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