80LARC20R0002_EASSS 3_Attachment L-1_Historical Task Orders.pdf

1. Task Order Title

SOMA Evaluation Planning Task

2. Contractual References

2.1. Statement of Work Reference

This requirement is pursuant to contract NNL15AA02B between National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Cornell Technical Services (CTS), LLC.

Refer to Paragraphs Proposal 3.0 Evaluation, 4.0 Assessments, and 5.0 Studies.

2.2 Limitation of Future Contracting Reference

In support of this task order, the contractor:

Will have access to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information on planned solicitations.

May have access to proprietary information and various other types of non-public data

As described in NASA Clause 1852.209-71 (Clause H.3, Limitation of Future Contracting, contained in contract NNL15AA02B), this work may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the contractor shall comply with Clause I.9, Access to Sensitive Information, and “Exhibit D, Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan”, contained in contract NNL15AA02B.

3. Purpose, Objective, and Background of Work to be Performed

The purpose of this Task Order is to plan the evaluation staff for all the Technical, Management and Cost (TMC) evaluations and the staffing of other requirements as required by the Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) located at NASA LaRC through August 2016. This task order is necessary to support the evaluation of proposals with the possibility of multiple overlapping TMC schedules. A substantial number of evaluators, current and new, will be needed, which requires orientation on TMC processes to ensure an effective method is used to integrate experienced and first time TMC evaluators into TMC evaluations. The objective of this task order is to develop the most qualified skill mix possible to staff the evaluation panels and support other task orders as necessary to meet SOMA requirements. The SOMA Gate Reviews will be chaired by the SOMA Director or the SOMA Associate Director for Procurement for SOMA (the EASSS COR). The SOMA Director may delegate a SOMA Acquisition Manager to Chair a Gate review if the SOMA Director and the Associate Director for Procurement for SOMA are not available. Only the SOMA Gate Review Chair is authorized to approve personnel to serve on SOMA TMC evaluations.

4. Description of the Work to be Performed

The contractor shall be required to provide staff planning information for multiple TMC Evaluations that may overlap from September 2015 through September 2016. The contractor shall be required to provide proposed staffing plans as deliverables and a complete list of individual evaluators selected to support each TMC evaluation or other task order as required by SOMA. Staffing plans shall include information supporting an individuals’ selection for a particular evaluation or other type of task order. This information may include;

resumes, individual data sheets or other information supporting an evaluators technical skills and qualifications. This information shall be delivered at all SOMA Gate Reviews unless specified otherwise by the Chair of the Gate Review.

The contractor shall provide a deliverable of the staffing plan for all staffing requirements and maintain configuration control of any changes approved to the staffing plan by the SOMA Gate Review Chair. The contractor shall maintain documentation on approved changes to the staff planned for each applicable task order that documents the rationale for any changes. The approved staffing plans and other material from each Gate Review shall be uploaded to the Remote Evaluation System as a repository for all Gate Review documentation.

4.1 Preparation for FY 6 TMC Evaluation Support

The contractor shall perform the following activities as follows:

4.1.1 Webconference Service

The contractor shall obtain a secure webconference service that is compatible with computers running the Windows or the Apple operating systems, including government provided computers with Data At Rest (DAR) encryption, and has the capacity for 60 people on one webconference. The webconference service shall allow the person in control to share documents and edit them in real time such that everyone participating can see the changes. The person in control shall be able to pass that control to another participant. Secure call-in phone lines shall also be obtained for those that might need to call while away from their office. In order for evaluators to access the webconference, all evaluators shall have a high-speed connection to the Internet.

4.1.2 Planning Gate Reviews (PGR) for Integrated SOMA Staffing for FY16

The contractor shall provide an integrated approach to staffing the following evaluations from September 2015 to September 2016. This includes the following: the Discovery Downselect, Explorer Heliophysics Announcement of Opportunity (AO), Explorer Heliophysics Program Element Appendix (PEA).

Explorer Astrophysics AO/Mission of Opportunity (MO) Downselect, Explorer Astrophysics AO, Explorer Astrophysics MO, Earth Venture Instrument – 4, and New Frontiers. Additional evaluations not contained in this list may be added creating a need for additional integrated gate reviews. An integrated staffing review will be held once a quarter.

The contractor shall provide an integrated plan to staff all TMC evaluation panels stated in the prior paragraph. The contractor shall provide a specific plan of milestones over the task period to conduct staffing reviews for all AO evaluations and finalize all staff for each evaluation. The contractor shall provide a plan on how new TMC evaluators will quickly be oriented to be productive members of TMC panels in advance of specific evaluations. This orientation plan shall be implemented over the task performance schedule.

The Gate Review Chair shall review the SOMA staffing plan to meet SOMAs staffing requirements for FY 2016 at least quarterly and identify skill deficiencies in advance of Planning Gate Reviews for specific Evaluations. The Gate Review chair will give specific actions for the contractor to identify additional evaluators with recent, relevant experience as specified skills. The Planning Gate Review for the Integrated SOMA staffing requirements in FY 2016 will be approved when the Chair certifies that the contractor has proposed qualified staff for at least 80% of all panels. If necessary, the Gate Review Chair may hold several Planning Gate Review meetings to review the contractors proposed integrated SOMA staffing plan for FY2016.

Starting Assumptions:

AO/PEA

AO Release Date ‐ Approximate Date for Task Initiation Proposal Due Date

Expected Proposals

Expected no. of subpanels

Discovery Downselect N/A July 2016

Explorer Heliophysics

AO

April‐June

July – Sept

Explorer Heliophysics

PEA

April‐June

July – Sept

Explorer Astrophysics AO/MO Downselect N/A

July

Explorer Astrophysics

AO

July‐ September

Oct‐ December 2016

Explorer Astrophysics

MO

July‐ September

Oct‐ December

EVI‐4 Q3 CY 2016 Q4 CY2016

New Frontiers Q3 CY2016 Q4 CY 2016

TBD 1 or Instrument Downselect 2Q CY 2016

TBD 2

Cost Validation Task

Totals 98 13

Schedule Assumptions:

The contractor should assume that Full Mission evaluations require approximately 24 weeks from Proposals Due to the end of the TMC panel. For instrument evaluations the contractor should assume approximately 20 weeks from Proposals Due to the end of the TMC panel.

4.1.3 Planning Gate Review (PGR) for Specific Evaluations

A Planning Gate Review (PGR) for each specific Evaluation will be held within one week of the contractor receiving the evaluation task order’s awarded Statement of Work (SOW). A PGR shall be held for each evaluation task order and other task orders as required by SOMA. The PGR should be scheduled prior to receipt of the Notices of Intent (NOIs). The contactor will review the task order’s SOW and update the integrated staffing plan based on the specific skills identified in the SOW. For each evaluation task order the contractor shall propose personnel with skills that are most relevant and pertinent to the skills called out in the task order’s SOW. If no staff are available with relevant and pertinent skills the contractor shall search for the appropriate skills or until the Chair approves the proposed skill. The Chair of the PGR with the assistance of the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation will review the proposed staff and their qualifications. When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%), the Chair will certify that the Planning Gate Review is complete for that specific evaluation. If qualified staff are not presented at the first meeting for all required skills, then the contactor shall be required to search for the skills and reschedule the PGR for that evaluation panel. The Chair will approve any changes to the integrated staffing plan.

The contractor shall maintain 3 notebooks containing resumes and documented qualification of the proposed evaluators. These notebooks shall be stored in the SOMA vault and updated as necessary prior to or following each gate review. Notebooks will be for the Gate Review Chair and up to two Acquisition Managers. If more are needed the Gate Review Chair will notify the Contractor in advance of the meeting.

4.1.4 Staffing Gate Review (SGR) after NOIs

A Staffing Gate Review (SGR) for each specific Evaluation Task will be held within one week of the contractor receiving the NOI data for the evaluation. The contactor shall review the NOI data and update the integrated staffing plan based on the specific skills required for the NOI data. The data in the NOIs

1) may result in additional or different skills required for that evaluation and 2) will provide a list of institutions that plan on proposing, which may create Conflicts of Interest (COIs). A contractor will provide as a deliverable a list of additional or different skills required based on the NOIs and propose qualified evaluators that can provide those skills. The contractor shall also review the list of their proposed evaluators for potential COIs and propose replacements for any previously proposed evaluators that must be removed from an evaluation task due to a Conflict of Interest (COI). The Chair of the SGR with the assistance of the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation will review the proposed staff and their qualifications to meet any new required skills or to replace a conflicted evaluator. When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%), the Chair will certify that the Staffing Gate Review is complete for that specific evaluation. If qualified staff are not presented at the first meeting for all required skills, then the contactor shall receive an action to search for the required skills and reschedule the SGR for that evaluation panel. The Chair shall approve or disapprove any changes to the integrated staffing plan.

4.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest/COI (OCI/COI) Gate Review (OGR).

The OCI/COI Gate Review (OGR) for each specific Evaluation Task will be held within two weeks of the contractor receiving the proposals and the final list of proposed personnel and institutions from NASA.

The contactor shall review the organizations, personnel and proposals as described in 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.5.2 and provide any necessary adjudication requests at the OGR attended by the Chair and the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation. The adjudication request must clearly identify and describe the nature of the conflict. The contractor may propose a mitigation to address the conflict. NASA is under no obligation to accept a proposed OCI/COI mitigation and the contactor may be required to propose a replacement evaluator without conflicts within one week of the OGR. The Chair shall approve any changes to the integrated staffing plan.

The contractor is required to upload the final complete list of evaluators to the Remote Evaluation System within one week after the OGR.

The prime evaluation contractor employees, subcontractors, and consultant personnel (at all tiers) that are to be assigned to the work described on this task order shall be screened for OCI/COIs as indicated in the contractor’s OCI Mitigation Plan. The prime evaluation contractor and each subcontractor (regardless of tier) shall certify they have no OCI/COI issues by submitting a signed Certification of Independent Assessment Form for each SOMA Evaluation task order.

Final resolution of all potential OCI/COI issues shall be documented in the NASA TMC Acquisition COI Mitigation Plan.

No employee or consultant or subcontractor (at any tier) of any company (the prime evaluation contractor or any subcontractors) shall be engaged to work on any SOMA TMC Acquisition Task until all the required training has been completed and all certifications are complete.

When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%) and that all COI/OCI issues have been resolved, the Chair will certify that the OCI/COI Gate Review is complete for that specific evaluation.

4.1.5.1 Proposal OCI/COI Scan

Upon receipt of proposals, the contractor shall obtain permission from the assigned NASA TMC Evaluation Acquisition Manager or the Task Monitor to copy proposal related materials. The contractor shall copy all data on all CDs provided by the proposers, onto a fully encrypted computer. A word search shall be conducted on this data for any occurrences of participation by the contractor or by any subcontractors (at all tiers), and consultants that are assisting the prime evaluation contractor in conducting this evaluation, and for any affiliations to Evaluation Team members. In addition, a search shall also be conducted on the names of all Evaluation Team members, along with a search for any key words or names suggested by the NASA Acquisition Manager, the NASA Program Scientist, or Evaluation Team members. All instances of findings shall be recorded with a document name, page and paragraph number associated with the finding, along with the pertinent wording from the paragraph such that identification and evaluation of any OCI/COI issues can be performed adequately and quickly. If there are any instances of any actual, potential, or perceived OCI/COI, these instances shall be reported to the NASA CO, the NASA COR, and NASA Acquisition Manager immediately; the contractor shall develop an adjudication request for the OCI/COI Gate Review.

4.1.5.2 OCI/COI Scan based on Proposers Parties list

NASA will provide a “Proposers Parties List” which will include all organizations and personnel provided by proposers through the submission of proposals on the NSPIRES system. A word search shall be conducted on this file looking for any occurrences of participation by the contractor or by any subcontractors, at all tiers, that are assisting the prime evaluation contractor in conducting this evaluation, and for the affiliation of any Evaluation Team members. In addition, a search shall also be conducted on the names of all Evaluation Team members, along with a search for any key words or names suggested by the NASA Acquisition Manager, the NASA Program Scientist, or Evaluation Team members. All instances of findings shall be recorded with a document name, page and paragraph number associated with the finding, along with the pertinent wording from the paragraph such that identification and evaluation of any OCI/COI issues can be performed adequately and quickly. If there are any instances of any actual, potential, or perceived OCI/COI, these instances shall be reported to the NASA CO, the NASA COR, and NASA Acquisition Manager immediately; the contractor shall develop an adjudication request for the OCI/COI Gate Review.

4.1.6 Evaluation Gate Review (EGR)

An Evaluation Gate Review for any specific Evaluation Task will be held within a week of notification, for any reason, of any change to the contractor employees, subcontractors, or consultant personnel subsequent to the completion of the OCI/COI Gate Review. The Chair of the EGR with the assistance of the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation will review the proposed staff changes and the qualifications of new staff to meet required skills. When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%), the Chair will certify that the Evaluation Gate Review is complete for that specific evaluation. If qualified staff are not presented at the first meeting for all required skills, then the contactor will be given an action to search for the required skills and reschedule the SGR for that evaluation panel.

4.1.7 TMC Team Contact List

The contractor shall maintain an up-to-date Evaluation Team Contact List of all individuals that are part of each separate Evaluation Team. This list will be initiated for each evaluation as a result of the Planning Gate Review and will be updated and finalized as a result of the OCI/COI Gate Review. The Team Contact List includes all contractor-supplied individuals (employees, consultants, and subcontractor personnel), civil servants or other government personnel added to the Evaluation Team, and any other individuals contracted by NASA (either individuals contracted directly by NASA or via a subcontract to NASA). The Evaluation Team Contact List shall include (but is not limited to) each individual’s name; email address; role and responsibility on the Evaluation Team; primary area of expertise; proposals assigned; affiliation; phone number(s) (e.g., business, home, mobile, and fax); and current mailing address

4.1.8 Training of Evaluation Team on Ethics, OCI/COI, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations

(ITAR)

4.1.9 Processing Evaluators in the Identity and Access Management (IdMAX) Tool

The Science Office for Mission Assessments will utilize an electronic system called the Remote Evaluation System (RES) for the purpose of evaluating proposals. In order for evaluators to access this system all evaluators shall have an established identity. The contractor shall enter all evaluators into the IdMAX tool for the CORs review and approval to establish the identities as soon a evaluator is approved to support an evaluation. No evaluator will be allowed to access the RES without an established identity. For each TMC evaluation all evaluators shall have established identities through IdMAX in order to access the RES. A list of approved evaluators shall be provided at all staffing gate reviews. All approved evaluators for a specific evaluation task shall be approved in IdMAX in time to begin proposal evaluation in accordance with the evaluation task schedule.

4.1.10 TMC Panel/Subpanel Experience Levels

All TMC panels/subpanels shall be staffed with a minimum of 60% experienced TMC evaluators. Larger cost cap and more complex acquisitions should have a higher percentage of experienced evaluators on the each panel/subpanel. Past experience only counts toward this metric if SOMA Acquisition Managers, the SOMA Director, or the Chair view the past experience as positive.

The SOMA Director may waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis.

4.1.11 Skills Search

The contractor shall perform a continuous search for skilled individuals to support SOMA evaluation and support task orders. The contractor may employee any reasonable means necessary to search and locate qualified personnel to staff task orders. The contractor should have a sufficient number of skilled evaluators to meet the technical requirements to staff the evaluations planned in FY 2016. The staffing pool should contain at least 10 individuals qualified in all areas of expertise. SOMA will notify the contractor of any new or unusual skills required as soon as possible so if necessary a search can begin immediately.

4.2 Post-evaluation Panel Support

The contractor shall schedule a Performance Gate Review with the Gate Review Chair and the evaluation Acquisition Manager for feedback on the evaluators that supported the specific review.

4.3 Staffing for Non-Evaluation Task Orders

The contractor shall support staffing requirements of other task order requirements that may arise. The contractor shall be required to support gate reviews called out in evaluation task orders and non-evaluation task orders as required by SOMA. Gate reviews will be held for non-evaluation task orders that require a selected set of skills and certain qualifications and capabilities.

5. Government Furnished Items: The Government will provide the following.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED ITEM DATE TO BE

FURNISHED

Schedule of opportunity releases, NOI dates, and evaluation schedules.

Updates will be provided monthly.

Assumptions on the numbers of proposals, proposal due dates and subpanels

Monthly

Preliminary skills list based on past similar evaluations. Updates will be provide with each evaluation task

Notices of Intent (NOI) information for each opportunity Varies by opportunity, but within a week of SOMA receiving the data

Final list of proposed institutions and individuals for each opportunity

Varies by opportunity, but within a week of SOMA receiving the data

Proposals for each opportunity Varies by opportunity, but within a week of SOMA receiving the proposals

6. Other Information Needed for Task Performance

6.1. Performance Objectives:

6.1.1 Quality

This Task shall conform to the goals of the contractor EASSS QA Program by:

Delivering high-quality products and services that meet contractual requirements and satisfy the stakeholder’s technical, cost and schedule needs and expectations.

Using continuous improvement to develop and deliver low-risk, innovative technical solutions.

Evaluating performance using objective performance measures together with customer satisfaction, surveillance and performance evaluation inputs.

Ensuring that the Task Order shall be staffed with only the highest quality non-conflicted SMEs, able to fully conform to necessary standards and procedures, and free of OCI and COI concerns.

Ensuring prompt visibility and proactive resolution of emerging quality issues.

Focusing on problem prevention by implementing and continually improving work processes designed to identify and resolve problems early in the development life cycle.

Reporting comprehensive and accurate EASSS Program performance assessments.

Undergoing a Quality Audit of our procedures (OCI/COI, training, and process procedures) every six months by our Quality Control Manager who reports findings directly to the CTS CEO.

6.1.2 Timeliness

The contractor Task Leader shall ensure:

Evaluation Team members are identified as far in advance as possible; that OCI/COI issues are identified and resolved as far in advance as possible; that required training is provided as far in advance as possible; and that required information/forms to bring consultants, temporary employees, and required subcontractors on board with the prime evaluation contractor are completed in as far in advance as possible to ensure timely development of the Evaluation Team.

Timely and effective responses to problems or changes in requirements and budgets.

All contract deliverables are accurate, of high quality, and delivered early or on time. (Section 7

SOW)

Risks are being managed in a timely and effective manner.

Provide timely staff management for new requirements, vacancies, resignations and terminations (for employees, subcontractors, and consultants).

Timely deliveries, reporting, and identification of issues or concerns.

All potential problems are identified early and resolved swiftly and are worked proactively rather than reactively.

6.1.3 Cost

The contractor shall utilize pre-negotiated contract rates for estimating purposes. Subcontractors and/or consultants shall be selected based on best value and their ability to meet the schedule.

Hours (but no ODC charges) shall be assigned to this Task and actual costs incurred will be reflected on the SF533 submitted as costs are incurred and invoiced per the EASSS contract.

Accrued Task costs shall be available to the NASA Review Manager within 10 days following each contractor pay period (twice monthly).

6.1.4 Other Subcontractor Consent.

When consultants and/or subcontractors are identified, subcontract consent documentation shall be provided in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 44. Adequate price competition shall be conducted unless adequately justified in accordance with FAR Parts 6 and 44.

Earth Venture Instrument-4 (EVI-4) Proposal Evaluation

Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Cornell Technical Services (CTS), LLC.

Refer to Paragraphs 3.0 Proposal Evaluation, 4.0 Assessments, and 5.0 Studies.

2.2 Limitation of Future Contracting Reference

shall be required to evaluate proposals and competitive announcements may have access to proprietary information and various other types of non-public data

As described in NASA Clause 1852.209-71 (Clause H.3, Limitation of Future Contracting, contained in contract NNL15AA02B), this work may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the contractor shall comply with Clause I.9, Access to Sensitive Information, and “Exhibit D.

Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan”, contained in contract NNL15AA02B.

The purpose of this Task Order is to provide technical expertise and administrative support to the NASA Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) (located at NASA LaRC) on the Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) Feasibility of the Investigation Implementation, Including Cost Risk evaluation of proposals submitted as a result of the Earth Venture Instrument-4 (EVI-4) solicitation. EVI-4 solicits two types of investigations: instrument investigations (Class C and/or Class D) and CubeSat investigations (Class D).

For each proposal evaluated, the contractor shall provide a Form C, which is the form that serves as the report of the TMC evaluation results, and a Cost Evaluation Summary, which documents the cost assessment associated with each Form C. The TMC evaluation is performed according to criteria Factors C-1 to C-5 defined in the Second Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-2) Announcement of Opportunity (AO) and requirements defined in the EVI-4 SALMON-2 AO Program Element Appendix

(PEA).

In addition, the EVI-4 PEA requires the TMC Evaluation Team to “also provide comments to NASA regarding the extent to which the proposed instrument is compatible with potential satellite platform interfaces and operations. These comments shall not contribute to the TMC feasibility risk rating”. The comments on compatibility with potential satellite platform interfaces and operations shall be referred to as “accommodation comments”. The Evaluation Team shall document accommodation comments on each proposal at the end of Form C. A subset of the Evaluation Team shall prepare a summary of accommodation comments for a subset of the proposals after the TMC evaluation is complete.

4.1 Preparation for TMC Evaluation Support

The contractor shall participate in the preparation for the TMC Evaluation as follows:

4.1.1 Webconference Service

The contractor shall obtain a secure webconference service that is compatible with computers running the Windows or the Apple operating systems, including government provided computers with Data At Rest (DAR) encryption, and has the capacity for 25 people on one webconference. The webconference service shall allow the person in control to share documents and edit them in real time such that everyone participating can see the changes, as well as audio capability for verbal communication between participants. The person in control shall be able to pass that control to another participant. Secure call-in phone lines shall also be obtained for those that might need to call while away from their office. In order for evaluators to access the webconference, all evaluators shall have a high-speed connection to the Internet.

The contractor shall demonstrate the webconference service before the proposals are due.

4.1.2 Task Lead/Evaluation Integrators

The contractor shall provide a Task Lead and an Evaluation Integrator from the Hampton Roads, VA office, who shall be responsible (along with the Program Manager [PM]) for Task requirement completion, shall ensure the high quality and timeliness of all deliverables, and shall control cost to stay on budget. The Task Lead and Evaluation Integrator can be the same person.

The contractor shall participate in planning the TMC Evaluation Process, including defining the roles and responsibilities and skill mix needed. Responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to:

4.1.2.1. Maintaining an updated Evaluation Team Contact List.

4.1.2.2. Assisting and facilitating with the Kickoff Meeting.

4.1.2.3. Documenting Technical Compliance of all Proposals.

4.1.2.4. Completing an OCI/COI scan on all proposal materials to document potential, perceived, or actual OCI/COI.

4.1.2.5. Coordinating teleconferences and/or web conferences for team meetings, the Kickoff meeting, subpanel teleconferences and/or web conferences, and the Plenary Meeting.

4.1.2.6. Coordinating with the NRESS logistics contractor for the Plenary Meeting.

4.1.2.7. Assisting with conducting the Plenary Meetings (ensuring the room is set up) and assisting with coordinating activities during the meeting to ensure it flows efficiently and smoothly.

4.1.2.8. Providing assistance to ensure the high quality and timeliness of all deliverables.

4.1.2.9. Providing miscellaneous support to Evaluation Team members, as required, to facilitate accomplishment of the evaluation.

4.1.2.10. Providing any other support to the NASA Technical Monitor (TM), as required, to ensure the evaluation process proceeds in accordance to plan, efficiently and smoothly.

4.1.3 Proposal Evaluation Schedule

The contractor shall be provided an Evaluation Schedule. The contractor shall evaluate the proposals at a cadence of two proposals per 7 days per subpanel. The contractor shall follow the provided schedule to discuss the individual findings, refine Forms C, screen out minors for any subsequent review, send potential major weaknesses to proposers, incorporate clarifications from proposers to the Forms C and refine the Cost Evaluation Summaries before the Plenary Meeting. The proposal review time shall include a briefing on findings related to any classified heritage appendix that may be included in the proposals. The Plenary Meeting is scheduled for 4 days (utilize Orlando, FL for planning purposes).

The contractor shall keep flexibility as unforeseen events may alter the schedule during the process.

4.1.4 TMC Evaluation Team/ Subpanel Definition

The contractors shall familiarize themselves with the SALMON-2 AO and the EVI-4 PEA and the Notices Of Intent (NOIs) (to be submitted by Proposers in early April 2015). There were 20 proposals submitted necessitating 2 subpanels to conduct the TMC Evaluation. The subpanels may consist of 1 CubeSat subpanel and 1 instrument subpanel.

The contractor shall search out and obtain the required non-conflicted Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to conduct this evaluation. Based on the evaluation criteria in the SALMON-2 AO and the EVI-4 PEA, the contractor shall provide expertise in the following areas per instrument subpanel: 4 Instruments experts, 1 Science Operations expert, 1 Management and Schedule expert, and 1 Cost expert. For the CubeSat panel, the contractor shall provide the following expertise: 2 CubeSat experts, 2 Instruments expert, 1 Science Operations expert, 1 Management and Schedule expert, and 1 Cost expert. The cost models to be used shall be the model and the model. In addition, a checklist or process shall be used to ensure that all proposals are evaluated consistently for aspects of instruments design. In addition one or two instrument experts are required with a security clearance to review classified heritage appendices and report to the TMC subpanels. Several specialty reviewers may be required.

The contractor shall assign two or more Form C Leads for each subpanel from this subpanel membership, who shall lead their respective subpanel Form C discussions through the evaluation of their assigned proposals and shall be responsible for the completion of the evaluation products, i.e.

Forms C and Cost Evaluation Summaries. At least one Form C lead per subpanel shall be experienced Evaluation Team members who have previous experience leading subpanels and being Form C Lead, or shall be experienced team leaders capable of handling this task.

The contractor shall assign one Cost Lead for each proposal. Cost Leads shall be responsible for the completion of the Cost Evaluation Summary for their assigned proposals that includes the results of the two cost estimates and the panel’s cost related inputs. The contractor shall assign a Cost Lead for the entire panel that shall be responsible to gather all the cost analyses results and prepare and deliver a Cost Summary Presentation during the Plenary Meeting.

Although proposals are evaluated independently from other proposals, consistency checks shall be performed during the TMC Evaluation to ensure that all proposals are treated equally and fairly.

4.1.5 TMC Team Contact List

The contractor shall maintain an up-to-date Evaluation Team Contact List of all individuals that are part of the Evaluation Team. This includes all contractor-supplied individuals (employees, consultants, and subcontractor personnel), civil servants or other government personnel added to the Evaluation Team, and any other individuals contracted by NASA (either individuals contracted directly by NASA or contracted via a subcontract directly to NASA). The Evaluation Team Contact List shall include (but is not limited to) each individual’s name; role and responsibility on the Evaluation Team; primary area of expertise; Proposals assigned; affiliation; name, address, fax and phone number; email address;

current mailing address; and address to which they want their proposals sent.

4.1.6 Training of Evaluation Team on Ethics, OCI/COI and ITAR, and Level of Difficulty Index for Instruments

The contractor shall provide training and obtain certifications in accordance with the contractor’s OCI Mitigation Plan.

4.1.7 Compliance Check

Upon receipt of Proposals, the contractor shall immediately conduct a Technical/Cost Compliance Check (as defined in the AO) and shall document any compliance/non-compliance issues. This information shall be provided to the NASA TM to assist in the determination if any proposals are to be determined by NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to be non-compliant.

4.1.8 Remote Evaluation System Technical Support for the Evaluation

The NASA TM has the sole decision and authority/responsibility for allowing Remote Evaluation System (RES) access to individuals, and for providing file read/write/delete privileges to specified individuals utilizing the RES.

The prime evaluation contractor shall test the RES for functionality prior to the Kickoff Meeting. The contractor shall provide instructions to the Evaluation Team on how to obtain the Kickoff materials from the RES. The contractor shall also provide technical support to any Evaluation Team member having difficulty utilizing the RES.

4.1.9 Kickoff Meeting

The contractor shall assist in briefing the Evaluation Team. The contractor shall utilize a NASA-provided teleconference and/or web conference service to secure teleconference facilities with the required number of phone lines to conduct the meeting and/or a contractor provided FIPS 140-2 certified web conferencing capability with sufficient connection capability. The contractor shall notify all participants of the time and date for this meeting/teleconference and how to obtain the presentation materials from the RES.

All members of the Evaluation Team shall attend the Kickoff Meeting. Hence, should any Evaluation Team member not be able to attend this meeting, the contractor shall conduct “makeup” meetings for all members that missed the initial meeting, and shall ensure that all Evaluation Team members attend this meeting. The contractor shall also ensure that Proposals are not distributed to any Evaluation Team member until it is confirmed that they have attended one of the Kickoff meetings.

4.2 TMC Evaluation of EVI-4 Proposals

4.2.1 TMC Evaluation

The contractor shall perform a detailed evaluation of each proposal. The contractor’s Evaluation Team members shall participate in reading and evaluating their assigned aspects (e.g. instruments) of each assigned proposal.

The contractor’s Cost Evaluators shall perform 2 fully independent life cycle cost estimates for each proposal that use different approaches such as a bottoms-up model versus a parametric model. The cost models to be used shall be the model and the model. Each cost estimate shall include all life-cycle elements from Phase A through Phase F for elements in the PI Managed cost, and shall be generated with an approach (parametric models, reference cost data, and analogies) that is independent of the proposer’s estimation sources. Included in each Life-Cycle Cost estimate shall be an assessment of cost risk that shall identify cost drivers in each proposed implementation approach.

Comments shall be provided on costs shown outside the PI-Managed Cost. The contractor shall provide the model parameter settings .

Each proposal shall be assigned a Form C Lead shall be responsible to guide the subpanel discussions and generate and refine the Form C for their assigned proposals. Each proposal shall be assigned a Cost Lead shall be responsible to guide the subpanel cost discussions and generate and refine the Cost Evaluation Summary for their assigned proposals.

4.2.2 Evolution of Findings and the Form C

Evaluation findings undergo a maturation process during the TMC evaluation. They start as individual findings that are discussed and then edited, merged with other findings or disposed. Findings that are kept are further refined through various iterations to be relevant, specific, and clear. The iterations are described below.

Individual Findings: The contractor’s Evaluation Team members shall review the assigned proposals and develop individual findings before discussion with other subpanel members. For each assigned proposal, each contractor Evaluation Team member shall enter their individual findings into the RES website before each proposal scheduled deadline. For each proposal, the Form C Lead shall organize these individual findings (using the RES software) into a large table of findings referred as the “Fat Matrix”. This Fat Matrix of individual findings is the basis of the Fat Matrix teleconference and/or web conference.

Fat Matrix Teleconference and/or Web Conference: A “Fat Matrix” teleconference and/or web conference is held for each proposal to discuss individual findings and to assist the Form C Lead in developing an “Initial Draft Form C” for that proposal. The Form C Lead guides the discussion. During this Fat Matrix teleconference and/or web conference, the entire subpanel discusses each individual finding, and the individual findings are edited, merged with other similar individual findings, or disposed. After the Fat Matrix teleconference and/or web conference, the Form C Lead shall be responsible for further editing, consolidating, and refining this initial form into the Initial Draft Form C. The Initial Draft Form C is the first draft of the final Form C product and is the basis of the “Initial Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web conference” discussion. The contractor shall provide a web conference capability to support all teleconferences which provides the capability to view the material being discussed and audio for verbal communication on the teleconference.

Initial Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web Conference: For each proposal, the Initial Draft Form C Teleconference and/or web conference is held by each subpanel to refine the findings. The Form C Lead guides the discussion. In this teleconference the LDI results are presented, the initial results of the Independent Cost Estimates (ICE) and cost threats are discussed and the findings can be edited, merged with other similar findings, or disposed. The resulting second draft of the Form C is the basis of the “Second Draft Form C Teleconference”. All subpanel members are responsible for ensuring consistency of the evaluation across proposals reviewed by the subpanel.

Second Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web Conference: At this point in the evaluation, evaluators remain in their subpanels. However, a Consistency Team shall be formed that is comprised of several evaluators from each subpanel and that covers all areas of expertise. The Consistency Team is responsible for Form C consistency checks across all proposals, and therefore, the Consistency Team members shall attend all Form C teleconferences and/or web conference for each subpanel. For each proposal, each subpanel holds a Second Draft Form C Teleconference and/or web conference to further refine the findings and prepare potential major weaknesses to be sent to the proposers for clarification.

All Draft Forms C are reviewed during this teleconference and/or web conference. For each proposal, the LDI updates are presented, the (ICE) and cost threats updates are discussed and all parts of the Form C are reviewed, so that any minors in need of promotion to majors may be done at this time. The Form C Lead for each proposal guides the discussion. Findings can be edited, merged with other similar findings, or disposed. The Consistency Team ensures consistency between findings on proposals from different subpanels and that all proposals are treated equally and fairly. The resulting third drafts of the Forms C are the basis of the “Third Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web Conference”. The potential major weaknesses from each Form C are captured and sent to the proposers.

Third Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web Conference: For each proposal, each subpanel holds a Third Draft Form C Teleconference and/or Web Conference before the plenary meeting to further refine the findings and consider the proposer-provided clarifications to the major weaknesses. All Draft Forms C are reviewed during this teleconference and/or web conference. The Form C Lead for each proposal guides the discussion. Findings can be edited, merged with other similar findings, or disposed.

The Consistency Team members attend all Form C telecons for each subpanel. The Consistency Team ensures consistency between findings on proposals, the disposition of clarification responses, and that all proposals are treated equally and fairly. The resulting “Plenary Draft Form C” is the basis of the Plenary Meeting discussions.

Additional teleconferences and/or web conferences as needed shall be held to discuss and resolve consistency issues. Unless previously approved by the Form C leads and NASA TM, all Evaluation Team members must attend their assigned teleconferences and/or web conferences to review draft Forms C and address consistency issues.

4.2.3 Plenary Meeting: Finalizing the Findings and Form C

The contractor shall attend the TMC Plenary Meeting. The TMC Plenary Meeting is a 4-day face-to-face meeting where all evaluators come together to discuss all proposal findings, finalize the findings and Form C and be polled for the proposed investigation risk rating. This shall be accomplished in 3 rounds of discussion for each proposal. The Form C and Cost Leads for each proposal guide the discussions. The contractor shall also provide a summary presentation on cost that includes the results of the Cost analysis for each proposal. At the end of the Plenary Meeting the Evaluation Team shall;

4.2.3.1. Document the findings in final versions of the Forms C for each proposal.

4.2.3.2. Judge the completeness, accuracy, and consistent treatment of each proposal’s evaluation.

4.2.3.3. Determine, via a polling process, the final assignment of risk ratings for each proposal as directed by the Government. The contractor shall also prepare a “polling log” indicating who can be polled for each proposal and that shall automatically (via formulas developed in an Excel Spreadsheet) determine the median, average, or mode of each tallied poll for each proposal.

4.2.3.4. Deliver the final form documents in time to support the selection meeting.

4.2.3.5. The Consistency Team shall ensure consistency between findings on proposals.

4.3 Post-evaluation Support

The contractor shall:

4.3.1. Finalize the Forms C and the Cost Evaluation Summaries. This includes a review by a professional technical editor after Form Cs have been finalized by Form C leads.

4.3.2. Reserved.

4.3.3. Assist with preparation of categorization and steering committee books.

4.3.4. Assist with preparation for debriefings of proposing teams.

4.3.5. Participate in a Lessons Learned activity to capture the lessons learned and best practices of the evaluation process.

4.3.6. Develop and assist in the presentation of a Transition Briefing to the Program Office that captures the characteristics of the selected mission.

4.3.7. Prepare or provide input to briefing books and/or a history book documenting all evaluation panel activity, findings, and recommendations, as directed by the NASA Task Monitor (TM).

4.3.8. Upload final forms, as well as copies of presentation materials and summaries to the evaluation website; after which, the entire contents of the site shall be captured on CD-ROM for entry into the SOMA archive.

4.3.9. Archive all proposal copies and documents pertaining to the evaluation cycle in the SOMA archive.

4.3.10. Develop an Accommodation Summary of proposals.

5. Government Furnished Items: The Government will provide the following.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED ITEM DATE TO BE

FURNISHED

Proposals November 2016

Form C Lead Training December 2016

6.1.1 Quality

This Task shall conform to the goals of the contractor EASSS 2 QA Program by:

Delivering high-quality products and services that meet contractual requirements and satisfy the stakeholder’s technical, cost and schedule needs and expectations.

Using continuous improvement to develop and deliver low-risk, innovative technical solutions.

Evaluating performance using objective performance measures together with customer satisfaction, surveillance and performance evaluation inputs.

Ensuring that the Task Order shall be staffed with only the highest quality non-conflicted SMEs, able to fully conform to necessary standards and procedures, and free of OCI and COI concerns.

Ensuring prompt visibility and proactive resolution of emerging quality issues.

Focusing on problem prevention by implementing and continually improving work processes designed to identify and resolve problems early in the development life cycle.

Reporting comprehensive and accurate EASSS 2 Program performance assessments.

Undergoing a Quality Audit of our procedures (OCI/COI, training, and process procedures) every six months by our Quality Control Manager who reports findings directly to the CTS CEO.

6.1.2 Timeliness

Evaluation Team members are identified as far in advance as possible; that OCI/COI issues are identified and resolved as far in advance as possible; that required training is provided as far in advance as possible; and that required information/forms to bring consultants, temporary employees, and required subcontractors on board with the prime evaluation contractor are completed in as far in advance as possible to ensure timely development of the Evaluation Team.

Timely and effective responses to problems or changes in requirements and budgets.

All contract deliverables are accurate, of high quality, and delivered early or on time.

Risks are being managed in a timely and effective manner.

Provide timely staff management for new requirements, vacancies, resignations and terminations (for employees, subcontractors, and consultants).

Timely deliveries, reporting, and identification of issues or concerns.

All potential problems are identified early and resolved swiftly and are worked proactively rather than reactively.

Heliophysics Technology Demonstration Mission of Opportunity Proposal Evaluation

This requirement is pursuant to contract NNL15AA02B between National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Cornell Technical Services (CTS), LLC. Refer to Paragraph 3.0 Proposal Evaluation.

2.2. Limitation of Future Contracting Reference

may have access to proprietary information and various other types of non-public data

As described in NASA Clause 1852.209-71 (Clause H.3, Limitation of Future Contracting, contained in contract NNL15AA02B), this work may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the contractor shall comply with Clause I.9, Access to Sensitive Information, and “Exhibit D., Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan”, contained in contract NNL15AA02B.

The purpose of this Task Order is to provide technical expertise and administrative support to the NASA Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) (located at NASA LaRC) for the Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation evaluation of proposals submitted as a result of the 2018 Heliophysics Technology Demonstration (TechDemo) Mission of Opportunity (MO) solicitation.

For each proposal evaluated, the contractor shall provide a Form C, which is the form that serves as the report of the TMC evaluation results, and a Cost Evaluation Summary, which documents the cost assessment associated with each Form C. The TMC evaluation is performed according to Criterion C Factors C-1 to C-5 defined in the Third Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-3) Announcement of Opportunity (AO).

4.1. Preparation for TMC Evaluation Support

The contractor shall perform the TMC Evaluation as follows:

4.1.1. Web Conference Service

The contractor shall obtain a secure web conference service…