TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBPART 1815.2 SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF
PROPOSAL AND INFORMATION
1815.201 Exchanges with
industry before receipt of proposals.
1815.203 Requests for
proposals.
1815.203-70 Installation
reviews.
1815.203-71 Headquarters
reviews.
1815.203-72 Risk Management.
1815.204 Contract
format.
1815.204-2 Part I - The
Schedule.
1815.204-5 Part IV - Representations
and instructions.
1815.204-70 Page limitations.
1815.207 Handling proposals
and information.
1815.207-70 Release of proposal
information.
1815.207-71 Appointing
non-Government evaluators as special Government employees.
1815.208 Submission,
modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.
1815.209 Solicitation
provisions and contract clauses.
1815.209-70 NASA solicitation
provisions.
SUBPART 1815.3 SOURCE SELECTION
1815.300 Scope of
subpart.
1815.300-70 Applicability of
subpart.
1815.303 Responsibilities.
1815.304 Evaluation
factors and significant subfactors.
1815.304-70 NASA evaluation
factors.
1815.305 Proposal
evaluation.
1815.305-70 Identification of
unacceptable proposals.
1815.305-71 Evaluation of a
single proposal.
1815.306 Exchanges with
offerors after receipt of proposals.
1815.307 Proposal
revisions.
1815.308 Source
selection decision.
1815.370 NASA source
evaluation boards.
SUBPART 1815.4 CONTRACT PRICING
1815.403 Obtaining cost
or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on
obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-170 Waivers of cost or
pricing data.
1815.403-3 Requiring
information other than cost or pricing data.
1815.403-4 Requiring cost or
pricing data.
1815.404 Proposal
analysis.
1815.404-2 Information to
support proposal analysis.
1815.404-4 Profit.
1815.404-470 NASA Form 634
1815.404-471 NASA structured
approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.404-471-1 General.
1815.404-471-2 Performance risk.
1815.404-471-3 Contract type risk and
working capital adjustment.
1815.404-471-4 Other considerations.
1815.404-471-5 Facilities capital cost of
money.
1815.404-471-6 Modification to structured
profit/fee approach for nonprofit organizations.
1815.404-472 Payment of profit or
fee under letter contracts.
1815.406 Documentation.
1815.406-1 Prenegotiation
objectives.
1815.406-170 Content of the
prenegotiation position memorandum.
1815.406-171 Installation reviews.
1815.406-172 Headquarters reviews.
1815.406-3 Documenting the
negotiation.
1815.407 Special cost or
pricing areas.
1815.407-2 Make-or-buy
programs.
1815.408 Solicitation
provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70 NASA solicitation
provisions and contract clauses.
SUBPART 1815.5 PREAWARD, AWARD, AND POSTAWARD
NOTIFICATIONS, PROTESTS, AND MISTAKES
1815.504 Award to
successful offeror.
1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70 Debriefing of
offerors - Major System acquisitions.
SUBPART 1815.6 UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS
1815.602 Policy.
1815.604 Agency points
of contact.
1815.606 Agency
procedures.
1815.606-70 Relationship of
unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
1815.609 Limited use of
data.
1815.609-70 Limited use of
proposals.
1815.670 Foreign
proposals.
SUBPART 1815.70 OMBUDSMAN
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman
Program.
1815.7002 Synopses of
solicitations and contracts.
1815.7003 Contract clause.
1815.101 Best value continuum.
When a
written acquisition plan is not required by 1807.103, the contracting officer
must document in the contract file the source selection approach and the rating
method to be used, how they will be used, and how these will result in
selection of the best value to the government.
1815.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of
proposals.
(c)(6)(A) Except for
acquisitions described in 1815.300-70(b)
contracting officers shall issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) for all competitive negotiated acquisitions expected
to exceed $10,000,000 (including
all options or later phases of the same project). DRFPs
shall invite comments from potential offerors on all aspects of the draft
solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal instructions, and
evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be specifically requested to
identify unnecessary or inefficient requirements. If the DRFP contains
Government-unique standards, potential offerors should be invited to identify
voluntary consensus standards that meet the Government's requirements as
alternatives to Government-unique standards cited as requirements, in
accordance with FAR
11.101 and OMB Circular
A-119. Comments should also be
requested on any perceived safety, occupational health, security (including
information technology security), environmental, export control, and/or other
programmatic risk issues associated with performance of the work. When considered appropriate, the statement of
work or the specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation
sections.
(B)
Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to include
adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror
review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the comments.
(C)
When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors
should be advised that the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not
requesting proposals.
(D)
Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a summary of the
disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final RFP.
(E) If performance-based
payments are planned to be used in a competitive negotiated acquisition, the
DRFP shall request potential offerors to suggest terms, including performance
events or payments criteria. Contracting officers shall use that information to
establish a common set of performance-based payments parameters in the formal
RFP when practicable.
(F)
The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DRFP upon written
determination that the expected benefits will not be realized given the nature
of the supply or service being acquired. The DRFP shall not be waived because
of poor or inadequate planning.
(f )(i) Upon release of the
formal RFP, the contracting officer shall direct all personnel associated with
the acquisition to refrain from communicating with prospective offerors and to
refer all inquiries to the contracting officer or other authorized
representative. This procedure is commonly known as a "blackout
notice" and shall not be imposed before release of the RFP. The notice may
be issued in any format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity
of the acquisition.
(ii) Blackout notices are not intended
to terminate all communication with offerors. Contracting officers should
continue to provide information as long as it does not create an unfair
competitive advantage or reveal proprietary data.
1815.203 Requests for proposals.
1815.203-70
Installation reviews.
(a) Installations shall establish
procedures to review all RFPs before release. When
appropriate given the complexity of the acquisition or the number of offices
involved in solicitation review, centers should consider use of a single review
meeting called a Solicitation Review Board (SRB) as a streamlined alternative
to the serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing
offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and approval
responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns. Actions assigned
and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.
(b) When source evaluation board (SEB)
procedures are used in accordance with 1815.370,
the SEB shall review and approve the RFP prior to issuance.
1815.203-71
Headquarters reviews.
For RFPs requiring
Headquarters review and approval, the procurement officer shall submit ten
copies of the RFP to the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any
significant information relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation
methodology omitted from the RFP itself should also be provided.
1815.203-72
Risk management.
In all RFPs
for supplies or services for which a technical proposal is required, proposal
instructions shall require offerors to identify and discuss risk factors and
issues throughout the proposal where they are relevant, and describe their
approach to managing these risks.
1815.204-2
Part I - The Schedule.
(c) To the maximum extent
practicable, requirements should be articulated as performance-based specifications
and performance work statements that focus on required outcomes or results.
1815.204-5
Part IV - Representations and instructions.
(b) The information required in
proposals should be kept to the minimum necessary for the source selection decision.
1815.204-70
Page limitations.
(a) Technical and contracting personnel
will agree on page limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless
approved in writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the
contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C,
Description/specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages, and the
page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not exceed 200
pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section to which they
relate. In determining page counts, 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. 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.
(b) Page limitations shall also be
established for proposals submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly,
technical and contracting personnel will agree on page limitations for each
portion of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in writing
by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal, excluding title pages,
tables of content, and cost/price information, shall not exceed 500 pages using
the page definition of 1815.204-70(a). Firm page limitations shall also be
established for final proposal revisions, if requested. The appropriate page
limitations for final proposal revisions should be determined by considering
the complexity of the acquisition and the extent of any discussions. The same
page limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of
specified limitations will not be evaluated by the Government and will be
returned to the offeror.
1815.207 Handling proposals and information.
1815.207-70 Release of proposal information.
(a) NASA personnel participating in any
way in the evaluation may not reveal any information concerning the evaluation
to anyone not also participating, and then only to the extent that the
information is required in connection with the evaluation. When non-NASA
personnel participate, they shall be instructed to observe these restrictions.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, the procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose
proposal information outside the Government. If outside evaluators are
involved, this authorization may be granted only after compliance with FAR
37.2 and 1837.204,
except that the determination of unavailability of Government personnel
required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to
JPL employees.
(2)
Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may be disclosed
with the prior written approval of a NASA official one level above the NASA
program official responsible for the overall conduct of the evaluation. If
outside evaluators are involved, the determination of unavailability of
Government personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in
these instances.
(i)
Proposals submitted in response to broad agency announcements such as
Announcements of Opportunity and NASA Research Announcements;
(ii)
Unsolicited proposals; and
(iii)
SBIR and STTR proposals.
(3)
If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released to them by NASA,
require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government evaluators, JPL must obtain
written approval to release the information in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
1815.207-71
Appointing non-Government evaluators as special Government employees.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section, non-Government evaluators, except employees of JPL, shall be
appointed as special Government employees.
(b) Appointment as a special Government
employee is a separate action from the approval required by paragraph
1815.207-70(b) and may be processed concurrently. Appointment as a special
Government employee shall be made by:
(1)
the NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of proposal information
is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or
(2)
the installation personnel office when the release of proposal information is
to be made by the installation.
(c) Non-Government evaluators need not
be appointed as special Government employees when they evaluate:
(1)
Proposals submitted in response to broad agency announcements such as
Announcements of Opportunity and NASA Research Announcements;
(2)
Unsolicited proposals; and
(3)
SBIR and STTR proposals.
1815.208
Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.
(b) The FAR late proposal criteria do not
apply to Announcements of Opportunity, NASA Research Announcements (see 1852.235-72),
and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I and Phase II solicitations,
and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) solicitations. For these
solicitations, proposals or proposal modifications received from qualified
firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if a
significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if there are
significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals previously
received. In such cases, the project office shall investigate the circumstances
surrounding the late submission, evaluate its content, and submit written
recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as to
whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering it. The
selection official or a designee shall determine whether to consider the late
submission.
1815.209
Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-1 in all competitive negotiated solicitations.
1815.209-70 NASA solicitation provisions.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert
the provision at 1852.215-77,
Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive
requests for proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to
conduct a preproposal or pre-bid conference. Insert
the appropriate specific information relating to the conference.
(b) When it is not in the Government’s
best interest to make award for less than the specified quantities solicited
for certain items or groupings of items, the contracting officer shall insert
the provision at 1852.214-71, Grouping for Aggregate Award. See 1814.201-670(b).
(c) When award will be made only on the full
quantities solicited, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-72, Full Quantities. See 1814.201-670(c).
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-81,
Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for proposals.
1815.300-70
Applicability of subpart.
(a)(1) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of
this section, NASA competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as
follows:
(i)
Acquisitions of $50 million or more -- in accordance with FAR
15.3 and this subpart are required to use a mission suitability factor, numerically
score, and use the procedures in 1815.370.
(ii)
Other acquisitions -- in accordance with FAR 15.3 and this subpart except
section 1815.370
and use of a mission suitability factor
and numerical scoring is optional.
(2)
Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the values of multiple
awards, options, and later phases of the same project.
(b) FAR 15.3 and this subpart are not
applicable to acquisitions conducted under the following procedures:
(1) Announcements of Opportunity (see Part 1872).
(2) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-71).
(3) The Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR)
program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under
the authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
(4) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and 1836.6).
1815.303
Responsibilities.
(a) The SSA shall be established at the
lowest reasonable level for each acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR
designation of the contracting officer as SSA, the SSA for center acquisitions
shall be established in accordance with center procedures. For acquisitions
designated as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as part of
the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).
(b)(i) The source selection authority
(SSA) is the Agency official responsible for proper and efficient conduct of
the source selection process and for making the final source selection
decision. The SSA has the following responsibilities in addition to those
listed in the FAR:
(A)
Approve the source selection approach,
rating method, evaluation factors, subfactors,
the weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors when used, and any special standards
of responsibility (see FAR
9.104-2) before release of the RFP, or delegate this authority to
appropriate management personnel;
(B)
Appoint the source selection team. However, when the Administrator will
serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program
Office will appoint the team; and
(C)
Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance and special
instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection procedures.
(b)(ii) See 1803.104-70 for restrictions on participating in evaluation or selection of proposals.
(b)(2) Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Procurement Strategy Meetings are in accordance with 1807.103.
1815.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
(c)(4)(A) Small Business Utilization shall be evaluated as a subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. The Small Business Utilization subfactor shall provide for a separate and distinct evaluation
of Small Business plans and SDB participation.
If a Mission Suitability factor is not used, Small Business Utilization,
including a separate and distinct evaluation of SDB concerns, shall be
evaluated as a separate factor or subfactor, as appropriate.
(B) NASA estimated goals should be specified for each small business category in solicitations that require the submission of a subcontracting plan under 52.219-9. When estimated goals are evaluated in competitive negotiated acquisitions, the suggested SDB subcontracting goal shall not be discretely evaluated, but should be included in the evaluation of the cumulative goal for all the small business categories identified in the plan.
(C) In solicitations that include the FAR 19.12 evaluation of participation of SDBs in the designated North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, NASA estimated targets should not be specified for the expected participation. Proposed SDB participation levels shall be evaluated based on a standard of reasonableness relative to the offeror’s proposed effort. SDB concerns that choose the FAR 19.11 price evaluation adjustment shall receive the lowest possible score/rating under the FAR 15.304(c)(4) evaluation.
1815.304-70
NASA evaluation factors.
(a) Typically, NASA establishes three
evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance.
Evaluation factors may be further defined by subfactors.
Evaluation subfactors should be structured to
identify significant discriminators, or "key swingers" - the essential information required to support a
source selection decision. Too many subfactors
undermine effective proposal evaluation. All evaluation subfactors
should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and redundancy.
(b) Mission Suitability factor.
(1)
This factor indicates the merit or excellence of the work to be performed or
product to be delivered. It includes, as appropriate, both technical and
management subfactors. Mission Suitability shall be
numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-point scale. (See
1815.300-70(a)(1)(ii).)
(2)
The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation subfactors
to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival
rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A)
shall be applied to the subfactor weight to determine
the point score. The number of Mission Suitability subfactors
is limited to five. The Mission Suitability evaluation subfactors
and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
(i) For cost reimbursement
acquisitions, the
(3) If the solicitation requires the submission of a Safety and Health Plan (see 1823.7001(c) and NPR 8715.3, NASA Safety Manual, Appendix H), safety and health must be a consideration in the evaluation. The Mission Suitability factor, if used, shall include a subfactor for safety and health.
(c) Cost/Price factor. This factor
evaluates the reasonableness and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed
costs/prices. The Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
(d) Past Performance factor.
(1)
This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each
offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size,
content, and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition.
(2)
The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data from relevant
Federal, State, and local governments and private contracts) that can be used
to evaluate their past performance. Typically, the RFP will require:
(i)
A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant
acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of contract, a brief
description of the work, and a point of contact from the organization placing
the contract. Normally, the requested contracts are limited to those received
in the last three years. However, in acquisitions that require longer periods
to demonstrate performance quality, such as hardware development, the time
period should be tailored accordingly.
(ii)
The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or underruns,
completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
(3)
The contracting officer may start collecting past performance data before
proposal receipt. One method for early evaluation of past performance is to
request offerors to submit their past performance information in advance of the
proposal due date. The RFP could also include a past performance questionnaire
for offerors to send their previous customers with instructions to return the
completed questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror
to submit its past performance information early or of the customers to submit
the completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the proposal
nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of the offeror's past
performance.
(4)
The contracting officer shall evaluate the offeror's past performance in
occupational health, security, safety, and mission success (e.g., mishap rates
and problems in delivered hardware and software that resulted in mishaps or
failures) when these areas are germane to the requirement.
1815.305
Proposal evaluation.
(a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to
identify and document:
(i)
Any deficiencies;
(ii) All strengths and weaknesses. These findings will include a description of how each
strength and weakness will impact performance in terms of benefit or risk statements;
(iii) The numerical score and/or
adjectival rating of each
(iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
(v) The Past Performance evaluation factor; and
(vi) Any programmatic risk to
mission success, e.g., technical, schedule, cost, safety, occupational health,
security, export control, or environmental.
Risks may result from the offeror's technical
approach, manufacturing plan, selection of materials, processes, equipment, or
as a result of the cost, schedule, and performance impacts associated with its
approach. Risk evaluations must consider
the probability of the risk occurring, the impact and severity of the risk, the
timeframe when the risk should be addressed, and the alternatives available to
meet the requirements. Risk assessments
shall be captured as part of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical
or adjectival ratings. Identified risks and the potential for cost impact shall
be considered in the cost or price evaluation.
(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.
(A)
Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive acquisitions. See 1815.403-1(b)(1)
and 1815.403-3(b).
(B)
When contracting on a basis other than firm-fixed-price, the contracting
officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to assess the
reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost realism analysis will
determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal are realistic for the work to
be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are
consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The
analysis should include:
(a)
The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including any recommended
additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor hours, direct rates, and
indirect rates. The probable cost should reflect the best estimate of the cost
of any contract which might result from that offeror's proposal.
(b)
The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and practices as
they affect cost.
(c)
A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each
proposal.
(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
(A)
The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's performance under
previously awarded contracts. The past
performance evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)
and this section. When applying the
definitions below to arrive at a confidence rating, the SEB’s
evaluation shall clearly document each Offeror’s
relevant past performance (e.g. currency/recency,
size, content and complexity) to assess the Offeror’s
overall confidence rating assigned. The
past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s
confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the
solicitation requirements. Past
Performance shall be evaluated for each offeror using
the following levels of confidence ratings:
Very High
Level of Confidence
The Offeor’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit
and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary
performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any)
problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. **
(One or more significant strengths exist.
No significant weaknesses exist. )
High Level of
Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this
acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully
responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in
a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor
problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths
exist. Strengths outbalance any
weakness.)
Moderate Level
of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past
performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective
performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems,
but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or
both.)
Low Level of
Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat
pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum
acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable,
but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a low level of confidence 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. ** (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses
outbalance strengths.)
Very Low Level
of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance 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, there is a very low level of
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform
the required effort. ** (One or more
deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)
Neutral
In the case of
an Offeror without a record of relevant past
performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on
past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].
** (At the
Installations’ discretion strengths and weaknesses may be assigned.)
(B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all offerors in that acquisition.
(C) Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit assessments of the offeror's performance, as either a prime or subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
(D)
All pertinent information, including customer assessments and any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source
selection records and addressed in the evaluation of past performance.
(a)(3) Technical
Evaluation.
(A)
|
ADJECTIVAL
|
DEFINITIONS |
|
|
Excellent |
A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists. |
91-100 |
|
Very Good |
A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist. |
71-90 |
|
Good |
A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror's response. |
51-70 |
|
Fair |
A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. |
31-50 |
|
Poor |
A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct. |
0-30 |
(B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, a cost
realism analysis shall be performed consistent with FAR 15.404-1(d).
(a)(4) The cost or price evaluation,
specifically the cost realism analysis, often requires a technical evaluation
of proposed costs. Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy
of the cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
(b) The contracting officer is
authorized to make the determination to reject all proposals received in
response to a solicitation.
1815.305-70
Identification of unacceptable proposals.
(a) The contracting officer shall not
complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the
proposal is unacceptable because:
(1)
It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential
requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror
does not understand the requirements;
(2)
In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design drawback is
evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or improvement to consider
the proposal acceptable would require virtually an entirely new technical
proposal; or
(3)
It contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs which
discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be
expected to cure.
(b) The contracting officer shall
document the rationale for discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal
in accordance with this section.
1815.305-71
Evaluation of a single proposal.
(a) If only one proposal is received in
response to the solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the
solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single
proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the SSA shall
direct the contracting officer to:
(1)
Award without discussions provided the contracting officer determines that
adequate price competition exists (see FAR
15.403-1(c)(1)(ii));
(2)
Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission
of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-1);
or
(3)
Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
(b) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also
applies when the number of proposals equals the number of awards contemplated
or when only one acceptable proposal is received.
1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of
proposals.
(c)(2) A total of no more than three
proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive range. Field
installations may establish procedures for approval of competitive range
determinations commensurate with the complexity or dollar value of an
acquisition.
(d)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall
identify any cost/price elements that do not appear to be justified and
encourage offerors to submit their most favorable and realistic cost/price
proposals, but shall not discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of
any other offeror. The contracting officer should
question inadequate, conflicting, unrealistic, or unsupported cost information;
differences between the offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments;
cost realism concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs;
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not appear
responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price elements or a
"bottom line " is necessary.
(B)
The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and conditions so that a
"model" contract can be sent to each offeror
with the request for final proposal revisions. If the solicitation allows, any
proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP
that have value to the Government and are considered proposal strengths should
be discussed with the offeror and proposed for
inclusion in that offeror's "model" contract. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in its
"model" contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider their
characterization as strengths.
(e)(1) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed requirements.
1815.307
Proposal revisions.
(b)(i) The request for final
proposal revisions (FPRs) shall also:
(A)
Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers resulting from
discussions, and require clear traceability from initial proposals;
(B)
Require offerors to complete and execute the "model" contract, which
includes any special provisions or performance capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
(C)
Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their proposals; and
(D)
Establish a page limit for FPRs.
(ii)
Approval of the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is required
to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 million or more. Approval of the
procurement officer is required for all other acquisitions.
(iii)
Proposals are rescored or rerated
based on FPR evaluations. Scoring or
rating changes between initial and FPRs shall
be clearly traceable.
1815.308
Source selection decision.
(1) A Source Selection Decision is a deliberative
decision that is documented in the Source Selection Statement, reflecting the
thought process behind the selection and representing the independent judgment
of the SSA. The SSA has broad discretion in determining the manner and extent
to which to make use of the technical, past performance, and cost
evaluation results of the SEB, subject only to the tests of rationality and
consistency with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. The adjectival ratings and numerical scoring
presented to the SSA represent the SEB’s relative
ranking of proposals within the mission suitability factor cannot be the sole
basis for a selection decision. Instead
the selection shall be based upon a comparative assessment of the relative
discriminators that includes a discussion of the benefits or risks/detriments
associated with the discriminators of the selected offeror
over all other offerors considering all evaluation
factors (i.e. past performance factor, cost/price factor, other non-price
factors).
(2) All
significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented and considered in the
source selection decision. A clear and logical audit trail shall be maintained
for the rationale for ratings and scores, including a detailed account of the
decisions leading to the selection. Selection is made on the basis of the
evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
(3) Before award, the SSA shall sign a
source selection statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection.
Source selection statements must describe: the acquisition; the evaluation
procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the
evaluation of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement also
addresses unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals,
or any other considerations pertinent to the decision. The statement shall not
reveal any confidential business information. Except for certain major system
acquisition competitions (see 1815.506-70),
source selection statements shall be releasable to competing offerors and the
general public upon request. The statement shall be available to the Debriefing
Official to use in postaward debriefings of
unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon request.
(4) Once the selection decision is made,
the contracting officer shall award the contract.
1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.
(a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for those
acquisitions identified in 1815.300-70(a)(1)(i). The NASA Source Selection Guide provides
agency-wide guidance to individuals participating in the Source Evaluation
Board (SEB) process and is available at http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/sourceselection/guide.pdf.
(b) The SEB
assists the SSA by providing expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in
relation to the evaluation factors and subfactors
contained in the solicitation. The SEB will prepare and present its findings to
the SSA, avoiding trade-off judgments among either the individual offerors or
among the evaluation factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for
selection to the SSA.
(c) Designation.
(1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent individuals fully qualified to
identify the strengths, weaknesses, and risks associated with proposals
submitted in response to the solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early
as possible in the acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan or procurement
strategy meeting approval.
(2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant installation,
personnel from other NASA installations or other Government agencies may
participate. When it is necessary to disclose the proposal (in whole or in
part) outside the Government, approval shall be obtained in accordance with 1815.207-70.
(3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters Office of
Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments. Qualifications of
voting members, including functional title, grade level, and related SEB
experience, shall be provided.
(d) Organization.
(1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the requirements of the
particular acquisition. This can range from the simplest situation, where the
SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-finding without the use of committees or
panels/consultants (as described in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section)
to a highly complex situation involving a major acquisition where two or more
committees are formed and these, in turn, are assisted by special panels or
consultants in particular areas. The number of committees or panels/consultants
shall be kept to a minimum.
(2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the SEB. The
Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without compromising the
validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the basis for a sound selection
decision.
(3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative assistant to the
SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for logistical support and
recordkeeping of SEB activities.
(4) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding arm of the SEB, usually in a broad
grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or management). The committee
evaluates in detail each proposal, or portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in
accordance with the approved evaluation factors and subfactors
and summarizes its evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also respond to requirements
assigned by the SEB, including further justification or reconsideration of its
findings. Committee chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural
matters of their committees.
(5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a fact-finding arm of the committee in
a specialized area of the committee's responsibilities. Panels are established
or consultants named when a particular area requires deeper analysis than the
committee can provide.
(6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, consultants, etc.
excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) shall be limited to a
maximum of 20, unless approved in writing by the procurement officer.
(e) Voting members.
(1) Voting members of the SEB shall include people who will have key
assignments on the project to which the acquisition is directed. However, it is
important that this should be tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an
improper balance. It may even be appropriate to designate a management official
from outside the project as SEB Chairperson.
(2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of an SEB.
(3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels, or consultants and
use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB evaluation findings reported
to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB shall have equal status as rating
officials.
(4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting individuals.
Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a voting member shall be
on a full-time basis. When not feasible, SEB membership shall take precedence
over other duties.
(5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
(i) Chairperson.
(ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
(iii) An experienced procurement representative.
(iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as
appropriate.
(v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue workload).
(f) Ex officio members.
(1) The number of nonvoting ex officio (advisory) members shall be kept as
small as possible. Ex officio members should be selected for the experience and
expertise they can provide to the SEB. Since their advisory role may require
access to highly sensitive SEB material and findings, ex officio membership for
persons other than those identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section is
discouraged.
(2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and contribute to the
discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not participate in the actual
rating process. However, the SEB recorder should be present during rating
sessions.
(3) For field installation selections, the following shall be nonvoting ex
officio members on all SEBs:
(i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated
as voting members.
(ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated a voting
member.
(iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition, unless designated
a voting member.
(iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
(v) The installation small business specialist.
(vi) The SEB recorder.
(g) Evaluation.
(1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson shall send them the proposals
or portions thereof to be evaluated, along with instructions regarding the
expected function of each committee, and all data considered necessary or
helpful.
(2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee shall submit a
written report which should include the following:
(i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the lowest level
evaluated;
(ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; and
(iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths, deficiencies, or
significant weaknesses which significantly affected the evaluation and stating
any reservations or concerns, together with supporting rationale, which the
committee or any of its members want to bring to the attention of the SEB.
(3) The SEB process must be adequately documented. Clear traceability must
exist at all levels of the SEB process. All reports submitted by committees or
panels will be retained as part of the SEB records.
(4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal and any
committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the proposals for
each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its
own collective judgment. SEB minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
(h) SEB presentation.
(1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA on the results of the SEB
deliberations to permit an informed and objective selection of the best
source(s) for the particular acquisition.
(2) The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths, deficiencies,
and significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the probable cost of each
proposal, and any significant issues and problems identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable
special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors and subfactors;
the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of the offerors
which includes a
description of the benefits or risks associated with the significant findings;
the Government cost estimate, if applicable; the offerors'
proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee arrangements; and the
final adjectival ratings and scores to the subfactor
level. The presentation to the SSA shall include the
total mission suitability point score for each offeror’s
proposal. An adjectival rating (e.g. excellent, very good, etc.) shall be
assigned for each mission suitability subfactor, but
an adjectival rating shall not be assigned for the total mission
suitability factor of each offeror’s proposal. The SEB shall compute the total mission
suitability point score by adding all of the mission suitability subfactors points assessed, with the maximum possible total
mission suitability point score being 1000 points. The total mission suitability point score
does not represent a precise measure of the relative merit of any one offeror’s proposal, but rather it is to summarize the total
points each offeror’s proposal is assessed out of the
possible 1000 points.
(3)
Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved in the
selection process or who have a valid need to know. The designated individuals
attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
(i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied with all
applicable agency policies and that the presentation accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
(ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors,
weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's
findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural omissions,
irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its findings, or revise the
presentation.
(4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation including
arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring proper attendance,
and distributing presentation material.
(5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code
HS) will coordinate the presentation, including approval of attendees. When the
Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary presentation should be made to the head of the contracting activity and to the
Official-in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office.
(i) Recommended SEB presentation format.
(1) Identification of the Acquisition. Identifies the installation, the
nature of the services or hardware to be acquired, some quantitative measure
including the Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned
contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
(2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased acquisition
or, as in the case of continuing support services, identifies the incumbent and
any consolidations or proposed changes from the existing structure.
(3) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.
Explains the evaluation factors, subfactors, and any
special standards of responsibility. Lists the relative order of importance of
the evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in
the Mission Suitability and Past Performance evaluations.
(4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the number
of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a preproposal
conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals, indicating any small
businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned businesses.
(5) Summary of Findings. Lists the initial and final Mission Suitability
ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed costs/prices, and any assessment of
the probable costs. Introduces any clear discriminator, problem, or issue which
could affect the selection. Addresses any competitive range
determination. List the adjectival rating (e.g. excellent,
very good, etc.) assigned for each mission suitability subfactor
for each offeror’s proposal. List the total mission suitability point
score for each offeror's proposal by adding all of
the mission suitability subfactors points assessed
out of the possible 1000 points.
(6) Significant Strengths, Deficiencies,
and Significant Weaknesses of Offerors. Summarizes the SEB's
findings, using the following guidelines:
(i) Present only the significant strengths,
deficiencies, and significant weaknesses of individual offerors
accompanied with
a description of the benefits or risks associated with each discriminator.
.
(ii) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant
weaknesses to the evaluation factors and subfactors.
(iii) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and FPRs on ratings and scores.
(7) Final
(8) Final Cost/Price Evaluation. Summarizes proposed costs/prices and
any probable costs associated with each offeror
including proposed fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as
possible, showing SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies
the SEB's confidence in the probable costs of the
individual offerors, noting the reasons for low or high confidence.
(9) Past
Performance. Provides
a summary of the assessed level of confidence associated with each offeror’s proposal.
(10)
Special Interest. Includes only information of special interest to the
SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g., procedural errors or other matters
that could affect the selection decision.
(j) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance with 1815.308.
For installation selections, the installation Chief Counsel or designee will
prepare the source selection statement. For Headquarters selections, the Office
of General Counsel or designee will prepare the statement.
1815.403 Obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing
data.
(b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to both
fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting officers
shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for this exception.
(c)(4) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK).
1815.403-170
Waivers of cost or pricing data.
(a) NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data
when contracting with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC). This waiver
applies to the CCC and its subcontractors. The CCC will provide assurance of
the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. This assurance should be
relied on; however, contracting officers shall ensure that the
appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted
by subcontractors to support any required proposal analysis, including a
technical analysis and a cost realism analysis. The CCC also will provide for
follow-up audit activity to ensure that any excess profits are found and
refunded to NASA.
(b) NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data
when contracting for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program Phase II
contracts. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the appropriate
level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted to determine
price reasonableness and cost realism.
1815.403-3
Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
(b) As indicated in 1815.403-1(b)(1),
the adequate price competition exception applies to all competitive
acquisitions. For other than firm-fixed-price competitions, only the minimum
information other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price
reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested. For
firm-fixed-price competitions, the contracting officer shall not request any
cost information, except as required by FAR
22.1103, unless proposed prices appear unreasonable or
unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed approach and there are
concerns that the contractor may default.
1815.403-4
Requiring cost or pricing data.
(b)(2) If a certificate of current cost or pricing data is made applicable as
of a date other than the date of price agreement, the agreed date should
generally be within two weeks of the date of that agreement.
1815.404-2
Information to support proposal analysis.
(a)(1)(A) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and an
audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting officers
should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA resources are not
available.
(B) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves
merely a verification of information, contracting officers should obtain this
verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather than formal request
of field pricing support.
(C) When the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature,
contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a minimum are
considered: actuals incurred under the previous
contract, learning experience, technical and production analysis, and
subcontract proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA
resources or the cognizant DCMA ACO or DCAA.
(D) Requests for field pricing assistance may be made on NASA Form 1434,
Letter of Request for Pricing-Audit-Technical Evaluation Services.
1815.404-4 Profit.
(b)(1)(i)(a) The NASA structured approach for determining profit
or fee objectives, described in 1815.404-471
shall be used to determine profit or fee objectives in the negotiation of
contracts greater than or equal to $100,000 that use cost analysis and are:
(1) Awarded on the basis of other than full and open
competition (see FAR
6.3);
(2) Awarded under NASA Research Announcements (NRAs) and Announcements of Opportunity (AO's); or
(3) Awarded under the Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) or the Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs.
(b) The rate calculated for the basic contract may only be used
on actions under a negotiated contract when the conditions affecting profit or
fee do not change.
(c) Although specific agreement on the applied weights or values
for individual profit or fee factors shall not be attempted, the contracting
officer may encourage the contractor to -
(1) Present the details of its proposed profit amounts in the
structured
approach format or similar structured approach; and
(2) Use the structured approach method in developing profit or
fee objectives for negotiated subcontracts.
(ii) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is
not required for:
(a) Architect-engineer contracts;
(b) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of
Government facilities;
(c) Construction contracts;
(d) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of materials supplied
by subcontractors;
(e) Termination settlements; and
(f) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the
procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach is
unsuitable.
(c)(2) Contracting officers shall document the profit or fee analysis in the contract file.
1815.404-470
NASA Form 634.
NASA Form (NF) 634 shall be used in performing the analysis necessary to
develop profit or fee objectives.
1815.404-471 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.404-471-1
General.
(a) The structured approach for determining profit or fee objectives (NF 634)
focuses on three profit factors:
(1) Performance risk;
(2) Contract type risk including working capital adjustment; and
(3) Other Considerations which may be considered by the contracting officer to
account for special circumstances that are not adequately addressed in the
performance risk and contract type risk factors.
(b) The contracting officer assigns values to each profit or fee factor; the
value multiplied by the base results in the profit/fee objective for that
factor. Each factor has a normal value and a designated range of values. The
normal value is representative of average conditions on the prospective
contract when compared to all goods and services acquired by NASA. The
designated range provides values based on above normal or below normal
conditions. Values outside the designated range must not be used. In the negotiation documentation, the contracting
officer need not explain assignment of the normal value, but must address
conditions that justify assignment of other than the normal value.
1815.404-471-2
Performance risk.
(a) Risk Factors. Performance risk addresses the contractor's degree of
risk in fulfilling the contract requirements. It consists of three risk
factors:
(1) Technical - the technical uncertainties of performance;
(2) Management - the degree of management effort necessary to ensure that
contract requirements are met; and
(3) Cost control - the contractor's efforts to reduce and control costs.
(b) Risk factor weighting, values and calculations. A weighting and
value is assigned to each of the risk factors to determine a profit/fee
objective.
(c) Values. The normal value is 6 percent and the designated range is 4
percent to 8 percent.
(d) Evaluation criteria for technical risk factor.
(1) In determining the appropriate value for the technical risk factor, the
contracting officer shall review the contract requirements and focus on the
critical performance elements in the statement of work or specifications.
Contracting officers shall consider the -
(i) Technology being applied or developed by the contractor;
(ii) Technical complexity;
(iii) Program maturity;
(iv) Performance specifications and tolerances;
(v) Delivery schedule; and
(vi) Extent of a warranty or guarantee.
(2) Above normal conditions indicating substantial technical risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a higher than normal value in those
cases where there is a substantial technical risk, such as when -
(A) The contractor is either developing or applying advanced technologies;
(B) Items are being manufactured using specifications with stringent tolerance
limits;
(C) The efforts require highly skilled personnel or require the use of
state-of-the-art machinery;
(D) The services or analytical efforts are extremely important to the
government and must be performed to exacting standards;
(E) The contractor's independent development and investment has reduced the
Government's risk or cost;
(F) The contractor has accepted an accelerated delivery schedule to meet the
Government's requirements; or
(G) The contractor has assumed additional risk through warranty provisions.
(ii) The contracting officer may assign a value significantly above normal. A
maximum value may be assigned when the effort involves-
(A) Extremely complex, vital efforts to overcome difficult technical obstacles
that require personnel with exceptional abilities, experience, and professional
credentials;
(B) Development or initial production of a new item, particularly if
performance or quality specifications are tight; or
(C) A high degree of development or production concurrency.
(3) Below normal conditions indicating lower than normal technical risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value in those cases
where the technical risk is low, such as when the -
(A) Acquisition is for off-the-shelf items;
(B) Requirements are relatively simple;
(C) Technology is not complex;
(D) Efforts do not require highly skilled personnel;
(E) Efforts are routine; or
(F) Acquisition is a follow-on effort or a repetitive type acquisition.
(ii) The contracting officer may assign a value significantly below normal. A
minimum value may be justified when the effort involves -
(A) Routine services;
(B) Production of simple items;
(C) Rote entry or routine integration of Government-furnished information; or
(D) Simple operations with Government-furnished property.
(e) Evaluation criteria for management risk factor.
(1) In determining the appropriate value for the management risk factor, the
contracting officer shall review the contract requirements and focus on the
critical performance elements in the statement of work or specifications.
Contracting officers shall -
(i) Assess the contractor's management and internal control systems using
contracting office information and reviews made by contract administration
offices;
(ii) Assess the management involvement expected on the prospective contract
action; and
(iii) Consider the degree of cost mix as an indication of the types of
resources applied and value added by the contractor.
(2) Above normal conditions indicating substantial management risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a higher than normal value when the
management effort is intense, such as when -
(A) The contractor's value added is both considerable and reasonably difficult;
or
(B) The effort involves a high degree of integration and coordination.
(ii) The contracting officer may justify a maximum value when the effort -
(A) Requires large-scale integration of the most complex nature;
(B) Involves major international activities with significant management
coordination; or
(C) Has critically important milestones.
(3) Below normal conditions indicating lower than normal management risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value when the
management effort is minimal, such as when -
(A) The program is mature and many end item deliveries have been made;
(B) The contractor adds minimum value to an item;
(C) The efforts are routine and require minimal supervision;
(D) The contractor fails to provide an adequate analysis of subcontractor
costs; or
(E) The contractor does not cooperate in the evaluation and negotiation of the
proposal.
(ii) The contracting officer may assign a value significantly below normal. A
minimum value may be assigned when -
(A) Reviews performed by the field administration offices disclose
unsatisfactory management and internal control systems (e.g., quality
assurance, property control, safety, security); or
(B) The effort requires an unusually low degree of management involvement.
(f) Evaluation criteria for cost control risk factor.
(1) In determining the appropriate value for the cost control risk factor, the
contracting officer shall -
(i) Evaluate the expected reliability of the contractor's cost estimates
(including the contractor's cost estimating system);
(ii) Evaluate the contractor's cost reduction initiatives (e.g., competition
advocacy programs);
(iii) Assess the adequacy of the contractor's management approach to
controlling cost and schedule; and
(iv) Evaluate any other factors that affect the contractor's ability to meet
the cost targets (e.g., foreign currency exchange rates and inflation rates).
(2) Above normal conditions indicating substantial cost control risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a value higher than normal value if the
contractor can demonstrate a highly effective cost control program, such as
when -
(A) The contractor has an aggressive cost reduction program that has
demonstrable benefits;
(B) The contractor uses a high degree of subcontract competition; or
(C) The contractor has a proven record of cost tracking and control.
(3) Below normal conditions indicating lower than normal cost control risk.
(i) The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value in those cases
where the contractor demonstrates minimal concern for cost control, such as
when -
(A) The contractor's cost estimating system is marginal;
(B) The contractor has made minimal effort to initiate cost reduction programs;
(C) The contractor's cost proposal is inadequate; or
(D) The contractor has a record of cost overruns or the indication of
unreliable cost estimates and lack of cost control.
1815.404-471-3
Contract type risk and working capital adjustment.
(a) Risk factors. The contract type risk factor focuses on the degree of
cost risk accepted by the contractor under varying contract types. The working
capital adjustment is an adjustment added to the profit objective for contract
type risk. It applies to fixed-price type contracts that provide for progress
payments. Though it uses a formula approach, it is not intended to be an exact
calculation of the cost of working capital. Its purpose is to give general
recognition to the contractor's cost of working capital under varying contract
circumstances, financing policies, and the economic environment. This
adjustment is limited to a maximum of 2 percent.
(b) Risk factor values and calculations. A risk value is assigned to
calculate the profit or fee objective for contract type. A contract length
factor is assigned and applied to costs financed when a working capital
adjustment is appropriate. This calculation is only performed when the
prospective contract is a fixed-price contract containing provisions for
progress payments.
(c) Values:
|
Contract Type |
Notes |
Normal Value (Percent) |
Designated Range (Percent) |
|
Firm-fixed-price, no financing |
(1) |
5 |
4 to 6 |
|
Firm-fixed-price with |
(6) |
4 |
2.5 to 5.5 |
|
Firm-fixed-price with
progress |
(2) |
3 |
2 to 4 |