Dragonfly PDS DRFP L_M.pdf

DRAFT

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.X INSTRUTIONS FOR VOLUME I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (TECHNICAL

CONSIDERATIONS)

(a) The Offeror shall submit a Technical Proposal that describes the proposed approach, including which entity is proposed to perform the work, to accomplish the work specified in

“Technical Considerations” below. The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal for acceptability as set forth in Section M. The technical proposal shall clearly demonstrate the

Offeror’s approach and ability to meet all of the technical considerations detailed below. Do not merely reiterate the requirements of the solicitation.

(b) The Technical Proposal shall address the following Technical Considerations

1 – PARACHUTE DESIGN AND TESTING

(a) Parachute Design: Offerors shall provide a conceptual design for the main parachute, specifying the rationale for the selection of the canopy type and fabric material(s) (see

Requirements 1.5-1 through 1.5-4), and how it addresses NASA concerns related to main parachute inflation reliability due to the expected long inflation time (see SOW Section

1.4).

(b) Parachute Structural Verification: Offerors shall provide a summary plan (including both analysis and test) of the activities required to verify the structural strength of the parachutes as specified in Requirements 1.3-8 (drogue parachute) and 1.5-8 (main parachute). These plans shall include the specific facilities and/or test range(s) required

(including their availability) and number of individual tests for each parachute (drogue and main).

(c) Qualification Drop Test: Offerors shall provide a summary test plan of the activities required to verify the qualification drop test specified in Requirement 1.9-2. This plan shall include:

1) design and fabrication of the drop test vehicle,

2) the specific equipment, facilities and/or test range(s) (including their availability),

3) logistics for placing all needed hardware at the test site,

4) description of the test system, and

5) test procedures.

2 – STAFF, FACILITY, AND EQUIPMENT

(a) Staffing Capability: Offerors shall demonstrate that they have the engineering and labor skills to design, fabricate, test, and qualify the PDS specified in the contract, including staffing mix with experience in the development of parachute systems for space missions.

(b) Facility and Equipment: Offerors shall demonstrate its facility and equipment capabilities, or ability to obtain them, to meet the requirements of the contract. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address:

(i.) space and equipment, to include but not limited to, the fabric cutting tables and sewing machines required to fabricate parachutes of the sizes required for the

PDS.

(ii.) Equipment required to perform strength testing of textile elements, to include but not limited to the fabric, joint and seam, cords, and tapes.

L.X INSTRUTIONS FOR VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL

(FACTOR 1)

Proposal Guidelines – The Offeror shall include in its proposal the overall corporate or Offeror past performance, but not the past performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the required work, to demonstrate the Offeror’s performance under prior contracts for work that is similar in content, size, and complexity to the technical performance areas specified below.

However, for newly formed businesses having little or no experience as the new business entity, the Offeror may submit the past performance of a predecessor business entity or the past performance of the company's principal owner(s) or corporate officer(s). Newly formed business entities submitting such information shall also submit a thorough and clear explanation of why such information should be considered predictive of the Offeror’s performance under a contract resulting from this solicitation. Offerors which are subsidiaries or affiliates of other business entities may submit the past performance of such other business entities for consideration but such past performance will only be considered to the extent that the proposal clearly demonstrates that the resources of the other companies will affect the Offeror’s performance on the proposed contract. The Government will consider the past performance information (PPI) for the prime Offeror and significant subcontractors (See (c) below) that are proposed to perform the technical performance areas when such information is recent and relevant to those areas.

(a) Significant Subcontractors – For the purposes of this solicitation and for proposal preparation purposes, the term “significant subcontractor” only applies to the Past Performance

Factor. For the Cost/Price Factor, all subcontract cost/pricing information shall be submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions. Under the Past Performance Factor, a “significant subcontractor” is defined as subcontractor proposed to perform 25% or more of any one of the technical performance areas listed in L.X.

(b) Contractor Team Arrangements – This instruction only applies if the Offeror is teaming as defined in FAR 9.6, which will include (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor or (2) significant subcontractors as defined in (d) below. If a teaming arrangement is proposed, the Offeror shall clearly describe the teaming arrangement for affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures. The proposal shall detail why such information is relevant to the technical performance areas.

To demonstrate the full range of capabilities, offerors may submit past performance information on recent and relevant contracts of teaming partners, affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the PPI clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition in the technical performance areas. Information on these projects shall be provided as described above and shall identify the names of the firms and their roles in the specific project. The offeror shall address the following questions, in specific detail, when submitting past performance data on recent and relevant contracts of affiliated and parent companies.

(1) Who will manage the contract?

(2) Which party possesses the background, expertise and qualifications relevant to the contract requirements and necessary for contract performance?

(3) Are there discreet tasks to be performed by each of the teaming partners in the performance of the contract? If so, please specify in detail.

(4) What’s the relative amount of work to be performed by each party?

(5) Which party will perform the more complex and costly contract functions?

(6) Is there a commingling of personnel and resources? If so, please specify in detail.

(7) What is the business size of the other parties?

(c) Proposal Content – (Recent and Relevant/Pertinent Contracts References) – The

Offeror shall submit no more than five (5) relevant contract references, including no more than two (2) references per significant subcontractor, that are on-going or completed within the past fifteen (15) years from the date of RFP issuance that the Offeror considers to be the most relevant in terms of content, size, and complexity to the technical performance areas identified in

L.X. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, at least one (1) of the Offeror’s contract references shall be from the managing partner. Contract references can include Federal, State, and local

Government and private customer contracts. The Offeror is encouraged to select contracts where they were the prime contractor.

If the contract reference is an overarching Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or

Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order. If offerors desire assessment of an individual task/call/delivery/purchase order, the offeror shall submit that as a separate contract reference.

If the Offeror does not have any past performance experiences meeting these conditions, the

Offeror shall so state.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to clearly and completely demonstrate in its proposal the relevancy of each of the contract references in terms of content, size, and complexity.

For each reference submitted, the Offeror shall include the following:

(1) Contract Number and Title

(2) Contracting Agency

(3) Points of contact in the program and contracting offices, including accurate telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.

(4) If a Government Agency, include both the Contracting Officer (CO/KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) points of contact

(5) If a Government contract, include official copies of CPARS records that have past the Government retention date which is three (3) years following the completion of the contract or order.

(6) Name of Company that performed the work, CAGE code, and DUNS number

(7) Contract type

(8) Contract beginning and ending dates

(9) Status of Contract (current, terminated (if so, why), successfully completed)

(10) Total Contract Value and Total Actual Obligated Dollars (If other than the

Prime, provide the overall contract value and the value of the work the entity/company performed)

(11) Original cost/price as well as actual cost/price

(12) Proposal Narrative: Thorough and complete description how each contract reference is relevant to the technical performance areas (SOW areas) identified below in terms of content, size, and complexity. The proposal shall include a work performance matrix (see example and additional instructions below) for the prime and each significant subcontractor with the percentage of work that each will perform in each technical performance area.

• For “Content”, demonstrate relevance to technical performance areas

(SOW areas) specified below:

Technical Performance Areas (SOW Areas):

o Section 1.4 EDL Concept of Operation. Development, qualification and use in flight of a 2-stage (or more) parachute decelerator subsystem in which the first parachute is deployed by a mortar, and subsequent parachutes are deployed by pilot parachutes.

• For “Size”, demonstrate relevance in terms of total contract value for the work the specific entity is proposed to perform in comparison to the contract reference. To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent”, the entity proposed to perform the technical performance area must meet or exceed a total contract value or cost/fee of

$1.5 million.

• For “Complexity”, demonstrate relevance terms of the performance challenges and risks experience under the contract reference compared to the complexities of the technical performance area(s) the entity is proposed to perform.

(13) Extent to which contract objective were met, including:

(i) Quality of Services

(ii) Schedule

(iii) Cost Control

(iv) Management

(v) Small Business Subcontracting

(vi) Regulatory Compliance

(14) The Offeror shall complete and provide a table describing which entity is proposed to perform the work for each technical performance areas (SOW areas) and the percentage of work each entity will perform. In the event of a conflict between the narrative and the relevance matrix, the narrative will take precedence as the Offeror’s intended response. Rows may be added or deleted to encompass the prime Offeror and all significant subcontractors. Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

Typically each column should add up to 100%. In the case where the total is less than

100%, the Offeror shall explain why the total is less than 100%. (e.g. additional subcontractors that are not “significant” per the solicitation).

PERTINENCE/RELEVANCE TABLE

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE AREAS (SOW AREAS)

Offeror Section 1.4

Prime %

Joint Venture Partner (if applicable) %

Significant Subcontractor %

Significant Subcontractor %

Add more if necessary %

Total 100%

(d) Consent Letters (To be submitted in the Business Proposal, Volume IV) - The

Offeror shall submit a written consent letter from each proposed significant subcontractor, teaming partner, and joint venture partner authorizing the release of past performance information to the Offeror and to allow NASA to discuss the past performance information with the Offeror.

(e) Independent Past Performance Information (PPI) - The Government may consider PPI from other sources including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews and other references in addition to those provided by the Offeror and its significant subcontractors. While NASA may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, Offerors are responsible to submit recent and relevant references that NASA can readily contact and for presenting information establishing the relevance of their experience to

NASA’s requirements under this RFP.

(f) Past Performance Questionnaires - The offeror shall provide a Past Performance

Questionnaire (Attachment X to this solicitation) to each of the customers for the most relevant contracts identified in the proposal list pursuant to paragraph a) above. The selected customers must complete and return this questionnaire no later than the timeframe specified in this solicitation to the email address or fax number provided on the questionnaire. NASA may verify the information submitted with the references provided.

Offerors are cautioned that omissions or an inaccurate or inadequate response to this evaluation factor will have a negative effect on the overall evaluation.

(End of Provision)

L.18 INSTRUTIONS FOR VOLUME III - COST OR PRICE PROPOSAL (FACTOR 2)

(a) General Instructions

(1) In order to determine cost realism, the Offeror shall submit data other than cost or pricing data pursuant to FAR 15.403-3.

(2) The Offeror shall comply with the instructions in this section and those on the Cost Forms, Attachment X. The Offeror shall include sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed (i.e. Bases of Estimate (BOEs)), giving figures and narrative explanation.

(3) The Offeror shall provide the following contract administration information: (i) Cognizant

Government Audit Agency (GAA) with mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number and (ii) Cognizant Government Administrative Contracting

Officer (ACO) by name with mailing address, email address, telephone number, and fax number.

(4) The Offeror shall prepare the cost proposal in a manner consistent with its current accounting system.

(b) Cost/Price Forms

(1) The Offeror shall complete the Cost/Price Forms in Attachment X to this solicitation.

The cost evaluation will be focused on the completed Forms and the supporting narrative.

(2) Subcontractor Proposal Information: The Offeror shall submit a separate cost proposal for each significant subcontractor (see L.X) that complies with the cost/pricing instructions of this solicitation, to include completion of the Cost Forms and to provide a supporting narrative. Subcontractors may submit proprietary cost data (unredacted) directly to NASA no later than the date and time specified in the instructions for receipt of offers for this solicitation. The price presented in the Offeror's proposal for each subcontracted effort will be considered the intended price. If applicable, the Offeror shall explain any differences between the subcontractor total proposed price and that proposed by the prime Offeror. The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support their determination of price/cost reasonableness of subcontractor proposed costs (see FAR

15.404-3, Subcontract pricing considerations).

(c) Labor

(1) The offeror shall provide the breakdown of direct labor cost by named person or labor category including number of labor-hours and current actual average hourly rates based on a work year of 2,080 hours.

(2) The Offeror shall show the derivation of its productive work-year. If contract years cross

Offeror fiscal years, the Offeror shall show how fiscal year rates were apportioned to establish contract year rates. The Offeror shall explain any composite hourly labor rates.

The Offeror shall complete Attachment X, Cost Form X.

(3) Each proposed labor rate shall include anticipated escalation unless escalation is prohibited by law, regulation or a specific clause in this solicitation.

(4) If applicable, the Offeror shall provide the most recent Forward Pricing Rate Agreement

(FPRA).

(d) If Consultants are proposed, state the amount of service estimated to be required and the consultant’s quoted daily or hourly rate. Include Consulting Agreements entered into between consultant(s) and the offeror, or invoices submitted by consultant(s) for similar services previously provided to the offeror.

(e) Indirect Costs

(1) For each indirect pool, the Offeror shall identify the rates and bases used to determine the proposed costs for this proposal. The Offeror shall explain how this contract has been considered in determining the proposed indirect rates and show the impact of this contract on the Offeror’s forecasted indirect bases and pools. If indirect rates have not been reviewed within the last 12 months by the responsible GAA, the Offeror shall provide a cost history for the last three years, including the actual expense pools and application base amounts for the larger indirect pools (e.g., overhead, fringe benefits, and

G&A). The Offeror shall detail all cost elements in the pools and bases. If contract years cross Offeror’s fiscal years, then the Offeror shall show how fiscal year rates were apportioned to establish contract year rates. The Offeror shall complete Attachment X, Cost Form X.

(2) If a service center or indirect rate has been established and proposed for this contract, explain in detail its content.

(3) If applicable, the Offeror shall provide the most recent Forward Pricing Rate Agreement

(FPRA).

(f) Subcontractor Proposal Information

The Offeror shall submit a separate cost proposal for each significant subcontractor that complies with the cost/pricing instructions of this solicitation. Subcontractors may submit proprietary cost data directly to NASA no later than the date and time specified in the instructions for receipt of offers for this solicitation. The price(s) presented in the Offeror's proposal for the subcontracted effort(s) will be considered the intended price(s). If applicable, the offeror shall explain any differences between the subcontractor total proposed price and that proposed by the prime Offeror. The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support their determination of price/cost reasonableness of subcontractor proposed costs (see FAR 15.404-3, Subcontract pricing considerations).

(g) Other Direct Costs (ODC)

(1) Travel, subsistence and local transportation shall be supported with a breakdown which includes: number of trips anticipated, cost-per-trip-per-person, destination(s) proposed, number of person(s) scheduled for travel, mode of transportation, and mileage allowances if privately-owned vehicles will be used. Costs associated with attendance at conferences, meetings, and reviews

(2) Materials - Cost breakdown of materials or equipment must be supported with the methodology used and vendor quotations supplied as applicable

(h) Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM)

The Offeror shall propose FCCOM if in accordance with their accounting system (ref. FAR

52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money). If the Offeror does not propose FCCOM, then

FAR 52.215-17, Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money, will be included in the contract.

(i) Fixed Fee

The Offeror shall show the amounts proposed for fixed fee for each contract year. The

Offeror shall provide rationale for the proposed amounts.

(j) Total Compensation Plan

The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan that demonstrates the ability to attract and retain competent employees. The plan shall be compliant with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, and NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of

Compensation Reasonableness.

(End of provision)

L.19 INSTRUTIONS FOR VOLUME IV – BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Offerors shall include the following in its business proposal:

CONTRACT OFFER: Offerors shall submit with its proposal all sections of the Model

Contract as follows:

1. The Offeror shall submit a signed contract offer (see FAR 4.102, Contractor’s

Signature) with its original proposal since it is anticipated that award will be made without discussion (see FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition).

2. The contract offer shall consist of the following:

(i.) One signed original of the Standard Form (SF) 33 with Items 12-18 completed. The offeror shall complete all required fill-ins (shaded areas) in Sections B to K of the solicitation. The additional Exhibits listed in Section J will be added to the contract by the Contracting Officer at the time of or after contract award.

(ii) Executed Section K including information not available in the System for Award

Management (SAM)) that is specific to this solicitation.

(iii) Properly acknowledge solicitation amendments (if any). A cover letter stating acceptance of the proposed contract terms and conditions that are incorporated into the contract offer and the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work

(SOW); or a cover letter listing all specific exceptions to the terms, conditions or requirements. Include the reason for the exception, new terms, conditions and/or clauses, including proposed benefit to the Government. This list must include all exceptions, deviations and/or conditional assumptions taken. Offerors are cautioned that exceptions or new terms, conditions, 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.

3. Small Business Utilization. The instructions below are applicable to paragraphs a) and b) of this section.

All Offerors, except small businesses, shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Small businesses are not required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans; however, small businesses are required to indicate the amount of effort proposed to be done by a small business either at the prime level or at the first-tier subcontract level.

All Offerors shall respond to their Commitment to the Small Business Programs.

(a) Small Business Subcontracting

(1) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (the Plan) required by the FAR: (completed by all offerors except small business)

(i.) This solicitation contains FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan with Alternate II. The Plan described and required by the clause, including the associated subcontracting percentage goals and subcontracting dollars, shall be submitted with your proposal.

(ii.) Due to the type and complexity of the work being performed under this requirement, the Contracting Officer has determined not to include an assessment of subcontracting goals for this acquisition. Offerors must perform an independent assessment of the small business subcontracting opportunities to provide this information with their proposal.

(iii.) If it is anticipated that the Offerors proposed small business goals will not be met by the submission of the first Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) for this effort as required by 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, the offeror should discuss their approach to include timeline for meeting these goals and the rationale for it.

(iv.) The Plan submitted with the proposal shall be incorporated in Section J as

Exhibit X in the resulting contract. The requirements in the Plan must flow down to first tier large business subcontracts expected to exceed $750,000 (or

$1,500,000 for construction of a public facility). Although these first tier large business subcontractors are encouraged to meet or exceed the stated goals, it is recognized that the subcontracting opportunities available to these subcontractors may differ from those suggested in the solicitation based upon the nature of their respective performance requirements.

(v.) Offerors are advised that a proposal will not be rejected solely because the submitted Plan does not incorporate small business subcontracting goals if market research performed does not yield subcontractors for this effort. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to identify potential subcontractors. The Offeror shall describe the efforts made to establish a goal for that category and what ongoing efforts, if any, the Offeror plans during performance to increase participation in that category. NASA will consider the amount of work being retained for performance by the prime contractor in-house when determining whether a subcontracting plan is acceptable.

(vi.) In addition to submitting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Section I, FAR clause 52.219-9, Alternate II, Offerors shall complete

Attachment X, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS, which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of TOTAL CONTRACT

VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS.

It is recommended that Offerors first complete Column B by entering the dollar amount the Offeror proposes to subcontract to each business category and subcategory.

To complete Column A, divide the dollar amount in Column B by the total offered price of the proposal (that is, total contract value). In the example above, Column A for

Veteran Owned Business Concerns = $2,500,000 divided by $100,000,000, or 2.5%.

To complete column C, divide the corresponding amount in Column B by the amount in the “Total Dollars to be Subcontracted” cell in Column B. In the example above, Column

C for Women-Owned Small Businesses = $9,000,000 divided by $50,000,000, or 18%.

Note: the “Total Dollars to be Subcontracted” amount in Column C will always be that category divided by itself (100% if any dollars are subcontracted).

(b) Commitment to the Small Business Program

(1) All Offerors shall briefly describe work that will be performed by small businesses. Proposals should also identify any work to be subcontracted that is considered “high technology.” High Technology is defined as research and development efforts that are within or advance the state-of-the-art in a technology discipline and are performed primarily by professional engineers, scientists, and highly skilled and trained technicians or specialists.

(2) If the subcontractor(s) is known, Offerors must connect the work to the subcontractor and specify the extent of commitment to use the subcontractor (s)

(enforceable vs. non-enforceable commitments). (Small Business Offerors shall provide this information to the extent subcontracting opportunities exist in their approach to performing the requirement.)

(3) All Offerors shall provide information demonstrating the extent of commitment to utilize small business concerns and to support their development. Information provided should include a brief description of established or planned procedures and organizational structure for Small Business outreach, assistance, participation in the Mentor Protégé program, counseling, market research and Small Business identification, and relevant purchasing procedures. (For Large Business Offerors, this information should conform to applicable portions of the submitted Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. Small Business Offerors shall provide this information to the extent subcontracting opportunities exist in their approach to performing the requirement.)

4. Consent Letters to allow the Government to discuss the past performance record of teaming partners.

5. Offeror’s statement that its proposal shall remain firm for at least 120 calendar days after the date specified for receipt by the Government.

L.20 RESTRICTION OF DISCLOSURE/PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

If the Offeror wishes to restrict the disclosure or use of its proposal, use the legend permitted by FAR

52.215-1(e). Individual subcontractor/vendor proprietary information may be submitted electronically and separately. The information contained in these electronic submissions must be referenced (by title, page and section number as appropriate) within the main proposal where the information would have been included if it were not subcontractor/vendor proprietary. The information in these separate electronic submissions is subject to all other requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and must be well-marked to clearly indicate any special handling instructions.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION OF A SINGLE PROPOSAL - At NASA’s discretion, the procedures at NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, may be implemented if appropriate for the acquisition.

M.2 SECTION M PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CLAUSE

NUMBER

CLAUSE TITLE

52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL

EMPLOYEES (FEB 1993)

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection”, NASA FAR Supplement Part

1815.3, and this solicitation using a Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPTO) process. Award will be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, whose proposals conforms to the solicitation requirements, and is determined, by the Source Selection

Authority’s (SSA’s) integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, including the relative importance of the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

M.4 METHOD OF EVALUATION

(a) Pursuant to NFS 1815.300-70(ii), this source selection will not use a Mission Suitability factor and numerical scoring. Technical Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability and the final selection decision will be based on a tradeoff (see FAR 15.101-1) between the Past

Performance and Cost/Price factors. Exchanges may occur if determined necessary by the CO

(see FAR 15.306).

(b) In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instruction to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, the

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, although reserves the right if the CO determines them to be necessary. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

(c) Proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by the Government, as follows:

Step 1 –The Government will rank all proposals based on cost/price, from lowest to highest price. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) which is the amount proposed in Part I, Section B.X, Pricing Schedule, “SUM OF ALL

TOTAL AMOUNTS – BASE”

Step 2 - NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, Review. The

Government will review the proposals of the lowest-priced proposals for the purpose of identifying unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of

Unacceptable Proposals. At any point during the initial evaluation if the CO determines the proposal to be unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, the Government will discontinue the evaluation of that proposal. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 3 – The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Proposal (Volume I) from

Step 2 for acceptability as set forth in M.4 and assign ratings as follows:

• Acceptable - A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” under the Technical

Proposal, where technical consideration(s) are determined to meet the material requirements of the solicitation, may contain minor issues that have no adverse impact on contract performance, and the proposal contains no deficiencies (See FAR

15.001). To be considered acceptable, no technical consideration in the proposal may be rated unacceptable.

• Unacceptable – A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical

Proposal, where a technical consideration(s) are determined to not meet the material requirement of the solicitation. A proposal is considered “Unacceptable” if it contains deficiencies (See FAR 15.001). A proposal that is rated as unacceptable will be ineligible (or precluded) from award.

Step 4 – Proposals that are rated as “Unacceptable” will be eliminated from further consideration and notified accordingly. All “Acceptable” proposals will continue in the evaluation process.

Step 5 – The Government will evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price proposals for the Offerors remaining from Step 4 that had Technical Proposals rated as “Acceptable”. The evaluation will be conducted as set forth in provision M.4.

Step 6 – Although the Government intends to award without discussions to the technically

“Acceptable” offeror who represents the best value to the government, discussions may be held in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

Discussions, if held, will only be held with the most highly rated Offerors. After discussions close and Final Proposal Revisions are received, all proposals remaining in the competitive range will receive a final rating against the Technical Acceptability Factor as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

(d) Upon completion of the evaluation of proposals and discussions (if held), only Offerors with a Technical Proposal rating of “Acceptable”, Past Performance rating of “Moderate” or above, and the Price Proposal determined to be reasonable, and otherwise eligible for award will be considered by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for selection. The evaluation team will report its results to SSA who will perform a comparative assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in the solicitation and select the Offeror’s proposal that is determined to be the best value to the Government based on the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by the evaluation team and others, the source selection decision will represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

M.5 VOLUME I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS)

The Government will determine each Offeror’s technical acceptability based on acceptability in each requirement identified below. Offerors must receive an “Acceptable” rating in order to move on to the next step of evaluation. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for one (1) or more of the below areas will not be considered for further evaluation. An award can only be made to an Offeror who has a technically “Acceptable” proposal.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet each of the “Technical

Considerations” as set forth below:

1 – PARACHUTE DESIGN AND TESTING

(a) Parachute Design: The government will evaluate the Offeror’s conceptual design for the main parachute, specifying the rationale for the selection of the canopy type and fabric material(s) (see Requirements 1.5-1 through 1.5-4), and how it addresses NASA concerns related to main parachute inflation reliability due to the expected long inflation time (see

SOW Section 1.4).

(b) Parachute Structural Verification: The government will evaluate the Offeror’s summary plan (including both analysis and test) of the activities required to verify the structural strength of the parachutes as specified in Requirements 1.3-8 (drogue parachute) and 1.5-8

(main parachute). The government will evaluate whether the offeror includes the specific facilities and/or test range(s) required (including their availability) and number of individual tests for each parachute (drogue and main).

(c) Qualification Drop Test: The government will evaluate the Offeror’s summary test plan of the activities required to verify the qualification drop test specified in Requirement 1.9-2.

This plan shall include:

(i.) design and fabrication of the drop test vehicle, (ii.) the specific equipment, facilities and/or test range(s) (including their availability), (iii.) logistics for placing all needed hardware at the test site, (iv.) description of the test system, and

(v.) test procedures.

2 – STAFF, FACILITY, AND EQUIPMENT

(a) Staffing Capability: Offerors shall demonstrate that they have the engineering and labor skills to design, fabricate, test, and qualify the PDS specified in the contract, including staffing mix with experience in the development of parachute systems for space missions.

(b) Facility and Equipment: Offerors shall demonstrate its facility and equipment capabilities, or ability to obtain them, to meet the requirements of the contract. At a minimum, the

Offeror shall address:

(i.) Space and equipment, to include but not limited to, the fabric cutting tables and sewing machines required to fabricate parachutes of the sizes required for the PDS.

(ii.) Equipment required to perform strength testing of textile elements, to include but not limited to the fabric, joint and seam, cords, and tapes.

M.6 EVALUATION FACTORS

There will be two (2) evaluation factors for Past Performance and Price as set forth below.

M.6(a) VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (FACTOR 1):

The evaluation of past performance will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and this solicitation. Under the Past Performance Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this acquisition. The evaluation will consider the record of proposed significant subcontractors. The evaluation of past performance will not consider the performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the proposed work.

As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (e.g. its workforce, management, facilities) are proposed to be provided and/or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, see “Neutral” definition below.

Recency and Relevancy/Pertinence Review: All past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of this solicitation to be considered.

The Government will assess the information provided for each of the referenced contracts to determine its recency. If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine its relevance/pertinence based on content, size, and complexity. At any time during the evaluation, references that do not meet the recency and/or relevance/pertinence (at all) requirements will not be considered.

Past Performance will be assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS

1815.305. Each of confidence rating has a "pertinence" component and "performance" component. The offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest-rated component is the highest confidence rating that can be assigned. The term “pertinence”, as used in NFS 1815.305, is used interchangeably with the word “relevance” in this solicitation.

(1) Pertinence Component: In assessing pertinence, the Government will consider the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s table/matrix for which teaming partner (e.g. prime, JV member, significant subcontractor) will perform in the technical performance areas listed in L.X and the percentage of work each will perform.

Based on the Government’s evaluation, a pertinence rating will be assigned as follows:

Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent

(SP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA).

(1) Performance Component: In assessing performance, the Government will assess the

Offeror's performance record for each contract reference. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in L.X for the work each entity is proposed to perform.

The performance assessment will be based primarily on, but not limited to, past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance

Questionnaires and/or interviews, and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information, and Government databases (e.g.

CPARS/PPIRS). Isolated or infrequent problems that were not severe or persistent, and for which the Offeror took immediate and appropriate corrective action, may not reduce the Offeror's confidence rating. On the other hand, confidence ratings will be reduced when problems were within the Contractor's control and were significant, persistent, or frequent, or when there is a pattern of problems or a negative trend of performance.

Based on the Government’s evaluation, a performance rating will be assigned as follows:

Exemplary (EX), Very Effective (VE), Effective (E), Minimum Acceptable (M), or Does

Not Meet (DNM).

The Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts and/or sources that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts, if any, must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be considered.

Past Performance Factor Confidence Rating: The Past Performance factor is not numerically weighted or scored. The Government will assign a confidence rating in accordance with NFS

1815.305(a)(2) as set forth below:

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 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)].

M.6(b) VOLUME III – COST/PRICE (FACTOR 2):

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, the Government will conduct

(include, but may not be limited to) price analysis, cost analysis, and cost realism as determined appropriate and defined in 15.404-1. The Government will conduct a price analysis by evaluating the prices proposed in response to this solicitation. Specifically, the evaluations will include, but are not limited to, comparing the prices proposed by all offerors in response to this solicitation, comparing the proposed prices to historical prices for the same or similar items purchased by the Government, and comparing the proposed prices to the independent

Government cost estimate.

Furthermore, the Government will conduct a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will derive a probable cost, which is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of each offeror’s proposal based on the offeror’s technical approach. The probable cost shall be used for the purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

In addition, the Government will evaluate the:

• Professional compensation in accordance FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees and NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation

Reasonableness.

• Adequacy of the accounting system as determined by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs.

• A proposal may be rejected, at any time during the Government’s evaluation, if the CO determines in writing that it is unreasonable as to price.

M.8 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Overall, in the selection of a Contractor for contract award, the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

ATTACHMENT L-1; Sample Past Performance Consent Letter

SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER/PROGRAM MANAGER CONSENT FORM

FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO

THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

[Past performance information concerning key personnel, subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor‘s or teaming partner‘s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing program manager, subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the

Government in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent form be completed by the major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past

Performance Volume].

Dear (Contracting Officer)

We are currently participating as a (key personnel, subcontractor/teaming partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the NASA Langley Research

Center Request for Proposal (solicitation number) for the (program title or description of effort).

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process, we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and Title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address: