NASA logo

97-43

Procurement Notice


May 10, 2000

ELIMINATION OF ELEMENTS AS A CATEGORY IN EVALUATIONS

PURPOSE: To eliminate the term "elements" as a category in evaluations.

BACKGROUND: NASA does not numerically weight and score "elements" and therefor have ceased to have significance in the evaluation and award of NASA's contracts. This PN will eliminate the term "elements" as a category in Parts 1815, 1819, and 1852.

REGULATION: Changes are made in Parts 1815, 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, 19:11, 19:12, 52:23, 52:24, 52:25, 52:26, 52-93 , and 52-94.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: This PN was published as a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30012 - 30013, May 10, 2000).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This PN is effective as dated and shall remain in effect until canceled or superseded.

HEADQUARTERS CONTACT: Paul Brundage,NASA Headquarters, Code HK, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0481, email: pbrundage@hq.nasa.gov.

 

R. Scott Thompson
Director, Contract Management Division

Enclosures


(a) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for each acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR designation of the contracting officer as SSA, the SSA for center acquisitions shall be established in accordance with center procedures. For acquisitions designated as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).

(b)(i) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official responsible for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has the following responsibilities in addition to those listed in the FAR:

(A) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, 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. Evaluation subfactors should be structured to identify significant discriminators, or "key swingers" - the essential information required to support a source selection decision. Too many subfactors undermine effective proposal evaluation. All evaluation subfactors should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and redundancy.

(b) Mission Suitability factor.

(1) This factor indicates the merit or excellence of the work to be performed or product to be delivered. It includes, as appropriate, both technical and management subfactors. Mission Suitability shall be numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-point scale.

(2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission Suitability subfactors is limited to five. The Mission Suitability evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.

(3) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis. The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.

(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.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

DEFINITIONS

PERCENTILE RANGE

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

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.

71-90

Good

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.

51-70

Fair

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31-50

Poor

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.

0-30

(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:

Services

Hardware Development

Point Adjustment

+/- 5 percent

+/- 30 percent

0

+/- 6 to 10 percent

+/- 31 to 40 percent

-50

+/- 11 to 15 percent

+/- 41 to 50 percent

-100

+/- 16 to 20 percent

+/- 51 to 60 percent

-150

+/- 21 to 30 percent

+/- 61 to 70 percent

-200

+/- more than 30 percent

+/- more than 70 percent

-300

(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) The SEB assists the SSA by providing expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in relation to the evaluation factors and subfactors 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.

(c) Designation.

(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.

(d) Organization.

(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 and subfactors 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:

(i) Chairperson.

(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.

(g) Evaluation.

(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 and subfactors; 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, 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 and Subfactors. Explains the evaluation factors, subfactors, 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 and subfactors.

(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, 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) Proposed mentor-protégé efforts, except for the extent of participation of protégés as subcontractors, shall be evaluated under the Mission Suitability factor as a subfactor. The participation of SDB protégés as subcontractors shall be evaluated separately as a Mission Suitability subfactor (see FAR 15.304(c)(4) and 19.1202). The participation of other categories of protégés as subcontractors may be evaluated separately as part of the evaluation of proposed subcontracted efforts.

(b) Under contracts with award fee incentives, approved mentor firms shall be eligible to earn award fee associated with their performance as a mentor by performance evaluation period. For purposes of earning award fee, the mentor firm's performance shall be evaluated against the criteria described in the clause at 1852.219-79, Mentor Requirements and Evaluation. This award fee evaluation shall not include assessment of the contractor's achievement of FAR 52.219-9 subcontracting plan SDB goals or proposed monetary targets for SDB subcontracting (see FAR 19.1203).

1819.7207 Measurement of Program success.

The overall success of the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program encompassing all participating mentors and protégés will be measured by the extent to which it results in:

(a) An increase in the number, dollar value and percentage of subcontracts awarded to protégés by mentor firms under NASA contracts since the date of entry into the Program;

(b) An increase in the number and dollar value of contract and subcontract awards to protégé firms since the time of their entry into the Program (under NASA contracts, contracts awarded by other Federal agencies and under commercial contracts);

(c) An increase in the number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded to a protégé firm by its mentor firm; and

(d) An increase in subcontracting with protégé firms in industry categories where they have not traditionally participated within the mentor firm's activity.

1819.7208 Mentor firms.

(a) Eligibility:

(1) Contractors eligible for receipt of government contracts;

(2) Large prime contractors performing under contracts with at least one negotiated subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.7; and

(3) Small business prime contractors that can provide developmental assistance to enhance the capabilities of protégés to perform as subcontractors and suppliers.

(b) Mentors will be encouraged to identify and select as protégés:

(1) A broad base of firms including those defined as emerging firms (e.g., a protégé whose size is no greater than 50 percent of the size standard applicable to the SIC code assigned to a contracting opportunity);

(2) Firms in addition to those with whom they have established business relationships; and

(3) High-tech firms.

1819.7209 Protégé firms.

(a) For selection as a protégé, a firm must be:

(1) An SDB in the SIC Major Groups as determined by the Department of Commerce (see FAR 19.201(b)), HBCU, MI, or WOSB;

(2) Certified as small in the SIC code for the services or supplies to be provided by the protégé under its subcontract to the mentor; and

(3) Eligible for receipt of government contracts.

(b) Except for SDBs, a protégé firm may self-certify to a mentor firm that it meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Mentors may rely in good faith on written representations by potential protégés that they meet the specified eligibility requirements. SDB status eligibility and documentation requirements are determined according to FAR 19.304.

(c) Protégés may have multiple mentors. Protégés participating in mentor-protégé programs in addition to the NASA Program should maintain a system for preparing separate reports of mentoring activity for each agency's program.

1819.7210 Selection of protégé firms.

(a) Mentor firms will be solely responsible for selecting protégé firms. The mentor is encouraged to identify and select the types of protégé firms listed in 1819.7208(b).

(b) Mentor firms may have more than one protégé.

(c) The selection of protégé firms by mentor firms may not be protested, except for a protest regarding the size or eligibility status of an entity selected by a mentor to be a protégé. Such protests shall be handled in accordance with FAR 19.703(b). The contracting officer shall notify the Headquarters Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) (Code K) of the protest.

1819.7211 Application process for mentor firms to participate in the Program.

(a) Prime contractors interested in becoming a mentor firm must submit a request to the NASA OSDBU to be approved under the Program. The application will be evaluated on the extent to which the company plans to provide developmental assistance. The information required in paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to be considered for approval as a mentor firm.

(b) A proposed mentor must submit the following information to the NASA OSDBU:

(1) A statement that the mentor firm is currently performing under at least one active approved subcontracting plan (small business exempted) and that they are eligible, as of the date of application, for the award of Federal contracts;

(2) The cognizant NASA contract number(s), type of contract, period of performance (including options), title of technical program effort, name of NASA Program Manager (including contact information) and name of the NASA field center where support is provided;

(3) The number of proposed mentor-protégé arrangements;

(4) Data on all current NASA contracts and subcontracts to include the contract/subcontract number(s), period of performance, awarding NASA installation or contractor and contract/subcontract value(s) including options;

(5) Data on total number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded under NASA prime contracts within the past 2 years and the number and dollar value of such subcontracts awarded to entities defined as protégés.

(6) Information on the proposed types of developmental assistance. For each proposed mentor-protégé relationship include information on the company's ability to provide developmental


1852.217-70 Property Administration and Reporting.

As prescribed in 1817.7002-4 insert the following clause:

PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING
(DECEMBER 1988)

All property acquired for, and reimbursed by, NASA or transferred by NASA for use under this NASA-Defense Purchase Request shall be controlled and accounted for in accordance with the Military Department's normal procedures. All excess items, however, costing $500 or more and in condition Code 7 or better (GSA Condition Codes) shall be reported to the NASA originating office for possible reutilization before disposition.

(End of clause)

1852.217-71 Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures.

As prescribed in 1817.7302(a), insert the following clause:

PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES
(MAY 2000)

(a) This solicitation is for the acquisition of ______ [insert Program title]. The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

(b) Phase 1 is for the _____ [insert purpose of phase]. Phase 2 is for _____ [insert general Phase 2 goals].

(c) The competition for Phase 2 will be based on the results of Phase 1, and the award criteria for Phase 2 will include successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.

(d) NASA will issue a separate, formal solicitation for Phase 2 that will include all information required for preparation of proposals, including the final evaluation factors.

(e) Phase 2 will be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 5.203 unless one of the exceptions in FAR 5.202 applies. Notwithstanding NASA's expectation that only the Phase 1 contractors will be capable of successfully competing for Phase 2, all proposals will be considered. Any other responsible source may indicate its desire to submit a proposal by responding to the Phase 2 synopsis, and NASA will provide that source a solicitation.

(f) To be considered for Phase 2 award, offerors must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the Phase 1 contractors. This demonstration shall include the following Phase 1 deliverables upon which Phase 2 award will be based: _____ [insert the specific Phase 1 deliverables]. Failure to fully and completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award.

(g) The following draft Phase 2 evaluation factors are provided for your information. Please note that these evaluation factors are not final, and NASA reserves the right to change them at any time up to and including the date upon which Phase 2 proposals are solicited.

[Insert draft Phase 2 evaluation factors (and subfactors, 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)

1852.217-72 Phased Acquisition Using Progressive Competition Down-Selection Procedures.

As prescribed in 1817.7302(b), insert the following clause:

PHASED ACQUISITION USING PROGRESSIVE COMPETITION
DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES
(MAY 2000)

(a) This solicitation is for the acquisition of ________ [insert Program title]. The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a progressive competition down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

(b) Phase 1 is for the ________ [insert purpose of phase]. Phase 2 is for ________ [insert general Phase 2 goals].

(c) The competition for Phase 2 will be based on the results of Phase 1, and the award criteria for Phase 2 will include successful completion of Phase 1 requirements.

(d) NASA does not intend to issue a separate, formal solicitation for Phase 2. Instead, Phase 2 proposals will be requested from the Phase 1 contractors by means of ________ [indicate method of requesting proposals, e.g., by a letter]. All information required for preparation of Phase 2 proposals, including the final evaluation criteria and factors, will be provided at that time.

(e) Phase 2 will be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 5.203 unless one of the exceptions in FAR 5.202 applies. Notwithstanding NASA's expectation that only the Phase 1 contractors will be capable of successfully competing for Phase 2, all proposals will be considered. Any other responsible source may indicate its desire to submit a proposal by responding to the Phase 2 synopsis, and NASA will provide that source all the material furnished to the Phase 1 contractors necessary to submit a proposal.

(f) To be considered for Phase 2 award, offerors must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the Phase 1 contractors. This demonstration shall include the following Phase 1 deliverables upon which Phase 2 award will be based: ________ [insert the specific Phase 1 deliverables]. Failure to fully and completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for contract award.

(g) The following draft Phase 2 evaluation factors are provided for your information. Please note that these evaluation factors are not final, and NASA reserves the right to change them at any time up to and including the date upon which Phase 2 proposals are requested. Any such changes in evaluation factors will not necessitate issuance of a new, formal solicitation for Phase 2.

[Insert draft Phase 2 evaluation factors (and subfactors, 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
(MAY 1999)

(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
(SEPTEMBER 1990)

(a) Definitions.

"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
(MAY 1999)

(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
(JULY 1997)

(a) Definitions.

"Historically Black Colleges 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.

  "Minority institutions," 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.