May 11, 1999
SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION EVALUATION
PURPOSE: To conform the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to recent changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) regarding the evaluation and incentive for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation in competitive negotiated acquisitions; correct a NASA official's title; and eliminate an erroneous designation of the NASA Mentor-Protege program as a pilot program.
BACKGROUND: Federal Acquisition Circular 97-07 revised the FAR to prescribe procedures for the evaluation and incentive of SDB participation in Government contracts. With respect to evaluation, it required that the proposed participation of SDBs in the Department of Commerce designated Major SIC Groups be evaluated in unrestricted competitive negotiations expected to exceed $500,000 ($1,000,000 for construction). In non-MidRange procurements, NASA will normally implement this requirement through a Mission Suitability subfactor. MidRange implementation was addressed in PN 97-30. In addition, two forms of post-award incentives for use of SDBs in the designated SIC Major Groups were prescribed: the clause at 52.219-26, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program - Incentive Subcontracting, or an award fee provision. NASA procedures for award fee already required evaluation of SDB utilization, but needed revision to limit evaluation to SDBs in the designated Major SIC Groups.
REGULATION: Changes are made in Parts 1815, 1816, 1819, and 1852 as set forth in the enclosed replacement pages.
REPLACEMENT PAGES: You may use the enclosed pages to replace 15:7, 15:8, 15:9, 15:10, 15:11, 15:12, 15:13, 15:14, 15:15, 15:16, 15:17, 15:18, 15:19, 15:20, 15:21, 15:22, 15:23, 15:24, 15:25, 15:26, 15:27, 16:7, 16:8, 16:9, 16:10, 16:11, 16:12, 19:3, 19:4, 19:5, 19:6, 19:7, 19:8, 52:25, 52:26, 52:27, 52:28, 52-93, and 52-94 of the NFS.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: This PN was published as a final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 25214 - 25216, May 11, 1999).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This PN is effective as dated and shall remain in affect until canceled or superseded.
HEADQUARTERS CONTACT: Tom O'Toole, Code HK, (202) 358-0478; email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
R. Scott Thompson
Director, Contract Management Division
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 evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, 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)(2) Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Acquisition Strategy Meetings are in accordance with 1807.103.
1815.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
(c)(4)(A) The extent of participation of small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns shall be evaluated as a subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. If a Mission Suitability factor is not used, the SDB participation 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. Although discouraged, subfactors may be further defined by elements. Evaluation subfactors and any elements should be structured to identify significant discriminators, or "key swingers" - the essential information required to support a source selection decision. Too many subfactors and elements undermine effective proposal evaluation. All evaluation subfactors and elements 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.
(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) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified in the RFP.
(4) 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.
(c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs/prices. The Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
(d) Past Performance factor.
(1) This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition.
(2) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private contracts) that can be used to evaluate their past performance. Typically, the RFP will require:
(i) A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested contracts are limited to those received in the last three years. However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period should be tailored accordingly.
(ii) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or underruns, completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
(3) The contracting officer may start collecting past performance data before proposal receipt. One method for early evaluation of past performance is to request offerors to submit their past performance information in advance of the proposal due date. The RFP could also include a past performance questionnaire for offerors to send their previous customers with instructions to return the completed questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its past performance information early or of the customers to submit the completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of the offeror's past performance.
1815.305 Proposal evaluation.
(a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
(i) Any deficiencies;
(ii) All strengths and significant weaknesses;
(iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission Suitability subfactor and for the Mission Suitability factor in total;
(iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
(v) The Past Performance evaluation factor; and
(vi) Any technical, schedule, and cost risk. Risks may result from the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of materials, processes, equipment, etc., or as a result of the cost, schedule, and performance impacts associated with their approaches. Risk evaluations must consider the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirements. Risk assessments shall be considered in determining Mission Suitability strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical/adjectival ratings. Identified risk areas and the potential for cost impact shall be considered in the cost or price evaluation.
(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.
(A) Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive acquisitions. See 1815.403-1(b)(1) and 1815.403-3(b).
(B) When contracting on a basis other than firm-fixed-price, the contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The analysis should include:
(a) The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including any recommended additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor hours, direct rates, and indirect rates. The probable cost should reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which might result from that offeror's proposal.
(b) The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and practices as they affect cost.
(c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each proposal.
(C) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in 1815.305(a)(3)(B).
(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
(A) The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded contracts.
(B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all offerors in that acquisition.
(C) Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit assessments of the offeror's performance, as either a prime or subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
(D) All pertinent information, including customer assessments and any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection records and included in the evaluation.
(a)(3) Technical Evaluation.
(A) Mission Suitability subfactors and the total Mission Suitability factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.
A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.
A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.
A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror's response.
A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.
A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.
(B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, the Mission Suitability evaluation shall reflect the results of any required cost realism analysis performed under the cost/price factor. A structured approach shall be used to adjust Mission Suitability scores based on the degree of assessed cost realism. An example of such an approach would:
(a) Establish a threshold at which Mission Suitability adjustments would start. The threshold should reflect the acquisition's estimating uncertainty (i.e., the higher the degree of estimating uncertainty, the higher the threshold);
(b) Use a graduated scale that proportionally adjusts a proposal's Mission Suitability score for its assessed cost realism;
(c) Affect a significant number of points to induce realistic pricing.
(d) Calculate a Mission Suitability point adjustment based on the percentage difference between proposed and probable cost as follows:
+/- 5 percent
+/- 30 percent
+/- 6 to 10 percent
+/- 31 to 40 percent
+/- 11 to 15 percent
+/- 41 to 50 percent
+/- 16 to 20 percent
+/- 51 to 60 percent
+/- 21 to 30 percent
+/- 61 to 70 percent
+/- more than 30 percent
+/- more than 70 percent
(a)(4) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs. Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
(b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.
1815.305-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.
(a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because:
(1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements;
(2) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually an entirely new technical proposal; or
(3) It contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure.
(b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with this section.
1815.305-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.
(a) If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the SSA shall direct the contracting officer to:
(1) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii));
(2) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-1); or
(3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
(b) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also applies when the number of proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one acceptable proposal is received.
1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
(c)(2) A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive range. Field installations may establish procedures for approval of competitive range determinations commensurate with the complexity or dollar value of an acquisition.
(d)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price elements that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to submit their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but shall not discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other offeror. The contracting officer should question inadequate, conflicting, unrealistic, or unsupported cost information; differences between the offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost realism concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs; proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not appear responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price elements or a "bottom line " is necessary.
(B) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and conditions so that a "model" contract can be sent to each offeror with the request for final proposal revisions. If the solicitation allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to the Government and are considered proposal strengths should be discussed with the offeror and proposed for inclusion in that offeror's "model" contract. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in its "model" contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider their characterization as strengths.
(e)(1) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed requirements.
1815.307 Proposal revisions.
(b)(i) The request for final proposal revisions (FPRs) shall also:
(A) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial proposals;
(B) Require offerors to complete and execute the "model" contract, which includes any special provisions or performance capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
(C) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their proposals; and
(D) Establish a page limit for FPRs.
(ii) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 million or more. Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other acquisitions.
(iii) Proposals are rescored based on FPR evaluations. Scoring changes between initial and FPRs shall be clearly traceable.
1815.308 Source selection decision.
(1) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
(2) Before award, the SSA shall sign a source selection statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source selection statements must describe: the acquisition; the evaluation procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement also addresses unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals, or any other considerations pertinent to the decision. The statement shall not reveal any confidential business information. Except for certain major system acquisition competitions (see 1815.506-70), source selection statements shall be releasable to competing offerors and the general public upon request. The statement shall be available to the Debriefing Official to use in postaward debriefings of unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon request.
(3) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer shall award the contract.
1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.
(a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for those acquisitions identified in 1815.300-70(a)(1)(i).
(b) General. The SEB assists the SSA by providing expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in relation to the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements contained in the solicitation. The SEB will prepare and present its findings to the SSA, avoiding trade-off judgments among either the individual offerors or among the evaluation factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for selection to the SSA.
(1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan or acquisition strategy meeting approval.
(2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval shall be obtained in accordance with 1815.207-70.
(3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments. Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
(1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-finding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as described in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section) to a highly complex situation involving a major acquisition where two or more committees are formed and these, in turn, are assisted by special panels or consultants in particular areas. The number of committees or panels/consultants shall be kept to a minimum.
(2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the basis for a sound selection decision.
(3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.
(4) An SEB committee functions as a factfinding arm of the SEB, usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of their committees.
(5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a factfinding arm of the committee in a specialized area of the committee's responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can provide.
(6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) shall be limited to a maximum of 20, unless approved in writing by the procurement officer.
(e) Voting members.
(1) Voting members of the SEB shall include people who will have key assignments on the project to which the acquisition is directed. However, it is important that this should be tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may even be appropriate to designate a management official from outside the project as SEB Chairperson.
(2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of an SEB.
(3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels, or consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB shall have equal status as rating officials.
(4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not feasible, SEB membership shall take precedence over other duties.
(5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
(ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
(iii) An experienced procurement representative.
(iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as appropriate.
(v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue workload).
(f) Ex officio members.
(1) The number of nonvoting ex officio (advisory) members shall be kept as small as possible. Ex officio members should be selected for the experience and expertise they can provide to the SEB. Since their advisory role may require access to highly sensitive SEB material and findings, ex officio membership for persons other than those identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section is discouraged.
(2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and contribute to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not participate in the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder should be present during rating sessions.
(3) For field installation selections, the following shall be nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:
(i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting members.
(ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated a voting member.
(iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition, unless designated a voting member.
(iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
(v) The installation small business specialist.
(vi) The SEB recorder.
(1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson shall send them the proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated, along with instructions regarding the expected function of each committee, and all data considered necessary or helpful.
(2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee shall submit a written report which should include the following:
(i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the lowest level evaluated;
(ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; and
(iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths, deficiencies, or significant weaknesses which significantly affected the evaluation and stating any reservations or concerns, together with supporting rationale, which the committee or any of its members want to bring to the attention of the SEB.
(3) The SEB process must be adequately documented. Clear traceability must exist at all levels of the SEB process. All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part of the SEB records.
(4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the proposals for each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own collective judgment. SEB minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
(h) SEB presentation.
(1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA on the results of the SEB deliberations to permit an informed and objective selection of the best source(s) for the particular acquisition.
(2) The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the probable cost of each proposal, and any significant issues and problems identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements; the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of the offerors; the Government cost estimate, if applicable; the offerors' proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and scores to the subfactor level.
(3) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved in the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The designated individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
(i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
(ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors, elements, weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its findings, or revise the presentation.
(4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation including arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring proper attendance, and distributing presentation material.
(5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary presentation should be made to the center director and to the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office.
(i) Recommended SEB presentation format.
(1) Identification of the Acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or hardware to be acquired, some quantitative measure including the Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
(2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services, identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes from the existing structure.
(3) Evaluation Factors, Subfactors, and Elements. Explains the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and any special standards of responsibility. Lists the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission Suitability and Past Performance evaluations.
(4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals, indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned businesses.
(5) Summary of Findings. Lists the initial and final Mission Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed costs/prices, and any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection. Addresses any competitive range determination.
(6) Significant Strengths, Deficiencies, and Significant Weaknesses of Offerors. Summarizes the SEB's findings, using the following guidelines:
(i) Present only the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses of individual offerors.
(ii) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses to the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements.
(iii) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and FPRs on ratings and scores.
(7) Final Mission Suitability Ratings and Scores. Summarizes the evaluation subfactors and elements, the maximum points achievable, and the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.
(8) Final Cost/Price Evaluation. Summarizes proposed costs/prices and any probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as possible, showing SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies the SEB's confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors, noting the reasons for low or high confidence.
(9) Past Performance. Reflects the summary conclusions, supported by specific case data.
(10) Special Interest. Includes only information of special interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g., procedural errors or other matters that could affect the selection decision.
(j) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance with 1815.308. For installation selections, the installation Chief Counsel or designee will prepare the source selection statement. For Headquarters selections, the Office of General Counsel or designee will prepare the statement.
Subpart 1815.4--Contract Pricing
1815.403 Obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
(b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting officers shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for this exception.
(c)(4) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK).
1815.403-170 Waivers of cost or pricing data.
(a) NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data when contracting with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC). This waiver applies to the CCC and its subcontractors. The CCC will provide assurance of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. This assurance should be relied on; however, contracting officers shall ensure that the appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted by subcontractors to support any required proposal analysis, including a technical analysis and a cost realism analysis. The CCC also will provide for follow-up audit activity to ensure that any excess profits are found and refunded to NASA.
(b) NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data when contracting for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program Phase II contracts. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted to determine price reasonableness and cost realism.
1815.403-3 Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
(b) As indicated in 1815.403-1(b)(1), the adequate price competition exception applies to all competitive acquisitions. For other than firm-fixed-price competitions, only the minimum information other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested. For firm-fixed-price competitions, the contracting officer shall not request any cost information, unless proposed prices appear unreasonable or unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed approach and there are concerns that the contractor may default.
1815.403-4 Requiring cost or pricing data.
(b)(2) If a certificate of current cost or pricing data is made applicable as of a date other than the date of price agreement, the agreed date should generally be within two weeks of the date of that agreement.
1815.404 Proposal analysis.
1815.404-2 Information to support proposal analysis.
(a)(1)(A) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and an audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting officers should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA resources are not available.
(B) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves merely a verification of information, contracting officers should obtain this verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather than formal request of field pricing support.
(C) When the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature, contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a minimum are considered: actuals incurred under the previous contract, learning experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA resources or the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.
(D) Requests for field pricing assistance may be made on NASA Form 1434, Letter of Request for Pricing-Audit-Technical Evaluation Services.
(b)(1)(i) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee objectives, described in 1815.404-470, shall be used to determine profit or fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those acquisitions that require cost analysis.
(ii) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is not required for:
(a) Architect-engineer contracts;
(b) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of Government facilities;
(c) Construction contracts;
(d) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by subcontractors;
(e) Termination settlements;
(f) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
(g) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach is unsuitable.
1815.404-470 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
(1) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee objectives is a system of assigning weights to cost elements and other factors to calculate the objective. Contracting officers shall use NASA Form 634 to develop the profit or fee objective and shall use the weight ranges listed after each category and factor on the form after considering the factors in this subsection. The rationale supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the PPM in accordance with 1815.406-170(d)(3).
(2)(i) The structured approach was designed for determining profit or fee objectives for commercial organizations. However, the structured approach shall be used as a basis for arriving at fee objectives for nonprofit organizations (FAR Subpart 31.7), excluding educational institutions (FAR Subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee on contracts with educational institutions.)
(ii) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profits or fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be subtracted from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this adjustment, it will be necessary to consider the following factors:
(A) Tax position benefits;
(B) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
(C) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
(D) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit organization.
(b) Contractor effort.
(1) This factor takes into account what resources are necessary and what the contractor must do to meet the contract performance requirements. The suggested cost categories under this factor are for reference purposes only. The format of individual proposals will vary, but these broad categories provide a sample structure for the evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of cost shall be separately listed under the appropriate category and assigned a weight from the category range.
(2) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part of the cost base in column 1.(a) in the computation of profit or fee.
(3) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content of the proposed contract as follows:
(i) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and other material).
(A) Consider the managerial and technical efforts necessary for the prime contractor to select subcontractors and administer subcontracts, including efforts to introduce and maintain competition. These evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw materials or basic commodities; purchases of processed material, including all types of components of standard or near-standard characteristics; and purchases of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies, special tooling, and other products special to the end item. In performing the evaluation, also consider whether the contractor's purchasing program makes a substantial contribution to the performance of a contract through the use of subcontracting programs involving many sources, new complex components and instrumentation, incomplete specifications, and close surveillance by the prime contractor.
(B) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation. If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR 31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
(ii) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other labor).
(A) Analysis of the various items of cost should include evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or supporting personnel.
(B) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for contract performance.
(C) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and other types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower resources for meeting these requirements should be considered. For purposes of evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality control, and receiving and inspection) proposed separately from engineering, service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the most appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation considerations as outlined in this section will be applied.
(iii) Overhead and general management (G&A).
(A) Analysis of overhead and G&A includes the evaluation of the makeup of these expenses, how much they contribute to contract performance, and the degree of substantiation provided for rates proposed in future years.
(B) Contracting officers should also consider the historical accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability to control overhead pool expenses.
(C) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead rate of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break out the applicable sections of the composite rate which could be classified as engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other overhead pools, and G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
(iv) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to contract performance.
(c) Other factors.
(1) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation profit/fee objectives.
(i) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this factor.
(ii) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk by contract type would usually fall within the 0-to-3 percent range for cost-reimbursement contracts and 3-to-7 percent range for fixed-price contracts.
(A) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this subsection, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases, up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of fees, etc.
(B) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
(iii) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form of cost risk to consider.
(A) The contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost risk weight should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the contractor's risk.
(B) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable, determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work completed, before definitization.
(2) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
(i) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the examples in this paragraph should be evaluated on their merits, with either a positive or negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee objective. However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform a contract that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a contractor's use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the contract, profit/fee need not be adjusted.
(ii) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent than monthly.
(3) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance should be evaluated in such areas as product quality, meeting performance schedules, efficiency in cost control (including the need for and reasonableness of costs incurred), accuracy and reliability of previous cost estimates, degree of cooperation by the contractor (both business and technical), timely processing of changes and compliance with other contractual provisions.
(4) Subcontract program management. Subcontract program management includes evaluation of the contractor's commitment to its competition program and its past and present performance in competition in subcontracting. If a contractor has consistently achieved excellent results in these areas in comparison with other contractors in similar circumstances, such performance merits a proportionately greater opportunity for profit or fee. Conversely, a poor record in this regard should result in a lower profit or fee.
(5) Federal socioeconomic programs. In addition to rewarding contractors for unusual initiative in supporting Government socioeconomic programs, failure or unwillingness on the part of the contractor to support these programs should be viewed as evidence of poor performance for the purpose of establishing this profit/fee objective factor. However, this factor does not apply to utilization of small disadvantaged businesses. Incentives for use of these firms may only be structured according to FAR 19.1203 and 19.1204(c).
(6) Special situations.
(i) Occasionally, unusual contract pricing arrangements are made with the contractor under which it agrees to accept a lower profit or fee for changes or modifications within a prescribed dollar value. In such circumstances, the contractor should receive favorable consideration in developing the profit/fee objective.
(ii) This factor need not be limited to situations that increase profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when the contractor is expected to obtain spin-off benefits as a direct result of the contract, for example, products with commercial application.
(d) Facilities capital cost of money.
(1) When facilities capital cost of money is included as an item of cost in the contractor's proposal, it shall not be included in the cost base for calculating profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the profit/fee objective shall be made in the amount equal to the facilities capital cost of money allowed in accordance with FAR 31.205-10(a)(2).
(2) CAS 417, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital assets under construction, should not appear in contract proposals. These costs are included in the initial value of a facility for purposes of calculating depreciation under CAS 414.
1815.404-471 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized contracts.
1815.406-1 Prenegotiation objectives.
(b)(i) Before conducting negotiations requiring installation or Headquarters review, contracting officers or their representatives shall prepare a prenegotiation position memorandum setting forth the technical, business, contractual, pricing, and other aspects to be negotiated.
(ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR 15.3 and 1815.3.
1815.406-170 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain the contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately become the basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to the price negotiation memorandum (see FAR 15.406-3 and 1815.406-3). In addition to the information described in FAR 15.406-1 and, as appropriate, 15.406-3(a), the PPM should address the following subjects, as applicable, in the order presented:
(a) Introduction. Include a description of the acquisition and a history of prior acquisitions for the same or similar items. Address the extent of competition and its results. Identify the contractor and place of performance (if not evident from the description of the acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations and policy, including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of contractor systems (see FAR 15.406-3(a)(4)). In addition, the negotiation schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation team members identified by name and position.
(b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract contemplated and the reasons for its suitability.
(c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition, including such items as--
(1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized and incurred;
(2) Results of preaward survey;
(3) Contract option requirements;
(4) Government property to be furnished;
(5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment (and any modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government); and
(6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses and when approvals were obtained, if required.
(d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option, include--
(1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective. The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each element of cost, compare the contractor's proposal and the Government position, explain the differences and how the Government position was developed, including the estimating assumptions and projection techniques employed, and how the positions differ in approach. Include a discussion of excessive wages found (if applicable) and their planned resolution. Explain how historical costs, including costs incurred under a letter contract (if applicable), were used in developing the negotiation objective.
(2) Significant differences between the field pricing report (including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.404-3(c), there shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by the prime contractor, any unusual or special pricing or finance arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
(3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and, if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines, ceilings, and cost risk.
(e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from the original approval authority.
1815.406-171 Installation reviews.
Each contracting activity shall establish procedures to review all prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage, exact procedures to be followed, levels of management review, and contract file documentation requirements should be directly related to the dollar value and complexity of the acquisition. The primary purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the negotiator, or negotiation team, is thoroughly prepared to enter into negotiations with a well-conceived, realistic, and fair plan.
1815.406-172 Headquarters reviews.
(a) When a prenegotiation position has been selected for Headquarters review and approval, the contracting activity shall submit to the Office of Procurement (Code HS) one copy each of the prenegotiation position memorandum, the contractor's proposal, the Government technical evaluation, and all pricing reports (including any audit reports).
(b) The required information described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be furnished to Headquarters as soon as practicable and sufficiently in advance of the planned commencement of negotiations to allow a reasonable period of time for Headquarters review. Electronic submittal is acceptable.
1815.406-3 Documenting the negotiation.
(a)(i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including price reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated; and the methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final negotiated agreement.
(ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR 15.406-3 shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to the extent applicable.
(iii) When the PNM is a "stand-alone" document, it shall contain the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs. However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.406-1, the subsequent PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.406-3 that was not provided in the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of factors affecting cost elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours, or subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of the contractor's systems).
1815.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
1815.407-2 Make-or-buy programs.
(e)(1) Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work efforts estimated to cost less than $500,000.
1815.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-78, Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-or-buy programs as provided in FAR 15.407-2(c). This provision shall be used in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting officer may add additional paragraphs identifying any other information required in order to evaluate the program.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79, Price Adjustment for "Make-or-Buy" Changes, in contracts that include FAR 52.215-9 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate columns the items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract value.
Subpart 1815.5 --Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, Protests, and Mistakes
1815.504 Award to successful offeror.
The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.504 on negotiated acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF 1447, or a letter contract when a definitized contract instrument is not available but the urgency of the requirement necessitates immediate performance. In this latter instance, the procedures in 1816.603 for approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.
1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70 Debriefing of offerors - Major System acquisitions.
(a) When an acquisition is conducted in accordance with the Major System acquisition procedures in Part 1834 and multiple offerors are selected, the debriefing will be limited in such a manner that it does not prematurely disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches of the successful offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
(b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to competing offerors or the general public until the release of the source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
Subpart 1815.6--Unsolicited Proposals
(1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement. If a grant or cooperative agreement is used, the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (NPG 5800.1) applies.
(2) Renewal proposals, (i.e., those for the extension or augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.
1815.604 Agency points of contact.
(a) Information titled "Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals" is available on the Internet at http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/msfc/nasahdbk.html. A deviation is required for use of any modified or summarized version of the Internet information or for alternate means of general dissemination of unsolicited proposal information.
1815.606 Agency procedures.
(a) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited proposals initially submitted to another agency or to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without the offeror's express consent.
(b)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall designate a point of contact for receiving and coordinating the handling and evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
(ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling proposals initially received by other offices within the installation. Misdirected proposals shall be forwarded by the point of contact to the proper installation. Points of contact are also responsible for providing guidance to potential offerors regarding the appropriate NASA officials to contact for general mission-related inquiries or other preproposal discussions.
(iii) Points of contact shall keep records of unsolicited proposals received and shall provide prompt status information to requesters. These records shall include, at a minimum, the number of unsolicited proposals received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal year; the identity of the offerors; and the office to which each was referred. The numbers shall be broken out by source (large business, small business, university, or nonprofit institution).
1815.606-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified by an evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall be evaluated as a response to that NRA (see 1835.016-70), provided that the evaluating office can either:
(a) State that the proposal is not at a competitive disadvantage, or
(b) Give the offeror an opportunity to amend the unsolicited proposal to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA proposal preparation instructions. If these conditions cannot be met, the proposal must be evaluated separately.
1815.609 Limited use of data.
1815.609-70 Limited use of proposals.
Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with, the procedures prescribed in, 1815.207-70.
1815.670 Foreign proposals.
Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NMI 1362.1, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautical Programs.
Subpart 1815.70 -- Ombudsman
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPG 5101.33, Procurement Guidance.
1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the contracting officer shall indicate that the clause at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, is applicable. This may be accomplished by referencing the clause number and identifying the installation Ombudsman.
1815.7003 Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations (including draft solicitations) and contracts.
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 "poor/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.
(b) Evaluation factors will be developed by the contracting officer based upon the characteristics of an individual procurement. Normally, technical and schedule considerations will be included in all CPAF contracts as evaluation factors. Cost control shall be included as an evaluation factor in all CPAF contracts. 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) 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.
(d) 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 a score of 0 for cost control when there is a significant overrun within its control. However, the contractor may receive higher scores for cost control if the overrun is insignificant. Scores 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 score allocated for cost control, provided the average numerical rating for all other award fee evaluation factors is 81 or greater (see 1816.405-275). An underrun shall be rewarded as if the contractor has met the estimated cost of the contract (see 1816.405-274(d)(3)) when the average numerical rating for all other factors is less than 81 but greater than 60.
(3) The contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated cost of the contract, but not to the maximum score 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 numerical rating for all other award fee evaluation factors is 61 or greater.
(e) 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).
(f)(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, and women-owned small business concerns.
(2) The contractor's performance against the contract target for participation as subcontractors by small disadvantaged business concerns in the SIC 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 (f)(1) through (f)(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, and women-owned small business concerns, and with small disadvantaged business concerns in designated SIC Major Groups to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with efficient contract performance.
(g) Only the award fee performance evaluation factors set forth in the performance evaluation plan shall be used to determine award fee scores.
(h) 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 scoring.
(a) A scoring system of 0-100 shall be used for all award fee ratings. Award fee earned is determined by applying the numerical score to the award fee pool. For example, a score of 85 yields an award fee of 85 percent of the award fee pool. No award fee shall be paid unless the total score is 61 or greater.
(b) The following standard adjectival ratings and the associated numerical scores shall be used on all award fee contracts.
(1) Excellent (100-91): Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance.
(2) Very good (90-81): Very effective performance, fully responsive to contract requirements; contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part; only minor deficiencies.
(3) Good (80-71): Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.
(4) Satisfactory (70-61): Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.
(5) Poor/Unsatisfactory (less than 61): Does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance.
(c) As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated "Excellent," the contractor must be under cost, on or ahead of schedule, and have provided excellent technical performance.
(d) A scoring system appropriate for the circumstances of the individual contract requirement should be developed. Weighted scoring is recommended. 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 ratings 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)(2) Task and delivery orders shall be issued by the contracting officer.
(b)(4) The Agency and installation ombudsmen designated in accordance with 1815.70 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 1816.404-270(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.
1816.506-70 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 NHB 9501.2), use the clause with its Alternate I.
Subpart 1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
1816.603 Letter contracts.
(a) All requests for authority to issue a letter contract shall include the following:
(1) Proposed contractor's name and address.
(2) Location where contract is to be performed.
(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.
(6) Amount of letter contract.
(7) Performance period of letter contract.
(8) Estimated total amount of definitive contract.
(9) Type of definitive contract to be executed.
(10) A statement that the definitive contract will contain all required clauses or identification of specific clause deviations that have been approved.
(11) A statement as to the necessity and advantage to the Government of the proposed letter contract.
(12) The definitization schedule described in FAR 16.603-2(c) expected to be negotiated with the contractor.
(b) Requests for authority to issue letter contracts having an estimated definitive contract amount equal to or greater than the Master Buy Plan submission thresholds of 1807.7101 (or modifications thereto) shall be signed by the procurement officer and submitted to the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) for approval.
(c) Authority to approve the issuance of letter contracts below the Master Buy Plan submission thresholds specified in 1807.7101 is delegated to the procurement officer.
(d) Any modification of an undefinitized letter contract approved by a procurement officer in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section that increases the estimated definitized contract amount to or above the Master Buy Plan submission thresholds must have the prior approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
"High-Tech" as used in this part means research and/or development efforts that are within or advance the state-of-the-art in a technology discipline and are performed primarily by professional engineers, scientists, and highly skilled and trained technicians or specialists.
Subpart 1819.2 --Policies
1819.201 General policy.
(a)(i) NASA is committed to providing to small, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business concerns, maximum practicable opportunities to participate in Agency acquisitions at the prime contract level. The participation of NASA prime contractors in providing subcontracting opportunities to such entities is also an essential part of the Agency's commitment. The participation of these entities is particularly emphasized in high-technology areas where they have not traditionally dominated.
(ii) NASA annually negotiates Agency small, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business prime and subcontracting goals with the Small Business Administration pursuant to section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644). In addition, NASA has the following statutory goals based on the total value of prime and subcontract awards:
(A) Under Public Laws 101-144, 101-507, and 102-389, an annual goal of at least 8 percent for prime and subcontract awards to small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), minority institutions (MIs), and women-owned small businesses (WOSBs) (see 1819.7000); and
(B) Under 10 U.S.C. 2323, an annual goal of 5 percent for prime and subcontract awards to SDBs, HBCUs, and WOSBs.
(c) The Associate Administrator for Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (Code K) is the Agency official responsible for carrying out the duties in FAR 19.201(c).
(d)(i) The center director shall designate a qualified individual in the contracting office as a small business specialist to provide a central point of contact to which small business concerns may direct inquiries concerning small business matters and participation in NASA acquisitions. The small business specialist shall also perform other functions specifically set forth in this section 1819.201 or that the procurement officer may prescribe, with the concurrence of the Associate Administrator for Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, for implementing the Small Business Program. When the center director considers that the volume of acquisitions or the functions relating to acquisitions at the center do not warrant a full-time small business specialist, these duties may be assigned to procurement personnel on a part-time basis.
(ii) Small business specialists appointed under paragraph (d)(i) of this section shall perform the following duties, as the procurement officer determines appropriate to the installation:
(A) Maintain a program designed to locate capable small business sources, including those located in labor surplus areas, for current and future acquisitions.
(B) Coordinate inquiries and requests for advice from small business concerns on acquisition matters.
(C) Before issuance of solicitations or contract modifications for additional supplies or services, determine that small business concerns will receive adequate consideration, including making recommendations for initiation of set-asides (see FAR 19.5 and 19.8) and for taking action in accordance with FAR 19.506(b) and 1819.502-70. Participate and provide input early in the acquisition planning phase of proposed acquisitions, including acquisition strategy meetings.
(D) If small business concerns cannot be given an opportunity to compete because adequate specifications or drawings are not available, work with appropriate technical and contracting personnel to ensure that necessary specifications or drawings for current or future acquisitions will be available.
(E) Review acquisitions for possible breakout of items suitable for acquisition from small business concerns.
(F) Advise small business concerns regarding financial assistance available under laws and regulations, assist such concerns in applying for such assistance, and ensure that small business concerns' requests for financial assistance are not treated as a handicap in securing the award of contracts.
(G) Participate in responsibility determinations (see FAR 9.103) when small business concerns are involved.
(H) Participate in the evaluation of prime contractors' small business subcontracting programs (see FAR 19.705-4).
(I) Review and make appropriate recommendations to the contracting officer on any proposal to furnish Government-owned facilities to a contractor if such action may hurt the Small Business Program.
(J) Ensure that participation of small business concerns is accurately reported.
(K) Make available to SBA copies of solicitations when requested.
(L) Act as liaison between contracting officers and SBA area offices and representatives in connection with set-asides, certificates of competency, and any other matters in which the Small Business Program may be involved.
(M) In cooperation with contracting officers and technical personnel, seek and develop information on the technical competence of small business concerns for research and development contracts. Regularly bring to the attention of contracting officers and technical personnel descriptive data, brochures, and other information regarding small business concerns that are apparently competent to perform research and development work in fields in which NASA is interested.
(N) When a small business concern's offer has been rejected for nonresponsiveness or nonresponsibility, assist that concern, upon its request, in understanding such requirements for future awards.
(O) Advise center personnel, as necessary, on new Governmentwide and Agency-approved small business programs and initiatives.
(f)(1) The NASA Ombudsman, the Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code H), is the designated official for determining whether the use of the SDB mechanism in FAR Subpart 19.11 has resulted in an undue burden on non-SDB firms in the Department of Commerce designated SIC Major Groups, or is otherwise inappropriate.
1819.202 Specific policies.
1819.202-1 Encouraging small business participation in acquisitions.
1819.202-170 Contract consolidations.
Prior to effecting a contract consolidation valued at $5 million or more, including options, which will not be exclusively reserved for small or 8(a) firms, the contracting officer, with assistance from the small business specialist and the cognizant technical office, shall prepare an impact assessment of the effects of the consolidation on present and future contracting and subcontracting opportunities for small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business. The impact assessment shall address the reasons for the proposed consolidation (especially where apparently unrelated efforts are being combined), the expected benefits, and any actions planned to mitigate or eliminate the impact on small business entities. The impact assessment shall be forwarded to the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) for concurrence by cognizant Headquarters offices and approval by the Associate Deputy Administrator.
Subpart 1819.3--Determination of Status as a Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, or Small Disadvantaged Business Concern
1819.302 Protesting a small business representation.
(d)(1) The contracting officer shall not make awards of small business set-aside acquisitions before the expiration of the period for receipt of a size standard protest.
Subpart 1819.5--Set-Asides for Small Business
1819.502 Setting aside acquisitions.
1819.502-70 Non-initiation of set-asides.
(a) All cases involving the non-initiation of a set-aside, whether resulting from a joint decision of the small business specialist and the contracting officer or a decision by the contracting officer alone, require referral to the SBA representative (if one is assigned and available) for review.
(b) If the small business specialist recommends that an individual acquisition or a class of acquisitions, or a portion thereof, be set aside, the contracting officer shall promptly either concur in or disapprove the recommendation, stating in writing the reasons for disapproval.
(c) When an SBA representative is assigned and available and the contracting officer disapproves the small business specialist's recommendation, the contracting officer shall promptly refer the case to the SBA representative for review. The small business specialist shall take no further appeal action. The SBA representative must either concur with the decision or appeal the case to the procurement officer under FAR 19.505. If the procurement officer approves the contracting officer's decision and the SBA appeals under FAR 19.505(c), the procurement officer shall forward the required written justification, including a history of discussions between the center and the SBA and rationale for the decision, to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (HS).
(d) When an SBA representative is not assigned or available and the contracting officer disapproves the small business specialist's recommendation, the small business specialist may appeal in writing to the procurement officer. The procurement officer's decision shall be final. The contracting officer shall place a memorandum of the procurement officer's decision in the contract file. If the procurement officer's decision approves the contracting officer's action, the small business specialist shall forward complete documentation of the case to the Headquarters Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (Code K).
(e) The contracting officer shall prepare, sign, and retain in the contract file a memorandum of nonconcurrence in a recommended set-aside action.
1819.502-3 Partial set-asides.
1819.502-370 NASA Reporting Requirements.
The contracting officer shall separately report, in accordance with Subpart 1804.6, awards of the non-set-aside portions of small business set-aside acquisitions.
1819.505 Rejecting Small Business Administration recommendations.
1819.506 Withdrawing or modifying small business set-asides.
(b) If an SBA representative is not assigned or available, and the small business specialist disagrees with the contracting officer's written decision of withdrawal or modification of a set-aside determination, the small business specialist may appeal to the procurement officer in accordance with the procedures in 1819.502-70(d).
Subpart 1819.6--Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility
(a) On proposed awards exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting officer should consider requesting a preaward survey (see FAR 9.106) before determining that a responsive small business firm is not responsible. The scope of the preaward survey request should be limited to those elements of responsibility that are questioned.
(2) The contracting officer shall forward a copy of the referral to SBA through the procurement officer to the Headquarters Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (Code K).
1819.602-3 Resolving differences between the agency and the Small Business Administration.
1819.602-370 NASA Procedures.
(a) When agreement cannot be reached between the contracting officer and the SBA Area Office, the contracting officer shall forward to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS) on an expedited basis, a complete case file with a request that the case be considered for appeal to SBA Headquarters. The contracting officer shall include the data already furnished to SBA, SBA's rationale for proposing to issue a COC, and the contracting officer's comments. The contracting officer shall suspend acquisition action until informed by Code HS of the final decision in the case.
(b) If the Office of Procurement concludes that the referral to SBA should be withdrawn and a contract awarded without benefit of a COC, Code HS shall inform the contracting officer.
(c) If the Office of Procurement agrees with the contracting officer's recommended appeal action, the Associate Administrator for Procurement shall forward the appeal through the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (Code K) to SBA Headquarters.
Subpart 1819.7--The Small Business Subcontracting Program
1819.705-2 Determining the need for a subcontracting plan.
(d) Solicitations for competitive negotiated acquisitions shall require proposed subcontracting plans with initial proposals (see 1819.708(b)(1)). For sole source negotiated acquisitions, the contractor shall be required to submit a proposed subcontracting plan with the proposal.
1819.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan.
1819.705-470 Acquisition-specific subcontracting goals.
Section 1819.201 addresses Agencywide goals at the combined prime and subcontract levels. Appropriate subcontracting goals for an individual acquisition, however, are to be independently determined on the basis of the specific circumstances of the acquisition, consistent with FAR 19.705-4 and 1819.7002(b), and not on the basis of an Agencywide or center goal. Acquisition-specific subcontracting goals should reflect maximum practicable opportunities for all categories of small business concerns to participate in NASA programs, consistent with efficient performance. The methods outlined in NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 5000.2, Uniform Methodology for Determination of Small Disadvantaged Subcontracting Goals, may also be useful in establishing reasonable subcontracting goals for small, HUBZone, and women-owned small business concerns.
1819.708 Contract clauses.
(b)(1) The contracting officer shall use the clause at FAR 52.219-9 with its Alternate II when contracting by negotiation.
1819.708-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clause.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.219-73, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in invitations for bids containing the clause at FAR 52.219-9 with its Alternate I. Insert in the last sentence the number of calendar days after request that the offeror must submit a complete plan.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.219-75, Small Business Subcontracting Reporting, in solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 52.219-9, except for contracts covered by an approved commercial plan.
Subpart 1819.8--Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program)
1819.804 Evaluation, offering, and acceptance.
1819.804-1 Agency evaluation.
The small business specialist shall review and evaluate all acquisition requirements to determine their suitability for offering to SBA for 8(a) acceptance and make a recommendation to the contracting officer concerning award to SBA.
Subpart 1819.10--Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program
(b) The targeted industry categories for NASA and their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are:
Computer Peripheral Equipment, not elsewhere classified
Radio & TV Broadcasting and Communications Equipment
Guided Missile/and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and Propulsion Unit Parts
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, not elsewhere classified
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical Systems and Instruments
Optical Instruments and Lenses
Computer Programming Services
Computer Integrated Systems Design
Computer Related Services, not elsewhere classified.
Subpart 1819.70--NASA 8 Percent Goal
Public Laws 101-144, 101-507, and 102-389 require the NASA Administrator to ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that at least 8 percent of Federal funding for prime and subcontracts awarded in support of authorized programs, including the space station by the time operational status is obtained, be made available to small disadvantaged business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and women-owned small business concerns.
(a) "Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concern" and "Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) concern" are defined in FAR 19.001.
(b) "Historically Black College or University (HBCU)" and "Minority Institution (MI)" are defined in FAR 26.301.
1819.7002 Contracting officer responsibility.
(a) Contracting officers must seek out as potential sources entities identified in 1819.7001 and give full consideration to these entities to satisfy NASA requirements. The participation of NASA prime contractors is also essential to meeting the Agency's 8 percent goal.
(b) NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 5000.2, Uniform Methodology for Determination of Small Disadvantaged Subcontracting Goals, contains guidance on developing realistic goals. It is applicable to acquisitions expected to exceed $50 million, including options. The methodology may be used for lesser value acquisitions.
1819.7003 Contract clause.
changes in evaluation factors will not necessitate issuance of a new, formal solicitation for Phase 2.
[Insert draft Phase 2 evaluation factors (and subfactors and elements, if available), including demonstration of successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.]
(h) Although NASA will request Phase 2 proposals from Phase 1 contractors, submission of the Phase 2 proposal is not a requirement of the Phase 1 contract. Accordingly, the costs of preparing these proposals shall not be a direct charge to the Phase 1 contract or any other Government contract.
(i) The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time. [Insert dates below].
Phase 1 award -
Phase 2 synopsis -
Phase 2 proposal requested -
Phase 2 proposal receipt -
Phase 2 award -
(End of clause)
1852.219-73 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
As prescribed in 1819.708-70(a), insert the following provision:
SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN
(a) This provision is not applicable to small business concerns.
(b) The contract expected to result from this solicitation will contain FAR clause 52.219-9, "Small Business Subcontracting Plan." The apparent low bidder must submit the complete plan within [Insert number of days] calendar days after request by the Contracting Officer.
(End of provision)
1852.219-74 Use of Rural Area Small Businesses.
As prescribed in 1819.7103, insert the following clause:
USE OF RURAL AREA SMALL BUSINESSES
"Rural area" means any county with a population of fewer than twenty thousand individuals.
"Small business concern," as used in this clause, means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding under this contract, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR 121.
(b) NASA prime and subcontractors are encouraged to use their best efforts to award subcontracts to small business concerns located in rural areas.
(c) Contractors acting in good faith may rely on written representations by their subcontractors regarding their status as small business concerns located in rural areas.
(d) The Contractor agrees to insert the provisions of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts hereunder that offer subcontracting possibilities.
(End of clause)
1852.219-75 Small Business Subcontracting Reporting.
As prescribed in 1819.708-70(b), insert the following clause:
SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING REPORTING
(a) The Contractor shall submit the Summary Subcontract Report (Standard Form (SF) 295) semiannually for the reporting periods specified in block 4 of the form. All other instructions for SF 295 remain in effect.
(b) The Contractor shall include this clause in all subcontracts that include the clause at FAR 52.219-9.
(End of clause)
1852.219-76 NASA 8 Percent Goal.
As prescribed in 1819.7003 insert the following clause:
NASA 8 PERCENT GOAL
"Historically Black College
s or University," as used in this clause, means an institution determined by the Secretary of Education to meet the requirements of 34 CFR Section 608.2. The term also includes any nonprofit research institution that was an integral part of such a college or university before November 14, 1986.
s," as used in this clause, means an institution of higher education meeting the requirements of section 1046(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1135d-5(3)) which for the purposes of this clause includes a Hispanic-serving institution of higher education as defined in section 316(b)(1) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(1)).
"Small disadvantaged business concern," as used in this clause, means a small business concern that (1) is at least 51 percent unconditionally owned by one or more individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged, or a publicly owned business having at least 51 percent of its stock unconditionally owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and (2) has its management and daily business controlled by one or more such individuals. This term also means a small business concern that is at least 51 percent unconditionally owned by an economically disadvantaged Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization, or a publicly owned business having at least 51 percent of its stock unconditionally owned by one or more of these entities, which has its management and daily business controlled by members of an economically disadvantaged Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization, and which meets the requirements of 13 CFR 124.
"Women-owned small business concern," as used in this clause, means a small business concern (1) which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more women, and (2) whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women.
(b) The NASA Administrator is required by statute to establish annually a goal to make available to small disadvantaged business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and women-owned small business concerns, at least 8 percent of NASA's procurement dollars under prime contracts or subcontracts awarded in support of authorized programs, including the space station by the time operational status is obtained.
(c) The contractor hereby agrees to assist NASA in achieving this goal by using its best efforts to award subcontracts to such entities to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.
(d) Contractors acting in good faith may rely on written representations by their subcontractors regarding their status as small disadvantaged business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and women-owned small business concerns.
(End of clause)
1852.219-77 NASA Mentor-Protégé Program.
As prescribed in 1819.7219(a), insert the following clause:
NASA MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM
(a) Prime contractors, including certain small businesses, are encouraged to participate in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible protégé entities to enhance their capabilities and increase their participation in NASA contracts.
(b) The Program consists of:
(1) Mentor firms, which are large prime contractors with at least one active subcontracting plan or eligible small businesses;
(2) Protégés, which are subcontractors to the prime contractor, include small disadvantaged business concerns, women-owned small business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and minority institutions meeting the qualifications specified in NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1819.7209.
(3) Mentor-protégé agreements, approved by the NASA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU);
(4) In contracts with award fee incentives, potential for payment of additional fee for voluntary participation and successful performance in the Mentor-Protégé Program.
(c) Mentor participation in the Program, described in NFS 1819.72, means providing technical, managerial and financial assistance to aid protégés in developing requisite high-tech expertise and business systems to compete for and successfully perform NASA contracts and subcontracts.
(d) Contractors interested in participating in the program are encouraged to contact the NASA OSDBU, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2088, for further information.
(End of clause)
1852.219-79 Mentor Requirements and Evaluation.
As prescribed in 1819.7219(b), insert the following clause:
MENTOR REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION
(a) The purpose of the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program is for a NASA prime contractor to provide developmental assistance to certain subcontractors qualifying as protégés. Eligible protégés include small disadvantaged business concerns, women-owned small business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and minority institutions meeting the qualifications specified in NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1819.7209.
(b) NASA will evaluate the contractor's performance on the following factors. If this contract includes an award fee incentive, this assessment will be accomplished as part of the fee evaluation process.
(1) Specific actions taken by the contractor, during the evaluation period, to increase the participation of protégés as subcontractors and suppliers;
(2) Specific actions taken by the contractor during this evaluation period to develop the technical and corporate administrative expertise of a protégé as defined in the agreement;
(3) To what extent the protégé has met the developmental objectives in the agreement; and
(4) To what extent the firm's participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program resulted in the protégé receiving competitive contract(s) and subcontract(s) from private firms and agencies other than the mentor.
(c) Semi-annual reports shall be submitted by the mentor to the NASA Mentor-Protégé program manager, NASA Headquarters OSDBU, to include information as outlined in paragraph (b).
(d) The mentor will notify the OSDBU and the contracting officer, in writing, at least 30 days in advance of the mentor firm's intent to voluntarily withdraw from the program or upon receipt of a protégé's notice to withdraw from the Program;
(e) Mentor and protégé firms will submit a "lessons learned" evaluation to the NASA OSDBU at the conclusion of the contract. At the end of each year in the Mentor-Protégé Program, the mentor and protégé, as appropriate, will formally brief the NASA Mentor-Protégé program manager, the technical program manager, and the contracting officer during a formal program review regarding Program accomplishments as pertains to the approved agreement.
(f) NASA may terminate mentor-protégé agreements for good cause and exclude mentor or protégé firms from participating in the NASA program. These actions shall be approved by the NASA OSDBU. NASA shall terminate an agreement by delivering to the contractor a Notice specifying the reason for termination and the effective date. Termination of an agreement does not constitute a termination of the subcontract between the mentor and the protégé. A plan for accomplishing the subcontract effort should the agreement be terminated shall be submitted with the agreement as required in NFS 1819.7213(h).
(End of clause)
1852.223-70 Safety and Health.
As prescribed in 1823.7001(a), insert the following clause:
SAFETY AND HEALTH
(a) The Contractor shall take all reasonable safety and health measures in performing under this contract. The Contractor shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws applicable to safety and health in effect on the date of this contract and with the safety and health standards, specifications, reporting requirements, and provisions set forth in the contract Schedule.
(b) The Contractor shall take or cause to be taken any other safety and health measures the Contracting Officer may reasonably direct. To the extent that the Contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for those measures under the terms and conditions of this contract, the equitable adjustment shall be determined pursuant to the procedures of the changes clause of this