PART 1816
TYPES OF CONTRACTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBPART 1816.1 SELECTING
CONTRACT TYPES
1816.104
Factors in selecting
contract types.
1816.104-70 Contract
type for performance-based acquisition (PBA).
SUBPART 1816.2
FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS
1816.202
Firm-fixed-price contracts.
1816.202-70 NASA
contract clause.
1816.203 Fixed-price contracts
with economic price adjustment.
1816.203-4
Contract clauses.
SUBPART 1816.3 COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS
1816.303-70 Cost-sharing contracts.
1816.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee
contracts.
1816.307 Contract clauses.
1816.307-70 NASA contract clauses.
SUBPART 1816.4 INCENTIVE CONTRACTS
1816.402 Application of
pre-determined, formula-type incentives.
1816.402-2
Performance
incentives.
1816.402-270 NASA
technical performance incentives.
1816.404 Fixed-price contracts with award fees.
1816.405 Cost-reimbursement
incentive contracts.
1816.405-2
Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF)
contracts.
1816.405-270 CPAF
contracts.
1816.405-271 Base
fee.
1816.405-272 Award
fee evaluation periods.
1816.405-273 Award
fee evaluations.
1816.405-274 Award
fee evaluation factors.
1816.405-275 Award
fee evaluation rating.
1816.405-276 Award
fee payments and limitations.
1816.406 Contract clauses.
1816.406-70 NASA
contract clauses.
SUBPART 1816.5 INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACTS
1816.504 Indefinite quantity
contracts.
1816.505
Ordering.
1816.505-70 Task Ordering.
1816.505-71 Task and delivery
order contract ordering period.
1816.505-72 Task and delivery
order contract performance periods.
1816.506-70 NASA contract clause.
SUBPART 1816.6 TIME-AND-MATERIALS, LABOR-HOUR, AND LETTER CONTRACTS
1816.603 Letter contracts.
1816.603-2
Application.
1816.603-370 Approvals.
PART 1816
TYPES OF CONTRACTS
Subpart 1816.1--Selecting
Contract Types
1816.104
Factors in selecting contract types.
1816.104-70
Contract type for performance-based acquisition (PBA).
(a) PBA is defined in FAR 2.101 and discussed in FAR 37.6. Although FAR Part 37 addresses services contracts, PBA is not limited to
these contracts. PBA is the preferred
way of contracting for all supplies and services at NASA. Generally, when contract performance risk
under a PBA specification can be fairly shifted to the contractor to allow for
the operation of objective incentives, a contract type with objectively
measurable incentives (e.g., FFP, FPIF, or CPIF) is appropriate. However, when contractor performance (e.g.,
cost control, schedule, or quality/technical) is best evaluated subjectively
using quantitative measures, a CPAF contract may be used.
(b) A PBA is a
completion form of contract (something is accomplished). Term/level-of-effort, time-and-materials and
labor hour contracts should include, when feasible, features that are
performance-oriented. However, those
contracts may not be characterized as PBA.
Subpart
1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts
1816.202 Firm-fixed-price
contracts.
1816.202-70
NASA contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 1852.216-78,
Firm-Fixed-Price, in firm-fixed-price solicitations and contracts. Insert the appropriate amount in the
resulting contract.
1816.203 Fixed-price contracts
with
economic price adjustment.
1816.203-4
Contract clauses.
(a) In addition to the approval requirements
in the prescriptions at FAR 52.216-2 through 52.216-4, the contracting officer shall
coordinate with the installation's Deputy Chief Financial Officer (Finance)
before exceeding the ten-percent limit in paragraph (c)(1) of the clauses at
FAR 52.216-2 and 52.216-3 and paragraph (c)(4) of the clause at 52.216-4.
(d)(2) Contracting officers shall contact the
Office of Procurement, Code HK, for specific guidance on preparing clauses
using cost indexes. Such clauses require
advance approval by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement. Requests for approval shall be submitted to
the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS).
Subpart
1816.3--Cost-Reimbursement Contracts
1816.303-70 Cost-sharing contracts.
(a) Cost-sharing
with for-profit organizations.
(1) Cost sharing by for-profit
organizations is mandatory in any contract for basic or applied research
resulting from an unsolicited proposal, and may be accepted in any other
contract when offered by the proposing organization. The requirement for cost-sharing may be waived
when the contracting officer determines in writing that the contractor has no
commercial, production, education, or service activities that would benefit
from the results of the research, and the contractor has no means of recovering
its shared costs on such projects.
(2) The contractor's cost-sharing may be
any percentage of the project cost. In
determining the amount of cost-sharing, the contracting officer shall consider
the relative benefits to the contractor and the Government. Factors that should be considered include
--
(i) the potential for the contractor to recover its contribution
from non-Federal sources;
(ii) the
extent to which the particular area of research requires special stimulus in
the national interest; and
(iii) the
extent to which the research effort or result is likely to enhance the
contractor's capability, expertise, or competitive advantage.
(b) Cost-sharing
with not-for-profit organizations.
(1) Costs to perform research stemming
from an unsolicited proposal by universities and other educational or
not-for-profit institutions are usually fully reimbursed. When the contracting officer determines that
there is a potential for significant benefit to the institution cost-sharing
will be considered.
(2) The contracting officer will normally
limit the institution's share to no more than 10 percent of the project's
cost.
(c) Implementation.
Cost-sharing shall be stated as a minimum
percentage of the total allowable costs of the project. The contractor's contributed costs may not be
charged to the Government under any other contract or grant, including
allocation to other contracts and grants as part of an independent research and
development program.
1816.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee
contracts.
(d) Completion
and term forms.
(4) Term form contracts
should include, when feasible, features that are performance-oriented. However, those contracts may not be
characterized as PBA.
1816.307 Contract clauses.
(a)(1) In paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B)
of the Allowable Cost and Payment clause at FAR 52.216-7, the period of years may be
increased to correspond with any statutory period of limitation applicable to
claims of third parties against the contractor; provided, that a corresponding
increase is made in the period for retention of records required in paragraph
(f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2,
Audit and Records - Negotiation.
(b) In solicitations and contracts containing
the clause at FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, the Schedule shall include
appropriate terms, if any, for provisional billing against fee.
(d) In solicitations and contracts containing
the clause at FAR 52.216-10,
Incentive Fee, the Schedule shall include appropriate terms, if any, for
provisional billing against fee.
(g)(1) In paragraph (g)(2)(ii)
of the Allowable Cost and Payment--Facilities clause at FAR 52.216-13, the period of years may be increased to
correspond with any statutory period of limitation applicable to claims of
third parties against the contractor; provided, that a corresponding increase
is made in the period for retention of records required in paragraph (f) of the
clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records - Negotiation.
1816.307-70
NASA contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 1852.216-73,
Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing, in each contract in which costs are shared by
the contractor pursuant to 1816.303-70.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the
clause substantially as stated at 1852.216-74,
Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, in cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
(c) The contracting officer may insert the
clause at 1852.216-75, Payment of Fixed Fee, in
cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
Modifications to the clause are authorized.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 1852.216-81, Estimated Cost, in
cost-no-fee contracts that are not cost sharing or facilities contracts.
(e) The contracting officer may insert a
clause substantially as stated at 1852.216-87,
Submission of Vouchers for Payment, in cost-reimbursement solicitations and
contracts.
(f) When either FAR clause 52.216-7,
Allowable Cost and Payment, or FAR clause 52.216-13, Allowable Cost and Payment---Facilities, is included in
the contract, as prescribed at FAR 16.307(a) and
(g), the contracting officer should include the clause at 1852.216-89, Assignment and Release Forms.
Subpart
1816.4--Incentive Contracts
1816.402 Application of
predetermined, formula-type incentives.
When considering the use of a quality, performance,
or schedule incentive, the following guidance applies:
(1) A
positive incentive is generally not appropriate unless —
(i) Performance above the target (or
minimum, if there are no negative incentives) level is of significant value to
the Government;
(ii) The
value of the higher level of performance is worth the additional cost/fee;
(iii)
The
attainment of the higher level of performance is clearly within the control of
the contractor; and
(iv) An upper
limit is identified, beyond which no further incentive is earned.
(2) A
negative incentive is generally not appropriate unless —
(i) A target level of performance can be
established, which the contractor can reasonably be expected to reach with a
diligent effort, but a lower level of performance is also minimally acceptable;
(ii)
The
value of the negative incentive is commensurate with the lower level of
performance and any additional administrative costs; and
(iii)
Factors likely to prevent attainment of the target level of performance are
clearly within the control of the contractor.
(3) When a
negative incentive is used, the contract must indicate a level below which
performance is not acceptable.
1816.402-2
Performance incentives.
1816.402-270
NASA technical performance incentives.
(a) Pursuant to the guidelines in 1816.402,
NASA has determined that a performance incentive shall be included in all
contracts based on performance-oriented documents (see FAR 11.101(a)), except those
awarded under the commercial item procedures of FAR Part 12, where the primary
deliverable(s) is (are) hardware with a total value (including options) greater
than $25 million. Any exception to this
requirement shall be approved in writing by the head of contracting activity. Performance incentives may be included in
hardware contracts valued under $25 million acquired under procedures other
than Part 12 at the discretion of the procurement officer upon consideration of
the guidelines in 1816.402. Performance
incentives, which are objective and measure hardware performance after delivery
and acceptance, are separate from other incentives, such as cost or delivery
incentives.
(b) When a performance incentive is used, it
shall be structured to be both positive and negative based on hardware
performance after delivery and acceptance, unless the contract type requires
complete contractor liability for product performance (e.g., fixed price). In this latter case, a negative incentive is
not required. In structuring the
incentives, the contract shall establish a standard level of performance based
on the salient hardware performance requirement. This standard performance level is normally
the contract's minimum performance requirement.
No incentive amount is earned at this standard performance level. Discrete units of measurement based on the
same performance parameter shall be identified for performance above and, when
a negative incentive is used, below the standard. Specific incentive amounts shall be
associated with each performance level from maximum beneficial performance
(maximum positive incentive) to, when a negative incentive is included, minimal
beneficial performance or total failure (maximum negative incentive). The relationship between any given incentive,
either positive and negative, and its associated unit
of measurement should reflect the value to the Government of that level of
hardware performance. The contractor
should not be rewarded for above-standard performance levels that are of no
benefit to the Government.
(c) The final calculation of the performance
incentive shall be done when hardware performance, as defined in the contract,
ceases or when the maximum positive incentive is reached. When hardware performance ceases below the
standard established in the contract and a negative incentive is included, the
Government shall calculate the amount due and the contractor shall pay the
Government that amount. Once hardware
performance exceeds the standard, the contractor may request payment of the
incentive amount associated with a given level of performance, provided that
such payments shall not be more frequent than monthly. When hardware performance ceases above the
standard level of performance, or when the maximum positive incentive is
reached, the Government shall calculate the final performance incentive earned
and unpaid and promptly remit it to the contractor.
(d) When the deliverable hardware lends
itself to multiple, meaningful measures of performance, multiple performance
incentives may be established. When the
contract requires the sequential delivery of several hardware items (e.g.,
multiple spacecraft), separate performance incentive structures may be
established to parallel the sequential delivery and use of the
deliverables.
(e) In determining the value of the maximum
performance incentives available, the contracting officer shall follow the
following rules:
(1) For a CPFF contract, the sum of the
maximum positive performance incentive and fixed fee shall not exceed the
limitations in FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i).
(2) For an award fee contract.
(i) The
individual values of the maximum positive performance incentive and the total
potential award fee (including any base fee) shall each be at least one-third
of the total potential contract fee. The
remaining one-third of the total potential contract fee may be divided between
award fee and the maximum performance incentive at the discretion of the
contracting officer.
(ii) The maximum negative
performance incentive for research and development hardware (e.g., the first
and second units) shall be equal in amount to the total earned award fee
(including any base fee). The maximum
negative performance incentives for production hardware (e.g., the third and
all subsequent units of any hardware items) shall be equal in amount to the
total potential award fee (including any base fee). Where one contract contains both cases
described above, any base fee shall be allocated reasonably among the items.
(3) For cost reimbursement contracts
other than award fee contracts, the maximum negative performance incentives
shall not exceed the total earned fee under the contract.
1816.404 Fixed-price contracts with
award fees.
Section 1816.405-2 applies to the use of FPAF
contracts as if they were CPAF contracts.
However, neither base fee (see 1816.405-271) nor evaluation
of cost control (see 1816.405-274) apply to FPAF contracts.
1816.405 Cost-reimbursement
incentive
contracts.
1816.405-2
Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.
1816.405-270 CPAF contracts.
(a) Use of an award
fee incentive requires advance approval by the Assistant Administrator for
Procurement. Requests for approval, that
include Determination & Findings (D&F) cited in paragraph (b) of this
section, shall be submitted to Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program
Operations Division.
(b) Contracting officers
shall prepare a D&F in accordance with FAR 16.401(d) prior to using an
award fee incentive. In addition to the
items identified in FAR 16.401(e)(1), D&F’s will include a discussion of
the other types of contracts considered and shall indicate why an award fee
incentive is the appropriate choice.
Award fee incentives should not be used on contracts with a total
estimated cost and fee less than $2 million per year. Use of award fee incentive for lower-valued
acquisitions may be authorized in exceptional situations such as contract
requirements having direct health or safety impacts, where the judgmental
assessment of the quality of contractor performance is critical.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, an award fee incentive may be used in conjunction with other contract
types for aspects of performance that cannot be objectively assessed. In such cases, the cost incentive is based on
objective formulas inherent in the other contract types (e.g., FPI, CPIF), and
the award fee provision should not separately incentivize cost performance.
(d)
Award fee incentives shall not be used with a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract.
1816.405-271
Base fee.
(a) A base fee shall not be used on CPAF
contracts for which the periodic award fee evaluations are final (1816.405-273(a)). In these circumstances, contractor performance
during any award fee period is independent of and has no effect on subsequent
performance periods or the final results at contract completion. For other contracts, such as those for
hardware or software development, the procurement officer may authorize the use
of a base fee not to exceed 3 percent.
Base fee shall not be used when an award fee incentive is used in
conjunction with another contract type (e.g., CPIF/AF).
(b) When a base fee is authorized for use in
a CPAF contract, it shall be paid only if the final award fee evaluation is
"satisfactory" or better. (See
1816.405-273 and 1816.405-275) Pending final evaluation, base fee may be
paid during the life of the contract at defined intervals on a provisional
basis. If the final award fee evaluation
is "unsatisfactory",
all provisional base fee payments shall be refunded to the Government.
1816.405-272
Award fee evaluation periods.
(a) Award fee evaluation periods, including
those for interim evaluations, should be at least 6 months in length. When appropriate, the procurement officer may
authorize shorter evaluation periods after ensuring that the additional
administrative costs associated with the shorter periods are offset by benefits
accruing to the Government. Where
practicable, such as developmental contracts with defined performance
milestones (e.g., Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, initial
system test), establishing evaluation periods at conclusion of the milestones
rather than calendar dates, or in combination with calendar dates should be
considered. In no case shall an
evaluation period be longer than 12 months.
(b) A portion of the total available award fee contract shall be
allocated to each of the evaluation periods.
This allocation may result in an equal or unequal distribution of fee
among the periods. The contracting
officer should consider the nature of each contract and the incentive effects
of fee distribution in determining the appropriate allocation structure.
1816.405-273
Award fee evaluations.
(a) Service Contracts. On contracts where the contract deliverable
is the performance of a service over any given time period, contractor
performance is often definitively measurable within each evaluation period. In these cases, all evaluations are final,
and the contractor keeps the fee earned in any period regardless of the
evaluations of subsequent periods.
Unearned award fee in any given period in a service contract is lost and
shall not be carried forward, or "rolled-over," into subsequent
periods.
(b) End
Item Contracts. On contracts, such
as those for end item deliverables, where the true quality of contractor
performance cannot be measured until the end of the contract, only the last
evaluation is final. At that point, the
total contract award fee pool is available, and the contractor's total
performance is evaluated against the award fee plan to determine total earned
award fee. In addition to the final
evaluation, interim evaluations are done to monitor performance prior to
contract completion, provide feedback to the contractor on the Government's
assessment of the quality of its performance, and establish the basis for making interim award fee payments (see
1816.405-276(a)). These interim
evaluations and associated interim award fee payments are superseded by the fee
determination made in the final evaluation at contract completion. The Government will then pay the contractor,
or the contractor will refund to the Government, the difference between the
final award fee determination and the cumulative interim fee payments.
(c) Control
of evaluations. Interim and final
evaluations may be used to provide past performance information during the
source selection process in future acquisitions and should be marked and
controlled as “Source Selection Information - See FAR
3.104”.
1816.405-274
Award fee evaluation factors.
(a) Explicit evaluation factors shall be
established for each award fee period. Factors
shall be linked to acquisition objectives which shall be defined in terms of
contract cost, schedule, and technical performance. If used, subfactors should be limited to the minimum necessary to
ensure a thorough evaluation and an effective incentive.
(b) Evaluation factors will be developed by
the contracting officer based upon the characteristics of an individual
procurement. Cost control, schedule, and
technical performance considerations shall
be included as evaluation factors in all CPAF contracts, as applicable. When explicit evaluation factor weightings are used, cost control
shall be no less than 25 percent of the total weighted evaluation factors. The predominant consideration of the cost
control evaluation should be a measurement of the contractor's performance
against the negotiated estimated cost of the contract. This estimated cost may include the value of undefinitized change orders when appropriate.
(c)(1) The technical
factor must include consideration of risk management (including mission
success, safety, security, health, export control, and damage to the
environment, as appropriate) unless waived at a level above the contracting
officer, with the concurrence of the project manager. The rationale for any waiver shall be
documented in the contract file. When
safety, export control, or security are considered under the technical factor,
the award fee plan shall allow the following fee determinations, regardless of
contractor performance in other evaluation factors, when there is a major
breach of safety or security.
(i) For evaluation of service contracts under 1816.405-273(a), an overall fee rating of unsatisfactory for any evaluation period in which there is a major breach of
safety or security.
(ii) For evaluation of end item
contracts under 1816.405-273(b), an overall fee rating of unsatisfactory for any interim evaluation period in which there is a major
breach of safety or security. To ensure
that the final award fee evaluation at contract completion reflects any major
breach of safety or security, in an interim period, the overall award fee pool
shall be reduced by the amount of the fee available for the period in which the
major breach occurred if an unsatisfactory fee rating was assigned because
of a major breach of safety or security.
(2) A major breach of safety must be
related directly to the work on the contract.
A major breach of safety is an act or omission of the Contractor that
consists of an accident, incident, or exposure resulting in a fatality or
mission failure; or in damage to equipment or property equal to or greater than
$1 million; or in any “willful” or “repeat” violation cited by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or by a state agency operating under an
OSHA approved plan.
(3) A
major breach of security may occur on or off Government installations, but must
be directly related to the work on the contract. A major breach of security is an act or
omission by the contractor that results in compromise of classified
information, illegal technology transfer, workplace violence resulting in
criminal conviction, sabotage, compromise or denial of information technology
services, equipment or property damage from vandalism greater than $250,000, or
theft greater than $250,000.
(4) The
Assistant Administrator for Procurement shall be notified prior to the
determination of an unsatisfactory award fee rating because of a major
breach of safety or security.
(d) In rare circumstances,
contract costs may increase for reasons outside the contractor's control and
for which the contractor is not entitled to an equitable adjustment. One example is a weather-related launch delay
on a launch support contract. The
Government shall take such situations into consideration when evaluating
contractor cost control.
(e) Emphasis on cost
control should be balanced against other performance requirement
objectives. The contractor should not be
incentivized to pursue cost control to the point that
overall performance is significantly degraded.
For example, incentivizing an underrun that
results in direct negative impacts on technical performance, safety, or other
critical contract objectives is both undesirable and counterproductive. Therefore, evaluation of cost control shall
conform to the following guidelines:
(1) Normally, the contractor should be
given an
unsatisfactory rating for cost control when there is a significant
overrun within its control. However, the
contractor may receive a satisfactory or higher rating for cost control if
the overrun is insignificant. Award fee ratings
should decrease sharply as the size of the overrun increases. In any evaluation of contractor overrun
performance, the Government shall consider the reasons for the overrun and
assess the extent and effectiveness of the contractor's efforts to control or
mitigate the overrun.
(2) The contractor should normally be
rewarded for an underrun within its control, up to
the maximum award
fee rating allocated for cost control, provided the adjectival rating
for all other award fee evaluation factors is very good or higher (see FAR 16.401(e)(iv).
(3)
The contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated cost of the
contract, but not to the maximum rating allocated for cost control, to the
degree that the contractor has prudently managed costs while meeting contract
requirements. No award shall be given in
this circumstance unless the average adjectival rating for all other award fee
evaluation factors is satisfactory or higher.
(f) When
an AF arrangement is used in conjunction with another contract type, the award
fee’s cost control factor will only apply to a subjective assessment of the
contractor’s efforts to control costs and not the actual cost outcome
incentivized under the basic contract type (e.g. CPIF, FPIF).
(g)(1) The contractor's performance against
the subcontracting plan incorporated in the contract shall be evaluated. Emphasis may be placed on the contractor's
accomplishment of its goals for subcontracting with small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, and
service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.
(2) The contractor's performance against
the contract target for participation as subcontractors by small disadvantaged
business concerns in the NAICS Major Groups designated by the Department of
Commerce (see FAR 19.201(c))
shall also be evaluated if the clause at FAR 52.219-26, Small
Disadvantaged Business Participation - Incentive Subcontracting, is not
included in the contract (see FAR 19.1204(c)).
(3) The contractor's achievements in
subcontracting high technology efforts as well as the contractor's performance
under the Mentor-Protégé Program, if applicable, may also be evaluated.
(4) The evaluation weight given to the contractor's
performance against the considerations in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(3) of this section should be significant (up to 15 percent of
available award fee). The weight should
motivate the contractor to focus management attention to subcontracting with
small, HUBZone, women-owned, veteran-owned, and
service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns,
and with small disadvantaged business concerns in designated NAICS Major Groups
to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with efficient contract
performance.
(h) When
contract changes are anticipated, the contractor’s responsiveness to requests
for change proposals should be evaluated.
This evaluation should include the contractor’s submission of timely, complete
proposals and cooperation in negotiating the change.
(i)
Only the award fee performance evaluation factors set forth in the performance
evaluation plan shall be used to determine award fee scores.
(j) The Government may unilaterally modify
the applicable award fee performance evaluation factors and performance
evaluation areas prior to the start of an evaluation period. The contracting officer shall notify the
contractor in writing of any such changes 30 days prior to the start of the
relevant evaluation period.
1816.405-275 Award fee evaluation rating.
(a) All award fee
contracts shall utilize the adjectival rating categories and associated
descriptions as well as the award fee pool available to be earned percentages
for each adjectival rating category contained in FAR 16.401(e)(iv).
(b) The following
numerical scoring system shall be used in conjunction with the FAR adjectival
rating categories and associated descriptions (see FAR 16.401(e)(iv)).
(1)
Excellent (100-91)
(2)
Very good (90-76)
(3)
Good (75-51)
(4)
Satisfactory (50)
(5)
Unsatisfactory (less than 50) No award fee shall be paid for an
unsatisfactory rating.
(c) As
a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated "Excellent" overall,
the contractor would typically be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and
providing outstanding technical performance.
(d) A
weighted scoring system appropriate for the circumstances of the individual
contract requirement should be developed.
In this system, each evaluation factor (e.g., technical, schedule, cost
control) is assigned a specific percentage weighting with the cumulative
weightings of all factors totaling 100.
During the award fee evaluation, each factor is scored from 0-100
according to the rating s defined in 1816.405-275(b). The numerical score for each factor is then
multiplied by the weighting for that factor to determine the weighted
score. For example, if the technical
factor has a weighting of 60 percent and the numerical score for that factor is
80, the weighted technical score is 48 (80 x 60 percent). The weighted scores for each evaluation
factor are then added to determine the total award fee score.
1816.405-276
Award fee payments and limitations.
(a) Interim
Award Fee Payments. The amount of an interim award fee payment (see
1816.405-273(b)) is limited to the lesser of the interim evaluation score or 80
percent of the fee allocated to that interim period less any provisional payments (see paragraph (b) of this
subsection) made during the period.
(b) Provisional
Award Fee Payments. Provisional
award fee payments are payments made within evaluation periods prior to an
interim or final evaluation for that period.
Provisional payments may be included in the contract and should be negotiated
on a case-by-case basis. For a service contract, the total amount of award fee
available in an evaluation period that may be provisionally paid is the lesser
of a percentage stipulated in the contract (but not exceeding 80 percent) or
the prior period's evaluation score. For an end
item contract, the total amount of provisional payments in a period is limited
to a percentage not to exceed 80 percent
of the prior interim period’s evaluation score.
(c) Fee
Payment. The Fee Determination Official's rating for both interim and final evaluations
will be provided to the contractor within 45 calendar days of the end of the
period being evaluated. Any fee, interim
or final, due the contractor will be paid no later than 60 calendar days after
the end of the period being evaluated.
1816.406 Contract clauses.
1816.406-70
NASA contract clauses.
(a) As authorized by FAR
16.406(e),
the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-76, Award Fee for
Service Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract is
contemplated and the contract deliverable is the performance of a service.
(b) As authorized by FAR 16.406(e), the
contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-77, Award Fee for End
Item Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when an award fee contract is
contemplated and the contract deliverables are
hardware or other end items for which total contractor performance
cannot be measured until the end of the contract. When the clause is used in a
fixed-price award-fee contract, it shall be modified by deleting references to
base fee in paragraphs (a), and by deleting paragraph (c)(1), the last sentence of (c)(4), and the
first sentence of (c)(5).
(c) The contracting officer may insert a
clause substantially as stated at 1852.216-83, Fixed Price Incentive, in
fixed-price-incentive solicitations and contracts utilizing firm or successive
targets. For items subject to incentive
price revision, identify the target cost, target profit, target price, and
ceiling price for each item.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 1852.216-84, Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee, in
cost-plus-incentive-fee solicitations and contracts.
(e) The contracting officer may insert the
clause at 1852.216-85, Estimated Cost and Award Fee, in award-fee solicitations
and contracts. When the contract
includes performance incentives, use Alternate I. When the clause is used in a
fixed-price award fee contract, it shall be modified to delete references to
base fee and to reflect the contract type.
(f) As provided at 1816.402-270, the
contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially as stated at
1852.216-88,
Performance Incentive, when the primary deliverable(s) is (are)
hardware and total estimated cost and fee is greater than $25 million. A clause substantially as stated at
1852.216-88 may be included in lower dollar value hardware contracts with the
approval of the procurement officer.
Subpart
1816.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts
1816.504 Indefinite quantity
contracts.
(a)(4)(ii) ID/IQ service contract values and
task order values shall be expressed only in dollars.
(a)(4)(v) See 1815.7003.
1816.505 Ordering.
(a)(2) Task and delivery orders shall be
issued by the contracting officer.
(b)(5) The
Agency and installation ombudsmen designated in accordance with 1815.7001 shall review complaints from contractors
on task order contracts and delivery order contracts.
1816.505-70
Task ordering.
(a) The contracting officer shall, to the
maximum extent possible, state task order requirements in terms of functions
and the related performance and quality standards such that the standards may
be objectively measured.
(b) To the maximum extent possible,
contracting officers shall solicit contractor task plans to use as the basis
for finalizing task order requirements and enable evaluation and pricing of the
contractor's proposed work on a performance based approach as described in 1816.104-70(a).
(c) Task order contract type shall be
individually determined, based on the nature of each task order's
requirements.
(1) Task orders may be grouped by
contract type for administrative convenience (e.g., all CPIF orders, all FFP
orders, etc.) for contractor progress and cost reporting.
(2) Under multiple awards, solicitations
for individual task plans shall request the same pricing structure from all offerors.
(d) Any undefinitized
task order issued under paragraph (f) of the clause at 1852.216-80, Task
Ordering Procedure, shall be treated and reported as an undefinitized
contract action in accordance with 1843.70.
1816.505-71
Task and delivery order contract ordering period.
(a) 10
U.S.C. 2304a establishes limitations on the ordering period of a task or
delivery order contract awarded by NASA.
The statute specifies that the ordering period may be for any period up
to five years. This period may be
subsequently extended for one or more successive periods pursuant to an option
or contract modification. In no case may
the ordering period exceed a total of ten years unless approved by the Deputy
Chief Acquisition Officer.
(b)
The deviation requirement at 1817.204(e)(iii)
applies to a task or delivery contract with an ordering period of more than
five years.
(c)
Orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts must comply with the
limitations in paragraph (a) of this subsection if the orders provide for the
issuance of subsequent task or delivery orders.
(d)
The limitations in paragraph (a) of this subsection do not apply to --
(1)
Advisory and assistance service task order contracts (authorized by 10
U.S.C. 2304b). These contracts are
limited by statute to 5 years, with the authority to extend an additional 6
months (see FAR 16.505(c));
(2)
Definite quantity contracts; and
(3) Multi-agency contracts
awarded by agencies other than NASA, DoD,
or the Coast Guard.
1816.505-72 Task and delivery
order contract performance periods.
(a) Performance of orders placed within the
contract ordering period may extend for up to one year past the end of the
ordering period if the contracting officer determines that performance of the
order cannot reasonably be deferred to any planned follow-on contract.
(b)
Orders that require performance of more than one year past the end of
the ordering period must be approved by the Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer
prior to issuance. Centers shall submit
approval requests, with full rationale for the necessity of placing the order,
to Code HS at least two weeks before the planned issuance of the order.
1816.506-70
NASA contract clause.
Insert the clause at 1852.216-80, Task
Ordering Procedure, in solicitations and contracts when an indefinite-delivery,
task order contract is contemplated. The
clause is applicable to both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type
contracts. If the contract does not
require 533M reporting (see NPR 9501.2, NASA
Contractor Financial Management Reporting), use the clause with its Alternate
I.
Subpart
1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter
Contracts
1816.603 Letter contracts.
1816.603-2 Application.
(a) Centers must ensure that NASA liabilities
and commitments are minimized under letter contracts. When a letter contract is justified and
program requirements can be severed into smaller, discreet efforts, the work
authorized by the letter contract must be limited to the minimum severable
effort required to satisfy the urgent program requirements. The remaining requirements may not be
initially included in the letter contract and must be acquired through a
separate fully priced and definitized contract
action.
1816.603-370 Approvals.
(a)(1)
The approval authority to issue a letter contract is --
(i) The Assistant Administrator for Procurement
when the estimated value of the definitized contract is
equal to or greater than the Master Buy Plan (MBP) submission threshold of 1807.7101;
(ii) The
procurement officer when the estimated value of the definitized
contract is below the MBP submission threshold; and
(iii) The Assistant Administrator
for Procurement for any modification of an undefinitized
letter contract approved by the procurement officer that increases the
estimated value of the definitized contract to an
amount equal to or above the MBP submission threshold. This approval must be obtained prior to
issuing the modification.
(2) The procurement officer must sign
all requests for approval by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement and
submit them to Code HS.
(b) All requests for authority to issue a letter contract must
include the following:
(1) Contractor name and address.
(2) Place of performance.
(3) Contract number,
including modification number, if applicable.
(4) Brief description of the work or
services to be performed.
(5) Performance period or delivery
schedule for both the letter contract and definitized
contract.
(6) Estimated value of the work
authorized by the letter contract.
(7) Estimated value of the definitized contract.
(8) Contract type of the definitized contract.
(9) A statement that the definitized contract will contain all required clauses or
identification of approved specific clause deviations.
(10) Complete justification of the
necessity for the letter contract, including the advantages to the Government
and a description of the efforts to avoid its issuance or to minimize its
scope.
(11) The definitization
schedule described in FAR 16.603-2(c)
expected to be negotiated with the contractor.
