NASA FAR Sup 1815

Previous Page TOC Next Page



PART 1815

CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBPART 1815.4 SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND QUOTATIONS

1815.405 Solicitations for information or planning purposes.

1815.405-70 Draft requests for proposals.

1815.406 Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for

quotations (RFQs).

1815.406-2 Part I-The Schedule.

1815.406-5 Part IV-Representations and instructions.

1815.406-70 Page limitations.

1815.406-71 Installation reviews.

1815.406-72 Headquarters reviews.

1815.407 Solicitation provisions.

1815.407-70 NASA solicitation provisions.

1815.408 Issuing solicitations.

1815.408-70 Blackout notices.

1815.412 Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals.

1815.412-70 Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) solicitations.

1815.413 Disclosure and use of information before award.

1815.413-2 Alternate II.

1815.413-270 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special Government employees.

SUBPART 1815.5 UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

1815.502 Policy.

1815.503 General.

1815.504 Advance guidance.

1815.506 Agency procedures.

1815.506-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.

1815.508 Prohibitions.

1815.508-70 NASA prohibitions.

1815.509 Limited use of data.

1815.509-70 Limited use of proposals.

1815.570 Foreign proposals.

SUBPART 1815.6 SOURCE SELECTION

1815.601 Definitions.

1815.602 Applicability.

1815.605-70 Evaluation factors and subfactors.

1815.605-71 Source selection evaluation plan.

1815.608 Proposal evaluation.

1815.608-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.

1815.608-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.

1815.609 Competitive range.

1815.610 Written or oral discussions.

1815.611 Best and Final Offers.

1815.612 Formal source selection.

1815.612-70 NASA formal source selection.

SUBPART 1815.7 MAKE-OR-BUY PROGRAMS

1815.704 Items and work included.

1815.706 Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.

1815.708 Contract clause.

1815.708-70 NASA contract clauses.

SUBPART 1815.8 PRICE NEGOTIATION

1815.804 Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or pricing data.

1815.804-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.

1815.804-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC).

1815.804-2 Requiring cost or pricing data.

1815.805-5 Field pricing support.

1815.807 Prenegotiation objectives.

1815.807-70 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.

1815.807-71 Installation reviews.

1815.807-72 Headquarters reviews.

1815.808 Price negotiation memorandum.

SUBPART 1815.9 PROFIT

1815.902 Policy.

1815.903 Contracting officer responsibilities.

1815.970 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.

1815.970-1 General.

1815.970-2 Contractor effort.

1815.970-3 Other factors.

1815.970-4 Facilities capital cost of money.

1815.971 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.

SUBPART 1815.10 PREAWARD, AWARD, AND POSTAWARD

NOTIFICATIONS, PROTESTS, AND MISTAKES

1815.1004 Notification of successful offeror.

1815.1006 Postaward debriefing offerors.

1815.1006-70 Debriefing of offerors - Major System acquisitions.

SUBPART 1815.70 OMBUDSMAN

1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.

1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.

1815.7003 Contract clause.

PART 1815

CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations

1815.405 Solicitations for information or planning purposes.

1815.405-70 Draft requests for proposals.

(a) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.602(b), contracting officers shall issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) for all competitive negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000 (including all options or later phases of the same project). DRFPs shall invite comments from potential offerors on all aspects of the draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.

(b) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the comments.

(c) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.

(d) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final RFP.

(e) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DRFP upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be realized given the nature of the supply or service being acquired. The DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.

1815.406 Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for quotations (RFQs).

1815.406-2 Part I-The Schedule.

(c) To the maximum extent practicable, requirements should be defined as performance based specifications/statements of work that focus on required outcomes or results, not methods of performance or processes.

1815.406-5 Part IV-Representations and instructions.

(b) The information required in proposals should be kept to the minimum necessary for the source selection decision. Although offerors should be provided the maximum flexibility in developing their proposals, contracting officers shall specify any information and standard formats required for the efficient and impartial evaluation of proposals.

1815.406-70 Page limitations.

(a) Technical and contracting personnel will mutually agree on page limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless approved in writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C, Description/ specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages, and the page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not exceed 200 pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section to which they relate. In determining page counts, a page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12 characters per inch or equivalent type. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8 1/2" x 11" pages. The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8 1/2" x 11" size may also be used.

(b) Page limitations shall also be established for proposals submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly, technical and contracting personnel will mutually agree on page limitations for each portion of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in writing by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal, excluding title pages, tables of content, and cost/price information, shall not exceed 500 pages using the page definition of 1815.406-70(a). Firm page limitations shall also be established for Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), if requested. The appropriate BAFO page limitations should be determined by considering the complexity of the acquisition and the extent of any written or oral discussions. The same BAFO page limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of the specified limitations for the initial proposal and BAFO will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the offeror.

1815.406-71 Installation reviews.

(a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs before release. When appropriate given the complexity of the acquisition or the number of offices involved in solicitation review, centers should consider use of a single review meeting, called a Solicitation Review Board (SRB), as a streamlined alternative to the serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and approval responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns. Actions assigned and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.

(b) When source evaluation board (SEB) procedures are used in accordance with 1815.612-70, the SEB shall review and approve the RFP prior to issuance.

1815.406-72 Headquarters reviews.

For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the procurement officer shall submit ten copies of the RFP to the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any significant information relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation methodology that are not included in the RFP itself should also be provided.

1815.407 Solicitation provisions.

(c)(6) The provision at FAR 52.215-10, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals shall not be used in solicitations for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer programs, or for broad agency announcements listed in 1835.016. See instead 1815.407-70(a).

(d)(4) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-16 Alternate II in all competitive negotiated solicitations.

1815.407-70 NASA solicitation provisions.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-73, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, SBIR, and STTR Programs), in lieu of the provision at FAR 52.215-10 in Announcements of Opportunity and in Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer solicitations. (See 1815.412).

(b) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially as stated at 1852.215-74, Alternate Proposals, in competitive requests for proposals if receipt of alternate proposals would benefit the Government.

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-75, Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions, in all requests for proposals.

(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to conduct a preproposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate specific information relating to the conference.

(e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71, Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular acquisition.

(f) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72, Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the full quantities solicited.

(g) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for proposals.

(h) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-82, Offeror Oral Presentations, in competitive requests for proposals when the Government intends to allow offerors to make oral presentations prior to commencement of the Government's formal evaluation.

1815.408 Issuing solicitations.

1815.408-70 Blackout notices.

(a) Upon release of the formal RFP, the Contracting Officer shall direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain from communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries to the Contracting Officer or other authorized representative. This procedure is commonly known as a "blackout notice" and shall not be imposed prior to release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of the acquisition

(b) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive advantage or reveal offeror proprietary data.

1815.412 Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals.

1815.412-70 Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) solicitations.

For BAAs listed in 1835.016, SBIR Phase I and Phase II solicitations, and STTR solicitations--

(a) Proposals, or modifications to them, received from qualified firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if there are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals previously received. In such cases, the project office shall investigate the circumstances surrounding the submission of the late proposal or modification, evaluate its content, and submit written recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as to whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering the proposal.

(b) The selection official or a designee shall determine whether to consider the proposal.

(c) Offerors may withdraw proposals any time before award, provided the conditions in paragraph (b) of the provision at 1852.215-73, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, SBIR, and STTR Programs), are satisfied.

1815.413 Disclosure and use of information before award.

1815.413-2 Alternate II.

The alternate procedures at FAR 15.413-2 shall be used for NASA acquisitions in lieu of those prescribed at FAR 15.413-1. These procedures, as implemented by this section, apply both before and after award.

(a) During evaluation proceedings, NASA personnel participating in any way in the evaluation may not reveal any information concerning the evaluation to anyone not also participating, and then only to the extent that the information is required in connection with the evaluation. When non-NASA personnel participate, they shall be instructed to observe these restrictions.

(e) The notice at FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover sheet of all proposals, whether solicited or unsolicited. (See 1805.402 regarding release of the names of firms submitting offers.)

(f)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(ii) of this section, the procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal information outside the Government. This authorization may be granted only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the determination of nonavailability of Government personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL employees.

(ii) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one level above the NASA program official responsible for overall conduct of the evaluation. The determination of nonavailability of Government personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these instances.

(A) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;

(B) Unsolicited proposals;

(C) NASA Research Announcement proposals;

(D) SBIR and STTR proposals.

(iii) The written approvals required by paragraphs (f)(i) and (ii) of this section shall be provided to the contracting officer before the release of the proposal information. As a minimum, the approval shall:

(A) identify the precise proposal information being released;

(B) identify the person receiving the proposal information and evidence of their appointment as a special government employee or a statement of the applicable exception (see 1815.413-270);

(C) provide a justification of the need for disclosure of the proposal information to the non-Government evaluator(s); and

(D) provide a statement that a signed "Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of Proposals," in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section, will be obtained prior to release of the proposal to the evaluator.

(iv) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information in accordance with paragraphs (f)(i) and (f)(ii) of this section.

(f)(2) The NASA official approving the disclosure of any proposal information to a non-Government evaluator, including employees of JPL, shall, prior to such disclosure, require each non-Government evaluator to sign the following "Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of Proposals."

AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONS FOR

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

(October 1996)

(1) The recipient agrees to use proposal information for NASA evaluation purposes only. This limitation does not apply to information that is otherwise available without restrictions to the Government, another competing contractor, or the public.

(2) The recipient agrees that the NASA proposal cover sheet notice (FAR 15.413-2(e) and NFS 1815.413-2(e)), and any notice that may have been placed on the proposal by its originator, shall be applied to any reproduction or abstract of any proposal information furnished.

(3) Upon completion of the evaluation, the recipient agrees to return all copies of proposal information or abstracts, if any, to the NASA office that initially furnished the proposal information for evaluation.

(4) Unless authorized in writing by the NASA official releasing the proposal information, the recipient agrees not to contact either the business entities originating the proposals or any of their employees, representatives, or agents concerning any aspect of the proposal information or extracts covered by this agreement.

(5) The recipient agrees to review his or her financial interests relative to the entities whose proposal information NASA furnishes for evaluation. At any time the recipient becomes aware that he or she or a person with a close personal relationship (household family members, business partners, or associates) has or acquires a financial interest in the entities whose proposal information is subject to this agreement, the recipient shall immediately advise the NASA official releasing the proposal information, protect the proposal information, and cease evaluation activities pending a NASA decision resolving the conflict of interest.

Signature:_____________

Name typed or printed:______________

Date:________________

[End of agreement]

1815.413-270 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special Government employees.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-Government participants in proposal evaluation proceedings, except employees of JPL, shall be appointed as special Government employees.

(b) Appointment as a Special Government employee is a separate action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.413-2(f) and may be processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee shall be made by:

(1) the NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or

(2) the Field Installation personnel office when the release of proposal information is to be made by the Field Installation.

(c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special Government employees when they evaluate:

(1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;

(2) unsolicited proposals;

(3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and

(4) SBIR and STTR proposals.

Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals

1815.502 Policy.

(1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract, a grant, a 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.

1815.503 General.

(e) 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.

1815.504 Advance guidance.

(b) The Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK) is responsible for preparing for public use a brochure titled "Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals," which shall be provided without charge by the Office of Procurement and other NASA officials in response to requests for proposal submission information. A deviation is required for use of any modified or summarized version of the brochure or for alternate means of general dissemination of unsolicited proposal information. Code HK is responsible for internal distribution of the brochure.

1815.506 Agency procedures.

(a)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall designate an organizational entity as its unsolicited proposal coordinating office 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 coordinating office to the proper installation. Field installation coordinating offices 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) Coordinating offices 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).

1815.506-70 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.

1815.508 Prohibitions.

(b) FAR 15.508(b) shall not apply to NASA; see instead 1815.508-70.

1815.508-70 NASA prohibitions.

Information (data) in unsolicited proposals furnished to the Government is to be used for evaluation purposes only. Disclosure outside the Government for evaluation is permitted only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with procedures in, FAR 15.413-2 and 1815.413-2. Any other disclosure of such information concerning trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, apparatus, and other matters, except as authorized by law, may result in criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1905.

1815.509 Limited use of data.

FAR 15.509 shall not apply to NASA. See instead 1815.509-70.

1815.509-70 Limited use of proposals.

(a) The provision at FAR 52.215-12, Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, is applicable to unsolicited proposals.

(b) If an unsolicited proposal is received with a more restrictive legend than made applicable by paragraph (a) of this section, the procedures of FAR 15.413-2(c) apply.

(c) Upon receipt in the coordinating office, the Government notice in FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover sheet of all unsolicited proposals.

(d) Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with the procedures prescribed in, FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2.

(e) If a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act for any information contained in an unsolicited proposal, the procedures of FAR 15.413-2(g) apply.

1815.570 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 1815.6--Source Selection

1815.601 Definitions.

(1) 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:

(i) 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) prior to release of the RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;

(ii) 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

(iii) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance and special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection procedures.

(2) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for each acquisition. For acquisitions designated as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).

1815.602 Applicability.

(a)(i) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:

(A) Acquisitions of $50 million or more -- in accordance with FAR 15.6 and this subpart.

(B) Other acquisitions -- in accordance with FAR 15.6 and this subpart except section 1815.612-70.

(ii) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the values of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same project.

(b) FAR 15.6 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions conducted under the following procedures:

(i) MidRange (see Part 1871).

(ii) Announcements of Opportunity (see Part 1872).

(iii) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).

(iv) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).

(v) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and 1836.6).

1815.605-70 Evaluation factors and subfactors.

(a) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Relevant Experience 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 any 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 1815.608(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission Suitability subfactors is limited to four. 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) Relevant Experience and 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. The Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor is not numerically weighted or scored.

(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 relevant experience and 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 prior to proposal receipt. One method for initiating the past performance evaluation early 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.

1815.605-71 Source selection evaluation plan.

(a) A source selection evaluation plan shall be prepared for each source selection. The plan shall include, as a minimum, the general and specific evaluation guidelines (and special standards of responsibility, where applicable) established to assess each offeror's proposal against the RFP evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. The evaluation guidelines are designed to focus the evaluators' assessment. They are not weighted and are not listed in the RFP. However, the substance of the guidelines may be included in a narrative description of the subfactors and elements. In addition, the plan includes the system used in conducting the evaluation (and scoring, if applicable) of each offeror's proposal.

(b) The source selection evaluation plan shall be approved by the source selection authority or other personnel designated in accordance with installation procedures before the formal RFP is issued.

(c) For formal source selections, see 1815.612(c).

1815.608 Proposal evaluation.

(a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:

(i) Any failures to meet any terms and conditions of the RFP;

(ii) All strengths and weaknesses, classified as major or minor to further underscore discriminators among proposals;

(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 adjectival rating of the Relevant Experience and 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 these 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 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) In accordance with 1815.804-1, cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive acquisitions. Only the minimal information other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested.

(B) When contracting on a firm fixed price basis, 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.

(C) 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 impact cost.

(c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each proposal.

(D) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in 1815.608(a)(3)(B).

(E) 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.

(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.

(A) The Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded contracts. It should evaluate the company, not the individuals, involved with contract performance. Relevant Experience and Past Performance is not numerically scored, but is assigned an adjectival rating.

(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) The evaluation may consider past performance data provided by offerors and data from other sources. 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)(2)(iii) Firms without relevant experience or a past performance record shall not be given a proposal deficiency or weakness (see 1815.610) and shall be given a neutral rating. If the adjectival rating system of 1815.608(a)(3)(A) is used for the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor, a rating of "Good" shall be assigned in such cases.

(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 PERCENTILE

DEFINITIONS

PERCENTILE RANGE

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit

with one or more major

strengths. No weaknesses or

only minor weaknesses exist.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal which demonstrates

over- all competence. One or

more major strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that

exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal 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. response.

51-70

Fair

A proposal that has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses have been found that outbalance any strengths that exist.

31-50

Poor

A proposal that has one or more major weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to address.

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 in order to encourage 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

(b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.

1815.608-70 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 itself to 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 technical or business 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.

1815.608-71 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 Source Selection Authority shall direct the contracting officer to:

(1) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.804-1(b)(1)(ii));

(2) Award after negotiating a mutually acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.804-1); or

(3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.

(b) The procedure in 1815.608-71(a) also applies when the number of proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one acceptable proposal is received.

1815.609 Competitive range.

(a) Proposals shall not be included in the competitive range when they do not have a reasonable chance of selection. To reduce unnecessary expense to both offerors and NASA, 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.

1815.610 Written or oral discussions.

(c)(2)(A) The contracting officer shall identify, and give offerors a reasonable opportunity to address, all weaknesses that have an adverse impact on the evaluation. Weaknesses are defined as deficiencies (see FAR 15.601) and other proposal inadequacies. Weaknesses may include all proposal areas that are inadequate for evaluation, contain contradictory statements, or strain credibility. However, minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes are not considered weaknesses. They may be identified to offerors through the clarification technique defined in FAR 15.601, rather than discussions as contemplated in this section.

(B) The contracting officer shall advise an offeror if, during written or oral discussions, an offeror introduces a new weakness. The offeror can be advised during the course of the discussions or as part of the request for BAFO.

(C) 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.

(c)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and conditions so that a "model" contract can be sent to each offeror with the request for BAFO. 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. These items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to, other offerors. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in its "model" contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider their characterization as strengths.

(B) 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.

1815.611 Best and Final Offers.

(b) The request for BAFOs shall also:

(i) Identify any remaining weaknesses;

(ii) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial proposals;

(iii) 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;

(iv) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their proposals; and

(v) Establish a page limit for BAFOs.

(c)(i) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 million or more.

(ii) Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other acquisitions.

(d)(i) Proposals are rescored based on BAFO evaluations. Scoring changes between initial and BAFO proposals shall be clearly traceable.

(ii) 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.

(iii) Prior to award, the SSA shall sign a source selection statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source selection statements must describe: the acquisition; the SEB evaluation procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Relevant Experience 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 1815.1006-70), 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 debriefing of unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon request.

(iv) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer shall, without post-selection negotiations, award the contract.

1815.612 Formal source selection.

(c) The requirement for a source selection evaluation plan may be satisfied by incorporating the information required by 1815.605-71 into the source selection plan. The consolidated plan shall be approved by the source selection authority.

1815.612-70 NASA formal source selection.

(a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for those acquisitions identified in 1815.602(a)(i)(A).

(b) General. The SEB assists the SSA in decision making 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.

(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 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 NFS 1815.413-2.

(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 1815.612-70(d)(4)and (5)), 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 record-keeping of SEB activities.

(4) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding 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 fact-finding 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 people, 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 a NASA 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 1815.612-70(f)(3) 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 or 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) 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, consistent with the approved evaluation plan. 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 major strengths and 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 major strengths and 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 Field Installation 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 procured, 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 any special standards of responsibility and the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. 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 Relevant Experience 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) Strengths and Weaknesses of Offerors. Summarizes the SEB's findings, using the following guidelines:

(i) Present only the major strengths and weaknesses of individual offerors.

(ii) Directly relate the strengths and weaknesses to the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements.

(iii) Indicate the significance of major strengths and weaknesses.

(iv) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of written and/or oral discussions and BAFOs 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) Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Reflects the summary conclusions, supported by specific case data, with particular emphasis on exemplary or inferior performance and its potential bearing on the instant acquisition.

(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 have an effect on the selection decision.

(j) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance with 1815.611(d)(iii). For installation selections, the Field 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 1815.7--Make-or-Buy Programs

1815.704 Items and work included.

Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work efforts estimated to cost less than $500,000.

1815.706 Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.

(b) The make-or-buy program review by the installation's small and disadvantaged business utilization specialist and the SBA representative should be concurrent with the contracting officer's review. When urgent circumstances preclude this or if the small and disadvantaged business specialist or SBA representative fails to respond on a timely basis, the contracting officer shall include an explanatory statement in the contract file and transmit copies to the specialist and the representative.

1815.708 Contract clause.

1815.708-70 NASA 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 15.703. This provision shall be used in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-21, 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 52.215-21 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 1815.8--Price Negotiation

1815.804 Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or pricing data.

1815.804-1 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. In such cases, information other than cost or pricing data may be requested to the extent necessary to ensure price reasonableness and assess cost realism.

(5) 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 HC).

1815.804-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC).

NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data when contracting with the CCC. This waiver applies through March 31, 1999. The CCC will provide assurance of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed prices, and will also provide for follow-up audit activity to ensure that excess profits are found and refunded to NASA. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted to permit any required Government cost/price analysis.

1815.804-2 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 price agreement.

1815.805-5 Field pricing support.

(a)(1)(A) The threshold for obtaining a field pricing report for cost reimbursement contracts is $1,000,000.

(B) 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.

(C) 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.

(D) When the threshold for requiring field pricing support is met and 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.

(E) Requests for field pricing assistance may be made on NASA Form 1434, Letter of Request for Pricing-Audit-Technical Evaluation Services.

1815.807 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 15.6 and 1815.6.

1815.807-70 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 15.808 and 1815.808). In addition to the information described in FAR 15.807 and, as appropriate, 15.808(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 15.808(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 15.806-2(a), 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, cost risk, and so forth, as applicable.

(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.

1815.807-71 Installation reviews.

Each contracting activity shall establish a formal system for the review of 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.

1815.807-72 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.

1815.808 Price negotiation memorandum.

(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 15.808 shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to the extent applicable.

(b) 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 1815.807, the subsequent PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.808 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, subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of the contractor's systems).

Subpart 1815.9--Profit

1815.902 Policy.

(a)(1) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee objectives, described in 1815.970, shall be used to determine profit or fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those acquisitions that require cost analysis, except as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(a)(2) 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.

1815.903 Contracting officer responsibilities.

(d)(1)(ii) In architect-engineer contracts, the price or estimated cost and fee for services other than the production and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications, are not subject to the 6 percent limitation set forth in FAR 15.903(d)(1).

1815.970 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.

1815.970-1 General.

(a) 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 1815.970-2 through 1815.970-4. The rationale supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the PPM in accordance with 1815.807-70(d)(3).

(b)(1) 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 (b)(2) of this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee on contracts with educational institutions.)

(2) 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:

(i) Tax position benefits;

(ii) Granting of financing through letters of credit;

(iii) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and

(iv) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit organization.

1815.970-2 Contractor effort.

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content of the proposed contract as follows:

(1) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and other material).

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(2) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other labor).

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(3) Overhead and general management (G&A).

(i) 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.

(ii) Contracting officers should also consider the historical accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability to control overhead pool expenses.

(iii) 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.

(4) 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.

1815.970-3 Other factors.

(a) 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.

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(i) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 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.

(ii) 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.

(3) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form of cost risk to consider.

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(b) 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.

(1) 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 above examples 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.

(2) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) Special situations.

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

1815.970-4 Facilities capital cost of money.

(a) 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).

(b) 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.

1815.971 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.

NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized contracts.

Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward

Notifications, Protests, and Mistakes

1815.1004 Notification of successful offeror.

The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.1004 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.

1815.1006 Postaward debriefing offerors.

1815.1006-70 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 1815.70--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.

Previous Page TOC Next Page