IAD Pre Proposal_Conf_Presentation Feb 10 2022.pdf

T h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f N A S A ’ s c u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e m i s s i o n swww.nasa.gov

The cornerstone of NASA’s current and future missions

Office of Procurement Thursday, February 10, 2022

Welcome to the Langley Research Center Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (IAD) Pre-Proposal Conference

T h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f N A S A ’ s c u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e m i s s i o n s

Conference Guidelines

All questions/communications pertaining to the RFP and proposal preparation instructions shall be submitted in writing to Karen Dempster at larc.op.iad.@mail.nasa.gov in accordance with the RFP instructions.

We will attempt to answer questions at the end of the conference today, but some will likely require some research and/or an official decision, and those will be answered in writing at a later date.

All questions submitted by the February 8, 2022 initial deadline have been addressed and will be posted to www.sam.gov website.

Conference presentation will be posted to www.sam.gov website.

Nothing stated at this conference should be construed as a revision unless subsequently issued in an amendment to the Final RFP.

A Communications blackout is in place.

Objective and Agenda

The objective of the briefing is to provide potential bidders with an understanding of the IAD procurement and provide a forum for questions to be collected.

Agenda:

Background Overview of the Technical Tracks Overview of the RFP Pricing/Cost Instructions Proposal Preparation Task Order Process

Disclaimer

To the extent there are any inconsistencies between this briefing and the current RFP, the RFP will govern.

Acquisition Team Members

Team Members:

Keith Johnson, IAD Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Chair/Voting Member Hillary Blakeley, Voting Member Greg Swanson, Voting Member Neil Cheatwood, SEB Consultant Ceseley Dunbar, Contracting Officer (OP) Karen Dempster, Contract Specialist (OP)

Background

IAD Background

Keith Johnson IAD SEB Chair

Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (IAD) consists of three primary elements:

- Inflatable Structure (IS) that maintains shape during atmospheric flight,

- flexible Thermal Protection System (F-TPS) employed to protect the entry vehicle through hypersonic atmospheric entry

- Inflation system to inflate from the stowed state and maintain required pressure during flight

Robotic missions to any destination with an atmosphere (including sample return to Earth)

ISS down mass (without Shuttle, the U.S.

has no large-scale down mass capability)

Lower cost access to space through launch vehicle asset recovery (for example, ULA’s booster module)

High mass delivery to high altitudes at Mars (including humans to Mars)

See Bidders Library for Technical Papers on previous Projects

Structure of SOW

SOW Background and Objectives Focus is to develop IADs for increased scale in the range of 10-20 m diameter

Improve Soft Good Materials and Performance (IS and FTPS)

Develop mass and volume efficient Inflation Systems (gas generators)

SOW contains 3 Technical Tracks, as follows:

Technical Track A: Design, Manufacturing, and Testing of Inflatable Structures

Technical Track B: Design, Manufacturing, and Testing of Flexible Thermal Protection Systems

Technical Track C: Design, Manufacturing, and Testing of Gas Generator Inflation System

Task orders issued against the SOW may include design, manufacturing, and testing for materials, components, subassemblies, concept demonstration articles, engineering development units, and flight articles

Technical Track A Scope of Work

Track A Task Orders may include the following work:

Develop conceptual and detailed designs, and construction methods, of inflatable structures.

Fabricate and deliver inflatable structure components.

Integrate specified instrumentation into the inflatable structure.

Provide mass estimates and measurements Investigate the advancement of the structural design to reduce mass, improve packing efficiency, increase structural stiffness, increase fault tolerance, damage repair, component durability, and increase system reliability.

Develop methods to improve fabrication techniques that reduce integration complexities or improve system reliability.

Technical Track A Scope of Work (con’t)

Develop methods to improve integration of required sensors compatible with the inf latable structure.

Develop methods to improve mechanical interface with the rigid structure and mechanical interface with the FTPS.

Develop conceptual and detailed design of flexible and compactible hoses and fittings for inflation of inflatable structures.

Conduct testing for subcomponent, component or system level development tests as specified in the TO.

Aeroshell Integration and Testing Assemble and Integrate Aeroshell (IS, FTPS, and gas generators) Aeroshell Packing and Restraint assembly Conduct Testing of Integrated Aeroshells: includes packing, deployment, structural load testing, leak tests, environmental tests

Technical Track B Scope of Work

Track B Task Orders may include the following work:

Develop conceptual and detailed designs, and construction methods, of FTPS ba sed on government specified materials and layups set forth in the TO.

Fabricate and deliver FTPS components.

Integrate instrumentation into the FTPS fabrication construction of a TO specified layup.

Provide mass estimates and measurements.

Investigate the advancement of FTPS construction techniques including, but not limited to, mass reduction, improved packing efficiency, increased thermal resistance, increased fault tolerance, damage repair, component durability, or increased system reliability.

Develop methods to improve fabrication techniques that reduce integration complexities or improve system reliability.

Technical Track B Scope of Work (con’t)

Develop methods to improve integration of required sensors compatible with the

FTPS.

Develop methods to improve mechanical interface with the rigid structure and me chanical interface with the inflatable structure to meet system requirements.

Conduct evaluations of advanced materials for improved system development.

Conduct testing for subcomponent, component or system level development tests as specified in the TO.

Support Aeroshell Integration and Testing

Develop design, methods, assemble, and improvements for FTPS integration with aeroshell Support Integrated Aeroshell Testing

Technical Track C Scope of Work

Track C Task Order Content may include the following work:

Develop conceptual and detailed designs, and construction methods, of gas generators based on specifications set forth in the each TO.

Fabricate and deliver gas generators and associated gas delivery components.

Integrate gas generators with components that deliver gas to inflatable aeroshells as specified in each TO. To inflate and control the inflation process, gas generator will need to be integrated with, but not limited to, gas transmission lines, flow control devices, pressure control devices, electronic controls, and instrumentation.

Technical Track C Scope of Work (con’t)

Develop methods to improve gas generator performance, mass efficiency, reduce discharge temperatures, and avoid by-products that may potentially harm aeroshell materials. Of particular concern for gas generators by-products are silicone and fluoropolymer gas barrier materials in the inflatable structure.

Provide mass estimates and measurements.

Conduct testing for subcomponent, component or system level development tests as specified in the TO.

Support Aeroshell Integration and Testing Develop design, methods, assemble, and improvements for FTPS integration with aeroshell Support Integrated Aeroshell Testing

Overview of RFP

Overview of RFP

Ceseley Dunbar Contracting Officer

Contract Type

The Government contemplates award of Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts Task orders may be awarded as Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

Offerors may propose to all or some of the technical tracks for which they are eligible for award.

Offerors must submit completely separate proposal submissions (all volumes) that NASA will evaluate separately from each other.

Each volume of the offeror’s proposal shall be submitted and written on a stand-alone basis so that its content can be evaluated by the Government without having to cross- reference to other volumes of the proposal.

Information required by the solicitation to be included in a designated volume that is not found in that volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the designated volume and will not be evaluated.

An awardee is only eligible to compete for future task orders in Tracks for which they receive an award H.6 Task Order Solicitation and Selection Procedures I.10 Task Ordering Procedure

Contract Period of Performance

Contract Period of Performance (PoP): 10-year (includes options) period of performance.

The potential 10-year period of performance is based on two NASA flight opportunities included in STMD’s Humans to Mars plan. This will take us through the project life of design, development, build, and two flight opportunities.

Period Estimated Duration Overall Period of Performance (POP) Ten Years

Base Period Five Years Option Period One Three Years Option Period Two Two Years

Contract Period of Performance

Track Title Anticipated Awards

Competition Estimated Value $(M) over 10 year PoP

Track A - Inflatable Structures (IS) Design, Fabrication (including Aeroshell Integration), and Testing 3 Full & Open $140

Track B - Flexible Thermal Protection Systems (FTPS) Design, Fabrication (including Aeroshell Integration), and Testing

2 Small Business Set Aside $92

Track C - Gas Generator Inflation System Design, Manufacturing, and Testing 4 Small Business

Set Aside $37

IAD Contract Ceiling: $269,000,000 for all awards across the entire PoP Note: It is anticipated that up to 3 contracts will be awarded for Track A, up to 2 contracts for Track B, and up to 4 contracts for Track C; however, the government reserves the right to award more or less contracts for all tracks.

Limitations on Subcontracting

Applies to Tracks B and C: Per FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 19-02), (e)(1), Services, (except construction) - “It will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count toward the 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded.”

The Offeror shall complete Attachment L-1, Form 7 to demonstrate compliance.

Any proposal that does not meet this requirement will be considered unacceptable in accordance with NFS

1815.305-70 and will not be considered for award.

Source Selection Approach

Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) with Technical Considerations (L.15) Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability Those offerors determined acceptable will be evaluated for:

Past Performance (Factor 1) Cost/Price (Factor 2)

Table L-1 Summary of Proposal Submission Requirements Page Limitations Proposal Format (e.g., MS Word, MS Excel)

Technical Proposal Volume 1 (Technical Considerations)

The Offeror’s Technical Proposal shall respond separately to each of the tracks that it is proposing to.

For example: If you are only proposing on Track A, only submit a Technical

Proposal for Track A. If you are proposing on Track A and B, submit a separate Technical Proposal for Tracks A and B.

The page limitation in L.15, Table L-1 applies separately to each Track/Technical Proposal.

The technical proposal shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s approach and ability to meet all of the technical considerations detailed in L.17(b).

Technical Proposal Volume 1 (Technical Considerations)

Small Business Utilization (SBU) Affirmation statement of the offeror’s commitment to the Small Business program (applicable to all offerors) Describe its commitment to utilize small business concerns (See L.17(b)(4)(a))

Affirmation statement (applicable to other than small businesses) shall include:

The offeror will meet the subcontracting plan requirements of this RFP; and Acknowledgement that the apparent successful offeror(s) are required to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with Section L Attachment 6 with its business proposal and negotiate an acceptable plan that will be incorporated in the resulting contract.

Track A large businesses also need to submit a SB Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Attachment L-6.

Failure to submit and negotiate the subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Past Performance Proposal Volume 2 (Factor 1)

The Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal/Volume shall respond separately to each of the tracks that it is proposing to.

For example: If you are only proposing on Track A, only submit a past performance proposal/volume for Track A.

If you are proposing on Track A and B, submit separate past performance proposals/volumes for Tracks A and B.

The page limitation in L.15, Table L-1 applies separately to each past performance proposal/volume.

The offeror shall clearly label each submission by the appropriate

Technical Track.

The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) contract references that are on-going or completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of RFP issuance.

Past Performance Proposal Volume 2 (Factor 1)

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

Content – demonstrate relevance to technical performance areas.

Size – the Government will compare the referenced contracts/task order for similarity in size to the average/typical task order for IAD work.

To be considered at least somewhat pertinent, task orders must have a minimum value of $25,000

Complexity – demonstrate relevance in terms of the performance challenges and risks experience under the contract reference compared to the complexities of the technical performance area(s)/tacks the entity is proposed to perform.

Cost/Price Forms and Instructions

Cost/Pricing Forms and Instructions

Mike Garton Cost/Price Analyst

Cost/Price Proposal Volume III (Factor 2) Cost/Price (Factor 2) – Volume III:

Perform price analysis to assess the reasonableness of proposed prices.

Cost/price realism will be assessed on the proposed tracks.

Reasonableness of direct labor, indirect costs, and realism of IDIQ schedule of rates.

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

Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required since competition is anticipated. In the event only one proposal per track is received, and cost or pricing data will be obtained along with a certificate of current cost or pricing data, if applicable.

This acquisition includes Government-specified costs:

This acquisition will include the following Government-specified costs, which all offerors will use to calculate their total proposed costs: ODCs and specified cost amount for each by contract year or Government Fiscal Year

These specified costs, which are based on the IGCE are being provided because there is insufficient information to allow the offerors to estimate on ODC requirements at this time.

Individual task order SOWs that will be competed after contract awards will better reflect requirements.

Cost evaluation will be based on:

Offeror's proposed direct labor rates Offeror’s proposed indirect rates Offeror’s proposed fee

IDIQ using LaRC Cost Forms and Templates. Evaluation will be based on calculation of total evaluated price using:

Specified direct labor categories and direct labor hours which matches the Independent

Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) Offeror’s and all subcontractors’ proposed fully-loaded direct labor hourly rates for specified direct labor categories Offeror’s proposed management and administrative direct labor hours and direct labor rates Government provided estimated Other Direct Costs (ODC) Offeror’s proposed indirect rates Offeror’s proposed profit/fee

Representative Task Orders will not be utilized for this procurement.

Cost evaluation of IDIQ requirements will be based on calculation of total estimated cost using:

Specified direct labor categories and direct labor hours Offeror’s and all subcontractors’ proposed fully-loaded direct labor hourly rates for -specified direct labor categories Offeror’s proposed management and administrative direct labor hours and direct labor rates Government Provided estimated Other Direct Costs (ODC) Offeror’s proposed indirect rates Offeror’s proposed profit/fee

Price Analysis will be based on:

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government. Individual task orders will be competed and determined “fair and reasonable” on a task order basis.

Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required since competition is anticipated. In the event only one proposal per track is received, cost or pricing data will be obtained along with a certificate of current cost or pricing data, if applicable.

Business Proposal Volume IV

Ceseley Dunbar Contracting Officer

Instructions to Offerors (FAR 52.215-1) Contract Offer:

One signed original of the Standard Form 33 with Items 12-18 completed. (L.20) Compete all required fill-ins in Sections B to K Executed Section K including information not available in the System for Award

Management (SAM) that is specific to this solicitation Acknowledge all amendments Statement that proposal remains in effect for at least 240 calendar days

Written consent from each proposed Significant Subcontractors and/or Joint Venture Partners This allows the Government to discuss the past performance record of teaming partners.

Responsibility Considerations in accordance with Section L.20.

In NASA’s evaluation of an Offeror’s responsibility, NASA intends to evaluate the areas set forth in FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104-2, which will include, but are not limited to an evaluation of the items set forth in Section L.20. Any communications regarding responsibility determinations will not be considered “discussions” as set for in FAR 15.306.

Quality Management Systems:

For Tracks A and B, the offeror shall provide evidence, as of the date of proposal submission, that the prime contractor is compliant with ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems Requirements in accordance with solicitation clause “H.9 - LaRC 52.246-97 ISO

9001: QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

(COMPLIANT AT AWARD) (MARCH 2012).

Quality Management Plan or submit a copy of the certification/registration.

For Track C – review solicitation clause H.10 Quality Management System, as it will apply at the Individual Task Order Level as requirements are being developed.

Accounting System:

FAR 16.301-3 requires that a Contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement task order.

A contractor may still be eligible for contract award if it does not have evidence of an adequate accounting system; however, will be ineligible to receive a cost reimbursable award under the contract until the requirements of an adequate accounting system are met.

EFSS Box – Submission of Proposals

Review Section L.16 - ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS –

PROPOSAL MARKING AND DELIVERY THROUGH NASA’S EFSS BOX

Send test document to the EFSS Box link Drag and drop files Box https://nasagov.app.box.com/f/ec0b5bef82ca4d528177b4a9a49ff38f

Basis for Award (Section M.4)

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(s) in each track that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, whose proposals conform 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.

The Government anticipates awarding up to 3 contracts for Track A and 2 for B and anticipates awarding 3 to 4 contracts but reserves the right to award up to 6 for Track C. The Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts for all tracks.

Method of Evaluation (Section M.5)

Pursuant to NFS 1815.300-70(ii), this source selection will not use a Mission Suitability factor and numerical scoring.

Technical Proposals (Volume I) 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).

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.

Method of Evaluation (Section M.5)

Evaluation Process Step 1 - NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, Review. The Government will review the 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 2 – The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposals (Volume I) from Step 1 for acceptability as set forth in M.6 per applicable track and assign ratings as follows:

Acceptable - The Technical Proposal will be rated “Acceptable” where each technical consideration is determined to meet the material requirements of the solicitation, may contain minor issues that have no adverse impact on contract performance, and does not contain any deficiencies (See FAR 15.001). The Technical proposal is considered “Acceptable” if no technical consideration is rated “Unacceptable” as defined below.

Unacceptable – The Technical Proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” where one or more technical consideration(s) is determined to not meet the material requirements of the solicitation. The Technical Proposal is considered “Unacceptable” if it contains deficiencies (See FAR 15.001).

Method of Evaluation (Section M.5) con’t Step 3 – An Offeror with a Technical Proposal that is rated as “Unacceptable” will be eliminated from further consideration and ineligible for award. The Offeror will be notified accordingly.

Step 4 - Only Offerors with a Technical Proposal rated as “Acceptable” will continue in the evaluation process.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price proposals for the Offerors remaining after Step 3 with Technical Proposals that were rated “Acceptable”. The evaluation will be conducted as set forth in provision M.7.

Step 5 - Although the Government intends to award without discussions, discussions may be held in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

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 in the applicable track. 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 for each track.

Tradeoff Process (Section M.8)

Tradeoff Process: For those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable in accordance with the applicable track, a tradeoff process (see FAR 15.101-1) will only be performed between Past Performance and Price factors, not on technical considerations.

Importance of Evaluation Criteria: Overall, in the selection of an Offeror for contract award in any track, the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price Factor.

List of Required Plans

Small Business Utilization/Small Business Subcontracting Plan Submit Affirmations with Technical Proposal Submit SBU and SB Plan with Business Proposal

IT Security Management Plan Required within 30 days after award

Quality Management Plan (Tracks A and B) or ISO 9001certification Submit with Business Proposal

Contract Administration/TO Process

Clauses H.6, Task Order Solicitation and Selection Procedure and Clause I.10, Task Ordering Procedure will apply after contract award Each task order solicited under IAD will be issued in accordance with the Fair

Opportunity procedures. Individual task orders will be CPFF or FFP All tasks over $3,000 to be competed among contractors awarded in specific technical tracks

The Contracting Officer will review the task order SOW/PWS requirements and determine the appropriate technical track

The Contracting Officer will then solicit proposals from the contracts within that technical track

Exception to Competition: urgency, highly specialized service, logical follow-on, and minimum order

Task Order Minimum:

The Government will order through the issuance of task orders a minimum quantity of work of $25,000 per each individual contract (Clause B.3, LARC 52.216-90)

Contract Administration

All costs associated with the planning and preparation of competed task order proposals are unallowable charges to the contract

All task orders shall include:

Technical Reporting requirements (Monthly, Final, and Special Reporting) - See Exhibit B Financial Reporting 533M (CPFF TOs) - See Clause G.3 and Exhibit B Technical Data Rights Annual CPARS evaluation will be prepared:

Evaluation of contractor performance Contractor will be provided opportunity to review May be used in future task evaluation

Anticipated Procurement Schedule

Milestones for the Acquisition Cycle Date (with Discussions) Final RFP Release January 31, 2022

Pre-Proposal Conference February 10, 2022 Proposals Due March 15, 2022 Evaluations Complete July 1, 2022 Contract Award October 1, 2022

Points of Contact

Contracting Specialist/Officer:

Ceseley Dunbar ceseley.dunbar@nasa.gov

Technical:

Keith Johnson r.k.Johnson@nasa.gov

Refer to www.SAM.gov for updates mailto:ceseley.dunbar@nasa.gov mailto:r.k.Johnson@nasa.gov

Q&A

Karen Dempster

Amendment to be issued addressing the submitted questions

Q1: Section L.18.(d) indicates that the contract references submitted for past performance must have been completed within the past

(5) years. That removes the ability to submit work performed on the very relevant IAD predecessor contracts (NNL12AA02B, NNL12AA03B, NNL12AA04B) which were awarded by NASA in 2012. Would the government extend that time period to the past (10) years so that any work performed on the predecessor IAD contracts could be included as a past performance example?

Response: Based on industry input and consistent with the evaluation criteria, we are extending the contract references that are on-going or completed from five (5) years to ten (10) years from the date of RFP issuance (L.18(d)).

Q2: Is it acceptable to have a company that is located in a friendly foreign country as a significant subcontractor on this effort?

Response: NASA’s policy is to only conduct research with foreign entities on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis (see NPD 1360.2B, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautics Programs); therefore, foreign entities would not be eligible for this procurement. Additionally, NASA funding may not be used for subcontracted foreign research efforts. The direct purchase of supplies and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S.

sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted. For contracts, NASA policy on research with foreign organizations is covered in paragraph (l) Additional Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals and Proposals Including Foreign Participation of NFS provision 1852.235-72, Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/NFS.pdf

NFS 1835.016-70(a)(3)

Q3. Do we need to submit a separate cost volume and separate business volumes if I were to submit a proposal for more than 1 track?

Response: Yes, separate cost and business volumes are required per track.

THANK YOU