RSES Strategy Outline_Indusry Synopsis_18OCT21.pdf

The purpose of this presentation is to answer industry’s questions regarding the RSES proposed hybrid acquisition strategy. Specifically, this presentation is intended to provide clarification on NASA’s draft** approach for soliciting proposals.

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

RSES Industry & Academia Forum Follow-up

• One Proposal – 3-Factor Evaluation

– Technical Volume

– Past Performance Volume

– Cost/Price Volume

• Technical Volume – 3 Sub-parts

1. CLIN 1 Management/Technical*

2. CLIN 2 Management/Technical*

3. CLIN 1 & 2 Integrated Approach*:

• Integrated approach to performing both CLINs, addressing the benefits of integration (e.g., efficiencies, synergies, risk mitigation)

• Not repeating what was proposed in CLIN 1 and CLIN 2, but specifically addressing changes that would occur if selected for both CLINs

• *Offerors proposing on only one CLIN only need to submit the subpart for that CLIN, and do not need to propose anything for the CLIN 1 & 2 Integrated approach

Draft** Strategy Implementation

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

• Past Performance (PP)

– One Volume

– Past Performance Information (PPI) encompassing CLIN 1 and 2 discriminators

• Offerors proposing on only one CLIN only need to submit PPI for that CLIN

• Cost Proposal

– One Volume

– CLIN 1 Subpart*

– CLIN 2 Subpart*

• *No material difference from how proposals are normally priced with multiple CLINs

– CLIN 1 & 2 Integrated Approach

• If offeror is proposing on both CLINs, show the benefits of integration (e.g., efficiencies, cost savings, etc.) as a result of implementing Subpart 3 of technical proposal (this will likely be detailed in cost proposal narrative)

Draft** Strategy Implementation

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

• Technical Volume – potential structuring of evaluation criteria (3 Sub-parts)

1. CLIN 1: Management/Technical** (if offeror is only proposing on CLIN 2, this sub-part is N/A)

• CLIN 1 : Subfactor 1

– Subfactor 1: Criteria 1

– Subfactor 1: Criteria 2…

• CLIN 1: Subfactor 2

– Subfactor 2: Criteria 1

– Subfactor 2: Criteria 2…

2. CLIN 2: Management/Technical** (if offeror is only proposing on CLIN 1, this sub-part is N/A)

• CLIN 2: Subfactor 1

– Subfactor 1: Criteria 1

– Subfactor 1: Criteria 2…

• CLIN 2: Subfactor 2

– Subfactor 2: Criteria 1

– Subfactor 2: Criteria 2…

3. CLIN 1 and 2 Integrated Approach** (for offerors proposing on only one CLIN, this sub-part is N/A)

• For offerors proposing on both CLIN’s, address approach/benefits of integration (e.g., efficiencies, synergies, risk mitigation)

• CLIN 1 & 2: Subfactor 1 criteria

• CLIN 1 & 2: Subfactor 2 criteria

Draft** Technical Volume Evaluation Criteria Structure

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

• Identification of Unacceptable Proposals (NFS 1815.305-70)

• Fully review all acceptable proposals

• Assess each proposal for each CLIN separately

• Assess proposals cumulatively if they proposed on both CLINs

– Subpart 3 may enhance or detract from proposal ratings (i.e., strengths and weaknesses from subpart 3 are additive to individual CLIN strengths & Weaknesses)

• Tradeoff CLIN 001-only proposals pursuant to evaluation factors to identify best value CLIN 001-only proposal

• Tradeoff CLIN 002-only proposals pursuant to evaluation factors to identify best value CLIN 002-only proposal

• Tradeoff cumulative CLIN 001 and 002 proposals pursuant to evaluation factors to identify best value cumulative CLIN 001 and 002 proposal

• Tradeoff the best value CLIN 1- and CLIN 2-only proposals to the best value cumulative CLIN 1 and 2 proposal.

Draft** Evaluation and Selection Methodology

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

Draft** Technical Volume Evaluation Criteria Structure

FACTOR 1 - MISSION SUITABILITY POINTS

CLIN 1 MANAGEMENT & TECHNICAL (Total) 600

CLIN 1 SUBFACTOR 1 300

CLIN 1 SUBFACTOR 2 300

CLIN 2 MANAGEMENT & TECHNICAL (Total)

CLIN 2 SUBFACTOR 1 200

CLIN 2 SUBFACTOR 2 200

CLIN 1 & 2 INTEGRATED APPROACH +/- Points

CLIN 1 ADJUSTMENT

Can add/deduct points based on strengths/weaknesses to CLIN 1 total, but cannot go above 600

CLIN 2 ADJUSTMENT

Can add/deduct points based on strengths/weaknesses to CLIN 2 total, but cannot go above 400

Total 1,000

**DISCLAIMER: The final evaluation method will be communicated in the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). This presentation is for informational purposes only to help answer outstanding questions from industry regarding the Government’s intent. The information presented herein shall not be considered binding on the Government.

Sample** Mission Suitability Scoring Weights