80KSC022R0004 Amend 0003 Replacement Pages Portfolio.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

COMET RFP No. 80KSC022R0004 AMENDMENT 0003 SECTION L

L.18 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

All proposal materials shall be submitted in accordance with provision L.17, Electronic Submission of Proposals–Proposal Marking and Delivery through NASA’s EFSS Box, and NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, and must be received no later than 4:30 P.M. EDT, on April 25, 2022. Late submissions will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors–Competitive Acquisition.

(End of provision)

L.19 LIST OF SECTION L ATTACHMENTS

The following documents are attached hereto and made a part of this solicitation:

Attachment L-01 Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment L-02 Phase-In Template Attachment L-03 Basic Cost Price Template Attachment L-04 Rates and Factors Template Attachment L-05 SubK-Hourly FBLR Details Template Attachment L-06 FFP Work Units Template Attachment L-07 Government Standard Labor Categories and Qualifications Attachment L-08 Artemis Mission Flight Hardware Processing

(End of text)

COMET RFP No. 80KSC022R0004 AMENDMENT 0003 SECTION L insurance pursuant to paragraph (f) of clause H.18 Indemnification of Unusually Hazardous Risks. The offeror shall not propose any increases/decreases to the non-proposed costs as provided by the Government. Major Subcontractor(s) shall delete all non-proposed values from their Attachment L-03, BCPT prior to submission to the Government to avoid duplication of cost with the Offeror. The costs above are not fee bearing in accordance with B.9 Special Cost Requirements.

L.24 PLANS AND OTHER DATA VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of this volume is to provide to the Government the offeror’s required plans and other data. Each item listed in NFS 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, must be identified within this volume. The information contained within this volume will be evaluated within the applicable mission suitability subfactor or as described in Section L.

L.25 MODEL CONTRACT VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

(a) The offeror shall complete blocks 12 through 18 of the SF 33 and the offeror required fill-ins indicated in Sections B through K. Note: Attachment J-18 Contract Schedule Tables does not require fill-ins. The Government will complete Attachment J-18 with the offeror’s Attachment L-03 Basic Cost Price Template. The Government requests that offerors indicate in Block 12 of the SF 33 a proposal validity period of 240 calendar days. However, in accordance with paragraph (d) of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors–Competitive Acquisitions, the offeror may propose a different validity period. The balance of the solicitation need not be returned unless the offeror proposes changes to other pages that will constitute part of the contract.

(b) The offeror shall include a statement of acceptance of the anticipated contract provisions and proposed contract schedule, or list all specific exceptions to the terms, conditions, and requirements of Sections A through J of this solicitation, to the representations and certifications of Section K, or to the information requested in Section L.

(1) The offeror shall fully explain any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions regarding any contractual requirements of this solicitation. The offeror shall include the reason for the exception or refer to where the reason is addressed in the proposal.

(2) Any failure to clearly indicate exceptions to the proposed contract terms and conditions contained in this solicitation will be construed as acceptance of them, verbatim.

(3) The offeror is cautioned that exceptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305-70), may preclude award to an offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an offeror’s competitive standing.

COMET RFP No. 80KSC022R0004 AMENDMENT 0003 SECTION M

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION AND SOURCE SELECTION – GENERAL

(a) Source Selection: The Government will conduct this competitive negotiated acquisition in accordance with FAR 15.3 and NFS 1815.3, Source Selection. The Government will apply the Source Evaluation Board procedures in NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards.

(b) The attention of offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, Proposal Evaluation, and NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

(c) The Government will use a trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, in making its source selection.

(d) Evaluation Factors: The evaluation factors are Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost. The Government will use these factors, as described in NFS 1815.304-70, NASA Evaluation Factors, to evaluate each proposal.

(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: The Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are approximately equal to the Cost factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is more important than the Mission Suitability factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor.

(f) Model Contract: The Model Contract shall not conflict with the proposal, however, if the data included in the Model Contract differs with the data in the other proposal volumes, then the Model Contract shall take precedence.

(g) Discussions: The Government’s intent regarding award on initial proposal or the need to conduct discussions with offerors is set forth in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors– Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (f)(4).

(h) The trade-off process as described herein will not consider the following:

(1) The offeror’s response to provisions NFS 1852.239-73, Review of the Offeror’s Information Technology Systems Supply Chain (Deviation 15-03D), NFS 1852.245- 80, Government Property Management Information, and NFS 1852.245-81, List of Available Government Property.

(2) The offeror’s organizational conflicts of interest assessment and mitigation plan. Refer to provision L.26 Notice of Potential Organization Conflicts of Interest, paragraph (d).

(3) Facility security clearance information. The offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall possess the required facility clearance(s) as of the due date for proposal receipt and provide any applicable certification (in the case of a joint venture). The proof of facility clearance(s) shall be in the form of Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency

COMET RFP No. 80KSC022R0004 AMENDMENT 0003 SECTION M

(DCSA) verification, formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). If the offeror does not have the required facility clearance(s) at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and the offeror shall be ineligible for award.

M.2 FAR 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

M.3 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

(a) In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3 and NFS Subpart 1815.3, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements and approach for accomplishing those requirements, the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk. A lack of resource realism may adversely affect the offeror's Mission Suitability score and result in cost realism adjustments under the Cost factor. The Government will validate the consistency between all proposal volumes and any inconsistencies identified may indicate a lack of understanding and adversely impact the offeror’s adjectival rating(s) and score. Only that information provided within the proposal will be evaluated; any reference to previously submitted information, if any, will be considered only to the extend the information is resubmitted as part of the proposal. Information incorporated by reference will not be considered or evaluated.

(b) In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(b)(1), subfactors will be numerically weighted and scored in accordance with the 1,000-point scale provided below.

Management Approach: 500 points Technical Approach: 400 points Small Business Utilization: 100 points Total: 1,000 points

(c) In accordance with FAR 15.001, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies will be assessed based on the following definitions:

(1) Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(2) Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.