04-31
Procurement Notice
February 1, 2008
SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION
SUBFACTOR
BACKGROUND:
The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.304(c)(4)(A) is being modified to
require that Small Business Utilization (SBU), which includes Small Business
subcontracting and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) participation, be
evaluated as a single subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. NFS guidance further requires that the small
business utilization subfactor shall provide for a separate and distinct
evaluation of Small Business subcontracting from SDB participation. Previously, the guidance set forth at NFS
1815.304(c)(4)(A) had required only
that the extent of participation of small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns
be evaluated as a separate subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. The evaluation of small business
subcontracting (other than SDB participation) has therefore generally been part
of the evaluation of the management subfactor under Mission Suitability. This change will ensure proper emphasis on
all aspects of small business utilization through evaluation as a separate
subfactor, while also ensuring compliance with the requirements of FAR 19.1202
for a separate evaluation of SDB participation.
ACQUISITIONS
AFFECTED BY CHANGES: The changes to NFS 1815.304(c)(4)(A) are applicable to acquisitions
identified in 1815.300-70. However, for
such acquisitions where evaluation factors and subfactors have been established
prior to the issuance of this PN, these changes are not required.
ACTION
REQUIRED BY CONTRACTING OFFICERS: For competitive negotiated acquisitions as
identified in 1815.300-70, comply with revised guidance set forth at
1815.304(c)(4)(A), except in such
situations where evaluation factors and subfactors have been established prior
to the issuance of this PN.
CLAUSE CHANGES:
None.
PARTS AFFECTED:
NFS 1815.
REPLACEMENT
PAGES: You may
use the enclosed pages to replace pages
15:7, 15:8, and 15:8.1 (added) of the NFS.
TYPE OF
RULE AND PUBLICATION DATE:
These changes do not have a
significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of NASA and do not
have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors,
and therefore do not require codification in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) or publication for public comment.
HEADQUARTERS
CONTACT: Diane
Thompson, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division,
(202) 358-0514, email: Diane.Thompson@nasa.gov.
William P.
McNally
Assistant
Administrator for Procurement
Enclosures
DISTRIBUTION
LIST:
PN
List
1815.300-70
Applicability of subpart.
(a)(1)
Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA competitive
negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:
(i)
Acquisitions of $50 million or more -- in accordance with FAR 15. 3 and this subpart.
(ii)
Other acquisitions -- in accordance with FAR 15.3 and this subpart except
section 1815.370 and use of a mission suitability factor and numerical scoring
is optional.
(2)
Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the values of multiple
awards, options, and later phases of the same project.
(b)
FAR 15. 3 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions conducted under
the following procedures:
(1)
Announcements of Opportunity (see Part 1872).
(2)
NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-71).
(3)
The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the authority of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
(4)
Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and 1836.6).
1815.303
Responsibilities.
(a)
The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for each
acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR designation of the contracting officer as
SSA, the SSA for center acquisitions shall be established in accordance with
center procedures. For acquisitions
designated
as Headquarters selections, the SSA will
be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).
(b)(i) The source selection authority
(SSA) is the Agency official responsible for proper and efficient conduct of
the source selection process and for making the final source selection
decision. The SSA has the following responsibilities in addition to those
listed in the FAR:
(A) Approve the source selection approach,
rating method, evaluation factors, subfactors, the weight of the evaluation
factors and subfactors when used, and any special standards of responsibility
(see FAR 9.104-2) before release of the RFP, or
delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
(B) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the Administrator will serve as
the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office
will appoint the team; and
(C) Provide the source selection team with
appropriate guidance and special instructions to conduct the evaluation and
selection procedures.
(b)(ii)
See 1803.104-70 for restrictions on participating in evaluation or
selection of proposals.
(b)(2)
Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Procurement Strategy Meetings
are in accordance with 1807.103.
1815.304
Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
(c)(4)(A) Small Business Utilization shall be evaluated as a
subfactor under the Mission Suitability
factor. The Small Business Utilization
subfactor shall provide for a separate and distinct evaluation of Small
Business plans and SDB participation. If
a Mission Suitability factor is not used,
Small Business Utilization, including a separate and distinct evaluation of SDB
concerns, shall be evaluated as a separate factor or subfactor, as appropriate.
(B) SDB concerns that choose the FAR 19.11 price evaluation
adjustment shall receive the lowest possible score/rating under the FAR 15.304(c)(4)
evaluation.
1815.304-70 NASA evaluation factors.
(a)
Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past
Performance. Evaluation factors may be
further defined by subfactors.
Evaluation subfactors should be structured to identify significant
discriminators, or "key swingers" - the essential information
required to support a source selection decision. Too many subfactors undermine effective
proposal evaluation. All evaluation
subfactors should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and redundancy.
(b)
Mission Suitability factor.
(1)
This factor indicates the merit or excellence of the work to be performed or
product to be delivered. It includes, as
appropriate, both technical and management subfactors. Mission Suitability shall be numerically
weighted and scored on a 1000-point scale. (See 1815.300-70(a)(1)(ii).)
(2)
The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation subfactors to further
define the content of the factor. Each
Mission Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival rating percentages in
1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the subfactor weight to determine the
point score. The number of Mission
Suitability subfactors is limited to five.
The Mission Suitability evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be
identified in the RFP.
(3)
For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability evaluation shall
also include the results of any cost realism analysis. The RFP shall notify offerors that the
realism of proposed costs may significantly affect their Mission Suitability
scores.
(4) If the solicitation
requires the submission of a Safety and Health Plan (see 1823.7001(c) and NPR 8715.3, NASA Safety Manual, Appendix H), safety and health must
be a consideration in the evaluation.
The Mission Suitability factor, if used, shall include a subfactor for
safety and health.
(c)
Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness and,
if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs/prices. The Cost/Price factor is not numerically
weighted or scored.
(d)
Past Performance factor.
(1)
This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each
offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size,
content, and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition.
(2)
The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data from relevant Federal,
State, and local governments and private contracts) that can be used to
evaluate their past performance.
Typically, the RFP will require:
(i)
A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant
acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of contract, a brief
description of the work, and a point of contact from the organization placing
the contract. Normally, the requested
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years. However, in acquisitions that require longer
periods to demonstrate performance quality, such as hardware development, the
time period should be tailored accordingly.
(ii)
The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or underruns,
completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
(3) The contracting
officer may start collecting past performance data before proposal
receipt. One method for early evaluation
of past performance is to request offerors to