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 U.S. proposals with foreign participation shall be treated in accordance with 1835.016-70. Additional guidelines applicable to foreign proposers are contained in the Management Plan Section of 1872.705-2 and must be included in any Guidelines for Proposal Preparation or otherwise furnished to foreign proposers.

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 NASA Center is selected, formal assembly of the team and acquisition of hardware and support services must be accomplished through the award of new Government contracts, unless existing Government contracts are available. The award of new Government contracts must comply with procurement laws and regulations.

(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 NPD 1150.11, "Federal Advisory Committee Act 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 United States discloses or divulges certain kinds of business confidential and trade secret information unless authorized by law.

(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 Category I.

(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.

(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