1 nnm07818505r presolicitation conference ares i upper stage presolicitation conference january 17,...

1NNM07818505R Presolicitation Conference

Ares I Upper StagePresolicitation Conference

January 17, 2006


Upper Stage Status Management

Management Documents in Place FY08 – FY12 Draft Work Packages in Review Cycle IMS established Risks Identified and Managed

DAC-1c Complete Common Bulkhead Configuration Selected

Design Optimization underway Manufacturing Updates underway Integrated Test planning underway

Advanced Development Solicitations in work TVC – Final Released (Actuators, TPA) RCS – Draft Released (Thrusters) MPS – Final Released (Pre-Valves, Vent/Relief Valves)

Manufacturing Demonstration Product Forms contracts in place

Barrel Sections Stretch-formed Gore panels Y-rings Spun-formed shapes


Recent Adjustments to the US Element

Programmatic Dedicated manager has been assigned to Small Solids – Ron Nichols

Includes Ullage Settling Motors and Booster Deceleration Motors Currently book kept in MPS WBS and IPT Considering creating a unique Small Solids WBS and IPT

New MPS Subsystem Manager – Kent Chojnacki SRR Kick Off Tentatively Rescheduled to February 20

Technical Changes Changes to the Thrust Vector Control System

From: Turbine-Pump Assembly (TPA) system with an electric back-up system

To: Power Take Off (PTO) system with a TPA backup Note: Fall back is a TPA/TPA system if TPO is not feasible

Changes to the First Stage Roll Control System From: 800 pound thrust Bi-Propellant system To: 600 pound thrust Mono-Propellant system Also changing to pneumatically operated valves

Changing the Upper Stage Roll Control to a Blow-Down System Baselined Spun-Formed Domes for Common Bulkhead Dome


Upper Stage Organization

B. Tournabe

J. Dilg

J. NeelyD. McGaha

R. Hoffman S. Harvison

C. Popp

J. OrnsbyD. Bailey

K. ChojnackiS. Hutchens

Manufacturing & AssemblyC. Jones

SE&IJ. SheltonS. Counts

Structures & ThermalJ. FunkW. Walz

MPSK. Chojnacki

Avionics & SoftwareC. NolaL. Blue

LogisticsC. Bramon

RCSP. Best

TestJ. Bland

TVCD. Frate

Chief Engineer: M. Verhage Assistant CE: T. Smith

Eng Integration: J. Lomas

Upper Stage OfficeManager: D. DavisDeputy: J. Cook

Assist. Manager: Fred BickleyGRC Manager: D. Hoffman

PP&C Manager Jeff MayoProcurement Earl PendleyS&MA Manager Joel Anderson

Small SolidsR. Nichols


Integrated Product Team Structure

MPS SSMMPS Product

LeadUSP Lead

Upper Stage Office ManagerChief Engineer

Upper Stage Product Integration Manager

USP Lead

SE&I SSMLead Systems

EngineerUSP Lead

Str. & ThermalSSM

STR Product Lead

USP Lead

ManufacturingSSM

MFG Product Lead

USP Lead

RCS SSMRCS Product

LeadUSP Lead

TVC SSMTVC Product

LeadUSP Lead

Avionics & SW SSM

Avionics Product Lead

Logistics SSM

Product LeadUSP Lead

Test SSMProduct

LeadUSP Lead

Small Solids SSM

MPS Product Lead

USP Lead

Analysis and Integration Team (AIT)


DAC-1C Configuration


DAC-1B/DAC-1C Illustrative Comparison

DAC-1B Changes:

Combined Forward Skirt and Instrument Unit

Hydraulic TVC (PTO)

US RCS: Reduced number of thruster valves, increased number of isolation valves, changed from two hydrazine tanks to one

FS Roll Control: Eliminated redundant thruster valves, added isolation valves

FS and US RCS: Change from solenoid to pneumatic valves

Cryogenically cooled GHe LOX tank pressurization

DAC-1C Changes:

(All DAC-1B changes, plus)

Common Bulkhead

Hemispherical aft dome

Integrated Thrust Structure

TVC change from PTO to TPA

Streamlined Avionics

Composite Interstage

12:1 rib aspect ratio

Wall thickness tolerance from +/-0.010” to +/-0.005”

Optimized LO2 slosh baffles

Added Ullage Settling Motors (4X2)

MPS line diameter change from 8” to 10” lines

DAC-1C w/ Separate Tanks: Separate tanks Hemispherical aft LO2 dome Adjusted DAC-1C MPS Composite Intertank based on

DAC-1C Composite Interstage

www.nasa.gov

Draft RFP OverviewDraft RFP OverviewRequirements DocumentsRequirements Documents

Jerry CookJerry Cook

Draft RFP OverviewDraft RFP OverviewRequirements DocumentsRequirements Documents

Jerry CookJerry Cook


Upper Stage Production DRFP

SEB Members Earl Pendley Ralph Carruth Fred Bickley Keith Layne Jerry Cook

Process for Question & Answer Session Index cards are available for you to submit written questions for

this afternoon’s session

Please provide your questions prior to the lunch break

We will respond to as many questions as possible within the time allocation this afternoon

Include all questions submitted today with your responses to the Draft RFP Due by COB January 26, 2007


Roles and Responsibilities

NASA Design, development, test and evaluation of the Upper Stage

Element Technical and Programmatic Integration

Development of requirements and specifications for the Upper Stage

Development of manufacturing and assembly planning, logistics planning and the operations support planning

Integration of the primary elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle

Upper Stage Production (USP) Contractor Manufacture and assembly of the Upper Stage Element

including the Government furnished property Support NASA during the design and planning phases Design, development, test and evaluation of all Source

Controlled Items (SCI) as described in the SOW


DRFP Overview USP Contract Major Hardware Deliverables

Ground Vibration Test ArticleUS Qualification HardwareUpper Stage Flight Test Articles

Ares IBB Ares 2 Orion 3

Upper Stage Operational Flight Units 2 Upper Stage Units per contract year (2014-2016)

Optional Upper Stage Operational Flight Units Up to 4 additional Upper Stage Units per contract year (2014-2016)


Planned Transition Points

NASA plans to transition full responsibility for the following at key points during the development and implementation of the Upper Stage project:

Manufacturing and Assembly US PDRLogistics Support Infrastructure US PDRConfiguration Management US CDRSustaining Engineering US DCR

NASA will assume an insight role for these functions after the completion of an orderly transition


DRFP – Attachment J

Overview / Organization

SOW is aligned with the established Upper Stage WBS structure

SOW describes only the functions to be performed by the Upper Stage Production Contractor

Tasks to be performed by the NASA Design Team (NDT) are described in the NASA work packages

Upper Stage Conceptual Design and Specification details are provided in the Upper Stage Design Definition Document (USO-CLV-SE-25704-1C)


DRFP – Attachment J (continued)

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Documents

3.0 Project Management (136905.08.05.01)

4.0 Systems Engineering and Integration (136905.08.05.02)

5.0 Structures and Thermal (136905.08.05.03)

6.0 Main Propulsion System (136905.08.05.04)

7.0 US Reaction Control System (136905.08.05.05)

8.0 FS Reaction Control System (136905.08.05.07)

9.0 Thrust Vector Control System (136905.08.05.07)

10.0 Avionics and Software (136905.08.05.08/.09)

11.0 Integrated Test (136905.08.05.10)

12.0 Logistics Support Infrastructure (136905.08.05.11)

13.0 Manufacturing and Assembly (136905.08.05.12)


Subsystem SOW Organization (S&T, MPS, USRCS, FSRCS, TVC)

__.1 Producibility Engineering USP is supporting the NDT

__.2 DDT&E USP is performing engineering and integration for the SCI

__.3 SCI DDT&E USP is performing all tasks required for the DDT&E of the SCI

__.4 Subsystem Testing Support (IDIQ) USP is providing support to the NDT in the planning and

execution of NASA conducted subsystem level testing




Documents The Applicable Regulations, Documents, and Procedures

provided in Attachment J-6 are the results of a NASA led bottom up effort to develop the list of documents required to design, develop, deliver and operate the Upper Stage.

As stated in SOW section 2.0. the USP may request the use of alternate documents by providing a meets or exceeds assessment to NASA for written approval

Producibility Engineering “Leveraging manufacturing and logistics/supportability

expertise during the design phase of the US development process to ensure that the US design is optimized to reduce overall life cycle cost and maximize operability”

The USP will support the NDT during the initial design and development phase of the project by providing producibility engineering via the established US IPT structured organizations.



Source Controlled Items (SCI)

“Sub-assemblies, components, and / or piece parts that are designed and / or procured by the USP as an end item or off-the-shelf item per a NASA provided or NASA approved specification”

List of Subsystem specific SCI is provided in each respective section of the SOW.

List of SCI will evolve as the US design matures

USP has the flexibility to determine the best approach for providing the SCI as required to the manufacture, assembly and checkout of the US development test articles, flight test articles and the production flight articles.


Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Tasks

Special StudiesSustaining EngineeringSubsystem Testing SupportElement Ground Test SupportConstellation Flight Test SupportTraining SupportGround and Flight Operations Support

NASA will issue a Task Order for USP performance of these efforts in accordance with Clause H-3.

H.3 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE (NFS 1852.216-80) (OCT 1996)

DRFP Attachment J (continued)



The DRDs for this contract will be tailored to accommodate the transfer of the NASA design to the Contractor- provided production and sustaining engineering.

During the initial transition and integration into the NDT, the USP shall provide inputs to the NDT developed DRDs as specified in the SOW.

The USP shall develop, update and implement the data submittal for all DRDs required during the DDT&E of the subsystem specific SCI.

After DCR, the Contractor shall assume responsibility of the sustaining engineering of the system design and as such, shall assume responsibility of system data requirements previously supported from a component perspective.



The Government has provided a list of services and property that will be provided for on-site USP personnel at MSFC and MAF in Attachment J-3.

The contractor assumes user responsibilities, as outlined in Clause G.9, List of Installation-Accountable Government Property, for property made available to the contractor as Installation – Accountable property for use in the performance of contract requirements.



The Government has provided a list of estimated cost and fees as outlined in Attachment J-5.

CLIN Structure

CLIN 1 Developmental Hardware CLIN 2 Ares IBB Test Flight Article CLIN 3 Ares 2 Test Flight Article CLIN 4 Orion 3 Test Flight Article CLIN 5 Producibility Engineering CLIN 6 DDT&E Phase IDIQ CLIN 7 Operation Upper Stage Flight Units CLIN 8 Production Phase IDIQ CLIN 9 Production Units Provisioning Requirements & Spares

(IDIQ) CLIN 10 Upper Stage Operational Option Units



Upper Stage Element level milestones are provided in Attachment J-8 and the Upper Stage Subsystem level milestones are provided in Attachment L-6.

The USP shall develop an integrated schedule to manage its day to day functions required to meet the Upper Stage requirements and milestones.

As part of the annual Agency level operating plan activities for the upcoming year, NASA will evaluate the Constellation manifest. Any changes/updates/revisions that will impact the Upper Stage Element will be posted as soon as possible to the acquisition portal website and will be reflected in the final RFP.



The Government has provided a list of property and equipment in Attachment L-5 Government-Furnished Property and Government Furnished Equipment that will be made available to the USP.

The USP may propose other Government property or equipment not contained in Attachment L-5 if required to perform the duties and tasks defined in the SOW.

The USP shall provide their proposed lists of Government Furnished Property and Government Furnished Equipment in Attachments J-11 and Attachment J-12 respectively.

www.nasa.gov

Draft RFP OverviewDraft RFP OverviewSections B-I, L and MSections B-I, L and M

Earl PendleyEarl Pendley

Draft RFP OverviewDraft RFP OverviewSections B-I, L and MSections B-I, L and M

Earl PendleyEarl Pendley


DRFP Section B

B.4 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY- SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM (CLIN 10)

Up to 4 additional units per yearUnilateral modification 36 months prior to flight

date

B.5 COST AND PRICE REFRESHProposal required within 90 days after a

successful Ares I Upper Stage Conceptual Design Review (CDR).

The Government may direct the proposed cost to be with objective incentive fees or an alternate incentive arrangement.


DRFP Section B

B.6 INDEFINITE DELIVERY / INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

(a) The IDIQ portion of this contract is only applicable to the work described in Attachment J-1, Statement of Work, as Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ). This work will be authorized via task orders (TO) issued by the CO in accordance with Clause H.3, Task Ordering Procedure.

This clause establishes the minimum and maximum quantity values including cost and fees for each IDIQ CLIN of the contract as set forth in Attachment J-5, Estimated Cost and Fees, and in accordance with the rate table in Attachment J-16, Schedule of Fully-Burdened Labor Rates, for CLINS 6 and 8. For CLIN 9, orders will be negotiated within the maximum fee rate defined in paragraph e below.

MIN($) MAX($)

CLIN 6 $ 100K $ 75M

CLIN 8 $ 100K $100M

CLIN 9 $ 100K $100M


DRFP Section E

E.4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE PROCESS

USP manufactures IU structure and transfers to the IU Production

Contractor

Instrument UnitPrimary Structure

WithoutAvionics


WithAvionics


With AvionicsInstalled into Final

Upper Stage Assembly

IU Production Contractor installs avionics and associated hardware

and returns IU to USP

USP installs IU and completes Upper Stage Assembly & Checkout

Final Inspection and Acceptance of the completed Upper Stage Assembly (via DD250 and per Clause E.6) upon

successful completion of final integration, assembly, checkout and

preparation for loading onto the barge for transportation


DRFP Section F

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance of this contract shall be from contract award through December 31, 2016.

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE The Contractor shall perform the work under this contract at MSFC, MAF, (Contractor fill-in), and at such other locations as may be approved in writing by the CO.

F.4 DELIVERY AND / OR COMPLETION SCHEDULEThe Contractor shall deliver items in accordance with Attachment J-2, Data Procurement Document, and Attachment J-8, Ares I / Upper Stage Milestones.


DRFP Section G

G.11 AWARD FEE FOR END ITEM CONTRACTS

NOTE: For purposes of the “final award fee evaluation,” the entire fee pool will be allocated to distinct phases of the contract beginning with the completion of the initial human flight, which is further defined as the end of the DDT&E phase of the program, and the fee pool will consist of the total potential award fee for CLINs 1-6. Award Fee, if any, for the production phase of the program (CLINs 7-10) will be negotiated post CDR in accordance with Clause B.5, Cost and Price Refresh.

Sample AF Plan included as Attachment L-3.


DRFP Section H

H.2 LIMITATION OF FUTURE CONTRACTING

H.3 TASK ORDERING PROCEDURE

H.4 SPECIAL STUDIES (CLINs 6 and 8)

H.6 SAFETY AND HEALTH

H.7 SAFETY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

H.9 SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CONTRACT CHANGES

“…no change made pursuant to the “Changes” clause shall give rise to an equitable adjustment in the estimated cost or fee or any other contract provision when said change causes an increase or decrease of $500,000 or less in the estimated cost of this contract.”

H.10 MAJOR BREACH OF SAFETY OR SECURITY

H.12 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES

H.15 INDEMNIFICATION FOR UNUSUALLY HAZARDOUS RISKS


DRFP Section H

H.16 SPACE FLIGHT MOTIVATION AWARENESS PROGRAM

H.18 ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENTS

“In order to achieve the requirements of this contract, the Contractor shall establish, in conjunction with the ELO Project Office, the means for coordination and exchange of information with Associate Contractors.…”

H.19 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (EIT) POLICIES


DRFP Section I

REFERENCE CLAUSE FAR 52.243-2 Changes-Cost Reimbursement A Deviation has been granted to include changes in the Ares I Flight Manifest as within the general scope of the Changes Clause.

I.2 ORDER LIMITATIONS

(a) Minimum order…$1,000.00

(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor - (1) Any order for a single item in excess of

$50,000,000;

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $100,000,000; …


DRFP Section I

I.3 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

I.12 ACCESS TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION

I.13 RELEASE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION

I. 17 PIV CARD ISSUANCE PROCEDURES(Attachment J-10)


DRFP Section K

K.1 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

K.2 REPRESENTATION OF LIMITED RIGHTS DATA AND RESTRICTED COMPUTER SOFTWARE


DRFP Section L

L.2 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION

Any communications in reference to this solicitation shall cite the solicitation number and be directed to the following Government Representative.

Name: Earl PendleyPhone: (256) 544-2949 (collect calls not

accepted)E-mail: [email protected]: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Mail Code: PS40 Attn: Earl Pendley MSFC, AL 35812


DRFP Section L

L.3 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (DEVIATION)

“NOTE TO OFFERORS: A deviation is in process to FAR 15.306 (c) which requires a comprehensive evaluation for competitive range determination. The deviation will allow for an optional, expedited summary evaluation of acceptable proposals to determine whether all such proposals are suitable for inclusion in the competitive range. The summary evaluation will be based on all three factors (Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance).”

L.4 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

ESMD Acquisition Website Portal; www.exploration.nasa.gov; Acquisition Portal; Information for Potential CLV Developers

Contact the Contracting Officer as directed above at Provision L.2, Communications Regarding this Solicitation.

http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/


DRFP Section L

L.5 MAKE OR BUY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

“The Offeror shall submit a Make-or-Buy Program in accordance with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.407-2.”

L.6 TYPE OF CONTRACT

“The Government contemplates award of a Cost Plus Award Fee contract resulting from this solicitation.”

L.7 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE PERIOD

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall remain firm for at least 240 days after the date specified for receipt by the Government and shall contain a statement to this effect.

http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart_15_4.html#1088101


DRFP Section L

L.14 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS

Proposal Section Page Limit

Volume I – Mission Suitability Factor Key Personnel Resumes

225 pages [see paragraph (f) for exclusions to page count] Key Personnel Resumes-3 pages per resume and a total of no more than 30 pages in addition to the 225 pages for Mission Suitability

Volume II – Past Performance Factor

10 pages (plus separately submitted Customer-provided questionnaires which do not count in the page limit)

Volume III – Cost Factor No limit

Volume IV – Completed Model Contract, Signed SF33’s, and Section K Certifications

No limit

Volume V– Plans / Draft DRDs Safety, Health, and Environmental Plan Small Business Subcontracting Plan Manufacturing and Assembly Plan Make or Buy Program

30 pages 40 pages 75 pages 25 pages


DRFP Section L

Exclusions from Page Limitations:

1. Title pages, tables of contents, and divider pages (pages for division of proposal parts with no narrative text) are excluded from the page count specified in paragraph (a) above.

2. While Volume III has no page limit, this volume is to be strictly limited to cost and price information. Information that the Government determines as belonging in one of the other volumes of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that volume’s page limitation.

3. The summary matrix cross-referencing the SOW requirements and proposal responses are excluded from the page limitation.


DRFP Section L

Title Number of Copies

Volume I – Mission Suitability Factor

20

Volume II – Past Performance Factor 10

Volume III – Cost Factor 5

Volume IV – Completed Model Contract, Signed SF33’s, and Section K Certifications

3

Volume V – Plans Safety, Health, and Environmental Plan Small Business Subcontracting Plan Manufacturing and Assembly Plan Make or Buy Program

5 3 20 20

L.15 PROPOSAL FORMAT


DRFP Section L

L.16 DUE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

The due date and time for receipt of proposals is as follows:

Volume Title Date Local Time

II Past Performance Factor 03/16/07 1:00 p.m.

I Mission Suitability Factor 04/02/07 1:00 p.m.

V Plans and DRDs 04/02/07 1:00 p.m.

III Cost Factor 04/13/07 1:00 p.m.

IV Completed Model Contract, 04/13/07 1:00 p.m.

Signed SF33’s, and Section K

Certifications


DRFP Section L

L.18 Socioeconomic Goals The following percentage goals of the total contract value

have been established for this requirement. :

17.3 percent for SB concerns 6.5 percent for SDB concerns 4.0 percent for WOSB concerns 1.2 percent for HUBZone SB concerns 1.2 percent for SDV concerns 0.5 percent for HBCUs/OMIs

The goals for SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, SDV, and HBCUs/OMIs, while stated separately as a percentage of the total contract value, are subsets of the overall SB goal.

Offerors … are encouraged to propose on exceeding the

stated goals where practical. The percentage goals are expected to flow down to first tier large business subcontractors who are encouraged to meet or exceed the stated goals.


DRFP Section L

L.21 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for the contract resulting from RFP NNM07181505R is September 1, 2007 through December 31, 2016.

TECHNICAL BASELINE

For proposal purposes the Offerors shall utilize the Upper Stage conceptual design described in the USO-CLV-SE-25704-1C, Upper Stage Design Definition Document which is available at the bidder’s library …


DRFP Section L

The proposal should adhere to the following outline to aid the Government’s evaluation of Volume I, Mission Suitability Factor:

Management Approach Subfactor

MA1 Management Approach (and a separate Safety, Health, and Environmental Plan)

MA2 Subcontract/Supply Chain Management (and a separate Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Make or Buy Program)

MA3 Cost and Life Cycle Cost Management

MA4 Staffing

MA5 Key Personnel

MA6 Schedule

MA7 Management Approach Risk Management


DRFP Section L Technical Approach SubfactorTA1 Technical Transition Approach

TA2 Manufacturing Approach (and Draft Manufacturing and Assembly Plan)

TA3 Development Approach

TA4 Producibility Engineering

TA5 Test Support

TA6 Systems Engineering

TA7 Sustaining Engineering

TA8 Operations Support

TA9 Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA)

TA10 Technical Risk Management

Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization SubfactorSD1 Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation

SD2 SDB Risk Management


DRFP Section L

Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor

The Mission Suitability Factor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), to include: their familiarization with the existing Government design; understanding of the Upper Stage Element development approach being performed by the NASA Design Team and the Contractor’s role in providing producibility support; the Offeror’s plan for transitioning and assuming the Upper Stage Element development responsibilities; and subsequently satisfying the SOW requirements; the Offeror’s capability to build the Upper Stage; and the likelihood that the proposed approach will result in the successful manufacture and delivery of the Upper Stage and the successful completion of the Ares I missions.


DRFP Section L

Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor

Throughout this Factor, the Offeror shall : …identify and discuss any proposed innovative and streamlined approaches…

…approach for integration with the NASA Design Team with an emphasis on operability and manufacturing efficiency…

…proposed an integrated approach to transition its organizational structure, workforce, and infrastructure.


DRFP Section L


MA1 Management Approach - The proposal shall include a detailed description of the management approach for fulfilling the SOW requirements throughout the period of performance.

Management Transition Management Systems Element Integration Logistics Approach ICE Utilization Safety, Health, and Environmental Plan


DRFP Section L


MA2 Subcontract / Supply Chain Management

Make or Buy Program …effective flowdown of requirements to respective

subcontractors and subsequent configuration control methods…

… the approach to monitor and transition NASA initiated advanced development contracts.

… their approach to mitigate and manage any organizational conflict of interest issues…

… the results of the latest Contractor Purchasing System Review…

… the approach to achieve or exceed the socioeconomic business goals…(except SDB)


DRFP Section L


MA3 Cost and Life Cycle Cost Management – The proposal shall address the approach to minimize cost without sacrificing technical performance and safety throughout the period of performance.

…implement innovations to minimize cost.

… approach for integrating cost management with technical, safety, and risk management.

…to performing the initial Integrated Baseline Review and the subsequent updates as required in the SOW.

…to influence and support life cycle cost analyses for

technical and programmatic trades and decisions, including the use of databases, tools, models, and processes.


DRFP Section L


MA4 Staffing An approach to ensure appropriate technical

competencies and skill levels for each phase of the project

Schedule and approaches for staffing and integrating the proposed team throughout key transitional activities to include:

Phase-in approach Integration of producibility engineering staff with the

NASA Design Team. Approach and readiness to transition staffing to

manufacturing and assembly. Approach and readiness to assume full responsibility no

later than 90 days after key program milestones.

Organizational structure aligned to the NASA US WBS Staffing resources sufficient to effectively respond to surge

capacity requirements An approach to implement and maintain a training and

certification program for all personnel.


DRFP Section L Management Approach Subfactor

MA5 Key Personnel Key Personnel resumes per Attachment L.2…

Each resume shall include for each individual their experience, past performance, education, commitment, availability and overall suitability to the assigned position.

The proposal shall provide the rationale for selecting each

individual for the respective position and for determining which positions are key.

MA6 Schedule - The proposal shall provide….

…the approach for integrating with and managing to the Upper Stage Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

…an element level schedule for integrating all activities…

….a detailed timeline from initial access to MAF through tooling set-up and checkout to production of test articles and flight units


DRFP Section L


MA7 Management Approach Risk Management The proposal shall include an approach for

identification, mitigation, and reporting of risks inherent in the Offeror’s approach to this Subfactor. The proposal shall include an approach for integrating risk mitigation into the Upper Stage Risk Management process.


DRFP Section L

Technical Approach Subfactor

TA1 Technical Transition Approach – The Offeror shall provide….

the proposed approach to effectively transition from supporting the NASA led Upper Stage activities to performing all required SOW activities to include the manufacture and assembly, logistics support, configuration management, and sustaining engineering of the Upper Stage.

a risk assessment identifying aspects of this technical transition that it considers to be most challenging and provide proposed mitigation approaches it intends to employ and thus lower the associated risk.


DRFP Section L


TA2 Manufacturing Approach – The proposal shall include a draft Manufacturing and assembly Plan…

The proposal shall

…include a description of the approach to minimize proprietary processes, tools, and techniques…

…the rationale for the selection of tooling and special test equipment, source of the tooling or equipment, and evidence of availability of each item…

…describe the use of manufacturing practices, processes, and procedures to mitigate conflicts of resources in data management, manpower, and equipment and to ensure the efficient use of Government assets to streamline production flows, improve quality, improve safety, and minimize schedule and cost.

… describe innovative and streamlined manufacturing and assembly approaches throughout the period of performance.


DRFP Section L

Technical Approach Subfactor TA3 Development Approach –The proposal shall describe

the approach for design, development, qualification, and certification for the Upper Stage Source Controlled Items.

TA4 Producibility Engineering – The proposal shall include: an approach to establish an initial Producibility

Engineering team. an approach to integrate the Contractor’s Producibility

Engineering team with the NASA Design Team.

TA5 Test Support - The proposal shall include an approach to support ground and flight testing through the issuance of IDIQ Task Orders. The proposal shall specifically address test support for the Upper Stage Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA), Ground Vibration Test (GVT), Ares I flight tests and subsystem testing.


DRFP Section L


TA6 Systems Engineering - The proposal shall include an approach to systems engineering to include supporting the Government or performing requirements development and flow down, trades and analyses, verification, and validation.

TA7 Sustaining Engineering - The proposal shall provide:

…the approach to investigating in-flight anomalies and problem reports as well as the incorporation of corrective action into production.

….the approach for other Sustaining Engineering functions such as incorporating new materials into production as a result of changing vendors or materials obsolescence and for long term development and infusion of new technology or design modifications to improve processes, enhance reliability, reduce cost or reduce schedule.


DRFP Section L Technical Approach Subfactor

TA8 Operations Support – The proposal shall include an approach to provide ground and flight operations support…

TA9 Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) – The proposal shall include an approach for S&MA and discuss, as a minimum:

Systems Safety; Reliability and Maintainability; Quality Assurance; Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Problem Reporting and Corrective Action; Limited Life Items; Alerts; and Software Quality Assurance.

TA10 Technical Risk Management – The proposal shall

include an approach for identification, mitigation, and reporting of risks inherent to the Offeror’s approach to this Subfactor. The proposal shall provide the approach for continued risk assessment and mitigation in the technical aspects of contract performance.


DRFP Section L

Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization Subfactor….apply to both large and small business Offerors.

… apply to SDB Offerors only if the SDB Offeror has waived the price evaluation adjustment factor….

SD1 Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation …. approach for maximizing participation of small

disadvantaged business firms….. the approach to meet or exceed the small disadvantaged

business goals as … part of the overall Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

… include the extent of commitment to SDBs, the types, amount, complexity, the variety of work to be performed, and the proposed approach to flow down …

SD2 SDB Risk Management – … an approach for identification, mitigation, and reporting of

risks inherent to this Subfactor.


DRFP Section L

Volume II - Past Performance Factor The Offeror shall provide…

…relevant experience and contracts which the Offeror and the proposed major subcontractor(s) have performed (or are performing) during the past 4 years to include a description of how each respective contract is similar in size and complexity to the proposed USP contract.

…submit one “Past Performance Interview/ Questionnaire Form” , to customer references, for up to 10 of the Offeror’s most relevant contracts which are currently being performed or have been completed within the last 4 years.

The maximum of 10 forms

shall include at least four forms for relevant contracts performed by the proposed prime contractor

should include up to three forms for relevant contracts performed by each major subcontractor.


DRFP Section L

Volume II - Past Performance Factor

In addition to Contractor provided references, the NASA Past Performance Database and references known to the SEB will be checked as deemed necessary. Instructions for completing the Past Performance Questionnaires are contained on the form.


DRFP Section L

Volume III - Cost Factor

Major subcontractors are defined as those subcontractors having a total contract value equal to or greater than $50 million (at any tier) for the inclusive effort.

…NASA is requiring Offerors to provide “detailed cost proposal” data on at least 80 percent of the contract value proposed for CLINs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10.…The costs that are not submitted as part of the detailed cost proposal must be included as a single line entry, at a minimum, to provide an accounting for 100% of the proposal value for CLINs 1,2,3,4,5,7, and 10.

Multiple Spreadsheets and Basis of Estimates are required.


DRFP Section M

Source Selection Authority (SSA)Source selection will be made by the Deputy Associate Administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD).

Evaluation Factors and SubfactorsAcceptable offers will be evaluated using the following:

Mission Suitability FactorPast Performance FactorCost Factor


DRFP Section M

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

While only the Mission Suitability Factor is scored, in order to provide the Offeror with an indication of the relative importance of the three factors listed above, the following information is furnished:

The three factors, Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost are essentially equal in importance.

Per FAR 15.304 (e) the following information is provided: Mission Suitability and Past Performance Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost Factor.


DRFP Section M

The Subfactors to be used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Management Approach 525 pointsTechnical Approach 425 pointsSmall Disadvantaged Business Utilization 50 points

TOTAL 1,000 points


DRFP Section M

Mission Suitability Section M is consistent with Section L.

NOTE for the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Utilization Subfactor

The Government will evaluate this Subfactor in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-23 “Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns” in Section M.2 of this solicitation. If the Offeror qualifies as a SDB and has elected to waive the price evaluation factor adjustment by clearly stating so in their proposal in accordance with the FAR Clause 52.219-23 in Section M.2, the SDB will receive the evaluation points associated with this SDB participation subfactor.


DRFP Section M

Past Performance Factor Adjective Rating

Excellent

Very Good Good Fair Poor Neutral


DRFP Section M Cost Factor (Volume III)

The Cost Factor is an indicator of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating each Offeror’s proposed costs to determine if the estimated 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 as described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The evaluation of the Cost Factor will include an assessment of the cost of doing business with each Offeror and the possibility of growth in proposed cost during the course of the program.

The Government will develop a most probable cost for each Offeror by adjusting each proposal’s costs to reflect additions or reductions based on the Government’s cost realism analysis for CLINS 1-5, 7, and 10.

The level of confidence in the most probable cost will be assessed and reported to the SSA.


DRFP Section M

Cost Factor (Volume III) The Government will analyze and report proposed rates and NTE

Fee Rates for cost evaluation of IDIQ CLINs 6, 8, and 9 (NTE Fee Rate only for CLIN 9). The Government’s cost realism assessment of the proposed fully burdened labor rates for CLINs 6 and 8 will be reported to the SSA as part of the level of cost confidence.

Significant adjustment to the proposed cost will result in a reduced Mission Suitability score in accordance with NFS 1815.305. A maximum of 300 points may be deducted from the Mission Suitability score…

Point Adjustment

+/- 30 percent 0 +/- 31 to 40 percent -50 +/- 41 to 50 percent -100 +/- 51 to 60 percent -150 +/- 61 to 70 percent -200 +/- more than 70 percent -300


Other Considerations

Industry Comments are strongly encouraged in accordance with the DRFP cover letter instructions.

Key areas of interest: Validation that the CLIN structure will allow for

effective accomplishment and tracking of work to be performed.

Reasonableness of the page limitations for proposal preparation.

Reasonableness of the due dates for the various volumes.

Ability to respond effectively to the producibility engineering requirement.

Contractor and Government responsibility matrix. DRD organization, content, and submission dates and

frequencies.


Other Considerations

Pending Industry comments and subsequent review, the following items are also under consideration for change for the Final RFP:

Reduced Number of CLINs Combining Small Business with SDB as one

Subfactor Design and manifest updates


DRFP Comment Submission

Submit DRFP comments per the instructions in the cover letter:

“Any communication in reference to this draft solicitation shall cite the solicitation number and be directed to the above Government representative. All comments concerning this DRFP are due no later than COB on January 26, 2007.

Submittals, other than a signed cover page, shall be via electronic media in “Word for Windows,” version Microsoft Word 2003 format (and Excel for the matrix at enclosure) and shall be provided on quality, virus-scanned, virus-free CD-ROM. Each electronic media provided shall have an external label affixed indicating: the name of the Offeror and the DRFP number. All electronic media shall be write-protected and submitted with write protection properly enabled. Please do not respond via e-mail. The Government will not issue specific responses to each comment received.”


Housekeeping/Tour Information

No recording or photographs, to include cell phone photos, during the tours.

Stay in the main group while going to lunch (lunch in our cafeteria is strongly encouraged to maintain security and schedule).

In case of separation from the main group call Protective Services at 544-4356

Make sure your visitor badge is clearly displayed above the waist.

Questions Write on the provided index cards for consideration today

and place in the “Questions” box Potential for oral questions this afternoon Please follow-up any comments or questions with a written

submittal in accordance with the DRFP cover letter.


Upper Stage Instrument Unit Update

The separate IU acquisition continues to proceed per previously announced schedules.

Anticipated DRFP release scheduled for on or about April 2007

Point of Contact is now Ketela Helton at 256-544-7179 or email at [email protected]

IU Updates will continue to be posted at the RFI website (NAIS); Upper Stage updates will be at the pre-solicitation notice website (NAIS).

mailto:[email protected]


Conclusion

Topics covered today are not inclusive and potential offerors should not place any added emphasis based on the content of this briefing.

Information provided today is to assist in the development of proposals; however the Final RFP will take precedence.

Continue to monitor the NAIS and ESMD websites for updates.

Final RFP release is on or about February 23, 2007.

Schedule for Today (approximate times) Tours 10:30- 12:30 Lunch 12:30-2:00 Q and A 2:00 – 3:00 Board Buses to return to Space and Rocket Center – 3:00