[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9953-9967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4853]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817,
1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and 1872
Contracting by Negotiation
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)
parts to conform to the regulatory changes effected by Federal
Acquisition Circular (FAC) 97-02, FAR Part 15 Rewrite; reflect the
expiration of the waiver to the requirement to publish synopsis in the
Commerce Business Daily for certain acquisitions under NASA's MidRange
procedures; and specify that the NASA Acquisition Internet Service
(NAIS) is the Agency Internet site for posting solicitations and other
acquisition information.
DATES: This rule is effective February 27, 1998. All comments on this
rule should be in writing and must be received by April 28, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Tom O'Toole, Code HK, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20456-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom O'Toole, (202) 358-0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
FAC 97-02, published in the Federal Register (62 FR 51224) on
September 30, 1997, completely revised FAR part 15, Contracting by
Negotiation. The final rule allowed agencies to delay implementation
until January 1, 1998. The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) is in substantive
compliance with the revised FAR, but extensive redesignation of NFS
subparts and sections is required for structural conformance.
Accordingly, NFS part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, is revised in
its entirety, and parts 1852, Solicitation Provisions and Contract
Clauses, and 1853, Forms, are amended. Regulatory references in other
parts are also amended to reflect revised FAR numbering. In addition,
NASA is revising its MidRange procedures in part 1871 to reflect the
expiration of the waiver of the requirement to publish synopses in the
Commerce Business Daily for certain acquisitions under NASA's MidRange
procedures. Previously, these synopses had been posted only on the
Internet. Finally, changes are made to indicate that the NASA
Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) is the single Agency Internet site
for posting solicitations and other acquisition information. NASA
considers all these revisions to be either administrative or editorial,
and no significant changes in Agency policy are implemented.
B. Impact
NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This final
rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
C. Interim Rule
In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 418b(d), NASA has determined that
urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule
without prior opportunity for public comment. This determination is
made on the following bases: (1) The required implementation date of
the revised FAR part 15 is January 1, 1998; (2) NFS part 1815 coverage
is of critical importance to the effective and efficient accomplishment
of NASA acquisitions; and (3) the substance of the NFS coverage was
published previously for public comment in the Federal Register (61 FR
52325) on October 7, 1996.
Lists of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814,
1815, 1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and
1872
Government procurement.
Deidre A. Lee,
Associate Administrator for Procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814, 1815,
1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and 1872
are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804,
1805, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853,
1871, and 1872 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
PART 1801--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
2. In section 1801.106, paragraph (1) is revised to read as
follows:
1801.106 OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (NASA
paragraphs (1) and (2))
(1) NFS requirements. The following OMB control numbers apply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
NFS segment No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1819....................................................... 2700-0073
1819.72.................................................... 2700-0078
1827....................................................... 2700-0052
1843....................................................... 2700-0054
NF 533..................................................... 2700-0003
NF 667..................................................... 2700-0004
NF 1018.................................................... 2700-0017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 1802--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
3. In section 1802.101, the following definition is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
1802.101 Definitions.
NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) means the Internet service
(URL: hhtp://procurement.nasa.gov) NASA uses to broadcast its business
opportunities, procurement regulations, and associated information.
[[Page 9954]]
PART 1804--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Subpart 1804.5--[Added]
4. Subpart 1804.5 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 1804.5--Electronic Commerce in Contracting
1804.570 NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS).
1804.570-1 General.
The NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) provides an electronic
means for posting procurement synopses, solicitations, procurement
regulations, and associated information on the Internet.
1804.570-2 Electronic posting system.
(a) The NAIS Electronic Posting System (EPS) enables the NASA
procurement staff to:
(1) Electronically create and post synopses on the Internet and in
the Commerce Business Daily (CBD); and
(2) Post solicitation documents and other procurement information
on the Internet.
(b) The EPS maintains an on-line index linking the posted synopses
and solicitations for viewing and downloading.
(c) The EPS shall be used to:
(1) Create and post all synopses in accordance with FAR part 5 and
NFS 1805; and
(2) Post all competitive solicitation files, excluding large
construction and other drawings, for acquisitions exceeding $25,000.
(d) The NAIS is the official site for solicitation postings. In the
event supporting materials, such as program libraries, cannot be
reasonably accommodated by the NAIS, Internet sites external to NAIS
may be established after coordination with the Contracting Officer.
Such sites must be linked from the NAIS business opportunities index
where the solicitations reside. External sites should not duplicate any
of the files residing on the NAIS.
PART 1805--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS
1805.201 [Removed]
5. Section 1805.201 is removed.
6. In section 1805.207, paragraph (a) is added to read as follows:
1805.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses. (NASA supplement
paragraph (a))
(a) Synopses shall be transmitted in accordance with 1804.570.
PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
7. Part 1815 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
Subpart 1815.2--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information
1815.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals.
1815.203 Requests for proposals.
1815.203-70 Installation reviews.
1815.203-71 Headquarters reviews.
1815.204 Contract format.
1815.204-2 Part I--The Schedule.
1815.204-5 Part IV--Representations and instructions.
1815.204-70 Page limitations.
1815.207 Handling proposals and information.
1815.207-70 Release of proposal information.
1815.207-71 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special
Government employees.
1815.208 Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of
proposals.
1815.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.209-70 NASA solicitation provisions.
Subpart 1815.3--Source Selection
1815.300 Scope of subpart.
1815.300-70 Applicability of subpart.
1815.303 Responsibilities.
1815.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
1815.304-70 NASA evaluation factors.
1815.305 Proposal evaluation.
1815.305-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.
1815.305-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.
1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
1815.307 Proposal revisions.
1815.308 Source selection decision.
1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.
Subpart 1815.4--Contract Pricing
1815.403 Obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation
(CCC).
1815.403-3 Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
1815.403-4 Requiring cost or pricing data.
1815.404 Proposal analysis.
1815.404-2 Information to support proposal analysis.
1815.404-4 Profit.
1815.404-470 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.404-471 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
1815.406 Documentation.
1815.406-1 Prenegotiation objectives.
1815.406-170 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
1815.406-171 Installation reviews.
1815.406-172 Headquarters reviews.
1815.406-3 Documenting the negotiation.
1815.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
1815.407-2 Make-or-buy programs.
1815.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
Subpart 1815.5--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, Protests,
and Mistakes
1815.504 Award to successful offeror.
1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70 Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.
Subpart 1815.6--Unsolicited Proposals
1815.602 Policy.
1815.604 Agency points of contact.
1815.606 Agency procedures.
1815.606-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
1815.609 Limited use of data.
1815.609-70 Limited use of proposals.
1815.670 Foreign proposals.
Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
1815.7003 Contract clause.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
Subpart 1815.2--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and
Information
1815.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals. (NASA
supplements paragraphs (c) and (f))
(c)(6)(A) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.300-70(b)
contracting officers shall issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs)
for all competitive negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed
$1,000,000 (including all options or later phases of the same project).
DRFPs shall invite comments from potential offerors on all aspects of
the draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal
instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be
specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient
requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the
specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.
(B) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to
include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror
review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the
comments.
(C) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that
the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.
[[Page 9955]]
(D) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a
summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final
RFP.
(E) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DRFP
upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be
realized given the name of the supply or service being acquired. The
DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.
(f)(i) Upon release of the formal RFP, the contracting officer
shall direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain
from communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries
to the contracting officer or other authorized representative. This
procedure is commonly known as a ``blackout notice'' and shall not be
imposed before release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any
format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of
the acquisition.
(ii) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all
communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to
provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive
advantage or reveal proprietary data.
1815.203 Requests for proposals.
1815.203-70 Installation reviews.
(a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs
before release. When appropriate given the complexity of the
acquisition or the number of offices involved in solicitation review,
centers should consider use of a single review meeting called a
Solicitation Review Board (SRB) as a streamlined alternative to the
serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing
offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and
approval responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns.
Actions assigned and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.
(b) When source evaluation board (SEB) procedures are used in
accordance with 1815.370, the SEB shall review and approve the RFP
prior to issuance.
1815.203-71 Headquarters reviews.
For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the
procurement officer shall submit ten copies of the RFP to the Associate
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any significant information
relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation methodology omitted from
the RFP itself should also be provided.
1815.204 Contract format.
1815.204-2 Part I--The Schedule. (NASA supplements paragraph (c))
(c) To the maximum extent practicable, requirements should be
defined as performance based specifications/statements of work that
focus on required outcomes or results, not methods of performance or
processes.
1815.204-5 Part IV--Representations and instructions. (NASA
supplements paragraph (b))
(b) The information required in proposals should be kept to the
minimum necessary for the source selection decision.
1815.204-70 Page limitations.
(a) Technical and contracting personnel will agree on page
limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless approved in
writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the
contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C,
Description/specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages,
and the page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not
exceed 200 pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section
to which they relate. In determining page counts, a page is defined as
one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', with at least one inch margins on
all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. Foldouts count as an
equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages. The metric standard format
most closely approximating the described standard 8\1/2\'' x 11'' size
may also be used.
(b) Page limitations shall also be established for proposals
submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly, technical and
contracting personnel will agree on page limitations for each portion
of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in writing
by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal, excluding title
pages, tables of content, and cost/price information, shall not exceed
500 pages using the page definition of 1815.204-70(a). Firm page
limitations shall also be established for final proposal revisions, if
requested. The appropriate page limitations for final proposal
revisions should be determined by considering the complexity of the
acquisition and the extent of any discussions. The same page
limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of
specified limitations will not be evaluated by the Government and will
be returned to the offeror.
1815.207 Handling proposals and information.
1815.207-70 Release of proposal information.
(a) NASA personnel participating in any way in the evaluation may
not reveal any information concerning the evaluation to anyone not also
participating, and then only to the extent that the information is
required in connection with the evaluation. When non-NASA personnel
participate, they shall be instructed to observe these restrictions.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the
procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal
information outside the Government. This authorization may be granted
only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the
determination of unavailability of Government personnel required by FAR
37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL
employees.
(2) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may
be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one
level above the NASA program official responsible for overall conduct
of the evaluation. The determination of unavailability of Government
personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these
instances.
(i) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
(ii) Unsolicited proposals;
(iii) NASA Research Announcement proposals;
(iv) SBIR and STTR proposals.
(3) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released
to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government
evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
1815.207-71 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special Government
employees.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-
Government evaluators, except employees of JPL, shall be appointed as
special Government employees.
(b) Appointment as a special Government employee is a separate
action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.207-70(b) and may
be processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee
shall be made by:
(1) The NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of
proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or
[[Page 9956]]
(2) The installation personnel office when the release of proposal
information is to be made by the installation.
(c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special
Government employees when they evaluate:
(1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
(2) Unsolicited proposals;
(3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and
(4) SBIR and STTR proposals.
1815.208 Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of
proposals. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b) The FAR late proposal criteria do not apply to Announcements of
Opportunity (see 1872.705-1 paragraph VII), NASA Research Announcements
(see 1852.235-72), and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase
I and Phase II solicitations, and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) solicitations. For these solicitations, proposals or proposal
modifications received from qualified firms after the latest date
specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in
cost to the Government is probable or if there are significant
technical advantages, as compared with proposals previously received.
In such cases, the project office shall investigate the circumstances
surrounding the late submission, evaluate its content, and submit
written recommendations and findings to the selection official or a
designee as to whether there is an advantage to the Government in
considering it. The selection official or a designee shall determine
whether to consider the late submission.
1815.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (NASA
supplements paragraph (a))
(a) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-1 in all
competitive negotiated solicitations.
1815.209-70 NASA solicitation provisions.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for
proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to
conduct a prepoposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate
specific information relating to the conference.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71,
Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the
Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified
quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert
the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular
acquisition.
(c) The contracting office shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72,
Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the
full quantities solicited.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for
proposals.
Subpart 1815.3--Source Selection
1815.300 Scope of subpart.
1815.300-70 Applicability of subpart.
(a)(1) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA
competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:
(i) Acquisitions of $50 million or more--in accordance with FAR
15.3 and this subpart.
(ii) Other acquisitions--in accordance with FAR 15.3 and this
subpart except section 1815.370.
(2) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the
values of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same
project.
(b) FAR 15.3 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions
conducted under the following procedures:
(1) MidRange (see part 1871).
(2) Announcements of Opportunity (see part 1872).
(3) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
(4) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the
authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
(5) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and
1836.6).
1815.303 Responsibilities. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for
each acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR designation of the
contracting officer as SAA, the SSA for center acquisitions shall be
established in accordance with center procedures. For acquisitions
designated as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as
part of the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).
(b)(i) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official
responsible for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection
process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has
the following responsibilities in addition to those listed in the FAR:
(A) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the
weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, and any special
standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2) before release of the
RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
(B) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the
Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the
cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and
(C) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance and
special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection
procedures.
(b)(2) Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Acquisition
Strategy Meetings are in accordance with 1807.103.
1815.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
1815.304-70 NASA evaluation factors.
(a) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission
Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation factors may
be further defined by subfactors. Although discouraged, subfactors may
be further defined by elements. Evaluation subfactors and any elements
should be structured to identify significant discriminators, or ``key
swingers''--the essential information required to support a source
selection decision. Too many subfactors and elements undermine
effective proposal evaluation. All evaluation subfactors and elements
should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and redundancy.
(b) Mission Suitability factor. (1) This factor indicates the merit
or excellence of the work to be performed or product to be delivered.
It includes, as appropriate, both technical and management subfactors.
Mission Suitability shall be numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-
point scale.
(2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation
subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission
Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival
rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the
subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission
Suitability subfactors is limited to four. The Mission Suitability
evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
(3) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content
of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be
numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is
limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified
in the RFP.
[[Page 9957]]
(4) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis.
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may
significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.
(c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness
and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs/prices. The
Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
(d) Past Performance factor. (1) This factor indicates the relevant
quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror's record of
performing services or delivering products similar in size, content,
and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition.
(2) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data
from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private
contracts) that can be used to evaluate their past performance.
Typically, the RFP will require:
(i) A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to
the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of
contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from
the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years.
However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate
performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period
should be tailored accordingly.
(ii) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or
underruns, completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
(3) The contracting officer may start collecting past performance
data before proposal receipt. One method for early evaluation of past
performance is to request offerors to submit their past performance
information in advance of the proposal due date. The RFP could also
include a past performance questionnaire for offerors to send their
previous customers with instructions to return the completed
questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its
past performance information early or of the customers to submit the
completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the
proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of
the offeror's past performance.
1815.305 Proposal evaluation. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and
(b))
(a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
(i) Any deficiencies;
(ii) All strengths and weaknesses, classified as significant or
insignificant;
(iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission
Suitability subfactors and for the Mission Suitability factor in total;
(iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
(v) The Past Performance evaluation factor; and
(vi) Any technical, schedule, and cost risk. Risks may result from
the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of
materials, processes, equipment, etc., or as a result of the cost,
schedule, and performance impacts associated with their approaches.
Risk evaluations must consider the probability of success, the impact
of failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirements.
Risk assessments shall be considered in determining Mission Suitability
strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical/adjectival ratings.
Identified risk areas and the potential for cost impact shall be
considered in the cost or price evaluation.
(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.
(A) Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive
acquisitions. See 1815.403-1(b)(1) and 1815.403-3(b).
(B) When contracting on a basis other than firm-fixed-price, the
contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to
assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost
realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal
are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear
understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various
elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The analysis should
include:
(a) The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including
any recommended additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor
hours, direct rates, and indirect rates. The probable cost should
reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which might
result from that offeror's proposal.
(b) The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and
practices as they affect cost.
(c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each
proposal.
(C) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission
Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in
1815.305(a)(3)(B).
(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
(A) The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's
performance under previously awarded contracts.
(B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past
performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may
include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other
aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation
requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance
selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all
offerors in that acquisition.
(C) Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit
assessments of the offerors's performance, as either a prime or
subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
(D) All pertinent information, including customer assessments and
any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection
records and included in the evaluation.
(a)(3) Technical Evaluation.
(A) Mission Suitability subfactors and the total Mission
Suitability factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival
ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentile
Adjectival rating Definitions range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent................................. A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional 91-100
merit with one or more significant strengths. No
deficiency or significant weakness exists.
Very Good................................. A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates 71-90
over-all competence. One or more significant
strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance
any weaknesses that exist.
Good...................................... A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a 51-70
reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or
weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-
set by strengths do not significantly detract from
the offeror's response.
Fair...................................... A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or 31-50
more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.
[[Page 9958]]
Poor...................................... A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or 0-30
significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of
overall competence or would require a major proposal
revision to correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, the Mission
Suitability evaluation shall reflect the results of any required cost
realism analysis performed under the cost/price factor. A structured
approach shall be used to adjust Mission Suitability scores based on
the degree of assessed cost realism. An example of such an approach
would:
(a) Establish a threshold at which Mission Suitability adjustments
would start. The threshold should reflect the acquisition's estimating
uncertainty (i.e., the higher the degree of estimating uncertainty, the
higher the threshold);
(b) Use a graduated scale that proportionally adjusts a proposal's
Mission Suitability score for its assessed cost realism;
(c) Affect a significant number of points to induce realistic
pricing;
(d) Calculate a Mission Suitability point adjustment based on the
percentage difference between proposed and probable cost as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point
Services Hardware development adjustment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent............ 30 percent.. 0
6 to 10 percent...... 31 to 40 -50
percent.
11 to 15 percent..... 41 to 50 -100
percent.
16 to 20 percent..... 51 to 60 -150
percent.
21 to 30 percent..... 61 to 70 -200
percent.
more than 30 percent. more than 70 -300
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(4) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism
analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs.
Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the
cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
(b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination
to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.
1815.305-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.
(a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial
evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is
unacceptable because:
(1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address
the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the
offeror does not understand the requirements;
(2) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design
drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or
improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually
an entirely new technical proposal; or
(3) It contains major technical or business deficiencies or
omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could
not reasonably be expected to cure.
(b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for
discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with
this section.
1815.305-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.
(a) If only one proposal is received in response to the
solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the
solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the
single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the
SSA shall direct the contracting officer to:
(1) Award without discussions provided for contracting officer
determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.403-
1(c)(1)(ii));
(2) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The
requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined
in accordance with FAR 15.403-1); or
(3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
(b) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also applies when the number of
proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one
acceptable proposal is received.
1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. (NASA
supplements paragraphs (c), (d), and (e))
(c)(2) A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working
goal in establishing the competitive range. Field installations may
establish procedures for approval of competitive range determinations
commensurate with the complexity or dollar value of an acquisition.
(d)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall advise an offeror if,
during discussions, an offeror introduces a new deficiency or
significant weakness. The offeror can be advised during the course of
the discussions or as part of the request for final proposal revision.
(B) The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price elements
that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to submit
their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but shall not
discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other offeror.
The contracting officer shall question inadequate, conflicting,
unrealistic, or unsupported cost information; differences between the
offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost realism
concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs;
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not
appear responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price
elements or a ``bottom line'' is necessary.
(C) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and
conditions so that a ``model'' contract can be sent to each offeror
with the request for final proposal revisions. If the solicitation
allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those
specified in the RFP that have value to the Government and are
considered proposal strengths should be discussed with the offeror and
proposed for inclusion in that offeror's ``model'' contract. These
items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to, other offerors. If
the offeror declines to include these strengths in its ``model''
contract, the Government evaluators
[[Page 9959]]
should reconsider their characterization as strengths.
(e)(1) In no case shall the contacting officer relax or amend RFP
requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting
the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed
requirements.
1815.307 Proposal revisions. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b)(i) The request for final proposal revisions (FPRs) shall also:
(A) Identify any remaining deficiencies and significant weaknesses;
(B) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers
resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial
proposals;
(C) Require offerors to complete and execute the ``model''
contract, which includes any special provisions or performance
capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
(D) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their
proposals; and
(E) Establish a page limit for FPRs.
(ii) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code
HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 million
or more. Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other
acquisitions.
(iii) Proposals are rescored based on FPR evaluations. Scoring
changes between initial and FPRs shall be clearly traceable.
1815.308 Source selection decision. (NASA paragraphs (1), (2) and (3))
(1) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented
and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical
audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and
scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the
selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP.
(2) Before aware, the SSA shall sign a source selection statement
that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source selection
statements must describe: the acquisition; the evaluation procedures;
the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the evaluation
of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement also
addresses unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination,
late proposals, or any other considerations pertinent to the decision.
The statement shall not reveal any confidential business information.
Except for certain major system acquisition competitions (see 1815.506-
70), source selection statements shall be releasable to competing
offerors and the general public upon request. The statement shall be
available to the Debriefing Official to use in postaward debriefings of
unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon
request.
(3) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer
shall award the contract.
1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.
(a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for
those acquisitions identified in 1815.300-700(a)(1)(i).
(b) General. The SEB assists the SSA by providing expert analyses
of the offerors' proposals in relation to the evaluation factors,
subfactors, and elements contained in the solicitation. The SEB will
prepare and present its findings to the SSA, avoiding trade-off
judgments among either the individual offerors or among the evaluation
factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for selection to the
SSA.
(c) Designation. (1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent
individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and
risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the
solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the
acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan or acquisition
strategy meeting approval.
(2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant
installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other
Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose
the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval
shall be obtained in accordance with 1815.207-70.
(3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters
Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments.
Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade
level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
(d) Organization. (1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the
requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the
simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and
factfinding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as
described in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section) to a highly
complex situation involving a major acquisition where two or more
committees are formed and these, in turn, are assisted by special
panels or consultants in particular areas. The number of committees or
panels/consultants shall be kept to a minimum.
(2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the
SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without
compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the
basis for a sound selection decision.
(3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative
assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for
logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.
(4) An SEB committee functions as a factfinding arm of the SEB,
usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or
management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or
portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its
evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also
respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further
justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee
chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of
their committees.
(5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a factfinding arm of
the committee in a specialized area of the committee's
responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a
particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can
provide.
(6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels,
consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members)
shall be limited to a maximum of 20, unless approved in writing by the
procurement officer.
(e) Voting members. (1) Voting members of the SEB shall include
people who will have key assignments on the project to which the
acquisition is directed. However, it is important that this should be
tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may
even be appropriate to designate a management official from outside the
project as SEB Chairperson.
(2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of
an SEB.
(3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels, or
consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB
evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB
shall have equal status as rating officials.
(4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting
individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a
voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not
[[Page 9960]]
feasible, SEB membership shall take precedence over other duties.
(5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
(i) Chairperson.
(ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
(iii) An experienced procurement representative.
(iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as
appropriate.
(v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue
workload).
(f) Ex officio members. (1) The number of nonvoting ex officio
(advisory) members shall be kept as small as possible. Ex officio
members should be selected for the experience and expertise they can
provide to the SEB. Since their advisory role may require access to
highly sensitive SEB material and findings, ex officio membership for
persons other than those identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section
is discouraged.
(2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and
contribute to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not
participate in the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder
should be present during rating sessions.
(3) For field installation selections, the following shall be
nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:
(i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting
members.
(ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated
a voting member.
(iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition,
unless designated a voting member.
(iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
(v) The installation small business specialist.
(vi) The SEB recorder.
(g) Evaluation. (1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson
shall send them the proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated,
along with instructions regarding the expected function of each
committee, and all data considered necessary or helpful.
(2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee
shall submit a written report which should include the following:
(i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the
lowest level evaluated;
(ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole;
and
(iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths,
deficiencies, or significant weaknesses which significantly affected
the evaluation and stating any reservations or concerns, together with
supporting rationale, which the committee or any of its members want to
bring to the attention of the SEB.
(3) Clear traceability must exist at all levels of the SEB process.
All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part
of the SEB records.
(4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal
and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the
proposals for each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own
collective judgment. SEB minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
(h) SEB presentation. (1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA
on the results of the SEB deliberations to permit an informed and
objective selection of the best source(s) for the particular
acquisition.
(2) The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths,
deficiencies, and significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the
probable cost of each proposal, and any significant issues and problems
identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable
special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors, subfactors,
and elements; the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of
the offerors; the Government cost estimate, if applicable; the
offerors' proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee
arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and scores to the
subfactor level.
(3) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved
in the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The
designated individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
(i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied
with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation
accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
(ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors,
elements, weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's
findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural
omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its
findings, or revise the presentation.
(4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation
including arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring
proper attendance, and distributing presentation material.
(5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of
Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including
approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary
presentation should be made to the center director and to the Official-
in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office.
(i) Recommended SEB presentation format. (1) Identification of the
acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or
hardware to be acquired, some quantitative measure including the
Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned
contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
(2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased
acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services,
identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes
from the existing structure.
(3) Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. Explains the
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and any special standards
of responsibility. Lists the relative order of importance of the
evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability
subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission
Suitability and Past Performance evaluations.
(4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the
number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a
preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals,
indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and
women-owned businesses.
(5) Summary of findings. Lists the initial and final Mission
Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed cost/prices, and
any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear
discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection.
Addresses any competitive range determination.
(6) Significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses
of offerors. Summarizes the SEB's findings, using the following
guidelines:
(i) Present only the significant strengths, deficiencies, and
significant weaknesses of individual offerors.
(ii) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and
significant weaknesses to the evaluation factors, subfactors, and
elements.
(iii) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and
FPRs on ratings and scores.
(7) Final mission suitability ratings and scores. Summarizes the
evaluation subfactors and elements, the maximum points achievable, and
the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.
[[Page 9961]]
(8) Final cost/price evaluation. Summarizes proposed cost/prices
and any probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed
fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as possible, showing
SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies the SEB's
confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors, noting the
reasons for low or high confidence.
(9) Past performance. Reflects the summary conclusions, supported
by specific case data.
(10) Special interest. Includes only information of special
interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g.,
procedural errors or other matters that could affect the selection
decision.
(j) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance
with 1815.308. For installation selections, the installation Chief
Counsel or designee will prepare the source selection statement. For
Headquarters selections, the Office of General Counsel or designee will
prepare the statement.
Subpart 1815.4--Contract Pricing
1815.403 Obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data. (NASA
supplements paragraphs (b) and (c))
(b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to
both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting
officers shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for
this exception.
(c)(4) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing
data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each
waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code
HK).
1815.403-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation
(CCC).
NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or
pricing data when contracting with the CCC. This waiver applies through
March 31, 1999. The CCC will provide assurance of the fairness and
reasonableness of the proposed prices, and will also provide for
follow-up audit activity to ensure that excess profits are found and
refunded to NASA. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the
appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is
submitted to permit any required Government cost/price analysis.
1815.403-3 Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b) As indicated in 1815.403-1(b)(1), the adequate price
competition exception applies to all competitive acquisitions. For
other than firm-fixed-price competitions, only the minimum information
other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price
reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested. For firm-
fixed-price acquisitions, the contracting officer shall not request any
cost information, unless proposed prices appear unreasonable or
unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed approach and there are
concerns that the contractor may default.
1815.403-4 Requiring cost or pricing data. (NASA supplements paragraph
(b))
(b)(2) If a certificate of current cost or pricing data is made
applicable as of a date other than the date of price agreement, the
agreed date should generally be within two weeks of the date of that
agreement.
1815.404 Proposal analysis.
1815.404-2 Information to support proposal analysis. (NASA supplements
paragraph (a))
(a)(1)(A) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and
an audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting
officers should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA
resources are not available.
(B) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves
merely a verification of information, contracting officers should
obtain this verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather
than formal request of field pricing support.
(C) When the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature,
contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a
minimum are considered: actuals incurred under the previous contract,
learning experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract
proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA
resources or the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.
(D) Requests for field pricing assistance may be made on NASA Form
1434, Letter of Request for Pricing-Audit-Technical Evaluation
Services.
1815.404-4 Profit. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b)(1)(i) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or
fee objectives, described in 1815.404-470, shall be used to determine
profit or fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those
acquisitions that require cost analysis.
(ii) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is
not required for:
(a) Architect-engineer contracts;
(b) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of
Government facilities;
(c) Construction contracts;
(d) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by
subcontractors;
(e) Termination settlements;
(f) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers
may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as
an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
(g) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the
procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach
is unsuitable.
1815.404-470 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
(a) General. (1) The NASA structured approach for determining
profit or fee objectives is a system of assigning weights to cost
elements and other factors to calculate the objective. Contracting
officers shall use NASA Form 634 to develop the profit or fee objective
and shall use the weight ranges listed after each category and factor
on the form after considering the factors in this subsection. The
rationale supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the
PPM in accordance with 1815.406-170(d)(3).
(2)(i) The structured approach was designed for determining profit
or fee objectives for commercial organizations. However, the structured
approach shall be used as a basis for arriving at fee objectives for
nonprofit organizations (FAR subpart 31.7), excluding educational
institutions (FAR subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee
on contracts with educational institutions.)
(ii) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profits
or fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be
subtracted from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this
adjustment, it will be necessary to consider the following factors:
(A) Tax position benefits;
(B) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
(C) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
(D) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage
or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit
organization.
[[Page 9962]]
(b) Contractor effort. (1) This factor takes into account what
resources are necessary and what the contractor must do to meet the
contract performance requirements. The suggested cost categories under
this factor are for reference purposes only. The format of individual
proposals will vary, but these broad categories provide a sample
structure for the evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of
cost shall be separately listed under the appropriate category and
assigned a weight from the category range.
(2) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific
acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated
for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part
of the cost base in column 1.(a) in the computation of profit or fee.
(3) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content
of the proposed contract as follows:
(i) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and
other material).
(A) Consider the managerial and technical efforts necessary for the
prime contractor to select subcontractors and administer subcontracts,
including efforts to introduce and maintain competition. These
evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw materials or basic
commodities; purchases of processed material, including all types of
components of standard or near-standard characteristics; and purchases
of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies, special tooling, and other
products special to the end item. In performing the evaluation, also
consider whether the contractor's purchasing program makes a
substantial contribution to the performance of a contract through the
use of subcontracting programs involving many sources, new complex
components and instrumentation, incomplete specifications, and close
surveillance by the prime contractor.
(B) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as
scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation.
If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR
31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the
material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the
constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the
appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
(ii) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other
labor). (A) Analysis of the various items of cost should include
evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering
talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience
to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of
assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the
amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering
talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or
supporting personnel.
(B) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning
higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills
and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for
contract performance.
(C) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and other
types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower resources
for meeting these requirements should be considered. For purposes of
evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality control, and
receiving and inspection) proposed separately from engineering,
service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the most
appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation considerations as
outlined in this section will be applied.
(iii) Overhead and general management (G&A). (A) Analysis of
overhead and G&A includes the evaluation of the makeup of these
expenses, how much they contribute to contract performance, and the
degree of substantiation provided for rates proposed in future years.
(B) Contracting officers should also consider the historical
accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability
to control overhead pool expenses.
(C) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead rate
of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break out the
applicable sections of the composite rate which could be classified as
engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other overhead pools, and
G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
(iv) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with
contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and
relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of
cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to
contract performance.
(c) Other factors.
(1) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should
influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to
anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to
the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination
provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing
measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for
arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This
factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation
profit/fee objectives.
(i) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of
reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee
in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any
risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not
acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this
factor.
(ii) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is
related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the
contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk
by contract type would usually fall within the 0 to 3 percent range for
cost-reimbursement contracts and 3 to 7 percent range for fixed-price
contracts.
(A) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
subsection, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a
reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains
cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases,
up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts
fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly
related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of
fees, etc.
(B) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to
accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting
should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item
required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for
prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
(iii) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form
of cost risk to consider.
(A) The Contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant
impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular
contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting
officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost
risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has
effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the
contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that
would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost
risk weight should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a
[[Page 9963]]
substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts
unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the
contractor's risk.
(B) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition
that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change
orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to
the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial
performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be
reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively
reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the
contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable,
determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of
all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be
made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not
be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work
completed, before definitization.
(2) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their
contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance
from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to
encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the
maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an
analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
(i) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee
objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization
needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the
required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the
facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that
significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be
provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that
rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should
receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the examples
in this paragraph should be evaluated on their merits, with either a
positive or negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee
objective. However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform
a contract that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a
contractor's use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the
contract, profit/fee need not be adjusted.
(ii) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by
the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this
weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have
on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should
be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum
reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches
zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent
than monthly.
(3) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance
should be evaluated in such areas as product quality, meeting
performance schedules, efficiency in cost control (including the need
for and reasonableness of costs incurred), accuracy and reliability of
previous cost estimates, degree of cooperation by the contractor (both
business and technical), timely processing of changes and compliance
with other contractual provisions.
(4) Subcontract program management. Subcontract program management
includes evaluation of the contractor's commitment to its competition
program and its past and present performance in competition in
subcontracting. If a contractor has consistently achieved excellent
results in these areas in comparison with other contractors in similar
circumstances, such performance merits a proportionately greater
opportunity for profit or fee. Conversely, a poor record in this regard
should result in a lower profit or fee.
(5) Federal socioeconomic programs. In addition to rewarding
contractors for unusual initiative in supporting Government
socioeconomic programs, failure or unwillingness on the part of the
contractor to support these programs should be viewed as evidence of
poor performance for the purpose of establishing this profit/fee
objective factor.
(6) Special situations. (i) Occasionally, unusual contract pricing
arrangements are made with the contractor under which it agrees to
accept a lower profit or fee for changes or modifications within a
prescribed dollar value. In such circumstances, the contractor should
receive favorable consideration in developing the profit/fee objective.
(ii) This factor need not be limited to situations that increase
profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when the
contractor is expected to obtain spin-off benefits as a direct result
of the contract, for example, products with commercial application.
(d) Facilities capital cost of money. (1) When facilities capital
cost of money is included as an item of cost in the contractor's
proposal, it shall not be included in the cost base for calculating
profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the profit/fee objective shall
be made in the amount equal to the facilities capital cost of money
allowed in accordance with FAR 31.205-10(a)(2).
(2) CAS 417, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital
assets under construction, should not appear in contract proposals.
These costs are included in the initial value of a facility for
purposes of calculating depreciation under CAS 414.
1815.404-471 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized
contracts.
1815.406 Documentation.
1815.406-1 Prenegotiation objectives. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b)(i) Before conducting negotiations requiring installation or
Headquarters review, contracting officers or their representatives
shall prepare a prenegotiation position memorandum setting forth the
technical, business, contractual, pricing, and other aspects to be
negotiated.
(ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for
contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR
15.3 and 1815.3.
1815.406-170 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain
the contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately
become the basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to
the price negotiation memorandum (see FAR 15.406-3 and 1815.406-3). In
addition to the information described in FAR 15.406-1 and, as
appropriate, 15.406-3(a), the PPM should address the following
subjects, as applicable, in the order presented:
(a) Introduction. Include a description of the acquisition and a
history of prior acquisitions for the same or similar items. Address
the extent of competition and its results. Identify the contractor and
place of performance (if not evident from the description of the
acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations and policy,
including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of
contractor systems (see FAR 15.406-3(a)(4)). In addition, the
negotiation schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation
team members identified by name and position.
(b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract
[[Page 9964]]
contemplated and the reasons for its suitability.
(c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any
special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition,
including such items as--
(1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized and incurred;
(2) Results of preaward survey;
(3) Contract option requirements;
(4) Government property to be furnished;
(5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment
(and any modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government);
and
(6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions
anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses
and when approvals were obtained, if required.
(d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option,
include--
(1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of
the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective.
The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the
Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each
element of cost, compare the contractor's proposal and the Government
position, explain the differences and how the Government position was
developed, including the estimating assumptions and projection
techniques employed, and how the positions differ in approach. Include
a discussion of excessive wages found (if applicable) and their planned
resolution. Explain how historical costs, including costs incurred
under a letter contract (if applicable), were used in developing the
negotiation objective.
(2) Significant differences between the field pricing report
(including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or
contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each
proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.404-3(c), there
shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses
performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation
objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major
subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of
competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when
appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by
the prime contractor, any unusual or special pricing or finance
arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
(3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and,
if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured
Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities
Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee
contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines,
ceilings, and cost risk.
(e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the
Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for
the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently
demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or
condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the
rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from
the original approval authority.
1815.406-171 Installation reviews.
Each contracting activity shall establish procedures to review all
prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage, exact
procedures to be followed, levels of management review, and contract
file documentation requirements should be directly related to the
dollar value and complexity of the acquisition. The primary purpose of
these reviews is to ensure that the negotiator, or negotiation team, is
thoroughly prepared to enter into negotiations with a well-conceived,
realistic, and fair plan.
1815.406-172 Headquarters reviews.
(a) When a prenegotiation position has been selected for
Headquarters review and approval, the contracting activity shall submit
to the Office of Procurement (Code HS) one copy each of the
prenegotiation position memorandum, the contractor's proposal, the
Government technical evaluations, and all pricing reports (including
any audit reports).
(b) The required information described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be furnished to Headquarters as soon as practicable and
sufficiently in advance of the planned commencement of negotiations to
allow a reasonable period of time for Headquarters review. Electronic
submittal is acceptable.
1815.406-3 Documenting the negotiation. (NASA supplements paragraph
(a))
(a)(i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed
summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including
price reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated;
and the methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final
negotiated agreement.
(ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive
negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR 15.406-
3 shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to
the extent applicable.
(iii) When the PNM is a ``stand-alone'' document, it shall contain
the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs.
However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.406-1, the subsequent
PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.406-3 that was
not provided in the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of
factors affecting cost elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours,
or subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of
the contractor's systems).
1815.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
1815.407-2 Make-or-buy programs. (NASA supplements paragraph (e))
(e)(1) Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work
efforts estimated to cost less than $500,000.
1815.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
78, Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-
or-buy programs as provided in FAR 15.407-2(c). This provision shall be
used in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or
Additions to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting officer may add
additional paragraphs identifying any other information required in
order to evaluate the program.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79,
Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes, in contracts that include
FAR 52.215-9 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate
columns the items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract
value.
Subpart 1815.5--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications,
Protests, and Mistakes
1815.504 Award to successful offeror.
The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.504 on negotiated
acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal
establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government
and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully
approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award
portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF
[[Page 9965]]
1447, or a letter contract when a definitized contract instrument is
not available but the urgency of the requirement necessitates immediate
performance. In this latter instance, the procedures in 1816.603 for
approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.
1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70 Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.
(a) When an acquisition is conducted in accordance with the Major
System acquisition procedures in part 1834 and multiple offerors are
selected, the debriefing will be limited in such a manner that it does
not prematurely disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches
of the successful offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
(b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design
concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to
competing offerors or the general public until the release of the
source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
Subpart 1815.6--Unsolicited Proposals
1815.602 Policy. (NASA paragraphs (1) and (2))
(1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract,
grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement. If a grant or
cooperative agreement is used, the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Handbook (NPG 5800.1) applies.
(2) Renewal proposals (i.e., those for the extension or
augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS
regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in
Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.
1815.604 Agency points of contact. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a) Information titled ``Guidance for the Preparation and
Submission of Unsolicited Proposals'' is available on the Internet at
http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov/nashdbk.html. A deviation is required for
use of any modified or summarized version of the Internet information
or for alternate means of general dissemination of unsolicited proposal
information.
1815.606 Agency procedures. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited
proposals initially submitted to another agency or to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without the offeror's express consent.
(b)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall
designate a point of contact for receiving and coordinating the
handling and evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
(ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling
proposals initially received by other offices within the installation.
Misdirected proposals shall be forwarded by the point of contact to the
proper installation. Points of contact are also responsible for
providing guidance to potential offerors regarding the appropriate NASA
officials to contact for general mission-related inquiries or other
preproposal discussions.
(iii) Points of contact shall keep records of unsolicited proposals
received and shall provide prompt status information to requesters.
These records shall include, at a minimum, the number of unsolicited
proposals received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal year; the
identity of the offerors; and the office to which each was referred.
The numbers shall be broken out by source (large business, small
business, university, or nonprofit institution).
1815.606-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified
by an evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall
be evaluated as a response to that NRA (see 1835.016-70), provided that
the evaluating office can either:
(a) State that the proposal is not at a competitive disadvantage,
or
(b) Give the offeror an opportunity to amend the unsolicited
proposal to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA proposal
preparation instructions. If these conditions cannot be met, the
proposal must be evaluated separately.
1815.609 Limited use of data.
1815.609-70 Limited use of proposals.
Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government
only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with, the
procedures prescribed in, 1815.207-70.
1815.670 Foreign proposals.
Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NMI
1362.1, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in
Space and Aeronautical Programs.
Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPG 5101.33,
Procurement Guidance.
1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the
contracting officer shall indicate that the clause at 1852.215-84,
Ombudsman, is applicable. This may be accomplished by referencing the
clause number and identifying the installation Ombudsman.
1815.7003 Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the
same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations
(including draft solicitations) and contracts.
PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
8. In section 1816.402-270, paragraph (e)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
1816.402-270 NASA technical performance incentives.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) For a CPFF contract, the sum of the maximum positive
performance incentive and fixed fee shall not exceed the limitations in
FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i).
* * * * *
PART 1834--MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
1834.7003-1 [Amended]
9. In section 1834.7003-1, paragraph (c) is amended by adding ``and
1804.570-2,'' after the reference ``FAR 5.205,''.
PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
10. Part 1852 is amended as set forth below:
1852.215-73, 1852.215-74, 1852.215-75 [Removed]
11. Sections 1852.215-73, 1852.215-74 and 1852.215-75 are removed.
1852.215-77 [Amended]
12. In section 1852.215-77, the prescription ``1815.407-70(d)'' is
revised to read ``1815.209-70(a)''.
1842.215-78 [Amended]
13. In section 1852.215-78, the prescription ``11815.708-70(a)'' is
revised to read ``1815.408-70(a)'', the
[[Page 9966]]
provision date ``(December 1988)'' is revised to read February 1998,
and in the introductory text to the provision, the reference ``FAR
15.705'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.407-2''.
1852.215-79 [Amended]
14. In section 1852.215-79, the prescription ``1815.708-70(b)'' is
revised to read ``1815.407-70(b)''.
1852.215-81 [Amended]
15. In section 1852.215-81, the introductory text, provision date,
and in the provision, the first sentence of paragraph (b), and
paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:
1852.215-81 Proposal page limitations.
As prescribed in 1815.209-70(d), insert the following provision:
Proposal Page Limitations
February 1998.
* * * * *
(b) A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'',
with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than
12 point type. * * *
* * * * *
(d) If final proposal revisions are requested, separate page
limitations will be specified in the Government's request for that
submission.
* * * * *
1852.215-82 [Removed]
16. Section 1852.215-82 is removed.
1852.243-70 [Amended]
17. In section 1852.243-70, the clause date ``(MAR 1997)'' is
revised to read (Insert month and year of Federal Register
publication), and in paragraph (d)(1) to the clause, the reference
``FAR 15.804-6'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.403-5'' and the reference
``FAR 15.804-2'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.403-4''.
PART 1853--FORMS
1853.215-2 [Amended]
18. Section 1853.215-2 is redesignated as section 1853.215-70.
1853.215-70 [Amended]
19. In paragraph (a) to the newly designated section 1853.215-70,
the reference ``1815.970-1(a)'' is revised to read ``1815.404-470''.
1853.232 [Amended]
20. Section 1853.232 is redesignated as section 1853.232-70.
1853.245 [Amended]
21. Section 1853.245 is redesignated as section 1853.245-70.
1853.249 [Amended]
22. Section 1853.249 is redesignated as section 1853.249-70.
PART 1871--MIDRANGE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
1871.103 [Amended]
23. In the first sentence to paragraph (b) of section 1871.103, the
phrase ``greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) (FAR
Part 1813) and'' is removed.
1871.104 [Amended]
24. In section 1871.104, paragraph (a) is removed, and paragraphs
(b) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (d).
25. In the newly designated paragraph (c), the reference ``FAR
15.601'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.306''.
1871.105 [Amended]
26. In section 1871.105, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
1871.105 Policy.
(a) Under MidRange procedures, pricing requirements shall be
determined in accordance with FAR 15.402 and 15.403.
* * * * *
Subpart 1871.3--[Removed]
27. Subpart 1871.3 is removed.
1871.401-3 [Amended]
28. In section 1871.401-3, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as
follows:
1871.401-3 Competitive negotiated procurement not using qualitative
criteria.
(a) * * *
(3) See FAR 15.304, FAR 15.305(a)(2), and 1815.305(a)(2) regarding
the evaluation of past performance.
* * * * *
1871.401-4 [Amended]
29. In section 1871.401-4, paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as
follows:
1871.401-4 Competitive negotiations using qualitative criteria (Best
Value Selection).
(a) * * *
(4) See FAR 15.304, FAR 15.305(a)(2), and 1815.305(a)(2) regarding
the evaluation of past performance.
* * * * *
1871.401-5 [Amended]
30. In section 1871.401-5, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
1871.401-5 Noncompetitive negotiations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The buying team shall request pricing information in accordance
with FAR 15.402 and 15.403.
* * * * *
1871.403 [Removed]
31. Section 1871.403 is removed.
1871.604-2 [Amended]
32. In section 1871.604-2, the third sentence to paragraph (a) and
paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:
1871.604-2 Determination of ``Finalists''.
(a) * * * Finalists will include the most highly rated offerors in
accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1) and 1815.306(c)(2). * * *
* * * * *
(d) Offerors determined not to be finalists or not selected for
contract award will be electronically notified.
PART 1872--ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS
1872.302 [Amended]
33. In section 1872.302, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
1872.302 Preparatory effort.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Synopsize the AO in the Commerce Business Daily and on the NAIS
prior to release.
* * * * *
1872.403-2 [Amended]
34. In paragraph (c)(2) to section 1872.403-2, the phrase ``and the
conditions set forth in 1815.413-2 Alternate II'' is removed.
35. Amend the internal references throughout the NFS as indicated
in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFS location Remove Insert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1803.104-5(a)(i)........................ 1815.612-70.................... 1815.370
1814.201-670(d)......................... 1815.407-70(d)................. 1815.209-70(a)
1816.405-270(b)(2)(ii).................. FAR 15-9 and 1815.9............ FAR 15.404-4, 1815.404-4 and 1815.404-
470
[[Page 9967]]
1817.503(a)(2).......................... FAR 15.405..................... FAR 15.201
1832.409-170(d)......................... 1815.9......................... 1815.404-470
1835.016-70(d)(1)....................... 1815.508-70 and 1815.509-70.... FAR 15.608, FAR 15.609, and 1815.609-
70
1835.016-70(d)(2)....................... 1815.412-70.................... 1815.208
1835.016-70(d)(3)....................... FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2. 1815.207
1835.016-70(d)(3)....................... FAR 15.601..................... FAR 15.306
1835.016-70(d)(5)....................... FAR 15.610(e)(1)............... FAR 15.306(e)
1835.016-70(d)(7)....................... FAR 15.1004.................... FAR 15.5
1844.201-2(c)(2)........................ FAR 15.806-2(a)(1) or (2)...... FAR 15.404-3(c)
1853.242-70(g).......................... 1815.805-5(a)(1)(E)............ 1815.404-2(a)(1)(D)
1871.105(f)............................. FAR 15.406..................... FAR 15.204
1871.401-3(a)(2)........................ FAR 52.215-16, Alternate II.... FAR 52.215-1
1871.401-3(b)(4)........................ FAR 15.610..................... FAR 15.306
1871.401-4(a)(2)........................ FAR 52.215-16, Alternate II.... FAR 52.215-1
1871.402(d)............................. 15.402(i)...................... FAR 15.203(d)
1871.505 introductory text.............. FAR 15.1001.................... FAR 15.503
1871.604-3(a)........................... FAR 15.610..................... FAR 15.306
1872.505 introductory text.............. FAR 15.1004.................... FAR 15.5
1872.702(b)(1).......................... 1815.412....................... 1815.208
1872.705-1 paragraph VI................. FAR 15.8....................... FAR 15.403-5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-4853 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
