[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4466-4492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1864]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1839, 1841,
1852, 1870, 1871, and 1872
Rewrite of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)
AGENCY: Office of Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the National Performance Review initiative to
streamline and clarify regulations, NASA is revising its regulations in
48 CFR part 1834, Major System Acquisitions; part 1835, Research and
Development Contracting; part 1836, Construction and Architect-Engineer
Contracts; part 1837, Service Contracting; part 1839, Acquisition of
Information Technology; and part 1841, Acquisition of Utility Services.
This rule also adds a new part 1872 on Acquisitions of Investigations
and amends part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, to reflect these
other regulatory changes.
This rule restores some sections in part 1831, Contract Cost
Principles and Procedures, and in part 1852, Solicitation Provisions
and Contract Clauses, that were inadvertently removed in a final rule
published October 28, 1996 (61 FR 55753).
This rule amends part 1871, Midrange Procurement Procedures, in
order to conform its provisions to those of recently established FAR
regulations on a test program for certain commercial items. Also in
this rule, the numbering of regulatory sections has been changed to
indicate the exact section of the FAR being implemented or
supplemented.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Thomas O'Toole, (202) 358-0478; Mr. Bruce King, (202) 358-0461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Performance Review urged agencies to streamline and
clarify their regulations. The NFS rewrite initiative was established
to pursue these goals by conducting a section by section review of the
NFS to verify its accuracy, relevancy, and validity. The NFS will be
rewritten in blocks of parts and issued through Procurement Notices
(PNs). Upon completion of all parts, the NFS will be reissued in a new
edition.
Impact
NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule does not
impose any reporting or record keeping requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836,
1837, 1839, 1841, 1852, 1870, 1871, and 1872
Government Procurement.
Tom Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837,
1839, 1841, 1852, 1870, 1871 and 1872 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 1805 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
PART 1805--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS
1805.303-71 [Amended]
2. In section 1805.303-71, the section heading and paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (a)(3) are revised to read as follows:
1805.303-71 Administrator's notice of significant contract actions
(ANOSCAs).
(a) In addition to the public announcement requirements described
in 1805.303-70, contracting officers shall notify the Administrator of
the following significant actions at least five (5) workdays prior to
planned public announcement of the actions:
* * * * *
(3) Planned award of other actions, to include cooperative
agreements resulting from a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN), at any
dollar value
[[Page 4467]]
thought to be of significant interest to Headquarters.
* * * * *
PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
1815.807 [Amended]
3.-6. In section 1815.807, paragraph (b)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
1815.807 Prenegotiation objectives.
(b)(i) * * *
(ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for
contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR
15.6 and 1815.6.
PART 1831--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES
1831.205-670, 1831.205-671 [Added]
7. Sections 1831.205-670 and 1831.205-671 are added to read as
follows:
1831.205-670 Evaluation of contractor and subcontractor compensation
for service contracts.
(a) The contracting officer shall evaluate the reasonableness of
compensation for service contracts:
(1) Prior to the award of a cost reimbursement or non-competitive
fixed-price type contract which has a total potential value in excess
of $500,000, and
(2) Periodically after award for cost reimbursement contracts, but
at least every three years.
(b) The contracting officer shall ensure the reasonableness of
compensation is evaluated for cost reimbursement or non-competitive
fixed-price type service subcontracts under a prime contract meeting
the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section where:
(1) The subcontract has a total potential value in excess of
$500,000; and
(2) The cumulative value of all of a subcontractor's service
subcontracts under the prime contract is in excess of 10 percent of the
prime contract's total potential value.
(c)(1) Offerors shall be required to submit as part of their
proposals a compensation plan addressing all proposed labor categories.
Offerors also shall demonstrate in writing that their proposed
compensation is reasonable.
(2) Subcontractors meeting the criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section shall be required to comply with paragraph (c)(1).
(d) The contracting officer's preaward evaluation of each offeror's
and their subcontractors' compensation should be done as part of, or in
addition to DCAA audits, price analyses, or any other means deemed to
be necessary.
(e) The results of the contracting officer's evaluation, including
any excessive compensation found and its planned resolution, shall be
addressed in the prenegotiation position memorandum, with the final
resolution discussed in the price negotiation memorandum.
(f) The contracting officer shall ensure that the reasonableness of
compensation for cost reimbursement subcontracts meeting the criteria
in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section is periodically reviewed
after award, but at least every three years.
(g) The results of the periodic evaluations of contractor and
subcontractor compensation after contract award shall be documented in
the contract file.
1831.205-671 Solicitation provision.
The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the
same as the provision at 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation, in
solicitations for services which contemplate the award of a cost
reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type service contract
having a total potential value in excess of $500,000.
8. Part 1834 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1834--MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
Subpart 1834.0--General
Sec.
1834.003 Responsibilities.
Subpart 1834.70--Acquisition of Major Systems
1834.7001 Definitions.
1834.7002 Phased acquisitions
1834.7003 Down selections in phased acquisitions.
1834.7003-1 Pre-solicitation planning.
1834.7003-2 Evaluation factors.
1834.7003-3 Down selection milestones.
1834.7003-4 Synopsis.
1834.7003-5 Progressive competition.
1834.7004 Contract clauses.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
Subpart 1834.0--General
1834.003 Responsibilities. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) NASA's implementation of OMB Circular No. A-109, Major Systems
Acquisitions, and FAR part 34 is contained in this part and in NASA
Policy Directive (NPD) 7120.4, ``Program/Project Management,'' and NASA
Procedures and Guidance (NPG) 7120.5, ``Program/Project Management
Guide''.
Subpart 1834.70--Acquisition of Major Systems
1834.7001 Definitions.
(a) Down-selection. In a phased acquisition, the process of
selecting contractors for phases subsequent to the initial phase from
among the preceding phase contractors.
(b) Major system. For NASA, ``major system'' is a program fitting
the criteria of FAR 34.003(c) in lieu of the definition provided in FAR
2.101.
(c) Phased acquisition. A program comprised of several distinct
steps or phases where the realization of program objectives requires a
planned, sequential acquisition of each step or phase. The phases may
be acquired separately, in combination, or through a down-selection
strategy.
(d) Progressive competition. A type of down-selection strategy for
a phased acquisition. In this method, a single solicitation is issued
for all phases of this program. The initial phase contracts are
awarded, and the contractors for subsequent phases are expected to be
chosen through a down-selection from among the preceding phase
contractors. In each phase, progressively fewer contracts are awarded
until a single contractor is chosen for the final phase. Normally, all
down-selections are accomplished without issuance of a new, formal
solicitation.
1834.7002 Phased acquisitions.
(a) In acquisitions subject to the provisions of OMB Circular No.
A-109 and NPD 7120.4 and NPG 7120.5, or other similar phased
acquisitions, it is NASA policy to ensure competition in the selection
of contractors for award in each phase of the process not performed in-
house.
(b) There are five phases in the life cycle of a NASA major system
acquisition:
(1) Phase A, Preliminary Analysis, involves the analysis of
alternate overall project concepts for accomplishing a proposed agency
technical objective or mission.
(2) Phase 3, Definition, involves the detailed study, comparative
analysis, and preliminary system design of selected Phase A concepts.
(3) Phase C, Design, involves the detailed system design (with
mock-ups and test articles of critical systems and
[[Page 4468]]
subsystems) of the systems design concept determined to provide the
best overall system for the Government.
(4) Phase D, Development, involves final detailed design,
fabrication, delivery of an operational system that meets program
requirements.
(5) Phase E, Operations, involves operation and use of the system
in its intended environment, continuing until the system leaves the
agency inventory. This phase includes any system modifications and
upgrades.
(c) The preferred approach in NASA for the acquisition of the
phases of a Major System is the following:
(1) Phase A is accomplished primarily through in-house studies.
(2) Phases B, C, and D are acquired through a phased acquisition
process in which two or more Phase B contracts are awarded
competitively and then a down-selection is made among these contractors
to determine the single combined Phase C/D awardee.
(3) Phase E is normally acquired separately.
(d) Each phase of a major system acquisition not performed in-house
must be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.201 and must include all
the information required by FAR 5.207.
(e) Whether or not down-selection procedures are used, contracts
awarded in phased acquisitions shall not include requirements for
submission of subsequent phase proposals. Instead, proposals shall be
requested through a solicitation or other appropriate mechanism (e.g.,
by letter when using the progressive competition technique). Priced
options for preparation of subsequent phase proposals are prohibited.
(f) Time gaps between phases should be minimized in all major
system phased acquisitions. Accordingly, early synopsis of subsequent
phase competition is encouraged. Also, when sufficient programmatic and
technical information is available to all potential offerors, proposal
evaluation and source selection activities need not be delayed until
completion of a given phase. When appropriate, these activities should
commence as early as practicable during the period of performance of a
phase to ensure the expeditious award of the succeeding phase.
1834.7003 Down-selections in phased acquisitions.
1834.7003-1 Pre-solicitation planning.
(a) The rationale for the use of the down-selection technique shall
be thoroughly justified in the acquisition planning requirement.
Because the Phase B solicitation will also lead to Phase C/D award, the
decision to use a down-selection strategy must be made prior to
initiation of the Phase B acquisition. Accordingly, both phases must be
addressed in the initial acquisition strategy planning and documented
in the acquisition plan or ASM minutes.
(b) If there is no direct link between successful performance in
the preceding phase and successful performance in the subsequent phase,
down-selection is inappropriate. In this case, the major system
acquisition phases should be contracted for separately without a down-
selection between phases.
(c) With one exception, both the initial and subsequent phase(s) of
a major system acquisition down-selection process are considered to be
full and open competition if the procedures in 1834.7003-4 and
1834.7003-5 (if using the progressive competition technique) are
followed. If only one contractor successfully completed a given phase
and no other offers are solicited for the subsequent phase, award of
the subsequent phase may be made only if justified by one of the
exceptions in FAR 6.302 or one of the exclusions in FAR 6.2, and only
after compliance with the synopsis requirements of FAR 5.202 and 5.205,
when appropriate.
1834.7003-2 Evaluation factors.
A separate set of evaluation factors must be developed for each
phase in a down-selection competition. Since these competitive down-
selection strategies anticipate that one of the Phase B contractors
will also be the Phase C/D contractor, the Phase B offerors must
clearly demonstrate the ability to perform the subsequent phases. The
evaluation factors for Phase B award must specifically include the
evaluation of the Phase B offerors' abilities to perform Phase C/D as
well as Phase B.
1834.7003-3 Down-selection milestones.
The Phase B contracts should be structured to allow for down-
selection at a discrete performance milestone such as a significant
design review or at contract completion. This will avoid time gaps
between phases and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and the
need to terminate the remaining Phase B efforts of an unsuccessful
Phase C/D offeror. However, the appropriate contract structure must
reflect program technical objectives as well as schedule
considerations. For example, if the acquisition strategy calls for
formal completion of Phase B effort at Preliminary Design Review (PDR),
but it is not financially practical or technically necessary for Phase
C/D award and performance to carry all Phase B contractors through PDR,
the Phase B contracts should be structured with a basic period of
performance through a significant, discrete milestone before PDR with a
priced option for effort from that milestone to PDR. The down-selection
would occur at the earlier milestone, the PDR option exercised only for
the down-selection winner, and Phase C/D performance begun at the
completion of the PDR option. Any down-selection milestone must ensure
that sufficient design maturity exists to allow for an informed
selection decision leading to a successful completion of Phase C/D.
1834.7003-4 Synopsis.
(a) When the phased acquisition process identified in
1834.7002(c)(2) is used, the synopsis for the initial competitive
phase, normally Phase B, should also state the following:
(1) The Government plans to conduct a phased acquisition involving
a competitive down-selection process. (Include a description of the
process and the phases involved).
(2) Subsequent competitions for identified follow-on phases will
build on the results of previous phases.
(3) The award criteria for subsequent phases will include
demonstrated completion of specified previous phase requirements.
(4) The Government expects that only the initial phase contractors
will be capable of successfully competing for the subsequent phase(s).
Proposals for the subsequent phase(s) will be automatically requested
from these contractors.
(5) The Government intends to issue (or not issue) a new, formal
solicitation(s) for subsequent phase(s). If new solicitations are not
planned, the acquisition must be identified as a ``progressive
competition'' (see 1834.7003-5), and the mechanism for providing
pertinent subsequent phase proposal information (e.g., statements of
work, specifications, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation
factors for award) must be described.
(6) Each subsequent phase of the acquisition will be synopsized.
(7) Notwithstanding the expectation that only the initial phase
contractors will be capable of successfully competing for the
subsequent phase(s), proposals from all responsible sources submitted
by the specified due date will be considered by the agency. In order to
contend for subsequent phase awards, however, such prospective offerors
must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the prior
phase contractors. Failure to fully and
[[Page 4469]]
completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may
render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for
contract award.
(b) In addition to the information in paragraph (a) of this
section, the synopsis for the subsequent phases, normally a combined C/
D, must identify the current phase contractors.
1834.7003-5 Progressive competition.
(a) To streamline the major system 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 offerors must be
advised of all requirements necessary for demonstration of a design
maturity equivalent to that to the preceding phase contractors.
(c) Although a key feature of the progressive competition technique
is that a formal solicitation is issued for the initial phase only, a
new, formal solicitation may nonetheless be required for subsequent
phases. 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 contract is invalidated, a new
solicitation shall be issued for the next phase.
(d) Phase C/D proposals should be requested by a letter including
the following:
(1) A specified due date for the proposals along with a statement
that FAR 52.215-10, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of
Proposals, applies to this proposal 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 Phase B solicitation.
(5) All required clause changes applicable to new work effective
since Phase B contract award.
(6) Any representations or certifications, if required.
(7) Any other required contract updates (e.g., Phase C/D small and
small disadvantaged business goals).
(e) Certain factors may clearly dictate that the progressive
competition techniques should not be used. For example, if it is likely
that NASA may introduce a design concept independent of those explored
by the Phase B contractors, it is also likely that a new, formal
solicitation is necessary for Phase C/D and all potential offerors
should be solicited. In this circumstance, progressive competition is
inappropriate.
1834.7004 Contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.234-70,
Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures, in solicitations
and contracts for phased acquisitions using down-selection procedures
other than the progressive competition technique described in
1834.7003-5. The clause shall be included in the solicitation for each
phase and in all contracts except that for the final phase.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.234-71,
Phased Acquisition Using Progressive Competition Down-Selection
Procedures, in solicitations and contracts for phased acquisitions
using the progressive competition technique described in 1834.7003-5.
The clause shall be included in the initial phase solicitation and all
contracts except that for the final phase.
9. Part 1835 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1835--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
1835.003 Policy.
1835.015 Contracts for research with educational institutions and
nonprofit organizations.
1835.016 Broad agency announcements.
1835.016-70 NASA Research Announcements.
1835.070 NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
1835.003 Policy.
See NPG 5800.1, Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, for
policy regarding the use of grants and cooperative agreements.
1835.015 Contracts for research with educational institutions and
nonprofit organizations. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a)(1)(iv) The research contract shall include a requirement that
the contractor obtain the contracting officer's approval when it plans
to continue the research work during a continuous period in excess of 3
months without the participation of an approved principal investigator
or project leader.
1835.016 Broad agency announcements. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a)
and (c))
(a)(i) The following forms of broad agency announcements (BAAs) are
authorized for use:
(A) Announcements of Opportunity (see 1872).
(B) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
(C) Other forms of announcements approved by the Associate
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
(ii) Other program announcements, notices, and letters not
authorized by paragraph (a)(i) of this section shall not be used to
solicit proposals that may result in contracts.
(c) BAAs may not preclude the participation of any offeror capable
of satisfying the Government's needs unless a justification for other
than full and open competition is approved under FAR 6.304.
1835.016-70 NASA Research Announcements
(a) Scope. An NRA is used to announce research interests in support
of NASA's programs, and, after peer or scientific review using factors
in the NRA, select proposals for funding. Unlike an RFP containing a
statement of work or specification to which offerors are to respond, an
NRA provides for the submission of competitive project ideas, conceived
by the offerors, in one or more program areas of interest. An NRA shall
not be used when the requirement is sufficiently defined to specify an
end product or service.
(b) Issuance. (1) Before issuance, each field-generated NRA shall
be approved by the installation director or designee, with the
concurrence of the
[[Page 4470]]
procurement officer, and each Headquarters-generated NRA shall be
approved by the cognizant Program Associate Administrator or designee,
with the concurrence of the Headquarters Offices of General Counsel
(Code GK) and Procurement (Code HS). The NRA approval authority shall
designate the selection official.
(2) The selecting official shall assure that the NRA is synopsized
prior to issuance in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 1815.201. The
synopsis shall be brief, and the technical section describing the area
of interest should not exceed 50 words.
(3) If a Headquarters-generated NRA may result in awards by a NASA
field installation, the issuing office shall notify the installation
procurement officer and provide a copy of the NRA.
(4) The selecting official is responsible for the preparation and
distribution of the NRA.
(5) NRAs normally shall remain open for at least 90 days.
(c) Content. The NRA shall consist of the following sections and
items. The entire package shall be provided in response to requests.
(1) Cover. The cover shall display:
(i) ``OMB Approval Number 2700-0087'' in the upper right corner.
(ii) Title.
(iii) ``NASA Research Announcement Soliciting Research Proposals
for the Period Ending
________''.
(iv) NRA number.
(v) Official address for the office issuing the NRA.
(2) Summary and Supplemental Information. (i) The Summary and
Supplemental Information should not exceed two pages and shall include:
(A) Title and NRA number.
(B) Introductory paragraphs describing the purpose of the NRA and
the period for receipt of proposals.
(C) Address for submitting proposals.
(D) Number of copies required.
(E) Selecting official's title.
(F) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers for the technical and
contracting points of contact.
(G) The following statement when the NRA is to be issued before
funds are available:
Funds are not currently available for awards under this NRA. The
Government's obligation to make award(s) is contingent upon the
availability of appropriated funds from which payment can be made
and the receipt of proposals that NASA determines are acceptable for
award under this NRA.
(ii) The Summary and Supplemental Information may include estimates
of the amount of funds that will be available and the number of
anticipated awards. A breakdown of the estimates by research area may
also be shown.
(3) Technical Description. The first page shall contain the NRA
number and title at the top. A brief description not exceeding two
pages is preferable, but it should be detailed enough to enable ready
comprehension of the research areas of interest. Specifications
containing detailed statements of work should be avoided. Any program
management information included must be limited to matters that are
essential for proposal preparation.
(4) Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements. The
NRA shall contain instructions as stated in 1852.235-72 (see
1835.070(c)).
(d) Receipt of proposals, evaluation, and selection. (1) Proposals
shall be protected as provided in 1815.508-70 and 1815.509-70.
(2) Late proposals and modifications shall be treated in accordance
with 1815.412-70.
(3) The selection decision shall be made following peer or
scientific review of a proposal. Peer or scientific review shall
involve evaluation by an in-house specialist, a specialist outside
NASA, or both. Evaluation by specialists outside NASA shall be
conducted subject to the conditions in FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2.
After receipt of a proposal and before selection, scientific or
engineering personnel shall communicate with an offeror only for the
purpose of clarification (as defined in FAR 15.601), or to understand
the meaning of some aspect of the proposal that is not clear, or to
obtain confirmation or substantiation of a proposed approach, solution,
or cost estimate.
(4) Competitive range determinations shall not be made, and best
and final offers shall not be requested.
(5) Part of a proposal may be selected unless the offeror requests
otherwise. In addition, changes to a selected proposal may be sought if
(i) the ideas or other aspects of the proposal on which selection is
based are contained in the proposal as originally submitted, and are
not introduced by the changes; and (ii) the changes sought would not
involve a material alteration to the requirements stated in the NRA.
Changes that would affect a proposal's selection shall not be sought.
When changes are desired, the selecting official may request revisions
from the offeror or request the contracting officer to implement them
during negotiations with the successful offeror(s). The changes shall
not transfer information from one offeror's proposal to another offeror
(see FAR 15.610(e)(1)). When collaboration between offerors would
improve proposed research programs, collaboration may be suggested to
the offerors.
(6) The basis for selection of a proposal shall be documented in a
selection statement applying the evaluation factors in the NRA. The
selection statement represents the conclusions of the selecting
official and must be self-contained. It shall not incorporate by
reference the evaluations of the reviewers.
(7) The selecting official shall notify each offeror whose proposal
was not selected for award and explain generally why the proposal was
not selected. If requested, the selecting official shall arrange a
debriefing under FAR 15.1004, with the participation of a contracting
officer.
(8) The selecting official shall forward to the contracting officer
the following information:
(i) A copy of the NRA;
(ii) The results of the technical evaluation, including the total
number of proposals received, the selection statement, and the
proposal(s) selected for funding;
(iii) A description of any changes desired in any offeror's
statement of work, including the reasons for the changes and any effect
on level of funding;
(iv) If a contract will be used to fund the proposal, a description
of deliverables, including technical reports, and delivery dates,
consistent with the requirements of the NRA;
(v) A procurement request;
(vi) Comments on the offeror's cost proposal (either the selecting
official's comments, which may be based on the reviewer's comments, or
copies of the reviewers' comments with any different conclusions of the
selecting official); these comments shall address the need for and
reasonableness of travel, computer time, materials, equipment,
subcontracted items, publication costs, labor hours, labor mix, and
other costs; and
(vii) A copy of the selected proposal as originally submitted, any
revisions, and any correspondence from the successful offeror.
(9) The selecting official may provide to the contracting officer
copies of the reviewers' evaluations. Reviewers' names and institutions
may be omitted.
(10) The selecting official may provide each offeror whose proposal
was selected for negotiation a notification stating:
(i) The proposal has been selected for negotiation;
(ii) The offeror's business office will be contacted by a
contracting officer,
[[Page 4471]]
who is the only official authorized to obligate the Government; and
(iii) Any costs incurred by the offeror in anticipation of an award
are at the offeror's risk.
(e) Award. The contracting officer shall choose the appropriate
award instrument. If a contract is selected, the contracting officer
shall----
(1) Advise the offeror that the Government contemplates entering
into negotiations; the type of contract contemplated; and the estimated
award date, anticipated effort, and delivery schedule;
(2) Send the offeror a model contract, if necessary, including
modifications contemplated in the offeror's statement of work, and
request agreement or identification of any exceptions (the contract
statement of work may summarize the proposed research, state that the
research shall be conducted in accordance with certain technical
sections of the proposal (which shall be identified by incorporating
them into the contract by reference), and identify any changes to the
proposed research);
(3) Request the offeror to complete and return certifications and
representations and Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award,
or other appropriate forms;
(4) Conduct negotiations in accordance with FAR subparts 15.8 and
15.9, as applicable;
(5) Award a contract; and
(6) Comply with FAR subparts 4.6 and 5.3 on contract reporting and
synopses of contract awards.
(f) Cancellation of an NRA. when program changes, program funding,
or any other reasons require cancellation of an NRA, the office issuing
the NRA shall notify potential offerors by using the mailing list of
the NRA.
1835.070 NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.235-70,
Center for AeroSpace Information, in all research and development
contracts and in cost-reimbursement supply contracts involving research
and development work.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.235-71,
Key Personnel and Facilities, in contracts when source selection has
been substantially predicated upon the possession by a given offer or
of special capabilities, as represented by key personnel or facilities.
(c) The contracting officer shall ensure that the provision at
1852.235-72, Instructions for Responding to NASA Research
Announcements, is inserted in all NRAs. The instructions may be
supplemented, but only to the minimum extent necessary.
10. Part 1836 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1836--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
Subpart 1836.2--Special Aspects of Contracting for construction
Sec.
1836.203 Government estimate of construction costs.
1836.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.
Subpart 1836.3--Special Aspects Sealed Bidding in Construction
Contracts
1836.303 Invitations for bids.
1836.303-70 Additive and deductive items.
1836.304 Notice of Award.
Subpart 1836.5--Contract Clauses
1836.570 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause.
Subpart 1836.6--Architect-Engineer Services
1836.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
1836.602-1 Selection criteria.
1836.602-2 Evaluation boards.
1836.602-4 Selection authority.
1836.602-5 Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold.
1836.602-70 Selection of architect-engineers for master planning.
1836.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
1836.605 Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work.
Subpart 1836.7--Standard and Optional Forms for Contracting for
Construction, Architect-Engineer Services, and Dismantling,
Demolition, or Removal of Improvements
1836.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer
services.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1)
Subpart 1836.2--Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction
1836.203 Government estimate of construction costs. (NASA supplements
paragraph (c))
(c)(i) If the acquisition is by sealed bidding, the contracting
officer shall file a sealed copy of the detailed Government estimate
with the bids until bid opening. After the bids are read and recorded,
the contracting officer shall read the estimate, and record it in the
same detail as the bids.
(ii) If the acquisition is by negotiation, the contracting officer
may disclose the overall amount of the Government estimate after award
upon request of offerors.
1836.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.
(1) Except as indicated in paragraph (2) of this section, the
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is the approval
authority.
(2) A construction contract may be awarded to the firm that
designed the project (or its subsidiaries or affiliates) if the
contract is awarded on the basis of performance specifications for the
construction of a facility, and it requires the contractor to furnish
construction drawings, specifications, or site adaptation drawings of
the facility.
(3) In no case shall the firm that prepared the drawings and
specifications supervise and inspect, on behalf of the Government, the
construction of the facility involved.
Subpart 1836.3--Special Aspects of Sealed Bidding in Construction
Contracts
1836.303 Invitations for bids.
1836.303-70 Additive and deductive items.
When it appears that funds available for a project may be
insufficient for all the desired features of construction, the
contracting officer may provide in the invitation for bids for a first
or base bid item covering the work generally as specified and one or
more additive or deductive bid items progressively adding or omitting
specified features of the work in a stated order of priority. In such
case, the contracting officer, before the opening of bids, shall record
in the contract file the amount of funds available for the project and
determine the low bidder and the items to be awarded in accordance with
the provision at 1852.236-71, Additive or Deductive Items.
1836.304 Notice of Award (NASA supplements paragraph (e))
(e) Contract delivery or performance schedules, commencement of
work, or notices to proceed shall not be expressed in terms of a notice
of award (See 1814.408-1).
Subpart 1836.5--Contract Clauses
1836.570 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
71, Additive or Deductive Items, in invitations for bids for
construction when it is desired to add or deduct bid items to meet
available funding.
[[Page 4472]]
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
72, Bids with Unit Prices, in invitations for bids for construction
when the invitation contemplates unit prices of items.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.236-73,
Hurricane Plan, in solicitations and contracts for construction at
sites that experience hurricanes.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
74, Magnitude of Requirement, in solicitations for construction. Insert
the appropriate estimated dollar range in accordance with FAR 36.204.
Subpart 1836.6--Architect-Engineer Services
1836.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
1836.602-1 Selection criteria. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a)(2) The evaluation of specialized experience and technical
competence shall be limited to the immediately preceding ten years.
(4) The evaluation of past performance shall be limited to the
immediately preceding ten years.
(7) The architect-engineer selection board may also establish
evaluation criteria regarding the volume of work previously awarded to
the firm by NASA, with the object of effecting an equitable
distribution of contracts among qualified architect-engineer firms,
including minority-owned firms and firms that have not had prior NASA
contracts.
1836.602-2 Evaluation boards. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) Installations shall establish an architect-engineer selection
board to be composed of the selection authority and at least three
voting members. Membership shall at least include: one currently
registered architect or professional engineer, who shall serve as the
board chairperson; an official from the requiring office; if
appropriate, a technical official familiar with any unique subject
matter critical to the requirement; and a procurement official (a
contracting officer, if feasible) as an ad hoc advisor to the board.
Where appropriate, the procurement official may serve as a voting
member. Non-Government employees shall not be appointed as voting
members.
1836.602-4 Selection authority. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) The selection authority shall be appointed in accordance with
installation procedures.
1836.602-5 Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold.
The procedures at FAR 36.602-5 (a) or (b) may be used at the
discretion of the selection authority.
1836.602-70 Selection of architect-engineers for master planning.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a) Definition of master plan. A master plan is an integrated
series of documents presenting in graphic, narrative, and tabular form
the present composition of the installation and the plan for its
orderly and comprehensive development to perform its various missions
in the most efficient and economical manner.
(b) Selection.
(1) Selection of an Architect-Engineer for the development of a
master plan in connection with the establishment of a new NASA activity
or installation shall be made by the Associate Administrator having
institutional responsibility. The report of the architect-engineer
selection board will be concurred in at NASA Headquarters by the
Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, the
Associate Administrator for Procurement, the Chief Financial Officer,
and the General Counsel.
(2) The Associate Administrator for Management Systems and
Facilities shall be responsible for the architect-engineer selection
board report required by FAR 36.602-3(d) before presentation to the
Associate Administrator having institutional responsibility.
1836.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
The architect-engineer selection boards (see 1836.602-2) are
designated as NASA's evaluation boards for the purposes of FAR 36.603.
1836.605 Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work. (NASA
supplements paragraph (b))
(b) The contracting officer may disclose the overall amount of the
Government estimate after award upon request of offerors.
Subpart 1836.7--Standard and Optional Forms for Contracting for
Construction, Architect-Engineer Services, and Dismantling,
Demolition, or Removal of Improvements
1836.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services.
(NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a)(i) Instructions for completing Standard Form 252, Architect-
Engineer Contract, are as follows:
(a) Block 5-Project Title and Location. Include a short description
of the construction project and the estimated cost of constructing the
facilities for the project. If the space provided is insufficient,
include a more detailed description in the contract's specification/
work statement and identify the location of the more detailed
description in Block 10.
(b) Block 6-Contract For (General description of services to be
provided). Include a brief description of the services and state that
the are fully set out in the specification/work statement. Clearly
specify the date by which design services must be completed. If
supervision and inspection services during construction are to be
acquired, clearly specify the date by which they must be completed and
add a statement that the Government may extend the period for their
performance as provided in the Changes clause of the contract.
(c) Block 7-Contract Amount. If the contract is for both design and
supervision and inspection services, set out the amounts for each
effort separately.
(ii) The services to be furnished by an architect-engineer should
be carefully defined during negotiation of the contract and a statement
of them inserted in the contract's specification/work statement. The
statement should clearly and concisely set forth the nature and extent
of the services and include any special services, such as the nature
and extent of subsurface exploration prior to designing foundations. A
similar statement of supervision and inspection services should be
inserted in the specification/work statement if supervision and
inspection services are to be acquired.
11. Part 1837 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1837--SERVICE CONTRACTING
Subpart 1837.1--Service Contracts--General
Sec.
1837.101 Definitions.
1837.102 Policy.
1837.102-70 NASA policy.
1837.104 Personal services contracts.
1837.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1837.110-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses.
1837.170 Pension portability.
Subpart 1837.2--Advisory and Assistance Services
1837.203 Policy.
1837.204 Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.
[[Page 4473]]
Subpart 1837.70--Acquisition of Training
1837.7000 Acquisition of off-the-shelf training courses.
1837.7001 Acquisition of new training courses.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
Subpart 1837.1--Service Contracts--General
1837.101 Definitions.
Pension portability means the recognition and continuation in a
successor service contract of the predecessor service contract
employees' pension rights and benefits.
1837.102 Policy.
1837.102-70 NASA Policy.
To the maximum extent practicable, contracting officers shall
acquire services on a performance based contracting basis.
1837.104 Personal services contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b) Section 203(c)(9) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(9)) authorizes NASA ``to obtain services as
authorized by Section 3109 of Title 5, United States Code.'' It is NASA
policy to obtain the personal services of experts and consultants by
appointment rather than by contract. The policies, responsibilities,
and procedures pertaining to the appointment of experts and consultants
are in NMI 3304.1G.
1837.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1837.110-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-70,
Emergency Evacuation Procedures, in solicitations and contracts for on-
site support services where emergency evacuations of the NASA
installation may occur, e.g., snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes,
or other emergencies.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-71,
Pension Portability, in solicitations, contracts or negotiated contract
modifications for additional work when the procurement officer makes
the determination in 1837.170(a)(2).
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.237-
72, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, in cost reimbursement
level-of-effort contracts expected to exceed $1,000,000.
1837.170 Pension portability.
(a) It is NASA's policy not to require pension portability in
service contracts. However, pension portability requirements may be
included in solicitations, contracts, or contract modifications for
additional work under the following conditions:
(1)(i) There is a continuing need for the same or similar services
for a minimum of five years (inclusive of options), and, if the
contractor changes, a high percentage of the predecessor contractor's
employees are expected to remain with the program; or
(ii) The employees under a predecessor contract were covered by a
portable pension plan, a follow-on contract or a contract consolidating
existing services is awarded, and the total contract period covered by
the plan covers a minimum of five years (including both the predecessor
and successor contracts); and
(2) The procurement officer determines in writing, with full
supporting rationale, that such a requirement is in the Government's
best interest. The procurement officer shall maintain a record of all
such determinations.
(b) When pension portability is required, the plan shall comply
with the requirements of the clause at 1852.237-71, Pension
Portability, (see 1837.110-70(b)), and the contract shall also include
a clear description of the plan, including service, pay, liabilities,
vesting, termination, and benefits from prior contracts.
Subpart 1837.2--Advisory and Assistance Services
1837.203 Policy. (NASA supplements paragraph (c))
(c) Advisory and assistance services of individual experts and
consultants shall normally be obtained by appointment rather than by
contract (see NMI 3304.1, Employment of Experts and Consultants).
1837.204 Guidelines for determining availability of personnel. (NASA
supplements paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e))
(a)(i) Outside peer review evaluators may be used to evaluate SBIR,
STTR, NRA, AO, and unsolicited proposals without making the
determination of non-availability.
(ii) For all other actions, the NASA official one level above the
NASA program official responsible for the evaluation shall make the
determination, with the concurrence of the legal office. The
contracting officer shall ensure that a copy of the determination is in
the contract file prior to issuance of a solicitation.
(b) The official designated in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section is
responsible for the actions required in FAR 37.204(b).
(c) The agreement shall be made by the program official responsible
for the evaluation and the contracting officer.
(e) The Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is the
approval authority for class determinations. The class determination
request shall include the assessment required by FAR 37.204(b).
Subpart 1837.70--Acquisition of Training
1837.7000 Acquisition of off-the-shelf training courses.
The Training Act of 1958 (5 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) may be used as the
authority for training of NASA employees by, in, or through non-
Government off-the-shelf training courses which are available to the
public. These include established university catalog courses or
commercial course offerings that are offered to the general public at
catalog or market prices.
1837.7001 Acquisition of new training courses.
The acquisition of a new training course that must be developed to
fulfill a specific NASA need shall be conducted in accordance with the
FAR and the NFS.
12. Part 1839 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1839--ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Subpart 1829.1--General
Sec.
1839.105 Privacy.
1839.106 Contract clause.
1839.106-70 NASA contract clause.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1)
Subpart 1839.1--General.
1839.105 Privacy.
See 1804.470.
1839.106 Contract clause.
1839.106-70 NASA contract clause.
(a)(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause
substantially as stated at 1852.239-70, Alternate Delivery Points, in
solicitations and contracts for information technology when:
[[Page 4474]]
(i) An indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract will be
used or when the contract will include options for additional
quantities; and
(ii) Delivery is F.O.B. destination to the contracting activity.
(2) When delivery is F.O.B. origin and Government bills of lading
(GBL) are used, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its
Alternate I.
13. Part 1841 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1841--ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES
Subpart 1841.2--Acquiring Utility Services
Sec.
1841.203 GSA assistance.
1841.205 Separate contracts.
1841.205-70 Authorization for acquisition of wellhead natural gas.
Subpart 1841.3--Requests for Assistance
1841.301 Requirements.
Subpart 1841.4--Administration
1841.402 Rate changes and regulatory intervention.
Subpart 1841.5--Solicitation Provision and Contract Clauses
1841.501 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.
1841.501-70 NASA contract clause.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
Subpart 1841.2--Acquiring Utility Services
1841.203 GSA assistance. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) Before soliciting technical assistance, technical personnel
shall contact the Headquarters Environmental Management Division (Code
JE).
1841.205 Separate contracts.
1841.205-70 Authorization for acquisition of wellhead natural gas.
(a) Acquisition of wellhead natural gas and interstate
transportation of the natural gas to locally franchised distribution
utility companies' receipt points (city gate) is considered the
acquisition of supplies rather than the acquisition of public utility
services described in FAR Part 41. Therefore, wellhead natural gas and
interstate transportation of such gas should be obtained directly by
NASA under applicable authorities and FAR procedures governing the
acquisition of supplies. Redelivery of the gas from the city gate to
the NASA facility is considered a utility service since it is provided
only by the locally franchised utility. GSA is responsible for
obtaining an appropriate contract for the redelivery service in
accordance with FAR 41.204.
(b) GSA provides assistance to Federal agencies in the acquisition
of natural gas wellhead supplies. Contracting officers may obtain
assistance from GSA in the acquisition of wellhead natural gas by
contacting GSA at the address specified in FAR 41.301(a).
Subpart 1841.3--Requests for Assistance
1841.301 Requirements. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) Procurement officers shall submit requests for delegation of
contracting authority directly to the cognizant GSA regional office
after coordinating with the cognizant center technical office.
Subpart 1841.4--Administration
1841.402 Rate changes and regulatory intervention. (NASA supplements
paragraph (b))
(b) A copy of all correspondence with GSA shall be provided to the
Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS) at the time of its
submittal to the GSA regional office.
Subpart 1841.5--Solicitation Provision and Contract Clauses
1841.501 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.
1841.501-70 NASA contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.241-70,
Renewal of Contract, in solicitations and contracts for utility
services if it is desirable that the utility service be provided under
the same terms and conditions for more than 1 year.
PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
1852.231-71 [Added]
14.-15. Section 1852.231-71 is added to read as follows:
1852.231-71 Determination of Compensation Reasonableness.
As prescribed at 1831.205-671, insert the following provision.
Determination of Compensation Reasonableness (March 1994)
(a) The proposal shall include a total compensation plan. This plan
shall address all proposed labor categories, including those personnel
subject to union agreements, the Service Contract Act, and those exempt
from both of the above. The total compsensation plan shall include the
salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of
these categories of labor. The plan also shall include a discussion of
the consistency of the plan among the categories of labor being
proposed. Differences between benefits offered professional and non-
professional employees shall be highlighted. The requirements of this
plan may be combined with that required by the clause at FAR 52.222-46,
``Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.''
(b) The offeror shall provide written support to demonstrate that
its proposed compensation is reasonable.
(c) The offeror shall include the rationale for any conformance
procedures used or those Service Contract Act employees proposed that
do not fail within the scope of any classification listed in the
applicable wage determination.
(d) The offeror shall require all service subcontractors (1) with
proposed cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type
subcontracts having a total potential value in excess of $500,000 and
(2) the cumulative value of all their service subcontracts under the
proposed prime contract in excess of 10 percent of the prime contract's
total potential value, provide as part of their proposals the
information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision.
(End of provision)
1852.234-70 [Amended]
16. In section 1852.234-70, the section heading and clause title
``Phased Procurement Using Down-Selection Procedures'' is revised to
read ``Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures''.
17. In the introductory text to section 1852.234-70, the citation
``1834.005-170 (a)'' is revised to read ``1834.7004(a)'' and the word
``procurements'' is revised to read ``acquisitions''.
1852.234-71 [Amended]
18. In section 1852.234-71, the section heading and clause title
``Phased Procurement Using Progressive Competition Down-Selection
Procedures'' is revised to read ``Phased Acquisition Using Progressive
Competition Down-Selection Procedures''.
19. In the introductory text to section 1852.234-71, the citation
``1834.005-170 (b)'' is revised to read ``1834.7004(b)'' and the word
``procurements'' is revised to read ``acquisitions''.
[[Page 4475]]
1852.235-72 [Amended]
20. Section 1852.235-72 is revised to read as follow:
1852.235-72 Instructions for responding to NASA Research
Announcements.
As prescribed in 1835.070(c), insert the following provision:
Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements (January
1997)
(a) General.
(1) Proposals received in response to a NASA Research
Announcement (NRA) will be used only for evaluation purposes. NASA
does not allow a proposal, the contents of which are not available
without restriction from another source, or any unique ideas
submitted in response to an NRA to be used as the basis of a
solicitation or in negotiation with other organizations, nor is a
pre-award synopsis published for individual proposals.
(2) A solicited proposal that results in a NASA award becomes
part of the record of that transaction and may be available to the
public on specific request; however, information or material that
NASA and the awardee mutually agree to be of a privileged nature
will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, including
the Freedom of Information Act.
(3) NRAs contain programmatic information and certain
requirements which apply only to proposals prepared in response to
that particular announcement. These instructions contain the general
proposal preparation information which applies to responses to all
NRAs.
(4) A contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement
may be used to accomplish an effort funded in response to an NRA.
NASA will determine the appropriate instrument. Contracts resulting
from NRAs are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the
NASA FAR Supplement. Any resultant grants or cooperative agreements
will be awarded and administered in accordance with the NASA Grant
and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (NPG 5800.1).
(5) NASA does not have mandatory forms or formats for responses
to NRAs; however, it is requested that proposals conform to the
guidelines in these instructions. NASA may accept proposals without
discussion; hence, proposals should initially be as complete as
possible and be submitted on the proposers' most favorable terms.
(6) To be considered for award, a submission must, at a minimum,
present a specific project within the areas delineated by the NRA;
contain sufficient technical and cost information to permit a
meaningful evaluation; be signed by an official authorized to
legally bind the submitting organization; not merely offer to
perform standard services or to just provide computer facilities or
services; and not significantly duplicate a more specific current or
pending NASA solicitation.
(b) NRA-Specific Items. Several proposal submission items appear
in the NRA itself: the unique NRA identifier; when to submit
proposals; where to send proposals; number of copies required; and
sources for more information. Items included in these instructions
may be supplemented by the NRA.
(c) The following information is needed to permit consideration
in an objective manner. NRAs will generally specify topics for which
additional information or greater detail is desirable. Each proposal
copy shall contain all submitted material, including a copy of the
transmittal letter if it contains substantive information.
(1) Transmittal Letter or Prefatory Material.
(i) The legal name and address of the organization and specific
division or campus identification if part of a larger organization;
(ii) A brief, scientifically valid project title intelligible to
a scientifically literate reader and suitable for use in the public
press;
(iii) Type of organization: e.g., profit, nonprofit,
educational, small business, minority, women-owned, etc;
(iv) Name and telephone number of the principal investigator and
business personnel who may be contacted during evaluation or
negotiation;
(v) Identification of other organizations that are currently
evaluating a proposal for the same efforts;
(vi) Identification of the NRA, by number and title, to which
the proposal is responding;
(vii) Dollar amount requested, desired starting date, and
duration of project;
(viii) Date of submission; and
(ix) Signature of a responsible official or authorized
representative of the organization, or any other person authorized
to legally bind the organization (unless the signature appears on
the proposal itself).
(2) Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal Information.
Information contained in proposals is used for evaluation purposes
only. Offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of
trade secrets or other information that is confidential or
privileged, place the following notice on the title page of the
proposal and specify the information subject to the notice by
inserting an appropriate identification in the notice. In any event,
information contained in proposals will be protected to the extent
permitted by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and
disclosure of information not made subject to the notice.
Notice--Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal Information
The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or
other identification] of this proposal constitutes a trade secret
and/or information that is commercial or financial and confidential
or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in confidence with
the understanding that it will not, without permission of the
offeror, be used or disclosed other than for evaluation purposes;
provided, however, that in the event a contract (or other agreement)
is awarded on the basis of this proposal the Government shall have
the right to use and disclose this information (data) to the extent
provided in the contract (or other agreement). This restriction does
not limit the Government's right to use or disclose this information
(data0 if obtained from another source without restriction.
(3) Abstract. Include a concise (200-300 word if not otherwise
specified in the NRA) abstract describing the objective and the
method of approach.
(4) Project Description.
(i) The main body of the proposal shall be a detailed statement
of the work to be undertaken and should include objectives and
expected significance; relation to the present state of knowledge;
and relation to previous work done on the project and to related
work in progress elsewhere. The statement should outline the plan of
work, including the broad design of experiments to be undertaken and
a description of experimental methods and procedures. The project
description should address the evaluation factors in these
instructions and any specific factors in the NRA. Any substantial
collaboration with individuals not referred to in the budget or use
of consultants should be described. Subcontracting significant
portions of a research project is discouraged.
(ii) When it is expected that the effort will require more than
one year, the proposal should cover the complete project to the
extent that it can be reasonably anticipated. Principal emphasis
should be on the first year of work, and the description should
distinguish clearly between the first year's work and work planned
for subsequent years.
(5) Management Approach. For large or complex efforts involving
interactions among numerous individuals or other organizations,
plans for distribution of responsibilities and arrangements for
ensuring a coordinated effort should be described.
(6) Personnel. The principal investigator is responsible for
supervision of the work and participates in the conduct of the
research regardless of whether or not compensated under the award. A
short biographical sketch of the principal investigator, a list of
principal publications and any exceptional qualifications should be
included. Omit social security number and other personal items which
do not merit consideration in evaluation of the proposal. Give
similar biographical information on other senior professional
personnel who will be directly associated with the project. Give the
names and titles of any other scientists and technical personnel
associated substantially with the project in an advisory capacity.
Universities should list the approximate number of students or other
assistants, together with information as to their level of academic
attainment. Any special industry-university cooperative arrangements
should be described.
(7) Facilities and Equipment.
(i) Describe available facilities and major items of equipment
especially adapted or suited to the proposed project, and any
additional major equipment that will be required. Identify any
Government-owned facilities, industrial plant equipment, or special
tooling that are proposed for use. Include evidence of its
availability and the cognizant Government points of contact.
(ii) Before requesting a major item of capital equipment, the
proposer should determine if sharing or loan of equipment already
within the organization is a feasible alternative. Where such
arrangements cannot be made, the proposal should so state. The need
for items that typically can be used for
[[Page 4476]]
research and non-research purposes should be explained.
(8) Proposed Costs
(i) Proposals should contain cost and technical parts in one
volume: do not use separate ``confidential'' salary pages. As
applicable, include separate cost estimates for salaries and wages;
fringe benefits; equipment; expendable materials and supplies;
services; domestic and foreign travel; ADP expenses; publication or
page charges; consultants; subcontracts; other miscellaneous
identifiable direct costs; and indirect costs. List salaries and
wages in appropriate organizational categories (e.g., principal
investigator, other scientific and engineering professionals,
graduate students, research assistants, and technicians and other
non-professional personnel). Estimate all staffing data in terms of
staff-months or fractions of full-time.
(ii) Explanatory notes should accompany the cost proposal to
provide identification and estimated cost of major capital equipment
items to be acquired; purpose and estimated number and lengths of
trips planned; basis for indirect cost computation (including date
of most recent negotiation and cognizant agency); and clarification
of other items in the cost proposal that are not self-evident. List
estimated expenses as yearly requirements by major work phases.
(iii) Allowable costs are governed by FAR Part 31 and the NASA
FAR Supplement Part 1831 (and OMB Circulars A-21 for educational
institutions and A-122 for nonprofit organizations).
(9) Security. Proposals should not contain security classified
material. If the research requires access to or may generate
security classified information, the submitter will be required to
comply with Government security regulations.
(10) Current Support. For other current projects being conducted
by the principal investigator, provide title of project, sponsoring
agency, and ending date.
(11) Special Matters.
(i) Include any required statements of environmental impact of
the research, human subject or animal care provisions, conflict of
interest, or on such other topics as may be required by the nature
of the effort and current statutes, executive orders, or other
current Government-wide guidelines.
(ii) Proposers should include a brief description of the
organization, its facilities, and previous work experience in the
field of the proposal. Identify the cognizant Government audit
agency, inspection agency, and administrative contracting officer,
when applicable.
(d) Renewal Proposals.
(1) Renewal proposals for existing awards will be considered in
the same manner as proposals for new endeavors. A renewal proposal
should not repeat all of the information that was in the original
proposal. The renewal proposal should refer to its predecessor,
update the parts that are no longer current, and indicate what
elements of the research are expected to be covered during the
period for which support is desired. A description of any
significant findings since the most recent progress report should be
included. The renewal proposal should treat, in reasonable detail,
the plans for the next period, contain a cost estimate, and
otherwise adhere to these instructions.
(2) NASA may renew an effort either through amendment of an
existing contract or by a new award.
(e) Length. Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, effort should
be made to keep proposals as brief as possible, concentrating on
substantive material. Few proposals need exceed 15-20 pages.
Necessary detailed information, such as reprints, should be included
as attachments. A complete set of attachments is necessary for each
copy of the proposal. As proposals are not returned, avoid use of
``one-of-a-kind'' attachments.
(f) Joint Proposals.
(1) Where multiple organizations are involved, the proposal may
be submitted by only one of them. It should clearly describe the
role to be played by the other organizations and indicate the legal
and managerial arrangements contemplated. In other instances,
simultaneous submission of related proposals from each organization
might be appropriate, in which case parallel awards would be made.
(2) Where a project of a cooperative nature with NASA is
contemplated, describe the contributions expected from any
participating NASA investigator and agency facilities or equipment
which may be required. The proposal must be confined only to that
which the proposing organization can commit itself. ``Joint''
proposals which specify the internal arrangements NASA will actually
make are not acceptable as a means of establishing an agency
commitment.
(g) Late Proposals. A proposal or modification received after
the date or dates specified in an NRA may be considered if doing so
is in the best interests of the Government.
(h) Withdrawal. Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at
any time before award. Offerors are requested to notify NASA if the
proposal is funded by another organization or of other changed
circumstances which dictate termination of evaluation.
(i) Evaluation Factors
(1) Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, the principal
elements (of approximately equal weight) considered in evaluating a
proposal are its relevance to NASA's objectives, intrinsic merit,
and cost.
(2) Evaluation of a proposal's relevance to NASA's objectives
includes the consideration of the potential contribution of the
effort to NASA's mission.
(3) Evaluation of its intrinsic merit includes the consideration
of the following factors of equal importance:
(i) Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal or
unique and innovative methods, approaches, or concepts demonstrated
by the proposal.
(ii) Offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities,
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral
factors for achieving the proposal objectives.
(iii) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the
proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel
critical in achieving the proposal objectives.
(iv) Overall standing among similar proposals and/or evaluation
against the state-of-the-art.
(4) Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort may include the
realism and reasonableness of the proposed cost and available funds.
(j) Evaluation Techniques. Selection decisions will be made
following peer and/or scientific review of the proposals. Several
evaluation techniques are regularly used within NASA. In all cases
proposals are subject to scientific review by discipline specialists
in the area of the proposal. Some proposals are reviewed entirely
in-house, others are evaluated by a combination of in-house and
selected external reviewers, while yet others are subject to the
full external peer review technique (with due regard for conflict-
of-interest and protection of proposal information), such as by mail
or through assembled panels. The final decisions are made by a NASA
selecting official. A proposal which is scientifically and
programmatically meritorious, but not selected for award during its
initial review, may be included in subsequent reviews unless the
proposer requests otherwise.
(k) Selection for Award.
(1) When a proposal is not selected for award, the proposer will
be notified. NASA will explain generally why the proposal was not
selected. Proposers desiring additional information may contact the
selecting official who will arrange a debriefing.
(2) When a proposal is selected for award, negotiation and award
will be handled by the procurement office in the funding
installation. The proposal is used as the basis for negotiation. The
contracting officer may request certain business data and may
forward a model award instrument and other information pertinent to
negotiation.
(l) Cancellation of NRA. NASA reserves the right to make no
awards under this NRA and to cancel this NRA. NASA assumes no
liability for canceling the NRA or for anyone's failure to receive
actual notice of cancellation.
1852.236-71 [Amended]
21. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-71, the citation
``1836.370(a)'' is revised to read ``1836.570(a)''.
1852.236-72 [Amended]
22. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-72, the citation
``1836.370(b)'' is revised to read ``1836.570(b)''.
1852.236-73 [Amended]
23. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-73, the citation
``1836.570-1'' is revised to read ``1836.570(c)''.
1852.236-74 [Amended]
24. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-74, the citation
``1836.570-2'' is revised to read ``1836.570(d)''.
1852.237-70 [Amended]
25. In the introductory text to section 1852.237-70, the citation
``1837.110-70'' is revised to read ``1837.110-70(a)''.
[[Page 4477]]
1852.237-71, 1852.237-72 [Amended]
26. Sections 1852.237-71 and 1852.237-72 are revised to read as
follows:
1852.237-71 Pension Portability.
As prescribed at 1837.110-70(b), insert the following clause:
Pension Portability, January 1997
(a) In order for pension costs attributable to employees
assigned to this contract to be allowable costs under this contract,
the plans covering such employees must:
(1) Comply with all applicable Government laws and regulations;
(2) Be a defined contribution plan, or a multiparty defined
benefit plan operated under a collective bargaining agreement. In
either case, the plan must be portable, i.e., the plan follows the
employee, not the employer;
(3) Provide for 100 percent employee vesting at the earlier of
one year of continuous employee service or contract termination; and
(4) Not be modified, terminated, or a new plan adopted without
the prior written approval of the cognizant NASA Contracting
Officer.
(b) The Contractor shall include paragraph (a) of this clause in
subcontracts for continuing services under a service contract if:
(1) The prime contract requires pension portability;
(2) The subcontracted labor dollars (excluding any burdens or
profit/fee) exceed $2,500,000 and ten percent of the total prime
contract labor dollars (excluding any burdens or profit/fee); and
(3) Either of the following conditions exists:
(i) There is a continuing need for the same or similar
subcontract services for a minimum of five years (inclusive of
options), and if the subcontractor changes, a high percentage of the
predecessor subcontractor's employees are expected to remain with
the program; or
(ii) The employees under a predecessor subcontract were covered
by a portable pension plan, a follow-on subcontract or a subcontract
consolidating existing services is awarded, and the total
subcontract period covered by the plan covers a minimum of five
years (including both the predecessor and successor subcontracts).
(End of clause)
1852.237-72 Identification of Uncompensated Overtime.
As prescribed in 1837.110-70(c), insert the following provision:
Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, January 1997
The use of uncompensated overtime is neither encouraged nor
discouraged. When the proposed uncompensated overtime is consistent
with an officer's written policies and practices, NASA will consider
it in proposal evaluation, including the evaluation of cost and of
professional compensation.
(a) Definitions. As used in this provision:
``Uncompensated overtime'' means the hours worked in excess of
an average of 40 hours per week, by direct charge employees who are
exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) without additional
compensation. Compensated personal absences, such as holidays,
vacations, and sick leave shall be included in the normal work week
for purposes of computing uncompensated overtime hours.
``Effective hourly rate'' is the rate that results from
multiplying the hourly rate for a 40-hour work week by 40, and then
dividing by the proposed hours per week. For example, 45 hours
proposed on a 40-hour work seek basis at $20.00 per hour would be
converted to an effective hourly rate of $17.78 per hour
[($20.00 x 40) divided by 45=$17.78].
(b) For any hours proposed against which an effective hourly
rate is applied, the Offeror shall identify in its proposal the
hours in excess of an average of 40 hours per week, at the same
level of detail as compensated hours, and the effective hourly rate,
whether at the prime or subcontract level. This includes
uncompensated overtime hours that are in indirect cost pools for
personnel whose regular hours are normally charged direct. The
proposal shall include the rationale and methodology used to
estimate the proposed amount of uncompensated overtime.
(c) The Offeror's accounting practices used to estimate
uncompensated overtime must be consistent with its cost accounting
practices used to accumulate and report uncompensated overtime
hours.
(d) The Offeror shall include with its proposal a copy of its
policy addressing uncompensated overtime, a description of the
timekeeping and accounting systems used to record all hours worked
by FLSA-exempt employees, and the historical basis for the
uncompensated overtime hours proposed.
(End of provision)
1852.239-70 [Amended]
27. In the introductory text to section 1852.239-70, the citation
``1839.7008(a)'' is revised to read ``1836.106(a)(1)''.
28. In the introductory text to Alternate I of section 1852.239-70,
the citation ``1839.7008(b)'' is revised to read ``1839.106-70(a)(2)''.
1852.241-70 [Amended]
29. In the introductory text to section 1852.241-70, the citation
``1841.501(b)'' is revised to read ``1841.501-70''.
PART 1870--NASA SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
Subpart 1870.2--[Removed]
30. Subpart 1870.2 is removed.
Subpart 1870.5--[Removed]
31. Subpart 1870.5 is removed.
PART 1871--MIDDRANGE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
1871.406-1 [Amended]
32. In section 1871.401-6, paragraph (a)(2) is revised and a new
paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:
1871.401-6 Commercial Items.
(a) * * *
(2) MidRange procedures shall also be used, to the extent
applicable, for commercial item acquisitions accomplished under FAR
subpart 13.6, Test Program for Certain Commercial Items.
(3) Contract type shall be in accordance with FAR 12.207.
PART 1872--[ADDED]
33. Part 1872 is added to read as follows:
PART 1872--ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS
Sec.
1872.000 Scope of part.
Subpart 1872.1--The Investigation Acquisition System
1872.101 General.
1872.102 Key features of the system.
1872.103 Management responsibilities.
Subpart 1872.2--Applicability of the Process
1872.201 General.
1872.202 Criteria for determining applicability.
1872.203 Applicable programs and activities.
1872.204 Approval.
Subpart 1872.3--The Announcement of Opportunity
1872.301 General.
1872.302 Preparatory effort.
1872.303 Responsibilities.
1872.304 Proposal opportunity period.
1872.305 Guidelines for announcement of opportunity.
1872.306 Announcement of opportunity soliciting foreign
participation.
1872.307 Guidelines for proposal preparation.
Subpart 1872.4--Evaluation of Proposals
1872.401 General.
1872.402 Criteria for evaluation.
1872.403 Methods of evaluation.
1872.403-1 Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.
1872.403-2 Contractor evaluation process.
1872.403-3 Government evaluation process.
1872.404 Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.
1872.405 Program office evaluation.
1872.406 Steering committee review.
1872.407 Principles to apply.
[[Page 4478]]
Subpart 1872.5--The Selection Process
1872.501 General.
1872.502 Decisions to be made.
1872.503 The selection statement.
1872.504 Notification of proposers.
1872.505 Debriefing.
Subpart 1872.6--Payload Formulation
1872.601 Payload formulation.
Subpart 1872.7--Acquisition and Other Considerations
1872.701 Early involvement essential.
1872.702 Negotiation, discussions and contract award.
1872.703 Applications of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
and the NASA FAR Supplement.
1872.704 Other administrative and functional requirements.
1872.705 Format of announcement of opportunity.
1872.705-1 Appendix A: General instructions and provisions.
1872.705-2 Appendix B: Guidelines for proposal preparation.
1872.705-3 Appendix C: Glossary of terms and abbreviations
associated with investigations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
1872.000 Scope of part.
This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of
investigations.
Subpart 1872.1--The Investigation Acquisition System
1872.101 General.
The investigation acquisition system encourages the participation
of investigators and the selection of investigations which contribute
most effectively to the advancement of NASA's scientific and
technological objectives. It is a system separate from the acquisition
process, but requiring the same management and discipline to assure
compliance with statutory requirements and considerations of equity.
1872.102 Key features of the system.
(a)(1) Use of the system commences with a Program Associate
Administrator's determination that the investigation acquisition
process is appropriate for a program. An Announcement of Opportunity
(AO) is disseminated to the interested scientific and technical
communities. This solicitation does not specify the investigations to
be proposed but solicits investigative ideas which contribute to broad
objectives. In order to determine which of the proposals should be
selected, a formal competitive evaluation process is utilized. The
evaluation for merit is normally made by experts in the fields
represented by the proposals. Care should be taken to avoid conflicts
of interest. These evaluators may be from NASA, other Government
agencies, universities, or the commercial sector. Along with or
subsequent to the evaluation for merit, the other factors of the
proposals, such as engineering, cost, and integration aspects, are
reviewed by specialists in those areas. The evaluation conclusions as
well as considerations of budget and other factors are used to
formulate a complement of recommended investigations. A steering
committee serving as staff to the Program Associate Administrator
(Program AA), or designee when source selection authority is delegated,
reviews the proposed payload or program of investigation, the iterative
process, and the selection recommendations. The steering committee
serves as a forum where different interests, such as flight program,
discipline management, and administration, can be weighed.
(2) The Program AA, or designee, selects the proposals that will
participate in the program. Once selected, an investigator is assigned
appropriate responsibilities relating to the investigation through a
contract with the institution. For foreign investigators, these
responsibilities will usually be outlined in an agreement between NASA
and the sponsoring governmental agency in the investigator's country.
(b) The AO process provides a disciplined approach to investigation
acquisition. The following major steps must be followed in each case:
(1) The AO shall be signed by the Program AA and shall be widely
distributed to the scientific, technological, and applications user
communities, as appropriate.
(2) An evaluation team shall be formed including recognized peers
of the investigators.
(3) A project office will be assigned to assess the engineering,
cost, integration, and management aspects of the proposals.
(4) A program office will be responsible to formulate a complement
of investigations consistent with the objectives stated in the AO,
cost, and schedule constraints.
(5) A steering committee appointed by the appropriate Program AA
shall review the proposed investigations for relevance and merit, will
assure compliance with the system as described in this Handbook, and
make selection recommendations.
(6) The Source Selection Official shall be the Program AA or the
Program AA's designee.
(c) Payloads will be formulated consisting of investigations
selected through the AO process and/or other authorized methods.
1872.103 Management responsibilities.
(a) Program AAs are responsible for overseeing the process and for
making key decisions essential to the process including:
(1) Determination to use the investigation acquisition system.
(2) Appointment of the steering committee members.
(3) Designation of a staff to assure uniformity in the issuance of
the AO and conformity with the required procedures in the evaluation
and selection.
(4) Reuse, to the maximum extent practicable, of space hardware and
support equipment.
(5) Determination to use advisory subcommittees, contractor, or
full-time Government employees only in the evaluation process.
(6) Issuance of the AO.
(7) Selection of investigations and investigators, determination of
need of a definition phase, determination of the role of the
investigator with regard to providing essential investigation hardware
and services, and determination of the need for payload specialists.
(8) Assure consideration is given to minorities in the
establishment of peer groups, distribution of the AO and in the
selection of investigations.
(9) Provide a framework for cooperative foreign participation in
Space Shuttle, Spacelab, and Space Station missions.
(b) The Program AA should call upon any required experts throughout
the process.
Subpart 1872.2--Applicability of the Process
1872.201 General.
The system used for acquisition of investigations is separate from
the agency procedures for acquisition of known requirements. A decision
to use this special acquisition process will be based on a
determination that it is the most suitable to meet program needs. The
decision-making official will consider the criteria for use of the
system. The project plan or other documentation should discuss the
proposed mode of investigations selection.
[[Page 4479]]
1872.202 Criteria for determining applicability.
(a) The decision to use the investigations acquisition process as
an alternative to the normal planning and acquisition process can only
be made after consideration of the conditions which require its use.
All of the following conditions should exist before deciding that the
system is applicable:
(1) NASA has a general objective which can be furthered through
novel experimental approaches. To develop such approaches, NASA wishes
to draw upon the broadest possible reservoir of ideas.
(2) Choices must be made among competing ideas in expanding
knowledge.
(3) Individual participation of an investigator is essential to
exploitation of the opportunity.
(b) The investigations acquisition process shall not be used when
any of the following characteristics are present:
(1) The requiring office can define a requirement sufficiently to
allow for normal acquisition.
(2) The program is extremely complex, requiring specialized
integration, coordination, or other special handling, or extending over
a lengthy period wherein individual participation is not essential.
1872.203 Applicable programs and activities.
The investigation acquisition process is most suitable for
investigations aimed at exploration requiring several unique sensors or
instruments, but it has been used successfully in the following types
of activities:
(a) Exploration and space research flights. (1) Examples include
Space Transportation System (STS) flights with attached payloads,
generally Spacelab payloads; and free-flying spacecraft, such as
Explorers, Pioneers, Space Telescope, Landsats, and Long Duration
Exposure Facilities.
(2) Types of opportunity include:
(i) Participation as a Principal Investigator (PI) responsible for
conceiving and conducting a space investigation (This may involve a
major piece of instrumentation. In the case of a ``facility'' or
``multiuser'' payload, each PI's responsibilities would ordinarily
involve a relatively minor portion of the total instrument.);
(ii) An opportunity to serve on a PI's team as a member or Co-
Investigator;
(iii) An opportunity that generally involves the use of data from
another investigator's instrument as a guest investigator or guest
observer (Guest investigators usually participate after the primary
objectives have been satisfied for the investigations involved.); and
(iv) A team formed from selected investigators to assist in
defining planned mission objectives and/or to determine, in a general
manner, the most meaningful instruments to accomplish the mission
objectives.
(3) The investigation acquisition process may be applicable to all
types of opportunities. The supposition common in these opportunities
is that the best ideas and approaches are likely to result from the
broadest possible involvement of the scientific, technological or
applications user communities.
(b) Minor missions. (1) Examples include research aircraft,
sounding rockets, balloons, and minor missions that are generally of
short duration, small in size, often single purpose, and subject to
repetition. Many investigations are follow-on to past-flight
investigations.
(2) Types of opportunity include:
(i) PIs responsible for investigation; and
(ii) Data use or analysis.
(3) Opportunities for participation on minor missions are generally
suitable for normal acquisition procedures. The use of an announcement
describing the general nature and schedule of flights may be
appropriate when considered necessary to broaden participation by
requesting investigator-initiated research proposals. Normal
acquisition procedures shall be used for follow-on repeat flights.
Although NASA seeks unique, innovative ideas for these missions, the
prospect of reflight and the latitude in determining number and
schedule of flights argue against the need for the use of the
investigations acquisition process to force dissimilar proposals into
an annual or periodic competitive structure. On the other hand, there
are some minor missions addressed to specific limited opportunities;
for example, a solar eclipse. When such limitations indicate that the
special competitive structure is needed, it should be authorized.
(c) Operational and operational prototype spacecraft. (1) Examples
include spacecraft built for NASA and other agencys' missions.
(2) The user agency can be expected to specify performance
parameters. Payload definition will be the responsibility of the user
agency and NASA. Specifications sufficient for normal acquisition
procedures can be produced. Use of data from the mission is the
responsibility of the user agency. Thus, the investigation acquisition
process is not required.
(d) Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T). (1) Examples include
studies, minor developments, instrument conceptualization, ground-based
observations, laboratory and theoretical supporting research, and data
reduction and analysis which is unconstrained by a specific
opportunity.
(2) Programs in these areas tend to go forward on a continuing
basis, rather than exploiting unique opportunities. Normal acquisition
procedures should be used. A general announcement of area of interest
could be made when greater participation is deemed advisable.
1872.204 Approval.
The Program AA is responsible for determining whether or not to use
the investigations acquisition process. Normally on major projects, or
when a project plan is required, use of the investigation acquisition
system will be justified and recommended in the project planning
documentation and will be coordinated with staff offices and discussed
in the planning presentation to the Deputy Administrator or designee.
Subpart 1872.3--The Announcement of Opportunity
1872.301 General.
An announcement of opportunity (AO) is characterized by its
generality. However, it is essential that the AO contains sufficient
data in order to obtain meaningful proposals. To a considerable extent,
the detail and depth of the AO will depend on the objective. The
purpose is to get adequate information to assess the relevance, merit,
cost, and management requirements without overburdening the proposer.
1872.302 Preparatory effort.
(a) Headquarters offices and the responsible project installation
must consult prior to release of the AO.
(b) The program office shall:
(1) Synopsize the AO in the Commerce Business Daily prior to the
time of release;
(2) Determine if there is instrumentation or support equipment
available which may be appropriate to the AO with all necessary
background data considered essential for use by a proposer;
(3) Determine mailing lists, including the mailing list maintained
by the International Affairs Division, Office of External Relations,
for broad dissemination of the AO; and
(4) Assure mandatory provisions are contained in the AO.
[[Page 4480]]
(c) Other methods of dissemination of the AO may also be used, such
as the use of press releases, etc. When possible, the AO should be
widely publicized through publications of appropriate professional
societies; however, NASA policy does not allow payment for the
placement of advertisements.
1872.303 Responsibilities.
(a) The program office originator is responsible for the content of
the AO and coordination with concerned Headquarters offices and field
installations. All personnel involved in the evaluation of proposals
are responsible for familiarizing themselves and complying with this
part and other applicable regulations. To this end, they are expected
to seek the advice and guidance of appropriate Headquarters program and
staff offices, and Project Installation management.
(b) The Program Office is also responsible for coordinating the AO
with the International Affairs, Educational Affairs, Management Support
Divisions, Office of External Relations, Office of General Counsel, and
Office of Acquisition prior to issuance (see NMI 1362.1, Initiation and
Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautical
Programs).
(c) Concurrence of the Office of Acquisition is required before
issuance of an AO.
1872.304 Proposal opportunity period.
(a) The AO must accommodate to the maximum extent practicable
opportunities afforded by the Shuttle/Spacelab flights. The following
methods may be used to enable an AO to be open for an extended period
of time and/or to cover a series or range of flight possibilities or
disciplines:
(1) The AO may be issued establishing a number of proposal
submission dates. Normally, no more than three proposal submission
dates should be established. The submittal dates may be spread over the
number of months most compatible with the possible flight opportunities
and the availability of resources necessary to evaluate and fund the
proposals.
(2) The AO may be issued establishing a single proposal submission
date. However, the AO could provide that NASA amend the AO to provide
for subsequent dates for submission of proposals, if additional
investigations are desired within the AO objectives.
(3) The AO may provide for an initial submission date with the AO
to remain open for submission of additional proposals up to a final
cutoff date. This final date should be related to the availability of
resources necessary to evaluate the continuous flow of proposals, the
time remaining prior to the flight opportunity(s) contemplated by the
AO, and payload funding and availability.
(b) Generally, a core payload of investigations would be selected
from the initial submission of proposals under the above methods of
open-ended AOs. These selections could be final or tentative
recognizing the need for further definition. Proposals received by
subsequent submission dates would be considered in the scope of the
original AO but would be subject to the opportunities and resources
remaining available or the progress being made by prior selected
investigations.
(c) Any proposal, whether received on the initial submission or
subsequent submission, requires notification to the investigator and
the investigator's institution of the proposal disposition. Some of the
proposals will be rejected completely and the investigators immediately
notified. The remaining unselected proposals may, if agreeable with the
proposers, be held for later consideration and funding and the
investigator so notified. However, if an investigator's proposal is
considered at a later date, the investigator must be given an
opportunity to validate the proposal with the investigator's
institution and for updating the cost and other data contained in the
original submission prior to a final selection. In summary, NASA may
retain proposals, receiving Category I, II, or III classifications (see
1872.403-1(e)), for possible later sponsorship until no longer feasible
to consider the proposal. When this final stage is reached, the
investigator must be promptly notified. Proposing investigators not
desiring their proposals be held for later consideration should be
given the opportunity to so indicate in their original submissions.
1872.305 Guidelines for Announcement of Opportunity.
(a) The AO should be tailored to the particular needs of the
contemplated investigations and be complete in itself. Each AO will
identify the originating program office and be numbered consecutively
by calendar year, e.g., OA-1-95, OA-2-95; OLMSA-1-95; OSS-1-95; etc.
The required format and detailed instructions regarding the contents of
the AO are contained in 1872.705.
(b) The General Instructions and Provisions, Appendix A (see
1872.705-1) are necessary to accommodate the unique aspects of the AO
process. Therefore, they must be appended to each AO.
(c) At the time of issuance, copies of the AO must be furnished to
Headquarters, Office of Acquisition (Code HS) and Office of General
Counsel (Code GK).
(d) Proposers should be informed of significant departures from
scheduled dates for activities related in the AO.
1872.306 Announcement of Opportunity soliciting foreign participation.
Proposals for participation by individuals outside the U.S. shall
be submitted in the same format (excluding cost plans) as U.S.
proposals, typewritten in English, and reviewed and endorsed by the
appropriate foreign governmental agency. If letters of ``Notice of
Intent'' are required, the AO should indicate that they be sent to
Headquarters, Office of External Relations, International Relations
Division (Code IR). Should a foreign proposal be selected, NASA will
arrange with the sponsoring foreign agency for the proposed
participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the
sponsoring agency will each bear the cost of discharging its respective
responsibilities. Note that additional guidelines applicable to foreign
proposers are contained in the Management Plan Section of Appendix B
(see 1872.705-2) and must be included in any Guidelines for Proposal
Preparation or otherwise furnished to foreign proposers.
1872.307 Guidelines for proposal preparation.
While not all of the guidelines outlined in Appendix B will be
applicable in response to every AO, the investigator should be informed
of the relevant information required. The proposal may be submitted on
a form supplied by the Program Office. However, the proposal should be
submitted in at least two sections:
(a) Investigation and Technical Section; and (b) Management and
Cost Section as described in Appendix B.
Subpart 1872.4--Evaluation of Proposals
1872.401 General.
(a) The evaluation process considers the aspects of each proposal
by the following progressive sorting:
(1) A review resulting in a categorization is performed by using
one of the methods or combination of the methods outlined in 1872.403.
The purpose of this initial review is to determine the scientific and/
or technological merit of the proposals in the context of the AO
objectives.
[[Page 4481]]
(2) Those proposals which are considered to have the greatest
scientific or technological merit are then reviewed in detail for the
engineering, management, and cost aspects, usually by the project
office at the installation responsible for the project.
(3) Final reviews are performed by the program office and the
steering committee and are aimed at developing a group of
investigations which represent an integrated payload or a well-balanced
program of investigation which has the best possibility for meeting the
AO's objectives within programmatic constraints.
(b) The importance of considering the interrelationship of the
several aspects of the proposals to be reviewed in the process and the
need for carefully planning their treatment should not be overlooked.
An evaluation plan should be developed before issuance of the AO. It
should cover the recommended staffing for any subcommittee or
contractor support, review guidelines as well as the procedural flow
and schedule of the evaluation. While not mandatory, such a plan should
be considered for each AO. A fuller discussion of the evaluation and
selection process is included in the following sections of this
subpart.
1872.402 Criteria for evaluation.
(a) Each AO must indicate those criteria which the evaluators will
apply in evaluating a proposal. The relative importance of each
criterion must also be stated. This information will allow
investigators to make informed judgments in formulating proposals that
best meet the stated objectives.
(b) Following is a list of general evaluation criteria appropriate
for inclusion in most AOs:
(1) The scientific, applications, and/or technological merit of the
investigation.
(2) The relevance of the proposed investigation to the AO's stated
scientific, applications, and/or technological objectives.
(3) The competence and experience of the investigator and any
investigative team.
(4) Adequacy of whatever apparatus may be proposed with particular
regard to its ability to supply the data needed for the investigation.
(5) The reputation and interest of the investigator's institution,
as measured by the willingness of the institution to provide the
support necessary to ensure that the investigation can be completed
satisfactorily.
(6) Cost and management aspects will be considered in all
selections.
(7) Other or additional criteria may be used, but the evaluation
criteria must be germane to the accomplishment of the stated
objectives.
(c) Once the AO is issued, it is essential that the evaluation
criteria be applied in a uniform manner. If it becomes apparent, before
the date set for receipt of proposals, that the criteria or their
relative importance should be changed, the AO will be amended, and all
known recipients will be informed of the change and given an adequate
opportunity to consider it in submission of their proposals. Evaluation
criteria and/or their relative importance will not be changed after the
date set for receipt of proposals.
1872.403 Methods of evaluation.
Alternative methods are available to initiate the evaluation of
proposals received in response to an AO. These are referred to as the
Advisory Subcommittee Evaluation Process, the Contractor Evaluation
Process, and the Government Evaluation Process. In all processes, a
subcommittee of the appropriate Program Office Steering Committee will
be formed to categorize the proposals. Following categorization, those
proposals still in consideration will be processed to the selection
official.
1872.403-1 Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.
(a) Evaluation of scientific and/or technological merit of proposed
investigations is the responsibility of an advisory subcommittee of the
Steering Committee. The subcommittee constitutes a peer group qualified
to judge the scientific and technological aspects of all investigation
proposals. One or more subcommittees may be established depending on
the breadth of the technical or scientific disciplines inherent in the
AO's objectives. Each subcommittee represents a discipline or grouping
of closely related disciplines. To maximize the quality of the
subcommittee evaluation and categorization, the following conditions of
selection and appointment should be considered.
(1) The subcommittee normally should be established on an ad hoc
basis.
(2) Qualifications and acknowledgment of the professional abilities
of the subcommittee members are of primary importance. Institutional
affiliations are not sufficient qualifications.
(3) The executive secretary of the subcommittee must be a full-time
NASA employee.
(4) Subcommittee members should normally be appointed as early as
possible and prior to receipt of proposals.
(5) Care must be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These
include financial interests, institutional affiliations, professional
biases and associations, as well as familiar relationships. Conflicts
could further occur as a result of imbalance between Government and
non-Government appointees or membership from institutions representing
a singular school of thought in discipline areas involving competitive
theories in approach to an investigation.
(6) The subcommittee should convene as a group in closed sessions
for proposal evaluation to protect the proposer's proprietary ideas and
to allow frank discussion of the proposer's qualifications and the
merit of the proposer's ideas. Lead review responsibility for each
proposal may be assigned to members most qualified in the involved
discipline. It is important that each proposal be considered by the
entire subcommittee.
(b) It may not be possible to select a subcommittee fully
satisfying all of the conditions described in paragraph (a) of this
section. It is the responsibility of the nominating and appointing
officials to make trade-offs, where necessary, among the criteria in
paragraph (a) of this section. This latitude permits flexibility in
making decisions in accord with circumstances of each application. In
so doing, however, it is emphasized that recognized expertise in
evaluating dissimilar proposals is essential to the continued
workability of the investigation acquisition process.
(c) Candidate subcommittee members should be nominated by the
office having responsibility for the evaluation. Nominations should be
approved in accordance with NMI 1150.2, ``Establishment, Operation, and
Duration of NASA Advisory Committees.'' The notification of appointment
should specify the duration of assignment on the subcommittee,
provisions concerning conflicts of interest, and arrangements regarding
honoraria, per diem, and travel when actually employed.
(d) It is important that members of the subcommittee be formally
instructed as to their responsibilities with respect to the
investigation acquisition process, even where several or all of the
members have served previously. This briefing of subcommittee members
should include:
(1) Instruction of subcommittee members on agency policies and
procedures pertinent to acquisition of investigations.
[[Page 4482]]
(2) Review of the program goals, AO objectives, and evaluation
criteria, including relative importance, which provide the basis for
evaluation.
(3) Instruction on the use of preliminary proposal evaluation data
furnished by the Installation Project Office. The subcommittee should
examine these data to gain a better understanding of the proposed
investigations, any associated problems, and to consider cost in
relation to the value of the investigations' objectives.
(4) Definition of responsibility of the subcommittee for evaluation
and categorization with respect to scientific and/or technical merit in
accordance with the evaluation criteria.
(5) Instruction for documentation of deliberations and
categorizations of the subcommittee.
(6) Inform the chairperson of the subcommittee and all members that
they should familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Standards
of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR part
2635, and the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for employees
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 5 CFR part 6901,
regarding conflicts of interest. Members should inform the appointing
authority if their participation presents a real or apparent conflict
of interest situation. In addition, all participants should inform the
selection official in the event they are subjected to pressure or
improper contacts.
(7) Inform members that prior to the selection and announcement of
the successful investigators and investigations, subcommittee members
and NASA personnel shall not reveal any information concerning the
evaluation to anyone who is not also participating in the same
evaluation proceedings, and then only to the extent that such
information is required in connection with such proceedings. Also,
inform members that subsequent to selection of an investigation and
announcement of negotiations with the investigator's institution,
information concerning the proceedings of the subcommittee and data
developed by the subcommittee will be made available to others within
NASA only when the requestor demonstrates a need to know for a NASA
purpose. Such information will be made available to persons outside
NASA including other Government agencies, only when such disclosure is
concurred in by the Office of General Counsel. In this connection,
reference is made to 18 U.S.C. 1905 which provides criminal sanctions
if any officer or employee (including special employees) of the United
States discloses or divulges certain kinds of business confidential and
trade secret information unless authorized by law.
(e) The product of an advisory subcommittee is the classification
of proposals into four categories. The categories are:
(1) Category I--Well conceived and scientifically and technically
sound investigations pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO's
objectives and offered by a competent investigator from an institution
capable of supplying the necessary support to ensure that any essential
flight hardware or other support can be delivered on time and that data
can be properly reduced, analyzed, interpreted, and published in a
reasonable time. Investigations in Category I are recommended for
acceptance and normally will be displaced only by other Category I
investigations.
(2) Category II--Well conceived and scientifically or technically
sound investigations which are recommended for acceptance, but at a
lower priority than Category I.
(3) Category III--Scientifically and technically sound
investigations which require further development. Category III
investigations may be funded for development and may be reconsidered at
a later time for the same or other opportunities.
(4) Category IV--Proposed investigations which are recommended for
rejection for the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever
the reason.
(f) A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee shall be
prepared by the assigned executive secretary and shall be signed by the
Chairperson. The minutes shall contain the categorizations with basic
rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and weaknesses
of the proposals evaluated.
1872.403-2 Contractor evaluation process.
(a) The use of the contractor method for obtaining support for
evaluation purposes of proposals received in response to an AO requires
the approval of the Program AA. Prior to the use of this method,
discussion should be held with the Office of Acquisition.
(b) It is NASA policy to avoid situations in the acquisition
process where, by virtue of the work or services performed for NASA, or
as a result of data acquired from NASA or from other entities, a
particular company:
(1) Is given an unfair competitive advantage over other companies
with respect to future NASA business;
(2) Is placed in position to affect Government actions under
circumstances in which there is potential that the company's judgment
may be biased; or
(3) Otherwise finds that a conflict exists between the performance
of work or services for the Government in an impartial manner and the
company's own self-interest.
(c) To reduce the possibility of an organizational conflict of
interest problem arising, the following minimum restrictions will be
incorporated into the contract:
(1) No employee of the contractor will be permitted to propose in
response to the AO;
(2) The ``Limitation on Future Contracting'' clause contained in
1852.209-71 and the conditions set forth in 1815.413-2 Alternate II
will be included in all such contracts; and
(3) Unless authorized by the NASA contracting officer, the
contractor shall not contact the originator of any proposal concerning
its contents.
(d) The scope of work for the selected contractor will provide for
an identification of strengths and weaknesses and a summary of the
proposals. The contractor will not make selections nor recommend
investigations.
(e) The steps to be taken in establishing evaluation panels and the
responsibilities of NASA and the contractor in relation to the panels
will be as follows:
(1) The contractor will be required to establish and provide
support to panels of experts for review of proposals to evaluate their
scientific and technical merit;
(2) These panels will be composed of scientists and specialists
qualified to evaluate the proposals;
(3) The agency may provide to the contractor lists of scientist(s)
and specialist(s) in the various disciplines it believes are qualified
to serve on the panels;
(4) The contractor will report each panel's membership to NASA for
approval; and
(5) The contractor must make all the necessary arrangements with
the panel members.
(f) The evaluation support by the contractor's panels of experts
will be accomplished as follows:
(1) The panels will review the scientific and technical merit of
the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the AO and
will record their strengths and weaknesses;
(2) The contractor will make records of each panel's deliberations
which will form the basis for a report summarizing the results of the
evaluations. Upon
[[Page 4483]]
request, the contractor shall provide all such records to NASA;
(3) The chairperson of each panel shall certify that the evaluation
report correctly represents the findings of the review panel; and
(4) A final report will be submitted as provided in the contract.
(g) A subcommittee of the Program Office Steering Committee will be
established on an ad hoc basis. Utilizing furnished data, the
subcommittee will classify the proposals into the four categories
enumerated in 1872.403-1(e)(1), Advisory Subcommittee Evaluation
Process. A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee should be
prepared by an assigned executive secretary and signed by the
chairperson. The minutes should contain the categorizations with the
basic rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and
weaknesses of the proposals evaluated.
1872.403-3 Government evaluation process.
(a) The Program AA may, in accordance with NMI 1150.2, appoint one
or more full-time Government employees as subcommittee members of the
Program Office Steering Committee to evaluate and categorize the
proposals.
(b) Each subcommittee member should be qualified and competent to
evaluate the proposals in accordance with the AO evaluation criteria.
It is important that a subcommittee's evaluation not be influenced by
others either within or outside of NASA.
(c) The subcommittee members will not contact the proposers for
additional information.
(d) The subcommittee members will classify the proposals in
accordance with the four categories indicated in 1872.403-1(e)(1). Each
categorization will be supported by an appropriate rationale including
a narrative of each proposal's strengths and weaknesses.
1872.404 Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.
(a) The subcommittee responsible for categorization of each
proposal in terms of its scientific applications, or technical merit
should receive information on probable cost, technical status,
developmental risk, integration and safety problems, and management
arrangements in time for their deliberations.
(b) This information should be provided at the discretion of the
Headquarters Program Office by the Project Office at the installation.
This information can be in general terms and should reflect what
insights the Project Office can provide without requesting additional
details from the proposers. This limited Project Office review will not
normally give the subcommittees information of significant precision.
The purpose is to give the subcommittee sufficient information so it
can review the proposals in conjunction with available cost,
integration, and management considerations to gain an impression of
each investigator's understanding of the problems of the experiment and
to permit gross trade-offs of cost versus value of the investigation
objective.
(c) Following categorization, the Project Office shall evaluate
proposals in contention, in depth, including a thorough review of each
proposal's engineering, integration, management, and cost aspects. This
review should be accomplished by qualified engineering, cost, and
business analysts at the project center.
(d) In assessing proposed costs, the evaluation must consider:
(1) The investigation objective.
(2) Comparable, similar or related investigations.
(3) Whether NASA or the investigator should procure the necessary
supporting instrumentation or services and the relative cost of each
mode.
(4) Total overall or probable costs to the Government including
integration and data reduction and analysis. In the case of
investigations proposed by Government investigators, this includes all
associated direct and indirect cost. With respect to cooperative
investigations, integration, and other applicable costs should be
considered.
(e) The Project Office, as part of the in-depth evaluation of
proposals that require instrumentation or support equipment, will
survey all potential sources for Government-owned instrumentation or
support equipment that may be made available, with or without
modifications, to the potential investigator. Such items contributed by
foreign cooperating groups which are still available under cooperative
project agreements will also be considered for use under the terms and
conditions specified in the agreements. As part of the evaluation
report to the Program Office, the availability or nonavailability of
instrumentation or support equipment will be indicated.
(f) Proposals which require instrumentation should be evaluated by
project personnel. This evaluation should cover the inter-faces and the
assessment of development risks. This evaluation should furnish the
selection official with sufficient data to contribute to the instrument
determinations. Important among these are:
(1) Whether the instrument requires further definition;
(2) Whether studies and designs are necessary to provide a
reasonably accurate appreciation of the cost;
(3) Whether the investigation can be carried out without incurring
undue cost, schedule, or risk of failure penalties; and
(4) Whether integration of the instrument is feasible.
(g) In reviewing an investigator's management plan, the Project
Office should evaluate the investigator's approach for efficiently
managing the work, the recognition of essential management functions,
and the effective overall integration of these functions. Evaluation of
the proposals under final consideration should include, but not be
limited to: workload--present and future related to capacity and
capability; past experience; management approach and organization;
e.g.:
(1) With respect to workload and its relationship to capacity and
capability, it is important to ascertain the extent to which the
investigator is capable of providing facilities and personnel skills
necessary to perform the required effort on a timely basis. This review
should reveal the need for additional facilities or people, and provide
some indication of the Government support the investigator will
require.
(2) A review should be made of the investigator, the investigator's
institution, and any supporting contractor's performance on prior
investigations. This should assist in arriving at an assessment of the
investigator and the institution's ability to perform the effort within
the proposed cost and time constraints.
(3) The proposed investigator's management arrangements should be
reviewed, including make or buy choices, support of any co-
investigator, and preselected subcontractors or other instrument
fabricators to determine whether such arrangements are justified. The
review should determine if the proposed management arrangements enhance
the investigator's ability to devote more time to the proposed
experiment objectives and still effectively employ the technical and
administrative support required for a successful investigation. In
making these evaluations, the Project Office should draw on the
installation's engineering, business, legal, and other staff resources,
as necessary, as well as its scientific resources. If further
information is needed from the proposers, it should be obtained through
the proper contacts.
[[Page 4484]]
1872.405 Program office evaluation.
(a) A Program Office responsible for the project or program at
Headquarters will receive the evaluation of the proposals, and weigh
the evaluative data to determine an optimum payload or program of
investigation. This determination will involve recommendations
concerning individual investigations; but, more importantly, should
result in a payload or program which is judged to optimize total
mission return within schedule, engineering, and budgetary constraints.
The recommendations should facilitate sound selection decisions by the
Program AA. Three sets of recommendations result from the Program
Office evaluation:
(1) Optimum payload or program of investigations, or options for
alternative payloads or programs.
(2) Recommendation for final or tentative selection based on a
determination of the degree of uncertainty associated with individual
investigations. A tentative selection may be considered step one of a
two-step selection technique.
(3) Upon consideration of the guidelines contained in
1872.502(a)(3), recommending responsibility for instrument development.
(b) The Installation Project Office evaluation is principally
concerned with ensuring that the proposed investigation can be managed,
developed, integrated, and executed with an appropriate probability of
technical success within the estimated probable cost. The Headquarters
Program Director, drawing upon these inputs, should be mainly concerned
with determining a payload or program from the point of view of
programmatic goals and budgetary constraints. Discipline and cost
trade-offs are considered at this level. The Headquarters Program
Office should focus on the potential contribution to program objectives
that can be achieved under alternative feasible payload integration
options.
(c) It may be to NASA's advantage to consider certain
investigations for tentative selection pending resolution of
uncertainties in their development. Tentative selections should be
reconsidered after a period of time for final selection in a payload or
program of investigations. This two-step selection process should be
considered when:
(1) The potential return from the investigation is sufficient,
relative to that of the other investigations under consideration, and
that its further development appears to be warranted before final
selection.
(2) The investigation potential is of such high priority to the
program that the investigation should be developed for flight if at all
possible.
(3) The investigative area is critical to the program and
competitive approaches need to be developed further to allow selection
of the optimum course.
(d) Based on evaluation of these considerations associated with the
investigations requiring further development of hardware, the following
information should be provided to the Steering Committee and the
Program AA responsible for selection:
(1) The expected gain in potential return associated with the
eventual incorporation of tentatively recommended investigations in the
payload(s) or program.
(2) The expected costs required to develop instrumentation to the
point of ``demonstrated capability.''
(3) The risk involved in added cost, probability of successfully
developing the required instrument capability, and the possibility of
schedule impact.
(4) Identification of opportunities, if any, for inclusion of such
investigations in later missions.
(e) In those cases where investigations are tentatively selected,
an explicit statement should be made of the process to be followed in
determining the final payload or program of investigations and the
proposers so informed. The two-phase selection approach provides the
opportunity for additional assurance of development potential and
probable cost prior to a final commitment to the investigation.
(f) As instruments used in investigations become increasingly
complex and costly, the need for greater control of their development
by the responsible Headquarters Program Office also grows. Accordingly,
as an integral part of the evaluation process, a deliberate decision
should be made regarding the role of the Principal Investigator with
respect to the provision of the major hardware associated with that
person's investigation. The guidelines for the hardware acquisition
determination are discussed in 1872.502(a)(3).
(g) The range of options for responsibility for the instrumentation
consists of:
(1) Assignment of full responsibility to the Principal
Investigator. The responsibility includes all in-house or contracted
activity to provide the instrumentation for integration.
(2) Retention of developmental responsibility by the Government
with participation by the Principal Investigator in key events defined
for the program. In all cases the right of the Principal Investigator
to counsel and recommend is paramount. Such involvement of the
Principal Investigator may include:
(i) Provision of instrument specifications.
(ii) Approval of specifications.
(iii) Independent monitorship of the development and advice to the
Government on optimization of the instrumentation for the
investigation.
(iv) Participation in design reviews and other appropriate reviews.
(v) Review and concurrence in changes resulting from design
reviews.
(vi) Participation in configuration control board actions.
(vii) Advice in definition of test program.
(viii) Review and approval of test program and changes thereto.
(ix) Participation in conduct of the test program.
(x) Participation in calibration of instrument.
(xi) Participation in final inspection and acceptance of the
instrument.
(xii) Participation in subsequent test and evaluation processes
incident to integration and flight preparation.
(xiii) Participation in the development and support of the
operations plan.
(xiv) Analysis and interpretation of data.
(h) The Principal Investigator should as a minimum:
(1) Approve the instrument specification.
(2) Advise the project manager in development and fabrication.
(3) Participate in final calibration.
(4) Develop and support the operations plan.
(5) Analyze and interpret the data.
(i) The Project Installation is responsible for implementing the
program or project and should make recommendations concerning the role
for the Principal Investigators. The Program AA will determine the
role, acting upon the advice of the Headquarters Program Office and the
Steering Committee. The Principal Investigator's desires will be
respected in the negotiation of the person's role allowing an appeal to
the Program AA and the right to withdraw from participation.
(j) The Program Office should make a presentation to the Steering
Committee with supporting documentation on the decisions to be made by
the responsible Program AA.
1872.406 Steering committee review.
(a) The most important role of the Steering Committee is to provide
a substantive review of a potential
[[Page 4485]]
payload or program of investigations and to recommend a selection to
the Program AA. The Steering Committee applies the collective
experience of representatives from the program and discipline
communities and offers a forum for discussing the selection from those
points of view. In addition to this mission-specific evaluation
function, the Steering Committee provides guidance to subcommittee
chairpersons and serves as a clearinghouse for problems and complaints
regarding the process. The Steering Committee is responsible for
assuring adherence to required procedures. Lastly, it is the forum
where discipline objectives are weighed against program objectives and
constraints.
(b) The Steering Committee represents the means for exercising
three responsibilities in the process of selecting investigations to:
(1) Review compliance with procedures governing application of the
AO process.
(2) Ensure that adequate documentation has been made of the steps
in the evaluation process.
(3) Review the results of the evaluation by the subcommittee,
Project, and Program Offices and prepare an assessment or endorsement
of a recommended payload or program of investigations to the Program
AA.
(c) The Purpose in exercising the first of the responsibilities in
paragraph (b) of this section is to ensure equity and consistency in
the application of the process. The Steering Committee is intended to
provide the necessary reviews and coordination inherent in conventional
acquisition practices.
(d) The second and third responsibilities of the Steering Committee
in paragraph (b) are technical. They require that the Steering
Committee review the evaluations by subcommittee, the Project Office,
and the Program Office for completeness and appropriateness before
forwarding to the Program AA. Most important in this review are:
(1) Degree to which results of evaluations and recommendations
follow logically from the criteria in the AO.
(2) Consistency with objectives and policies generally beyond the
scope of Project/Program Offices.
(3) Sufficiency of reasons stated for tentative recommendations of
those investigations requiring further instrument research and
development.
(4) Sufficiency of reasons stated for determining responsibilities
for instrument development.
(5) Sufficiency of consideration of reusable space flight hardware
and support equipment for the recommended investigations.
(6) Sufficiency of reasons for classifying proposed investigations
in their respective categories.
(7) Fair treatment of all proposals.
(e) The Steering Committee makes recommendations to the selection
official on the payload or program of investigations and notes caveats
or provisions important for consideration of the selection official.
1872.407 Principles to apply.
(a) 1872.406 contains a description of the evaluation function
appropriate for a major payload or very significant program of
investigation. The levels of review, evaluation, and refinement
described should be applied in those selections where warranted but
could be varied for less significant selection situations. It is
essential to consider the principles of the several evaluative steps,
but it may not be essential to consider the principles of the several
evaluative steps, but it may not be essential to maintain strict
adherence to the sequence and structure of the evaluation system
described. The selection official is responsible for determining the
evaluation process most appropriate for the selection situation using
this subpart 1872.4 as a guide.
(b) Significant deviations from the provisions of this part 1872
must be fully documented and be approved by the Program AA after
concurrence by the Office of General Counsel and Office of Acquisition.
Subpart 1872.5--The Selection Process
1872.501 General.
The Program AA is responsible for selecting investigations for
contract negotiation. This decision culminates the evaluations and
processes that can be summarized as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation stage Principal emphasis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contractor (when authorized).......... Summary evaluation Report to Subcommittee.
(strengths and
weaknesses).
Subcommittee individual............... Science and technological Categorization of proposals.
relevance, value, and
feasibility.
Project Office........................ Engineering/cost/ Reports to Subcommittee and Program Office.
integration/management
assessment.
Program Office........................ Consistency with Recommendations to Steering Committee of
Announcement and program payload or program of investigations.
objectives, and cost and
schedule constraints.
Steering Committee.................... Logic of proposed Recommendations to Program Associate
selections and Administrator.
compliance with proper
procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1872.502 Decisions to be made.
(a) The selection decisions by the Program AA constitute management
judgments balancing individual and aggregate scientific or
technological merit, the contribution of the recommended investigations
to the AO's objectives, and their consonance with budget constraints to
make the following decisions:
(1) Determination of the adequacy of scientific/technical analysis
supporting the recommended selections. This supporting rationale should
involve considerations including:
(i) Assurance that the expected return contributes substantially to
program objectives and is likely to be realized.
(ii) Assurance that the evaluation criteria were applied
consistently to all proposed investigations.
(iii) Assurance that the set of recommended investigations
constitutes the optimum program or payload considering potential value
and constraints.
(iv) Assurance that only one investigator is assigned as the
Principal Investigator to each investigation and that the Principal
Investigator will assume the associated responsibilities and be the
single point of contact and leader of any other investigators selected
for the same investigation.
(2) Determination as to whether available returned space hardware
or support equipment, with or without modification, would be adequate
to meet or support investigation objectives.
(3) Determination as to whether the proposed instrument fabricator
qualifies and should be accepted as a sole source
[[Page 4486]]
or whether the requirement should be competitively procured. The
following guidelines apply:
(i) The hardware required should be subjected to competitive
solicitation where it is clear that the capability is not sufficiently
unique to justify sole source acquisition.
(ii) The hardware requirement should be purchased from the
fabricator proposed by the investigator, which may be the
investigator's own institution,
(A) When the fabricator's proposal contains technical data that are
not available from another source, and it is not feasible or
practicable to define the fabrication requirement in such a way as to
avoid the necessity of using the technical data contained in the
proposal;
(B) When the fabricator offers unique capabilities that are not
available from another source;
(C) When the selection official determines that the proposed
hardware contributes so significantly to the value of the
investigator's proposal as to be an integral part of it.
(iii) If a producer other than the one proposed by the investigator
offers unique capabilities to produce the hardware requirement, NASA
may buy the hardware from the qualified fabricator.
(iv) If a NASA employee submits a proposal as a principal
investigator, any requirement for hardware necessary to perform the
investigation must either be competed by the installation acquisition
office or a justification must be written, synopsized, and approved in
accordance with the requirements of FAR and the NASA FAR Supplement.
(4) Determination of the desirability for tentative selection of
investigations. This determination involves considerations including:
(i) Assessment of the state of development of the investigative
hardware, the cost and schedule for development in relation to the gain
in potential benefits at the time of final selection.
(ii) Assurance that there is adequate definition of investigation
hardware to allow parallel design of other project hardware.
(iii) Assurance that appropriate management procedures are
contained in the project plan for reevaluation and final selection (or
rejection) on an appropriate time scale.
(5) Determination of the acceptability of the proposer's management
plan, including the proposed hardware development plan, and the
necessity, if any, of negotiating modifications to that plan.
(b) In the process of making the determinations described in
paragraph (a) (1) of this section, the Program AA may request
additional information or evaluations. In most instances, this
information can be provided by the Program Office responsible for the
mission, project, or program. However, the Program AA may reconvene the
subcommittee or poll the members individually or provide for additional
analysis or require additional data from evaluators or proposers as
considered necessary to facilitate the Program AA's decision.
1872.503 The selection statement.
Upon completion of deliberations, the responsible Program AA shall
issue a selection statement. Ordinarily this statement will, upon
request, be releasable to the public. As a minimum, the selection
statement should include:
(a) The general and specific evaluation criteria and relative
importance used for the selection.
(b) The categorizations provided by the subcommittee and the
rationale for accepting or not accepting each Category I proposal and a
succinct statement concerning the nonacceptance of all other proposals.
(c) A concise description of each investigation accepted including
an indication as to whether the selection is a partial acceptance of a
proposal and/or a combination with other investigators.
(d) The role of the Principal Investigator with regard to hardware
essential to the investigation and whether the Principal Investigator
will be responsible for hardware acquisition and the basis therefor.
(e) An indication of the plan and acquisition using the regular
acquisition processes, if the Principal Investigator is not to acquire
the hardware.
(f) A statement indicating whether the selection is final or
tentative, recognizing the need for better definition of the
investigation and its cost.
(g) A statement indicating use of Government-owned space flight
hardware and/or support equipment.
1872.504 Notification of proposers.
(a) It is essential that investigators whose proposals have no
reasonable chance for selection be so apprised as soon as practicable.
The responsible Program Office will, upon such determination, notify
investigators of that fact with the major reason(s) why the proposals
were so considered. The notification letter should also inform such
investigators that they may obtain a detailed oral debriefing provided
they request it in writing.
(b) Letters of notification will be sent to those Principal
Investigators selected to participate. This letter should not commit
the agency to more than negotiations for the selected investigation,
but it should indicate the decision made and contain:
(1) A concise description of the Principal Investigator's
investigation as selected, noting substantive changes, if any, from the
investigation originally proposed by the Principal Investigator.
(2) The nature of the selection, i.e., whether it should be
considered final or tentative requiring additional hardware or cost
definition.
(3) A description of the role of the Principal Investigator
including the responsibility for the provision of instruments for
flight experiments.
(3) Identification of the principal technical and management points
to be treated in subsequent negotiations.
(5) Any rights to be granted on use of data, publishing of data,
and duration of use of the data.
(6) Where applicable, indication that a foreign selectee's
participation in the program will be arranged between the International
Affairs Division, Office of External Relations, and the foreign
government agency which endorsed the proposal.
(c) In conjunction with the notification of successful foreign
proposers, the Program Office shall forward a letter to the responsible
International Affairs Division, Office of External Relations,
addressing the following:
(1) The scientific technological objective of the effort.
(2) The period of time for the effort.
(3) The responsibilities of NASA and of the sponsoring governmental
agency; these may include:
(i) Provision and disposition of hardware and software.
(ii) Responsibilities for reporting, reduction and dissemination of
data.
(iii) Responsibilities for transportation of hardware.
(4) Any additional information pertinent to the conduct of the
experiment.
(d) Using the information provided above, the International Affairs
Division, Office of External Relations will negotiate an agreement with
the sponsoring foreign agency.
(e) Notices shall also be sent to those proposers not notified
pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, and, as
applicable, a copy to the sponsoring foreign government agency. It is
important that these remaining proposers be informed at the same time
[[Page 4487]]
as those selected. Other agency notifications and press release
procedures will apply, as appropriate.
1872.505 Debriefing.
It is the policy to debrief, if requested, unsuccessful proposers
of investigations in accordance with FAR 15.1004. The following shall
be considered in arranging and conducting debriefings:
(a) Debriefing shall be done by an official designated by the
responsible Program AA. Any other personnel receiving requests for
information concerning the rejection of a proposal shall refer to the
designated official.
(b) Debriefing of unsuccessful offerors shall be made at the
earliest possible time; debriefing will generally be scheduled
subsequent to selection but prior to award of contracts to the
successful proposers.
(c) Material discussed in debriefing shall be factual and consonant
with the documented findings of several stages of the evaluation
process and the selection statement.
(d) The debriefing official shall advise of weak or deficient areas
in the proposal, indicate whether those weaknesses were factors in the
selection, and advise of the major considerations in selecting the
competing successful proposer where appropriate.
(e) The debriefing official shall not discuss other unsuccessful
proposals, rankings, votes of members, or attempt to make a point-by-
point comparison with successful proposals.
(f) A memorandum of record of the debriefing shall be provided the
Chairperson of the Steering Committee.
Subpart 1872.6--Payload Formulation
1872.601 Payroll formulation.
(a) Payload elements for Space Transportation System (STS) missions
can come from many sources. These include those selected through AOs,
those generated by in-house research, unsolicited proposals and those
derived from agreements between NASA and external entities. However, it
is anticipated that the primary source of NASA payload elements will be
the AO process. Generally, proposals for payload elements submitted
outside the AO process will not be selected if they would have been
responsive to an AO objective.
(b) Payload elements for STS flights fall into two major
categories. ``NASA or NASA-related'' payload elements are those which
are developed by a NASA Program Office or by another party with which
NASA has a shared interest. ``Non-NASA'' payload elements are those
which require only STS operation services from NASA and interface with
NASA through the Office of Space Flight.
(c) In general, a Program Office will be designated responsibility
for formulating the ``NASA or NASA-related'' portion of an STS payload.
The Office of Space Flight will be responsible for formulating the
``non-NASA'' portion of an STS payload. Flights may, of course, consist
wholly of payload elements of either type. Resource allocation for
mixed missions will be determined by the Program Office and the Office
of Space Flight.
Subpart 1872.7--Acquisition and Other Considerations
1872.701 Early involvement essential.
(a) The distinctive feature of the AO process is that it is both a
program planning system and an acquisition system in one procedure. The
choice of what aeronautical and space phenomena to investigate is
program planning. Acquisition is involved with the purchase of property
and services to carry out the selected investigations.
(b) Because of both the programmatic and multi-functional aspects
of the AO process, early involvement of external program office
elements is essential. Success of the process requires that it proceed
in a manner that meets program goals and complies with statutory
requirements and acquisition policy.
(c) The planning, preparation and selection schedule for the
investigation should commence early enough to meet statutory and
regulatory requirements. Chief of these are the requirements for
soliciting maximum feasible competition and for conducting discussions
with offerors within the competitive range by the Project Office and/or
any other evaluation group or office authorized by the selection
official.
1872.702 Negotiation, discussions, and contract award.
(a) The AO shall be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily.
Responses to the synopsis must be added to the AO mailing list. Every
effort should be made to publish opportunities far enough in advance to
encourage a broad response. (In no case less than 45 days before the
date set for receipt of proposals).
(b) Significant items for consideration after receipt of proposals:
(1) Late proposals--The policy on late proposals contained in
1815.412 is applicable. Potential investigators should be informed of
this policy. In the AO context, the selection official or designee will
determine whether a late proposal will be considered.
(2) Competitive considerations. (i) The proposals submitted in
response to the AOs are not necessarily fully comparable. However, all
proposals within the scope of an opportunity must be evaluated in
accordance with the criteria in the AO.
(ii) Cost must be considered in the evaluation if costs are
involved in the investigation. General cost information should be given
to the subcommittee by the Installation Project Office for use in
determining the categories into which the subcommittee places
proposals.
(iii) Further information should be obtained, as necessary, by the
Installation Project Office and/or any other evaluation group
authorized by the selection official and from the investigators whose
proposals are being considered. This is similar to the acquisition
procedure for conducting written and oral discussions. A major
consideration during discussions is to avoid unfairness and unequal
treatment. Good judgment is required by in the extent and content of
the discussions. There should be no reluctance in obtaining the advice
and guidance of management and staff offices during the discussion
phase. A summary should be prepared of the primary points covered in
the written and oral discussions and show the effect of the discussions
on the evaluation of proposals. This summary should also contain
general information about the questions submitted to the investigators,
the amount of time spent in oral discussion, and revisions in
proposals, if any, resulting from the discussions.
(iv) During the conduct of discussions, all proposers being
considered shall be offered an equitable opportunity to submit cost,
technical, or other revisions in their proposals as may result from the
discussions. All proposers shall be informed that any revisions to
their proposals must be submitted by a common cut-off date in order to
be considered. The record should note compliance of the investigators
with that cut-off date.
(c) Significant items for consideration before award:
(1) Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP)--A formal RFP should
not be issued to obtain additional information on proposals accepted
under the AO process. Additional technical, cost, or other data
received should be considered as a supplement to the original proposal.
(2) Selection of Investigator/Contractor--The selection decision of
the Program AA approves the selected investigators and their
institutions as the only satisfactory sources for the investigations.
The selection of the
[[Page 4488]]
investigator does not constitute the selection of that person's
proposed supporting hardware fabricator unless the selection official
specifically incorporates the fabricator in the selection decision.
1872.703 Application of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and
the NASA FAR Supplement.
The AO process supplants normal acquisition procedures only to the
extent necessary to meet the distinctive features of the process. This
process is not intended to conflict with any established statutory
requirements.
1872.704 Other administrative and functional requirements.
After selection, all other applicable administrative and functional
requirements will be complied with or incorporated in any resultant
contract.
1872.705 Format of Announcement of Opportunity (AO).
Use the following format instructions when drafting AOs:
OMB Approval Number 2700-0085
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546
Announcement of Opportunity
AO No. ________________ (Issuance Date)
(Descriptive Heading)
I. Description of the Opportunity
This section should set forth the basic purpose of the AO and
describe the opportunity in terms of NASA's desire to obtain
proposals which will meet the stated scientific, applications and/or
technological objectives. These objectives may be directed to the
generation of proposals for investigations and/or they may pertain
to the acquisition of dissimilar ideas leading to selection of
investigators, guest observers, guest investigators, or theorists.
In those instances where proposals for investigations are sought,
this section should describe the requirement, if any, for selected
investigators to serve on advisory or working groups. In those
instances where the project or program has not yet been approved, a
qualifying statement should be included to indicate that this AO
does not constitute an obligation for the Government to carry the
effort to completion.
II. AO Objectives
This section will give a succinct statement of the specific
scientific, applications, and/or technological objective(s) for the
opportunity(s) for which proposals are sought.
III. Background
This section should provide an explanation of the context of the
opportunity, i.e., information which will help the reader understand
the relevance of the opportunity.
IV. Proposal Opportunity Period
This section should provide the proposal opportunity period(s).
The following methods may be used individually or in conjunction for
establishing the proposal opportunity period(s):
(a) The AO may be issued establishing a single date by which
proposals may be received. However, the AO could provide that the
agency may amend the AO to provide for subsequent dates for
submission of proposals, if additional investigations are desired.
(b) The AO may be issued to provide for an initial submission
date with the AO to remain open for submission of additional
proposals up to a final cutoff date. This final date should be
related to the availability of resources necessary to evaluate the
continuous flow of proposals and the time remaining prior to the
flight opportunities contemplated by the AO.
(c) The AO may be issued establishing a number of dates by which
proposals may be received. Normally no more than three proposal
submission dates should be established. The submittal dates may be
spread over the number of months most compatible with the possible
flight opportunities and the availability of resources necessary to
evaluate and fund the proposal. If desired, this section should
further inform the reader that if a proposal receives a Category I,
II, or III rating but is not selected for immediate support, the
proposal may, if desired by the proposer, be held by NASA for later
consideration within the ground rules set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2. The section should inform the reader that if the person wishes
the proposal to be so treated, it should be indicated in the
proposal. This section should further indicate that offerors whose
proposals are to be considered at a later time will be given the
opportunity to revalidate their proposals with their institution and
update cost data.
V. Requirements and Constraints
(a) This section will include technical, programmatic, cost, and
schedule requirements or constraints, as applicable, and will
specify performance limits such as lifetime, flight environment,
safety, reliability, and quality assurance provisions for flight-
worthiness. It will specify the requirements and constraints related
to the flight crew and the ground support. It will also include
requirements for data analysis, estimated schedule of data shipment
to user for observer, need for preliminary or raw data analysis and
interim reports. It will specify the planned period (time) for data
analysis to be used for budgeting. It will provide any additional
information necessary for a meaningful proposal.
(b) When NASA determines that instrumentation, ground support
equipment, or NASA supporting effort will be required or may be
expected to be required by the contemplated investigations, the AO
should indicate to the potential investigators that they must submit
specific information regarding this requirement to allow an in-depth
evaluation of the technical aspects, cost, management, and other
factors by the Installation Project Office.
VI. Proposal Submission Information
(a) Preproposal Activities--In this section, the AO will
indicate requiremets and activities such as the following:
(1) Submittal of ``Notice of Intent'' to propose (if desired),
date for submission, and any additional required data to be
submitted. Indicate whether there are information packages which
will only be sent to those who submit ``Notice of Intent.''
(2) Attendance at the preproposal conference (if held).
Information should be provided as to time, place, whether attendance
will be restricted in number from each institution, and whether
prior notice of intention to attend is required. If desired, a
request may be included that questions be submitted in writing
several days before the conference in order to prepare replies.
(3) The name and address of the scientific or technical contact
for questions or inquiries.
(4) Any other preproposal data considered necessary.
(b) Format of Proposals--This section should provide the
investigator with the information necessary to enable an effective
evaluation of the proposal. The information is as follows:
(1) Proposal--The AO should indicate how the proposal should be
submitted to facilitate evaluation. The proposal should be submitted
in at least two sections; (i) Investigation and Technical Section;
and (ii) Management and Cost Section.
(2) Signatory--The proposal must be signed by an institutional
official authorized to ensure institutional support, sponsorship of
the investigation, management, and financial aspects of the
proposal.
(3) Quantity--The number of copies of the proposal should be
specified. One copy should be clear black and white, and on white
paper of quality suitable for reproduction.
(4) Submittal Address--Proposals from domestic sources should be
mailed to arrive not later than the time indicated for receipt of
proposals to:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of (Program)
Code-------------------------------------------------------------------
AO No.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC 20546
(5) Format--To aid in proposal evaluation, and to facilitate
comparative analysis, a uniform proposal format will be required for
each AO. The number of pages, page size, and restriction on photo
reduction, etc., may be included. The format contained in Appendix C
can be used as a guide. Proposers may be requested to respond to all
of the items or the AO may indicate that only selected items need be
addressed. Using the Appendix format as a guide, specific guidelines
may be prepared for the AO or an appropriate form developed.
(c) Additional Information--This section may be used to request
or furnish data necessary to obtain clear proposals that should not
require further discussions with the proposer by the evaluators.
Other pertinent data could also be included, such as significant
milestones.
[[Page 4489]]
(d) Foreign Proposals--The procedures for submission of
proposals from outside the U.S. are contained in Appendix B,
``General Instructions and Provisions.'' This section will describe
any additional requirements, for example, if information copies of
proposals are required to be furnished by the proposer to other
organizations at the same time the proposal is submitted.
(e) Cost Proposals (U.S. Investigators Only)--This section
defines any special requirements regarding cost proposals of
domestic investigators. Reference than should be made to the cost
proposal certifications indicated in Appendix B, ``General
Instructions and Provisions.''
VII. Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation
(a) Evaluation and Selection Procedure.
(1) This section should notify the proposers of the evaluation
process.
(2) For example, a statement similar to the following should be
included:
``Proposals received in response to this AO will be reviewed by
a subcommittee appointed by the (appropriate Program AA). The
purpose of the review is to determine the scientific/technical merit
of the proposals in the context of this AO and so categorize the
proposals. Those proposals with are considered to have the greatest
scientific/technical merit are further reviewed for engineering,
integration, management, and cost aspects by the Project Office at
the installation responsible for the project. On the basis of these
reviews, and the reviews of the responsible Program Office and the
Steering Committee, the (appropriate Program Associate
Administrator) will appoint/select the investigators/
investigations.''
(b) Evaluation Criteria.
(1) This section should indicate that the selection proposals
which best meet the specific scientific, applications, and/or
technological objectives, stated in the AO, is the aim of the
solicitation. This section should list the criteria to be used in
the evaluation of proposals and indicate their relative importance.
See NASA FAR Supplement 1872.402 for a listing of criteria generally
appropriate.
(2) This section will also inform the proposers that cost and
management factors, e.g., proposed small business participation in
instrumentation fabrication or investigation support, will be
separately considered.
VIII. Schedule
This section should include the following, as applicable:
(a) Preproposal conference date.
(b) Notice of Intent submittal date.
(c) Proposal submittal date(s).
(d) Target date for announcement of selections.
IX. Appendices
(a) General Instructions and Provisions (must be attached to
each AO).
(b) Other Pertinent Data, e.g., Spacelab Accommodations Data.
/s/ Associate Administrator
for (Program)
1872.705-1 Appendix A: General Instructions and Provisions
Include the following in all Announcements of Opportunity:
I. Instrumentation and/or Ground Equipment
By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree
that NASA has the option to accept all or part of the offeror's plan
to provide the instrumentation or ground support equipment required
for the investigation or NASA may furnish or obtain such
instrumentation or equipment from any other source as determined by
the selecting official. In addition, NASA reserves the right to
require use, by the selected investigator, of Government
instrumentation or property that becomes available, with or without
modification, that will meet the investigative objectives.
II. Tentative Selections, Phased Development, Partial Selections, and
Participation With Others
By submitting a proposal, the investigator and the organization
agree that NASA has the option to make a tentative selection pending
a successful feasibility or definition effort. NASA has the option
to contract in phases for a proposed experiment, and to discontinue
the investigative effort at the completion of any phase. The
investigator should also understand that NASA may desire to select
only a portion of the proposed investigation and/or that NASA may
desire the individual's participation with other investigators in a
joint investigation, in which case the investigator will be given
the opportunity to accept or decline such partial acceptance or
participation with other investigators prior to a selection. Where
participation with other investigators as a team is agreed to, one
of the team members will normally be designated as its team leader
or contact point.
III. Selection Without Discussion
The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals
received in response to this AO when such action shall be considered
in the best interest of the Government. Notice is also given of the
possibility that any selection may be made without discussion (other
than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification).
It is therefore emphasized that all proposals should be submitted
initially on the most favorable terms that the offeror can submit.
IV. Foreign Proposals
See Appendix B, Management Plan and Cost Plan, paragraph (a)(3).
V. Treatment of Proposal Data
It is NASA policy to use information contained in proposals and
quotations for evaluation purposes only. While this policy does not
require that the proposal or quotation bear a restrictive notice,
offerors or quoters should place the following notice on the title
page of the proposal or quotation and specify the information,
subject to the notice by inserting appropriate identification, such
as page numbers, in the notice. Information (data) contained in
proposals and quotations will be protected to the extent permitted
by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and disclosure of
information not made subject to the notice. To prevent inadvertent
disclosure, proposal data shall not be included in submissions (e.g.
final reports) that are routinely released to the public.
Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal and Quotation Information
(Data)
The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or
other identification] of this proposal or quotation constitutes a
trade secret and/or information that is commercial or financial and
confidential or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in
confidence with the understanding that it will not, without
permission of the offeror, be used or disclosed for other than
evaluation purposes; provided, however, that in the event a contract
is awarded on the basis of this proposal or quotation the Government
shall have the right to use and disclose this information (data) to
the extent provided in the contract. This restriction does not limit
the Government's right to use or disclose this information (data) if
obtained from another source without restriction.
VI. Status of Cost Proposals (U.S. Proposals Only)
The investigator's institution agrees that the cost proposal is
for proposal evaluation and selection purposes, and that following
selection and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract,
the institution may be required to resubmit cost information in
accordance with FAR 15.8.
VII. Late Proposals
The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or
modifications thereof received after the date indicated, should such
action be in the interest of the Government.
VIII. Source of Space Transportation System Investigations
Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for
Space Transportation System (STS) missions can come from many
sources.
IX. Disclosure of Proposals Outside Government
NASA may find it necessary to obtain proposal evaluation
assistance outside the Government. Where NASA determines it is
necessary to disclose a proposal outside the Government for
evaluation purposes, arrangements will be made with the evaluator
for appropriate handling of the proposal information. Therefore, by
submitting a proposal the investigator and institution agree that
NASA may have the proposal evaluated outside the Government. If the
investigator or institution desire to preclude NASA from using an
outside evaluation, the investigator or institution should so
indicate on the cover. However, notice is given that if NASA is
precluded from using outside evaluation, it may be unable to
consider the proposal.
[[Page 4490]]
X. Equal Opportunity (U.S. Proposals Only)
By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree
to accept the following clause in any resulting contract:
Equal Opportunity
During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees
as follows:
(a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.
(b) The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. This shall include, but not be limited to, (1)
employment, (2) upgrading, (3) demotion, (4) transfer, (5)
recruitment or recruitment advertising, (6) layoff or termination,
(7) rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and (8) selection
for training, including apprenticeship.
(c) The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places available to
employees and applicants for employment the notices to be provided
by the Contracting Officer that explain this clause.
(d) The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements
for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that
all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(e) The Contractor shall send to each labor union or
representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining
agreement or other contract or understanding the notice to be
provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the labor union or
workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under this
clause, and post copies of the notice in conspicuous places
available to employees and applicants for employment.
(f) The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as
amended, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of
Labor.
(g) The Contractor shall furnish to the contracting agency all
information required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and by
the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor.
Standard Form 100 (EEO-1), or any successor form, is the prescribed
form to be filed within 30 days following the award, unless filed
within 12 months preceding the date of award.
(h) The Contractor shall permit access to its books, records,
and accounts by the contracting agency or the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for the purposes of
investigation to ascertain the Contractor's compliance with the
applicable rules, regulations, and orders.
(i) If the OFCCP determines that the Contractor is not in
compliance with this clause or any rule, regulation, or order of the
Secretary of Labor, the contract may be canceled, terminated, or
suspended in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared
ineligible for further Government contracts, under the procedures
authorized in Executive Order 11246, as amended. In addition,
sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked against the Contractor
as provided in Executive Order 11246, as amended, the rules,
regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise
provided by law.
(j) The Contractor shall include the terms and conditions of
subparagraph 1 through 9 of this clause in every subcontract or
purchase order that is not exempted by the rules, regulations, or
orders of the Secretary of Labor issued under Executive Order 11246,
as amended, so that these terms and conditions will be binding upon
each subcontractor or vendor.
(k) The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any
subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct
as a means of enforcing these terms and conditions, including
sanctions for non-compliance; provided, that if the Contractor
becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a
subcontractor or vendor as a result of direction, the Contractor may
request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect
the interests of the United States.
XI. Patent Rights
(a) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to
other than a small business firm or nonprofit organization, the
clause at 1852.227-70, ``New Technology,'' shall apply. Such
contractor may, in advance of contract, request waiver of rights as
set forth in the provision at 1852.227-71, ``Request for Waiver of
Rights to Inventions.''
(b) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to
a small business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR
52.227-11, ``Patent Rights--Retention by the Contractor (Short
Form)'' (as modified by 1852.227-11), shall apply.
1872.705-2 Appendix B: Guidelines for Proposal Preparation
The following guidelines apply to the preparation of proposals in
response to an AO. The material is a guide for the proposer and not
intended to be encompassing or directly applicable to the various types
of proposals which can be submitted. The proposer should provide
information relative to those items applicable or as required by the
AO.
I. Cover Letter
A letter or cover page should be forwarded with the proposal
signed by the investigator and an official by title of the
investigator's organization who is authorized to commit the
organization responsible for the proposal.
II. Table of Contents
The proposal should contain a table of contents.
III. Identifying Information
The proposal should contain a short descriptive title for the
investigation, the names of all investigators, the name of the
organization or institution and the full name, address, and
telephone number of the Principal Investigator.
Investigation and Technical Plan
(a) Investigation and Technical Plan
The investigation and technical plan generally will contain the
following:
(1) Summary. A concise statement about the investigation, its
conduct, and the anticipated results.
(2) Objective and Significant Aspects. A brief definition of the
objectives, their value, and their relationships to past, current,
and future effort. The history and basis for the proposal and a
demonstration of the need for such an investigation. A statement of
present development in the discipline field.
(3) Investigation Approach.
(i) Fully describe the concept of the investigation.
(ii) Detail the method and procedure for carrying out the
investigation.
(b) Instrumentation
This section should describe all information necessary to plan
for experiment development, integration, ground operations, and
flight operations. This section must be complete in itself without
need to request additional data. Failure to furnish complete data
may preclude evaluation of the proposal.
(1) Instrument Description--This section should fully describe
the instrument and indicate items which are proposed to be developed
as well as any existing instrumentation. Performance characteristics
should be related to the experiment objectives as stated in the
proposal.
(2) Instrument Integration--This section should describe all
parameters of the instrument pertinent to the accommodation of the
instrument in the spacecraft, Spacelab, Shuttle Orbiter, Space
Station, etc. These include, but are not limited to, volumetric
envelope; weight; power requirements; thermal requirements;
telemetry requirement; sensitivity to or generation of contamination
(e.g., EMI gaseous effluent); data processing requirements.
(3) Ground Operations--This section should identify requirements
for pre-launch or post-launch ground operations support.
(4) Flight Operations--This section should identify any
requirements for flight operations support including mission
planning. Operational constraints, viewing requirements, and
pointing requirements should also be identified. Details of
communications needs, tracking needs, and special techniques, such
as extravehicular activity or restrictions in the use of control
thrusters at stated times should be delineated. Special
communications facilities that are needed must be described. Any
special orbital requirements, such as time of month, of day, phase
of moon, and lighting conditions are to be given in detail. Describe
real-time ground support requirements and indicate any special
equipment or skills required of ground personnel.
(c) Data Reduction and Analysis
A discussion of the data reduction and analysis plan including
the method and format. A section of the plan should include a
schedule for the submission of reduced data to the receiving point.
In the case of Space Science programs, the National Space
[[Page 4491]]
Science Data Center, Greenbelt, MD, will be the repository for such
data and the Department of Interior, Sioux Falls, SD, for earth
observations data.
(d) Orbiter Crew and/or Payload Specialist Training Requirement
A description of the tasks required of each crew member
(Commander, Pilot, Mission Specialist) or payload specialist should
be provided, including the task duration and equipment involved.
Indicate special training necessary to provide the crew members or
payload specialist(s) with the capability for performing the
aforementioned tasks.
Management Plan and Cost Plan
(a) Management Plan
The management plan should summarize the management approach and
the facilities and equipment required. Additional guidelines
applicable to non-U.S. proposers are contained herein:
(1) Management
(i) The management plan sets forth the approach for managing the
work, the recognition of essential management functions, and the
overall integration of these functions.
(ii) The management plan gives insight into the organization
proposed for the work, including the internal operations and lines
of authority with delegations, together with internal interfaces and
relationships with the NASA major subcontractors and associated
investigators. Likewise, the management plan usually reflects
various schedules necessary for the logical and timely pursuit of
the work accompanied by a description of the investigator's work
plan and the responsibilities of the co-investigators.
(iii) The plan should describe the proposed method of instrument
acquisition. It should include the following, as applicable.
(A) Rationale for the investigator to obtain the instrument
through or by the investigator's institution.
(B) Method and basis for the selection of the instrument
fabricator.
(C) Unique capabilities of the instrument fabricator that are
not available from any other source.
(D) Characteristics of the proposed fabricator's instrument that
make it an inseparable part of the investigation.
(E) Availability of personnel to administer the instrument
contract and technically monitor the fabrication.
(F) Status of development of the instrument.
(G) Method by which the investigator proposes to:
(a) Prepare instrument specifications.
(b) Review development progress.
(c) Review design and fabrication changes.
(d) Participate in testing program.
(e) Participate in final checkout and calibration.
(f) Provide for integration of instrument.
(g) Support the flight operations.
(h) Coordinate with co-investigators, other related
investigations, and the payload integrator.
(i) Assure safety, reliability, and quality.
(j) Provide required support for Payload Specialist(s), if
applicable.
(H) Planned participation by small and/or minority business in
any subcontracting for instrument fabrication or investigative
support functions.
(2) Facilities and Equipment
All major facilities, laboratory equipment, and ground-support
equipment (GSE) (including those of the investigator's proposed
contractors and those of NASA and other U.S. Government agencies)
essential to the experiment in terms of its system and subsystems
are to be indicated, distinguishing insofar as possible between
those already in existence and those that will be developed in order
to execute the investigation. The outline of new facilities and
equipment should also indicate the lead time involved and the
planned schedule for construction, modification, and/or acquisition
of the facilities.
(3) Additional Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposers Only
The following guidelines are established for foreign responses
to NASA's AO. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific announcement,
these guidelines indicate the appropriate measures to be taken by
foreign proposers, prospective foreign sponsoring agencies, and NASA
leading to the selection of a proposal and execution of appropriate
arrangements. They include the following:
(i) Where a ``Notice of Intent'' to propose is requested,
prospective foreign proposers should write directly to the NASA
official designated in the AO and send a copy of this letter to the
International Relations Division, Office of External Relations, Code
IR, NASA, Washington, DC 20546, U.S.A.
(ii) Unless otherwise indicated in the AO, proposals will be
submitted in accordance with this Appendix excluding cost plans.
Proposals should be typewritten and written in English.
(iii) Persons planning to submit a proposal should arrange with
an appropriate foreign governmental agency for a review and
endorsement of the proposed activity. Such endorsement by a foreign
organization indicates that the proposal merits careful
consideration by NASA and that, if the proposal is selected,
sufficient funds will be available to undertake the activity
envisioned.
(iv) Proposals including the requested number of copies and
letters of endorsement from the foreign governmental agency must be
forwarded to NASA in time to arrive before the deadline established
for each AO. These documents should be sent to:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, International
Relations Division, Code IR, Office of External Relations,
Washington, DC 20546, U.S.A.
(v) Those proposals received after the closing date will be
treated in accordance with NASA's provisions for late proposals.
Sponsoring foreign government agencies may, in exceptional
situations, forward a proposal directly to the above address if
review and endorsement is not possible before the announced closing
date. In such cases, NASA should be advised when a decision on
endorsement can be expected.
(vi) Shortly after the deadline for each AO, NASA's
International Relations Division will be advised the appropriate
sponsoring agency which proposals have been received and when the
selection process should be completed. A copy of this acknowledgment
will be provided to each proposer.
(vii) Successful and unsuccessful proposers will be contacted
directly by the NASA Program Officer coordinating the AO. Copies of
these letters will be sent to the sponsoring Government agency.
(viii) NASA's International Relations Division will then begin
making the arrangements to provide for the selectee's participation
in the appropriate NASA program. Depending on the nature and extent
of the proposed cooperation, these arrangements may entail:
(A) A letter of notification by NASA.
(B) An exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring
foreign governmental agency.
(C) An agreement or Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and
the sponsoring foreign governmental agency.
(b) Cost Plan (U.S. Investigations Only)
The cost plan should summarize the total investigation cost by
major categories of cost as well as by function.
(1) The categories of cost should include the following:
(i) Director Labor--List by labor category, with labor hours and
rates for each. Provide actual salaries of all personnel and the
percentage of time each individual will devote to the effort.
(ii) Overhead--Include indirect costs. Usually this is in the
form of a percentage of the direct labor costs.
(iii) Materials--This should give the total cost of the bill of
materials including estimated cost of each major item. Include lead
time of critical items.
(iv) Subcontracts--List those over $25,000, specify the vendor
and the basis for estimated costs. Include any baseline or
supporting studies.
(v) Special Equipment--Include a list of special equipment with
lead and/or development time.
(vi) Travel--List estimated number of trips, destinations,
duration, purpose, number of travelers, and anticipated dates.
(vii) Other Costs--Costs not covered elsewhere.
(viii) General and Administrative Expense--This includes the
expenses of the institution's general and executive offices and
other miscellaneous expenses related to the overall business.
(ix) Fee (if applicable).
(2) Separate schedules, in the above format, should be attached
to show total cost allocable to the following:
(i) Principal Investigator and other Investigators' costs.
(ii) Instrument costs.
(iii) Integration costs.
(iv) Data reduction and analysis including the amount and cost
of computer time.
(e) If the effort is sufficiently known and defined, a funding
obligation plan should provide the proposed funding requirements of
the investigations by quarter and/or annum keyed to the work
schedule.
[[Page 4492]]
1872.705-3 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Associated
with Investigations.
Advisory Committee Subcommittee--Any committee, board, commission,
council, conference, panel, task force; or other similar group, or any
subcommittee or other subgroup thereof, that is not wholly composed of
full-time Federal Government employees, and that is established or
utilized by NASA in the interest of obtaining advice or
recommendations.
Announcement of Opportunity (AO)--A document used to announce
opportunities to participate in NASA programs.
AO Process--A term used to describe the program planning and
acquisition procedure used to acquire investigative effort, initiated
by an AO.
Categorization--The process whereby proposed investigations are
classified into four categories: synopsized here as Category I--
recommended for immediate acceptance; Category II--recommended for
acceptance but at a lower priority than Category I proposals; Category
III--sound investigations requiring further development; Category IV--
rejected.
Co-Investigator (Co-I)--Associate of a Principal Investigator,
responsible to the Principal Investigator for discrete portions or
tasks of the investigation. A NASA employee can participate as a Co-I
on an investigation proposed by a private organization.
Data Users--Participants in NASA programs, selected to perform
investigations utilizing data from NASA payloads or facilities.
Experiments--Activities or effort aimed at the generation of data.
NASA-sponsored experiments generally concern generation of data
obtained through measurement of aeronautical and space phenomena or use
of space to observe earth phenomena.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)--The regulations governing the
conduct of acquisition.
Flight--That portion of the mission encompassing the period from
launch to landing or launch to termination of the active life of
spacecraft. The term shuttle ``flight'' means a single shuttle round
trip--its launch, orbital activity, and return; one flight might
deliver more than one payload. More than one flight might be required
to accomplish one mission.
Flight Investigaton--Investigation conducted utilizing aeronautical
or space instrumentation.
Flight Opportunity--A flight mission designed to accommodate one or
more experiments or investigations.
Guest Investigators--Investigators selected to conduct observations
and obtain data within the capability of a NASA mission, which are
additional to the mission's primary objectives. Sometimes referred to
as Guest Observers
Investigaton--Used interchangeably with ``Experiments.''
Investigation Team--A group of investigators collaborating on a
single investigation.
Investigator--A participant in an investigation. May refer to the
Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator, or member of an investigation
team.
Mission--The performance of a coherent set of investigations or
operations in space to achieve program goals. (Example: Measure
detailed structure of Sun's chromosphere; survey mineral resources of
North America.)
NASA FAR Supplement--Acquisition regulations promulgated by NASA in
addition to the FAR.
NMI--NASA Management Instruction.
Notice of Intent--A notice or letter submitted by a potential
investigator indicating the intent to submit a proposal in response to
an AO.
Payload--A specific complement of instruments, space equipment, and
support hardware carried to space to accomplish a mission or discrete
activity in space.
Peer Group--A gathering of experts in related disciplinary areas
convened as a subcommittee of the Program Office Steering Committee to
review proposals for flight investigations.
Peer Review--The process of proposal review utilizing a group of
peers in accordance with the categorization criteria as outlined in
this Handbook.
Principal Investigator (PI)--A person who conceives an
investigation and is responsible for carrying it out and reporting its
results. A NASA employee can participate as a PI only on a government-
proposed investigation.
Program--An activity involving human resources, materials, funding,
and scheduling necessary to achieve desired goals.
Project--Within a program, an undertaking with a scheduled
beginning and ending, which normally involves the design, construction,
and operation of one or more aeronautical or space vehicles and
necessary ground support in order to accomplish a scientific or
technical objective.
Project Office--An office generally established at a NASA field
installation to manage a project.
Selection Official--The NASA official designated to determine the
source for award of a contract or grant.
Space Facility--An instrument or series of instruments in space
provided by NASA to satisfy a general objective or need.
Steering Committee--A standing NASA sponsored committee providing
advice to the Program Associate Administrators and providing procedural
review over the investigation selection process. Composed wholly of
full-time Federal Government employees.
Study Office--An office established at a NASA field installation to
manage a potential undertaking which has not yet developed into project
status.
Subcommittee--An arm of the Program Office Steering Committee
consisting of experts in relevant disciplines to review and categorize
proposals for investigations submitted in response to an AO.
Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T)--The programs devoted to
the conduct of research and development necessary to support and
sustain NASA programs.
Team--A group of investigators responsible for carrying out and
reporting the results of an investigation or group of investigations.
Team Leader--The person appointed to manage and be the point of
contact for the team and who is responsible for assigning respective
roles and privileges to the team members and reporting the results of
the investigation.
Team Member--A person appointed to a team who is an associate of
the other members of the team and is responsible to the team leader for
assigned tasks or portions of the investigation.
[FR Doc. 97-1864 Filed 1-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
