EASS Pre-Sol Conference 10.19.26.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

October 19, 2026

Evaluations, Assessments, and Support Services (EASS) Virtual Pre-solicitation 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

Agenda

Conference Guidelines Technical Presentation Procurement Overview Concluding Remarks

Conference Guidelines

No “live” questions during this presentation.

All questions/communications pertaining to the Draft Request for Proposal

(DRFP), proposal preparation, and conference must be submitted in writing to Lindsey Leso - larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov in accordance with the DRFP instructions.

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

List of attendees and the conference presentation will be posted on the Sam.gov website.

In the event of any inconsistency between data provided in these charts and the Final RFP, the language in the Final RFP, including any amendments, will govern.

Communications blackout will be invoked once the Final RFP is issued.

mailto:%E2%80%93larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov mailto:%E2%80%93larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov mailto:%E2%80%93larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov

TECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA)

SOMA at NASA Langley Research Center supports the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) at NASA Headquarters in the acquisition of Earth and space science missions and instruments.

SOMA develops certain solicitations for these acquisitions, and facilitates science and Technical, Management, and Cost evaluations of proposals and Phase A reports in response to the solicitations.

In addition, SOMA facilitates independent assessments, reviews, and special analyses of programs and investigations for NASA SMD and other NASA organizations.

The scope of this contract will include evaluations, assessments, and support services for SOMA and other NASA organizations as designated in individual task orders

EASS Performance Work Statement (PWS)

PWS 3.0 Evaluations PWS 4.0 Assessments PWS 5.0 Support Services

EASS Evaluations PWS 3.0 Evaluations are performed in response to NASA solicitations.

More information on recent and planned solicitations, for reference purposes only, can be found at the SOMA Website:

https://soma.larc.nasa.gov/ (see Planning List for SMD Solicitations) and the SMD Website:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/.

Evaluation tasks may include preparing solicitation materials, identifying the expertise needed and staffing panels with non-conflicted panel members made up of SMEs, providing validated and approved analysis tools and models (e.g., costing tools) required to support the evaluation, providing independent cost estimates for the evaluation of each proposal/Phase A report as required by individual task orders, and documenting evaluation panel findings and preparing interim and final evaluation reports.

https://soma.larc.nasa.gov/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/ https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/

EASS Assessments PWS 4.0

Assessments are typically independent reviews of investigations and programs that address progress at major milestones in accordance with specified procedures.

Assessments may involve analyzing technical, management, cost, schedule, and other aspects of SMD investigations and programs, as well as other NASA investigations and programs.

EASS Support Services PWS 5.0

Support Services (section 5.0) involves analyses where the conclusions or recommendations may affect evaluations or assessments. Analyses include analyzing scientific, technical, management, schedule, cost, and other aspects of SMD investigations and programs, as well as other NASA investigations and programs.

Support Services also involves logistics, facilities, and information support related to the performance of evaluations, assessments, and analyses.

EASSS 3 # of Tasks and Value, by Task Types, as of 9/30/2026

Average EASSS-3 Task Order Value

$2,320,459 Evaluations

$326,158 Assessments

$295,643 Studies/Support

EASSS 3 Task Min/Max POPs & Values, and Contract Year

Task Period Min/Max Performance and Values Evaluation tasks had periods of performance ranging from four (4) to 26 months and task values from $21K to $6.6M.

Assessment tasks had periods of performance ranging from two (2) to 58 months and task values from $12K to $2.4M.

Study tasks had periods of performance ranging from one (1) to 20 months and task values from $4.5K to $1.1M.

There was one dedicated Service and Support task, with a period of performance of 54 months and task value of $117K.

Tasks by Contract Year (107 initiated, 43 active = 25 with ongoing work + 18 closing out) Year 1 - 37 tasks initiated (7 Evaluations, 24 Assessments, 5 Studies, and 1 Service and Support), 13 tasks still active

Year 2 - 21 tasks initiated (9 Evaluations, 10 Assessments, and 2 Studies), 1 task still active

Year 3 - 20 tasks initiated (6 Evaluations, 8 Assessments, and 6 Studies), 6 tasks still active

Year 4 – 8 tasks initiated (2 Evaluations, 3 Assessments, and 3 Studies), 3 tasks still active

Year 5 - 12 tasks initiated (5 Evaluations, 3 Assessments, and 4 Studies), 11 tasks still active

Year 6 - 9 tasks initiated (1 Evaluations, 8 Assessments, and 0 Studies), 9 tasks still active

EASSS 3 Value by Task Value ROM as of 9/30/2026

EASSS 3 Tasks by Organization as of 9/30/2026

EASSS 3 Usage by Organization

Tasks awarded to support various NASA Organizations SOMA (LaRC, firewalled)

Proposal/CSR Evaluations, Assessments, Studies, and Services and Support

SMD (HQ)

Proposal/CSR Evaluations, Assessments, and Studies

Other LaRC Assessments

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Assessments and Studies

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Assessments

Sample of Proposal/Phase A Evaluation tasks supporting SMD Spaceflight Program Acquisitions

Under EASSS 3 Astrophysics Probe Explorer (APEX) Medium-Class Explorer (MIDEX) Small Explorer (SMEX) Explorers Mission of Opportunity (MO) Geospace Dynamics Constellation (GDC) Dynamical Neutral Atmosphere-Ionosphere

Coupling (DYNAMIC) Earth System Explorers (ESE) Earth Venture (EV) Vigil Focused Mission of Opportunity Senior Review

Expected for EASS New Frontiers Discovery SIMPLEx

MIDEX

SMEX

Explorers MO

EV

See Planning List for SMD Solicitations on SOMA website at http://soma.larc.nasa.gov/. Note that SOMA does not currently participate in the evaluation of NASA Research Announcement (NRA) proposals submitted to Research Opportunities for Space and Earth Science

(ROSES).

http://soma.larc.nasa.gov/

PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW

Procurement Overview

This is a competitive follow-on acquisition to the Evaluations, Assessments, Studies, Services, and Support 3 (EASSS 3) contract The contract has historically been:

Single Award, Cost-Reimbursement, Fixed Fee, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), with performance-based task orders. Small Business Set-Aside.

This contract is anticipated to be:

Small Business Set-Aside NAICS – 541715: Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) Size Standard: 1,000 employees

Single Award IDIQ with ability to issue Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders (TOs) Task orders will be issued as requirements arise in accordance with the Task Ordering

Procedure clause

Procurement Overview (continued)

Period of Performance (PoP) 5-year POP Up to a 6-month extension per FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services

Place of Performance Sites as specified by each task order

Procurement Overview (continued) Anticipated Procurement Schedule

Dates are provided for planning purposes only

*This date may be changed only by an amendment (SF33) to the RFP.

**The contract will not include a formal phase in period but will include time between the award date and effective date so the contractor can be fully operational on the effective date. The contract will not have a separately priced phase-in/transition period, but offerors should consider this in their overall proposal.

Milestone Date Questions and Feedback Due November 3, 2026

Final RFP Released November 2026

Past Performance Volume Due November 2026 (15 days after Final RFP Released)

Proposals Due December 2026*

Award April 2027

Effective Start Date June 2027**

Draft RFP Overview

Note: Not all sections/clauses/provisions are covered in this presentation; highlights only When reading the draft, note that:

Clauses incorporated by reference have the same force and effect as if they were included in their full text.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to review and comply with all final RFP proposal instructions.

NASA may reject any proposal that fails to comply with all proposal instructions.

Draft RFP Instructions (Section L)

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions Electronic Submission of Proposals (L.17)

Recommend potential offerors submit a “test file” to BOX prior to submission due date.

Volume Submission (Requirements Summarized at Table L.10) Volume I – Mission Suitability Volume II – Past Performance (due ~15 days after Final RFP release)

Volume III – Price Volume IV – Business Proposal

**Volume I, III, & IV will be due ~30 days after Final RFP release**

Volume I – Mission Suitability (Factor 1)

Provision L.18 Offeror’s response must be submitted as a separate proposal volume.

The offeror must provide a detailed response to each of the following subfactor requirements utilizing the structure and order as provided in L.18.

Subfactor 1 – Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach Subfactor 3 – Management Approach Model Task Order (MTO) will be provided in the Final RFP.

The evaluation of the MTO will serve as a mechanism to evaluate the Offeror's technical understanding and management methodology for realistic mission requirements under the master IDIQ contract. The MTO response will be evaluated as evidence under the Mission Suitability subfactors.

The MTO is expected to be an Evaluations task and a conflicting parties list will be provided.

Volume II – Past Performance (Factor 2)

Provision L.19 References of Prime and Major Subcontractors

Major Subcontractors (L.19) defined as any subcontractor proposed to perform $5,000,000 or greater of the total potential contract value (TPCV).

Offerors to include up to five (5) most relevant contract references similar in content and complexity Offerors are encouraged to provide at least one (1) reference for the prime, at least one

(1) for a non-managing Joint Venture (JV) (if applicable) and at least one (1) for each major subcontractor.

Content – type of work identified in the elements of Attachment L-1, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

Complexity – performance challenges and risks in the overall management and integration of the contract requirements.

Assess each reference for size, recency, relevancy/pertinence and performance.

Volume III – Price (Factor 3)

Provision L.20 It is anticipated that adequate price competition will exist;

however, the Government reserves the right to request other than certified pricing data to determine price reasonableness.

Ensure that the price proposal (Attachment L-4) is accurate and complete.

Model Task Order (MTO): The Offeror’s submission shall be submitted on Attachment L-4, Tab 1-7-Model IDIQ TO-Evaluation.

The MTO will not result in an awarded Task Order and is for proposal evaluation purposes only. The minimum ordering requirement does not apply and shall not be proposed for the MTO evaluation.

Volume IV – Business Proposal

Provision L.21 Ensure all sections of the model contract are completed Properly acknowledge all amendments (if any) to the solicitation by signing and dating Page 1 of each Standard Form (SF) 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, and including it in this volume.

Responsibility considerations – The Government intends to review the areas set forth in FAR 9.104-1, including a review of the items required in provision L.21(c), Additional Required Documentation. Any communication regarding responsibility determinations will not be considered negotiations as set forth in FAR 15.202.

Disclosure of Super Intelligence (SI) Use During Contract Performance Exhibit F, DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification Joint-Venture Agreement (If Applicable)

Draft RFP Evaluation (Section M)

Basis of Award Competitive best value source selection conducted in according with FAR

15, using trade-off procedures.

The Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are more important than price. Individual factors in order of importance are as follows:

Mission Suitability (Factor 1) Past Performance (Factor 2) Price (Factor 3)

The Government may award to other than the lowest-priced or the highest-rated Offeror.

Summary of Evaluation Process

Factor 1-Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 – OCI Plan 350 Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach 350 Subfactor 3 – Management Approach 300

Total Points: 1,000

The Government will assign adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each subfactor using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges set forth in NFS CG 1815.23(b)(1).

The Government will establish a total Mission Suitability factor numerical score by adding all of the subfactor points assessed. A summary adjectival rating will not be assigned for this factor.

Summary of Evaluation Process (Continued)

Factor 1-Mission Suitability (Continued) Evaluation of the Model Task Order (MTO)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Model Task Order submission to assess the feasibility of the proposed mission suitability strategies. Insufficient supporting detail or inadequately supported labor allocations may result in weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies, as applicable under the definitions in M.6(c), and may adversely affect the applicable subfactor ratings and scores. The MTO response will be evaluated as evidence under the Mission Suitability subfactors identified in M.6(b), as described in the DRFP. The MTO is not a separately scored subfactor. Resulting findings will be reflected in the ratings and scores of the applicable subfactors.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Mission Suitability approach for the MTO based on the following criteria:

OCI Approach: The degree to which the proposed technical methodology demonstrates a clear understanding of the MTO

SOW requirements, including potential for conflicts of interest.

Staffing Approach: The appropriateness of the proposed labor categories and the distribution of hours. The Government will assess whether the skill levels are properly aligned with the complexity of the tasks (e.g., ensuring tasks are not over-engineered with excessively senior staff or under-scoped with junior personnel).

Management Approach: The degree to which the proposed management approach efficiently and effectively manages and executes the MTO SOW requirements.

Factor 2-Past Performance The Government will evaluate the past performance of the prime and each major subcontractor.

The confidence rating assigned to Past Performance will reflect consideration of information contained in the proposal, past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires, and data the Government obtains from other sources.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive a “Neutral” rating.

The Government will assess each past performance reference for recency and size, relevancy/pertinence and performance.

All past performance references shall meet the “recency” and “size” criteria provided in M.7 for both prime contractor references and major subcontractor references in order to be evaluated. For those references that meet the “recency” and “size” criteria, the Government will then only consider references determined to be at least Somewhat Pertinent (SP) and the Government is able to verify/determine Performance (Quality of Performance).

In summary, the Government will not consider an Offeror’s contract reference that (1) does not meet the recency and size thresholds stated in M.7, (2) is not determined to be at least Somewhat Pertinent (SP), and (3) is unable to verify/determine Performance (Quality of Performance) of the reference.

Factor 3-Price The Government will perform a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 by evaluating the prices proposed in response to this RFP to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable. The Government will use various techniques and procedures within its discretion to conduct its analysis. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, conducting a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 by evaluating the prices proposed in response to this solicitation since it is anticipated that the reasonableness of the proposed price will be determined based on competition.

No adjectival rating will be utilized for evaluating price.

The proposed price in the Government Pricing Model (Attachment L-4) and the rates proposed in Exhibit C, Schedule of Rates for all contract years will be assessed to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

An offer may be rejected, at any time during the Government’s evaluation, if the CO determines in writing that (1) the proposed price cannot be determined to be fair and reasonable; (2) the proposal contains unbalanced pricing that poses an unacceptable risk to the Government; or (3) the proposal or offeror is otherwise ineligible for award.

Factor 3-Price (Continued) Evaluation of the MTO The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s MTO pricing submission for completeness, mathematical accuracy, price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing, and will assess its consistency with the Offeror’s MTO technical response. Insufficient supporting detail or inconsistencies in the pricing submission may prevent the Government from determining that the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed labor mix or level of effort will be evaluated under M.6(f). Identified unbalanced pricing will be evaluated for its associated risks to the Government. Any determination to reject a proposal will be made in accordance with the proposal-rejection criteria in M.8.

The MTO pricing proposal will be evaluated independently as part of Factor 3 (Price) to assess pricing reasonableness and risk and to inform the Government’s best-value tradeoff in accordance with the criteria stated in M.6(f) and M.8; however, the MTO price will not be included in the total evaluated price for award and will not be a separately awarded Task Order.

Price Reasonableness: Evaluated by comparing competitive offers against each other, historical data, and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

Mathematical Accuracy and Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will audit the proposed spreadsheets for mathematical errors and analyze the proposals for unbalanced pricing across line items or years, which could present an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Questions

The Government received questions/comments prior to this conference and tried to address some of them informally within the presentation.

One-on-one conferences will be scheduled with those who request one.

Formal Questions and Answers document will be posted under the same EASS DRFP posting on SAM.gov. Questions shall be generic enough to prevent the release of proprietary information.

Points of Contact/Reminders

EASS email address – larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov All EASS documents can be found through the SAM.gov webpage Prospective Offerors are responsible for:

Submitting all Draft RFP questions and feedback NLT November 3, 2026, at

3:00PM EST.

Checking SAM.gov periodically for updates Amendments and release of Final RFP

Downloading their own copy of the solicitation and any amendments Compliance with all RFP instructions and submittal deadlines

Blackout Notice: Upon issuance of the final RFP, all NASA personnel, except for the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist, will cease communication with industry concerning this acquisition.

mailto:larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov mailto:larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov mailto:larc-easss@mail.nasa.gov

Conference Attendees Company Name

Syneren Technologies Corporation Foster Merit Contracting, LLC

Stellar Solutions, Inc. Cornell Technical Services

Y aXis Services, Inc. Continuum Resources LLC

Augur Consulting 532 Group LLC

Consolidated Safety Services, Inc. (CSS) Crown Innovations, Inc.

Closed Gap Solutions, LLC Science Systems and Applications, Inc.

Blue Cedar Management Consulting, LLC. Global Exploration Advisors

Earthwise System Solutions (ESS) BryceTech

JLG Infrastructure & Program Management, LLC (JLG) Strategic Leadership & Security Group (SLSG), LLC

Potomac Wave Innovent (Legally AccioTek Solutions LLC.)

The District Matrix LLC Barrios Technology

Bridgecross, LLC Aloha Spirit Enterprises, LLC

Metronome Freedom Information Systems, Inc.

Pope Advisory LLC Graham Inc.

Clason Point Partners, Inc. Financial & Realty Services, LLC

Elevate Unlimited LLC GFRAM Consulting Ltd.

Trewon Technologies