From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: NASA statement on Earth Data System proposals [NTE 92-71] (Forwarded)
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:59:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.043115.27308@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>NASA STATEMENT ON EARTH DATA SYSTEM PROPOSALS
>
>	NASA today issued the following statement regarding 
>the Earth Observing System Data and Information System 
>Core System acquisition:
>
>NASA CALLS FOR REVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE EARTH OBSERVING 
>DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEM CORE SYSTEM ACQUISITION
>
>
	[stuff deleted for brevity's sake and Mike's sake]

>	As prescribed by NASA source selection regulations, 
>the evaluation of proposals included a "most probable 
>cost" analysis of each proposal as reflected in the 
>"best and final offers" submitted by the offerers.  
>Despite NASA's repeated attempts during the solicitation 
>and evaluation processes to encourage the submission of 
>realistic cost estimates, the government's analysis 
>clearly indicates that the offerers significantly 
>underestimated the cost of the respective technical 
>approaches.  Accordingly, NASA is unwilling to select an 
>offerer for further negotiations leading to award of a 
>contract.
>
	Now, am I reading this right?  Every submitter said they 
could do it for around $X and NASA and the government is saying,
oh no... you can't do it for $X, it's a lot more than that!  Until
you say it will cost more we won't award the bid.

	It seems to me that if EVERY contractor said they could do
it cheaper than the government says it will cost, maybe the 
contractors know something?  After all, I'm sur they are in there
to make money, not lose it.

	I can understand if one company was way low.  In that case,
sure you probably don't want to go with the lowest bidder.  But if
EVERY company is way low? Come on.

So, please, if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know why
the goverment wants to spend more money?
(And no, the answer is not that every company is using Soyuz. :-)

>	Extensive analysis of the proposed technical 
>approaches shows that the proposals reflect sound 
>technical approaches and exhibit a reasonable 
>understanding of the program to be accomplished.  
>Whatever the reason for the underestimation of cost, the 
>end result is unrealistic cost proposals that do not 
>provide a satisfactory basis 
>for constructive negotiations.
>
>	NASA has elected, therefore, to offer an additional 
>opportunity for offerers in the competitive range to 
>adjust the proposed costs to a more realistic level.  In 
>instructions issued by the Goddard Space Flight Center 
>on Aug.10, 1992, as an amendment to the solicitation, 
>NASA has directed the offerers to submit revised cost 
>proposals. Changes to the previously submitted technical 
>and business management proposals will not be 
>considered.
>
>	In addition, Goddard Space Flight Center has 
>provided the offerers with the provision that will be 
>used to evaluate the contractor's cost performance 
>during the contract period.  This provision assesses 
>significant reductions to the award fee if the 
>contractor fails to manage and control the program in 
>accordance with the costs proposed.
>
>	Revised cost proposals that realistically reflect 
>the requirements of the solicitation and the proposed 
>technical approach are to be submitted by 1 p.m. EDT on 
>Aug. 31, 1992.  By the end of September 1992, NASA 
>intends to select an offerer for negotiations leading to 
>contract award.


-- 
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
Carpe Diem                     |