Exhibit 14 - RTO 3.pdf

Representative Task Order Number Three: Information Technology Migration Management

Period of Performance:

01 March 2021 – 15 June 2022

Background and Summary of the Requirements:

NASA is concerned that its NSPIRES system does not facilitate efficient proposal review and administration, for both internal and external users. Its usability limitations may threaten the reviewer community's willingness to continue participating in NASA's peer review events and activities. As well, improvements are needed to facilitate the work of NASA program managers. The owners are generally concerned that the system does not meet contemporary usability standards for its functions; including solicitation announcement, proposal submission, peer review by mail and panel reviewers, and general proposal administration.

NASA uses the NSPIRES system for research, technology development, and other types of proposals.

Peer review is critical component of the process. Via this system, reviewers retrieve proposals, certifications, budgets, and various supporting documents, and submit reviews. Review panels use the system to access reviews and develop panel evaluations that include summary documents and scores NASA also uses

NSPIRES for a variety of proposal administration requirements, including document handling, budget adjustments, decision communications, and generation of documents for award processing. These administrative activities involve a variety of users, including

NASA program managers and other staff, contractors, and proposers. All of the information contained in NSPIRES is considered sensitive and confidential. Some information may be subject to legal restrictions for international trade and exchange.

Numerous users-from reviewers to NASA staff--have observed that the NSPIRES user interface is confusing and that the system's performance is slow. Reviewers report that participation in NASA peer review is tedious and time-consuming because of NSPIRES, particularly when one is assigned a large number of proposals to review. Among other complaints are that the web pages and the overall structure are not designed to facilitate work flow; do not refresh promptly in response actions such as sort commands; and proposal and certification document downloads take too long, as do uploads of completed reviews.

NSPIRES contains few collaboration tools. These tools are needed to facilitate proposal review during panels, including the participation of panelists by teleconference or other virtual methods. Tools are also lacking to document voted panel scores, collaboratively develop panel summaries, and track panel progress. At present, these activities are conducted external to NSPIRES, and the NSPIRES system is used merely upload documents after the panel.

Finally, NSPIRES is a critical public interface for NASA where proposers see solicitation information and selected proposals are listed. This interface is outdated, and difficult to search both internally and through popular web-search engines.

Because of these issues, NASA is currently developing a second-generation NSPIRES system through a separate procurement effort. The recipient of this task order is currently operating and maintaining the current first-generation NSPIRES system.

Assumptions

The offeror’s approach shall be consistent with the following directly-related SOW elements: Section 3.0, Proposal Documents, Panel, Review, and Selection Decision Support; Section 5.0, Programmatic Documentation, Analytics, and Reporting; Section 6.0, Process or Systems Improvement; Section 7.0, Information Technology; and Section 8.0 Electronic Commerce.

Description of Requirements

In this task order the contractor shall evaluate current information technology-based support requirements for the peer review life cycle as conducted at NASA. The contractor shall assemble and validate benchmark functional user requirements. The contractor shall examine the existing NSPIRES system's technical architecture, including its user interfaces, system & application software, database architecture, hardware infrastructure, system interfaces, network communications, hosting and continuity management, and information technology-related security components and plan an effective change-over to the new system. The contractor shall also develop and provide a baseline of functional evaluation that will serve as a performance guideline for the new system, and validate new system performance against baseline and user requirements.

Key emphasis areas for evaluation, relative to the baseline NSPIRES system, will include the following: 1) Peer reviewer interface; 2) Panel collaboration and summary interface; 3) Panel work tracking; 4) Panel scoring, 5) Proposal administrative functions for NASA Program Managers and other staff, 6) NSPIRES external presence for solicitation and award search and presentation, 7) availability and functionality of core system capabilities.

The contractor shall propose a solution that successfully integrates and/or migrates all current NSPIRES functionality and information to the second-generation system. The contractor shall continue to provide operations and maintenance for the second-generation system after migration.

It is the offeror's responsibility to propose a solution that is innovative, effective and optimizes functional performance and cost. In particular, the solution must result in zero impact to the current and planned NASA research objectives and timelines and zero impact to the ability to post solicitations, submit proposals, conduct panels, and conduct day-to-day NSPIRES operations, to include email communications, help-desk support, and data collection/archiving. The solution shall include an effective management plan, including coordination and collaboration with the development contractor.

The recommended solution or derivative solutions adopted because of this task shall be revalidated periodically during the life of the contract by the system owner(s).

Key Deliverables:

1. Project management plan including schedule and cost.

2. NSPIRES stakeholder analysis.

3. Results of alternatives considered and comparative analysis.

4. Coordination plan and schedule for the development contractor.

5. Recommended migration schedule, cost, risks.

6. Project status reports bi-weekly to the NASA task monitor.

7. An executive summary and associated close-out activities.

Final report due no later than 90 days from issuance of task.