 8. This amendment updates Attachment L-4 Firm Fixed Template.

Q10. Past Performance Questionnaires - Obtaining these details from past contracts/customers will take additional time beyond October 3rd. Can the due date for the questionnaires be extended to the solicitation due date?

A10. Yes, this amendment extends the Past Performance Questionnaire due date to October 10, 2018.

Amendment 00001: Questions & Answers

Q11. 3.0 Services (page J‐11) - It is understood that Services are to be made available following the delivery of the fan assemblies. Is a quote needed for such Services at this time? How many man‐ weeks of support are requested? Please clarify.

A11. No, a quote for services is not need at this time. Services in accordance with SOW, Section 3.0 will be upon the Contracting Officer’s request.

Q12. The Fiscal Years in the RFP begin on November 1. Typically fiscal years with the Government begin October 1. Please confirm.

A12. Refer to the solicitation Section F, PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, which states the period of performance for this contract shall be from November 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021.

Q13. Please clarify the quantity of delivered fans required. Attachment L‐1 Firm‐Fixed‐Price Delivery Order, page L‐19, states “provide QTY 5 Ventilation Loop Fans”, and Table 1 of Attachment 3

Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables, page L‐25, asks for 4 fan assemblies.

A13. Refer to the response provided in question 6.

Q14. Please clarify the due date for deliverable fans. Attachment 2 Payment Milestones, page L‐24, states “Desired Delivery ATP+10 months or earlier, No later than ATP+14 months”, and Table 1 of Attachment 3 Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables, page L‐25, states ATP+10months.

A14. The delivery of fans due date is ATP+14 months. This amendment updates Attachment 2

Payment Milestones, page L‐24 and Attachment 3 Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract

Milestones and Deliverables, page L‐25 to reflect ATP+14 months.

Q15. I have a question concerning submitting our proposal according to “52.215‐108 PROPOSAL

MARKING AND DELIVERY THROUGH FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

(FBO)(AUG 2018)(JSC Procurement Instruction)” as referenced in the RFP. The FBO User

Guide explains how to submit an electronic response as shown below. However, The “Click Here” link is not available for this opportunity. Would like to confirm if this is indeed how the

Proposal is to be submitted.

A15. The “Click Here” link is now enabled.

Q.16. With regard to 80JSC018R0036 for the xPLSS Ventilation Loop Fans, I am trying to locate the following documents referenced in the RFP but have been unsuccessful. Please would you provide these or point me to their location?

SSP 50021 – 12/12/1995

SSP 30559 – Revision D

SSP 30558 – Revision C

SSP 30512 – Revision C

Amendment 00001: Questions & Answers

SSP 30312 Vol I – Revision L

SSP 30309 – Revision F

SSP 30233 – Revision H

A.16. Refer to solicitation Section L, OBTAINING ACCESS TO EXPORT CONTROLLED

CONTENT for instructions.

80JSC018R0036 Amendment P00001, Summary of Changes

Section

Solicitation Page

# From To

L 6

The entire proposal is due by

October 15, 2018 at 1:30 p m.

Central Time. The delivery location is specified in Section L Proposal

Marking and Delivery. Late proposals will not be accepted in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition.” The Past

Performance Questionnaire is due

October 3, 2018 at 1:30 p m. Central

Time.

The entire proposal is due by October 15, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Central Time. The delivery location is specified in Section L

Proposal Marking and Delivery. Late proposals will not be accepted in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive

Acquisition.” The Past Performance Questionnaire is due October 10, 2018 at

1:30 p m. Central Time.

L 24

MI.F-5, Delivery of Fans, Due

Date, Desired Delivery ATP+10 months or earlier, No later than

ATP+14 months

MI.F-5, Delivery of Fans, ATP+14 months

L 25-29 "Offer Fill In Due Date" Column, Deleted "Offer Fill In Due Date" Column

L 30

Table 1: Table of Deliverables, Performance Verification Report

Row

RESERVED (Blank)

L 25

Quantity 4, Due Date ATP+10 months Quantity 5 , Due Date ATP+14 months

L 26 Monthly Report, Quantity 10 Monthly Report, Quantity 14

L 29

Compliance Matrix Quantity 4, Material Usage List Quantity 4

Compliance Matrix Quantity 5, Material

Usage List Quantity 5

L-4 DELETED

REPLACED with Amendment 00001

Attachment L-4, Firm-Fixed-Price

Template

M 1

ADDED: “The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.”

Ventilation Loop Fans for the Exploration Portable Life Support System (xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 8

ATTACHMENT 2 Payment Milestones

(This attachment will be incorporated into the contract as ATTACHMENT J-4, Milestone Payment Table)

As part of the delivery order proposal the contractor shall propose performance based payments aligned with the government’s deliverables below. The contractor shall insert milestone payment schedules that comply with the below constraints:

Milestone Number Milestone Due Date Contractors Proposed Milestone Payment

Offer Fill in dollar value associated with Milestone

MI.F-1 Kick-off Review No later than

ATP+2

weeks

No More than 10% of total price

$OFI

MI.F-2 Status Teleconference Monthly After ATP

MI.F-3 Preliminary Design Review No later than

ATP+4

months

No More than 15% of total price

$OFI

MI.F-4 Pre-Manufacturing Review No later than

ATP+7

months

No more than 50% of total price

$OFI

MI.F-5 Delivery of Fans ATP+14 months

No Less than 25% of total Price

$OFI

L-24

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 9

Attachment 3 Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables

(This attachment will be incorporated into the contract as ATTACHMENT J-5, Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables) Instructions:

Offerors shall provide a proposed technical schedule in response to the RFP that identifies when each milestone, as listed in the “Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables” Attachment 2, will occur. The schedule shall be detailed and illustrate major parts of the design and manufacturing process through delivery of the hardware. This schedule will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. The provided schedule shall be compatible with .pdf or Microsoft Project.

Deliverables The contractor shall deliver the items listed in Table 1. The descriptions of the listed deliverables are provided in the Statement of Work.

NOTE: All documentation deliverables shall be sent to the Contracting Office and Contract Officer’s Representative (COR).

Table 1: Table of Deliverables Deliverable Quantity Format Due Date Comments

Fan Assemblies

5 N/A ATP+14

months

Shall be delivered clean per CTSD-

ADV-1082.

See SOW Section 2.4.2

Monthly Report

14 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Monthly, 1 day before status teleconference.

If delivery goes beyond 14 months, monthly reports shall still be provided until delivery of fans.

See SOW Section 2.4.1

L-25

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 10

Deliverable Quantity Format Due Date Comments Kick-off Meeting Presentation

1 Microsoft PowerPoint or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after Kick-off Meeting

Final presentation incorporating all changes and clarifications made during Kick-off meeting

See SOW Section 2.4.1

Kick-off Meeting Summary

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after Kick-off Meeting

Includes notes and actions from kick-off meeting

See SOW Section 2.4.1

Kick-off Project Schedule

1 Microsoft Project or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after Kick-off Meeting

See SOW Section 2.4.1

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Presentation

1 PowerPoint or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PDR

See SOW Section 2.4.3

Preliminary Design Review Summary

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PDR

Includes notes and actions from meeting

See SOW Section 2.4.3

Preliminary Design Review Schedule

1 Microsoft Project or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PDR

See SOW Section 2.4.3

Pre- Manufacturing Review

(PMR)

Presentation

1 PowerPoint or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PMR

See SOW Section 2.4.4

L-26

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 11

Deliverable Quantity Format Due Date Comments Pre- Manufacturing Review Summary

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PMR

Includes notes and actions from meeting

See SOW Section 2.4.4

Pre- Manufacturing Review Schedule

1 Microsoft Project or .pdf

Within three

(3) business days after

PMR

See SOW Section 2.4.4

CAD Models Set Any compatible with Creo modeling software (.step, .prt, .asm, etc)

5 days before Pre- Manufacturing Review

Models shall be delivered to NASA at the Pre- Manufacturing Review.

Updates to models shall be delivered to NASA with the delivery of the Fans if changes are made during manufacturing.

See SOW Section 2.4.5

L-27

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 12

Deliverable Quantity Format Due Date Comments Engineering Set .pdf 5 days before Drawings shall Drawings Pre-

Manufacturing Review be delivered to NASA at the Pre- Manufacturing Review.

Updates to models shall be delivered to NASA with the delivery of the Fans if changes are made during manufacturing.

Shall include top level assembly and all piece parts.

See SOW Section 2.4.5

Compliance 5 Microsoft At Kick-off, See SOW Matrix Excel, Microsoft Word, or .pdf

PDR, PMR,

and With delivery of fans

Section 2.4.5

Materials 5 Microsoft At Kick-off, See SOW Usage List Excel, Microsoft Word, or .pdf

PDR, PMR,

and With delivery of fans

Section 2.4.5

Electrical De- 1 Microsoft Draft Analysis See SOW rating Excel, performed due Section 2.4.5 Analysis and Microsoft five (5) Radiation Word, or .pdf business days Assessment prior to the

Pre- Manufacturing Review.

Final delivered with fans.

L-28

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 13

Deliverable Quantity Format Due Date Comments Stress Analysis Report

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Draft Analysis performed due five (5) business days prior to the Pre- Manufacturing Review.

Final delivered with fans.

See SOW Section 2.4.5

Thermal Analysis Report

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

Draft Analysis performed due five (5) business days prior to the Pre- Manufacturing Review.

Final delivered with fans.

See SOW Section 2.4.5

Performance Verification Report

1 Microsoft Word or .pdf

With Delivery of Fans

See SOW Section 2.4.2

Report shall include results for all 5 fans.

L-29

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 14

(RESERVED)

L-30

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 15

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.214-22 EVALUATION OF BIDS FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS (MAR 1990)

EVALUATION FACTORS

M.1 Technical Approach, Past Performance, Delivery of Data and Price Evaluation Factors for Award

An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Proposals will be evaluated by the Evaluation Team in accordance with applicable regulations which include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement. The Evaluation Team will carry out the evaluation activities and report its findings to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

The Government may issue a multiple award contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of Technical Approach, Past Performance, Delivery of Data and Price evaluation factors.

Technical Approach, Past Performance and Delivery of Data when combined is significantly more important than Price.

Delivery of Data is more important than Technical Approach

Technical Approach is more important than Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the factors below. Although proposals are organized by factors, the Government will conduct an integrated evaluation to consider consistency among proposal information. Offerors are cautioned that a lack of consistency could lead to a moderate or low confidence in one or more of the factors.

Therefore, all aspects of the Offeror’s proposal will be considered during the evaluation process, including the Offeror’s proposed Model Contract.

(End of provision)

M.2 Technical Approach (Section I)

The Offeror’s demonstrated in-depth understanding of the requirements (with supporting rationale) will be evaluated in the Technical Approach element as described below.

M-1

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 16

Ratings of “High Confidence,” “Moderate Confidence,” and “Low Confidence” are defined below:

High Confidence (Green) For the evaluated factor, the proposal demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides evaluators a high level of confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal, if any, are very minor and do not reduce the evaluators’ high confidence the Offeror will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

Moderate Confidence (Blue) For the evaluated factor, the proposal demonstrates moderate merit by fully addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides reasonable confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal may detract somewhat from the evaluators’ confidence, but evaluators still have confidence the Offeror will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

Low Confidence (Yellow) For the evaluated factor, the proposal fails to demonstrate minimal merit in addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria to provide reasonable confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal detract substantially from the evaluators’ confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

M.2.1 TA.1 Firm Fixed Price Delivery Order – Specific Understanding and Resources

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s FFP Delivery Order - Specific Understanding and Resources response for demonstrated comprehensive understanding, effectiveness, reasonableness, and completeness.

M.3 52.215-115 Past Performance Evaluation (AUG 2018)(JSC Procurement Instructions) (Section II)

(a) Past Performance indicates how well an offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand. The evaluation team will evaluate the past performance of the offeror, and major subcontractors, as defined in L.5(a). If offerors choose to submit up to three additional contracts, to demonstrate experience in areas of the sections of the SOW, these contracts will also be included in the past performance evaluation.

(b) The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the Government based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management

M-2

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 17

Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. In accordance with FAR 15.305, an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral will be assigned.

(c) Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the offerors past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and performance. A description of each aspect is provided below.

• Recency: Only contract period of performances within 5 years from the date of the Exploration Portable Life Support Subsystem Ventilation Loop Fan solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Within this 5 year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

• Relevance: If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size, content, and complexity.

The term “content” considers the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term complexity considers items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance environment outlined in this solicitation.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance will be assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

This evaluation will consider what the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entities (division(s), business units, segments) are responsible for and/or proposing to do on the Exploration Portable Life Support Subsystem Ventilation Loop Fan effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and

M-3

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 18 relied upon, such that the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entity your company will have meaningful involvement in contract performance, in determining relevance. Offerors’ with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture.

Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting and safety performance of the contracts which are considered to be recent and relevant (how well the contractor performed on the contracts).

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The Government will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. For existing and newly-formed joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture partner will be evaluated separately. Also, for existing joint ventures, the past performance of the joint venture will be evaluated. This assessment will lead the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

The past performance of a prime, subcontractor or each joint venture partner will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor/joint venture partner, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror. The past performance of an existing joint venture will be weighted more heavily than work performed by its joint venture partners separately. The past performance effort of the [Key Personnel or Program Manager] will be weighted less heavily than that of the proposed prime offeror or its proposed major subcontractors.

(d) Past Performance Confidence Rating. More recent and more relevant past performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A performance confidence rating will be assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” Offered Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were

M-4

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 19 accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

(End of provision)

M.4 Delivery of Data (Section III)

Subfactor A: Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software

The Government will evaluate the extent to which Limited Rights Data and/or Restricted Computer Software or otherwise limited or restricted information are to be used and delivered in the performance of the contract, including the engineering drawing set and CAD models set. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s intellectual property and technical data rights assertions including: FAR 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software and Attachment J-6 Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table as well as information required in Section L pertaining to the use of Limited Rights Data and/or Restricted Computer Software or otherwise limited or restricted information. In the event an Offeror proposes to deliver any Technical data/ Computer software with less than unlimited rights, the Government will evaluate impact on the Government’s ability to use, modify, release, or disclose such technical data and computer software. Use of technical data or computer software with less than unlimited rights will be evaluated based on the extent to which they

M-5

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 20 affect the Government’s overall goal and ability to acquire and support the Ventilation Loop Fan design. Justification and rationale for all intellectual property and technical data rights assertions may be evaluated. Any proposal which asserts less than unlimited rights at any level may result in the assignment of a lower confidence rating.

Subfactor B: Engineering Drawings Set and CAD Model Set Requirements

The proposed level of Drawings Set and CAD Model Set that will be provided will be evaluated for the ability to meet the government needs.

M.5 Price (Section IV) The Government will perform price analysis, and review proposed rates and prices for all contract years to determine if they are realistic in response to this solicitation.

FFP Delivery Order Technical Requirement

To ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable, the Government will perform price analysis of the total proposed price (includes profit), which includes the price for each contact year (2 years and 11 months). The Government will also review proposed rates and prices for all contract years to determine if they are realistic. Unrealistically low prices may demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Government’s requirements and the rates/resources necessary to meet the Government’s needs, thus representing a high-risk approach to contract performance.

In determining if the proposed fixed prices are realistic the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor, non-labor resources, fully burdened straight-time, non-labor resources for Contract Years 1 through Contract Year 3.

The sum of the proposed prices for the work in all contract years as well as the Government analysis of those prices will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making a source selection decision.

(End of provision)

M.6 Responsibility Considerations (Section V)

An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104. The items listed below are important Responsibility Considerations; however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the Government pursuant to FAR 9.104.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan DRD will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and soundness of the Offerors proposed approach to meet the subcontracting goals. The Offeror’s

M-6

(xPLSS) 80JSC018R0036, Amendment P00001, Page 21

Small Business Subcontracting Plan will also be evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of total contract value.

The Contracting Officer may choose to evaluate this information for the offerors in the Competitive Range or the apparent Successful Offeror only.

(End of provision)

M.7 Model Contract (Section VI)

The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes. It will, however, be reviewed to ensure that it was signed by a person authorized to commit the Offeror, that there is completion of all fill-ins, all pages of the contract are submitted, and that it accurately captures the content as set forth in the Offeror’s proposal. Errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an offeror being removed from consideration for award.

The Government reserves the right to incorporate the offeror’s documentation (e.g. plans) submitted in response to Data Requirements Descriptions in the RFP and/or information in a clause fill-in prior to execution of the contract. This may result in the renumbering of contract pages. The Government may also make other minor clerical and purely administrative changes to the offeror’s model contract (e.g. insert the contract number, insert the value of obligated funding at contract award), prior to executing the contract. The contractor agrees that such changes shall be construed as administrative and that they will not be construed as a counter offer.

(End of provision)

[END OF SECTION]

M-7