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 Mission Suitability evaluation shall consider
the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed approach to
meeting the requirements of the solicitation including the appropriateness of
the offeror’s proposed resources. The solicitation shall notify offerors that a lack of resource realism may adversely
affect their Mission Suitability scores, and result in cost realism adjustments
under the cost factor.
(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 Mission Suitability subfactor, if applicable;
(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) Mission
Suitability subfactors shall be evaluated using the
following adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.
|
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 evaluation board, 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, which represent the evaluation board’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. The contracting
officer shall post the source selection statement on the NASA Acquisition
Internet Service (NAIS) Electronic Posting System (EPS) not later than 10
calendar days after the final debriefing has been conducted. The source selection statement shall be
posted for a period of not less than 30 days.
(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://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/documents/Source_Selection_Guide_final.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 |
|
Fixed-price-incentive, no financing |
(1) |
3 |
2 to 4 |
|
Fixed-price-incentive, with |
(6) |
2 |
.5 to 3.5 |
|
Fixed-price, redeterminable |
(3) |
-- |
-- |
|
Fixed-price-incentive, with
progress |
(2) |
1 |
0 to 2 |
|
Cost-plus-incentive-fee |
(4) |
1 |
0 to 2 |
|
Cost-plus-award fee |
(4) |
.75 |
.5 to 1.5 |
|
Cost-plus-fixed fee |
(4) |
.5 |
0 to 1 |
|
Time-and-materials |
(5) |
.5 |
0 to 1 |
|
Labor-hour |
(5) |
.5 |
0 to 1 |
|
Firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort, term |
(5) |
.5 |
0 to 1 |
(1) "No
financing," means that the contract either does not provide progress
or performance based payments, or provides them only on a limited basis. Do not
compute a working capital adjustment.
(2) When progress payments are present, compute a working capital adjustment.
(3) For purposes of assigning profit values, treat a fixed-price redeterminable contract as if it were a
fixed-price-incentive contract with below normal provisions.
(4) Cost-plus contracts shall not receive the working capital adjustment.
(5) These types of contracts are considered cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for
the purposes of assigning profit values. Do not compute the working capital
adjustment. However, higher than normal values may be assigned within the
designated range to the extent that portions of cost are fixed.
(6) When performance-based payments are used, do not compute a working capital
adjustment.
(d) Evaluation criteria.
(1) General. The contracting officer shall consider elements that affect
contract type risk such as -
(i) Length of contract;
(ii) Adequacy of cost projection data;
(iii) Economic environment;
(iv) Nature and extent of subcontracted activity;
(v) Protection provided to the contractor under contract provisions (e.g.,
economic price adjustment clauses);
(vi) The ceilings and share lines contained in the incentive provisions; and
(vii) The rate, frequency, and risk to the contractor of performance-based
payments, if provided.
(2) Mandatory. The contracting officer shall assess the extent to which
costs have been incurred prior to definitization of
the contract. When costs have been incurred prior to definitization,
generally regard the contract type risk to be in the low end of the designated
range. If a substantial portion of the costs have been incurred prior to definitization, the contracting officer may assign a value
as low as 0 percent regardless of contract type.
(3) Above normal conditions. The contracting officer may assign a higher
than normal value when there is substantial contract type risk. Conditions
indicating higher than normal contract type risk are -
(i) Efforts where there is minimal cost history;
(ii) Long-term contracts without provisions protecting the contractor,
particularly when there is considerable economic uncertainty;
(iii) Incentive provisions that place a high degree of risk on the contractor;
(iv) Performance-based payments totaling less than the maximum allowable
amount(s) specified at FAR
32.1004(b)(2); or
(v) An aggressive performance-based payment schedule that increases risk.
(4) Below normal conditions. The contracting officer may assign a lower
than normal value when the contract type risk is low. Conditions indicating
lower than normal contract type risk are:
(i) Very mature product line with extensive cost history;
(ii) Relatively short-term contracts;
(iii) Contractual provisions that substantially reduce the contractor's risk,
e.g. economic price adjustment provisions; and
(iv) Incentive provisions that place a low amount of risk on the contractor.
(v) A performance-based payment schedule that is routine with minimal risk.
(e) Costs financed.
(1) Costs financed equal the total costs multiplied by the percent of costs
financed by the contractor.
(2) Total costs may be reduced as appropriate when -
(i) The contractor has little cash investment (e.g., subcontractor progress
payments are liquidated late in the period of performance);
(ii) Some costs are covered by special funding arrangements, such as advance
payments;
(3) The portion financed by the contractor is generally the portion not covered
by progress payments. (i.e. - for progress payments: 100 percent minus the
customary progress payments rate. For example, if a contractor receives
progress payments at 75 percent, the portion financed by the contractor is 25
percent. On contracts that provide progress payments to small business, use the
customary progress payment rate for large businesses.)
(f) Contract length factor.
(1) This is the period of time that the contractor has a working capital
investment in the contract. It -
(i) Is based on the time necessary for the contractor to complete the
substantive portion of the work;
(ii) Is not necessarily the period of time between contract award and final
delivery, as periods of minimal effort should be excluded;
(iii) Should not include periods of performance contained in option provisions
when calculating the objective for the base period; and
(iv) Should not, for multiyear contracts, include periods of performance beyond
that required to complete the initial year's requirements.
(2) The contracting officer -
(i) Should use the following to select the contract length factor:
|
Period
to perform substantive portion |
Contract length factor |
|
21 or less ... |
.40 |
|
22 to 27 ... |
.65 |
|
28 to 33 ... |
.90 |
|
34 to 39 ... |
1.15 |
|
40 or more ... |
1.40 |
(ii) Should develop a weighted average contract length when the contract has multiple deliveries; and
(iii)
May use sampling techniques provided they produce a representative result.
(3) Example: A prospective contract has a performance period of 40
months with end items being delivered in the 34th, 36th,
38th and 40th months of the contract. The average period
is 37 months and the contract length factor is 1.15.
1815.404-471-4
Other considerations.
(a) Other Considerations may be included by the contracting officer to account
for special circumstances, such as contractor efficiencies or unusual
acceptance of contractual or program risks that are not adequately addressed in
the structured approach calculations described in 1815.404-471-2
or 1815.404-471-3.
The total adjustment resulting from Other Considerations may be positive or negative
but in no case should the total adjustment exceed +/- 5 percent.
(b) The contracting officer shall analyze and verify information provided by
the contractor that demonstrates that the special circumstances being
recognized under this section -
(1) Provide substantial benefits to the Government under the contract and/or
overall program;
(2) Have not been recognized in the structured approach calculations; and
(3) Represent unusual and innovative actions or acceptance of risk by the
contractor.
(c) Examples of special circumstances include, but are not limited to the
following:
(1) Consistent demonstration by the contractor of excellent past performance
within the last three years, with a special emphasis on excellence in safety,
may merit an upward adjustment of as much as 1 percent. Similarly, an
assessment of poor past performance, especially in the area of safety, may
merit a downward adjustment of as much -1 percent. This consideration is
especially important when negotiating modifications or changes to an ongoing
contract.
(2) Extraordinary steps to achieve the Government's socio-economic goals,
environmental goals, and public policy goals established by law or regulation
that are sufficiently unique or unusual may merit an upward adjustment of as
much as .5 percent. Similarly, for non-participation in or violation of Federal
programs, the contracting officer may adjust the objective by as much as -.5
percent. However, this consideration does not apply to the utilization of small
disadvantaged businesses. Incentives for use of these firms may only be
structured according to FAR
19.1203 and 19.1204(c).
(3) Consideration of up to 1 percent should be given when contract performance
requires the expenditure of significant corporate capital resources.
(4) Unusual requests for use of government facilities and property may merit a
downward adjustment of as much as - 1 percent.
(5) Cost efficiencies arising from innovative product design, process
improvements, or integration of a life cycle cost approach for the design and
development of systems that minimize maintenance and operations costs, that
have not been recognized in Performance Risk or Contract Type Risk, may merit
an upward adjustment. This factor is intended to recognize and reward
improvements resulting from better ideas and management that will benefit the
Government in the contract and/or program.
(d) Other considerations need not be limited to situations that increase
profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when there is a
significant expectation of near-term spin-off benefits as a direct result of
the contract.
1815.404-471-5
Facilities capital cost of money.
(a) When facilities capital cost of money is included as an item of cost in the
contractor's proposal, it shall not be included in the cost base for
calculating profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the profit/fee objective
shall be made in the amount equal to the facilities capital cost of money
allowed in accordance with FAR
31.205-10(b) or 1 percent of the cost base, whichever is less.
(b) CAS
417, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital assets under
construction, should not appear in contract proposals. These costs are included
in the initial value of a facility for purposes of calculating depreciation
under CAS
414.
1815.404-471-6 Modification to structured profit/fee
approach for nonprofit organizations.
(a)
The structured approach was designed for determining profit or fee objectives
for commercial organizations. However, the structured approach must be used as
a basis for arriving at profit/fee objectives for nonprofit organizations (FAR
Subpart 31.7), excluding educational institutions (FAR
Subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. It is
NASA policy not to pay profit or fee on contracts with educational institutions.
(b) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profit or fee is involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent of the costs in Block 13 of NASA Form 634 must be subtracted from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this adjustment, it is necessary to consider the following factors:
(1) Tax position benefits;
(2) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
(3) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
(4) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit organization.
1815.404-472
Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized
contracts.
1815.406-1
Prenegotiation objectives.
(b)(i) Before conducting negotiations requiring installation or
Headquarters review, contracting officers or their representatives shall
prepare a prenegotiation position memorandum setting forth the technical,
business, contractual, pricing, and other aspects to be negotiated.
(ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR 15.3 and 1815.3.
1815.406-170
Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain the
contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately become the
basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to the price
negotiation memorandum (see FAR
15.406-3 and 1815.406-3).
In addition to the information described in FAR
15.406-1 and, as appropriate, 15.406-3(a), the PPM should address the
following subjects, as applicable, in the order presented:
(a) Introduction.
Include a description of the acquisition and a history of prior acquisitions
for the same or similar items. Address the extent of competition and its
results. Identify the contractor and place of performance (if not evident from
the description of the acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations
and policy, including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of
contractor systems (see FAR 15.406-3(a)(4)). In addition, the negotiation
schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation team members
identified by name and position.
(b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract contemplated
and the reasons for its suitability.
(c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any
special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition, including such
items as--
(1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized
and incurred;
(2) Results of preaward survey;
(3) Contract option requirements;
(4) Government property to be furnished;
(5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment (and any
modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government);
(6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions anticipated, for
example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses and when approvals were
obtained, if required; and
(7) Any risk management issues, e.g., mission success, safety, occupational
health, information technology, export control, security, and environmental
risks.
(d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option, include --
(1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of the
contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective. The
negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the Government
is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each element of cost, compare
the contractor's proposal and the Government position, explain the differences
and how the Government position was developed, including the estimating
assumptions and projection techniques employed, and how the positions differ in
approach. Include a discussion of excessive wages found (if applicable) and their
planned resolution. Explain how historical costs, including costs incurred
under a letter contract (if applicable), were used in developing the
negotiation objective.
(2) Significant differences between the field pricing report (including any
audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or contractor's proposal
shall be highlighted and explained. For each proposed subcontract meeting the
requirement of FAR
15.404-3(c), there shall be a discussion of the price and, when
appropriate, cost analyses performed by the contracting officer, including the
negotiation objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major
subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of competition
achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when appropriate, cost
analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by the prime contractor, any
unusual or special pricing or finance arrangements, and the current status of
subcontract negotiations.
(3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and, if
appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured Approach --
Profit/Fee Objective, and DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities Capital Cost of
Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee contracts, describe the
planned arrangement in terms of share lines, ceilings, and cost risk.
(e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the
Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for the
supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently demonstrate
that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or condition) is reasonable,
the contracting officer shall document the rationale for such a change and
request approval to amend the PPM from the original approval authority.
1815.406-171
Installation reviews.
Each contracting activity shall establish procedures to review all
prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage, exact procedures to
be followed, levels of management review, and contract file documentation
requirements should be directly related to the dollar value and complexity of
the acquisition. The primary purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the
negotiator, or negotiation team, is thoroughly prepared to enter into
negotiations with a well-conceived, realistic, and fair plan.
1815.406-172
Headquarters reviews.
(a) When a prenegotiation position has been selected for Headquarters review
and approval, the contracting activity shall submit to the Office of
Procurement (Code HS) one copy each of the prenegotiation position memorandum,
the contractor's proposal, the Government technical evaluation, and all pricing
reports (including any audit reports).
(b) The required information described in paragraph (a) of this section shall
be furnished to Headquarters as soon as practicable and sufficiently in advance
of the planned commencement of negotiations to allow a reasonable period of
time for Headquarters review. Electronic submittal is acceptable.
1815.406-3 Documenting the negotiation.
(a) (i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed
summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including price
reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated; and the
methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final negotiated agreement.
(ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive
negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR
15.406-3 shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection
documentation to the extent applicable.
(iii) When the PNM is a "stand-alone" document, it shall
contain the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs.
However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.406-1, the subsequent PNM need
only provide any information required by FAR 15.406-3 that was not provided in
the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of factors affecting cost
elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours, or subcontractors; wage rate
determinations; or the current status of the contractor's systems).
(b) When field pricing assistance has been obtained from the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the contracting officer shall send a copy of the PNM documentation to the audit office that provided the assistance.
1815.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
1815.407-2
Make-or-buy programs.
(e)(1) Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work efforts estimated
to cost less than $500,000.
1815.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70
NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (a) The contracting
officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-78,
Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-or-buy
programs as provided in FAR
15.407-2(c). This provision shall be used in conjunction with the
clause at FAR
52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting
officer may add additional paragraphs identifying any other information
required in order to evaluate the program.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79,
Price Adjustment for "Make-or-Buy" Changes, in contracts that include
FAR 52.215-9 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate columns the
items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract value.
1815.504 Award to successful offeror. The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.504 on negotiated acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF 1447, or a letter contract when a definitized contract instrument is not available but the urgency of the requirement necessitates immediate performance. In this latter instance, the procedures for approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.
1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70
Debriefing of offerors - Major System acquisitions.
(a) When an acquisition is
conducted in accordance with the Major System acquisition procedures in Part 1834
and multiple offerors are selected, the debriefing will be limited in such a
manner that it does not prematurely disclose innovative concepts, designs, and
approaches of the successful offerors that would result in a transfusion of
ideas.
(b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design concepts, the
source selection statements shall not be released to competing offerors or the
general public until the release of the source selection statement for Phase
C/D without the approval of the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (Code
HS).
1815.602
Policy.
(1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract,
grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement. If a grant or cooperative
agreement is used, the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (NPR 5800.1) applies.
(2) Renewal proposals, (i.e., those for the extension or augmentation of
current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS regulations, including
the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, as are proposals for
new contracts.
1815.604
Agency points of contact.
(a)(6)
Information titled "Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of
Unsolicited Proposals" is available on the Internet at http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/unSol-Prop.html. A deviation is required for use of any modified or
summarized version of the Internet information or for alternate means of
general dissemination of unsolicited proposal information.
1815.606
Agency procedures.
(a) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited proposals initially
submitted to another agency or to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without
the offeror's express consent.
(b)(i) NASA Headquarters
and each NASA field installation shall designate a point of contact for receiving
and coordinating the handling and evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
(ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling proposals
initially received by other offices within the installation. Misdirected
proposals shall be forwarded by the point of contact to the proper
installation. Points of contact are also responsible for providing guidance to
potential offerors regarding the appropriate NASA officials to contact for
general mission-related inquiries or other preproposal
discussions.
(iii) Points of contact shall keep records of unsolicited proposals
received and shall provide prompt status information to requesters. These
records shall include, at a minimum, the number of unsolicited proposals
received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal year; the identity of the
offerors; and the office to which each was referred. The numbers shall be
broken out by source (large business, small business, university, or nonprofit
institution).
1815.606-70
Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified by an
evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall be evaluated
as a response to that NRA (see 1835.016-71),
provided that the evaluating office can either:
(a) State that the proposal is
not at a competitive disadvantage, or
(b) Give the offeror an opportunity to amend the
unsolicited proposal to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA proposal
preparation instructions. If these conditions cannot be met, the proposal must
be evaluated separately.
1815.609-70
Limited use of proposals.
Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government only to the
extent authorized by, and in accordance with, the procedures prescribed in, 1815.207-70.
1815.670 Foreign proposals. Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NPD 1360.2, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautics Programs.
1815.7001
NASA Ombudsman Program.
NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPR 5101.33, Procurement Advocacy Programs.
1815.7002
Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the contracting officer
shall indicate that the clause at 1852.215-84,
Ombudsman, is applicable. This may be accomplished by referencing the clause
number and identifying the installation Ombudsman.
1815.7003
Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the one
at 1852.215-84,
Ombudsman, in all solicitations (including draft solicitations) and contracts. Use the clause with its Alternate I when a task
or delivery order contract is contemplated.