ID01150067_Tab_9_SETS_PreSolicitation_Conference_Slide_Deck.pdf

Systems Engineering and Technical Services (SETS) Contract

Pre-Solicitation Conference January 14-15, 2016

NOAA Auditorium & Science Center 1301 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20610

Presolicitation Conference

This is a FAR 5.201 Exchange with Industry before Receipt of Proposals - Presolicitation Conference

• This Presolicitation Conference is an exchange of information among all interested parties in accordance with FAR 5.201.

• Interested parties include potential offerors, end users, Government acquisition and supporting personnel, and others involved in the conduct or outcome of the subject acquisition.

The purpose of exchanging information is to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities, thereby allowing potential offerors to judge whether or how they can satisfy the Government’s requirements, and enhancing the Government’s ability to obtain quality services, at reasonable prices, and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, negotiation, and contract award.

This exchange of information among interested parties will identify and resolve concerns regarding the acquisition strategy, including proposed contract type, terms and conditions, and acquisition planning schedules; the feasibility of the requirement, including performance requirements, statements of work, and data requirements; the suitability of the proposal instructions and evaluation criteria, including the approach for assessing past performance information;

the availability of reference documents; and any other industry concerns or questions.

Systems Engineering and Technical Services (SETS) Contract Pre-Solicitation Conference

Day One - January 14, 2016

Time Slot Title Presenter

1:00 – 1:30 Introductions, Identification of Acquisition Team, Procurement Integrity & Conflicts of Interest Briefing

Shireen Belanger, GSA

1:30 - 2:30 Solicitation Review Anthony Pellegrino, GSA

2:30 – 3:00 Break

3:00 – 3:30 Review of Section C (TBD), NOAA

3:30 – 4:00 Written & Verbal Questions Submitted Interested Parties

Systems Engineering and Technical Services (SETS) Contract Pre-Solicitation Conference

Day Two – January 15, 2016

Time Slot Title Presenter

8:30 – 9:00 Check-In GSA

9:00 – 10:30 Discuss Questions and Engage in

Exchanges with Interested Parties regarding the Solicitation

GSA

10:30 – 11:00 Break

11:00 – 12:00 Continue Discussion of Questions

Exchanges with Interested Parties regarding the Solicitation

NOAA

12:00 Conclude Conference

General

• Restroom Location

• Question Boxes

• Cell Phones

SETS Acquisition Team

NOAA

• Eric Gottshall, Chief, Systems Engineering Division

• Greg James, Chief, Project Support Branch

• Ron Smilek, COR, Chief, Transition & Sustainment Branch

GSA

• Anthony Pellegrino, Sr. Contracting Officer

• Ken Reynolds, Project Manager

• Shireen Belanger, Contract Specialist

• Nathan Cahoon, Sr. Project Manager

Procurement Integrity

• FAR 3.104-3(a) Prohibition on disclosing procurement information (41 U.S.C. 2102) requires that anyone with access to source selection information NOT disclose such information prior to award.

• FAR 3.104-3(b) Prohibition on obtaining procurement information (41 U.S.C 2102) requires that nobody shall obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information prior to award.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• FAR 9.502(b) Organizational conflicts of interest are more likely to occur in contracts involving –

1) Management Support Services;

2) Consultant of other Professional Services;

3) Contractor performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or

4) Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a contractor that does not have overall contractual responsibility for development or production

(continued)

• FAR 9.502(c) An organizational conflict of interest may result when factors create an actual or potential conflict of interest on an instant contract, or when the nature of the work to be performed on the instant contract creates and actual or potential conflict of interest on a future acquisition. In the latter case, some restrictions on future activities of the contractor may be required.

• FAR 9.505-1(a) A contractor that provides systems engineering and technical direction for a system but does not have overall contractual responsibility for its development, its integration, assembly, and checkout, or its production shall not –

1) Be awarded a contract to supply the system or any of its major components; or

2) Be a subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components.

• FAR 9.505-2 Preparing specifications or work statements

– (a)(1) instructs that in situations when a contractor prepares and furnishes complete specifications covering nondevelopmental items, to be used in a competitive acquisition, that contractor shall not be allowed to furnish these items, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontactor.

– (b)(1) instructs that if a contractor prepares, or assists in preparing, a work statement to be used in competitively acquiring a system or services – or provides material leading directly, predictably, and without delay to such work statement

– that contractor may not supply the system, major components of the system, or the services.

• FAR 9.505-3 Providing evaluation services –

Contracts for the evaluation of offers for products or services shall not be awarded to a contractor that will evaluate its own offers for products of services, or those of a competitor, without proper safeguards to ensure objectivity to protect the Government’s interests.

• FAR 9.505-4 Obtaining access to proprietary information

When a contractor has access to proprietary information from others in performance of a Government contract, it may gain a competitive advantage unless restrictions are imposed. These restrictions protect the information, and must agree to protect that information, and refrain from using it for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.

• Regarding the work of the prime (and any subcontractors) on the SETS Contract, the Contracting Officer has identified an Organizational Conflict of Interest exists.

• To neutralize this conflict of interest, any Contractor involved in performance of services under the SETS contract shall be precluded from consideration for award of any system, major components of any system, or any services which the SETS contract helps develop, evaluate or administer.

Notional Solicitation Schedule

02/02/2016 – Post Solicitation to FBO

03/16/2015 – Proposals Due

04/29/2016 – Competitive Range Determination

05/04/2016 – Completion of Discussions / Negotiations

07/29/2016 – SETS Contract Award

07/30/2016 – Start of Base Period of Performance

Solicitation Review

WHAT IS THE US GOVERNMENT (USG) BUYING?

The Government is buying labor to perform professional and technical services for analysis and system engineering activities in support of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Program Offices Supported

• Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R Series (GOES- R) Program Office at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD;

• Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Program Office facility in Greenbelt, MD;

• Office of Systems Architecture and Advanced Planning (OSAAP);

• Office of Satellite Ground Services (OSGS);

• Office of Projects, Planning and Analysis (OPPA).

– Program offices are located in Silver Spring, MD;

– NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF) located in Suitland and

Silver Spring, MD.

– European Organization for the Exploration of Meteorological Satellites

(EUMETSAT) Headquarters facility in Darmstadt, Germany.

– The place of performance will be specified in Work Assignments a/k/a

NOAA/NESDIS office Statements of Work (SOW).

How Will The Government Pay For The Services?

The Government will reimburse the Contractor providing the labor on a Cost Plus Fixed Fee – Term (CPFFT) basis.

• The Term form of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee type contract describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period.

• Under a Term type CPFFT contract, if the performance is considered satisfactory by the Government, the fixed fee is payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period provided the contractor expends the level of effort specified in the contract.

• Renewals for further periods of performance, such as the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract or Option to Extend Services, are new acquisitions that involve new cost and fee arrangements if the cost and fee and not priced at the time of awarding the contract.

Why CPFFT?

• Most NOAA programs are funded incrementally and only cost type contracts may be incrementally funded.

• No officer or employee of the Government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available or in advance of appropriations (Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C.

1341), unless otherwise authorized by law.

• Legal authorization to create an obligation in excess of the funds available is not required for cost-type contracts because the obligation (contract), by operation of FAR 52.232-22 – Limitation of Funds, limits the Government’s liability to the amount allotted to the contract.

• No obligation in excess of the funds available can be created under a cost-type contract which includes FAR 52.232-22 because the obligation (contract) is limited to the amount allotted.

• FAR 52.232-22 is limited to cost-type contracts and the FAR provides no other clauses limiting the Government's liability.

This Limitation of Funds clause is not available for use in other than cost-type contracts.

• Consistent with FAR 37.115-2, the professional and technical services for this Contract are being acquired on the basis of the number of hours provided, rather than on the tasks to be performed.

• The Government requires Contractor labor similarly to how it provides its own labor, i.e., on the basis of full-time employees compensated on an hourly basis. Although Federal employees receive a yearly salary, they are compensated only for Paid Time Off (PTO) and productive hours worked.

• Contract Work Assignments may issue on other than a CPFFT basis if the Government and the Contractor agree that another contract type is more advantageous and otherwise allowed by law. For example, a Work Assignment for a trade study or other specific deliverable may be issued on a Firm- Fixed Price basis.

Inspection of Services

HOW IS THE PERFORMANCE IS CONSIDERED

SATISFACTORY BY THE GOVERNMENT?

FAR 52.246-5 Inspection of Services—Cost- Reimbursement

– The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system acceptable to the Government covering the services under this contract.

– Complete records of all inspection work performed by the Contractor shall be maintained and made available to the Government.

• If any of the services performed do not conform with contract requirements, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, for no additional fee.

• When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may—

• Require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements; and

• Reduce any fee payable under the contract to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.

If the Contractor fails to promptly perform the services again or take the action necessary to ensure future performance in conformity with contract requirements, the Government may—

• By contract or otherwise, perform the services and reduce any fee payable by an amount that is equitable under the circumstances; or

• Terminate the contract for default.

Compensation

HOW IS THE CONTRACTOR COMPENSATED IF SERVICES ARE

SATISFACTORY?

• FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment. The Government will make payments to the Contractor in amounts determined to be allowable by the Contracting Officer in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 31.2 in effect on the date of this contract and the terms of this contract.

– Allowable Costs are the direct, hourly labor rates, other direct costs, indirect costs, and any other cost specified in the Contract Schedule.

– A cost not included in the Contract Schedule is not an Allowable Cost unless determined allowable by the Contracting Officer.

Compensation

FAR 52.216-8 Fixed Fee. The Government shall pay the Contractor for performing this contract the fixed fee specified in the Contract Schedule.

– The Contract Schedule specifies that fee is earned per hour of labor provided by the Contractor and accepted by the Government.

– There is no fee on travel.

– There is no fee on Other Direct Costs.

• The Government will withhold a reserve not to exceed 15 percent of the total fixed fee or $100,000, whichever is less, and release the fee as set forth in this clause.

Work Assignments

WHAT IS A WORK ASSIGNMENT AND HOW IS IT

DIFFERENT FROM A TASK ORDER?

• Section F.5 of the Draft Solicitation states:

– As requirements become firm and funds are identified, the Contracting Officer will request a Work Assignment Request for Technical Response and Estimate of Cost and Fee to complete the Work Assignment.

– Following negotiations, the Work Assignment will be added to the Contract. The Estimated Level of Effort will be determined by Work Assignment.

Work Assignments

Consistent with FAR 37.115-2, the professional and technical services for this Contract are being acquired on the basis of the number of hours provided, rather than on the tasks to be performed.

• The Contract supports multiple offices over performance periods and purchases labor hours to meet mission requirements throughout the term of the Contract.

• Work Assignments function much like task orders but unlike task orders, the Government is not necessarily purchasing specific, identifiable end products.

• The Contract is a “Service Contract” that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task – the Work Assignment – rather than to furnish an end item.

The Offer

The Offer, among other things, requires a Non-Cost Proposal and a Cost Proposal.

• The Cost Proposal (Part A) consists solely of the Offeror’s proposed cost and fee for completing the requirements of the Contract resulting from this Solicitation.

• The Non-Cost Proposal consists of Corporate Experience (Part B1), Key Personnel and Qualifications (Part B2), Management Capability (Part B3), and Past Performance (Part B4).

The Cost Proposal

• The Cost Narrative discusses the processes used to develop the estimated cost and fee. Format: MS Word and PDF. Page Limit: Ten (10) sequentially numbered pages.

• The Cost Details consists of the cost elements and fee comprising the Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee.

Format: Excel (clearly showing formulas) and PDF.

The Cost Proposal

– The Cost Details shall be completed for each Contract Performance Period and be substantially similar to Attachment J.1 “Cost Details Summary” for each Contract Performance Period.

– Please review the proposed J.1_v1 “Cost Details Summary”. Other formats may be considered by the Government.

– FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data Alt. IV and Section L.6.1

Non-Cost Proposal

• The Non-Cost Proposal consists of the services the Offeror proposes for performing the requirements of the Contract resulting from this Solicitation.

• The Government will evaluate the Non-Cost Proposal by consideration of the Corporate Experience, Key Personnel and Qualifications, Management Capability, and Past Performance, of the Offeror.

Corporate Experience

• Detail the services proposed for this Solicitation;

• Detail its corporate experience performing services that are similar to the scope and magnitude of the services proposed for this Solicitation; and

• Detail how its corporate experience relates the services proposed for this Solicitation.

Limited to Fifteen (15) Pages

Corporate Experience (continued)

• The Government is evaluating the Corporate Experience of the Offeror with providing the services required for this Contract. This should take into consideration the totality of the Solicitation including contract type.

• This is a contract for professional and technical services being acquired on the basis of the number of hours provided, rather than on the tasks to be performed.

• Corporate Experience is related to the professional and technical services proposed, the corporate experience performing professional and technical services that are similar to the scope and magnitude that the Offeror proposes for this Contract, and how that corporate experience relates to this services being proposed.

An analogy: The Government is looking for a company that can provide professional and technical services in a full service restaurant. The Government is not asking for the company to detail its approach to cooking a soufflé, beef wellington, potatoes dauphin, braised asparagus, and an amusing dessert. Rather, the Government is asking the company to detail its professional and technical services and to detail its corporate experience with providing those services given the general scope of the restaurant and the specific requirements that normally occur (work assignments); the experience having performed similar services; and, how that experience relates to providing professional and technical services in the Government’s restaurant.

Key Personnel Qualifications

The Offeror shall provide a written narrative from each of the Key Personnel that details his or her respective knowledge, skill, ability, and current or prior experience providing the services proposed for this Solicitation.

Each written narrative shall be signed by the respective Key Person.

Limited to six (6) sequentially numbered pages.

• Note: There are four (4) Key Personnel positions in the Solicitation and Contract. Should be amended to eight

(8) sequentially numbered pages?

Key Personnel Qualifications (continued)

The Government is evaluating the education, knowledge, skill, and abilities of the Offeror’s Key Personnel to assess

1) the understanding of Government requirements;

2) the quality of the proposed services; and

3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

Key Personnel Qualifications (continued)

The analogy, continued:

The Government is evaluating the qualifications of the proposed Brigade de Cuisine to assess how well the company understands the requirements of the Government’s restaurant; the quality of the technical and professional services proposed for the restaurant;

and how likely the company will perform successfully in the restaurant.

Management Capability

The Offeror shall detail its Staffing Plan and Transition Plan to perform the services proposed for this Solicitation.

• The Staffing Plan (a) shall detail the labor categories and the Education, Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of each Labor Category; and, (b) shall detail the Offeror’s ability to adjust staffing levels as work assignments are completed and as work assignments are added to the Contract.

The Staffing Plan is limited to five (5) sequentially

Management Capability (continued)

• The Transition Plan shall detail the major components and milestones of the Transition Plan and how the plan is related to providing the proposed services.

The Transition Plan is limited to three (3) sequentially

• The Government will evaluate the Staffing Plan to assess (1) the understanding of Government requirements; (2) the quality of the proposed services and, (3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

• The Government will evaluate the Transition Plan to assess (1) the understanding of Government requirements; and, (2) the likelihood of successfully performing the contract.

• Note: Add Transition Plan evaluation to Section M.

The analogy continued: Although the Government has stated who is necessary to provide services in general terms, e.g., maître d'hôtel, dishwasher, sous chef, the Government will evaluate the KSAs of the company staff to assess how well the company understands the requirements of the Government’s restaurant; the quality of the technical and professional services proposed; and how likely the company will successfully perform in the restaurant.

The Transition Plan for the restaurant will be evaluated to assess how well the company understands the requirements of the Government’s restaurant for transitioning from the current company or companies providing the services and how likely the company will successfully perform the transition and following the transition.

Past Performance

The Offeror shall identify not more than two (2) past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the requirements of this Solicitation. The Offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s corrective actions.

The Offeror may provide information on predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements of this Solicitation if the Offeror deems the information relevant to this acquisition.

Past Performance is limited to ten (10) sequentially numbered pages.

Past Performance (continued)

• The Government will evaluate past performance to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective Contract, i.e., the likelihood of successfully performing the Contract.

• The Government will evaluate the currency and relevance of the Past Performance Information, source of the information, context of the data, and the general trends in the Offeror’s past performance.

The analogy continued: The Government will evaluate the company’s past performance record providing professional and technical services for restaurants that are similar to those required for the Government’s restaurant.

• This assessment considers the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, the context , and the general trends in the company’s past performance providing the services.

Evaluation – Section M

M.2.1 Proposal Evaluation

Evaluation of an Offeror’s Proposal is an assessment of the Proposal and the Offeror’s (1) understanding of Government requirements; (2) the quality of the proposed services; and (3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

• The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risk of the Offeror’s Proposal will be included in the final evaluation.

• The Government will consider all available information to assess performance risk.

• “Strength” is an aspect of a proposal that demonstrates a strong understanding of the Government’s requirements.

• “Significant Strength” is an aspect of a proposal that demonstrates ability and performance beyond that required by the Solicitation and benefits the Government significantly or measurably.

• “Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. “

• “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

• “Risk” means the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 50

Evaluation Factor Importance

The Non-Cost Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

• Corporate Experience

• Key Personnel and Qualifications

• Management Capability

• Past Performance

Evaluation Factors

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NON-COST AND

COST FACTORS

The Non-Cost Evaluation Factors, when combined, are more important but not significantly more important than Cost.

Evaluation Cost Realism

The Government shall conduct a cost realism analysis to determine:

• What the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort;

• The Offeror’s understanding of the work; and

• The Offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

Note: This Solicitation includes FAR 52.237-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime.

Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance is one indicator of the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective Contract.

The Government will evaluate the currency and relevance of the Past Performance Information, source of the information, context of the data, and the general trends in the Offeror’s past performance.

Rating Descriptions

High Confidence

Past performance information provides virtually no doubt that the Offeror will successfully perform the Contract. Virtually no Government intervention is expected for Offeror to meet Contract requirements.

Substantial Confidence

Past performance information provides little doubt that the Offeror will successfully perform the Contract. Little Government intervention is expected for the Offeror to meet Contract requirements.

Confidence Past performance information indicates the Offeror should be able to successfully perform the Contract. Some Government intervention is expected for the Offeror to meet Contract requirements.

Little Confidence

Past Performance information indicates substantial doubt that the Offeror will successfully perform the Contract. Significant Government intervention is expected for the Offeror to meet Contract requirements.

Neutral The Offeror has no relevant performance record (See, FAR 15.305). This is a neutral rating. The Offeror is not evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Technical Evaluation

M.2.3 Technical Evaluation

(a) The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal and the Offeror’s (1) understanding of Government requirements; (2) the quality of the proposed services; and, (3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

ability to provide quality services, accomplish the technical requirements, and perform the prospective Contract successfully.

• M.2.3.A. Corporate Experience

• M.2.3.B. Key Personnel Qualifications

• M.2.3.C. Management Capability

M.2.3.A – Corporate Experience

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Experience to assess

(1) the understanding of Government requirements;

(2) the quality of the proposed services; and,

(3) the likelihood of successfully performing the prospective Contract.

Corporate Experience

Rating Descriptions

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates services of outstanding quality and a mastery of Government requirements that go beyond that required by the Solicitation. The proposal benefits the Government in a meaningful way. The proposal has only strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies. There are no performance risks: The Offeror will undoubtedly successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Very Good Proposal demonstrates very good services and reflects a strong understanding of the Government’s requirements. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. There are minor performance risks: The Offeror will very likely successful perform the prospective Contract.

Good Proposal demonstrates acceptable services and an acceptable level of understanding of Government requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting. There are moderate performance risks: The Offeror will likely successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet service requirements and does not reflect an understanding of Government requirements. The weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies outweigh strengths.

Performance risk is unacceptable: The Offeror will not successfully perform the prospective Contract.

M.2.3.B. Key Personnel Qualifications

The Government will evaluate the education, knowledge, skill, and abilities of the Offeror’s Key Personnel to assess

(1) the understanding of Government requirements;

(2) the quality of the proposed services; and

(3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

Rating Descriptions

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates services of outstanding quality and a mastery of Government requirements that go beyond that required by the Solicitation. The proposal benefits the Government in a meaningful way. The proposal has only strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies. There are no performance risks: The Offeror will undoubtedly successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Very Good Proposal demonstrates very good services and reflects a strong understanding of the Government’s requirements. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. There are minor performance risks: The Offeror will very likely successful perform the prospective Contract.

Good Proposal demonstrates acceptable services and an acceptable level of understanding of Government requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting. There are moderate performance risks: The Offeror will likely successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet service requirements and does not reflect an understanding of Government requirements. The weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies outweigh strengths.

Performance risk is unacceptable: The Offeror will not successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Management Capability

M.2.3.C. Management Capability

The Government will evaluate the Staffing Plan to assess

(1) the understanding of Government requirements;

(2) the quality of the proposed services and,

(3) the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing the prospective Contract.

Rating Descriptions

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates services of outstanding quality and a mastery of Government requirements that go beyond that required by the Solicitation. The proposal benefits the Government in a meaningful way. The proposal has only strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies. There are no performance risks: The Offeror will undoubtedly successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Very Good Proposal demonstrates very good services and reflects a strong understanding of the Government’s requirements. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. There are minor performance risks: The Offeror will very likely successful perform the prospective Contract.

Good Proposal demonstrates acceptable services and an acceptable level of understanding of Government requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting. There are moderate performance risks: The Offeror will likely successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet service requirements and does not reflect an understanding of Government requirements. The weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies outweigh strengths.

Performance risk is unacceptable: The Offeror will not successfully perform the prospective Contract.

Recap

Best Value Award

• The Government intends to award one (1) Contract resulting from this Solicitation to the Offeror whose Proposal represents the best value after proposal evaluation.

• The Government will consider awarding the Contract resulting from this Solicitation to other than the lowest priced Offeror (Cost Factor) or other than the highest technically rated Offeror (Non-Cost Factors).

Recap

• The Non-Cost Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

– Corporate Experience (Part B1);

– Key Personnel and Qualifications (Part B2);

– Management Capability (Part B3); and.

– Past Performance (Part B4).

• The Cost Evaluation Factor is the Estimated Cost and Fee after application of Cost Realism Analysis

• The Non-Cost Evaluation Factors, when combined, are more important but not significantly more important than Cost.

BREAK

RESUME IN 30 MINUTES

Review of Section C:

Services in Context

• NESDIS Ground Enterprise

• General Activities

• Example Specific Needs

NESDIS Ground Enterprise

The Ground Enterprise Connects Multiple Elements of NESDIS

Fairbanks Ground

Station – POES

GOES/GOES-R

(West)

GOES/GOES-R

(East)

TDRS

(Satellite)

White

Sands

TrollSat

Antarctic

METOP-A,B

(AM) Secondary

Backup

NOAA POES

(AM/PM)

CBU

Fairmont

SNPP/

JPSS-1 (PM)

NOAA Partners

Archive and

Access (CLASS)

Satellite

Operations

Data

Products Ingest, Process and

Distribute

Non–Satellite Data

CDA CDA

LEGEND

Commanding and

Telemetry

Commanding or

Telemetry

GOES Re-

Broadcast

User

Community

NSOF

CDA

Svalbard

Ground

Station –

JPSS McMurdo

Ground

Station–

JPSS D/L

Wallops

Ground

Station

GOES / POES

NESDIS Ground Enterprise

• Command and Control

• Communications and Data Transfer

– Polar and Geostationary orbits

– Secondary and ancillary data sources

• Models

• European and Asian Observatories

• Future Commercial Sources

• Product Generation

– Multiple Levels

– Blended Products

• Product Distribution

– Varying Latencies

– Multiple Formats

General Activities

• Configuration Control Services

– Requirements : DOORS and Magic Draw

– As-Is System Description

• Sunflower Inventory

• Clear Case / Clear Quest based tools

• Common Operational Picture

• Data and Document Stewardship

– Interfaces : Control and Requirement Documentation

– Operational Concepts : Use Cases and Test Data

– NIST 800 Series IT Security Controls

General Activities

• Engineering and Technical Services

– Office Actions and Data Calls

– Risk Management

– Architecture to Design to Implementation

– Validation and Verification: Plans, Procedures, Artifact Definition

• Acquisition Support

– Make-Buy Decisions / Request for Proposal (RFP) Development

• Create, collect and generate data and reports of findings

NESDIS Activities and Estimated LOE Support

Organization Nominal Peak

Assistant Chief Information Officer – Satellites (ACIO-S) 2 Heads 2 Heads

Office of System Architecture and Advanced Planning (OSAAP) 7 Heads 35 Heads

Office of Satellite Ground Services (OSGS) 40 Heads 80 Heads

Office of Projects, Planning and Analysis (OPPA) 12 Heads 24 Heads

Joint Polar Satellite System Program Office 25 Heads 50 Heads

GOES-R Series Program Office 14 Heads 28 Heads

Total (More or Less) 100 Heads 221 Heads

Example Specific Needs

• ACIO-S : IT Infrastructure and Security

• OSAAP : NESDIS Enterprise Planning including Space Segments

• OSGS : NESDIS Ground Enterprise Acquisition

• OPPA : Collaborative and International Project System Acquisition

• JPSS : Polar –orbiting System Acquisition

• GOES-R : Geostationary System Acquisition

ACIO-S

• Continuity of Operations (COOP)

– Develop procedures and documents to execute contingency operations for NESDIS mission essential areas

– Analyze contingency and continuity plans for current operational and future satellite ground and administrative support systems

– Assist with exercising and evaluating activities associated with approved operational contingency and continuity plans

ACIO-S

• Radio Frequency Spectrum (RFS)

– Conduct analyses for the Development, Modernization and

Enhancement (DME) of new and existing Satellite Program Radio Frequency (RF) systems

– Evaluate current and emerging RF systems and technologies for use with current and future domestic and international satellite missions

– Develop link analyses, interference analyses and anomaly resolution studies

– Assist with preparation for and participation in technical meetings and discussions with international and interagency partners and cooperative organizations

– Provide recommendations for performance specifications, work statements, test procedures and plans to sustain, upgrade, and enhance antenna system infrastructure

OSAAP

• Systems Analysis including Space Segments

– Enterprise Level

• Process Development

• IT Integration

• Includes External Users

• Risk management / Quality management

– Top level integration across programs / Future architectures

OSAAP

• Requirements

• Assessment and tracking

• Flow down from User to Enterprise to Programs

• Capturing needs of a large user base across disparate disciplines

• Developmental Project Management (pre- Formulation)

• System Engineering studies based on future architecture recommendations

• Design and risk reduction studies

• Technology maturation

OSGS

• Transition of NESDIS Ground Enterprise Architecture to Design

– Uses Magic Draw

– Technical design analysis

– Cost-Benefit design analysis

– Roadmaps and recommendations

• Requirements flow down and tracing

– Uses DOORS

OSGS

• Development of sustainment project plans and associated task descriptions

– Uses MS Project

• Development of integrated logistics and preventative maintenance plans

– Uses TBD Tool

• Development, Sustainment and Maintenance RFP support

– Note OCI Issue

OPPA / JPSS / GOES-R

• Support to Program and Project Management Offices

– Ground System(s) sustainment planning

– Ground System(s) transition from NASA to NOAA

• Alignment of Program Management and Systems Engineering roles and responsibilities

• Alignment of Tools and Processes

– Assumption of vendor oversight

– Planning for follow-on sustainment and maintenance contracts

Summary

• Broad “typical” SETA support to most phases of Space Systems Acquisition

• Surge Support

– Transition of major ground segment procurements, JPSS and GOES-R from NASA development and integration to NOAA sustainment, maintenance and operations

– Transition from Mission Specific Systems to a Ground Enterprise through serial sustainment investments

– Development of next generation NESDIS space architecture

Submission of Questions