march 9, 2012. history ◦ nasa hq & jsc lean 6 sigma teams recommended various ways to...
TRANSCRIPT
NEW STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT (SLP) PROCESS
Johnson Space CenterOffice of ProcurementMarch 9, 2012
HISTORY◦ NASA HQ & JSC Lean 6 Sigma Teams
Recommended various ways to streamline process JSC STREAMLINED TEAM CHARTER
◦ Document and communicate clear guidance for the legal office, procurement, and technical communities
◦ Develop and implement a more streamlined acquisition process than current SEB process for less complex procurements under $50 million Reduce number of procurements using the more complex
SEB process Result in shorter acquisition time
Streamlined Procurement Process
FAR 15.002(b) Competitive acquisitions. When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101).
15.101 Best Value Continuum. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary...
FAR Considerations
4
Best Value Continuum
FAR Part 8 and 12FAR Part 8 and 12
FAR Part 15
Full Trade-Off
PPTPerformance/
Price Trade-Off
LPTALow-Price/
Tech Acceptable
Simplified & Sealed Bid
FAR Part 13 & 14
Low Price
Non-CostCost
Price Perf
Trade-off
Tech Acceptable
Greater Importance of Price Lesser
Lesser Technical Complexity Greater
*Option to evaluate pastperf but no comparative assessment or ranking. FAR 15.101-2(b)
Limited Tradeoff (LTO)(old midrange v/c)
SEB Process
Typically for technically complex requirements ◦ “Demonstration of understanding” that offerors
can do the job◦ Typical SEB Evaluation Factors:
Mission Suitability (MS) Cost/Price Past Performance (PP)
SEB presents evaluation results to Source Selection Authority (SSA). ◦ SSA will make a best value “tradeoff decision”
using the factors and the relative importance of those factors as detailed in the RFP.
Source Evaluation Board (SEB)Required for $50M and over
If the solicitation allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to Government and are considered proposal strengths may be incorporated into the contract.
Source Evaluation Board (SEB)(cont.)
Typically used for less complex requirements◦ Any competitive negotiated acquisition for which
it is unnecessary to distinguish all levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision.
Firm fixed price and cost type contracts Not appropriate for sole source, sealed
bidding, technically complex acquisitions. Typical SLPT Evaluation Factors:
◦ Technical Acceptability◦ Cost/Price◦ Past Performance◦ Value Characteristics – if deemed necessary
Streamlined Procurement Process
The SLPT presents its evaluation results to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). ◦ The SSA will make a best value “tradeoff decision”
using the factors and the relative importance of those factors as detailed in the RFP.
If the solicitation allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to Government and are considered proposal strengths may be incorporated into the contract.
Streamlined Procurement Process
TRADE OFF FACTORS◦ MISSION SUITABILITY - uses a 1000 point system, with
subfactors that are scored and rated adjectivally – findings used to support scoring (SS, S, SW, W, D)
◦ COST/PRICE◦ PAST PERFORMANCE- Level of Confidence
Very High Level of Confidence
High Level of Confidence
Moderate Level of Confidence
Low Level of Confidence
Very Low Level of Confidence
Neutral
SEB Ratings
Price/Past Performance Trade-Off (PPT)
May or may not request technical proposal Technical acceptability is the first gate, and it is
pass/fail, with Potentially Acceptable SSA Trade-off decision made on past
performance and cost/price Trade-off performed in accordance with the
relative importance of evaluation factors established in the Request for Proposal
Streamlined Procurement Teams (SLPT)
PPT with Limited Tradeoff (LTO)
Same as PPT, but adds predefined value characteristics (VCs) to the trade-off
VCs are above the minimum requirement and act as a clear and concise discriminators
VC Example: Technical Acceptability- Widget cannot weigh more than 6 lbs VC- We are willing to pay more for a lighter widget
VCs must be captured in the contract in order for offeror to receive any rating of value
SLPT
SLPT Ratings FACTORS
TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY- Pass/fall basis• Acceptable (A), • Potentially Acceptable (PA) • Unacceptable (U)
TRADE-OFF FACTORS
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE- Level of Confidence• Very High Level of Confidence• High Level of Confidence• Moderate Level of Confidence• Low Level of Confidence• Very Low Level of Confidence• Neutral
VALUE CHARACTERISTICS (IF LTO IS USED)- Value Added
• Significant Value Added• Value Added• No Value Added
Comparison of SEB and SLPT
SEB PROCESS USING MS
SLPT - BOTH PPT & LTO
Trade Off Factors Factor – Mission Suitability
◦ Subfactor: Management S&W◦ Subfactor: Technical S&W◦ Subfactor: Small Business S&W◦ Subfactor: Safety & Health S&W
Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost
Riddle: Yes
Factor – Technical Acceptability◦ Pass/Fail
Trade-off Factors Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Factor – Value Characteristics (LTO
only)◦ V/C #1 Significant Value◦ V/C #2 Value◦ V/C #3 No Value
Riddle: Yes
14
PPT/LTO Evaluation Process
Evaluation Factors
Evaluation Factors
EvaluatIon
EvaluatIon
Ratings:TechnicalPast Perf.VCs
Initial Evaluation
Debrief
OfferorProposals
Award w/oDiscussionAward w/oDiscussion
Initial Evaluation
Discussions
CompetitiveRange
Determination
CompetitiveRange
Determination
DiscussionsDiscussions
FinalProposal
FinalProposal
ES’s
Final Evaluation
Revise Ratings
AwardAward
Final Evaluation
Briefing
Best Value Decision
ES’s
15
PPT/LTO Pros and ConsPros
Allows for simpler technical acceptability criteria
Recognizes good performers by eliminating marginal and unsatisfactory performers
Potentially greater opportunity to award without discussions
Short evaluation period For LTO: Adds Value
Characteristics (VCs)
Cons Technical superiority not
basis for award Initial learning curve must
be factored into the new process