Attachment L-1 Historical Task Orders 1-A REDUCED.pdf

Contract 80LARC20D0007 Task Order

Page | 4

Statement of Work (SOW) Task Title: Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) Planning Task

1. Introduction/Background:

This task order is within scope under Section(s) 2.0 and 3.0 of Exhibit A – Statement of Work for 80LARC20D0007. Additionally, this requirement is determined non-severable.

The purpose of this Task Order is to plan the staffing for all Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) evaluations and the staffing of other requirements as required by the Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) located at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Other requirements include, but are not limited to, PI (Principal Investigator) Forum tasks, and study and assessment tasks.

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

When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%), then the Chair will certify that the Initial Task Gate Review is complete for that specific task. The Chair will approve any changes to the integrated staffing plan.

The data in the Notices of Intent (NOIs) may result in additional or different skills required for that evaluation and will provide a list of institutions that plan on proposing, which may create Conflicts of Interest (COIs).

The Chair of the Notice of Intent Gate Review (NOIGR), with the assistance of the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation, will review the proposed staff and their qualifications to meet any new required skills or to replace a conflicted evaluator. When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%), then the Chair will certify that the NOIGR is complete for that specific evaluation. The Chair will approve or disapprove any changes to the integrated staffing plan at the NOIGR.

When the Chair of the Organization Conflict of Interest/COI (OCI/COI) Gate Review (OCIGR) is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills identified (100%) and that all COI/OCI issues have been resolved, then the Chair will certify that the OCIGR is complete for that specific evaluation. NASA is under no obligation to accept a proposed OCI/COI mitigation and the contractor may be required to propose a replacement evaluator without conflicts within one week of the OCIGR. The Chair will approve any changes to the integrated staffing plan.

NASA will provide a “Proposers Parties List” that will include all organizations and personnel provided by proposers through the submission of proposals on the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) system.

At the Task Gate Review, the Chair, with the assistance of the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation, will review the proposed staff changes and the qualifications of new staff to meet required skills. When the Chair is satisfied that qualified staff have been proposed for all skills

Page | 5 identified (100%), then the Chair will certify that the Task Gate Review is complete for that specific evaluation.

The Science Office for Mission Assessments will utilize an electronic system called the Remote Evaluation System (RES) for the purpose of evaluating proposals. For evaluators to access this system, all evaluators need to have an established identity. No evaluator will be allowed to access the RES without an established identity. For each TMC evaluation, all evaluators need to have established identities through IdMAX in order to access the RES. All approved evaluators for a specific evaluation task need to be approved in IdMAX in time to begin proposal evaluation in accordance with the evaluation task schedule.

NASA policy does not permit the use of an unauthorized device to connect to any network or system that processes NASA non-public data. The Government will provide all contractor personnel required to connect to any network or system that processes NASA non-public data a government device through NASA’s End-user Services and Technologies (NEST) contractor that has an established Authorization to Operate.

NASA system users that access NASA Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)/International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) data/Export Administration Regulation (EAR) data or protected Personally Identifiable Information (PII) need to have a Level of Confidence of 50 or above. In order to do so, individuals need to undergo a Tier 1 or higher background investigation. The secondary item will be Smartcard compliance for an application. When the contractor visits a NASA center for enrollment, there are two steps to the enrollment. The first enrollment will allow the Government to issue a smartcard and initiate a basic background investigation. This step can take a day to complete. The second enrollment is to file fingerprints for the background investigation.

The contractor will be provided with a service which includes a laptop computer and necessary software.

Regarding experience levels, past experience only counts toward this metric if SOMA Acquisition Managers, the SOMA Director, or the Chair view the past experience as positive. The SOMA Director or the Chair may waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis.

SOMA will notify the contractor of any new or unusual skills required as soon as possible so a search can begin if necessary.

Gate reviews will be held for SOMA non-evaluation task orders that require a selected set of skills and certain qualifications and capabilities.

2. Scope & Objectives:

2.1. The scope of this task order is to plan the staffing for all SOMA TMC evaluations and to mitigate the possibility of multiple, overlapping TMC schedules.

2.2. The objective of this task order is to plan for the provision of the most qualified skill mix possible to staff evaluation panels and support other task orders.

Page | 6

3. Description of Work:

3.1. The contractor shall provide staff planning information for multiple TMC evaluations that may overlap from October 2022 through .

3.1.1. The contractor shall provide proposed staffing plans as deliverables (Deliverable 8.1) and a complete list of individual evaluators selected to support each TMC evaluation or SOMA non-evaluation task orders required by SOMA (Deliverable 8.2).

3.1.1.1. Staffing plans shall include information supporting an individual’s selection for an evaluation or other type of task order.

3.1.1.1.1. This information shall include resumes, individual data sheets, or other information supporting an evaluator’s technical skills and qualifications.

3.1.1.1.2. This information shall be delivered two (2) business days prior to the scheduled SOMA Gate Review unless specified otherwise by the Chair of the Gate Review.

3.1.1.2. The contractor shall maintain configuration control of any changes approved to the staffing plan by the SOMA Gate Review Chair.

3.1.1.3. The contractor shall maintain documentation on approved changes to the staff planned for each task order that documents the rationale for any changes.

3.1.1.4. The contractor shall upload the approved staffing plans and other material from each Gate Review to the Remote Evaluation System (RES) as a repository for all Gate Review documentation.

3.1.2. The contractor shall ensure that all SOMA Gate Reviews are chaired by the SOMA

Director, the SOMA Associate Director for Procurement for SOMA (the EASSS 3 COR), or a SOMA Acquisition Manager if delegated by the SOMA Director and the SOMA Director or the Associate Director for Procurement for SOMA is not available.

3.1.3. The contractor shall ensure that only the SOMA Gate Review Chair approves personnel to serve on SOMA TMC evaluations.

3.2. Preparation for TMC Evaluation Support and Other SOMA Tasks

3.2.1. The contractor shall obtain a secure web-conference service that is compatible with computers running Windows or Apple operating systems, including government-provided computers with Data At Rest (DAR) encryption, and has the capacity for 80 people on one web-conference.

3.2.1.1. The web-conference service shall allow the person in control to share documents and edit them in real time such that everyone participating can see the changes.

Page | 7

3.2.1.2. The person in control shall be able to pass that control to another participant.

3.2.1.3. The contractor shall obtain secure call-in phone lines for those that might need to call in while away from their office.

3.3. Planning Gate Reviews (PGR) in FY24/25 for an Integrated Staffing Plan

3.3.1. The contractor shall support a Planning Gate Review for staffing held at least once a quarter in order to review and baseline the staffing of SOMA tasks as noted below in the “Starting Assumptions” table below.

3.3.2. The contractor shall support the Gate Review Chair in reviewing the SOMA staffing plan to meet SOMA’s staffing requirements at least quarterly and identify skill deficiencies in advance of the next Planning Gate Review for specific evaluations.

3.3.2.1. All material for each Gate Review will be provided five (5) business days in advance of the Gate Review.

3.3.3. The contractor shall follow actions given by the Gate Review chair to identify additional evaluators with recent, relevant experience in specified skills.

3.3.4. The contractor shall propose qualified staff for at least 80% of all panels before the

Chair approves the Planning Gate Review for the Integrated SOMA staffing requirements.

3.3.5. The contractor shall support Planning Gate Review meetings when held by the Gate

Review Chair.

3.3.6. The contractor shall provide an integrated approach to staffing the below evaluations from October 2022 to , to include the Announcements of Opportunity (AO) and Program Element Appendix (PEA) listed in the Starting Assumptions table below.

3.3.7. The contractor shall support additional evaluations not contained in this list if added, which would create a need for additional integrated gate reviews.

3.3.8. The contractor shall provide an Integrated Staffing Plan (Deliverable 8.1) to staff all

TMC evaluation panels over the next ~4.5 quarters.

3.3.9. The initial Planning Gate Review shall address the TMC evaluations and other

SOMA tasks for the first and second quarter of this task order.

3.3.10. The Planning Gate Review for the second quarters shall address the TMC evaluations and other SOMA tasks for the second and third quarters and so forth to the end of the task order period of performance.

Page | 10 qualifications of the proposed evaluators for the Gate Review Chair and up to two Acquisition Managers.

3.4.7.1. If the PGR is held virtually, then the contractor shall be able to project the resumes and documented past performance and qualifications during the meeting.

3.4.7.2. Documentation shall demonstrate recent, relevant, and high qualifications as defined in the contractor rating system.

3.4.7.3. The contractor shall maintain virtual documentation at all times.

3.4.7.4. The contractor shall revise the notebooks accordingly after each gate review.

3.4.7.5. The contractor shall make the material in the notebooks available electronically three days in advance of the meeting.

3.4.7.6. The contractor shall provide ITGR notebooks showing all evaluations materials for the entire year.

3.4.7.7. The contractor shall provide two hard copies and electronic versions for other participants.

3.4.7.8. The contractor shall ensure that documentation shows each skill required for each evaluation and the staff.

3.5. NOI Gate Review (NOIGR)

3.5.1. The contractor shall support a NOI Gate Review (NOIGR) for each specific Evaluation Task held within one week of the contractor receiving the NOI data for the evaluation.

3.5.2. The contactor shall review the NOI data and update the integrated staffing plan based on the specific skills required for the NOI data.

3.5.3. The contractor shall deliver a list of additional or different skills required based on the NOIs and propose qualified evaluators that can provide those skills (Deliverable 8.4).

3.5.4. The contractor shall review the list of their proposed evaluators for potential COIs and propose replacements for any previously proposed evaluators that must be removed from an evaluation task due to a COI.

3.5.5. If qualified staff are not presented at the first meeting for all required skills, then the contactor shall search for the required skills and reschedule the NOIGR for that evaluation panel.

3.6. Organizational Conflict of Interest/COI (OCI/COI) Gate Review (OCIGR)

Page | 11

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

3.6.2. The contactor shall review the organizations, personnel, and proposals as described in

SOW 3.6.9 and 3.6.10 and provide any necessary adjudication requests at the OCIGR attended by the Chair and the Acquisition Manager of the evaluation.

3.6.2.1. The adjudication request shall clearly identify and describe the nature of the conflict, and any proposed mitigations to address the conflict.

3.6.3. The contractor shall provide all adjudication requests to NASA within two weeks of the contractor receiving the proposals and the final list of proposed personnel and institutions from NASA.

3.6.4. The contractor shall upload the final complete list of evaluators to the Remote

Evaluation System (RES) within one week after the OCIGR (Deliverable 8.2).

3.6.5. The contractor shall screen all prime evaluation contractor employees, subcontractors, and consultant personnel (at all tiers) that are to be assigned to the work described on this task order for OCI/COIs as indicated in the contractor’s OCI Mitigation Plan.

3.6.6. The prime evaluation contractor and each subcontractor (regardless of tier) shall certify that they have no OCI/COI issues by submitting a signed Certification of Independent Assessment Form for each SOMA Evaluation task order.

3.6.7. Final resolution of all potential OCI/COI issues shall be documented by the prime evaluation contractor who shall maintain a copy of the final resolution of all potential COI/OCI issues.

3.6.7.1. This document shall be maintained for each evaluation and shall be uploaded to the applicable RES site (Deliverable 8.7).

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

3.6.9. Proposal OCI/COI Scan

3.6.9.1. Upon receipt of proposals, the contractor shall obtain permission from the assigned NASA TMC Evaluation Acquisition Manager or the Task Monitor to copy proposal related materials.

3.6.9.2. The contractor shall copy all data provided electronically or on CDs, etc., provided by the proposers onto a fully encrypted computer.

Page | 12

3.6.9.3. The contractor shall conduct a word search on this data for any occurrences of participation by the contractor, by any subcontractors (at all tiers), by consultants that are assisting the prime evaluation contractor in conducting this evaluation, and for any affiliations to Evaluation Team members.

3.6.9.4. The contractor shall conduct a search on the names of all Evaluation Team members, along with a search for any key words or names suggested by the NASA Acquisition Manager, the NASA Program Scientist, or Evaluation Team members.

3.6.9.5. The contractor shall record all instances of findings with a document name, page number, and paragraph number associated with the finding, along with the pertinent wording from the paragraph such that identification and evaluation of any OCI/COI issues can be performed adequately and quickly.

3.6.9.6. The contractor shall report instances of any actual, potential, or perceived

OCI/COI to the NASA CO, the NASA COR, and NASA Acquisition Manager immediately.

3.6.9.7. If necessary, the contractor shall develop a draft adjudication request to provide to the Acquisition Manager.

3.6.10. OCI/COI Scan based on Proposers Parties List

3.6.10.1. The contractor shall conduct a word search on this file looking for any occurrences of participation by the contractor, by any subcontractors, at all tiers, or by any consultants that are assisting the prime evaluation contractor in conducting this evaluation, and for the affiliation of any Evaluation Team members.

3.6.10.2. The contractor shall conduct a search on the names of all Evaluation Team members, along with a search for any key words or names suggested by the NASA Acquisition Manager, the NASA Program Scientist, or Evaluation Team members.

3.6.10.3. The contractor shall record all instances of findings with a document name, page number, and paragraph number associated with the finding, along with the pertinent wording from the paragraph such that identification and evaluation of any OCI/COI issues can be performed adequately and quickly.

3.6.10.4. The contractor shall report instances of any actual, potential, or perceived OCI/COI to the NASA CO, the NASA COR, and NASA Acquisition Manager immediately.

3.6.10.5. If necessary, then the contractor shall develop a draft adjudication request to provide to the Acquisition Manager.

Page | 13

3.7. Task Gate Review (TGR)

3.7.1. The contractor shall hold a Task Gate Review for any specific Evaluation Task within a week of notification, for any reason, of any change to the contractor employees, subcontractors, or consultant personnel subsequent to the completion of the OCI/COI Gate Review.

3.7.2. If qualified staff are not presented at the first meeting for all required skills, then the contactor shall search for the required skills and reschedule the TGR for that evaluation panel.

3.7.3. At any time, if staff cannot participate in an evaluation, then the contractor shall work with the Chair and SOMA AM to reach agreement on a qualified replacement via email/phone communication.

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

3.8.1. The contractor shall enter all evaluators into the IdMAX tool for the COR’s review and approval to establish the identities as soon as an evaluator is approved to support an evaluation.

3.8.2. The contractor shall provide a list of approved evaluators at all staffing gate reviews.

3.8.3. When an evaluator will no longer be used, the contractor shall enter a change in the

IdMAX system to remove their access as soon as possible and notify the COR via email of the action.

3.8.4. When a new evaluator is required to support a SOMA requirement, the contractor shall enter an action in IdMAX to request access for COR approval and notify the COR via email of the action.

3.9. Compliance with the NASA Unauthorized Device (UD) Policy

3.9.1. The contractor shall use a government-supplied device for any contractor personnel that are required to connect as stated above.

3.9.2. In order to undergo a Tier 1 or higher background investigation, the contractor shall log into IdMAX to complete a position designation for the identified NASA system user and specify required access to Moderate data so that the system can assign that user a risk level of 50.

3.9.3. The contractor shall visit a NASA center and complete the first and second enrollments.

Page | 14

3.9.4. Once the background investigation is issued to the contractor, the contractor shall complete the required forms in E-Qip.

3.9.5. The contractor shall begin processing employees to comply with the Unauthorized

Device policy as soon as possible.

3.9.6. The contractor shall provide feedback to the Task Monitor on the processing of contractor personnel if requested.

3.10. NEST Computer Requirements

3.10.1. The contractor shall be responsible for distributing and tracking the computers used to perform any tasks that require access to non-public NASA computing capabilities and/or that are used to store and evaluate CUI materials.

3.10.2. The contractor shall provide a list of all necessary NEST computers and necessary software to the COR after the completion of the final gate review or staff decisions.

3.10.2.1. The contractor shall provide this list for each task order that requires access to a NASA non-public facing system.

3.10.2.2. In the list, the contractor shall specify the name and contact information of contractor personnel supporting the task order.

3.10.2.3. The contractor shall also include all computer requirements (PC or Mac) and software requirements needed for personnel to support the task order.

3.10.2.4. The contractor shall provide the list to the COR no later than four weeks prior to task order start.

3.11. TMC Panel/Subpanel Experience Levels

3.11.1. The contractor shall staff all TMC panels/subpanels with a minimum of 60% experienced TMC evaluators who have completed at least one prior TMC evaluation.

3.11.2. The contractor shall staff all larger cost cap and more complex acquisitions with a higher percentage of experienced evaluators on each panel/subpanel.

3.12. Skills Search

3.12.1. The contractor shall perform a continuous search for skilled individuals to support

SOMA evaluations and task orders.

3.12.1.1. The contractor shall search for and locate qualified personnel to staff task orders, which may include attendance at relevant approved technical conferences IEEE, SmallSats, and AGU, and advertisements in approved

Page | 15 journal publications AIAA, SPIE, and AAS.

3.12.1.1.1. The contractor shall receive pre-approval from the Task Monitor for other conference and journal publications not identified above.

3.12.1.2. The contractor shall have the necessary skilled evaluators, who have recent and relevant experience in areas typically required in the listed evaluations in the planning table, to meet the technical requirements to staff the evaluations planned .

3.12.1.3. The contractor shall develop a pool of skilled evaluators (Deliverable 8.5) sufficient to provide at least 10 highly qualified individuals for each technical area required for a technical evaluation.

3.13. Post-evaluation Panel Support

3.13.1. The contractor shall schedule and conduct a Lessons Learned Review with the Gate

Review Chair and the evaluation Acquisition Manager for feedback on the evaluators that supported the specific review.

3.14. Staffing for SOMA Non-Evaluation Task Orders

3.14.1. The contractor shall support staffing requirements of SOMA-generated other task order requirements.

3.14.2. The contractor shall support gate reviews called out in evaluation task orders and SOMA non-evaluation task orders.

4. Government Furnished Items:

The Government will provide the following.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED ITEM DATE TO BE

FURNISHED

Schedule of opportunity releases, NOI dates, and evaluation schedules

Updates will be provided at least quarterly

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

Monthly

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

NOI information for each opportunity Varies by opportunity, but within a week of

Page | 16

SOMA receiving the data

Final list of proposed institutions and individuals for each opportunity

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

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

Information will be provided to the contractor for SOMA non-evaluation task(s) as required

Upon task award

Proposers Parties List Upon task award

5. Special Requirements:

5.1. The contractor shall comply with the contract and NASA policy directives to ensure CUI information on planned solicitations, proprietary information, and various other types of non-public data is appropriately handled.

6. Travel Requirements:

6.1. The contractor may travel in accordance with SOW 3.12.1.1.

7. Milestones:

The Task Monitor will communicate any changes to event dates.

Milestone Number

SOW

Reference Paragraph

Milestones

Dates

7.1 3.3.9 PGR Qtr 1: CTS integrated approach and schedule to SOMA staffing of TMC panels

As required

7.2 3.3.10 PGR Qtr 2: CTS integrated approach and schedule to SOMA staffing

As required

7.3 3.3.10 PGR Qtr 3: CTS integrated approach and schedule to SOMA staffing

As required

Page | 17

7.4 3.3.10 PGR Qtr 4: CTS integrated approach and schedule to SOMA staffing

As required

7.5 3.3.10 PGR Qtr 5: CTS integrated approach and schedule to SOMA staffing

As required

7.7 3.4 Initial Task Gate Review (ITGR) of all TMC panels planned

Within one week of receipt of awarded evaluation task order

7.8 3.5 NOI Gate Review (NOIGR) for each specific evaluation task

Held within one week of the contractor receiving the NOI data

7.9 3.6 Organizational Conflict of Interest/COI (OCI/COI) Gate Review

(OCIGR

Within two weeks after CTS receives conflicted institution list based on proposals

7.10 3.6 All adjudication requests Within two weeks after CTS receives conflicted institution list based on proposals

7.11 3.6.9, 3.6.10 OCI/COI scans & review conflicted parties list

Completed within two weeks, or before, of the contractor receiving proposals

7.12 3.7 Task Gate Review Within a week of notification

7.13 3.3.11 Plan for Staffing Reviews Within 3 weeks after award of this task order

8. Deliverables:

Deliverable Number

SOW

Reference

Deliverable Date Due

8.1 3.3.1, 3.3.8

Integrated Staffing Plan Two weeks after award and quarterly there after

8.2 3.1.1, 3.6.4

Individual Evaluators List As required by task order(s)

8.3 3.3.12 New TMC Evaluator Orientation Plan

At initial PGR

8.4 3.5.3 NOIGR Report One week after approval by Chair

8.5 3.12.1.3 Staffing Pool list Ongoing

8.6 3.3.11 Plan for Staffing Reviews Three weeks after award and updates as they occur

8.7 3.6.7.1 OCI/COI Resolution Document Ongoing

9. Period of Performance: Date of Task Order Issuance through September

Plan (Milestone 8.7).

2.1.1.4. The Contractor shall thoroughly review the Notices of Intent (NOIs).

2.1.1.5. The Contractor shall adjust the evaluation staffing, if needed, to ensure the Evaluation Team is composed of SMEs qualified to evaluate the subject areas and the technologies (e.g., instruments) reflected in the NOIs.

2.1.1.6. The Contractor shall check its evaluators for any potential or actual organizational conflicts of interest (OCI)/COI using the NOIs.

2.1.1.6.1.The Contractor shall generate a list of proposing parties involved in the NOIs (Deliverable 7.3).

2.1.1.6.2.The Contractor shall solicit COI self-assessments from each of its evaluators.

2.1.1.6.3.The Contractor shall review the NOIs for any evidence of an OCI or personal conflict of interest (PCI).

2.1.1.6.4.The Contractor shall specifically search the NOIs for evidence of contractor participation, evaluator participation or references, and participation of evaluators’ institutions/employers.

2.1.1.6.5.The Contractor shall document any instance of potential or actual COIs and recommend mitigation strategies (Deliverable 7.4).

2.1.1.6.6.The Contractor shall substitute any evaluator with a potential or actual COI that cannot be sufficiently mitigated with a SME qualified to evaluate the same subject area.

2.1.1.7. The Contractor shall obtain a secure web-conference service that is compatible with computers running Windows and Apple operating systems, including Government-provided computers with Data At Rest (DAR) encryption, to include the following capabilities:

2.1.1.7.1. Capacity for 17 people on one web-conference.

2.1.1.7.2. Certified Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 Level I for protection of all Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) material in accordance with FIPS 140-2 Level 1 certification.

2.1.1.7.3. Document sharing and editing in real time such that everyone participating can see the changes.

2.1.1.7.4. Sharing and editing control passable to another participant.

2.1.1.7.5. The Contractor shall obtain secure call-in phone lines for those that might need to call in while away from their office or due to limited data bandwidth.

2.1.1.7.6. The Contractor shall demonstrate the web-conference service before the proposals are due (Milestone 8.3).

2.1.2. The Contractor shall perform a detailed evaluation of each proposal (Milestone 8.4).

2.1.2.1. The Contractor shall adjust its evaluation staffing, if needed, to ensure its the technologies (e.g., instruments) reflected in the proposals.

2.1.2.2. The Contractor shall assign Form C Leads to lead the panel discussions through the evaluation of their assigned proposals, generate the Fat Matrices, and develop, update throughout the process, and finalize the Form C.

2.1.2.3. The Contractor shall provide at least one Form C Lead who has previous experience leading panels and being a Form C Lead, or is an experienced team leader capable of being a Form C Lead.

2.1.2.4. The Contractor shall assemble a cost analysis team comprised of the cost SMEs from the Evaluation Team.

2.1.2.4.1.The Contractor shall assign a CES Lead for each proposal who shall be responsible for the completion of the CES form.

2.1.2.4.2.The Contractor shall assign an overall Cost Lead. The Cost Lead shall:

2.1.2.4.2.1. Draft the proposal evaluation-specific appendix to the SOMA Cost Process Document provided by NASA SOMA and obtain concurrence from the NASA TM (Deliverable 7.5);

2.1.2.4.2.2. Prepare and deliver an introductory cost presentation at the beginning of the evaluation process (Deliverable 7.7);

Page | 9

2.1.2.6. The Contractor shall assemble a Consistency Assessment Team (CAT) comprised of SMEs from the Evaluation Team.

2.1.2.6.1. The Contractor shall assign trained consistency factor leads.

2.1.2.6.1.1. The consistency factor leads shall ensure that all proposals are treated equally and fairly on their assigned factor.

2.1.2.6.1.2. The Contractor shall provide one consistency factor lead for Instruments, one consistency factor lead for Instrument Systems Engineering, one consistency factor lead for Management, and one consistency factor lead for Cost.

2.1.2.6.2. The Contractor shall assign an overall Consistency Lead to oversee the process and ensure all aspects of the Forms are checked for consistency.

2.1.2.6.3. The Consistency Lead shall deliver the consistency presentation at the Plenary Meeting if necessary (Deliverable 7.16).

2.1.2.7. RESERVED.

2.1.2.8. The Contractor shall provide additional specialist evaluators as required depending upon the types of specific technologies proposed.

2.1.2.9. The Contractor shall conduct orientation briefings for new evaluators on the TMC proposal evaluation process (Milestone 8.7).

2.1.2.10. The Contractor shall ensure that all its evaluators have the capability to access the

RES.

2.1.2.11. The Contractor shall immediately conduct a Technical/Cost Compliance Check (as defined in the AO) upon receipt of proposals (Milestone 8.5).

2.1.2.11.1. The Contractor shall document any compliance/non-compliance issues.

2.1.2.11.2. The Contractor shall deliver the Technical/Cost Compliance Check results to the NASA TM (Deliverable 7.2).

2.1.2.11.3. The Contractor shall assist NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to identify any non-compliant proposals.

Page | 10

2.1.2.12. The Contractor shall immediately check its evaluators for any potential or actual COIs upon receipt of proposals (Milestone 8.6).

2.1.2.12.1. The Contractor shall generate a list of proposing parties (Deliverable 7.3).

2.1.2.12.2. The Contractor shall solicit COI self-assessments from each of its evaluators.

2.1.2.12.3. The Contractor shall review the proposals for any evidence of an

OCI/PCI.

2.1.2.12.4. The Contractor shall specifically search proposals for evidence of contractor participation, evaluator participation or references, and participation of evaluators’ institutions/employers.

2.1.2.12.5. The Contractor shall document any instance of potential or actual COIs and suggest mitigation strategies (Deliverable 7.4).

2.1.2.12.6. The Contractor shall substitute any evaluator with a potential or actual COI that cannot be sufficiently mitigated with a Subject Matter Expert (SME) qualified to evaluate the same subject area.

2.1.2.13. Contractor evaluators shall attend the TMC Evaluation Kickoff Web Conference (Milestone 8.8).

2.1.2.14. The Contractor shall conduct “makeup” TMC Evaluation Kickoff Web Conferences for any Evaluation Team member not able to attend the initial web conference (Milestone 8.8).

2.1.2.15. The Contractor shall ensure that proposals are not available to any Evaluation Team member until it is confirmed that they have attended a TMC Evaluation Kickoff Web Conferences.

2.1.2.16. The Contractor evaluators shall read and evaluate their assigned evaluation factors (e.g., instruments) of each assigned proposal.

2.1.2.17. The Contractor Cost Evaluators shall perform a cost analysis for each proposal.

2.1.2.17.1. The Contractor shall use different cost estimating approaches, such as a bottoms-up model and a parametric model, for each proposal.

2.1.2.17.2. The Contractor shall include in the ICEs all life-cycle elements from Phase A through Phase F included in the PI Managed Mission Cost

(PIMMC).

2.1.2.17.3. The Contractor shall generate each ICE with an approach (e.g., parametric models, reference cost data, and analogies) that is independent of the proposer’s estimation sources.

2.1.2.17.4. The Contractor shall include an assessment of cost risk in each ICE that identifies cost drivers in each proposed implementation approach.

2.1.2.17.5. The Contractor shall provide comments on costs shown outside the

PIMMC.

2.1.2.17.6. The Contractor shall deliver the files (Deliverable 7.19) containing each ICE model’s parameter settings, which includes the inputs to the model runs, and cost results (Milestone 8.15) for the model-estimated mission costs .

2.1.2.17.7. The Contractor shall follow the methodology described in the SOMA Cost Process Document provided by NASA SOMA and any proposal evaluation-specific appendix developed by the contractor and NASA SOMA.

2.1.2.17.8. Each Contractor CES Lead shall guide the Evaluation Team cost discussions and generate and refine the CES (Deliverable 7.11) for their assigned proposals.

2.1.2.18. The Contractor Schedule Evaluator shall perform a schedule analysis for each proposal.

2.1.2.18.1. The Contractor Schedule Evaluator shall guide the Evaluation Team schedule discussions for each proposal.

2.1.2.19. The Contractor shall generate a Form C for each proposal (Deliverable 7.17).

2.1.2.19.1. Each Contractor evaluator shall evaluate the assigned proposal(s) and develop individual findings for each proposal before discussion with other Evaluation Team members.

2.1.2.19.2. Each Contractor evaluator shall enter their individual findings for each proposal into the RES website before each proposal scheduled deadline.

2.1.2.19.3. The Contractor Form C Lead for each proposal shall organize the individual findings for their proposal(s) using the RES software into a large table of findings referred as the “Fat Matrix” (Deliverable 7.6).

2.1.2.19.4. The Contractor shall hold a Fat Matrix Web Conference (Milestone 8.9) for each proposal to discuss individual findings and to assist the Form C Lead in developing an “Initial Draft Form C” for that

2.1.2.19.4.1. The Contractor shall summarize the proposed investigation.

2.1.2.19.4.2. The Contractor Form C Lead shall guide the discussion of each individual finding.

2.1.2.19.4.3. The Contractor shall keep findings as written, merge findings with other related findings, or delete the findings when deemed not to affect risk.

2.1.2.19.4.4. The Contractor Form C Lead shall further edit, consolidate related findings, and refine this initial document into the Initial Draft Form C (Deliverable 7.9).

2.1.2.19.4.5. The Contractor shall generate a Quad Chart for each proposal (Deliverable 7.20).

2.1.2.19.5. The Contractor shall hold an Initial Draft Form C Web Conference (Milestone 8.10) for each proposal to refine the Form C and present the initial results of the ICEs.

2.1.2.19.5.1. The Contractor shall present each of the cost and schedule analyses process at the beginning of the first and second Initial Draft Form C Web Conferences, respectively.

2.1.2.19.5.2. The Contractor shall summarize the proposed investigation.

2.1.2.19.5.3. The Contractor Form C Lead shall guide the discussion of the Form C.

2.1.2.19.5.4. The Contractor shall discuss the entire Form C, including findings, cost threats, and comments.

2.1.2.19.5.5. The Contractor CES Lead for each proposal shall guide the cost discussion.

2.1.2.19.5.6. The Contractor shall present the initial results of the ICEs.

2.1.2.19.5.7. The Contractor Schedule Evaluator shall present the initial schedule results.

2.1.2.19.5.8. The Contractor shall keep findings as written, merge findings

2.1.2.19.5.9. The Contractor shall ensure the consistency of the evaluation across proposals.

2.1.2.19.5.10. The Contractor Form C Lead shall, based on the discussion, further edit, consolidate related findings, and refine this Initial Draft Form C into the Second Draft Form C (Deliverable 7.10).

2.1.2.19.6. The Contractor shall hold a Second Draft Form C Web Conference for each proposal to further refine the Form C (Milestone 8.10), prepare the Potential Major Weaknesses (PMWs) to be sent to the proposers for clarification, review the CES, and discuss the schedule analysis results.

2.1.2.19.6.1. The Contractor shall present any updates to the process.

2.1.2.19.6.2. The Contractor shall summarize the proposed investigation.

2.1.2.19.6.3. The Contractor Form C Lead shall guide the discussion of the Form C.

2.1.2.19.6.4. The Contractor shall discuss the entire Form C, including

2.1.2.19.6.5. The Contractor shall keep findings as written, merge findings

2.1.2.19.6.6. The Contractor shall ensure that the PMWs are clear, complete, and ready to be sent to the proposers.

2.1.2.19.6.7. The Contractor shall assign a steward from the Evaluation Team for each PMW.

2.1.2.19.6.8. The Contractor CES Lead for each proposal shall guide the CES discussion.

2.1.2.19.6.9. The Contractor Schedule Evaluator shall present updates to each schedule analysis.

2.1.2.19.6.10. The Contractor’s CAT shall participate to ensure consistency of the evaluation across proposals.

2.1.2.19.6.11. The Contractor shall list the PMWs for each proposal in separate files and prepare them to be sent to the proposers (Deliverable 7.12).

2.1.2.19.7. RESERVED.

2.1.2.19.8. The Contractor shall hold a Clarifications Review Web Conference (Milestone 8.12) for each proposal to consider proposer-provided clarifications and their effect on PMWs.

2.1.2.19.8.1. The Contractor shall summarize the proposed investigation.

2.1.2.19.8.2. The Contractor Form C Lead shall guide the discussion.

2.1.2.19.8.3. The Contractor shall discuss all PMWs for the Form C under review.

2.1.2.19.8.4. The Contractor steward shall guide the discussion of their assigned PMW.

2.1.2.19.8.5. The Contractor shall, as result of the proposer’s clarification response, keep the PMW as written, merge the PMW with other related findings, modify the PMW, demote the PMW to a minor finding, or delete the PMW when deemed not to affect risk (Deliverable 7.13).

2.1.2.19.8.6. The Contractor’s CAT shall participate to ensure the consistency of the evaluation across proposals.

2.1.2.19.9. The Contractor shall hold a Minor Findings Review Web Conference (Milestone 8.13) for each proposal to finalize the minor findings and to ensure that minor findings are not in conflict with other findings.

2.1.2.19.9.1. The Contractor shall summarize the proposed investigation.

2.1.2.19.9.2. The Contractor Form C Lead shall guide the discussion.

2.1.2.19.9.3. The Contractor shall keep findings as written, merge findings not relevant.

2.1.2.19.9.4. The Contractor’s CAT shall participate to ensure the

2.1.2.19.10. The Contractor shall validate every major weakness using more than one SME from the Evaluation Team to avoid the possibility of a single point of failure in the assessment and for fair evaluation of the proposals (i.e., if one evaluator makes an erroneous assessment resulting in a major weakness, then that major weakness, if not reviewed and rectified by other evaluators, can prevent the selection of a groundbreaking investigation).

2.1.2.19.10.1. The Contractor shall mitigate this single point failure in a cost-effective manner by assigning each major weakness remaining after the Clarification Review Web Conference to a second SME for an independent validation.

2.1.2.19.10.2. The Contractor’s second SME evaluator shall be an expert in the topic described in the assigned major weakness.

2.1.2.19.10.3. The Contractor’s second SME evaluator shall review the proposal material relevant to the assigned major weaknesses to determine the validity of the finding and rating.

2.1.2.19.10.4. The Contractor’s second SME evaluator shall report their determination on the validity of each assigned major weakness and either validate the major weakness finding and rating or propose a modification.

2.1.2.19.11. The Contractor shall keep any necessary additional Web Conferences to resolve consistency, cost, or any other issues to a minimum.

2.1.2.19.12. The Contractor Evaluation Team and the Evaluation Integrator shall attend the Plenary Meeting (Milestone 8.14), which is a meeting where the evaluators come together to discuss all proposals’ major findings, finalize the major findings, complete the Forms C, review the CESs, and be polled for the proposed investigations’ cost risk and TMC risk rating.

2.1.2.19.12.1. The Contractor shall complete three rounds of discussion for each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.2. The Contractor’s Form C and CES Leads for each proposal shall guide the discussions.

2.1.2.19.12.3. The Contractor Cost Lead shall provide a summary presentation (Deliverable 7.14) on cost that includes the results of the cost analysis for each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.4. The Contractor Schedule Evaluator shall provide a summary presentation (Deliverable 7.15) on schedule that includes the results of the schedule analysis for each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.5. The Contractor CAT shall, if needed, provide a summary presentation (Deliverable 7.16) on consistency that includes potential consistency issues and resolutions.

2.1.2.19.12.6. The Contractor CAT shall ensure consistency between findings on the forms during each round of discussion.

2.1.2.19.12.7. The Contractor shall document the final version of the findings for each proposal Form C (Deliverable 7.18).

2.1.2.19.12.8. The Contractor shall document the results of the cost analysis in the CES for each proposal (Deliverable 7.19).

2.1.2.19.12.9. The Contractor shall determine, via a polling process, the final assignment of cost risk and TMC risk ratings for each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.9.1. The Contractor shall prepare a “polling log” indicating who will be polled for each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.9.2. The Contractor’s “polling log” shall automatically determine the median and mode of each tallied poll for each proposal via formulas developed in an Excel Spreadsheet.

2.1.2.19.12.10. The Contractor shall provide a complete, accurate, and consistent evaluation of each proposal.

2.1.2.19.12.11. The Contractor shall upload all Plenary Meeting documents (Deliverables 7.14 – 7.20) to the RES within three business days after the Plenary Meeting concludes.

2.1.3. The Contractor shall finalize the documents generated in the evaluation.

2.1.3.1. The Contractor’s professional technical editor shall review the Plenary Meeting Forms C.

2.1.3.2. A Contractor’s cost analyst, who was not involved in the evaluation, shall review the CESs for quality assurance. The CES quality assurance cost analyst shall:

2.1.3.2.1. Ensure the text and the Products are for the appropriate Proposal;

2.1.3.2.2. Check that the Cost Risk ratings and the Cost Risk polling were recorded appropriately;

2.1.3.2.3. Check that the “Overall Summary” paragraph agrees with the Cost Risk Rating and the text in the Post-Plenary Form C;

2.1.3.2.4. Ensure that the Cost Threat Matrix (CTM) agrees with the Post- Plenary Form C cost threat statements;

2.1.3.2.5. Ensure that the numbers on all tables agree with the numbers on the graphs, e.g., Cost Table with Cost Products 1 and 4 and CTM with Cost Products 3, 4, and 5;

2.1.3.2.6. Ensure that tables, legends, and captions within figures are correct and consistent, e.g., Cost Products 4 and 5;

Page | 18

2.1.3.2.7. Ensure that the “Cost Threats,” “Risk Mitigations,” and “Issues and Questions” are represented correctly;

2.1.3.2.8. Ensure that in the “Cost Threats” section, the rationale for each cost threat is documented;

2.1.3.2.9. Review sections “ESTIMATE COMPARISON: Proposed Cost versus Evaluation Team” and “ANALYSIS: Review of Cost Proposal” for correctness;

2.1.3.2.10. Ensure the numbers in the “Costs by Organization” cost flow diagram are correct.

2.1.3.3. The Contractor shall finalize the Forms C, the CESs, and the Quad Charts (Milestone 8.15).

2.1.3.4. The Contractor shall assist with preparation of categorization and steering committee books (Milestone 8.16).

2.1.3.5. The Contractor shall upload all final documents, presentations, and any other relevant documentation to the RES (Deliverables 7.14 – 7.20).

2.1.3.6. The Contractor shall upload the cost input files (Deliverable 7.19) for each of the cost models used in the evaluation to the RES.

2.1.4. The Contractor shall develop and assist in the presentation of a Transition Briefing to that captures the characteristics of the selected investigation (Deliverable

7.21, Milestone 8.17).

2.1.5. The Contractor shall be available to answer questions on the evaluation as needed to assist in debriefings of proposing teams (Milestone 8.18).

2.1.6. The Contractor shall provide a Lessons Learned report (Deliverable 7.22) and discuss it with the Task Monitor (Milestone 8.19).

2.1.7. The Contractor shall archive all proposal copies and documents pertaining to the evaluation cycle in the NASA SOMA archive/vault (Milestone 8.20).

2.2. The Contractor shall deliver Interim and Final Labor Hour Cost Management Reports (Deliverable 7.23) that detail the names of all subject matter experts (SMEs), their role in the evaluation, the assigned hours for each SME, and the associated labor costs.

Page | 19

2.2.1. The reports shall provide actual hourly labor rates for all contractor personnel.

2.2.2. The Contractor shall provide interim monthly reports showing the burn rate for each SME and evaluation support staff as the work progresses.

2.2.3. The Contractor shall deliver the final report no later than the completion date of the task order.

3. Data Sensitivity

3.1. The Contractor shall ensure that evaluators remain current on all required training requirements, including computer security, ethics, OCI/COI, EAR, and ITAR prior to the TMC Evaluation Kickoff (Milestone 8.7).

3.2. The Contractor shall monitor discussions to ensure that no EAR, ITAR, or other export-controlled material is discussed when any non-U.S. evaluators or observers are present.

3.3. The Contractor shall perform any additional reviews required of export-controlled material provided and submitted in proposals to NASA, including but not limited to the PMWs to be sent to the proposers for clarification.

3.4. The Contractor shall mark all material generated during this evaluation (including, but not exclusively, the Fat Matrix; Initial Draft, Second Draft, and Final Form C’s; CES; and Quad Charts) with the appropriate CUI category.

4. Special Requirements

4.1. The Contractor shall access NASA non-public facing networks and systems via NASA-provided computers and using multi-factor authentication.

4.1.1. All users shall use smartcards once issued.

4.1.2. The Contractor shall track the computers used to perform any tasks that require access to non-public NASA computing capabilities and/or that are used to store and evaluate CUI materials.

4.1.3. The Contractor shall return NASA-provided computers to NASA at the end of the task.

5. Travel Requirements:

The Contractor shall travel to the planned presentations/meetings as specified below:

Contract 80LARC20D0007

Radiation, if necessary 1 Telecommunications, if necessary 1 Cost Quality Assurance (QA) 1 Schedule Quality Assurance (QA) 1 Total 10

2.1.1.2.3. The Contractor shall include one mentee SME on the Evaluation Team in any of the disciplines in Table 1.

2.1.1.2.3.1. The Contractor mentee shall be a SME with at least one of the areas of expertise necessary to evaluate the TMC Feasibility of the Proposed Mission Implementation criterion described in the AO.

2.1.1.2.3.2. The Contractor shall assign up to three proposals to the mentee for evaluation.

2.1.1.2.3.3. The Contractor shall assign Task Monitor-approved mentor(s) for the mentee.

2.1.1.2.3.4. The Contractor mentee shall evaluate his or her assigned proposals and develop individual findings for each proposal before discussion with his or her mentor(s).

2.1.1.2.3.5. The Contractor mentee shall provide his or her comments to the assigned mentor(s) before the Fat Matrix Web Conference (Milestone 8.9).

2.1.1.2.3.6. The Contractor mentor(s) shall review and filter the comments of his or her mentee.

2.1.1.2.3.7. The Contractor mentor(s) shall discuss the comments with his or her mentee, explain why some comments are not suitable for submission, and authorize appropriate comments to be submitted on the Remote Evaluation System (RES) and included in the Fat Matrix Web Conference discussion.

2.1.1.2.3.8. The Contractor mentee shall participate in all discussions and virtual meetings when his or her assigned proposal is discussed.

2.1.1.2.3.9. The Contractor shall provide a written report to the Task Monitor on the assessment of the mentee’s ability to contribute to future evaluations (Deliverable 7.23).

2.1.1.2.4. The Contractor shall provide an Evaluation Integrator from its Hampton Roads, Virginia location to support the evaluators and the TM to ensure the evaluation runs smoothly.

2.1.1.2.5. The…