K.1 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS. (JAN 2006) 

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414.

(2) The small business size standard is 1,000 employees.

(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

(b)(1) If the clause at 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (c) of this provision applies.

(2) If the clause at 52.204-7 is not included in this solicitation, and the offeror is currently registered in CCR, and has completed the ORCA electronically, the offeror may choose to use paragraph (c) of this provision instead of completing the corresponding individual representations and certifications in the solicitation. The offeror shall indicate which option applies by checking one of the following boxes:

[ ] (i) Paragraph (c) applies.

[ ] (ii) Paragraph (c) does not apply and the offeror has completed the individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.

(c) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website at http://orca.bpn.gov. After reviewing the ORCA database information, the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified below [offeror to insert changes, identifying change by clause number, title, date]. These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

-----------------------------------------------------
FAR Clause      Title           Date           Change
-----------------------------------------------------

Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted on ORCA.

(End of Provision)

K.2 52.227-15 REPRESENTATION OF LIMITED RIGHTS DATA AND RESTRICTED COMPUTER SOFTWARE. (MAY 1999) 

(a) This solicitation sets forth the work to be performed if a contract award results, and the Government's known delivery requirements for data (as defined in FAR 27.401). Any resulting contract may also provide the Government the option to order additional data under the Additional Data Requirements clause at 52.227-16  of the FAR, if included in the contract. Any data delivered under the resulting contract will be subject to the Rights in Data - General clause at 52.227-14 that is to be included in this contract. Under the latter clause, a Contractor may withhold from delivery data that qualify as limited rights data or restricted computer software, and deliver form, fit, and function data in lieu thereof. The latter clause also may be used with its Alternates II and/or III to obtain delivery of limited rights data or restricted computer software, marked with limited rights or restricted rights notices, as appropriate. In addition, use of Alternate V with this latter clause provides the Government the right to inspect such data at the Contractor's facility.

(b) As an aid in determining the Government's need to include Alternate II or Alternate III in the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data - General, the offeror shall complete paragraph (c) of this provision to either state that none of the data qualify as limited rights data or restricted computer software, or identify, to the extent feasible, which of the data qualifies as limited rights data or restricted computer software. Any identification of limited rights data or restricted computer software in the offeror's response is not determinative of the status of such data should a contract be awarded to the offeror.

(c) The offeror has reviewed the requirements for the delivery of data or software and states (offeror check appropriate block) - 

___ None of the data proposed for fulfilling such requirements qualifies as limited rights data or restricted computer software.

___ Data proposed for fulfilling such requirements qualify as limited rights data or restricted computer software and are identified as follows:

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Note: Limited rights data and Restricted computer software are defined in the contract clause entitled Rights in Data - General.

(End of provision)

K.3 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION. (JUN 2000) 

Note: This notice does not apply to small businesses or foreign governments. This notice is in three parts, identified by Roman numerals I through III.

Offerors shall examine each part and provide the requested information in order to determine Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements applicable to any resultant contract.

If the offeror is an educational institution, Part II does not apply unless the contemplated contract will be subject to full or modified CAS coverage pursuant to 48 CFR 9903.201-2(c)(5) or 9903.201-2(c)(6), respectively.

I. Disclosure Statement - Cost Accounting Practices and Certification

(a) Any contract in excess of $500,000 resulting from this solicitation will be subject to the requirements of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (48 CFR Chapter 99), except for those contracts which are exempt as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201-1.

(b) Any offeror submitting a proposal which, if accepted, will result in a contract subject to the requirements of 48 CFR Chapter 99 must, as a condition of contracting, submit a Disclosure Statement as required by 48 CFR 9903.202. When required, the Disclosure Statement must be submitted as a part of the offeror's proposal under this solicitation unless the offeror has already submitted a Disclosure Statement disclosing the practices used in connection with the pricing of this proposal. If an applicable Disclosure Statement has already been submitted, the offeror may satisfy the requirement for submission by providing the information requested in paragraph (c) of Part I of this provision.

Caution: In the absence of specific regulations or agreement, a practice disclosed in a Disclosure Statement shall not, by virtue of such disclosure, be deemed to be a proper, approved, or agreed-to practice for pricing proposals or accumulating and reporting contract performance cost data.

(c) Check the appropriate box below:

[ ] (1) Certificate of Concurrent Submission of Disclosure Statement. The offeror hereby certifies that, as a part of the offer, copies of the Disclosure Statement have been submitted as follows:

(i) Original and one copy to the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or cognizant Federal agency official authorized to act in that capacity (Federal official), as applicable; and

(ii) One copy to the cognizant Federal auditor.

(Disclosure must be on Form No. CASB DS-1 or CASB DS-2, as applicable. Forms may be obtained from the cognizant ACO or Federal official and/or from the loose-leaf version of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.)

Date of Disclosure Statement: [Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed:] 

The offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting practices disclosed in the Disclosure Statement.

[ ] (2) Certificate of Previously Submitted Disclosure Statement. The offeror hereby certifies that the required Disclosure Statement was filed as follows:

Date of Disclosure Statement: [ ]
Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed: [ ]

The offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting practices disclosed in the applicable Disclosure Statement.

[ ] (3) Certificate of Monetary Exemption. The offeror hereby certifies that the offeror, together with all divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates under common control, did not receive net awards of negotiated prime contracts and subcontracts subject to CAS totaling $50  million or more in the cost accounting period immediately preceding the period in which this proposal was submitted. The offeror further certifies that if such status changes before an award resulting from this proposal, the offeror will advise the Contracting Officer immediately.

[ ] (4) Certificate of Interim Exemption. The offeror hereby certifies that (i) the offeror first exceeded the monetary exemption for disclosure, as defined in (3) of this subsection, in the cost accounting period immediately preceding the period in which this offer was submitted and (ii) in accordance with 48 CFR 9903.202-1, the offeror is not yet required to submit a Disclosure Statement. The offeror further certifies that if an award resulting from this proposal has not been made within 90 days after the end of that period, the offeror will immediately submit a revised certificate to the Contracting Officer, in the form specified under subparagraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of Part I of this provision, as appropriate, to verify submission of a completed Disclosure Statement.

Caution: Offerors currently required to disclose because they were awarded a CAS-covered prime contract or subcontract of $50 million or more in the current cost accounting period may not claim this exemption (4). Further, the exemption applies only in connection with proposals submitted before expiration of the 90-day period following the cost accounting period in which the monetary exemption was exceeded.

II. Cost Accounting Standards - Eligibility for Modified Contract Coverage

If the offeror is eligible to use the modified provisions of 48 CFR 9903.201-2(b) and elects to do so, the offeror shall indicate by checking the box below. Checking the box below shall mean that the resultant contract is subject to the Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices clause in lieu of the Cost Accounting Standards clause.

[ ] The offeror hereby claims an exemption from the Cost Accounting Standards clause under the provisions of 48 CFR 9903.201-2(b) and certifies that the offeror is eligible for use of the Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices clause because during the cost accounting period immediately preceding the period in which this proposal was submitted, the offeror received less than $50 million in awards of CAS-covered prime contracts and subcontracts. The offeror further certifies that if such status changes before an award resulting from this proposal, the offeror will advise the Contracting Officer immediately.

Caution: An offeror may not claim the above eligibility for modified contract coverage if this proposal is expected to result in the award of a CAS-covered contract of $50 million or more or if, during its current cost accounting period, the offeror has been awarded a single CAS-covered prime contract or subcontract of $50 million or more.

III. Additional Cost Accounting Standards Applicable to Existing Contracts

The offeror shall indicate below whether award of the contemplated contract would, in accordance with subparagraph (a)(3) of the Cost Accounting Standards clause, require a change in established cost accounting practices affecting existing contracts and subcontracts.

[ ] yes [ ] no

(End of provision)

K.4 52.230-7 PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE--COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CHANGES.  (APR 2005) 

The offeror shall check ``yes'' below if the contract award will result in a required or unilateral change in cost accounting practice, including unilateral changes requested to be desirable changes.

___ Yes ___ No

If the offeror checked ``Yes'' above, the offeror shall--

(1) Prepare the price proposal in response to the solicitation using the changed practice for the period of performance for which the practice will be used; and

(2) Submit a description of the changed cost accounting practice to the Contracting Officer and the Cognizant Federal Agency Official as pricing support for the proposal.

(End of provision)

K.5 1852.245-79 USE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY. (JUL 1997) 

(a)  The offeror ( ) does, ( ) does not intend to use in performance of any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation existing Government-owned facilities (real property or plant equipment), special test equipment, or special tooling (including any property offered by this solicitation).  The offeror shall identify any offered property not intended to be used.  If the offeror does intend to use any of the above items, the offeror must furnish the following information required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 45.201(b), and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1845.102-71:

(1) Identification and quantity of each item.  Include the item's acquisition cost if it is not property offered by this solicitation.

(2) For property not offered by this solicitation, identification of the Government contract under which the property is accountable and written permission for its use from the cognizant Contracting Officer.

(3) Amount of rent, calculated in accordance with FAR Subpart 45.3 and the clause at FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges, unless the property has been offered on a rent-free basis by this solicitation.

(4) The dates during which the property will be available for use, and if it is to be used in more than one contract, the amounts of respective uses in sufficient detail to support proration of the  rent.  This information is not required for property offered by this solicitation.

(b) The offeror ( ) does, ( ) does not request additional Government-provided property for use in performing any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation.  If the  offeror requests additional Government-provided property, the offeror must furnish  - 

(1) Identification of the property, quantity, and estimated acquisition cost of each item; and

(2) Justification that the Government requirements cannot other be met as prescribed in FAR 45.102.

(c) If the offeror intends to use any Government property (paragraph (a) or (b)  of this provision), the offer must also furnish the following:

(1) The date of the last Government review of the offeror's property control and accounting system, actions taken to correct any deficiencies found, and the name and telephone number of the cognizant property administrator.

(2) A statement that the offeror has reviewed, understands, and can comply with all property management and accounting procedures in the solicitation, FAR 52.245 Government property clauses, and NFS Subparts 1845.5 and 1845.71.

(3) A statement indicating whether or not the costs associated with paragraph (c)(2) of this provision, including plant clearance and/or plant reconversion costs, are included in its cost proposal.

(End of provision)

L.1  SECTION L PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(52.204-6) DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER. (OCT 2003) 

(52.215-1) INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION. (JAN 2004) 

(52.215-16) FACILITIES CAPITAL COST OF MONEY. (JUN 2003) 

(52.219-24) SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PROGRAM - TARGETS. (OCT 2000) 

(52.222-24) PREAWARD ON-SITE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE EVALUATION. (FEB 1999) 

(52.232-38) SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER INFORMATION WITH OFFER. (MAY 1999) 

(1852.227-71) REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS. (APR 1984) 

(1852.227-84) PATENT RIGHTS CLAUSES. (DEC 1989) 

L.2  AVAILABILITY OF SPECIFICATIONS NOT LISTED IN THE GSA INDEX OF FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS AND COMMERCIAL ITEM DESCRIPTIONS (52.211-3) (JUN 1988) 

The specifications cited in this solicitation may be obtained from:

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
GOES R Project, Code 417
Greenbelt, MD 20771

Clelia Walker, Contracting Officer
Telephone:  301-286-1351

The request should identify the solicitation number and the specification requested by date, title, and number, as cited in the solicitation.

(End of provision)

L.3  TYPE OF CONTRACT (52.216-1) (APR 1984) 

The Government contemplates award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

L.4  SERVICE OF PROTEST (52.233-2) (SEP 2006) 

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101  of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from 

Dock Master
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771
Building 16W—Shipping and Receiving Dock

Prominently mark the envelope or package as follows:

Protest: Solicitation Number NNG07193033R
Attn:  Ms. Clelia Walker
GSFC Mail Code 417
Contracting Officer Phone No. 301-286-1351

Note: The Building 16W Shipping and Receiving dock is open from 7:30AM to 3:30PM, Monday through Friday, except Government holidays.  Contractor personnel conduct the GSFC receiving function, which includes mailroom operations.  Protests will be marked with the date and time of receipt, subjected to security screening, secured, and delivered unopened to the Contracting Officer.

There is public access to the Building 16W Shipping and Receiving Dock. GSFC passes, badges, escorts, etc. are not required for access to the receiving dock.

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.
(End of provision)

L.5  SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (52.252-1) (FEB 1998) 

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses:

http://www.acqnet.gov/far/

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clauses:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm

(End of provision)

L.6  PREPROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE (1852.215-77) (DEC1988) 

(a) A preproposal/pre-bid conference will be held as indicated below:

Date:	TBD

Time:	TBD

Location:	TBD

Other Information, as applicable:

(b) Attendance at the preproposal/pre-bid conference is recommended; however, attendance is neither required nor a prerequisite for proposal/bid submission and will not be considered in the evaluation.

(End of provision)

L.7  SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN (1852.223-73) (NOV 2004) 

(a) The offeror shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal (see NPR 8715.3, NASA Safety Manual, Appendices).  The plan shall include a detailed discussion of the policies, procedures, and techniques that will be used to ensure the safety and occupational health of Contractor employees and to ensure the safety of all working conditions throughout the performance of the contract.  

(b) When applicable, the plan shall address the policies, procedures, and techniques that will be used to ensure the safety and occupational health of the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including Contractor employees working on NASA contracts), and high-value equipment and property.

(c) The plan shall similarly address subcontractor employee safety and occupational health for those proposed subcontracts that contain one or more of the following conditions:  

(1) The work will be conducted completely or partly on premises owned or controlled by the government.

(2) The work includes construction, alteration, or repair of facilities in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

(3) The work, regardless of place of performance, involves hazards that could endanger the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including Contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value equipment or property, and the hazards are not adequately addressed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (if applicable).

(4) When the assessed risk and consequences of a failure to properly manage and control the hazards warrants use of the clause.

(d) This plan, as approved by the Contracting Officer, will be included in any resulting contract.

(End of provision)

L.8 INSURANCE - IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY (1852.228-80) (SEP 2000) 

If the offeror is partially or totally immune from tort liability to third persons as a State agency or as a charitable institution, the offeror will include in its offer a representation to that effect.  When the successful offeror represented in its offer that it is immune from tort liability, the following clause(s) will be included in the resulting contract: 

(a)  When the offeror represents that it is partially immune from tort liability to third persons as a State agency or as a charitable institution, the clause at FAR 52.228-7, Insurance - Liability To Third Persons, and the associated NFS clause 1852.228-81, Insurance - Partial Immunity From Tort Liability, will be included in the contract.

(b)  When the offeror represents that it is totally immune from tort liability to third persons as a State agency or as a charitable institution. the clause at NFS 1852.228-82, Insurance - Total Immunity From Tort Liability, will be included in the contract.

(End of provision)

L.9  PROTESTS TO NASA (1852.233-70) (OCT 2002) 

Potential bidders or offerors may submit a protest under 48 CFR Part 33 (FAR Part 33) directly to the Contracting Officer. As an alternative to the Contracting Officer's consideration of a protest, a potential bidder or offeror may submit the protest to the Assistant  Administrator for Procurement, who will serve as or designate the official responsible for conducting an independent review.  Protests requesting an independent review shall be addressed to Assistant Administrator for Procurement, NASA Code H, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

(End of provision)

L.10  NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (1852.234-1) (NOV 2006) 

(a) The offeror shall provide documentation that its proposed Earned Value Management System (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)-748 Standard, Earned Value Management Systems.

(b) If the offeror proposes to use a system that currently does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this provision, the offeror shall submit its comprehensive plan for compliance with the EVMS guidelines to the Government for approval.

(1) The plan shall--

(i) Describe the EVMS the offeror intends to use in performance of the contract;

(ii) Distinguish between the offeror's existing management system and modifications proposed to meet the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748;

(iii) Describe the management system and its application in terms of the EVMS guidelines;

(iv) Describe the proposed procedure for application of the EVMS requirements to subcontractors;

(v) Describe how the offeror will ensure EVMS compliance for each subcontractor subject to the flowdown requirement in paragraph (c) whose EVMS has not been recognized by the Cognizant Federal Agency as compliant according to paragraph (a);

(vi) Provide documentation describing the process and results, including Government participation, of any third-party or self-evaluation of the system's compliance with the EVMS guidelines; and

(vii) If the value of the offeror's proposal, including options, is $50 million or more, provide a schedule of events leading up to formal validation  and Government acceptance of the Contractor's EVMS. This schedule should include progress assistance visits, the first visit occurring no later than 30 days after contract award, and a compliance review as soon as practicable. The Department of Defense Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=19557) outlines the requirements for conducting a progress assistance visit and validation compliance review.

(2) The offeror shall provide information and assistance as required by the Contracting Officer to support review of the plan.

(3) The Government will review the offeror's EVMS implementation plan prior to contract award.

(c) The offeror shall identify in its offer the major subcontractors, or major subcontracted effort if major subcontractors have not been selected, planned for application of the EVMS requirement. Prior to contract award, the offeror and NASA shall agree on the subcontractors, or subcontracted effort, subject to the EVMS requirement.

(d) The offeror shall incorporate its compliance evaluation factors for subcontractors into the plan required by paragraph (b) of this provision.

(End of provision)

L.11  COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION 

(a)  Questions or comments regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing, cite the solicitation number, and be directed to the following Government representative:

Name: 		Clelia Walker
Phone:    	301‑286‑1351
          		(collect calls not accepted)

FAX:   	301-286-9319

E-Mail:  	Clelia.A.Walker@nasa.gov

*Address:  	NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
 		Building 6, Room S-138     		
Greenbelt, MD  20771
           		Attention: Clelia Walker, *Mail Code 417

*(Note:   Must be complete, including Mail Code, on all transmittals.)

The Government will answer relevant and appropriate questions regarding this solicitation.  Any offeror questions should be submitted as soon as possible.  

Oral questions will not be answered due to the possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

(b)  Questions or comments should be submitted within 7 days of the release of the RFP to allow for analysis and dissemination of responses in advance of the proposal due date.  Late questions or comments are not guaranteed a response prior to the proposal due date. 

(c)  Questions or comments shall not be directed to the technical activity personnel. 

(End of provision)

 
L.12 PROPOSAL PREPARATION – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

It is NASA's intent, by providing the instructions set forth below, to solicit information that will demonstrate the offeror's competence to successfully complete the requirements specified in this RFP.  Generally, the proposal should:
•	Demonstrate understanding of the overall and specific requirements of the proposed contract.
•	Convey the company's capabilities for transforming understanding into accomplishment.
•	Present in detail, the plans and methods for so doing.
•	Present the costs associated with so doing.
In the event that other organizations are proposed as being involved in conducting this work, their relationships during the effort shall be explained and their proposed contributions shall be identified and integrated into each part of the proposal, as appropriate.

(a)  	PROPOSAL FORMAT AND ORGANZATION

(1)  Offerors shall submit proposals in 5 volumes as specified below: 

Volume	Title	Copies	
I	Offer Volume	Original plus 3 Hard Copies and 2 electronic copies 	
II	Mission Suitability Proposal	Original plus 10 Hard Copies and 2 electronic copies 	
III A,B,C	Cost Volume 	Original plus 10 Hard Copies, 2 additional copies to DCAA and 2 electronic copies	
IV	Past Performance Volume	Original plus 10 Hard Copies and 2 electronic copies	
V	Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Volume	Original plus 5 Hard Copies and 2 electronic copies	
 
(2)  Offerors, and proposed major and critical subcontractors, shall forward two (2) copies of the Cost Proposal, marked “RFP NNG07193033R/NASA Proposal Evaluation Material”, to their cognizant Defense Contract Auditing Administration (DCAA) office.  A copy of the proposal transmittal letter to DCAA shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer for each Cost Proposal (prime and major and critical  subcontractors) responding to this RFP  

(3)  All pages of volumes I, II, III, IV and V shall be numbered and identified with the offeror’s name, RFP number and date, with the exception of the SF33’s and offeror fill-ins in Volume I..  Subsequent revisions, if requested, shall be similarly identified to show revision number and date.  A table of contents shall be provided with figures and tables listed separately.  

(4)  Two electronic copies of each volume of the offeror’s proposal, designating one as “back-up,” shall be submitted (in addition to the hardcopies specified above) in Microsoft Word and Excel Windows 2003 and Portable Document Format (version 5.0 or greater). Cost proposal charts shall use Microsoft Excel 2003 for Windows. The offeror shall use the files provided for the cost exhibits and schedules required for Volume IIIA of the Cost Proposal.  Include a READ ME type file with each CD detailing the type and version of the word processing package utilized, explaining the disk file structure and naming conventions used and any other information that you feel may be helpful to use these files effectively for the intended purpose.  

Electronic copies of Proposal Volumes I, II, III, IV and V shall be on virus free CD-ROM (CD-R format) discs with an external label indicating:  (1) the name of the Offeror (major/critical subcontractor), (2) the RFP number, (3) the format and software versions used, (4) a list of the files contained on the disk and (5) date of the information.  In the event of any inconsistency between data provided on electronic media and hard copies, the hard copy data will be considered to be correct.

Any tables, figures, fold-out pages or any other material which are graphic in nature should be included on the CD in such a way as to allow this material to be viewed, copied, or printed.

These CDs will be used primarily to assist evaluators with focused (e.g., keyword) searches for information within your Mission Suitability proposal.  Therefore, the entire proposal, including any tables, figures, fold-out pages or any other material which are graphic in nature, must be included on the CD in such a way that a word search can be performed.  However, only the paper copy will be used for evaluation purposes.  

If necessary to segment the proposal on multiple files whether because of disk space or other limitations, the files should have a logical relationship to the proposal structure.  The disks and files shall be in a form that will allow a copy to be made for transfer into or out of a computer disk storage system and shall be free of any known viruses.  Page numbering on the disk file or files shall agree with the page numbers printed on the paper version of the Mission Suitability proposal.

(5)  The format for each proposal volume shall parallel, to the extent possible, the format of the evaluation factors and subfactors contained in Section M of this solicitation.  The proposal content shall provide a basis for evaluation against the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal shall include a matrix showing where in the proposal the technical requirements of the evaluation criteria of this RFP are satisfied (i.e. evaluation criteria section versus offeror's proposal page numbers).  It is intended that this be a simple matrix that should in no way inhibit an innovative approach or burden the offeror.  This proposal matrix is excluded from the page limitations contained in paragraph (b)(1) below.

(6)  Information shall be precise, factual, detailed and complete.  Offerors shall not assume that the evaluation team is aware of company abilities, capabilities, plans, facilities, organization or any other pertinent fact that is important to accomplishment of the work as specified in the Statement of Work (SOW).  The evaluation will be based primarily on the information presented in the written proposal.  The proposal shall specifically address each listed evaluation factor and subfactor. 

(b)	PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS

(1)  The following table contains the page limitations for each portion of the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.  Additional instructions for each component of the proposal are located in the contract provision noted under the Reference heading.  

Proposal Component	
Volume	
Reference	Page Limitations	
Offer Volume	I	L.13	None	
(a)	Standard form (SF) 33
(b)	Offeror’s Fill In’s
(c)	Section K
(d)	Summary of Exceptions
(e)	Master Table of Contents				
Mission Suitability Volume	II	L.14	 300 Pages	
(a) Cover Page, Indices, Evaluation Criteria Compliance Matrix, Safety and Health Plan, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program, Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS Dictionary, Contractor Proposed Enhancements, Implementation Approaches, Acronyms, Appendix			Excluded	
(b) Deviations & Exceptions			Excluded	
Cost Volume	     III A,B,C	L.15		
a) Cost Information	IIIA		Excluded	
b) Basis of Estimates (BOE)	IIIB		3 pages per WBS element*	
c) Summary of Deviations and Exceptions	IIIC		Excluded	
Past Performance Volume	IV	L.16		
(a) Information on the Offeror and its critical or major subcontractors			75 pages** 	
(b) Cover Page, Indices, Past Performance Questionnaires, Small Business Subcontracting History, List of Acronyms 			Excluded	
(c) Deviations & Exceptions			Excluded	
CDRL Volume	V	L.17	Excluded	
PM-01, Program Management Plan 
MS-01, Spacecraft Master Schedule 
PM-57 Risk Management Plan
MA-01 Mission Assurance Plan
SE-01, Systems Engineering Management Plan
SE-05, Validation and Verification Plan
IT-01,  Spacecraft Integration and Test Plan
PM-04, Small Business Subcontracting Plan
PM-13, Safety & Health Plan

* The page limitation for BOEs, which are required to be submitted at the lowest level of the WBS only,  applies to each individual BOE submitted by the prime contractor and each individual BOE submitted by critical and major subcontractors, if applicable, not to the description of the general approach to estimating resources.  Critical subcontractors are any subcontractors (regardless of tier or dollar value) proposed to perform the following:  star trackers, gyros, momentum wheels, structure, propulsion, batteries, solar arrays, magnetometer, and auxiliary communication payloads.  Major subcontractors are any subcontractors proposed to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed total contract cost. The BOE shall be addressed in narrative not to exceed three (3) pages per WBS element.

**The 75 page limit is the maximum for the combination of past performance information from the prime offeror and its critical or major subcontractors.

(2)	A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8-1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 point type.  Line spacing or the amount of vertical space between lines of text shall not be less than single line (Microsoft Word’s default line spacing).  Character spacing shall be “Normal”, not “Expanded” or “Condensed.”  The margins may contain headers and footers, but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated.  Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8-1/2" x 11" pages.  The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8-1/2" x 11" size may also be used.

Volumes I, II, III, IV and V shall be submitted in separate three-ring binders. Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs may be reduced and, if necessary, run landscape or folded to eliminate oversize pages.  Text in Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 8 point.  Diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall not be used to circumvent the text size limitations of the proposal.

(3)  Volumes I, II, III, IV, and V will include the following items as frontispiece materials, which are excluded  from the page counts specified in paragraph (1) of this provision (as well as other documents specified in table (b)(1) above): 

Cover pages,
Title pages, 
Table of Contents (Volume I to include a master table of contents for the entire proposal),
List of tables and Drawings, 
Glossary, Cross Reference Matrix, Exhibits, Acronym List and Appendix. 

(4)  The Cost volume of your proposal is not page limited, except for the Basis of Estimate (BOE) 3 page limit per WBS element in the cost section IIB.  However, this volume is to be strictly limited to cost and price information.  Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other volumes of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that volume's page limitation.

(5)  The Government may evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. A deviation to FAR requirements for establishing competitive range is pending approval.  This deviation will allow the Contracting Officer to determine that all acceptable proposals, submitted in response to the solicitation for the GOES-R program, are in the competitive range without first evaluating and rating those proposals against all evaluation criteria. If discussions are held and final proposal revisions are requested, the Government will specify separate page limitations in its request for that submission.

(6)  Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in this provision will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the offeror in accordance with NFS 1815.204-70(b).
 
(7)  Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.  Parenthetical references to appropriate SOW paragraphs and BOE sections is permitted and encouraged.
(End of provision)

L.13 OFFER VOLUME – VOLUME I

This must be a separate volume.

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, (Contract Schedule Sections A through J) and Section K, (Representations and Certifications). All clauses requiring additional data from the Offeror shall be completed in the Offeror’s Offer Volume.

L13.1	STANDARD FORM (SF) 33, OFFEROR FILL IN’S AND SECTION K

Blocks 12 through 18 of the SF 33 and the indicated Offeror required fill-in’s in Sections B-K must be completed.  The signed SF33 and the pages with the required fill-in’s.  Annual representations and certifications shall be completed electronically in accordance with K.1, Annual Representations and Certifications (52.204-8).  The balance of the solicitation need not be returned unless the Offeror has made changes to other pages that will constitute part of the contract.  Any such changes must be separately identified in the Summary of Exceptions.   All SF 33s require original signatures.

(1)  It is requested that Offerors indicate, in Block 12 of the SF 33, a proposal validity period of 180 days.  However, in accordance with paragraph (d) of FAR provision 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisitions”, a different validity period may be proposed by the Offeror.

(2)  Provide the names and phone numbers of persons to be contacted for clarification of questions of a technical nature and business nature.  Identify any consultants and/or subcontractors used in writing this proposal (if any) and the extent to which their services will be available in the subsequent performance of this effort.

The contract schedule refers to TBS and TBP.  They are defined as follows:

TBS = TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT
TBP = TO BE PROPOSED BY THE CONTRACTOR

L13.2	SUMMARY OF EXCEPTIONS

Include a statement of acceptance of the anticipated contract provisions and proposed contract schedule, or list all specific exceptions to the terms, conditions, and requirements of Sections A through J of this solicitation, to the Representations and Certifications (Section K) or to the information requested in Section L.  Include the reason for the exception, or refer to where the reason is addressed in the proposal.  This list must include all exceptions, both “business” and “technical”.  

Include any new terms, conditions or clauses proposed by the Offeror which are of benefit to the Government.  Discuss the benefit to the Government in Volume I, II, III, IV, or V as appropriate.  
Offerors are cautioned that exceptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305-70), may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an Offeror’s competitive standing.

L13.3	ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED

(1)  Business Systems 

State whether all business systems, including but not limited to accounting, property control, purchasing, estimating, and employee compensation, which require Government acceptance or approval (as applicable) are currently accepted/approved without condition.
Provide the date of acceptance/approval for each system and the cognizant contract administration office.  Explain any existing conditional acceptances/approvals and the compliance status of any system(s) for which acceptance or approval is currently withheld.
FAR 16.405-2(c)(1) requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for providing data for determining costs applicable to the contract.  The offeror shall provide evidence of an adequate accounting system as determined by the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion.  It is a basic contract requirement with a pass/fail determination.  A contract may only be awarded to the offeror(s) who are determined to have an adequate accounting system by DCMA.  

(2)  Contract Administration
Furnish the information listed below:
a)	Cognizant Government audit agency with mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number.
b)	Cognizant Government inspection agency with mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number.
c)	Cognizant Government Administrative Contracting Officer by name with mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number.

(3)  Responsibility Information 
Provide information addressing all of the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility (address the elements under this section that are not addressed in another proposal volume).

(4)  Government Property
Section K of this solicitation contains NASA FAR Supplement provision 1852.245‑79, Use of Government Owned-Property. The provision requires the submittal of certain information if the Offeror intends to use any Government property that may be offered by this solicitation or if the Offeror requests the use of Government property not identified by this solicitation.

(5)  Waiver of Rights to Inventions
This solicitation contains NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.227-70, “New Technology” and NFS provision 1852.227-71, “Request for Waiver to Rights to Inventions”.   Any petitions for advance (prior to contract execution) waiver of rights to inventions should be included in this volume.

(6)  Other Information to be Provided
Provide a copy of a Small Business Administration (SBA) approved joint venture agreement compliant with 13 CRF 124.513, if applicable.

Provide documentation verifying compliance of the proposed Earned Value Management System (EVMS) with the American National Standards Institute/Electronics Industries Alliance (ANSI/EIA) -748 Standard.  If the offeror proposes to use a system that has not been determined to be in compliance with ANSI/EIA - 748 Standard, the offeror shall submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with these EVMS standards.  Offerors shall not be eliminated from consideration for contract award because they do not have an EVMS that complies with these standards.

In accordance with NFS 1852.237-72, Access of Sensitive Information, Offerors shall provide a preliminary analysis of possible organizational conflicts of interest that might flow from the award of this contract.  Within 30 days after contract award, the successful contractor shall submit for NASA approval a comprehensive Organizational Conflicts of Interest Avoidance Plan.  This comprehensive plan shall incorporate any previous studies performed, shall thoroughly analyze all organizational conflicts of interest that might arise because the Contractor has access to other companies' sensitive information, and shall establish specific methods to control, mitigate, or eliminate all problems identified.   The Contracting Officer, with advice from Center Legal Counsel, shall review the plan for completeness and identify to the Contractor substantive weaknesses and omissions for necessary correction. Once the Contractor has corrected the substantive weaknesses and omissions, the Contracting Officer shall incorporate the approved plan into the contract, as a compliance document. 

(End of Provision)

L.14 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. General Instructions for Mission Suitability Subfactors
2. Mission Suitability Proposal Format
3. Specific Instructions for Mission Suitability Subfactors
4. Deviations/Exceptions

L14.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTORS 

Your Mission Suitability Proposal shall describe your proposed approaches under each subfactor with sufficient clarity, depth and rationale to demonstrate that the offeror understands the requirements and has the ability to meet the requirements.  Stating that you understand and will comply with the specifications, or paraphrasing the specifications is inadequate, as are phrases such as:  "Standard procedures will be employed” and “Well-known techniques will be used."  The Mission Suitability Proposal must be sufficient as to how you propose to comply with the applicable specifications, including a full explanation of the techniques and procedures you propose to follow.  Information previously submitted, if any, will be considered only to the extent it is resubmitted.  It should not be incorporated by reference.  

Proposals will be evaluated against the requirements specified in this solicitation. Although the Government does not encourage/discourage enhancements to the GOES-R Spacecraft Statement of Work, Functional and Performance Specification, and Spacecraft Mission Assurance Requirements, offerors may choose to propose enhancements.  In order for the Government to consider a proposed enhancement’s value, the offeror must clearly provide for the enhancement in Contract Attachment J, Contractor Proposed Enhancements, and the offeror must describe the benefit of the proposed enhancement in the proposal under the applicable Mission Suitability subfactor.  The offeror shall include Contract Attachment J as part of the model contract included in the Mission Suitability Volume of the proposal.  The Government may consider proposed enhancements of value only to the extent of its described benefit in Attachment J, as explained in your Mission Suitability Proposal.   Note that the Government intends to include selected capabilities and implementation approaches (i.e. proposed approaches to meeting the requirements) as Attachment K (Implementation Approaches) to the contract.  Offerors may identify any key capabilities, techniques, or implementation features from its Mission Suitability Volume, and propose to include them as Attachment K to the model contract.  

The CDRL items contained in Volume V are considered a part of your Mission Suitability Proposal.  Volume II (Mission Suitability Proposal) of your proposal should contain specific references to associated CDRL items.  The information contained in these CDRL items and provided in Volume V is excluded from the page limitation of your Mission Suitability Proposal as detailed in L.12 above. 

The offeror must identify and discuss the risks associated with the accomplishment of the requirements of the contemplated contract.  This must be done as appropriate in the Mission Suitability Proposal.  Risks may be those inherent in the work, unique to the offeror's chosen approach, and must include any risks that are specifically identified by the Government in this solicitation.  General areas of possible risk that are of concern to NASA are technical, schedule, cost, safety, occupational health, security (including personnel, information technology), export control and environmental risks.  The identification of risks is the responsibility of the offeror.  However, these instructions include Government identified risks that the offeror must also address.  The offeror's discussion of a risk should provide the offeror's approach to managing the risk, the probability of the risk, impact and severity, time frame and risk acceptance or mitigation.

L14.2 MISSION SUITABILITY PROPOSAL FORMAT

Offerors shall include a matrix detailing where in L.17, CDRL Items, Volume V, items required in the Mission Suitability Proposal are contained.  This matrix will be used by the evaluators to better understand the specific structure of your proposal.  This matrix will not be counted against the page limit of the Mission Suitability proposal.

The Mission Suitability Proposal must be divided and presented by each Mission Suitability subfactor and the proposed deviations/exceptions as follows:

Subfactor A—Management and Mission Assurance Approach
Subfactor B—Systems Engineering, Design, and Verification
Subfactor C-- Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation Program
Subfactor D-- Safety and Health Plan    

Offeror Deviations/Exceptions (Mission Suitability Proposal)

L14.3 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTORS – VOLUME II

The paragraph numbers and indentations/bullets within the subfactors should not be construed as any indication of priority or as any establishment of elements or criteria.  The numbering and indentations/bullets are provided only for clarity and ease of reading.

Subfactor A:  Management and Mission Assurance Approach 

A.1	Management Approach:
Briefly describe your proposed management functions, responsibilities and authorities at all levels in the Project and the management, work administration, monitoring and technical direction processes, procedures, tools, and controls to be used.  Describe the Project Manager’s authority and flexibility to carry out personnel actions regarding project employees and to approve, disapprove and terminate subcontracts; ability to influence corporate priorities and obtain corporate assistance when needed; and authority to make commitments to the Government that are honored by the corporation.

Describe the company policy for configuration management and data management.  

Identify potential conflicts of interest (prime and subcontractors) (reference H.23, Access to Sensitive Information and H.21, Organizational Conflicts of Interest) and describe approaches to mitigating such conflicts.

A.2	Organization:
Describe the internal project organizational structure, reflecting allocation of all work identified in the Statement of Work, the relationship among internal organizational units, and the relationships between the project and other corporate organizations that may be involved in the GOES-R Series spacecraft development.  In particular, thoroughly describe the organizational approach to managing multiple spacecraft design, analysis, fabrication, integration and test activities.

A.3	Personnel:
Provide a detailed description of the approach to providing personnel that are adequately trained to accomplish the tasks required to support the GOES-R activities.  Where appropriate detail how cross training of personnel is factored into this approach to minimize the impact to the program when key personnel leave the program.
Describe any employee incentive programs proposed for GOES-R to attract and retain highly qualified engineers and technicians.

A.4	Facilities:
Provide a detailed description of the facilities that are proposed to accomplish the GOES-R Series spacecraft development.  In particular, thoroughly describe the approach to multiple spacecraft fabrication, integration and test activities.
Provide information on other programs and projects that would be sharing facilities and resources during the GOES-R activities.  Discuss the impact and risk of sharing facilities among multiple programs.

A.5	Schedule Management:
Provide a detailed network schedule in accordance with CDRL No. MS-01,, showing the critical path for the development of the GOES-R spacecraft.  Briefly describe your proposed schedules and schedule management.  Discuss the management of schedule margin.  Address the areas of schedule risk from contract award through acceptance on orbit.  Provide a schedule for the S spacecraft detailing how the R and S activities are phased with respect to each other. 

Describe any schedule analysis and analytical tools to be employed during the development and maintenance of the program schedule.  Describe the interaction of the schedule maintenance and reporting process with the Earned Value Management System.  

A.6	Interorganizational and Subcontract Management:
Describe interorganizational and subcontract management including monitoring, controlling, executing, and administering all project subcontracts.  

If the offeror plans to use any companies that currently support any NASA support contracts (either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor), the offeror shall discuss how conflicts of interest, as set forth in Part 9 of the FAR, are resolved and how those companies intend to comply with the clause, “Limitation on Future Contracting” in those NASA support contracts.  

A.7	Risk Management:
Provide a detailed analysis of the current risks inherent in your implementation of the development and launch of the GOES spacecrafts.  Detail what systematic approach you propose to follow to identify and manage all areas of risk associated with this development.  (Reference CDRL No. PM-57).  Provide an example of how the approach would be followed on the proposed GOES spacecraft development.

Provide details for components and assemblies that will be new and unique to the GOES-R Series spacecraft.  Provide Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of these components and assemblies as defined in Attachment B, Functional and Performance Specification (F&PS).  For those items that are not qualified at TRL 6, describe the process that will be used to qualify them to TRL6 by PDR.  Describe the steps needed to make the technology flight ready.  Describe reliance on non-GOES R programs for TRL6 and flight qualification of GOES R items.  Describe your back up plans and alternate sources in case some of the technology does not become flight qualified in time for GOES R.

Describe how and what data will be available to the government and what controls will be used in the design, test, requirement compliance, and development schedule of these new items as detailed above.  Detail how your proposed development will accommodate any changes in design between the initial spacecraft and subsequent spacecraft.

A.8	Safety and Mission Assurance (MA): 
Describe how your MA program will accomplish all aspects of the contract Spacecraft Mission Assurance Requirements (SCMAR) (Reference CDRL No. MA-01).  Provide an overview of your MA program including the system safety and design review programs, your MA program management, and the interfaces between your MA personnel and your program personnel and NASA MA personnel.  Describe how your MA program will enable you to meet the all mission, lifetime, and performance requirements for ground and flight hardware and software for this program focusing particularly on the associated parts and materials programs, subcontractor assurance program, and design assurance or reliability tools.  Discuss your rationale for the utilization of the kinds of parts and materials proposed as well as the proposed processes and workmanship standards and how they will ensure that the spacecraft achieves its lifetime, performance, and mission requirements.  Also, describe the metrics you plan to utilize to demonstrate the effectiveness of your practice and discuss any metrics associated with the use of MA practices in prior procurements that demonstrate the value or effectiveness of these practices.

Discuss if any program efforts are proposed to be eliminated based on prior qualification of hardware and/or software efforts.  Specifically, provide in the discussion of each subsystem:
•	The specific program effort(s) to be eliminated. The hardware components/subsystem or software module/program that has been previously qualified for each specific task.
•	The NASA, Commercial, DOD, etc. program for which the qualification was acquired.
•	The source of the prior qualification, i.e., prior qualification testing, flight experience, etc.

A.9	Small Business Subcontracting Program (Refer to FAR 19.7)
This solicitation contains FAR clause 52.219 9, "Small Business Subcontracting Plan Alternate II".  The Subcontracting Plan described and required by the clause, including the associated subcontracting percentage goals and subcontracting dollars, must be submitted with your proposal. This applies ONLY to large businesses.
 
The Contracting Officer's assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, are as follows:

Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns	5.5%	
Women Owned Small Business Concerns	2.0%	
Historically Black Colleges and Universities	0.5%	
HUBZone Small Business Concerns	0.5%	
Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns	2.0%	
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns	1.0%	
*Other Small Business Concerns	4.5%	
		
Total Small Business Subcontracting	16%	

*Those Small Business Concerns that are not Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HUBZone Small Business Concerns, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, or Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns.
 
Offerors are encouraged to propose goals that are equivalent or greater than those recommended by the Contracting Officer.  However, offerors should perform an independent assessment. The goals included in the submitted Subcontracting Plan may be higher, lower, or the same as the recommended goals, depending upon the offeror’s independent assessment.  
 
Offerors are advised that a proposal will not be rejected solely because the submitted Plan does not meet the NASA recommended goals that are expressed above in terms of percent of total contract value.  Offerors shall discuss the rationale for any goal proposed that is less than the Contracting Officer’s recommended goal in any category.  In addition, the Offeror shall describe the efforts made to establish a goal for that category and what ongoing efforts, if any, the Offeror plans during performance to increase participation in that category.
 
In addition to submitting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (CDRL No. PM-04) in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9, Alternate II, offerors shall complete Exhibits S-1, S-2, and S-3, SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS, which provides a breakdown of the offeror’s proposed goals, by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE and a percent of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTS. 
 
(NOTE: FOR PURPOSES OF THE SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, THE PROPOSED GOALS MUST BE STATED AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL SUBCONTRACTS, NOT AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, REFER TO THE BELOW EXAMPLE)
 
Begin example
 
Assume a proposed total contract value of $20M and proposed goals that equate to the following which are EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE:
 
Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns                   		4.5%
Women Owned Small Business Concerns                      		2.0%
Historically Black Colleges and Universities                      	0.5%
HUBZone Small Business Concerns                                             	0.5%
Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns                                     	1.0%
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns        	0.5%
Other Small Business Concerns                                         	11.0%
 
Total Small Business Subcontracting                                             	20%
(as percent of total contract value)
 
Then, the resulting statement of dollars that the offeror would include in the Subcontracting Plan, as required by paragraph (d)(2) of FAR clause 52.219-9, would be as follows:
 
Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns                                	$  900,000
Women-Owned Small Business Concerns                                     	$  400,000
Historically Black Colleges and Universities                                 	$  100,000
HUBZone Small Business Concerns                                              	$  100,000
Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns                                     	$  200,000
Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns         	$  100,000
Other Small Business Concerns                                    		$2,200,000
                                                                                                            
Total Small Business Subcontracting                                          	$4,000,000
 
HOWEVER, the Subcontracting Plan must express goals as a percent of total planned subcontracts.  Assuming total subcontracting of $10M, the resulting percentage goals, expressed as a percent of total subcontract dollars, and which would be stated in the Subcontracting Plan as required by paragraph (d)(1) FAR clause 52.219-9 would be:  
 
Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns                                	9%
Women Owned Small Business Concerns                                     	4%
Historically Black Colleges and Universities                                  1%
HUBZone Small Business Concerns                                              	1%
Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns                                     	2%
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns         1%
Other Small Business Concerns                                           	22%    
 
Total Small Business Subcontracting                                                40%
 
(End of example)

 Subfactor B:  Systems Engineering, Design, and Verification
 
B.1	 Systems Engineering:
Describe your approach for meeting spacecraft functional, performance, interface, and assurance requirements.   Include a description of the results of your system-level requirements analysis and present your requirements allocation methodology (flow-down) of space segment end-to-end performance requirements for GOES-R.  

Discuss your proposed spacecraft design, including preliminary designs for each subsystem on the spacecraft.  Where appropriate, identify design margins.  Describe completely your approach to achieving the required spacecraft lifetime.  Address fully how this design meets the space segment level requirements. Provide a description addressing how the requirements, performance and margin allocations are realistic and optimal from a systems engineering perspective.  Describe your system engineering plan for budgeting, tracking and controlling spacecraft resources such as power, weight, propellant, link margins, etc. for the life of the spacecraft (Reference CDRL No. SE-01).

B.1.1 Contamination
Discuss the proposed approach to the contamination control.  Describe how all of the contamination requirements related to the spacecraft and instruments are met or exceeded for all mission phases.  Show the relationship between contamination budgets and the space segment level performance requirements.  Describe how the process utilized in determining the contamination budgets accounts for contamination accretion, and the effect on end-of-life cleanliness requirements.  

B.1.2. Electro-Magnetic Interference/Electro-Magnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMC)
Describe your proposed approach to addressing all EMI/EMC requirements, specifically addressing the instrument and auxiliary communications requirements.  The EMI/EMC information must convey how EMC will be achieved in the integrated system.  Identify the method and software used to perform analyses.  Discuss potential interference problems and recommendations for resolution.

B.1.3 Magnetics
Describe your proposed approach to addressing all magnetic cleanliness concerns on the GOES spacecraft.  Identify the approach used to perform any analyses required in the above approach.  Discuss the magnetic cleanliness verification approach.

B.1.4 Instrument Interfaces
For each instrument/instrument suite provide a detailed analysis showing the accommodation of all instrument resources, including fields of view (FOV).  List the margin in either degrees or linear measure for each FOV for each instrument.  List the margins for each instrument.  

Provide details of the physical accommodation of the instruments specifically addressing the interface requirements of the instruments.  

B.1.5 Instrument Navigation and Registration (INR)
Provide the mechanical disturbance environment that the instruments will “see” at the interface during all phases of the GOES mission.  Address the requirements for the ABI, EXIS, GLM, SEISS, SUVI and Magnetometer and show how these requirements are satisfied. Discuss any margins.  

Provide a post-launch INR test approach describing the tests to be performed by NASA to initialize and/or characterize INR in orbit performance and the interval required between calibrations.  Test groups may be used in lieu of test plans for each required INR calibration and/or initialization procedure to provide a clear overview of the overall procedure.  Each test plan/group presented above shall contain the number of times the test is expected to be performed to characterize each calibration and/or the interval required between calibrations, and recommendations for when the test should or could be done (e.g., seasonally, time of day). 

B.1.6 Ground Segment Interfaces
Provide details on your implementation of the space to ground interfaces.

B.1.7  Launch Vehicle Interface
 Provide details on your launch vehicle interface derived requirements.  Provide details on margins against Atlas 531 vehicle.  Provide details on mass and volumetric margins.

B.2	Spacecraft Design:
For each spacecraft subsystem detailed below provide a component list which includes the mass, power, and dimensions.  For each subsystem show how the required lifetime is met, and describe any features of the design that support graceful degradation of performance under failure modes.

B.2.1	Mechanical
B. 2.1.1	Structures
Describe the structural accommodations for all instruments, each spacecraft subsystem and all appendages, including accessibility of components at any stage of integration.  

Provide a clear definition of the launch envelope, the on-orbit envelope, instrument mounting approaches, the mechanical/structural interfaces between the spacecraft and the launch vehicle, and other areas necessary to understand the structures and mechanisms subsystem. 

Identify limit loads and how they were derived and verified.  Identify safety and uncertainty factors and how they were derived and applied.  Provide launch loads and preliminary margins of safety at the spacecraft/launch vehicle interface.

Describe the structural analytical model and proposed techniques for model verification.    Provide spacecraft mass budgets and margins for the launch configuration.  Provide mass, moments of inertia, products of inertia, and center of gravity location for the on-orbit configuration.

B. 2.1.2	Mechanisms
Identify and describe all mechanisms to be utilized in your spacecraft design including descriptions of retention and release devices and passive and active actuators and sensors.  Identify torque loads and torque margins for each mechanism.  Briefly describe appendage deployment scenarios and any fail/safe aspects of your design.  Describe any overrides used to enhance system reliability.  Identify any aspects of the deployment systems which cannot be tested in a one gravity environment, and indicate the methods which will be used to verify flight acceptability in those cases.  Provide information on reliability/redundancy of your mechanism designs.  Describe your deployment mechanisms.  

B.2.2	Thermal 
Describe the proposed spacecraft thermal design and of the proposed spacecraft/instrument thermal interfaces.  Include a general description of the spacecraft/instrument thermal analytical model and summarize all key analysis assumptions.  If heat pipes and/or louvers (or other type of active control) are proposed, include a design discussion including flight heritage and the proposed performance/life testing.

B.2.3	Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) 
Describe the proposed spacecraft GN&C design.  Describe any calibration required for GN&C and how it is accomplished.		

Define the normal operating mode specifying the general approach, sensor and actuator configurations, attitude determination method, control laws, and momentum management system.  Describe the approach to executing a 180 degree yaw (nadir) maneuver.  Provide estimates and impacts of all maneuvers.

Describe Fault Detection and Correction, including a list of faults to be detected on-board and the corresponding on-board and ground actions.	

Describe Safehold mode, including the overall approach, top-level hardware and software, tolerance to detected and undetected faults, ground interaction required, longevity and recovery.  Discuss independence from primary hardware and software.  Discuss autonomy with respect to entry and maintenance in Safehold mode.

B.2.4	Command and Data Handling (C&DH)
Describe the C&DH subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.  For the telemetry subsystem, describe your methodology for placing the contents of on-board memories in telemetry.  Discuss how your design provides engineering telemetry.  Provide details on how your system allows the user to redefine the telemetry stream to meet changing or unexpected mission conditions. Describe the use of on-board telemetry monitoring and autonomous response to the instrument data.  Describe the methodology you will use to accommodate a larger set of telemetry points if required.  Provide details of how the time of the occurrence of an onboard event will be determined.  

Describe the methodology of integrating instrument databases into the satellite integration and test database, and subsequent transition from integration and test to the operational environment.

Describe encrypted and unencrypted command mode available on the spacecraft and include impacts of these modes during integration and test.  

Identify the type of on-board computer(s) (OBC) proposed.  Provide the processing requirements for the OBC and discuss the margins available.  Discuss OBC subsystem reliability.

B.2.5	Communications (COMM)
Describe the COMM subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.    

Describe the space to ground compatibility verification methodology.

Describe the development, implementation, and testing of the Data Collection System (DCS), Low-Rate Information Transfer (LRIT), Search-and-Rescue Satellite (SARSAT), and Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN) space payloads.

Describe the implementation of the GOES-R rebroadcast service (GRB).

Using the spreadsheet for the communications links provided with the RFP, provide the assumptions of your communication architecture.

B.2.6	Electrical
Describe the Electrical subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.

Describe the power generation and storage implementation including reliability, qualification testing, life testing, and design margin for 15 years of on-orbit life.  Include battery activation strategy for 5 years of ground storage.

Provide power budget summaries for all modes of operation stating expected power available and power requirements at the subsystem level in tabular form.  In presenting these budgets include analysis at BOL and EOL.  Provide degradation factors, assumptions, and the margins used for predicting solar array and battery EOL capabilities along with the power budget.  Describe methods used to protect the spacecraft from power bus and harness failures.  Provide implementation of survival power to the instruments.
Provide details of the electrical/power interface with the launch vehicle and how this is incorporated into the proposed design.

Describe the electrical distribution system.  Describe the system grounding and shielding philosophy.

B.2.7	Propulsion
Provide the propulsion subsystem design.  Provide details of performance and margins for all mission phases for propellant, subsystem components, and factors of safety.  Provide assumptions used in deriving the propulsion subsystem requirements, including propellant margin.  

Provide tolerance of the propulsion subsystem design to component failure, and the impacts of failures (of any component in the propulsion subsystem) on spacecraft life and operability.

Provide thermal design of the propulsion subsystem and the capacity of the thermal design to accommodate anomalous conditions.

Describe the impact of thruster plume contamination on satellite performance.

Describe the comment heritage and qualification test program.  

Describe the operational activities and the ground segment resources required for normal and contingency on-orbit propulsion operations. 
		
B.2.8	Flight Software 
Describe the software architecture including the development, qualification, and maintenance.  Include in your description definitions and use of new, reused, and modified code.  

Discuss the software development lifecycle processes of the flight software, including, as a minimum, the following items:
a)	Software development lifecycle approach, software development methodology (object-oriented programming, structured programming, etc.), and programming language
b)	Software lifecycle/Build milestones as they relate to satellite hardware development and I&T activities. 
c)	Software configuration management approach
d)	Software testing, verification, validation, qualification, and requirements traceability processes.  Include software test benches, simulators, emulators and any other items necessary to execute the software test program.  Provide milestones for these items as they relate to software lifecycle/Build milestones
e)	Software maintenance approach throughout the contract period of performance.
Describe the processing environment for any modifiable software including microprocessors, FPGA’s, PAL’s, PROM’s, EEPROM’s, RAM’s, DSP’s, bus architecture, and memory architecture.

Describe the software configuration management and software quality assurance processes.  

Describe the software problem reporting, corrective action, and regression testing processes.

Provide a preliminary classification for each Computer Software Configuration (CSC) in accordance with the software classification definitions for Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in Appendix B of NPR 7150.2.  

Provide information regarding CMM1 S/E S/W capability level, including the process areas appraised and any information needed for the Government to independently assess the maturity state through the Software Engineering Institution.

B.2.9	Magnetometer
Discuss your proposed design.  Discuss the instrument’s integration, test and calibration requirements including on-orbit calibration.

B.3	Spacecraft Ground Support Equipment (GSE)
Describe all Electrical Ground Support Equipment (EGSE) and Mechanical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE).  Define how the GSE components will be demonstrated as suitable prior to being used for testing subsystems, the spacecraft, or space system.  

Describe the GSE software architecture including the development, qualification, and maintenance.  Include in your description definitions and use of new, reused, and modified code. 

Describe the GSE configuration management and software quality assurance processes.  

Describe the GSE problem reporting, corrective action, and regression testing processes.

Describe your satellite simulation strategy.  Include in this description the integration of instrument simulators and/or prototypes with spacecraft simulator(s).  Describe the interaction and connectivity of the satellite simulator with the ground segment. 

Describe the spacecraft simulator design and its use for verification testing, operator training and launch simulations, on-orbit simulations, on-orbit anomaly investigation/resolution, ground system changes, and operational procedure development and validation.  Provide a detailed listing of spacecraft subsystem and environmental modes included in the simulator and describe the fidelity of each model. 

B.4	System Integration and Test
For these instructions, system integration and testing is defined as those activities beginning with the start of spacecraft build-up and integration and continuing through qualification/acceptance test activities, space segment end-to-end testing, system end-to-end testing, and launch base testing.

Describe the verification testing to be performed during spacecraft qualification and acceptance testing, and the plan that will be used to demonstrate that the spacecraft performance has not changed as a result of being subjected to this testing (Reference CDRL No. IT-01 and No. SE-05).  Include a description of qualification and acceptance test flow sequences.  Describe schedules and contingency.  Emphasize any testing which demonstrates successful integration, testing and accommodation of the GFE instruments with the spacecraft.  Describe how the spacecraft deployables and mechanisms will be tested to assure functionality and non-interference with other spacecraft components.  Specify if the deployables will be tested separately or as an integral part of the spacecraft.  Describe how you plan to trend the spacecraft data for the entire test flow activity until engineering handover to the government on-orbit.

Describe fully how you propose to accomplish component level development, qualification, and acceptance testing.

Discuss your proposed approach to the space segment end-to-end testing, system end-to-end testing, and space to ground compatibility testing.   In particular, discuss your plan for carrying out these tests from a government facility; discuss your approach to development, approval, and configuration control of procedures to be executed in these tests; discuss the interfacing of your operations team personnel to both NASA and NOAA personnel to maximize information transfer; and discuss your proposed methods for archiving data from these tests.  List any flight hardware which is to be excluded from the end-to-end or compatibility test program and explain the rationale. 

Describe your plan for ground storage of the GFE instruments, spacecraft bus, spacecraft, and satellite.    

Describe the test program to be accomplished during any storage.

B.5	Launch and Operations
Describe the processes from satellite/launch vehicle integration through final launch countdown operations, orbit raising, and on-orbit testing prior to government acceptance of the spacecraft.  
Describe methodology used to ensure mission unique requirements are identified, spacecraft environmental requirements are achieved.  	

For the Launch and Operation phase, include details of your proposed normal operational activities.  Include normal engineering activities as well as normal instrument operations.  Of particular interest are all activities required to safely enter, remain in, and exit from the orbital storage mode.

Describe a “day in the life” of the GOES-R satellite for both eclipse and non-eclipse season.  Describe “season in the life” activities of a GOES-R satellite.

B.6	Post Delivery Support
Describe your concept for post delivery support.

Subfactor C: Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation Program

(Notice to offerors:  These instructions apply to BOTH large and small business offerors except SDB offerors.  They apply to SDB offeror(s) ONLY if the SDB offeror has waived the price evaluation adjustment factor by completing paragraph (c.) of FAR clause 52.219-23, “Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns” in Section I of this solicitation.  The waiver, if elected, makes the particular SDB offeror INELIGIBLE for the price evaluation factor adjustment but ELIGIBLE for the “evaluation credit” (points) associated with the SDB participation subfactor described in Section M.)
 
This solicitation is for a requirement within one of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsectors determined by the Department of Commerce in accordance with FAR 19.201(b) and meets the applicability conditions of FAR 19.12, “Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program”.  A separate Mission Suitability subfactor for SDB participation is described in Section M. 

Offerors must:
 
Complete GSFC clause 52.219-91, “Small Disadvantaged Business Participation--Contract Targets”, in Section H of this solicitation
 
Indicate the total amount of target SDB participation as a percent of contract value and provide rationale to substantiate the proposed target.
 
Briefly describe work that will be performed by SDB subcontractor(s).  Identify any work considered “high technology”.  If the subcontractor(s) is known, tie the work to the subcontractor identified by the offeror in GSFC clause 52.219-91.
 
Provide the offeror’s record of past participation of SDB concerns in subcontracts and the type of work subcontracted such as production, engineering services, research, development, etc. over the past three full years.  Copies of SF 295's can be part of the supporting information submitted.
 
Identify, by contract number and contracting agency, SDB subcontracting incentives earned under any Government contracts in the last three years.  If incentives were available, but not earned, so state.
 
Provide a brief description of the offeror’s established or planned procedures and organizational structure for SDB outreach, assistance, counseling, market research and SDB identification, and relevant purchasing procedures. Large businesses may reference applicable portions of the submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
 
Subfactor D: Health and Safety Plan

The offeror shall provide a safety and health plan (Reference CDRL No. PM-13) in accordance with NFS Clause 1852.223-73, entitled “Safety and Health Plan”.  The offeror shall discuss its approach to compliance with all applicable NASA policies and procedures relative to safety, occupational health, and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8715.3A “NASA Safety Manual.”    

This plan, as approved by the Government, will be included in any resulting contract.  Offerors are directed to NPR 8715.3A, Appendix E instructions regarding the contents of Safety and Health Plan.  NPR 8715.3 can be accessed at the following website:

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8715_0003_&page_name=main

The offeror shall indicate if any of the standard contents of the Safety and Health Plan, as prescribed by NPR 8715.3A, would not be applicable to this specific contract, and provide an explanation for that determination.

The offeror’s plan shall address their approach to handling the hazardous materials identified in Clause 52.223-3 "Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data -- Alternate I".

The offeror’s plan shall address their approach to handling the radioactive materials identified in Clause 52.223-7 "Notice of Radioactive Materials".

L14.4 SUMMARY OF DEVIATIONS/EXCEPTIONS (Mission Suitability Proposal)

Identify and explain the reason for any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions taken with respect to these mission suitability proposal instructions, or to any of the technical requirements of this solicitation, such as the statement of work and related specifications.

(End of text)

L.15 COST PROPOSAL – VOLUME III

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires Contracting Officers to purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. It is expected that adequate price competition will be obtained under this solicitation so that submission of cost or pricing data is not required pursuant to FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data--Alternate IV.  The term “other than cost or pricing data” is defined at FAR 15.402.

1.  General Instructions

The cost proposal will be in three separate volumes:

Cost Information (Volume IIIA)
Basis of Estimate (BOE) (Volume IIIB)
Summary of Deviations/Exceptions (Cost Proposal) (Volume IIIC)

An important prerequisite for the award of this cost plus award fee contract is that the prime offerors have an accounting system that has been determined adequate by the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) for accumulating and reporting incurred costs prior to contract award.  While these proposals are not required to be cost certified, they are to be in sufficient detail to allow direct and indirect rate verification and audit of selected costs by cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices.  The cost proposal should be prepared in a manner consistent with your current accounting system. 

Cost proposal exhibits and schedules are included with this RFP (Enclosure 1). Exhibits generally relate to summarization of all elements of cost for a specified item, function or effort, whereas schedules generally relate to a single element of cost such as labor, material or travel.  The required proposal exhibits and schedule formats are for evaluation purposes.  The cost for any resultant contract will be awarded on the basis of the successful Offeror's normal estimating and/or accounting system or the system set forth in the Cost Accounting Standards Board Disclosure Statement required by Public Law 100-679, if applicable.  If the Offeror's estimating and/or accounting practice differs from the required price proposal format, the costs should be computed in accordance with the Offeror’s normal accounting and estimating procedures and provide your rationale for the format adjustments.  

Direct labor must be estimated on the basis of productive effort.  Productive effort is the estimated number of hours required to perform the work.  Vacations, holidays, sick leave, and any other paid absences shall not be cited as direct labor, but shall be separately identified and priced or included in indirect cost.  Final monetary extensions in the price proposal may be expressed as the closest whole dollar amount, with cents omitted.

Duty charges, if any shall be included in the cost, regardless of whether or not duty free certificates are obtained

A "subcontract" is any contract, purchase order, material order, interorganizational transfer, etc. that is a direct cost to this acquisition.  Critical subcontractors are any subcontractors (regardless of tier or dollar value) proposed to perform the following:  star trackers, gyros, momentum wheels, structure, propulsion, batteries, solar arrays, magnetometer, and auxiliary communication payloads.  Major subcontractors are any subcontractors proposed to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed total contract cost.  The Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to support and explain all costs proposed.  For critical and major subcontracts, the proposed subcontractor shall provide the same cost exhibits, formats and supporting information that is requested from the prime Offeror.  Prospective subcontractors may submit proprietary cost data, under separate cover, directly to the Government no later than the date and time specified in the instructions for receipt of offers for this RFP.  

The Offeror shall submit electronic copies of the cost proposal charts contained in the referenced exhibits in MS Office 2003 formats on DVD-R media.   Two copies of the DVD-Rs shall be submitted with one copy identified as the backup.  This requirement is in addition to the required hard copies.   The Offeror shall include all formulas in the cost charts to substantiate the whole dollar amount proposed. The Offeror shall certify that all disks are virus-free.  In the event of any inconsistency between data provided on electronic media and hard copies, the hard copy data will be considered to be correct.

Offerors, including proposed critical and major subcontractors, shall submit one copy of their cost proposal directly to their cognizant DCAA auditing office by the due date specified on the solicitation face page, Standard Form 33, Block 9.  The name, mailing address, email address, and phone number of the cognizant DCAA office are to be included in the written narrative of the Offer Volume proposal.  Please ensure that all contact information provided is current and correct.
 
All pricing and estimating techniques shall be clearly explained in detail (projections, rates, ratios, percentages, factors, etc.) and shall support the proposed costs in such a manner that audit, computation, and verification can be accomplished.  Also, any experience factors (unit prices, hours, quantities, etc.) and judgmental projections shall be explained.  All past actuals shall show the periods of time and costs in detail when used as a basis for estimating the proposed costs.  

The escalation proposed for labor must be stated along with the actual escalation experienced in the last three years.  Provide a statement of rationale, including the derivation, for the proposed escalation rates.  If escalation is not proposed, explain why.  The offeror shall also discuss the rationale for any escalation proposed for the other cost elements.  The offeror shall also include the company's escalation history for each other cost element experienced in the past three years.   

The Offeror shall clearly identify and list any cost items that will be routinely direct charged as an Other Direct Cost under this contract.  The supporting rationale associated with these proposed ODC expenses shall also be submitted.

In order to establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs, and the extent to which costs reflect performance addressed in the Mission Suitability Proposal, each Offeror, including proposed critical and major subcontractors, shall submit the other than cost or pricing data described in Section 2 below.  

2.   Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The GOES-R Series Spacecraft Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Dictionary 417-R-SCWBS-0060 is provided as Attachment I of this RFP.  Based upon your proposed approach, expand and modify to WBS element Level 4, provided in the solicitation to create the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). This will be incorporated into the contract upon award.  The offeror is not allowed to alter or change Levels 1 and 2.

3.  Cost Information - Volume IIIA

All information required by the prime offeror under items c-i below is also required by critical and major subcontractor.  As defined in 1. General Instructions above, Critical subcontractors are any subcontractors (regardless of tier) proposed to perform the following:  star trackers, gyros, momentum wheels, structure, propulsion, batteries, solar arrays, magnetometer, and auxiliary communication payloads.  Major subcontractors are any subcontractors proposed to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed cost.  

a. Table of Contents:  The cost proposal shall be prefaced by a Table of Contents and shall specify, by page number, where each cost format and each piece of narrative data is located.

b. Overview:  The cost proposal overview shall provide comprehensive narrative support for the cost proposal volume. 

c.   Cost Reasonableness Rationale:  Provide rationale to support the Government’s evaluation of your proposal’s cost reasonableness, realism and completeness.   

d. Management Reserve:  Provide rationale and approach to management reserve.  Indicate the percentage of proposed management reserve and where it is in the cost proposal (e.g., separate line item, schedule slack, etc.)  

e.    Schedule of Rates  
	
(1)  Submit a schedule showing proposed direct and indirect rates by contractor fiscal year (CFY).  This schedule is to include (but separately identify) offeror, major subcontractor(s), critical subcontractors and inter-divisional transfer(s) rates.  Note, if subcontractor cost proposals or inter-divisional rates are not available to the offeror, the offeror shall have this data sent directly to the Contracting Officer by the proposal deadline and reference this RFP number (see Cost Exhibit #1).   

Offerors shall submit data to support all indirect rates used in calculating the proposed cost.  Each offeror shall indicate whether the proposed indirect rates are those negotiated under a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA).  If the offeror has a current FPRA and has proposed rates other than the FPRA rates, the offeror shall identify the proposed rate versus the FPRA rate and state the estimated total cost difference.  In addition, each offeror shall explain the method and base of application for each rate. 
 
The escalation proposed for labor must be stated along with the actual escalation experienced in the last three years.  Provide a statement of rationale, including the derivation, for the proposed escalation rates.  If escalation is not proposed, explain why.

f. Cost Summary – Two sets of exhibits and formats are required.  The formats shall be provided electronically.  The offeror shall submit the data in the designated exhibit and format schedule layouts.  Data submission should be in native MS-Office 2003 formats, (i.e. MS-Word and Excel,) such that each data-point is accessible for contextual searches and other calculations via cut/paste capabilities of those applications.  Embedded structures like bitmaps, graphics or proprietary fonts shall be reserved only for illustrations and equations which cannot be rendered in the above formats.  No data-point protections shall be used without including credentials/passwords to use those data-points as described above.  File submissions should be on DVD-R media with all sessions and disk closed. This media shall be readable in any common, DVD computer drive.  All media shall be labeled with its data contents to the degree that the media can be properly archived/filed without the need to read the contents of the media.

The requirements for each set are summarized below.  Within each set, each chart shall have the same format (number of columns, number of rows, headers, titles, etc.)   If there are multiple rates within a cost element, such as G&A, Overhead, and FCCM, the offeror shall provide a separate line for each rate.  

1.   Format 1 summarizes the proposed cost by element of cost by contractor fiscal year.  Provide Format 1 down to Level 4 of Contractor WBS (CWBS.  Provide format 1 for each critical and major subcontractor or interdivisional supplier.

2.  Format 2 summarizes the proposed hours and cost by flight unit by the WBS level indicated in the format.  Provide the prime contractor hours by flight unit by CWBS.  Provide prime contractor labor cost (including fringe benefits and overhead) by flight unit by CWBS.  Provide prime contractor non-labor costs and award fee by flight unit by CWBS.  Non-labor costs include all costs and award fee that are not included in prime contractor labor cost.  

g. Funding Summary by GFY Quarter (Cost Format 2b) – Provide cumulative funding requirements, cumulative cost and labor in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) units, by Government Fiscal Year (GFY) quarter.  

h. Materials – Format 3 provides a consolidated bill of materials by WBS for each contract period, including description, quantity required, unit price and total price for each line item by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY).  Provide Format 3 down to Level 4 CWBS, summarizing into the next higher level WBS. 

i. Travel – Format 4 provides a summary of all proposed travel by contractor fiscal year, including following information for each trip:

Destination, purpose for trip, number of trips, number of travelers, number of travel days, air fare, estimated per diem, car rental, other expenses and total cost.

Provide Format 4 down to Level 4 CWBS.  

j. Other Direct Costs – Format 5 provides a summary of all other direct costs by contractor fiscal year  including description, quantities, unit price, and costs.  Provide Format 5 down to Level 4 CWBS.   

k.   Subcontracts

A "subcontract" is any contract, teaming arrangement, purchase order, material order, interorganizational transfer, etc. that is a direct cost to this acquisition.  

(1)  Probable Subcontractors.  For all inter-divisional transfers and for subcontracts over $25,000, submit a listing of the proposed probable subcontractors by contract period showing (a) the lowest applicable CWBS number, (b) the supplier, (c) description of effort, (d) type of contract, (e) part number, if applicable, (f) quantity required, (g) unit price, if applicable, and (h) total price included in prime's proposal to the Government (see format below).

SCHEDULE OF PROBABLE SUBCONTRACTORS

CWBS	Vendor	Description	Part No.	Contract Type	Quantity	Unit Price	Total	

								

(2)  For competitive subcontracts over $1,000,000 also provide the following information:

(a)  Basis for present price estimate (vendor proposal or quote, prior invoice, engineering estimate, etc.)

(b)  Identify whether the expected source is a large business, small businesses and/or small disadvantaged business concern

(c)  If quotes or proposals have been received, indicate the number of firms solicited, the number of quotes or proposals received, and the basis for selection (e.g. low offeror, delivery schedule, technical merit of product, etc.)

(d)  Number of small business and/or small disadvantaged business concerns solicited.  If none solicited, reason for exclusion.

(e)  The actual or expected basis for establishing reasonableness of price (e.g. adequate price competition, price analysis, cost analysis, established catalog or market prices)

(f)  Affiliation with prime contractor, if any

(4)  For non-competitive subcontracts over $500,000 also provide the following information:
 
(a)  Basis for present cost/price estimate (vendor proposal or quote, prior invoice, engineering estimate, etc.)

(b)  Identify whether the expected source is a large business, small businesses and/or small disadvantaged business concern

(c)   Justification for non-competitive selection of source

(d)   The actual or expected basis for establishing reasonableness of cost/price (e.g., price analysis, cost analysis, established catalog or market prices)

(e)  Affiliation with prime contractor, if any

(5).  Interorganizational transfers

For all interorganizational transfers priced at other than cost of comparable competitive commercial work of the division, subsidiary, or affiliate of the offeror, explain the pricing method [see FAR 31.205‑26(e)].  For any interorganizational transfers priced at cost, provide a separate breakdown of cost by element of cost.
 
l. Other Information

The offeror shall provide any other relevant cost assumptions and information, including such items like long lead costs, termination costs, inflation rate summary and explanation, and special tooling/test equipment which forms the basis of the proposal.   

4. BOE - Volume IIIB

The purpose of this volume is to provide the Government insight into the thought processes and methodologies used in estimating the resources (direct labor hours, skill mixes, material, parts, other direct costs, travel, etc.) that are proposed for performance of the effort.  The offeror shall give a complete description of the processes and methodologies utilized in estimating resources, and describe how these relate to the approach described in Section 1 of the Mission Suitability proposal.  The offeror shall include its CWBS that complies with the WBS included as Attachment I of the contract.  BOEs are to be submitted only to CWBS Level 4.  The volume shall comply with the page limitation in L.12.

Offerors shall package the BOE Volume so that the BOEs (Level 2, 3 and 4) at each WBS Level 2, as set forth in Cost Format #2, are included together.  For example:

WBS 1.1 Program Management 

WBS 1.2  Systems Engineering

ETC.  

All BOE information required by the prime offeror is also required by major and critical subcontractors as defined above in 1.General Instructions. 

As a minimum, include the following information in the BOE in the format that is most convenient, preferably the format which shall be used for the actual contract performance:

Narrative explaining how you arrived at your estimate of labor hours, including: if your estimate was based on similar program(s), in which case, identify and provide a brief reason why the programs are similar; a standard, in which case, identify the standard and explain if it is from the industry, your company, or a product; or engineering judgment, in which case, explain the philosophies used.

Complexity factors utilized--all factors must be identified

Use of any other cost-estimating relationships

How subcontracts were estimated.  Please note if you have experience with the proposed subcontractor(s), if utilized. 	

An explanation of how all materials, computer services, travel, equipment, and other direct costs were estimated

5.  Summary of Deviations/Exceptions (Cost Proposal) – Volume IIIC

Identify and explain the reason for any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions taken with respect to these Cost Proposal instructions.

(End of provision)

L.16 PAST PERFORMANCE- VOLUME IV

An Offeror’s past performance record indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this acquisition.  The information requested below is anticipated to be sufficient for purposes of the evaluation of past performance.  However, Offerors may submit additional information at their discretion if they consider such information necessary to establish a record of relevant past performance.  Refer to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii).  

The Offeror shall provide, at a minimum, the following information in support of its proposal to facilitate the evaluation of your company experience and past performance as a whole and as related to the requirements of the proposed contract. Where “critical subcontracts” and “major subcontracts” are cited, the following definitions apply:

Critical subcontractors:  any subcontractors (regardless of tier or dollar value) proposed to perform the following:  star trackers, gyros, momentum wheels, structure, propulsion, batteries, solar arrays, magnetometer, and auxiliary communication payloads.  

Major subcontractors:  any subcontractors proposed to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed total contract cost.  

(a)	INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR

Offerors and any proposed critical and major subcontractor(s) and/or subcontracts, shall furnish the information requested below for your most recent contracts (completed and ongoing) for similar efforts over $25 million in value which your company has had within the last five years.  It is very important to keep in mind that only performance in the past five (5) years is relevant.   Specifically, this 5-year period includes the following:  all spacecraft for which you were a principal contractor which have been launched in the past 5 years; and all spacecraft which are currently in the implementation phase and also all subsystem and/or component contracts/subcontractors for proposed critical and/or major subcontractors.   Indicate which contracts are most related (i.e. similar in technical requirements and complexity) and how they are related to the proposed effort, as well as which contracts were performed by the division of your company (if applicable) that will perform the proposed contract/subcontract. 

Provide two matrices listing:

	1.  All spacecraft for which the offeror was the prime Contractor which have been launched in the past five years. Add to this list any proposed critical and major subcontractor(s) and/or subcontracts for subsystems and/or components.

	2.  All spacecraft for which the offeror is or will be the prime contractor and which are currently in the development or implementation phase. Add to this list any proposed critical and major subcontractor(s) and/or subcontracts.

(1) For all spacecraft for which the Offeror was the prime Contractor that have been delivered in the past five years, the contractor shall provide the following information:

NAME OF SPACECRAFT AND LAUNCH DATE 

TYPE OF SPACECRAFT - The basic function of the spacecraft. 

BUYER - The buyer of the spacecraft, including name and address.

CONTRACT NUMBER & TYPE - The contract number under which it was bought, and contract type.

AWARD DATE & METHOD - The contract award date, and state whether it was competitive or not.

CO & COTR - The name and current phone number of the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (or their equivalent for commercial contracts) at the time of the delivery.  
	
PERFORMANCE SUCCESS - The success rate of the spacecraft in terms of meeting the requirements stated in the contract.  This should be stated as a percentage, with an explanation of how you calculated the percentage.  Please describe any major technical problems and how they were overcome.

APPLICABILITY - Provide a brief description of how the spacecraft is comparable to the proposed effort.  It is not sufficient to state that it is comparable in magnitude and scope.  Rationale must be provided to demonstrate that it is comparable.  Provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that such spacecraft benefits this development effort.

SCHEDULE SUCCESS - The success record in meeting contractual delivery dates, and explanations for any deviations from those dates.

ORIGINAL VALUE - The value of the contract at the time it was awarded (if it started as a letter contract, at the time it was definitized), inclusive of profit/maximum potential fee, and inclusive of fully priced options that were exercised since award.

CURRENT/FINAL VALUE - The current or final contract value, with identification of the total amount of any increases attributed to:
•	changes directed by the buyer
•	cost growth which was your responsibility
•	added scope
•	other causes

If the contract was fixed price, and you suffered a loss under the contract, state the value of the loss, and the reason it occurred.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING HISTORY - Provide the final SF 294 and 295 reports and supporting rationale.

CONTRACT REVISIONS - If the contract was descoped or partially terminated for any reason, or if the terms and conditions were significantly restructured for any reason, or if there were any major waivers or deviations granted by the buyer, explain why this was done and the impact on the contract.

Notes:  
List spacecraft in reverse chronological order, beginning with the most recent.  
Provide the name, title, and current phone number of the Government or customer personnel that we can contact to verify the accuracy of the information.
If you were not the prime contractor, but you did play a significant role in such spacecraft, provide the information to the best of your ability, and explain exactly what role you play.  The name and current phone number from your customer's cognizant contacts for contract and technical performance is required.

(2)  For all spacecraft for which the Offeror is or will be the prime contractor that is currently in the development or implementation phase, (including all spacecraft that are anticipated for delivery during the next five years), the contractor shall provide the following information:

NAME & EXPECTED LAUNCH DATE - The name of the spacecraft and the date you expect it will be ready for delivery.

TYPE OF SPACECRAFT- The basic function of the spacecraft.

BUYER - The buyer of the spacecraft, including name and address.

CONTRACT NUMBER & TYPE - The contract number under which it is being bought, and contract type

AWARD DATE & METHOD - The contract award date (actual or anticipated), and state whether it was competitive or not.

CO & COTR - The name and current phone number of the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (or their equivalent for commercial contracts) at the present time.  

APPLICABILITY - Provide a brief description of how the spacecraft is comparable to the proposed effort.  It is not sufficient to state that it is comparable in magnitude and scope.  Rationale must be provided to demonstrate that it is comparable.  Provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that such spacecraft benefits this development effort

ANTICIPATED PERFORMANCE SUCCESS RATE - The projected success rate in terms of meeting the performance requirements stated in the contract.  This should be stated as a percentage, with an explanation of how you calculated the percentage.  Please describe any major technical problems and how they are being or were overcome. 

ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE SUCCESS - The probability of meeting the contractual dates and explanation for any deviations from those dates.

ORIGINAL VALUE - The value of the contract at the time it was awarded (if it started as a letter contract, at the time it was definitized), inclusive of fully priced options that were exercised since award.

CURRENT/PROJECT VALUE - The current and projected final contract value, with identification of the present and the final projected total values of the increases attributed to:
changes directed by the buyer
cost growth which was your responsibility
added scope
other causes

If the contract is fixed price, and you are suffering a loss or projected loss under the contract, state the value of the loss, and the reason for it.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING HISTORY - Provide the latest SF 294 and 295 reports and supporting rationale.

CONTRACT REVISIONS - If the contract was descoped or partially terminated for any reason, of if the terms and conditions were significantly restructured for any reason, or if there were any major waivers or deviations granted by the buyer, explain why this was done and the impact on the contract.

Notes:
List the spacecraft in chronological order, beginning with the next one expected for delivery.
Provide the name, title, and current phone number of the Government or commercial customer personnel that we can contact to verify the accuracy of the information.
If you are not the prime contractor, but you are playing a significant role in such spacecraft (subsystem or component), provide the information to the best of your ability, and explain exactly what role you are playing.  The name and current phone number from your customer's cognizant contacts for contract and technical performance is required.

 (b)	PRIOR CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS (PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES)

Offerors and any proposed critical and major subcontractor(s) and/or subcontracts, shall provide the questionnaires provided as Enclosure 2 to each of the above references to establish a record of relevant past performance.  The Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to the Government in a sealed envelope.  The questionnaire respondent shall be a representative from the technical customer and/or responsible Contracting Officer with direct knowledge of your firm's performance.  If possible, the Offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) shall provide questionnaires to customers from NASA contracts, other Government contracts, and commercial contracts.  For proposed significant subcontractor(s), references shall concern only relevant work performed by the subcontractor’s business entity that will perform the work under this contract, if awarded.  

The Offeror shall include a list of those to whom the questionnaires were sent, including name of individual, phone number, organization, and contract number.  The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the questionnaire is completed and submitted directly to the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Contracting Officer no later than the closing date of this solicitation designated in Block 9 of the SF 33:

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Attn:  Clelia Walker, Code 210.7 
Bldg. 6, Rm. S-138
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Telephone:  301-286-1351
FAX:  301-286-9319

Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed critical and significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss these subcontractors' relevant past performance evaluation with the Offeror.

 (c)	SUMMARY OF DEVIATIONS/EXCEPTIONS (PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL)

Identify and explain the reason for any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions taken with respect to these Past Performance Proposal instructions.

(End of provision)

L.17 CDRL ITEMS – VOLUME V

The list below details all the CDRL items that comprise Volume V of the Mission Suitability Proposal.
1.	PM-01, Program Management Plan 
2.	MS-01, Spacecraft Master Schedule 
3.	PM-57, Risk Management Plan
4.	MA-01, Mission Assurance Plan
5.	SE-01, Systems Engineering Management Plan
6.	SE-05, Validation and Verification Plan
7.	IT-01, Spacecraft Integration and Test Plan
8.	PM-04, Small Business Subcontracting Plan
9.	PM-13, Safety and Health Plan
Submission of the above CDRL documents and award of contract does not constitute the review and/or approval by the Government required by the CDRL.  Documents must be resubmitted after award for review and/or approval in accordance with CDRL requirements.  

L.18 PROPOSAL MARKING AND DELIVERY 

1. External Marking of Proposal Package(s)

 All proposal packages must be closed and sealed.

The required mailing address/external marking for proposals is as follows:

"Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771
Building 16W—Shipping and Receiving Dock
RFP Number – NNG07193033R
Attn:  Clelia Walker
Building 6, Room S-138
PROPOSAL--DELIVER UNOPENED"

Suggested additional marking if the proposal is to be delivered by a commercial delivery service:  (Offeror must complete fill-in's appropriately)

"COMMERCIAL DELIVERY PERSONNEL:  THIS PROPOSAL MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE DOCK MASTER, BUILDING 16W SHIPPING AND RECEIVING DOCK, NO LATER THAN (OFFEROR—ENTER DATE AND TIME)”

2.  Designated Receiving Office

The designated receiving office for proposals is the Shipping and Receiving Dock, building 16W, Goddard Space Flight Center, which must be accessed from Soil Conservation Road, north from Greenbelt Road.   Proposals must be received at the designated receiving office no later than the date and time stated on the solicitation face page.

The Building 16W Shipping and Receiving dock is open from 7:30AM to 3:30PM, Monday through Friday, except Government holidays.  Contractor personnel conduct the GSFC receiving function, which includes mailroom operations. Proposals will be marked with the date and time of receipt, subjected to security screening, secured, and delivered unopened to the Contracting Officer.
There is public access to the Building 16W Shipping and Receiving Dock.  GSFC passes, badges, escorts, etc. are not required for access to the receiving dock.

3.  Methods of Proposal Delivery
There are three suggested methods of delivery to the designated proposal receiving office:

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
Commercial Delivery Service
Delivery by company employee or other individual agent

Regardless of the delivery method chosen, the offeror is responsible for delivery of the proposal to the designated receiving office no later than the date and time stated on the face page of the solicitation.  

(End of Text)

	

M.1 RESERVED

M.2 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS--GENERAL

1. Source Selection

This competitive negotiated acquisition shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, "Source Selection", and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, same subject.  The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, "NASA formal source selection" will apply. 

The attention of offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, "Proposal evaluation" and to NFS 1815.305-70, "Identification of unacceptable proposals".

A trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, will be used in making source selection.

2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The evaluation factors are Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance.  These factors, as described at NFS 1815.304-70, will be used to evaluate each proposal.  This Section M provides a further description for each evaluation factor, inclusive of subfactors.  Only the Mission Suitability factor is numerically scored.

3. Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor.  As Individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor and the Cost factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance Factor.
  
(End of Provision)

M.3 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

1. Mission Suitability Subfactors and Description of Each Subfactor

Volume V of the Mission Suitability Proposal, which includes the CDRL’s required to be submitted, will be evaluated under the appropriate Mission Suitability subfactor.  Award of a contract does not constitute approval by the Government as required by the CDRL.  The Government will evaluate the benefit of any proposed enhancements to the GOES-R Program Statement of Work, Requirements, and Mission Assurance Requirements. The Government will check for the description of the proposed enhancement in Attachment J and will evaluate the enhancement under the appropriate mission suitability subfactor.

Subfactor A:  Management and Mission Assurance Approach 

A.1 Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed management functions, responsibilities and authorities at all levels in the Project and the management, work administration, monitoring and technical direction processes, procedures, tools, and controls to be used.  The Government will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Project Manager’s authority and flexibility to carry out personnel actions regarding project employees and to approve, disapprove and terminate subcontracts; ability to influence corporate priorities and obtain corporate assistance when needed; and authority to make commitments to the Government that are honored by the corporation.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the company policy for configuration management and data management.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness and thoroughness of the identification of potential conflicts of interest (prime and subcontractors) (reference H.23, Access to Sensitive Information and H.21, Organizational Conflicts of Interest) and the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the approaches to mitigating such conflicts.

A.2 Organization:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the internal project organizational structure, reflecting allocation of all work identified in the Statement of Work, the relationship among internal organizational units, and the relationships between the project and other corporate organizations that may be involved in the GOES-R Series spacecraft development.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the organizational approach to managing multiple spacecraft design, analysis, fabrication, integration and test activities.

A.3 Personnel:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the approach to providing personnel that are adequately trained to accomplish the efforts required to support the GOES-R activities.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how cross training of personnel is factored into this approach to minimize the impact to the program when key personnel leave the program.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of any employee incentive programs proposed for GOES-R to attract and retain highly qualified engineers and technicians.

A.4 Facilities:
The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the facilities that are proposed to accomplish the GOES-R Series spacecraft development.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the approach to multiple spacecraft fabrication, integration and test activities.

The Government will evaluate the degree of the impact and risk of sharing facilities and resources among multiple programs.

A.5 Schedule Management:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the detailed network schedule, showing the critical path for the development of the GOES-R spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed schedules, schedule management and management of schedule margin.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and soundness of the discussion of areas of schedule risk from contract award through acceptance on orbit.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the schedule for the S spacecraft detailing how the R and S activities are phased with respect to each other.
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of schedule analysis and analytical tools to be employed during the development and maintenance of the program schedule.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the interaction of the schedule maintenance and reporting process with the Earned Value Management System.  

A.6 Interorganizational and Subcontract Management:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of interorganizational and subcontract management including monitoring, controlling, executing, and administering all project subcontracts.  

If the offeror plans to use any companies that currently support any NASA support contracts (either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor), the Government will evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of how the offeror resolves conflicts of interest , as set forth in Part 9 of the FAR, and how those companies intend to comply with the clause, “Limitation on Future Contracting” in those NASA support contracts.

A.7 Risk Management:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the detailed analysis of the current risks inherent in your implementation of the development and launch of the GOES spacecrafts.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the systematic approach you propose to follow to identify and manage all areas of risk associated with this development, including the example of how the approach would be followed on the proposed GOES spacecraft development.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of proposed components and assemblies which will be new and unique to the GOES-R Series spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of these components and assemblies as defined in the F&PS.  For those items that are not qualified at TRL 6, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the process that will be used to qualify them to TRL6 by PDR.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the steps needed to make the technology flight ready.  The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and extent of the reliance on non-GOES R programs for TRL6 and flight qualification of GOES R items.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your back up plans and alternate sources in case some of the technology does not become flight qualified in time for GOES R

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how and what data will be available to the government and what controls will be used in the design, test, requirement compliance, and development schedule of these new items as detailed above.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how your proposed development will accommodate any changes in design between the initial spacecraft and subsequent spacecraft.

A.8 Safety and Mission Assurance (MA): 

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how your MA program will accomplish all aspects of the contract Spacecraft Mission Assurance Requirements (SCMAR).  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your MA program including the system safety and design review programs, your MA program management, and the interfaces between your MA personnel and your program personnel and NASA MA personnel.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how your MA program will enable you to meet the all mission, lifetime, and performance requirements for ground and flight hardware and software for this program focusing particularly on the associated parts and materials programs, subcontractor assurance program, and design assurance or reliability tools.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of your rationale for the utilization of the kinds of parts and materials proposed as well as the proposed processes and workmanship standards and how they will ensure that the spacecraft achieves its lifetime, performance, and mission requirements.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the metrics you plan to utilize to demonstrate the effectiveness of your practice and of any metrics associated with the use of MA practices in prior procurements that demonstrate the value or effectiveness of these practices.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of eliminating any program efforts based on prior qualification of hardware and/or software efforts, including:  
•	The specific program effort(s) to be eliminated and the hardware components/subsystem or software module/program that has been previously qualified for each specific effort.
•	The NASA, Commercial, DOD, etc. program for which the qualification was acquired.
•	The source of the prior qualification, i.e., prior qualification testing, flight experience, etc.

A.9 Small Business Subcontracting Program (Refer to FAR 19.7)

The submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan and proposed goals will be evaluated within this subfactor as an aspect of program management.  However, SDB participation (FAR 19.12) will be evaluated separately under the SDB Participation subfactor.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated in terms of the reasonableness and soundness of the offeror's independent assessment to achieve the proposed subcontracting goals by category (except small disadvantaged businesses).   

The offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan will also be evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704 Subcontracting Plan Requirements, including the offeror's rationale for not meeting the Contracting Officer's recommended goals.
  
 Subfactor B:  Systems Engineering, Design and Verification
 
B.1 Systems Engineering:

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your approach for meeting spacecraft functional, performance, interface, and assurance requirements.   The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the results of your system-level requirements analysis and your requirements allocation methodology (flow-down) of space segment end-to-end performance requirements for GOES-R.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed spacecraft design, including preliminary designs for each subsystem on the spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and adequacy of design margins.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your approach to achieving the required spacecraft lifetime.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how this design meets the space segment level requirements.  The Government will evaluate the degree to which requirements, performance and margin allocations are realistic and optimal from a systems engineering perspective.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your system engineering plan for budgeting, tracking and controlling spacecraft resources such as power, weight, propellant, link margins, etc. for the life of the spacecraft.  

B.1.1 Contamination

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach to the contamination control.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how all of the contamination requirements related to the spacecraft and instruments are met or exceeded for all mission phases.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the relationship between contamination budgets and the space segment level performance requirements.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the process utilized in determining the contamination budgets accounts for contamination accretion, and the effect on end-of-life cleanliness requirements. 
 
B.1.2 Electro-Magnetic Interference/Electro-Magnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMC)

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed approach to addressing all EMI/EMC requirements, specifically addressing the instrument and auxiliary communications requirements.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how EMC will be achieved in the integrated system and of the method and software used to perform analyses.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the discussion of potential interference problems and recommendations for resolution.

B.1.3 Magnetics

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed approach to addressing all magnetic cleanliness concerns on the GOES spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the approach used to perform any analyses required in the above approach.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the magnetic cleanliness verification approach.

B.1.4 Instrument Interfaces

For each instrument/instrument suite, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the accommodation of all instrument resources, including fields of view (FOV).   The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the margin in either degrees or linear measure for each FOV for each instrument and the margins for each instrument.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the physical accommodation of the instruments specifically addressing the interface requirements of the instruments.  

B.1.5 Instrument Navigation and Registration (INR)

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the mechanical disturbance environment that the instruments will “see” at the interface during all phases of the GOES mission.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the requirements for the ABI, EXIS, GLM, SEISS, SUVI and Magnetometer and how these requirements are satisfied. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of any margins.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the post-launch INR test approach describing the tests to be performed by NASA to initialize and/or characterize INR in orbit performance, using either test plans or test groups, and the interval required between calibrations.  For each test plan group presented above, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the number of times the test is expected to be performed to characterize each calibration and/or the interval required between calibrations, and the reasonableness of the recommendations for when the test should or could be done (e.g., seasonally, time of day). 

B.1.6 Ground Interfaces

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your implementation of the space to ground interfaces. 

B.1.7 Launch Interface

 The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your implantations launch vehicle interface derived requirements. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and adequacy of the margins against the Atlas 531 vehicle.  The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and adequacy of the mass and volumetric margins.

B.2 Spacecraft Design:

For each spacecraft subsystem detailed below, the Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the component list which includes the mass, power, and dimensions.  For each spacecraft subsystem detailed below, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how the required lifetime is met, and of any features of the design that support graceful degradation of performance under failure modes.

B.2.1	Mechanical
B.2.1.1 Structures

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the structural accommodations for all instruments, each spacecraft subsystem and all appendages, including accessibility of components at any stage of integration.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the launch envelope, the on-orbit envelope, instrument mounting approaches, the mechanical/structural interfaces between the spacecraft and the launch vehicle, and other areas necessary to understand the structures and mechanisms subsystem.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the limit loads and how they were derived and verified.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the safety and uncertainty factors and how they were derived and applied.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the launch loads and preliminary margins of safety at the spacecraft/launch vehicle interface.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the structural analytical model and proposed techniques for model verification.    The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the spacecraft mass budgets and margins for the launch configuration and of the mass, moments of inertia, products of inertia, and center of gravity location for the on-orbit configuration.

B.2.1.2 Mechanisms

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the mechanisms to be utilized in your spacecraft design including retention and release devices and passive and active actuators and sensors.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the torque loads and torque margins for each mechanism.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the appendage deployment scenarios and any fail/safe aspects of your design.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of any overrides used to enhance system reliability.  The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of any aspects of the deployment systems which cannot be tested in a one gravity environment, and the methods which will be used to verify flight acceptability in those cases.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the reliability/redundancy of your mechanism designs.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your deployment mechanisms.  

B.2.2	Thermal 
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed spacecraft thermal design and of the proposed spacecraft/instrument thermal interfaces.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the spacecraft/instrument thermal analytical model, including all key analysis assumptions.  If heat pipes and/or louvers (or other type of active control) are proposed, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the design, including flight heritage and the proposed performance/life testing.

B.2.3	Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) 
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed spacecraft GN&C design.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of any calibration required for GN&C and how it is accomplished.		

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the normal operating mode, including the general approach, sensor and actuator configurations, attitude determination method, control laws, and momentum management system.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the approach to executing a 180 degree yaw (nadir) maneuver.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the estimates and impacts of all maneuvers.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of Fault Detection and Correction, including a list of faults to be detected on-board and the corresponding on-board and ground actions.	

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of Safehold mode, including the overall approach, top-level hardware and software, tolerance to detected and undetected faults, ground interaction required longevity and recovery.  The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of independence from primary hardware and software.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of autonomy with respect to entry and maintenance in Safehold mode.

B.2.4	Command and Data Handling (C&DH)
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the C&DH subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.  For the telemetry subsystem, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your methodology for placing the contents of on-board memories in telemetry.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how your design provides engineering telemetry.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how your system allows the user to redefine the telemetry stream to meet changing or unexpected mission conditions.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the use of on-board telemetry monitoring and autonomous response to the instrument data.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the methodology you will use to accommodate a larger set of telemetry points if required.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how the time of the occurrence of an onboard event will be determined.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the methodology of integrating instrument databases into the satellite integration and test database, and subsequent transition from integration and test to the operational environment.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of encrypted and unencrypted command mode available on the spacecraft, including impacts of these modes during integration and test.  

The Government will evaluate the soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the type of on-board computer(s) (OBC) proposed.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the processing requirements for the OBC and the margins available.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of OBC subsystem reliability.

B.2.5	Communications (COMM)
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the COMM subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.    

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the space to ground compatibility verification methodology.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the development, implementation, and testing of the Data Collection System (DCS), Low-Rate Information Transfer (LRIT), Search-and-Rescue Satellite (SARSAT), and Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN) space payloads.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of the GOES-R rebroadcast service (GRB).

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the assumptions of the communications architecture as set forth in the spreadsheet for the communications links provided with the RFP.

B.2.6	Electrical
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Electrical subsystem architecture for the spacecraft showing all interfaces.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the power generation and storage implementation including reliability, qualification testing, life testing, and design margin for 15 years of on-orbit life.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of battery activation strategy for 5 years of ground storage.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the power budget summaries for all modes of operation stating expected power available and power requirements at the subsystem level in tabular form, including analysis at BOL and EOL.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the degradation factors, assumptions, and the margins used for predicting solar array and battery EOL capabilities along with the power budget.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of methods used to protect the spacecraft from power bus and harness failures.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of survival power to the instruments.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the electrical/power interface with the launch vehicle and how this is incorporated into the proposed design.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the electrical distribution system.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the system grounding and shielding philosophy.

B.2.7	Propulsion
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the propulsion subsystem design.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the performance and margins for all mission phases for propellant, subsystem components, and factors of safety.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the assumptions used in deriving the propulsion subsystem requirements, including propellant margin.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, effectiveness and reasonableness of the tolerance of the propulsion subsystem design to component failure, and the impacts of failures (of any component in the propulsion subsystem) on spacecraft life and operability.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the thermal design of the propulsion subsystem and the capacity of the thermal design to accommodate anomalous conditions.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the impact of thruster plume contamination on satellite performance.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the common heritage and qualification test program.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the operational activities and the ground segment resources required for normal and contingency on-orbit propulsion operations. 	
	
B.2.8	Flight Software 
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the software architecture including the development, qualification, and maintenance, including your description definitions and use of new, reused, and modified code.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the software development lifecycle processes of the flight software, including, as a minimum, the following items:
•	Software development lifecycle approach, software development methodology (object-oriented programming, structured programming, etc.), and programming language. 
•	Software lifecycle/Build milestones as they relate to satellite hardware development and I&T activities. 
•	Software configuration management approach 
•	Software testing, verification, validation, qualification, and requirements traceability processes, including software test benches, simulators, emulators and any other items necessary to execute the software test program.  Milestones for these items as they relate to software lifecycle/Build milestones.
•	Software maintenance approach throughout the contract period of performance.
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the processing environment for any modifiable software (including microprocessors, FPGA’s, PAL’s, PROM’s, EEPROM’s, RAM’s, DSP’s, bus architecture, memory architecture, etc.)

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the software configuration management and software quality assurance processes.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the software problem reporting, corrective action, and regression testing processes.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the preliminary classification for each Computer Software Configuration (CSC) in accordance with the software classification definitions for Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in Appendix B of NPR 7150.2.  

The Government will evaluate the maturity state of the CMM1 S/E S/W capability level, including the process areas appraised and any information needed for the Government to independently assess the maturity state through the Software Engineering Institution.

B.2.9	Magnetometer
The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed design.  
The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the instrument’s integration, test and calibration requirements including on-orbit calibration.

B.3 Spacecraft Ground Support Equipment (GSE)

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of all Electrical Ground Support Equipment (EGSE) and Mechanical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE).  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how the GSE components will be demonstrated as suitable prior to being used for testing subsystems, the spacecraft, or space system.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the GSE software architecture including the development, qualification, and maintenance, including definitions and use of new, reused, and modified code. 

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the GSE configuration management and software quality assurance processes.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the GSE problem reporting, corrective action, and regression testing processes.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your satellite simulation strategy.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the integration of instrument simulators and/or prototypes with spacecraft simulator(s).  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the interaction and connectivity of the satellite simulator with the ground segment. 

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the spacecraft simulator design and its use for verification testing, operator training and launch simulations, on-orbit simulations, on-orbit anomaly investigation/resolution, ground system changes, and operational procedure development and validation.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of spacecraft subsystem and environmental modes included in the simulator and the reasonableness of the fidelity of each model. 

B.4 System Integration and Test

For evaluation in this section, the Government defines system integration and testing as those activities beginning with the start of spacecraft build-up and integration and continuing through qualification/acceptance test activities, space segment end-to-end testing, system end-to-end testing, and launch base testing.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the verification testing to be performed during spacecraft qualification and acceptance testing, and the plan that will be used to demonstrate that the spacecraft performance has not changed as a result of being subjected to this testing.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of qualification and acceptance test flow sequences.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of schedules and contingency.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of any testing which demonstrates successful integration, testing and accommodation of the GFE instruments with the spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how the spacecraft deployables and mechanisms will be tested to assure functionality and non-interference with other spacecraft components.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how deployables will be tested separately or as an integral part of the spacecraft.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of how you plan to trend the spacecraft data for the entire test flow activity until engineering handover to the Government on-orbit.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of fully how you propose to accomplish component level development, qualification, and acceptance testing.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed approach to the space segment end-to-end testing, system end-to-end testing, and space to ground compatibility testing.   The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your plan for carrying out these tests from a government facility; your approach to development, approval, and configuration control of procedures to be executed in these tests; the interfacing of your operations team personnel to both NASA and NOAA personnel to maximize information transfer; and your proposed methods for archiving data from these tests.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the rationale for any flight hardware which is to be excluded from the end-to-end or compatibility test program. 

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your plan for ground storage of the GFE instruments, spacecraft bus, spacecraft, and satellite.    The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the test program to be accomplished during any storage.

B.5 Launch and Operations

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of the processes from satellite/launch vehicle integration through final launch countdown operations, orbit raising, and on-orbit testing prior to Government acceptance of the spacecraft.  

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of methodology used to ensure mission unique requirements are identified, spacecraft environmental requirements are achieved.  	

For the Launch and Operation phase, the Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your proposed normal operational activities, including normal engineering activities as well as normal instrument operations.  The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of all activities required to safely enter, remain in, and exit from the orbital storage mode.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed “day in the life” of the GOES-R satellite for both eclipse and non-eclipse season.  The Government will evaluate the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed “season in the life” activities of a GOES-R satellite.

B.6 Post Delivery Support

The Government will evaluate the completeness, soundness, effectiveness and efficiency of your concept for post delivery support.

Subfactor C – Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation Program 

Offerors should refer to FAR provision 52.219-24, "Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program--Targets" in section L of this solicitation.  This subfactor includes the evaluation of proposed SDB participation along with supporting rationale against total contract value with emphasis on complex work that will enhance the development of SDBs. Specific identification of SDB subcontractors by NAICS Industry Subsectors and associated work and the past performance of the offeror’s SDB participation history, trends, and any associated incentives earned will be evaluated.  The offeror’s proposed approach, procedures, and organizational structure associated with ensuring attainment of proposed SDB targets will also be evaluated for effectiveness.

Subfactor D - Safety and Health Plan

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s Safety and Health Plan to ensure that supplies and services are furnished in a safe and healthful manner, and that the offeror develops, produces, and/or delivers products to NASA that will be safe and successful for their intended use.

The offeror's Safety and Health Plan will be evaluated for compliance with applicable Federal and State statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as compliance with NPR 8715.3A, NFS 1852.223-73 and applicable NASA Agency-wide and Installation specific policies and/or procedures including the adequacy of protection of life, health, and well being of NASA and Contractor employees, property and equipment. Further, the Safety and Health Plan will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of protection for subcontractor employees for any proposed subcontract.

The offeror's plan for handling hazardous and radioactive materials identified in the Clause 52.223-3 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA (52.223-3)—ALTERNATE I and Clause 52.223-7, NOTICE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, will be evaluated for responsiveness and compliance.

(End of instructions for Mission Suitability Subfactors)

2.  Weights and Scoring

In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(b) (1), the Mission Suitability factor will be weighted and scored on a 1000 point scale.

The weights (points) associated with each Mission Suitability subfactor is as follows:
Mission Suitability Subfactors (Total Points – 1000)
                                                   								Points
Subfactor A:  Management and Mission Assurance Approach				350
Subfactor B:  Systems Engineering, Design and Verification				550
Subfactor C:  Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program		 	 50
Subfactor D:  Safety and Health Plan							 50
Total:                                                                                                                         	          1000

The Mission Suitability subfactors and the total Mission Suitability factor will be evaluated using the adjectival rating, definitions and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).  The maximum points available for each subfactor will be multiplied by the assessed percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor.  For example, if a subfactor has possible 200 points and receives a percent rating 80, then the score for that subfactor would be 160 points.

3. Definitions
The definitions for Deficiency, Weakness, and Significant Weakness are included in FAR Part 15.001. 

"Deficiency" is 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.

"Weakness" means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 

"Significant weakness" is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 

For the purposes of this acquisition the following definitions shall also apply:

“Strength” (not in FAR/NFS) is a proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government (this could be associated with a process, technical approach, materials, facilities, etc.).

“Significant Strength” (not in FAR/NFS) is a proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government.

4. Mission Suitability - Adjustment for Cost Realism

The realism of proposed costs may significantly affect the offeror's Mission Suitability Score.  A total of up to 300 points may be deducted from the offeror's Mission Suitability score to account for any weaknesses associated with a lack of cost realism present in the offeror's proposal.  This adjustment will be made if the proposed costs are unrealistically high or low according to the guidelines below.

The adjustment will be determined for the entire contract.  The Government will calculate the point adjustment from the Missions Suitability score based on the percentage difference between the proposed and probable costs as follows:

Difference Between Proposed Cost and Probable Cost (excluding fee)	Point Adjustment	

+/-  0 to 9.99%
	
0	

+/-  >10% to 14.99%
	
-50	

+/-  >15% to 19.99%
	
-100	

+/-  >20% to 29.99%	
-200	

+/-  >30% 
	
-300	

This adjustment is in addition to any finding(s) already reflected under Mission Suitability concerning the inadequacy of resources, cost or otherwise, prior to the formula adjustment.

(End of text)

M.4 COST EVALUATION FACTOR

The proposed cost will be assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism.  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 "cost realism analysis” and “probable cost”.

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (1) and NFS 1815.305(a) (1) (B) and (C).  Upward or downward adjustments may be made to the proposed cost as a result of the assessment of cost realism.  This can include adjustment to all proposed direct and indirect costs, exclusive of fee.  For proposed award fees, the fee amount(s) will be included in the probable cost assessment in the amounts proposed.  

Both the proposed and probable cost assessment will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

Probable cost will include the cost of Government resources, such as production and research property, that may be required because of the offeror's proposed approach to accomplishing the work, unless such resources are provided by the terms of this solicitation.  For the requested use of Government production and research property, FAR subpart 45.2 will apply.

This is a full and open competition within one of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsectors determined by the Department of Commerce for the application of small disadvantaged procurement mechanisms and applicable factors.   Refer to FAR 19.201(b), FAR 19.11 and to FAR clause 52.219-23, “Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns.”  The adjustment shall be applied to the assessed “probable cost”.  The adjustment will not be made if there are no Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) offeror(s) or if all SDB offerors have waived the price adjustment.

M.5 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

The Past Performance factor will evaluate each offeror's record (including the record of any major or critical subcontractors) of performing services or delivering products that are similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation.  The adjective rating assigned to Past Performance (see below) will reflect consideration of information contained in the written narrative,  past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires, and other references or sources, if any, that the Government may use for additional past performance information.  Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv). 

Past Performance Ratings - The ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the Past Performance factor for each offeror.  

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component.  The offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating.  In assessing relevance, the Government will consider the degree of similarity in size, content, and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as how current is the past performance.  

In assessing performance, the Government will make an assessment of the offeror's overall performance record.  The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance record for meeting technical, schedule, cost, management, occupational health, safety, security, mission success, subcontracting goals, and other contract requirements.  Isolated or infrequent problems that were not severe or persistent, and for which the offeror took immediate and appropriate corrective action, may not reduce the offeror's rating.  On the other hand, ratings will be reduced when problems were within the contractor's control and were significant, persistent, or frequent, or when there is a pattern of problems or a negative trend of performance. 

Excellent - Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance; and experience that is highly relevant to this procurement. Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very Good - Very effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part; only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance; and experience is very relevant to this procurement. Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Good - Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance; and experience is relevant to this procurement. Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Fair - Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance; and experience is at least somewhat relevant to this procurement. Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists 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. 

Poor - 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, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.     

Neutral - no record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available.

(End of Provision)