RFI LMX Sections L and M Fv2.pdf

L.11 GSFC 52.215-210 MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

(COMPETITIVE). (NOV 2017)

Contents of Mission Suitability Volume Instructions

(a) General Instructions

(b) Mission Suitability Volume Format

(c) Mission Suitability Instructions

(a) General Instructions

The Mission Suitability Volume should be specific, detailed, and provide all the information requested by these instructions. The Mission Suitability Volume must demonstrate that the Offeror understands the requirements and has the ability to meet the requirements. General statements such as the "requirements are understood" or "standard procedures will be employed" are not adequate. Also, restatement or paraphrasing of the requirements should be avoided. Information previously submitted, if any, will not be considered unless it is resubmitted as part of the Mission Suitability Volume. It must not be incorporated by reference.

(b) Mission Suitability Volume Format

The Mission Suitability Volume must be presented as described in paragraph (c).

(c) Mission Suitability Instructions

The paragraph numbering, formatting, and sub-paragraphs within the Factor below should not be construed as any indication of priority, weighting or as any establishment of elements or lower level criteria. The paragraph numbering is only provided for clarity, traceability, and ease of reading between Mission Suitability Sections L and M.

A – Technical/Management Approach

A.1 Technical Approach

The Offeror's technical approach shall demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and describe the techniques and procedures that will be used to satisfy the requirements in a timely and cost-effective manner. The technical approach shall address the following in enough detail to clearly and fully demonstrate that the Offeror understands the requirements and the inherent problems associated with the objectives of this procurement:

• Describe how the trade studies addressed in SOW section 2.1 will be performed and how results will be integrated to develop a recommended conceptual design;

• Describe how the Lightening Mapper design concept will be developed that meets baseline requirements and can be built, tested, and delivered to meet the program schedule milestones stated in SOW section 1.2.b;

• Identify and describe any open issues with the design and how those issues will be resolved;

• Describe how the cost estimate, as stated in the SOW section 2.4, for the design, manufacture, and test of the flight instruments will be developed.

A.2 Management Approach

The Offeror's proposal shall describe in detail its overall management approach for the proposed activities. The proposal shall describe the organization and management methods that will be utilized in performing work under the contract and shall also describe plans for interfacing with and facilitating communication with the Government’s personnel. The Offeror shall also list all subcontract team members for major components and describe their role.

A.3 Schedule

The Offeror shall submit a notional study schedule that shows completion of all major tasks, trades, reviews, and deliverables to meet the SOW requirements. The schedule shall identify any interrelationships among tasks. The schedule shall be delivered in both pdf and MS Project.

A.4 Risk Assessment

The Offeror shall provide a risk assessment. The risk assessment is to be composed of two parts: 1) any risks associated with completion of Phase A Study SOW requirements;

and, 2) the risks associated with the development of the flight instrument. The risk assessment shall identify the most significant potential risks to completing the requirements specified in the SOW during the study period as well as a preliminary list of the most significant risks associated with development of the flight instrument. The preliminary assessment of the flight instrument development risks shall be used as the basis and justification for any proposed technology development and/or risk management effort(s) as discussed in paragraph A.5.

Risk factors may be those inherent in the work or unique to the Offeror's chosen approach. General areas of possible risk that are of concern to NASA are technical, schedule, cost, security (including personnel, information technology), export control, and environmental risks. The identification of risks is the responsibility of the Offeror.

The Offeror's discussion of a risk factor shall provide the Offeror's approach to managing the risk--the probability of the risk, impact and severity, and risk acceptance or mitigation.

A.5 Technology Development and Risk Mitigation for Flight Program

Based on the preliminary risk assessment called out in paragraph A.4, the offeror shall identify and clearly define any technology development and risk mitigation efforts that the offeror proposes to be carried out during this study phase under this contract to reduce risk. The offeror shall provide a detailed schedule showing key technology development

/ risk mitigation milestones. The offeror shall describe the scope of the effort, the associated benefits, the desired results and a discussion of how the proposed technology development and/or risk mitigation interrelates with the Technology Readiness Level

(TRL) assessment and plan and/or risk assessment deliverables as stated in SOW sections

2.3 and 2.4, respectively. The Offeror shall include Attachment F as part of the model contract in the Offer Volume of the proposal.

The technology development effort is intended to mitigate schedule risk associated with low TRL items whose predicted duration requires starting during the study phase instead of waiting until the flight contract in order to achieve TRL 6 by Preliminary Design

Review. An example of a risk mitigation effort would be an effort not associated with a low TRL item but that could still benefit from additional development, analysis, modeling, proof of concept, or qualification testing to demonstrate a new design concept or integration and test technique.

The Offeror may receive credit for the proposed technology development and/or risk mitigation only to the extent of its description in Attachment F, and the associated benefits explained in its Mission Suitability Volume. Inconsistent statements about any proposed technology development and/or risk mitigations in an Offeror’s proposal may result in a neutral or negative evaluation by the Government.

(End of provision)

L.12 GSFC 52.215-230 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME (MAR 2020)

The Offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the following information in support of its proposal to facilitate the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance as related to the requirements of the proposed contract.

(a) INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR

Prime Offerors shall furnish the information on up to three (3) contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts with a minimum cost/fee incurred of $1,250,000 that your company has had within the last 5 years of the RFP release date that have developed a conceptual design and implementation approach.

If a prime Offeror is submitting past performance data on a current/past contract vehicle that includes multiple tasks, orders, etc, all effort under that contract vehicle may be consolidated for the purposes of meeting the minimum cost/fee incurred in the instructions above and for the purpose of evaluating contract relevance for the proposed requirement.

If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

The Offeror shall provide the following information on the past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the Prime Offeror:

• Customer's name, E-mail address, and telephone number of both the lead contractual and technical personnel most familiar with the Offeror’s performance record. (Please verify the information provided is current and correct).

• Cage Code and/or DUNS Number of the contractor performing the work.

• Contract number, type, and total original and present or final contract value.

• Date of contract, place(s) of performance, and delivery dates or period of performance.

• Brief description of contract work and comparability to the proposed effort. It is not sufficient to state that it is comparable in magnitude and scope. Rationale must be provided to demonstrate that it is comparable.

• Method of acquisition: competitive or noncompetitive.

• Nature of award: initial or follow-on. If initial, indicate whether award was preceded by a Government, customer, or Offeror financed study.

• Identify and explain major technical problems and how they were overcome. List any major deviations or waivers to technical requirements that were granted by the customer.

• Identify and explain completion successes and delays, including adherence to program schedules. Provide an assessment of the performance (technical and schedule) on these past programs and support these assessments with metrics such as award or incentive fees earned.

• Cost management history; identify and explain any cost overruns and underruns, and cost incentive history, if applicable.

• Recent customer evaluations of past performance including Award Fee

Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance

Evaluation Forms, etc. (Excluded from the page limitation).

• List any contracts terminated (partial or complete) within the past 5 years and basis for termination (convenience or default). Include the contract number, name, address, and telephone number of the terminating officer (please verify telephone numbers). Include contracts that were "descoped" by the customer because of performance or cost problems. (Excluded from the page limitation).

L.13 PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The offeror shall complete clauses B.1 and B.3 in the attached model contract in its entirety. Failure to properly complete clauses B.1 and B.3 may result in the Offeror's proposal deemed non-responsive and removed from further consideration. The Firm

Fixed Price is not to exceed $5,000,000.

Deviations to the contract percentage for milestone payments for the Kick-off

Meeting and Monthly Progress Reviews (MPRs) #1-3 under clause B.3 may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305-70), preclude award to an offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an offeror's competitive standing.

B.1 1852.216-78 FIRM FIXED PRICE (DEC 1988) [FOR OFFEROR FILL-IN]

The total firm fixed price of this contract is $ TO BE PROPOSED.

(End of clause)

B.3 GSFC 52.232-99 MILESTONE PAYMENT SCHEDULE (FIXED PRICE)

(NOV 2013) [FOR OFFEROR FILL-IN]

(a) Subject to other limitations and conditions specified in this contract, milestone payment shall be made to the Contractor upon delivery and acceptance of the milestone events described under paragraph (b).

(b) The payment schedule amount shall be calculated by the application of the contract percentage established per milestone event to the total fixed price amount indicated under Section B contract clause NFS 1852.216-78, Firm-Fixed Price.

Event Qty Contract

Value %

Payment Completion Criteria

Kick-off Meeting 1 10 $ To Be

Proposed (TBP)

Upon Successful completion of the meeting

Monthly Progress

Review (MPR)

#1

1 8% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR#2 1 8% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR#3 1 8% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR #4 1 8% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR #5 1 8 $TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

Mid-Term

Review

1 10% $ TBP Review conducted, all required changes to presentation package completed, and all action items closed/resolved

MPR #7 1 6% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR #8 1 6% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR #9 1 5% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

MPR #10 1 5 $ TBP Successful completion of the

Review and closed action items

Final Review 1 10% $ TBP Review conducted, all required changes to presentation package completed, and all action items closed/resolved

Final Report 1 3% $ TBP Successful completion of

Final Report requirements and closed action items

Risk Mitigation

Report and

Technology

Development

Report

1 5% $ TBP Successful completion of the

Risk Mitigation Report and

Technology Development

Report.

(c) The Contractor may submit requests for payment not more frequently than monthly, in a form and manner acceptable to the Contracting Officer. Unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer, all milestone payments in any period for which payment is being requested shall be included in a single request, appropriately itemized and totaled.

(d) The Contractor shall not be entitled to payment of a request for milestones payment prior to successful accomplishment and acceptance by the Government of the milestone event. The Contracting Officer shall determine whether the milestone event or performance criterion for which payment is requested has been successfully accomplished and accepted by the Government in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Contracting Officer may, at any time, require the Contractor to substantiate the successful performance of any event or performance criterion which has been or is represented as being payable.

(End of clause)

(END OF SECTION L)

SECTION M-EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GSFC 52.209-300 PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

AND SPECIAL STANDARDS (MAR 2019)

(a) The procedures for determining whether prospective contractors and subcontractors are responsible are set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Deficiencies concerning the general standards of prospective contractor responsibility at FAR 9.104-1, and any special standards established for this procurement under FAR 9.104-2, will result in a determination of non-responsibility. As with all aspects of prospective contractor responsibility, a finding of non-responsibility can be made at any time prior to contract award.

(b) The following additional requirements for eligibility have been established for this procurement: None

M.2 GSFC 52.215-300 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS

GENERAL (SEP 2019)

1. Source Selection

This competitive negotiated acquisition shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, "Source Selection", and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, same subject. The

Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, "NASA Source Evaluation

Boards" will not apply.

The attention of Offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, "Proposal evaluation" and to NFS 1815.305-70, "Identification of unacceptable proposals".

A trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, will be used in making source selection.

The Government anticipates evaluating and selecting up to two offers based on the proposals as submitted. Awards are anticipated to be up to $5,000,000 each for all of the effort described in the SOW, including any proposed technology development or risk mitigation effort.

Evaluation Factors

The evaluation factors are Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. These factors, as described at NFS 1815.304-70, will be used to evaluate each proposal. This

Section M provides a further description for each evaluation factor.

Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the

Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the

Mission Suitability is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price Factor.

M.3 GSFC 52.215-311 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR (AUG 2018)

The Government may choose to incorporate any positive aspects of an Offeror’s approach to meeting/exceeding contract requirements into the final contract, particularly if any positive proposal area results in Strength or Significant Strength findings in the

Mission Suitability evaluation. An Offeror’s proposed Mission Suitability approach shall be consistent with its proposed price information.

(a) Mission Suitability Factor and Description

A – Technical/Management Approach

A.1 Technical Approach

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach including all areas and information specified in Section L.11, Paragraph A.1, for efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, reasonableness, and degree of risk.

A.2 Management Approach

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach, including all areas and information specified in Section L.11, Paragraph A.2, for efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, and reasonableness.

A.3 Schedule

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed schedule, including all areas and information specified in Section L.11, Paragraph A.3, for efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, and reasonableness.

A.4 Risk Assessment

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of potential risks and risk management plans, including all areas and information specified in Section L.11, Paragraph A.4, for effectiveness, reasonableness, clarity, and realism.

A.5 Technology Development and Risk Mitigation for Flight Program

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s technology development and/or risk mitigation efforts, including all areas and information specified in Section L.11, Paragraph A.5, for efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, reasonableness, and degree of risk.

(b) Evaluation Findings

The Government will evaluate proposals by classifying findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies using the following:

Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness – a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency – 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

Strength (not in FAR/NFS) – a proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government

Significant Strength (not in FAR/NFS) – a proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government

Mission Suitability subfactors, when used, will be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings and definitions:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response.

Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

M.4 GSFC 52.215-330 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR (MAY

2018)

An offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on FAR Part 15 and the evaluation criteria in this provision. All past performance references must meet the “recent” and minimum cost/fee expenditures criteria provided below for the prime contractor references in order to be evaluated.

A “recent” contract is a contract that is ongoing or completed less than 5 years prior to the issuance of this RFP. Contracts completed more than 5 years prior to issuance of this

RFP will not be considered recent and will not be considered or evaluated.

A “relevant” contract depends on the size and content of the contract with respect to this acquisition.

For a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally

“relevant”, it must meet/exceed a cost/fee incurred of at least $1,250,000.

If the contract is deemed recent and meets the above minimum cost/fee expenditures criteria, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size and content. Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance. The term “content” means the type and complexity of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The

Government may consider past quantities and periods of performance in evaluating overall relevance.

The past performance evaluation will be based on customer satisfaction and/or contract data in meeting technical, schedule, cost, and management requirements. The

Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint

Venture prime partner companies) to the proposed prime contractor where the proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

An Offeror shall not be rated favorably or unfavorably if the Offeror does not have a record of “recent” and “relevant” past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable. In such cases the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating. However, an

Offeror with favorable, recent, and relevant past performance that meets the minimum cost/fee expenditures indicated above may be considered more favorably than an offeror with no relevant past performance information.

The Government will consider an Offeror’s explanation of any problems encountered on any identified contracts, and any corrective actions taken by the Offeror.

The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative; past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information.

Past Performance Ratings – The level of confidence ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the Past Performance factor for each Offeror.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” The following adjectival rating guidelines will be used when subjectively assessing both components.

High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results;

reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the

Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

M.5 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price analysis is described at FAR 15.404-1(b). This analysis is done to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government.

(END OF SECTION M)