1 / 15

NEW STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT (SLP) PROCESS Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement

NEW STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT (SLP) PROCESS Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement. March 9, 2012. Streamlined Procurement Process. HISTORY NASA HQ & JSC Lean 6 Sigma Teams Recommended various ways to streamline process JSC STREAMLINED TEAM CHARTER

nehru-garza
Télécharger la présentation

NEW STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT (SLP) PROCESS Johnson Space Center Office of Procurement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NEW STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT (SLP) PROCESSJohnson Space CenterOffice of Procurement March 9, 2012

  2. Streamlined Procurement Process • 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

  3. FAR Considerations • 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...

  4. Best Value Continuum Greater Importance of Price Lesser Lesser Technical Complexity Greater Non-Cost Price Perf Trade-off FAR Part 8 and 12 FAR Part 15 FAR Part 13 & 14 Simplified & Sealed Bid LPTA Low-Price/ Tech Acceptable PPT Performance/ Price Trade-Off Full Trade-Off *Option to evaluate past perf but no comparative assessment or ranking. FAR 15.101-2(b) Tech Acceptable Limited Tradeoff (LTO) (old midrange v/c) SEB Process Cost Low Price

  5. Source Evaluation Board (SEB)Required for $50M and over • 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.

  6. Source Evaluation Board (SEB)(cont.) • 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.

  7. Streamlined Procurement Process • 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

  8. 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.

  9. SEB Ratings • 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

  10. Streamlined Procurement Teams (SLPT) 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Comparison of SEB and SLPT • 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 SEB PROCESS USING MS SLPT - BOTH PPT & LTO

  14. PPT/LTO Evaluation Process Discussions Final Evaluation Competitive Range Determination Revise Ratings Discussions ES’s Final Proposal Final Evaluation Briefing Initial Evaluation • Best Value Decision Award Award w/o Discussion Initial Evaluation Evaluation Factors Ratings: Technical Past Perf. VCs E v a l u a t I o n Offeror Proposals ES’s Debrief

  15. PPT/LTO Pros and Cons Pros 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

More Related