SETS Draft RFP 11.4.21.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135

November 2, 2021 Reply to Attn of: GRC Procurement/CHA

TO: All Potential Offerors

SUBJECT: Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), Solicitation No. 80GRC021R0011, for Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering and Technical Services (SETS)

You are invited to review and comment on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center’s Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering and Technical Services (SETS) solicitation. The principal purpose of this requirement is to provide Administrative Support Services, Communication and Professional Development Services, Information Technology Services, and Technical Knowledge Services for the NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) and the NASA Safety Center

(NSC).

Potential offerors are encouraged to comment on all aspects of the draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal instructions, and evaluation approaches, any perceived safety, occupational health, security (including information technology security), environmental, export control, and/or other programmatic risk issues associated with performance of the work.

Potential offerors should identify any unnecessary or inefficient requirements and are also encouraged to comment on the Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure, any unique terms and conditions, the clarity of the Sample Work Requirements (SWRs), and the Section M Evaluation Criteria.

This competitive acquisition will result in a Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract with an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CLIN with the ability to issue both Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) and CPFF task orders. The contract will have a total potential period of performance of five years, including a three-year Base Period, a one-year Option Period 1, and a one-year Option Period 2. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 611430 Professional and Management Development Training and the small business size standard is $12,000,000.00. The competition will be set aside form Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs).

Potential offerors should ensure its company is listed in the System for Award Management (SAM): https://www.sam.gov/SAM/.

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CONTINUATION SHEET REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

UNIT

OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

Page of

80GRC021R0011

8 136

Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering and

Technical Services (SETS)

Anticipated CLIN Structure:

Section M. Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Source Selection - General

(1) This competitive negotiated acquisition will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, “Source Selection,” and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, same subject.

(2) The attention of Offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, “Proposal evaluation,” and NFS 1815.305-70, “Identification of unacceptable proposals.”

(3) As prescribed in FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals, without discussions. Accordingly, each Offeror should submit its initial proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Should it be determined that discussions are in the best interest of the Government and the consequential establishment of a competitive range is necessary, only the most highly rated proposals will be included in the competitive range. If discussions are deemed necessary, each Offeror included in the competitive range will be advised of weaknesses identified in its proposal and allowed a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the solicitation requirements. At the conclusion of discussions, a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be requested from all Offerors still within the competitive range. Selection will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this section of this solicitation.

(4) Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government.

(5) The Government’s evaluation of proposals will be made on the basis of the material submitted and substantiated in each proposal and not on the basis of what may be implied. A lack of clarity or specificity in an Offeror’s proposal may be interpreted as a lack of understanding and/or the inability to demonstrate adequate qualifications.

(6) The contract award will be based on the evaluation of proposals for the following three factors: Mission Suitability (Volume I), Cost (Volume II), and Relevant Experience and Past Performance (Volume III). All three volumes will be evaluated. In addition to being evaluated, Volume I will be assigned a score that corresponds to an adjectival rating. Volume II, Cost, will only be evaluated for probable cost to the Government based on the Government’s cost realism analysis and will not be assigned a numerical score nor an adjectival rating. In addition to being evaluated, Volume III will also be assigned a Level of Confidence. The SEB will present its findings to the Source Selection Authority, who will select the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government based on the weighting of the evaluation factors detailed in this RFP.

S&MA Engineering and Technical Services (SETS)

DRAFT RFP

(b) Evaluation Factors.

The three evaluation factors for this procurement are indicated below: A general definition of these factors may be found at NFS 1815.304-70, “NASA Evaluation Factors.” These factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

1. Mission Suitability with subfactors:

A. Overall Understanding of the Requirements (UR) B. Management Plan (MP) C. Technical Approach to Sample Work Requirements (SWR)

2. Cost/Price

3. Relevant Experience and Past Performance

M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION FACTOR

Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work, Attachment J.1-B – Statement of Work Appendices, and this solicitation serve as the Government's baseline requirements. The Mission Suitability Factor indicates, for each Offeror, the quality of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is proposed. The Mission Suitability Factor is numerically scored. The Mission Suitability Sub Factors are rated by adjective and numerically scored in accordance with the following table:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION PERCENTILE

RANGE

EXCELLENT

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

91 – 100

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.

71 – 90

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.

51 – 70

FAIR

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses.

Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31 – 50

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.

0 – 30

The following definitions will be used by the evaluation committee to classify the findings of the evaluation of the Offerors.

DEFINITION (FAR 15.001 & NASA Source Selection Guide)

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.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength

An aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

The following Subfactors will be used to evaluate the overall Mission Suitability:

SUBFACTOR A: OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS (UR)

UR1 – UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of and proposed technical approach to meeting each of the requirements of Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, including techniques and procedures. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for identifying the optimum skill mix based upon the requirements of the SOW and for matching the skill mix to services and functions. The Government will evaluate whether a proposal demonstrates that the Offeror thoroughly understands the SOW requirements.

SUBFACTOR B: MANAGEMENT PLAN (MP)

MP1 - MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall plan to effectively manage the work effort to meet the contract requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Plan for adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness in the following areas:

1. The Offeror’s discussion of its approach to task management including managing task orders, amendments, the processes of task order submittal, estimate response, approval, tracking and reporting.

2. The Offeror’s proposed organizational structure, policies, procedures and techniques to manage the work associated with the contract.

3. The Offeror’s discussion of technical management, business management, and subcontract management interrelationships and the delineation of proposed management interaction with NASA personnel.

4. The Offeror’s discussion of responsibilities and authorities of each manager including span of control, degree of autonomy, and lines of communication.

5. The Offeror’s proposed use of subcontractors, teaming arrangements, or other associated contractual arrangements.

6. The Offeror’s overall approach for managing fluctuating workloads in order to meet contract requirements.

7. The Offeror’s proposed use of resources, including: staffing, infrastructure support, facilities for all personnel, and equipment.

8. The Offeror’s discussion of its approach to quality management.

MP2 – RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the proposed risk management plan for adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness in identifying, communicating, and mitigating risks. The risks identified by the Offeror will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the management challenges that may arise during the performance of the contract.

MP3 – KEY PERSONNEL, STAFFING AND TOTAL COMPENSATION PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel to meet the requirements of Attachment J.1-A – Statement of Work, Attachment J.1-B – Statement of Work Appendices, and this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s administrative, human resources, and other business support plan including any subcontractors used for staffing, maintaining, and augmenting a qualified workforce. The Offeror’s overall plan will be evaluated for adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan narrative to determine if it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. The total compensation plan proposed will be evaluated for its expected impact on recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total compensation plan in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement Clause 1852.231-71, “Determination of Compensation Reasonableness” (APR 2015) for the Offeror and its Major Subcontractors.

MP4 – PHASE-IN PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to successfully Phase-In the work, to ensure continuity and a smooth transition of current services and complete the Phase-In within thirty (30) days. The approach will be evaluated for adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness.

SUBFACTOR C: TECHNICAL APPROACH TO SAMPLE WORK REQUIREMENT

(SWR)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of and proposed technical approach to meeting each of the requirements of the four (4) Sample Work Requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, staffing and its function in responding to the requirements, schedule, cost estimating approach, specified work products and deliverables, efficiencies and/or innovations proposed, and additional resources necessary to successfully complete the Sample Work Requirement for adequacy, realism, effectiveness, and completeness.

M.3 COST/PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

Although the cost volume is neither numerically scored nor given an adjectival rating, it is important to the Government’s evaluation that the Offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required. The cost factor is used to determine what the Offeror’s proposal will probably cost the Government should it be selected for award.

A cost realism analysis will be conducted to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government and to assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. Offerors should refer to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of ‘cost realism’ and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of ‘probable cost’. As noted in FAR 15.404(d)(1), the cost realism analysis consists of ‘independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal’.

For purposes of source selection, and in accordance with FAR 52.217-5 ‘Evaluation of Options, the total proposed cost will be utilized. The total proposed cost consists of the Phase In, Base Period plus all Options (including the six-month option to extend in accordance with 52.217-8).

The cost evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404, NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B), and NFS 1815.404.

The status of Offeror systems and audits of such systems will be considered part of the cost evaluation. Evidence of an approved accounting system at proposal submission shall be required for the award of a flexibly price contract, (see FAR 16.304-3(a)(3)).

The results of the Government’s cost evaluation will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the source selection decision. The results of the analyses do not provide a basis for an upward price adjustment after award.

M.4 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

(a) The Government will evaluate Relevant Experience and Past Performance, including that of any Major Subcontractors, by utilizing primarily information in the following three (3) areas:

(1) Past Performance Narrative (PPN)

(2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

(3) Past Performance Databases (PPD)

(b) The results of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation in the above three areas will receive equal weighting in determining the Level of Confidence rating.

Relevancy: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and any Major Subcontractor’s experience within the past three (3) years (prior to the release date of the Final RFP) that had a minimum of six (6) months of contract performance during the same three (3) year period to determine relevancy to the overall requirements of the RFP. Consideration will be given to: the entity’s role as prime or subcontractor, number of employees, value, contract type, recency, customer, scope, and complexity, as compared to the overall requirements of the

RFP.

(c) Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and Major Subcontractors overall performance over the past three (3) years by considering items such as rating history and past performance. In addition, the Government will evaluate cost management history, problems and resolution, contract terminations, relationship with subcontractors, management of large subcontractors, task order administration, cooperation with prior clients, and timeliness of complete business products.

(d) The Government reserves the right to seek out other sources of past performance information and/or conduct one-on-one discussions with cognizant business and technical personnel, whether or not listed in the proposal.

(e) The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance information for other subcontractors not listed as a Major Subcontractor and from other entities that the Government determines, based on the Offeror’s proposal, may substantially contribute to the proposed contract or have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract. In addition, the Government reserves the right to collect and review any additional Relevant Experience and Past Performance information from Government past performance databases, as well as other sources of information available to the Government.

(f) Offerors without a record of Relevant Experience and Past Performance, or for who information on past performance is not available, shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

(g) Relevant Experience and Past Performance information will not be numerically scored but will be consolidated into a single level of confidence rating. Relevant Experience and Past Performance will be evaluated for each Offeror using the following level of confidence ratings:

RATING DESCRIPTION (NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A))

Very High Level of Confidence

The Offeror's relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Cost factor, which is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor. The Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost factor alone.

Within the Mission Suitability Factor, the maximum numerical score each Subfactor may receive is as follows:

Subfactor Points Subfactor A: Overall Understanding of Requirements 450 Subfactor B: Management Plan 300 Subfactor C: Technical Approach to Sample Work Requirements 250

TOTAL: 1,000

M.6 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS. (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

[End of Section]

[END OF DOCUMENT]