PART 1872
ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
1872.000 Scope of part.
SUBPART 1872.1 THE INVESTIGATION ACQUISITION SYSTEM
1872.101 General.
1872.102 Key features of
the system.
1872.103 Management
responsibilities.
SUBPART 1872.2 APPLICABILITY OF THE PROCESS
1872.201 General.
1872.202 Criteria for
determining applicability.
1872.203 Applicable
programs and activities.
1872.204 Approval.
SUBPART 1872.3 THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
1872.301 General.
1872.302 Preparatory
effort.
1872.303 Responsibilities.
1872.304 Proposal
opportunity period.
1872.305 Guidelines for
announcement of opportunity.
1872.306 Announcement of
opportunity soliciting foreign participation.
1872.307 Guidelines for
proposal preparation.
1872.308
Proposals
submitted by NASA investigators.
SUBPART 1872.4 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
1872.401 General.
1872.402 Criteria for
evaluation.
1872.403 Methods of
evaluation.
1872.403-1 Advisory
subcommittee evaluation process.
1872.403-2 Contractor
evaluation process.
1872.403-3 Government
evaluation process.
1872.404 Engineering,
integration, and management evaluation.
1872.405 Program office
evaluation.
1872.406 Steering
committee review.
1872.407 Principles to
apply.
SUBPART 1872.5 THE SELECTION PROCESS
1872.501 General.
1872.502 Decisions to be
made.
1872.503 The selection
statement.
1872.504 Notification of
proposers.
1872.505 Debriefing.
SUBPART 1872.6 PAYLOAD FORMULATION
1872.601 Payload
formulation.
SUBPART 1872.7 ACQUISITION AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1872.701 Early
involvement essential.
1872.702 Negotiation,
discussions and contract award.
1872.703 Applications of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement.
1872.704 Other
administrative and functional requirements.
1872.705 Format of
announcement of opportunity.
1872.705-1 Appendix A:
General instructions and provisions.
1872.705-2 Appendix B:
Guidelines for proposal preparation.
1872.705-3 Appendix C:
Glossary of terms and abbreviations associated with investigations.
PART 1872
ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS
1872.000 Scope
of part.
This
part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of investigations.
Subpart 1872.1--The
Investigation Acquisition System
1872.101 General.
The
investigation acquisition system encourages the participation of investigators
and the selection of investigations which contribute most effectively to the
advancement of NASA's scientific and technological objectives. It is a system
separate from the acquisition process, but requiring the same management and
discipline to assure compliance with statutory requirements and considerations
of equity.
1872.102
Key Features of the system.
(a)(1) Use
of the system commences with the Enterprise Associate Administrator's
determination that the investigation acquisition process is appropriate for a
program. An Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is disseminated to the interested
scientific and technical communities. The AO is a form of broad agency
announcement (BAA) (see FAR 35.016 and 1835.016
for general BAA requirements). This solicitation does not specify the
investigations to be proposed but solicits investigative ideas which contribute
to broad objectives. In order to determine which of the proposals should be
selected, a formal competitive evaluation process is utilized. The evaluation
for merit is normally made by experts in the fields represented by the
proposals. Care should be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These
evaluators may be from NASA, other Government agencies, universities, or the
commercial sector. Along with or subsequent to the evaluation for merit, the
other factors of the proposals, such as engineering, cost, and integration aspects,
are reviewed by specialists in those areas. The evaluation conclusions as well
as considerations of budget and other factors are used to formulate a
complement of recommended investigations. A steering committee, serving as
staff to the Enterprise Associate Administrator or designee when source
selection authority is delegated, reviews the proposed payload or program of
investigation, the iterative process, and the selection recommendations. The
steering committee serves as a forum where different interests, such as flight
program, discipline management, and administration, can be weighed.
(2)
The Program AA, or designee, selects the proposals that will participate in the
program. Once selected, an investigator is assigned appropriate responsibilities
relating to the investigation through a contract with the institution. For
foreign investigators, these responsibilities will usually be outlined in an
agreement between NASA and the sponsoring governmental agency in the
investigator's country.
(b)
The AO process provides a disciplined approach to investigation acquisition.
The following major steps must be followed in each case:
(1) The
AO shall be signed by the Program AA and shall be widely distributed to the
scientific, technological, and applications user communities, as appropriate.
(2)
An evaluation team shall be formed including recognized peers of the
investigators.
(3) A
project office will be assigned to assess the engineering, cost, integration,
and management aspects of the proposals.
(4)
A program office will be responsible to formulate a complement of
investigations consistent with the objectives stated in the AO, cost, and
schedule constraints.
(5)
A steering committee appointed by the appropriate Program AA shall review the
proposed investigations for relevance and merit, will assure compliance with
the system as described in this Handbook, and make selection recommendations.
(6)
The Source Selection Official shall be the Program AA or the Program AA's
designee.
(c) Payloads
will be formulated consisting of investigations selected through the AO process
and/or other authorized methods.
1872.103
Management responsibilities.
(a) Program
AAs are responsible for overseeing the process and for making key decisions
essential to the process including:
(1) Determination
to use the investigation acquisition system.
(2) Appointment
of the steering committee members.
(3) Designation
of a staff to assure uniformity in the issuance of the AO and conformity with
the required procedures in the evaluation and selection.
(4)
Reuse, to the maximum extent practicable, of space hardware and support
equipment.
(5) Determination
to use advisory subcommittees, contractor, or full-time Government employees
only in the evaluation process.
(6) Issuance
of the AO.
(7)
Selection of investigations and investigators, determination of need of a
definition phase, determination of the role of the investigator with regard to
providing essential investigation hardware and services, and determination of
the need for payload specialists.
(8) Assure
consideration is given to minorities in the establishment of peer groups,
distribution of the AO and in the selection of investigations.
(9)
Provide a framework for cooperative foreign participation in Space Shuttle,
Spacelab, and Space Station missions.
(b) The
Program AA should call upon any required experts throughout the process.
Subpart 1872.2--Applicability
of the Process
1872.201
General.
The
system used for acquisition of investigations is separate from the agency
procedures for acquisition of known requirements. A decision to use this
special acquisition process will be based on a determination that it is the
most suitable to meet program needs. The decision-making official will consider
the criteria for use of the system. The project plan or other documentation
should discuss the proposed mode of investigations selection.
1872.202
Criteria for determining applicability.
(a) The
decision to use the investigations acquisition process as an alternative to the
normal planning and acquisition process can only be made after consideration of
the conditions which require its use. All of the following conditions should
exist before deciding that the system is applicable:
(1) NASA
has a general objective which can be furthered through novel experimental
approaches. To develop such approaches, NASA wishes to draw upon the broadest
possible reservoir of ideas.
(2) Choices
must be made among competing ideas in expanding knowledge.
(3)
Individual participation of an investigator is essential to exploitation of the
opportunity.
(b) The
investigations acquisition process shall not be used when any of the following
characteristics are present:
(1)
The requiring office can define a requirement sufficiently to allow for normal
acquisition.
(2)
The program is extremely complex, requiring specialized integration,
coordination, or other special handling, or extending over a lengthy period
wherein individual participation is not essential.
1872.203
Applicable programs and activities.
The
investigation acquisition process is most suitable for investigations aimed at
exploration requiring several unique sensors or instruments, but it has been used
successfully in the following types of activities:
(a)
Exploration and Space Research Flights.
(1)
Examples include Space Transportation System (STS) flights with attached
payloads, generally Spacelab payloads; and free-flying spacecraft, such as
Explorers, Pioneers, Space Telescope, Landsats, and Long Duration Exposure
Facilities.
(2)
Types of opportunity include:
(i)
Participation as a Principal Investigator (PI) responsible for conceiving and
conducting a space investigation (This may involve a major piece of
instrumentation. In the case of a "facility" or "multiuser"
payload, each PI's responsibilities would ordinarily involve a relatively minor
portion of the total instrument.);
(ii)
An opportunity to serve on a PI's team as a member or Co-Investigator;
(iii)
An opportunity that generally involves the use of data from another
investigator's instrument as a guest investigator or guest observer (Guest
investigators usually participate after the primary objectives have been satisfied
for the investigations involved.); and
(iv)
A team formed from selected investigators to assist in defining planned mission
objectives and/or to determine, in a general manner, the most meaningful
instruments to accomplish the mission objectives.
(3) The
investigation acquisition process may be applicable to all types of
opportunities. The supposition common in these opportunities is that the best
ideas and approaches are likely to result from the broadest possible
involvement of the scientific, technological or applications user communities.
(b) Minor
Missions.
(1) Examples
include research aircraft, sounding rockets, balloons, and minor missions that
are generally of short duration, small in size, often single purpose, and
subject to repetition. Many investigations are follow-on to past-flight
investigations.
(2)
Types of opportunity include:
(i)
PIs responsible for investigation; and
(ii)
Data use or analysis.
(3)
Opportunities for participation on minor missions are generally suitable for
normal acquisition procedures. The use of an announcement describing the
general nature and schedule of flights may be appropriate when considered
necessary to broaden participation by requesting investigator-initiated research
proposals. Normal acquisition procedures shall be used for follow-on repeat
flights. Although NASA seeks unique, innovative ideas for these missions, the
prospect of reflight and the latitude in determining number and schedule of
flights argue against the need for the use of the investigations acquisition
process to force dissimilar proposals into an annual or periodic competitive
structure. On the other hand, there are some minor missions addressed to
specific limited opportunities; for example, a solar eclipse. When such
limitations indicate that the special competitive structure is needed, it
should be authorized.
(c)
Operational and Operational Prototype Spacecraft.
(1)
Examples include spacecraft built for NASA and other agencys' missions.
(2)
The user agency can be expected to specify performance parameters. Payload
definition will be the responsibility of the user agency and NASA.
Specifications sufficient for normal acquisition procedures can be produced.
Use of data from the mission is the responsibility of the user agency. Thus,
the investigation acquisition process is not required.
(d)
Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T).
(1) Examples
include studies, minor developments, instrument conceptualization, ground-based
observations, laboratory and theoretical supporting research, and data
reduction and analysis which is unconstrained by a specific opportunity.
(2)
Programs in these areas tend to go forward on a continuing basis, rather than
exploiting unique opportunities. Normal acquisition procedures should be used.
A general announcement of area of interest could be made when greater
participation is deemed advisable.
1872.204
Approval.
The
Program AA is responsible for determining whether or not to use the
investigations acquisition process. Normally on major projects, or when a
project plan is required, use of the investigation acquisition system will be
justified and recommended in the project planning documentation and will be
coordinated with staff offices and discussed in the planning presentation to
the Deputy Administrator or designee.
Subpart 1872.3--The
Announcement of
1872.301
General.
An
announcement of opportunity (AO) is characterized by its generality. However,
it is essential that the AO contains sufficient data in order to obtain
meaningful proposals. To a considerable extent, the detail and depth of the AO
will depend on the objective. The purpose is to get adequate information to
assess the relevance, merit, cost, and management requirements without
overburdening the proposer.
1872.302
Preparatory effort.
(a) Headquarters
offices and the responsible project installation must consult prior to release
of the AO.
(b)
The program office shall:
(1) Synopsize
the AO in the Commerce Business Daily and on the NAIS prior to release;
(2) Determine
if there is instrumentation or support equipment available which may be
appropriate to the AO with all necessary background data considered essential
for use by a proposer;
(3) Determine
mailing lists, including the mailing list maintained by the International
Affairs Division, Office of External Relations, for broad dissemination of the
AO; and
(4)
Assure mandatory provisions are contained in the AO.
(c)
Other methods of dissemination of the AO may also be used, such as the use of
press releases, etc. When possible, the AO should be widely publicized through
publications of appropriate professional societies; however, NASA policy does
not allow payment for the placement of advertisements.
1872.303
Responsibilities.
(a)
The program office originator is responsible for the content of the AO and
coordination with concerned Headquarters offices and field installations. All
personnel involved in the evaluation of proposals are responsible for
familiarizing themselves and complying with this part and other applicable
regulations. To this end, they are expected to seek the advice and guidance of
appropriate Headquarters program and staff offices, and Project Installation
management.
(b)
The Program Office is also responsible for coordinating the AO with the
International Affairs, Educational Affairs, Management Support Divisions,
Office of External Relations, Office of General Counsel, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, and Office of Procurement prior to issuance
(see NPD
1360.2, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in
Space and Aeronautics Programs).
(c) Concurrence
of the Office of Procurement is required before issuance of an AO.
1872.304 Proposal
opportunity period.
(a)
The AO must accommodate to the maximum extent practicable opportunities
afforded by the Shuttle/Spacelab flights. The following methods may be used to
enable an AO to be open for an extended period of time and/or to cover a series
or range of flight possibilities or disciplines:
(1)
The AO may be issued establishing a number of proposal submission dates. Normally,
no more than three proposal submission dates should be established. The
submittal dates may be spread over the number of months most compatible with
the possible flight opportunities and the availability of resources necessary
to evaluate and fund the proposals.
(2)
The AO may be issued establishing a single proposal submission date. However,
the AO could provide that NASA amend the AO to provide for subsequent dates for
submission of proposals, if additional investigations are desired within the AO
objectives.
(3) The
AO may provide for an initial submission date with the AO to remain open for
submission of additional proposals up to a final cutoff date. This final date
should be related to the availability of resources necessary to evaluate the
continuous flow of proposals, the time remaining prior to the flight
opportunity(s) contemplated by the AO, and payload funding and availability.
(b)
Generally, a core payload of investigations would be selected from the initial
submission of proposals under the above methods of open-ended AOs. These
selections could be final or tentative recognizing the need for further
definition. Proposals received by subsequent submission dates would be
considered in the scope of the original AO but would be subject to the
opportunities and resources remaining available or the progress being made by
prior selected investigations.
(c)
Any proposal, whether received on the initial submission or subsequent
submission, requires notification to the investigator and the investigator's
institution of the proposal disposition. Some of the proposals will be rejected
completely and the investigators immediately notified. The remaining unselected
proposals may, if agreeable with the proposers, be held for later consideration
and funding and the investigator so notified. However, if an investigator's
proposal is considered at a later date, the investigator must be given an
opportunity to validate the proposal with the investigator's institution and
for updating the cost and other data contained in the original submission prior
to a final selection. In summary, NASA may retain proposals, receiving Category
I, II, or III classifications (see 1872.403-1(e)),
for possible later sponsorship until no longer feasible to consider the
proposal. When this final stage is reached, the investigator must be promptly
notified. Proposing investigators not desiring their proposals be held for
later consideration should be given the opportunity to so indicate in their
original submissions.
1872.305
Guidelines for announcement of opportunity.
(a) The
AO should be tailored to the particular needs of the contemplated
investigations and be complete in itself. Each AO will identify the originating
program office and be numbered consecutively by calendar year, e.g., OA-1-95,
OA-2-95; OLMSA-1-95; OSS-1-95; etc. The required format and detailed
instructions regarding the contents of the AO are contained in 1872.705.
(b)
The General Instructions and Provisions (1872.705-1)
are necessary to accommodate the unique aspects of the AO process. Therefore,
they must be appended to each AO.
(c) At
the time of issuance, copies of the AO must be furnished to Headquarters,
Office of Procurement (Code HS) and Office of General Counsel (Code GK).
(d)
Proposers should be informed of significant departures from scheduled dates for
activities related in the AO.
1872.306
Announcement of opportunity soliciting foreign participation.
Foreign
proposals or
1872.307 Guidelines for proposal preparation.
While
not all of the guidelines outlined in 1872.705-2
will be applicable in response to every AO, the investigator should be informed
of the relevant information required. The proposal may be submitted on a form
supplied by the Program Office. However, the proposal should be submitted in at
least two sections: (a) Investigation and Technical Plan; and
(b) Management and Cost Plan as described in 1872.705-2. Investigators shall
be required to identify and discuss risk factors and issues throughout the
proposal where they are relevant, and describe their approach to managing these
risks.
1872.308
Proposals submitted by NASA investigators.
(a)
NASA solicits, accepts, and evaluates proposals submitted by NASA Centers in
response to an AO. A NASA investigator
may team with one or more non-Government co-investigators. A NASA investigator may also need to acquire
supplies, including instruments and other hardware, and non-research services
in support of the proposed investigation.
If a proposal submitted by a
(b)
In addition to complying with proposal preparation instructions contained in
the AO, proposals submitted by NASA Centers should address the following
matters.
(1)
Non-Government co-investigators.
(i)
The proposal should describe the open and competitive process that was used for
selecting proposed team members. While a
formal solicitation is not required, the process should include the following
competitive aspects: notice of the opportunity to participate to potential
sources, submissions from and/or discussions with potential sources, and
objective criteria for selecting team members among interested sources. If proposed team members are selected without
using an open and competitive process, the proposal should contain a full justification
consistent with the requirements of FAR Subpart 6.3.
(ii)
The proposal should also include a representation that the NASA investigator
has examined his/her financial interests and has determined that no personal
conflict of interest exists.
(2)
Supplies and support services.
(i) The proposal should indicate that the
supplies or services are available under an existing Government contract; or
(ii)
The proposal should state that the supplies or services will be acquired under
a full and open competition; or
(iii)
The proposal should explain the basis of a justification for acquiring the
supplies or services noncompetitively (see FAR Subpart 6.3).
(c) A selection decision approving the
non-Government team members as selected co-investigators satisfies legal and regulatory
requirements without further competition or justification (see 1872.702).
(d)
For the acquisition of supplies, including hardware, and support services by
non-Government co-investigators, see 1872.502(a)(4).
Subpart 1872.4--Evaluation
of Proposals
1872.401
General.
(a)
The evaluation process considers the aspects of each proposal by the following
progressive sorting:
(1)
A review resulting in a categorization is performed by using one of the methods
or combination of the methods outlined in 1872.403.
The purpose of this initial review is to determine the scientific and/or
technological merit of the proposals in the context of the AO objectives.
(2)
Those proposals which are considered to have the greatest scientific or
technological merit are then reviewed in detail for the engineering,
management, and cost aspects, usually by the project office at the installation
responsible for the project.
(3) Final
reviews are performed by the program office and the steering committee and are
aimed at developing a group of investigations which represent an integrated
payload or a well-balanced program of investigation which has the best
possibility for meeting the AO's objectives within programmatic constraints.
(b)
The importance of considering the interrelationship of the several aspects of
the proposals to be reviewed in the process and the need for carefully planning
their treatment should not be overlooked. An evaluation plan should be
developed before issuance of the AO. It should cover the recommended staffing
for any subcommittee or contractor support, review guidelines as well as the
procedural flow and schedule of the evaluation. While not mandatory, such a
plan should be considered for each AO. A fuller discussion of the evaluation
and selection process is included in the following sections of this subpart.
1872.402 Criteria
for evaluation.
(a)
Each AO must indicate those criteria which the evaluators will apply in
evaluating a proposal. The relative importance of each criterion must also be
stated. This information will allow investigators to make informed judgments in
formulating proposals that best meet the stated objectives.
(b)
Following is a list of general evaluation criteria appropriate for inclusion in
most AOs:
(1)
The scientific, applications, and/or technological merit of the investigation.
(2)
The relevance of the proposed investigation to the AO's stated scientific,
applications, and/or technological objectives.
(3)
The competence and experience of the investigator and any investigative team.
(4)
Adequacy of whatever apparatus may be proposed with particular regard to its
ability to supply the data needed for the investigation.
(5)
The reputation and interest of the investigator's institution, as measured by
the willingness of the institution to provide the support necessary to ensure
that the investigation can be completed satisfactorily.
(6)
Cost and management aspects will be considered in all selections.
(7) The proposed approach to managing
risk (e.g., level of technology maturity being applied or developed, technical
complexity, performance specifications and tolerances, delivery schedule,
etc.).
(8) Other or additional criteria may be used, but
the evaluation criteria must be germane to the accomplishment of the stated
objectives.
(c)
Once the AO is issued, it is essential that the evaluation criteria be applied
in a uniform manner. If it becomes apparent, before the date set for receipt of
proposals, that the criteria or their relative importance should be changed,
the AO will be amended, and all known recipients will be informed of the change
and given an adequate opportunity to consider it in submission of their
proposals. Evaluation criteria and/or their relative importance will not be
changed after the date set for receipt of proposals.
1872.403
Methods of evaluation.
Alternative
methods are available to initiate the evaluation of proposals received in
response to an AO. These are referred to as the Advisory Subcommittee
Evaluation Process, the Contractor Evaluation Process, and the Government
Evaluation Process. In all processes, a subcommittee of the appropriate Program
Office Steering Committee will be formed to categorize the proposals. Following
categorization, those proposals still in consideration will be processed to the
selection official.
1872.403-1
Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.
(a)
Evaluation of scientific and/or technological merit of proposed investigations
is the responsibility of an advisory subcommittee of the Steering Committee.
The subcommittee constitutes a peer group qualified to judge the scientific and
technological aspects of all investigation proposals. One or more subcommittees
may be established depending on the breadth of the technical or scientific
disciplines inherent in the AO's objectives. Each subcommittee represents a
discipline or grouping of closely related disciplines. To maximize the quality
of the subcommittee evaluation and categorization, the following conditions of
selection and appointment should be considered.
(1) The
subcommittee normally should be established on an ad hoc basis.
(2) Qualifications
and acknowledgment of the professional abilities of the subcommittee members
are of primary importance. Institutional affiliations are not sufficient
qualifications.
(3)
The executive secretary of the subcommittee must be a full-time NASA employee.
(4) Subcommittee
members should normally be appointed as early as possible and prior to receipt
of proposals.
(5) Care
must be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These include financial
interests, institutional affiliations, professional biases and associations, as
well as familiar relationships. Conflicts could further occur as a result of
imbalance between Government and non-Government appointees or membership from
institutions representing a singular school of thought in discipline areas
involving competitive theories in approach to an investigation.
(6)
The subcommittee should convene as a group in closed sessions for proposal
evaluation to protect the proposer's proprietary ideas and to allow frank
discussion of the proposer's qualifications and the merit of the proposer's
ideas. Lead review responsibility for each proposal may be assigned to members
most qualified in the involved discipline. It is important that each proposal
be considered by the entire subcommittee.
(b) It
may not be possible to select a subcommittee fully satisfying all of the
conditions described in paragraph (a) of this section. It is the responsibility
of the nominating and appointing officials to make trade-offs, where necessary,
among the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section. This latitude permits
flexibility in making decisions in accord with circumstances of each
application. In so doing, however, it is emphasized that recognized expertise
in evaluating dissimilar proposals is essential to the continued workability of
the investigation acquisition process.
(c) Candidate
subcommittee members should be nominated by the office having responsibility
for the evaluation. Nominations should be approved in accordance with NMI
1150.2, "Establishment, Operation, and Duration of NASA Advisory
Committees." The notification of appointment should specify the duration
of assignment on the subcommittee, provisions concerning conflicts of interest,
and arrangements regarding honoraria, per diem, and travel when actually
employed.
(d) It
is important that members of the subcommittee be formally instructed as to
their responsibilities with respect to the investigation acquisition process,
even where several or all of the members have served previously. This briefing
of subcommittee members should include:
(1)
Instruction of subcommittee members on agency policies and procedures pertinent
to acquisition of investigations.
(2) Review of the program goals,
AO objectives, and evaluation criteria, including relative importance, which
provide the basis for evaluation.
(3)
Instruction on the use of preliminary proposal evaluation data furnished by the
Installation Project Office. The subcommittee should examine these data to gain
a better understanding of the proposed investigations, any associated problems,
and to consider cost in relation to the value of the investigations'
objectives.
(4)
Definition of responsibility of the subcommittee for evaluation and
categorization with respect to scientific and/or technical merit in accordance
with the evaluation criteria.
(5)
Instruction for documentation of deliberations and categorizations of the
subcommittee.
(6)
Inform the chairperson of the subcommittee and all members that they should
familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct
for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635, and the Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct for employees of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 5 CFR Part 6901, regarding conflicts of interest. Members
should inform the appointing authority if their participation presents a real
or apparent conflict of interest situation. In addition, all participants
should inform the selection official in the event they are subjected to
pressure or improper contacts.
(7) Inform
members that prior to the selection and announcement of the successful
investigators and investigations, subcommittee members and NASA personnel shall
not reveal any information concerning the evaluation to anyone who is not also
participating in the same evaluation proceedings, and then only to the extent
that such information is required in connection with such proceedings. Also,
inform members that subsequent to selection of an investigation and
announcement of negotiations with the investigator's institution, information
concerning the proceedings of the subcommittee and data developed by the
subcommittee will be made available to others within NASA only when the
requestor demonstrates a need to know for a NASA purpose. Such information will
be made available to persons outside NASA including other Government agencies,
only when such disclosure is concurred in by the Office of General Counsel. In
this connection, reference is made to 18 U.S.C. 1905 which provides criminal
sanctions if any officer or employee (including special employees) of the
(e)
The product of an advisory subcommittee is the classification of proposals into
four categories. The categories are:
(1)
Category I -- Well conceived and scientifically and technically
sound investigations pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO's
objectives and offered by a competent investigator from an institution capable
of supplying the necessary support to ensure that any essential flight hardware
or other support can be delivered on time and that data can be properly
reduced, analyzed, interpreted, and published in a reasonable time. Investigations
in Category I are recommended for acceptance and normally will be displaced
only by other Category I investigations.
(2) Category
II -- Well conceived and scientifically or technically sound investigations
which are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than
(3) Category
III -- Scientifically or technically sound investigations which require
further development. Category III investigations may be funded for development
and may be reconsidered at a later time for the same or other opportunities.
(4)
Category IV -- Proposed investigations which are recommended for
rejection for the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the
reason.
(f)
A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee shall be prepared by the
assigned executive secretary and shall be signed by the Chairperson. The
minutes shall contain the categorizations with basic rationale for such ratings
and the significant strengths and weaknesses of the proposals evaluated.
1872.403-2 Contractor
evaluation process.
(a)
The use of the contractor method for obtaining support for evaluation purposes
of proposals received in response to an AO requires the approval of the Program
AA. Prior to the use of this method, discussion should be held with the Office
of Acquisition.
(b)
It is NASA policy to avoid situations in the acquisition process where, by
virtue of the work or services performed for NASA, or as a result of data
acquired from NASA or from other entities, a particular company:
(1) Is
given an unfair competitive advantage over other companies with respect to
future NASA business;
(2) Is
placed in a position to affect Government actions under circumstances in which
there is potential that the company's judgment may be biased; or
(3) Otherwise
finds that a conflict exists between the performance of work or services for
the Government in an impartial manner and the company's own self-interest.
(c)
To reduce the possibility of an organizational conflict of interest problem
arising, the following minimum restrictions will be incorporated into the
contract:
(1)
No employee of the contractor will be permitted to propose in response to the
AO;
(2)
The "Limitation on Future Contracting" clause contained in 1852.209-71
will be included in all such contracts; and
(3)
Unless authorized by the NASA contracting officer, the contractor shall not
contact the originator of any proposal concerning its contents.
(d)
The scope of work for the selected contractor will provide for an
identification of strengths and weaknesses and a summary of the proposals. The
contractor will not make selections nor recommend investigations.
(e) The
steps to be taken in establishing evaluation panels and the responsibilities of
NASA and the contractor in relation to the panels will be as follows:
(1)
The contractor will be required to establish and provide support to panels of
experts for review of proposals to evaluate their scientific and technical
merit;
(2) These
panels will be composed of scientists and specialists qualified to evaluate the
proposals;
(3)
The agency may provide to the contractor lists of scientist(s) and
specialist(s) in the various disciplines it believes are qualified to serve on
the panels;
(4)
The contractor will report each panel's membership to NASA for approval; and
(5)
The contractor must make all the necessary arrangements with the panel members.
(f)
The evaluation support by the contractor's panels of experts will be
accomplished as follows:
(1) The panels will review the
scientific and technical merit of the proposals in accordance with the
evaluation criteria in the AO and will record their strengths and weaknesses.
(2) The
contractor will make records of each panel's deliberations which will form the
basis for a report summarizing the results of the evaluations. Upon request,
the contractor shall provide all such records to NASA;
(3)
The chairperson of each panel shall certify that the evaluation report
correctly represents the findings of the review panel; and
(4)
A final report will be submitted as provided in the contract.
(g)
A subcommittee of the Program Office Steering Committee will be established on
an ad hoc basis. Utilizing furnished data, the subcommittee will classify the
proposals into the four categories enumerated in 1872.403-1(e)(1),
Advisory Subcommittee Evaluation Process. A record of the deliberations of the
subcommittee should be prepared by an assigned executive secretary and signed
by the chairperson. The minutes should contain the categorizations with the
basic rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and weaknesses
of the proposals evaluated.
1872.403-3
Government evaluation process.
(a) The Program AA may
appoint one or more full-time Government employees as subcommittee members of
the Program Office Steering Committee to evaluate and categorize the proposals.
(b) Each
subcommittee member should be qualified and competent to evaluate the proposals
in accordance with the AO evaluation criteria. It is important that a
subcommittee's evaluation not be influenced by others either within or outside
of NASA.
(c)
The subcommittee members will not contact the proposers for additional
information.
(d)
The subcommittee members will classify the proposals in accordance with the
four categories indicated in 1872.403-1
(e)(1). Each categorization will be supported by an appropriate rationale
including a narrative of each proposal's strengths and weaknesses.
1872.404
Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.
(a) The
subcommittee responsible for categorization of each proposal in terms of its
scientific, applications, or technical merit should receive information on
probable cost, technical status, developmental risk, integration and safety
problems, and management arrangements in time for their deliberations.
(b)
This information should be provided at the discretion of the Headquarters
Program Office by the Project Office at the installation. This information can
be in general terms and should reflect what insights the Project Office can
provide without requesting additional details from the proposers. This limited
Project Office review will not normally give the subcommittees information of
significant precision. The purpose is to give the subcommittee sufficient
information so it can review the proposals in conjunction with available cost,
integration, and management considerations to gain an impression of each
investigator's understanding of the problems of the experiment and to permit
gross trade-offs of cost versus value of the investigation objective.
(c)
Following categorization, the Project Office shall evaluate proposals in
contention, in depth, including a thorough review of each proposal's
engineering, integration, management, and cost aspects. This review should be
accomplished by qualified engineering, cost, and business analysts at the
project center.
(d)
In assessing proposed costs, the evaluation must consider:
(1)
The investigation objective.
(2)
Comparable, similar or related investigations.
(3)
Whether NASA or the investigator should procure the necessary supporting
instrumentation or services and the relative cost of each mode.
(4)
Total overall or probable costs to the Government including integration and
data reduction and analysis. In the case of investigations proposed by
Government investigators, this includes all associated direct and indirect
cost. With respect to cooperative investigations, integration, and other
applicable costs should be considered.
(e)
The Project Office, as part of the in-depth evaluation of proposals that
require instrumentation or support equipment, will survey all potential sources
for Government-owned instrumentation or support equipment that may be made
available, with or without modifications, to the potential investigator. Such
items contributed by foreign cooperating groups which are still available under
cooperative project agreements will also be considered for use under the terms
and conditions specified in the agreements. As part of the evaluation report to
the Program Office, the availability or nonavailability of instrumentation or
support equipment will be indicated.
(f) Proposals
which require instrumentation should be evaluated by project personnel. This
evaluation should cover the interfaces and the assessment of development risks.
This evaluation should furnish the selection official with sufficient data to
contribute to the instrument determinations. Important among these are:
(1)
Whether the instrument requires further definition;
(2)
Whether studies and designs are necessary to provide a reasonably accurate
appreciation of the cost;
(3)
Whether the investigation can be carried out without incurring undue cost,
schedule, or risk of failure penalties; and
(4)
Whether integration of the instrument is feasible.
(g)
In reviewing an investigator's management plan, the Project Office should
evaluate the investigator's approach for efficiently managing the work, the
recognition of essential management functions, and the effective overall
integration of these functions. Evaluation of the proposals under final
consideration should include, but not be limited to: workload--present and
future related to capacity and capability; past experience; management approach
and organization; e.g.:
(1)
With respect to workload and its relationship to capacity and capability, it is
important to ascertain the extent to which the investigator is capable of
providing facilities and personnel skills necessary to perform the required
effort on a timely basis. This review should reveal the need for additional
facilities or people, and provide some indication of the Government support the
investigator will require.
(2)
A review should be made of the investigator, the investigator's institution,
and any supporting contractor's performance on prior investigations. This
should assist in arriving at an assessment of the investigator and the
institution's ability to perform the effort within the proposed cost and time
constraints.
(3)
The proposed investigator's management arrangements should be reviewed,
including make or buy choices, support of any co-investigator, and preselected
subcontractors or other instrument fabricators to determine whether such
arrangements are justified. The review should determine if the proposed
management arrangements enhance the investigator's ability to devote more time
to the proposed experiment objectives and still effectively employ the
technical and administrative support required for a successful investigation.
In making these evaluations, the Project Office should draw on the
installation's engineering, business, legal, and other staff resources, as
necessary, as well as its scientific resources. If further information is
needed from the proposers, it should be obtained through the proper contacts.
1872.405
Program Office evaluation.
(a)
A Program Office responsible for the project or program at Headquarters will
receive the evaluation of the proposals, and weigh the evaluative data to
determine an optimum payload or program of investigation. This determination
will involve recommendations concerning individual investigations; but, more
importantly, should result in a payload or program which is judged to optimize
total mission return within schedule, engineering, and budgetary constraints.
The recommendations should facilitate sound selection decisions by the Program
AA. Three sets of recommendations result from the Program Office evaluation:
(1)
Optimum payload or program of investigations, or options for alternative
payloads or programs.
(2)
Recommendation for final or tentative selection based on a determination of the
degree of uncertainty associated with individual investigations. A tentative
selection may be considered step one of a two-step selection technique.
(3)
Upon consideration of the guidelines contained in 1872.502(a)(3),
recommending responsibility for instrument development.
(b)
The Installation Project Office evaluation is principally concerned with
ensuring that the proposed investigation can be managed, developed, integrated,
and executed with an appropriate probability of technical success within the
estimated probable cost. The Headquarters program Director, drawing upon these
inputs, should be mainly concerned with determining a payload or program from
the point of view of programmatic goals and budgetary constraints. Discipline
and cost trade-offs are considered at this level. The Headquarters Program
Office should focus on the potential contribution to program objectives that
can be achieved under alternative feasible payload integration options.
(c)
It may be to NASA's advantage to consider certain investigations for tentative
selection pending resolution of uncertainties in their development. Tentative
selections should be reconsidered after a period of time for final selection in
a payload or program of investigations. This two-step selection process should
be considered when:
(1)
The potential return from the investigation is sufficient, relative to that of
the other investigations under consideration, and that its further development
appears to be warranted before final selection.
(2)
The investigation potential is of such high priority to the program that the
investigation should be developed for flight if at all possible.
(3)
The investigative area is critical to the program and competitive approaches
need to be developed further to allow selection of the optimum course.
(d)
Based on evaluation of these considerations associated with the investigations
requiring further development of hardware, the following information should be
provided to the Steering Committee and the Program AA responsible for
selection:
(1) The
expected gain in potential return associated with the eventual incorporation of
tentatively recommended investigations in the payload(s) or program.
(2)
The expected costs required to develop instrumentation to the point of
"demonstrated capability."
(3)
The risk involved in added cost, probability of successfully developing the
required instrument capability, and the possibility of schedule impact.
(4) Identification
of opportunities, if any, for inclusion of such investigations in later
missions.
(e)
In those cases where investigations are tentatively selected, an explicit
statement should be made of the process to be followed in determining the final
payload or program of investigations and the proposers so informed. The
two-phase selection approach provides the opportunity for additional assurance
of development potential and probable cost prior to a final commitment to the
investigation.
(f) As
instruments used in investigations become increasingly complex and costly, the
need for greater control of their development by the responsible Headquarters
Program Office also grows. Accordingly, as an integral part of the evaluation
process, a deliberate decision should be made regarding the role of the
Principal Investigator with respect to the provision of the major hardware
associated with that person's investigation. The guidelines for the hardware acquisition
determination are discussed in 1872.502(a)(3).
(g)
The range of options for responsibility for the instrumentation consists of:
(1)
Assignment of full responsibility to the Principal Investigator. The
responsibility includes all in-house or contracted activity to provide the
instrumentation for integration.
(2)
Retention of developmental responsibility by the Government with participation
by the Principal Investigator in key events defined for the program. In all
cases the right of the Principal Investigator to counsel and recommend is
paramount. Such involvement of the Principal Investigator may include:
(i) Provision of instrument specifications.
(ii)
Approval of specifications.
(iii)
Independent monitorship of the development and advice to the Government on
optimization of the instrumentation for the investigation.
(iv) Participation
in design reviews and other appropriate reviews.
(v)
Review and concurrence in changes resulting from design reviews.
(vi)
Participation in configuration control board actions.
(vii)
Advice in definition of test program.
(viii)
Review and approval of test program and changes thereto.
(ix)
Participation in conduct of the test program.
(x)
Participation in calibration of instrument.
(xi) Participation
in final inspection and acceptance of the instrument.
(xii)
Participation in subsequent test and evaluation processes incident to
integration and flight preparation.
(xiii)
Participation in the development and support of the operations plan.
(xiv)
Analysis and interpretation of data.
(h)
The Principal Investigator should as a minimum:
(1) Approve
the instrument specification.
(2)
Advise the project manager in development and fabrication.
(3)
Participate in final calibration.
(4)
Develop and support the operations plan.
(5)
Analyze and interpret the data.
(i)
The Project Installation is responsible for implementing the program or project
and should make recommendations concerning the role for the Principal
Investigators. The Program AA will determine the role, acting upon the advice
of the Headquarters Program Office and the Steering Committee. The Principal
Investigator's desires will be respected in the negotiation of the person's
role allowing an appeal to the Program AA and the right to withdraw from
participation.
(j)
The Program Office should make a presentation to the Steering Committee with
supporting documentation on the decisions to be made by the responsible Program
AA.
1872.406
Steering Committee review.
(a)
The most important role of the Steering Committee is to provide a substantive
review of a potential payload or program of investigations and to recommend a
selection to the Program AA. The Steering Committee applies the collective
experience of representatives from the program and discipline communities and
offers a forum for discussing the selection from those points of view. In
addition to this mission-specific evaluation function, the Steering Committee
provides guidance to subcommittee chairpersons and serves as a clearinghouse
for problems and complaints regarding the process. The Steering Committee is
responsible for assuring adherence to required procedures. Lastly, it is the
forum where discipline objectives are weighed against program objectives and
constraints.
(b)
The Steering Committee represents the means for exercising three
responsibilities in the process of selecting investigations to:
(1)
Review compliance with procedures governing application of the AO process.
(2) Ensure
that adequate documentation has been made of the steps in the evaluation
process.
(3)
Review the results of the evaluation by the subcommittee, Project, and Program
Offices and prepare an assessment or endorsement of a recommended payload or
program of investigations to the Program AA.
(c)
The purpose in exercising the first of the responsibilities in paragraph (b) of
this section is to ensure equity and consistency in the application of the
process. The Steering Committee is intended to provide the necessary reviews
and coordination inherent in conventional acquisition practices.
(d)
The second and third responsibilities of the Steering Committee in paragraph
(b) are technical. They require that the Steering Committee review the
evaluations by subcommittee, the Project Office, and the Program Office for
completeness and appropriateness before forwarding to the Program AA. Most
important in this review are:
(1)
Degree to which results of evaluations and recommendations follow logically
from the criteria in the AO.
(2)
Consistency with objectives and policies generally beyond the scope of
Project/Program Offices.
(3)
Sufficiency of reasons stated for tentative recommendations of those
investigations requiring further instrument research and development.
(4)
Sufficiency of reasons stated for determining responsibilities for instrument
development.
(5) Sufficiency of consideration of
reusable space flight hardware and support equipment for the recommended
investigations.
(6) Sufficiency
of reasons for classifying proposed investigations in their respective
categories.
(7) Fair
treatment of all proposals.
(e)
The Steering Committee makes recommendations to the selection official on the
payload or program of investigations and notes caveats or provisions important
for consideration of the selection official.
1872.407
Principles to apply.
(a)
1872.406
contains a description of the evaluation function appropriate for a major
payload or very significant program of investigation. The levels of review,
evaluation, and refinement described should be applied in those selections
where warranted but could be varied for less significant selection situations.
It is essential to consider the principles of the several evaluative steps, but
it may not be essential to maintain strict adherence to the sequence and
structure of the evaluation system described. The selection official is
responsible for determining the evaluation process most appropriate for the
selection situation using this Subpart 1872.4 as a guide.
(b)
Significant deviations from the provisions of this Part 1872 must be fully
documented and be approved by the Program AA after concurrence by the Office of
General Counsel and Office of Acquisition.
Subpart 1872.5--The
Selection Process
1872.501
General.
The
Program AA is responsible for selecting investigations for contract
negotiation. This decision culminates the evaluations and processes that can be
summarized as follows:
|
Evaluation Stage |
Principal Emphasis |
Results |
|
Contractor (when authorized) |
Summary evaluation (strengths and weaknesses) |
Report to Subcommittee. |
|
Subcommittee |
Science and technological relevance, value, and feasibility |
Categorization of individual proposals |
|
Project Office |
Engineering/cost/integration/ management assessment |
Reports to Subcommittee and Program Office |
|
Program Office |
Consistency with Announcement and program objectives, and cost and schedule constraints |
Recommendations to Steering Committee of payload or program investigations |
|
Steering Committee |
Logic of proposed selections and compliance with proper procedures |
Recommendations to Program Associate Administrator |
1872.502 Decisions to be made.
(a)
The selection decisions by the Program AA constitute management judgments
balancing individual and aggregate scientific or technological merit, the
contribution of the recommended investigations to the AO's objectives, and
their consonance with budget constraints to make the following decisions:
(1)
Determination of the adequacy of scientific/technical analysis supporting the
recommended selections. This supporting rationale should involve considerations
including:
(i)
Assurance that the expected return contributes substantially to program
objectives and is likely to be realized.
(ii)
Assurance that the evaluation criteria were applied consistently to all
proposed investigations.
(iii)
Assurance that the set of recommended investigations constitutes the optimum
program or payload considering potential value and constraints.
(iv)
Assurance that only one investigator is assigned as the Principal Investigator
to each investigation and that the Principal Investigator will assume the associated
responsibilities and be the single point of contact and leader of any other
investigators selected for the same investigation.
(2)
Determination as to whether available returned space hardware or support
equipment, with or without modification, would be adequate to meet or support
investigation objectives.
(3) Determination, with regard to a non-Government
principal investigator, as to whether the proposed instrument fabricator
qualifies and should be accepted as a sole source or whether the requirement
should be competitively procured. The
following guidelines apply:
(i) The
hardware required should be subjected to competitive solicitation where it is
clear that the capability is not sufficiently unique to justify sole source
acquisition.
(ii) The
hardware requirement should be purchased from the fabricator proposed by the
investigator, which may be the investigator's own institution, (A) when the
fabricator's proposal contains technical data that are not available from
another source, and it is not feasible or practicable to define the fabrication
requirement in such a way as to avoid the necessity of using the technical
data contained in the proposal; (B) when the fabricator offers unique
capabilities that are not available from another source; (C) when the selection
official determines that the proposed hardware contributes so significantly
to the value of the investigator's proposal as to be an integral part of it.
(iii) While it is NASA policy that
acquisition of the necessary hardware be the responsibility of the principal
investigator, NASA may buy the hardware and furnish it to the investigator only
if a producer other than the one proposed by the investigator offers unique
capabilities. The NASA acquisition must
be justified as prescribed in FAR Subpart 6.3.
(4) If a NASA Center submits a proposal,
any requirement for hardware necessary to perform the investigation must be
acquired under existing Government contracts, be competed by the installation
acquisition office, or a justification must be written, synopsized, and
approved in accordance with the requirements of the FAR and the NASA FAR
Supplement (see 1872.308). In the event
that a proposal submitted by a NASA Center includes non-Government team members
that will have substantial responsibilities for performing the investigation
(co-investigator organizations), and one or more of these organizations will be
responsible for the acquisition of hardware, the determination described in
subparagraph (a)(3) of this section must be made.
(5) Determination of the desirability
for tentative selection of investigations.
This determination involves considerations including:
(i) Assessment
of the state of development of the investigative hardware, the cost and
schedule for development in relation to the gain in potential benefits at the
time of final selection.
(ii) Assurance
that there is adequate definition of investigation hardware to allow parallel
design of other project hardware.
(iii) Assurance that appropriate management procedures are contained in
the project plan for reevaluation and final selection (or rejection) on an
appropriate time scale.
(6) Determination of the acceptability
of the proposer's management plan, including the
proposed hardware development plan, and the necessity, if any, of negotiating
modifications to that plan.
(b) In the process of making the determinations described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Program AA may request additional information or evaluations. In most instances, this information can be provided by the Program Office responsible for the mission, project, or program. However, the Program AA may reconvene the subcommittee or poll the members individually or provide for additional analysis or require additional data from evaluators or proposers as considered necessary to facilitate the Program AA's decision.
1872.503 The
Selection Statement.
Upon
completion of deliberations, the responsible Program AA shall issue a selection
statement. Ordinarily this statement will, upon request, be releasable to the
public. As a minimum, the selection statement should include:
(a)
The general and specific evaluation criteria and relative importance used for
the selection.
(b)
The categorizations provided by the subcommittee and the rationale for
accepting or not accepting each Category I proposal and a succinct statement
concerning the nonacceptance of all other proposals.
(c)
A concise description of each investigation accepted including an indication as
to whether the selection is a partial acceptance of a proposal and/or a
combination with other investigators.
(d)
The role of the Principal Investigator with regard to hardware essential to the
investigation and whether the Principal Investigator will be responsible for
hardware acquisition and the basis therefor.
(e)
An indication of the plan and acquisition using the regular acquisition
processes, if the Principal Investigator is not to acquire the hardware.
(f) A
statement indicating whether the selection is final or tentative, recognizing
the need for better definition of the investigation and its cost.
(g) A
statement indicating use of Government-owned space flight hardware and/or
support equipment.
1872.504
Notification of proposers.
(a) It
is essential that investigators whose proposals have no reasonable chance for
selection be so apprised as soon as practicable. The responsible Program Office
will, upon such determination, notify investigators of that fact with the major
reason(s) why the proposals were so considered. The notification letter should
also inform such investigators that they may obtain a detailed oral debriefing
provided they request it in writing.
(b)
Letters of notification will be sent to those Principal Investigators selected
to participate. This letter should not commit the agency to more than
negotiations for the selected investigation, but it should indicate the
decision made and contain:
(1) A
concise description of the Principal Investigator's investigation as selected,
noting substantive changes, if any, from the investigation originally proposed
by the Principal Investigator.
(2) The
nature of the selection, i.e., whether it should be considered final or
tentative requiring additional hardware or cost definition.
(3)
A description of the role of the Principal Investigator including the
responsibility for the provision of instruments for flight experiments.
(4)
Identification of the principal technical and management points to be treated
in subsequent negotiations.
(5)
Any rights to be granted on use of data, publishing of data, and duration of
use of the data.
(6)
Where applicable, indication that a foreign selectee's participation in the
program will be arranged between the Office of External Relations, and the
foreign government agency which endorsed the proposal.
(c) In
conjunction with the notification of successful foreign proposers, the Program
Office shall forward a letter to the responsible Office of External Relations,
addressing the following:
(1) The
scientific technological objective of the effort.
(2)
The period of time for the effort.
(3) The
responsibilities of NASA and of the sponsoring governmental agency; these may
include:
(i)
Provision and disposition of hardware and software.
(ii)
Responsibilities for reporting, reduction and dissemination of data.
(iii)
Responsibilities for transportation of hardware.
(4)
Any additional information pertinent to the conduct of the experiment.
(d)
Using the information provided above, the Office of External Relations will
negotiate an agreement with the sponsoring foreign agency.
(e)
Notices shall also be sent to those proposers not notified pursuant to the
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, and, as applicable, a copy to the
sponsoring foreign government agency. It is important that these remaining
proposers be informed at the same time as those selected. Other agency
notifications and press release procedures will apply, as appropriate.
1872.505 Debriefing.
It
is the policy to debrief, if requested, unsuccessful proposers of
investigations in accordance with FAR 15.5. The following shall be considered in
arranging and conducting debriefings:
(a) Debriefing
shall be done by an official designated by the responsible Program AA. Any
other personnel receiving requests for information concerning the rejection of
a proposal shall refer to the designated official.
(b) Debriefing
of unsuccessful offerors shall be made at the earliest possible time;
debriefing will generally be scheduled subsequent to selection but prior to
award of contracts to the successful proposers.
(c)
Material discussed in debriefing shall be factual and consonant with the
documented findings of several stages of the evaluation process and the
selection statement.
(d)
The debriefing official shall advise of weak or deficient areas in the
proposal, indicate whether those weaknesses were factors in the selection, and
advise of the major considerations in selecting the competing successful
proposer where appropriate.
(e) The
debriefing official shall not discuss other unsuccessful proposals, ranking,
votes of members, or attempt to make a point-by-point comparison with
successful proposals.
(f) A
memorandum of record of the debriefing shall be provided the Chairperson of the
Steering Committee.
Subpart 1872.6--Payload
Formulation
1872.601
Payload formulation.
(a) Payload
elements for Space Transportation System (STS) missions can come from many
sources. These include those selected through AOs, those generated by in-house
research, unsolicited proposals and those derived from agreements between NASA
and external entities. However, it is anticipated that the primary source of
NASA payload elements will be the AO process. Generally, proposals for payload
elements submitted outside the AO process will not be selected if they would
have been responsive to an AO objective.
(b)
Payload elements for STS flights fall into two major categories. "NASA or
NASA-related" payload elements are those which are developed by a NASA
Program Office or by another party with which NASA has a shared interest.
"Non-NASA" payload elements are those which require only STS
operation services from NASA and interface with NASA through the Office of
Space Flight.
(c)
In general, a Program Office will be designated responsibility for formulating
the "NASA or NASA-related" portion of an STS payload. The Office of
Space Flight will be responsible for formulating the "non-NASA"
portion of an STS payload. Flights may, of course, consist wholly of payload
elements of either type. Resource allocation for mixed missions will be
determined by the Program Office and the Office of Space Flight.
Subpart 1872.7--Acquisition
and Other Considerations
1872.701 Early
involvement essential.
(a) The
distinctive feature of the AO process is that it is both a program planning
system and an acquisition system in one procedure. The choice of what
aeronautical and space phenomena to investigate is program planning.
Acquisition is involved with the purchase of property and services to carry out
the selected investigations.
(b)
Because of both the programmatic and multi-functional aspects of the AO
process, early involvement of external program office elements is essential.
Success of the process requires that it proceed in a manner that meets program
goals and complies with statutory requirements and acquisition policy.
(c)
The planning, preparation and selection schedule for the investigation should
commence early enough to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Chief of
these are the requirements for soliciting maximum feasible competition and for
conducting discussions with offerors within the competitive range by the
Project Office and/or any other evaluation group or office authorized by the
selection official.
1872.702 Negotiation,
discussions, and contract award.
(a)
The AO shall be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily. Responses to the
synopsis must be added to the AO mailing list. Every effort should be made to
publish opportunities far enough in advance to encourage a broad response. (In
no case less than 45 days before the date set for receipt of proposals).
(b)
Significant items for consideration after receipt of proposals:
(1)
Late Proposals -- The policy on late proposals contained in 1815.208
is applicable. Potential investigators should be informed of this policy. In
the AO context, the selection official or designee will determine whether a
late proposal will be considered.
(2)
Competitive Consideration.
(i)
The proposals submitted in response to the AOs are not necessarily fully
comparable. However, all proposals within the scope of an opportunity must be
evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the AO.
(ii)
Cost must be considered in the evaluation if costs are involved in the
investigation. General cost information should be given to the subcommittee by
the Installation Project Office for use in determining the categories into
which the subcommittee places proposals.
(iii)
Further information should be obtained, as necessary, by the Installation
Project Office and/or any other evaluation group authorized by the selection
official and from the investigators whose proposals are being considered. This
is similar to the acquisition procedure for conducting written and oral
discussions. A major consideration during discussions is to avoid unfairness
and unequal treatment. Good judgment is required by in the extent and content
of the discussions. There should be no reluctance in obtaining the advice and
guidance of management and staff offices during the discussion phase. A summary
should be prepared of the primary points covered in the written and oral
discussions and show the effect of the discussions on the evaluation of
proposals. This summary should also contain general information about the
questions submitted to the investigators, the amount of time spent in oral
discussion, and revisions in proposals, if any, resulting from the discussions.
(iv)
During the conduct of discussions, all proposers being considered shall be
offered an equitable opportunity to submit cost, technical, or other revisions
in their proposals as may result from the discussions. All proposers shall be
informed that any revisions to their proposals must be submitted by a common
cut-off date in order to be considered. The record should note compliance of
the investigators with that cut-off date.
(c)
Significant items for consideration before award:
(1)
Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) -- A formal RFP should
not be issued to obtain additional information on proposals accepted under the
AO process. Additional technical, cost, or other data received should be
considered as a supplement to the original proposal.
(2) Selection
of Investigator/Contractor -- The selection decision of the Program
AA approves the selected investigators and their institutions as the only
satisfactory sources for the investigations. The selection of the investigator
does not constitute the selection of that person's proposed supporting hardware
fabricator unless the selection official specifically incorporates the
fabricator in the selection decision.
1872.703
Application of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR
Supplement.
The
AO process supplants normal acquisition procedures only to the extent necessary
to meet the distinctive features of the process. This process is not intended
to conflict with any established statutory requirements.
1872.704 Other
administrative and functional requirements.
After
selection, all other applicable administrative and functional requirements will
be complied with or incorporated in any resultant contract.
1872.705 Format
of Announcement of
Use
the following format instructions when drafting AOs:
OMB Approval Number 2700-0085
NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION