§ 1817.7301-5 - Progressive competition.

(a) To streamline the acquisition process, the preferred approach for NASA phased acquisitions is the “progressive competition” down-selection technique in which new, formal solicitations are not issued for phases subsequent to the initial phase. Subsequent phase proposals are requested by less formal means, normally by a letter accompanied by the appropriate proposal preparation and evaluation information.

(b) When using the progressive competition technique, if a prospective offeror other than one of the preceding phase contractors responds to the synopsis for a subsequent phase and indicates an intention to submit a proposal, the contracting officer shall provide to that offeror all the material furnished to the preceding phase contractors necessary to submit a proposal. This information includes the preceding phase solicitation, contracts, and system performance and design requirements, as well as all proposal preparation instructions and evaluation factors. In addition, the prospective offeror must be advised of all requirements necessary for demonstration of a design maturity equivalent to that of the preceding phase contractors.

(c) A key feature of the progressive competition technique is that a formal solicitation is normally not required. However, when the Government requirements or evaluation procedures change so significantly after release of the initial phase solicitation that a substantial portion of the information provided in the initial phase synopsis, solicitation, or contracts is no longer valid, a new solicitation shall be issued for the next phase.

(d) Subsequent phase proposals should be requested by a letter including the following:

(1) A specified due date for the proposals along with a statement that the late proposal information in paragraph (c)(3) of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, applies to the due date.

(2) Complete instructions for proposal preparation, including page limitations, if any.

(3) Final evaluation factors.

(4) Any statement of work, specifications, or other contract requirements that have changed since the initial solicitation.

(5) All required clause changes applicable to new work effective since the preceding phase award.

(6) Any representations or certifications, if required.

(7) Any other required contract updates (e.g., small and small disadvantaged business goals).

(e) Certain factors may clearly dictate that the progressive competition technique should not be used. For example, if it is likely that NASA may introduce a design concept independent of those explored by the preceding phase contractors, it is also likely that a new, formal solicitation is necessary for the subsequent phase and all potential offerors should be solicited. In this circumstance, progressive competition is inappropriate.