[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3464-3487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1240]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852, and 1870
Rewrite of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)
AGENCY: Office of Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the National Performance Review initiative to
streamline and clarify regulations, NASA issued an interim rule (61 FR
52325-52347, October 7, 1996) as corrected (61 FR 56271, October 31,
1996) which revised part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, and part
1816, Types of Contracts; made conforming changes to part 1852,
Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses; and removed subpart
1870.3, NASA Source Evaluation. The interim rule is being adopted as a
final rule with minor editorial revisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom O'Toole, (202) 358-0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
No comments were received by the closing date in response to the
interim rule. Several comments were received after the closing date,
primarily
[[Page 3465]]
addressing the changes in NASA's source selection process.
Specifically, the comments requested NASA: Eliminate the competitive
range numerical goal of three proposals (1815.609(a)); clarify that the
restrictions of the Procurement Integrity Act apply before a blackout
notice is issued (1815.408-70); clarify that the evaluation of relevant
experience and past performance for new businesses may include an
evaluation of the company's principals (1815.605-70(d)); clarify the
definition of proposal weakness (1815.610(c)(2)(A)); and eliminate the
requirement that source selection statements be publicly releasable
(1815.611(d)(iii)). NASA considered these comments and believes the
sections in question are both adequately stated and integral to the
Agency's acquisition streamlining initiatives. Accordingly, no changes
are made to the interim rule as a result of public comment.
However, the following editorial and administrative changes are
made to ensure consistency among the rewritten and renumbered NFS
parts:
1. In 1815.407-70(a), the reference to ``issued pursuant to subpart
1870.1'' is deleted.
2. In 1815.602(b) (ii) and (iii), the parenthetical cross
references are corrected.
3. In 1815.708-70, the title is changed to ``NASA contract
clauses''.
4. In 1815.902(a)(2)(G), the redundant language after
``unsuitable'' is deleted.
5. In 1816.404-270(b)(3), the reference to ``CPAF'' is a
typographical error and is corrected to ``cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF).''
6. In 1852.216-76, the NFS reference in the footnote is corrected
to ``1816.404-272(a).''
7. In 1852.216-77(c)(4), the phrase ``cumulative provisional fee
payments'' in the second sentence is corrected to ``cumulative interim
(and provisional, if applicable) fee payments'' to reflect the policy
in 1816.404-2.
8. In 1852.216-88, footnote (5) is deleted and corrected to ``(5)
Insert the appropriate amount in accordance with 1816.402-270(e).''
In addition, other miscellaneous revisions are made to correct
printing errors in the published interim rule.
The National Performance Review urged agencies to streamline and
clarify their regulations. The NFS rewrite initiative was established
to pursue these goals by conducting a section by section review of the
NFS to verify its accuracy, relevancy, and validity. The NFS will be
rewritten in blocks of parts and upon completion of all parts, the NFS
will be reissued in a new edition.
Impact
NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule does not
impose any reporting or record keeping requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852 and 1870
Government procurement.
Thomas S. Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852, and 1870 are amended as
follows:
1.-2. Part 1815 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations
Sec.
1815.405 Solicitations for information or planning purposes.
1815.405-70 Draft requests for proposals.
1815.406 Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for
quotations (RFQs).
1815.406-2 Part I--The Schedule.
1815.406-5 Part IV--Representations and instructions.
1815.406-70 Page limitations.
1815.406-71 Installation reviews.
1815.406-72 Headquarters reviews.
1815.407 Solicitation provisions.
1815.407-70 NASA solicitation provisions.
1815.408 Issuing solicitations.
1815.408-70 Blackout notices.
1815.412 Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of
proposals.
1815.412-70 Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) solicitations.
1815.413 Disclosure and use of information before award.
1815.413-2 Alternate II.
1815.413-270 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special
Government employees.
Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals
1815.502 Policy.
1815.503 General.
1815.504 Advance guidance.
1815.506 Agency procedures.
1815.506-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
1815.508 Prohibitions.
1815.508-70 NASA prohibitions.
1815.509 Limited use of data.
1815.509-70 Limited use of proposals.
1815.570 Foreign proposals.
Subpart 1815.6--Source Selection
1815.601 Definitions.
1815.602 Applicability.
1815.605-70 Evaluation factors and subfactors.
1815.608 Proposal evaluation.
1815.608-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.
1815.608-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.
1815.609 Competitive range.
1815.610 Written or oral discussions.
1815.611 Best and Final Offers.
1815.612-70 NASA formal source selection.
Subpart 1815.7--Make-or-Buy Programs
1815.704 Items and work included.
1815.706 Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.
1815.708 Contract clause.
1815.708-70 NASA contract clause.
Subpart 1815.8--Price Negotiation
1815.804 Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or
pricing data.
1815.804-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.804-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation
(CCC).
1815.804-2 Requiring cost or pricing data.
1815.805-5 Field pricing support.
1815.807 Pre-negotiation objectives.
1815.807-70 Content of the pre-negotiation position memorandum.
1815.807-71 Installation reviews.
1815.807-72 Headquarters reviews.
1815.808 Price negotiation memorandum.
Subpart 1815.9--Profit
1815.902 Policy.
1815.903 Contracting officer responsibilities.
1815.970 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.970-1 General.
1815.970-2 Contractor effort.
1815.970-3 Other factors.
1815.970-4 Facilities capital cost of money.
1815.971 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications,
Protests, and Mistakes
1815.1003 Notification to successful offeror.
1815.1004-70 Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.
Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
1815.7003 Contract clause.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and
Quotations
1815.405 Solicitations for information or planning purposes.
1815.405-70 Draft requests for proposals.
(a) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.602(b), contracting
officers shall
[[Page 3466]]
issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) for all competitive
negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000 (including all
options or later phases of the same project). DRFPs shall invite
comments from potential offerors on all aspects of the draft
solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal
instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be
specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient
requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the
specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.
(b) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to
include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror
review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the
comments.
(c) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that
the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.
(d) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a
summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final
RFP.
(e) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DFRP
upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be
realized given the nature of the supply or service being acquired. The
DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.
1815.406 Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for
quotations (RFQs).
1815.406-2 Part I--The Schedule.
(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.
1815.406-5 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. Although offerors
should be provided the maximum flexibility in developing their
proposals, contracting officers shall specify any information and
standard formats required for the efficient and impartial evaluation of
proposals.
1815.406-70 Page limitations.
(a) Technical and contracting personnel will mutually agree on page
limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless approved in
writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the
contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C,
Description/specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages,
and the page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not
exceed 200 pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section
to which they relate. In determining page counts, a page is defined as
one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', with at least one inch margins on
all sides, using not smaller than 12 characters per inch or equivalent
type. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages.
The metric standard format most closely approximating the described
standard 8\1/2\'' x 11'' size may also be used.
(b) Page limitations shall also be established for proposals
submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly, technical and
contracting personnel will mutually agree on page limitations for each
portion of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in
writing by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal,
excluding title pages, tables of contents, and cost/price information,
shall not exceed 500 pages using the page definition of 1815.406-70(a).
Firm page limitations shall also be established for Best and Final
Offers (BAFOs), if requested. The appropriate BAFO page limitations
should be determined by considering the complexity of the acquisition
and the extent of any written or oral discussions. The same BAFO page
limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of
the specified limitations for the initial proposal and BAFO will not be
evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the offeror.
1815.406-71 Installation reviews.
(a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs
before release. When appropriate given the complexity of the
acquisition or the number of offices involved in solicitation review,
centers should consider use of a single review meeting, called a
Solicitation Review Board (SRB), as a streamlined alternative to the
serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing
offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and
approval responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns.
Actions assigned and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.
(b) When source evaluation board (SEB) procedures are used in
accordance with 1815.612-70, the SEB shall review and approve the RFP
prior to issuance.
1815.406-72 Headquarters reviews.
For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the
procurement officer shall submit ten copies of the RFP to the Associate
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any significant information
relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation methodology that are not
included in the RFP itself should also be provided.
1815.407 Solicitation provisions.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (c) and (d))
(c)(6) The provision at FAR 52.215-10, Late Submissions,
Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals shall not be used in
solicitations for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or
Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, or for broad agency
announcements listed in 1835.016. See instead 1815.407-70(a).
(d)(4) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-16 Alternate
II in all competitive negotiated solicitations.
1815.407-70 NASA solicitation provisions.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
73, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO,
SBIR, and STTR Programs), in lieu of the provision at FAR 52.215-10 in
Announcements of Opportunity and in Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer solicitations. (See
1815.412.)
(b) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially
as stated at 1852.215-74, Alternate Proposals, in competitive requests
for proposals if receipt of alternate proposals would benefit the
Government.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
75, Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions, in all requests for
proposals.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
77, Pre-proposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for
proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to
conduct a pre-proposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate
specific information relating to the conference.
(e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71,
Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the
Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified
quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert
the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular
acquisition.
[[Page 3467]]
(f) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72,
Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the
full quantities solicited.
(g) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-
81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for
proposals.
(h) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
82, Offeror Oral Presentations, in competitive requests for proposals
when the Government intends to allow offerors to make oral
presentations prior to commencement of the Government's formal
evaluation.
1815.408 Issuing solicitations.
1815.408.70 Blackout notices.
(a) Upon release of the formal RFP, the Contracting Officer shall
direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain from
communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries to
the Contracting Officer or other authorized representative. This
procedure is commonly known as a ``blackout notice'' and shall not be
imposed prior to release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any
format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of
the acquisition.
(b) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all
communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to
provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive
advantage or reveal offeror proprietary data.
1815.412 Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals.
1815.412-70 Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) solicitations.
For BAAs listed in 1835.016, SBIR Phase I and Phase II
solicitations, and STTR solicitations--
(a) Proposals, or modifications to them, received from qualified
firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if
a significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if
there are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals
previously received. In such cases, the project office shall
investigate the circumstances surrounding the submission of the late
proposal or modification, evaluate its content, and submit written
recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as
to whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering the
proposal.
(b) The selection official or a designee shall determine whether to
consider the proposal.
(c) Offerors may withdraw proposals any time before award, provided
the conditions in paragraph (b) of the provision at 1852.215-73, Late
Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, SBIR, and
STTR Programs), are satisfied.
1815.413 Disclosure and use of information before award.
1815.413-2 Alternate II.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (e), and (f))
The alternate procedures at FAR 15.413-2 shall be used for NASA
acquisitions in lieu of those prescribed at FAR 15.413-1. These
procedures, as implemented by this section, apply both before and after
award.
(a) During evaluation proceedings, NASA personnel participating in
any way in the evaluation may not reveal any information concerning the
evaluation to anyone not also participating, and then only to the
extent that the information is required in connection with the
evaluation. When non-NASA personnel participate, they shall be
instructed to observe these restrictions.
(e) The notice at FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover
sheet of all proposals, whether solicited or unsolicited. (See 1805.402
regarding release of the names of firms submitting offers.)
(f)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(ii) of this section, the
procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal
information outside the Government. This authorization may be granted
only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the
determination of nonavailability of Government personnel required by
FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL
employees.
(ii) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may
be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one
level above the NASA program official responsible for overall conduct
of the evaluation. The determination of nonavailability of Government
personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these
instances.
(A) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
(B) Unsolicited proposals;
(C) NASA Research Announcement proposals;
(D) SBIR and STTR proposals.
(iii) The written approvals required by paragraphs (f) (i) and (ii)
of this section shall be provided to the contracting officer before the
release of the proposal information. As a minimum, the approval shall:
(A) Identify the precise proposal information being released;
(B) Identify the person receiving the proposal information and
evidence of their appointment as a special government employee or a
statement of the applicable exception (see 1815.413-270);
(C) Provide a justification of the need for disclosure of the
proposal information to the non-Government evaluator(s); and
(D) Provide a statement that a signed ``Agreement and Conditions
for Evaluation of Proposals,'' in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, will be obtained prior to release of the proposal to the
evaluator.
(iv) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released
to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government
evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information
in accordance with paragraphs (f)(i) and (f)(ii) of this section.
(f)(2) The NASA official approving the disclosure of any proposal
information to a non-Government evaluator, including employees of JPL,
shall, prior to such disclosure, require each non-Government evaluator
to sign the following ``Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of
Proposals.''
Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of Proposals (October 1996)
(1) The recipient agrees to use proposal information for NASA
evaluation purposes only. This limitation does not apply to
information that is otherwise available without restrictions to the
Government, another competing contractor, or the public.
(2) The recipient agrees that the NASA proposal cover sheet
notice (FAR 15.413-2(e) and NFS 1815.413-2(e)), and any notice that
may have been placed on the proposal by its originator, shall be
applied to any reproduction or abstract of any proposal information
furnished.
(3) Upon completion of the evaluation, the recipient agrees to
return all copies of proposal information or abstracts, if any, to
the NASA office that initially furnished the proposal information
for evaluation.
(4) Unless authorized in writing by the NASA official releasing
the proposal information, the recipient agrees not to contact either
the business entities originating the proposals or any of their
employees, representatives, or agents concerning any aspect of the
proposal information or extracts covered by this agreement.
(5) The recipient agrees to review his or her financial
interests relative to the entities whose proposal information NASA
furnishes for evaluation. At any time the recipient
[[Page 3468]]
becomes aware that he or she or a person with a close personal
relationship (household family members, business partners, or
associates) has or acquires a financial interest in the entities
whose proposal information is subject to this agreement, the
recipient shall immediately advise the NASA official releasing the
proposal information, protect the proposal information, and cease
evaluation activities pending a NASA decision resolving the conflict
of interest.
Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
Name typed or printed:-------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
[End of agreement]
1815.413-270 Appointing non-Government evaluators as special
Government employees.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-
Government participants in proposal evaluation proceedings, except
employees of JPL, shall be appointed as special Government employees.
(b) Appointment as a Special Government employee is a separate
action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.413-2(f) and may be
processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee
shall be made by:
(1) The NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of
proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or
(2) The Field Installation personnel office when the release of
proposal information is to be made by the Field Installation.
(c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special
Government employees when they evaluate:
(1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
(2) Unsolicited proposals;
(3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and
(4) SBIR and STTR proposals.
Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals
1815.502 Policy.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (1) and (2))
(1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract,
a grant, a cooperative agreement, or other agreement. If a grant or
cooperative agreement is used, the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Handbook (NPG 5800.1) applies.
(2) Renewal proposals, (i.e., those for the extension or
augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS
regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in
Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.
1815.503 General.
(NASA supplements paragraph (e))
(e) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited
proposals initially submitted to another agency or to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without the offeror's express consent.
1815.504 Advance guidance.
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b) The Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK) is responsible
for preparing for public use a brochure titled ``Guidance for the
Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals,'' which shall be
provided without charge by the Office of Procurement and other NASA
officials in response to requests for proposal submission information.
A deviation is required for use of any modified or summarized version
of the brochure or for alternate means of general dissemination of
unsolicited proposal information. Code HK is responsible for internal
distribution of the brochure.
1815.506 Agency procedures.
(NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall
designate an organizational entity as its unsolicited proposal
coordinating office for receiving and coordinating the handling and
evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
(ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling
proposals initially received by other offices within the installation.
Misdirected proposals shall be forwarded by the coordinating office to
the proper installation. Field installation coordinating offices are
also responsible for providing guidance to potential offerors regarding
the appropriate NASA officials to contact for general mission-related
inquiries or other preproposal discussions.
(iii) Coordinating offices shall keep records of unsolicited
proposals received and shall provide prompt status information to
requesters. These records shall include, at a minimum, the number of
unsolicited proposals received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal
year; the identity of the offerors; and the office to which each was
referred. The numbers shall be broken out by source (larger business,
small business, university, or nonprofit institution).
1815.506-70 Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified
by an evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall
be evaluated as a response to that NRA (see 1835.016-70), provided that
the evaluating office can either:
(a) State that the proposal is not at a competitive disadvantage,
or
(b) Give the offeror an opportunity to amend the unsolicited
proposal to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA proposal
preparation instructions. If these conditions cannot be met, the
proposal must be evaluated separately.
1815.508 Prohibitions.
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b) FAR 15.508(b) shall not apply to NASA; see instead 1815.508-70.
1815.508-70 NASA prohibitions.
Information (data) in unsolicited proposals furnished to the
Government is to be used for evaluation purposes only. Disclosure
outside the Government for evaluation is permitted only to the extent
authorized by, and in accordance with procedures in, FAR 15.413-2 and
1815.413-2.
1815.509 Limited use of data.
FAR 15.509 shall not apply to NASA. See instead 1815.509-70.
1815.509-70 Limited use of proposals.
(a) The provision at FAR 52.215-12, Restriction on Disclosure and
Use of Data, is applicable to unsolicited proposals.
(b) If an unsolicited proposal is received with a more restrictive
legend than made applicable by paragraph (a) of this section, the
procedures of FAR 15.413-2(c) apply.
(c) Upon receipt in the coordinating office, the Government notice
in FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover sheet of all
unsolicited proposals.
(d) Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government
only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in, FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2.
(e) If a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act for
any information contained in an unsolicited proposal, the procedures of
FAR 15.413-2(g) apply.
1815.570 Foreign proposals.
Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NMI
1362.1, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in
Space and Aeronautical Programs.
Subpart 1815.6--Source Selection
1815.601 Definitions.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (1) and (2))
(1) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official
responsible
[[Page 3469]]
for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process and
for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has the
following responsibilities:
(i) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the
weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, and any special
standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2) prior to release of the
RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
(ii) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the
Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the
cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and
(iii) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance
and special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection
procedures.
(2) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for
each acquisition. For acquisitions designated as Headquarters
selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan
process (see 1807.71).
1815.602 Applicability.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a)(i) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA
competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:
(A) Acquisitions of $50 million or more--in accordance with FAR
15.6 and this subpart.
(B) Other acquisitions--in accordance with FAR 15.6 and this
subpart except section 1815.612-70.
(ii) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the
values of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same
project.
(b) FAR 15.6 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions
conducted under the following procedures:
(i) MidRange (see part 1871).
(ii) Announcements of Opportunity (see part 1872).
(iii) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
(iv) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the
authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
(v) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and
1836.6).
1815.605-70 Evaluation factors and subfactors
(a) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission
Suitability, Cost/Price, and Relevant Experience and Past Performance.
Evaluation factors may be further defined by subfactors. Although
discouraged, subfactors may be further defined by elements. Evaluation
subfactors and any elements should be structured to identify
significant discriminators, or ``key swingers''--the essential
information required to support a source selection decision. Too many
subfactors and elements undermine effective proposal evaluation. All
evaluation subfactors and any elements should be clearly defined to
avoid overlap and redundancy.
(b) Mission Suitability factor. (1) This factor indicates the merit
or excellence of the work to be performed or product to be delivered.
It includes, as appropriate, both technical and management subfactors.
Mission Suitability shall be numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-
point scale.
(2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation
subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission
Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival
rating percentages in 1815.608(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the
subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission
Suitability subfactors is limited to four. The Mission Suitability
evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
(3) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content
of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be
numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is
limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified
in the RFP.
(4) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis.
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may
significantly affect their Million Suitability scores.
(c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness
and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs, prices. The
Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
(d) Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor. (1) This
factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of
each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products
similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the
instant acquisition. The Relevant Experience and Past Performance
factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
(2) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data
from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private
contracts) that can be used to evaluate their relevant experience and
past performance. Typically, the RFP will require:
(i) A list of contracts similar in size, content and complexity to
the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of
contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from
the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years.
However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate
performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period
should be tailored accordingly.
(ii) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or
underruns, completion delays, performance problems and terminations.
(3) The Contracting Officer may start collecting past performance
data prior to proposal receipt. One method for initiating the past
performance evaluation early is to request offerors to submit their
past performance information in advance of the proposal due date. The
RFP could also include a past performance questionnaire for offerors to
send their previous customers with instructions to return the completed
questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its
past performance information early or of the customers to submit the
completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the
proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of
the offeror's past performance.
1815.608 Proposal evaluation.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
(i) Any failures to meet any terms and conditions of the RFP;
(ii) All strengths and weaknesses, classified as major or minor to
further underscore discriminators among proposals;
(iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission
Suitability subfactor and for the Mission Suitability factor in total;
(iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
(v) The adjectival rating of the Relevant Experience and Past
Performance evaluation factor; and
(vi) Any technical, schedule, and cost risk. Risks may result from
the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of
materials, processes, equipment, etc., or as a result of the cost,
schedule and performance impacts associated with these approaches. Risk
evaluations must consider the probability of success, the impact of
[[Page 3470]]
failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirements. Risk
assessments shall be considered in determining Mission Suitability
strengths; weaknesses and numerical/adjectival ratings. Identified risk
areas and the potential for cost impact shall be considered in the cost
or price evaluation.
(1) Cost or price evaluation.
(A) In accordance with 1815.804-1, cost or pricing data shall not
be requested in competitive acquisitions. Only the minimal information
other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price
reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested.
(B) When contracting on a firm fixed price basis, the contracting
officer shall not request any cost information, unless proposed prices
appear unreasonable or unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed
approach and there are concerns that the contractor may default.
(C) When contracting on a basis other than firm fixed price, the
contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to
assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost
realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal
are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear
understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various
elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The analysis should
include:
(a) The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including
any recommended additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor
hours, direct rates and indirect rates. The probable cost should
reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which might
result from the offeror's proposal.
(b) The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and
practices as they impact cost.
(c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each
proposal.
(D) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission
Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in
1815.608(a)(3)(B).
(E) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism
analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs.
Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the
cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
(A) The Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation
assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded
contracts. It should evaluate the company, not the individuals,
involved with contract performance. Relevant Experience and Past
Performance is not numerically scored, but is assigned an adjectival
rating.
(B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past
performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may
include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other
aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation
requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance
selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all
offerors in that acquisition.
(C) The evaluation may consider past performance data provided by
offerors and data from other sources. Questionnaires and interviews may
be used to solicit assessments of the offeror's performance, as either
a prime or subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
(D) All pertinent information, including customer assessments and
any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection
records and included in the evaluation.
(a)(2) (iii) Firms without relevant experience or a past
performance record shall not be given a proposal deficiency or weakness
(see 1815.610) and shall be given a neutral rating. If the adjectival
rating system of 1815.608(a)(3)(A) is used for the Relevant Experience
and Past Performance factor, a rating of ``Good'' shall be assigned in
such cases.
(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 major strengths. No weaknesses
or only minor weaknesses exist.
Very Good.................................. A proposal which demonstrates overall competence. One 71-90
or more major strengths have been found, and
strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.
Good....................................... A proposal which shows a reasonably sound response. 51-70
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 that has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses 31-50
have been found that outbalance any strengths that
exist.
Poor....................................... A proposal that has one or more major weaknesses that 0-30
demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would
require a major proposal revision to address..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, the Mission
Suitability evaluation shall reflect the results of any required cost
realism analysis performed under the cost/price factor. A structured
approach shall be used to adjust Mission Suitability scores based on
the degree of assessed cost realism. An example of such an approach
would:
(a) Establish a threshold at which Mission Suitability adjustments
would start. The threshold should reflect the acquisition's estimating
uncertainty (i.e., the higher the degree of estimating uncertainty, the
higher the threshold);
(b) Use a graduated scale that proportionally adjusts a proposal's
Mission Suitability score for its assessed cost realism;
(c) Affect a significant number of points in order to encourage
realistic pricing.
(d) Calculate a Mission Suitability point adjustment based on the
percentage difference between proposed and probable cost as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point
Services Hardward development adjustment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+/- 5 percent....................... +/- 30 percent........ 0
+/- 6 to 10 percent................. +/- 31 to 40 percent.. -50
+/- 11 to 15 percent................ +/- 41 to 50 percent.. -100
+/- 16 to 20 percent................ +/- 51 to 60 percent.. -150
+/- 21 to 30 percent................ +/- 61 to 70 percent.. -200
+/- more than 30 percent............ +/- more than 70 -300
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3471]]
(b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination
to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.
Sec. 1815.608-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.
(a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial
evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is
unacceptable because:
(1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address
itself to the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates
that the offeror does not understand the requirements;
(2) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design
drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or
improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually
an entirely new technical proposal; or
(3) It contains major technical or business deficiencies or
omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could
not reasonably be expected to cure.
(b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for
discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with
this section.
1815.608-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.
(a) If only one proposal is received in response to the
solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the
solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the
single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the
Source Selection Authority shall direct the contracting officer to:
(1) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer
determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.804-
1(b)(1)(ii));
(2) Award after negotiating a mutually acceptable contract. (The
requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined
in accordance with FAR 15.804-1); or
(3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
(b) The procedure in 1815.608-71(a) also applies when the number of
proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one
acceptable proposal is received.
1815.609 Competitive range.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a))
(a) Proposals shall not be included in the competitive range when
they do not have a reasonable chance of selection. To reduce
unnecessary expense to both offerors and NASA, a total of no more than
three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive
range. Field installations may establish procedures for approval of
competitive range determinations commensurate with the complexity or
dollar value of an acquisition.
1815.610 Written or oral discussions.
(NASA supplements paragraph (c))
(c)(2)(A) The contracting officer shall identify, and give offerors
a reasonable opportunity to address, all weaknesses that have an
adverse impact on the evaluation. Weaknesses are defined as
deficiencies (see FAR 15.601) and other proposal inadequacies.
Weaknesses may include all proposal areas that are inadequate for
evaluation, contain contradictory statements, or strain credibility.
However, minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical
mistakes are not considered weaknesses. They may be identified to
offerors through the clarification technique defined in FAR 15.601,
rather than discussions as contemplated in this section.
(B) The contracting officer shall advise an offeror if, during
written or oral discussions, an offeror introduces a new weakness. The
offeror can be advised during the course of the discussions or as part
of the request for BAFO.
(C)The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price elements
that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to submit
their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but shall not
discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other offeror.
The contracting officer should question inadequate, conflicting,
unrealistic or unsupported cost information; differences between the
offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost realism
concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs;
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not
appear responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price
elements or a ``bottom line'' is necessary.
(c)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and
conditions so that a ``model'' contract can be sent to each offeror
with the request for BAFO. Any proposed technical performance
capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to the
Government and are considered proposal strengths should be discussed
with the offeror and proposed for inclusion in that offeror's ``model''
contract. These items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to,
other offerors. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in
its ``model'' contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider
their characterization as strengths.
(B) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP
requirements for any offeror, without amending the RFG and permitting
the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed
requirements.
1815.611 Best and Final Offers.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (b), (c) and (d))
(b) The request for BAFOs shall also:
(i) Identify for any remaining weaknesses.
(ii) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers
resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial
proposals;
(iii) Require offerors to complete and execute the ``model''
contract, which includes any special provisions or performance
capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
(iv) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their
proposals; and
(v) Establish a page limit for BAFOs.
(c)(i) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement
(Code HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50
million or more.
(ii) Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other
acquisitions.
(d)(i) Proposals are rescored based on BAFO evaluations. Scoring
changes between initial and BAFO proposals shall be clearly traceable.
(ii) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented
and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical
audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and
scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the
selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP.
(iii) Prior to award, the SSA shall sign a source selection
statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source
selection statements must describe: The acquisition; the SEB evaluation
procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and
the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Relevant Experience and Past
Performance factors. The statement also addresses unacceptable
proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals, or any
other considerations pertinent to the decision. The statement shall not
reveal any confidential business information. Except for certain major
system acquisition competitions
[[Page 3472]]
(see 1815.1004-70), 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 debriefing
unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon
request.
(iv) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer
shall, without post-selection negotiations, award the contract.
1815.612-70 NASA formal source selection.
(a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for
those acquisitions identified in 1815.602(a)(i)(A).
(b) General. The SEB assists the SSA in decisionmaking by providing
expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in relation to the
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements contained in the
solicitation. The SEB will prepare and present its findings to the SSA,
avoiding trade-off judgments among either the individual offerors or
among the evaluation factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for
selection to the SSA.
(c) Designation. (1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent
individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and
risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the
solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the
acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan approval.
(2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant
installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other
Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose
the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval
shall be obtained in accordance with NFS 1815.413-2.
(3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters
Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments.
Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade
level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
(d) Organization. (1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the
requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the
simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-
finding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as
described in 1815.612-70(d) (4) and (5)), to a highly complex situation
involving a major acquisition where two or more committees are formed
and these, in turn, are assisted by special panels or consultants in
particular areas. The number of committees or panels/ consultants shall
be kept to a minimum.
(2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the
SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without
compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the
basis for a sound selection decision.
(3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative
assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for
logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.
(4) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding arm of the SEB,
usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or
management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or
portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its
evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also
respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further
justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee
chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of
their committees.
(5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a fact-finding arm of
the committee in a specialized area of the committee's
responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a
particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can
provide.
(6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels,
consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members)
shall be limited to a maximum of 20 people, unless approved in writing
by the procurement officer.
(e) Voting members. (1) Voting members of the SEB shall include
people who will have key assignments on the project to which the
acquisition is directed. However, it is important that this should be
tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may
even be appropriate to designate a management official from outside the
project as SEB Chairperson.
(2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of a
NASA SEB.
(3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels or
consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB
evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB
shall have equal status as rating officials.
(4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting
individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a
voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not feasible, SEB
membership shall take precedence over other duties.
(5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
(i) Chairperson.
(ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
(iii) An experienced procurement representative.
(iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as
appropriate.
(v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue
workload).
(f) Ex officio members.
(1) The number of nonvoting ex officio (advisory) members shall be
kept as small as possible. Ex officio members should be selected for
the experience and expertise they can provide to the SEB. Since their
advisory role may require access to highly sensitive SEB material and
findings, ex officio membership for persons other than those identified
in 1815.612-70(f)(3) is discouraged.
(2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and
contribute to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not
participate in the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder
should be present during rating sessions.
(3) For field installation selections, the following shall be
nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:
(i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting
members.
(ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated
a voting member.
(iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition,
unless designated a voting member.
(iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
(v) The installation small business specialist.
(vi) The SEB recorder.
(g) Evaluation plan. (1) The SEB evaluation plan consists of
general and specific evaluation guidelines (and special standards of
responsibility, where applicable) established to assess each offeror's
proposal against the RFP evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements.
The evaluation guidelines are designed to focus the evaluators'
assessment. They are not weighted and are not listed in the RFP.
However, the substance of the guidelines may be included in a narrative
description of the subfactors and elements. In addition, the plan
includes the system used in conducting the evaluation and scoring of
each offeror's proposal.
[[Page 3473]]
(2) The evaluation plan shall be approved by the SEB (and other
personnel designated in accordance with installation procedures) before
the formal RFP is issued.
(h) Evaluation. (1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson
shall send them the proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated,
along with instructions regarding the expected function of each
committee, and all data considered necessary or helpful.
(2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee
shall submit a written report which should include the following:
(i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the
lowest level evaluated;
(ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole;
and
(iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths or
weaknesses which significantly affected the evaluation and stating any
reservations or concerns, together with supporting rationale, which the
committee or any of its members want to bring to the attention of the
SEB.
(3) Clear traceability must exist at all levels of the SEB process.
All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part
of the SEB records.
(4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal
and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the
proposals for each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own
collective judgment, consistent with the approved evaluation plan. SEB
minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
(i) SEB presentation. (1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA
on the results of the SEB deliberations to permit an informed and
objective selection of the best source(s) for the particular
acquisition.
(2) The presentation shall focus on the major strengths and
weaknesses found in the proposals, the probable cost of each proposal,
and any significant issues and problems identified by the SEB. This
presentation must explain any applicable special standards of
responsibility; evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements; the major
strengths and weaknesses of the offerors; the Government cost estimate,
if applicable; the offerors' proposed cost/price; the probable cost;
the proposed fee arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and
scores to the subfactor level.
(3) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved
in the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The
designated individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
(i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied
with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation
accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
(ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors,
elements, weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's
findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural
omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its
findings, or revise the presentation.
(4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation
including arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring
proper attendance, and distributing presentation material.
(5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of
Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including
approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary
presentation should be made to the Field Installation Director and to
the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant headquarters Program Office.
(j) Recommended SEB presentation format--(1) Identification of the
acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or
hardware to be procured, some quantitative measure including the
Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned
contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
(2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased
acquisition or, as in the case of the continuing support services,
identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes
from the existing structure.
(3) Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. Explains any
special standards of responsibility and the evaluation factors,
subfactors, and elements. Lists the relative order of importance of the
evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability
subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission
Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluations.
(4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the
number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a
preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals,
indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and
women-owned businesses.
(5) Summary of findings. Lists the initial and final Mission
Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed costs/prices,
and any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear
discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection.
Addresses any competitive range determination.
(6) Strengths and weaknesses of offerors. Summarizes the SEB's
findings, using the following guidelines:
(i) Present only the major strengths and weaknesses of individual
offerors.
(ii) Directly relate the strengths and weaknesses to the evaluation
factors, subfactors, and elements.
(iii) Indicate the significance of major strengths and weaknesses.
(iv) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of written and/or
oral discussions and BAFOs on ratings and scores.
(7) Final mission suitability ratings and scores. Summarizes the
evaluation subfactors and elements, the maximum points achievable, and
the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.
(8) Final cost/price evaluation. Summarizes proposed costs/prices
and any probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed
fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as possible, showing
SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies the SEB's
confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors, noting the
reasons for low or high confidence.
(9) Relevant experience and past performance. Reflects the summary
conclusions, supported by specific case data, with particular emphasis
on exemplary or inferior performance and its potential bearing on the
instant acquisition.
(10) Special interest. Includes only information of special
interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g.,
procedural errors or other matters that could have an effect on the
selection decision.
(k) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance
with 1815.611(d)(iii). For installation selections, the Field
Installation Chief Counsel or designee will prepare the source
selection statement. For Headquarters selections, the Office of General
Counsel or designee will prepare the statement.
Subpart 1815.7--Make-or-Buy Programs
1815.704 Items and work included.
Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work efforts
estimated to cost less than $500,000.
1815.706 Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))
[[Page 3474]]
(b) The make-or-buy program review by the installation's small and
disadvantaged business utilization specialist and the SBA
representative should be concurrent with the contracting officer's
review. When urgent circumstances preclude this or if the small and
disadvantaged business specialist or SBA representative fails to
respond on a timely basis, the contracting officer shall include an
explanatory statement in the contract file and transmit copies to the
specialist and the representative.
1815.708 Contract clause.
1815.708-70 NASA contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
78, Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-
or-buy programs as provided in FAR 15.703. This provision shall be used
in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-21, Changes or Additions
to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting officer may add additional
paragraphs identifying any other information required in order to
evaluate the program.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79,
Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes, in contracts that include
FAR 52.215-21 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate
columns the items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract
value.
Subpart 1815.8--Price Negotiation
1815.804 Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or
pricing data.
1815.804-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))
(b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to
both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting
officers shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for
this exception. In such cases, information other than cost or pricing
data may be requested to the extent necessary to ensure price
reasonableness and assess cost realism.
(2)(iii) The contracting officer shall document the comparison of
the item with the catalog or market priced commercial item, including
the technical similarities and differences and the price justification
methodology.
(5) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing
data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each
waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code
HC).
1815.804-170 Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation
(CCC).
NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or
pricing data when contracting with the CCC. This waiver applies through
March 31, 1999. The CCC will provide assurance of the fairness and
reasonableness of the proposed prices, and will also provide for
follow-up audit activity to ensure that excess profits are found and
refunded to NASA. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the
appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is
submitted to permit any required Government cost/price analysis.
1815.804-2 Requiring cost or pricing data.
(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 price
agreement.
1815.805-5 Field pricing support.
(NASA supplements paragraph (a))
(a)(1)(A) The threshold for obtaining a field pricing report for
cost reimbursement contracts is $1,000,000.
(B) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and an
audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting
officers should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA
resources are not available.
(C) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves
merely a verification of information, contracting officers should
obtain this verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather
than formal request of field pricing support.
(D) When the threshold for requiring field pricing support is met
and the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature,
contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a
minimum are considered: actuals incurred under the previous contract,
learning experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract
proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA
resources or the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.
1815.807 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 competitive negotiated procedures.
1815.807-70 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain
the contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately
become the basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to
the price negotiation memorandum (see FAR 15.808 and 1815.808). In
addition to the information described in FAR 15.807 and, as
appropriate, 15.808(a), the PPM should address the following subjects,
as applicable, in the order presented:
(a) Introduction. Include a description of the acquisition and a
history of prior acquisitions for the same or similar items. Address
the extent of competition and its results. Identify the contractor and
place of performance (if not evident from the description of the
acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations and policy,
including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of
contractor systems (see FAR 15.808(a)(4)). In addition, the negotiation
schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation team
members identified by name and position.
(b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract
contemplated and the reasons for its suitability.
(c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any
special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition,
including such items as--
(1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized and incurred;
(2) Results of preaward survey;
(3) Contract option requirements;
(4) Government property to be furnished;
(5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment
(and any modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government);
and
(6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions
anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses
and when approvals were obtained, if required.
(d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option,
include--
(1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of
the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective.
The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the
Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each
element of cost, compare the
[[Page 3475]]
contractor's proposal and the Government position, explain the
differences and how the Government position was developed, including
the estimating assumptions and projection techniques employed, and how
the positions differ in approach. Include a discussion of excessive
wages found (if applicable) and their planned resolution. Explain how
historical costs, including costs incurred under a letter contract (if
applicable), were used in developing the negotiation objective;
(2) Significant differences between the field pricing report
(including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or
contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each
proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.806-2(a), there
shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses
performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation
objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major
subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of
competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when
appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by
the prime contractor, and unusual or special pricing or finance
arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
(3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and,
if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured
Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD form 1861, Contract Facilities
Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee
contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines,
ceilings, cost risk, and so forth, as applicable.
(e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the
Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for
the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently
demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or
condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the
rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from
the original approval authority.
1815.807-71 Installation reviews.
Each contracting activity shall establish a formal system for the
review of prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage,
exact procedures to be followed, levels of management review, and
contract file documentation requirements should be directly related to
the dollar value and complexity of the acquisition. The primary purpose
of these reviews is to ensure that the negotiator, or negotiation team,
is thoroughly prepared to enter into negotiations with a well-
conceived, realistic, and fair plan.
1815.807-72 Headquarters reviews.
(a) When a prenegotiation position has been selected for
Headquarters review and approval, the contracting activity shall submit
to the Office of Procurement (Code HS) one copy each of the
prenegotiation position memorandum, the contractor's proposal, the
Government technical evaluation, and all pricing reports (including any
audit reports).
(b) The required information described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be furnished to Headquarters as soon as practicable and
sufficiently in advance of the planned commencement of negotiations to
allow a reasonable period of time for Headquarters review. Electronic
submittal is acceptable.
1815.808 Price negotiation memorandum.
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a)(i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed
summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including
price reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated;
and the methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final
negotiated agreement.
(ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive
negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR 15.808
shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to the
extent applicable.
(b) When the PNM is a ``stand-alone'' document, it shall contain
the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs.
However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.807, the subsequent
PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.808 that was
not provided in the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of
factors affecting cost elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours,
subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of the
contractor's systems).
Subpart 1815.9--Profit
1815.902 Policy.
(NASA supplements paragraph (a)).
(a)(1) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee
objectives, described in 1815.970, shall be used to determine profit or
fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those acquisitions that
require cost analysis, except as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(2) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is
not required for:
(A) Architect-engineer contractors;
(B) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of
Government facilities;
(C) Construction contracts;
(D) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by
subcontractors;
(E) Termination settlements;
(F) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers
may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as
an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
(G) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the
procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach
is unsuitable.
1815.903 Contracting officer responsibilities.
(NASA supplements paragraph (d))
(d)(1)(ii) In architect-engineer contracts, the price or estimated
cost and fee for services other than the production and delivery of
designs, plans, drawings, and specifications, are not subject to the 6
percent limitation set forth in FAR 15.903(d)(1).
1815.970 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.970-1 General.
(a) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee
objectives is a system of assigning weights to cost elements and other
factors to calculate the objective. Contracting officers shall use NASA
Form 634 to develop the profit or fee objective and shall use the
weight ranges listed after each category and factor on the form after
considering the factors in 1815.970-2 through 1815.970-4. The rationale
supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the PPM in
accordance with 1815.807-70(d)(3).
(b)(1) The structured approach was designed for determining profit
or fee objectives for commercial organizations. However, the structured
approach shall be used as a basis for arriving at fee objectives for
nonprofit organizations (FAR subpart 31.7), excluding educational
institutions (FAR subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee on contracts
with educational institutions.)
(2) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profits
or
[[Page 3476]]
fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be subtracted
from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this adjustment, it
will be necessary to consider the following factors:
(i) Tax position benefits;
(ii) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
(iii) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
(iv) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage
or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit
organization.
1815.970-2 Contractor effort.
(a) This factor takes into account what resources are necessary and
what the contractor must do to meet the contract performance
requirements. The suggested cost categories under this factor are for
reference purposes only. The format of individual proposals will vary,
but these broad categories provide a sample structure for the
evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of cost shall be
separately listed under the appropriate category and assigned a weight
from the category range.
(b) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific
acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated
for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part
of the cost base in column 1. (a) in the computation of profit or fee.
(c) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content
of the proposed contract as follows:
(1) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and
other material). (i) Consider the managerial and technical efforts
necessary for the prime contractor to select subcontractors and
administer subcontracts, including efforts to introduce and maintain
competition. These evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw
materials or basic commodities; purchases of processed material,
including all types of components of standard of near-standard
characteristics; and purchases of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies,
special tooling, and other products special to the end item. In
performing the evaluation, also consider whether the contractor's
purchasing program makes a substantial contribution to the performance
of a contract through the use of subcontracting programs involving many
sources, new complex components and instrumentation, incomplete
specifications, and close surveillance by the prime contractor.
(ii) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as
scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation.
If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR
31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the
material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the
constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the
appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
(2) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other
labor). (i) Analysis of the various items of cost should include
evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering
talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience
to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of
assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the
amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering
talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or
supporting personnel.
(ii) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning
higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills
and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for
contract performance.
(iii) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and
other types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower
resources for meeting these requirements should be considered. For
purposes of evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality
control, and receiving and inspection) proposed separately from
engineering, service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the
most appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation
considerations as outlined in this section will be applied.
(3) Overhead and general management (G&A). (i) Analysis of overhead
and G&A includes the evaluation of the makeup of these expenses, how
much they contribute to contract performance, and the degree of
substantiation provided for the rates proposed in future years.
(ii) Contracting officers should also consider the historical
accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability
to control overhead pool expenses.
(iii) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead
rate of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break
out the applicable sections of the composite rate which could be
classified as engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other
overhead pools, and G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
(4) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with
contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and
relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of
cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to
contract performance.
1815.970-3 Other factors.
(a) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should
influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to
anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to
the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination
provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing
measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for
arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This
factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation
profit/fee objectives.
(1) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of
reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee
in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any
risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not
acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this
factor.
(2) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is
related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the
contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk
by contract type would usually fall within the 0-to-3 percent range for
cost-reimbursement contracts and 3-to-7 percent range for fixed-price
contracts.
(i) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a
reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains
cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases,
up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts
fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly
related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of
fees, etc.
(ii) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to
accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting
should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item
required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for
prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
(3) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form
of cost risk to consider.
[[Page 3477]]
(i) The contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant
impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular
contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting
officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost
risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has
effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the
contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that
would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost
risk weigh should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a
substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts
unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the
contractor's risk.
(ii) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition
that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change
orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to
the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial
performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be
reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively
reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the
contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable,
determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of
all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be
made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not
be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work
completed, before definitization.
(b) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their
contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance
from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to
encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the
maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an
analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
(1) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee
objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization
needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the
required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the
facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that
significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be
provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that
rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should
receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the above
examples should be evaluated on their merits, with either a positive or
negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee objective.
However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform a contract
that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a contractor's
use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the contract,
profit/fee need not be adjusted.
(2) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by
the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this
weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have
on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should
be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum
reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches
zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent
than monthly.
(c) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance
should be evaluated in such areas as product quality, meeting
performance schedules, efficiency in cost control (including the need
for and reasonableness of costs incurred), accuracy and reliability of
previous cost estimates, degree of cooperation by the contractor (both
business and technical), timely processing of changes and compliance
with other contractual provisions.
(d) Subcontract program management. Subcontract program management
includes evaluation of the contractor's commitment to its competition
program and its past and present performance in competition in
subcontracting. If a contractor has consistently achieved excellent
results in these areas in comparison with other contractors in similar
circumstances, such performance merits a proportionately greater
opportunity for profit or fee. Conversely, a poor record in this regard
should result in a lower profit or fee.
(e) Federal socioeconomic programs. In addition to rewarding
contractors for unusual initiative in supporting Government
socioeconomic programs, failure or unwillingness on the part of the
contractor to support these programs should be viewed as evidence of
poor performance for the purpose of establishing this profit/fee
objective factor.
(f) Special situations. (1) Occasionally, unusual contract pricing
arrangements are made with the contractor under which it agrees to
accept a lower profit or fee for changes or modifications within a
prescribed dollar value. In such circumstances, the contractor should
receive favorable consideration in developing the profit/fee objective.
(2) This factor need not be limited to situations that increase
profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when the
contractor is expected to obtain spin-off benefits as a direct result
of the contract, for example, products with commercial application.
1815.970-4 Facilities capital cost of money.
(a) When facilities capital cost of money is included as an item of
cost in the contractor's proposal, it shall not be included in the cost
base for calculating profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the
profit/fee objective shall be made in the amount equal to the
facilities capital cost of money allowed in accordance with FAR 31.205-
10(a)(2).
(b) CAS 417, Cost of money as an element of the cost of capital
assets under construction, should not appear in contract proposals.
These costs are included in the initial value of a facility for
purposes of calculating depreciation under CAS 414.
1815.971 Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized
contracts.
Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications,
Protests, and Mistakes
1815.1003 Notification to successful offeror.
The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.1003 on negotiated
acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal
establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government
and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully
approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award
portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF 1447, or a letter contract when
a definitized contract instrument is not available but the urgency of
the requirement necessitates immediate performance. In this latter
instance, the procedures in 1816.603 for approval and issuance of
letter contracts shall be followed:
1815.1004-70 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
[[Page 3478]]
disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches of the successful
offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
(b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design
concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to
competing offerors or the general public until the release of the
source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman
1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPG 5101.33,
Procurement Guidance.
1815.7002 Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the contacting
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.
3. Part 1816 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
Subpart 1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts
Sec.
1816.202 Firm-fixed-price contracts.
1816.202-70 NASA contract clause.
1816.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
1816.203-4 Contract clauses.
Subpart 1816.3--Cost-Reimbursement Contracts
1816.303-70 Cost-sharing contracts.
1816.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
1816.307 Contract clauses.
1816.307-70 NASA contract clauses.
Subpart 1816.4--Incentive Contracts
1816.402 Application of pre-determined, formula-type incentives.
1816.402-2 Technical performance incentives.
1816.402-270 NASA technical performance incentives.
1816.404 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
1816.404-2 Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.
1816.404-270 CPAF contracts.
1816.404-271 Base fee.
1816.404-272 Award fee evaluation periods.
1816.404-273 Award fee evaluations.
1816.404-274 Award fee evaluation factors.
1816.404-275 Award fee evaluation scoring.
1816.405 Contract clauses.
1816.405-70 NASA contract clauses.
Subpart 1816.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts
1816.504 Indefinite quantity contracts.
1816.505 Ordering.
1816.505-70 Task Ordering.
1816.506-70 NASA contract clause.
Subpart 1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-House, and Letter Contracts
1816.603 Letter contracts.
1816.603-370 Approvals.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
Subpart 1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts
1816.202 Firm-fixed-price contracts.
1816.202-70 NASA contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-78,
Firm-Fixed-Price, in firm-fixed-price solicitations and contracts.
Insert the appropriate amount in the resulting contract.
1816.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
1816.203-4 Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and
(d)).
(a) In addition to the approval requirements in the prescriptions
at FAR 52.216-2 through 52.216-4, the contracting officer shall
coordinate with the installation's Deputy Chief Financial Officer
(Finance) before exceeding the ten-percent limit in paragraph (c)(1) of
the clauses at FAR 52.216-2 through 52.216-4.
(d)(2) Contracting officers shall contact the Office of
Procurement, Code HC, for specific guidance on preparing clauses using
cost indexes. Such clauses require advance approval by the Associate
Administrator for Procurement. Requests for approval shall be submitted
to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS).
Subpart 1816.3--Cost-Reimbursement Contracts
1816.303-70 Cost-sharing contracts.
(a) Cost-sharing with for-profit organizations. (1) Cost sharing by
for-profit organizations is mandatory in any contract for basic or
applied research resulting from an unsolicited proposal, and may be
accepted in any other contract when offered by the proposing
organization. The requirement for cost-sharing may be waived when the
contracting officer determines in writing that the contractor has no
commercial, production, education, or service activities that would
benefit from the results of the research, and the contractor has no
means of recovering its shared costs on such projects.
(2) The contractor's cost-sharing may be any percentage of the
project cost. In determining the amount of cost-sharing, the
contracting officer shall consider the relative benefits to the
contractor and the Government. Factors that should be considered
include--
(i) The potential for the contractor to recover its contribution
from non-Federal sources;
(ii) The extent to which the particular area of research requires
special stimulus in the national interest; and
(iii) The extent to which the research effort or result is likely
to enhance the contractor's capability, expertise, or competitive
advantage.
(b) Cost-sharing with not-for-profit organizations. (1) Costs to
perform research stemming from an unsolicited proposal by universities
and other educational or not-for-profit institutions are usually fully
reimbursed. When the contracting officer determines that there is a
potential for significant benefit to the institution cost-sharing will
be considered.
(2) The contracting officer will normally limit the institution's
share to no more than 10 percent of the project's cost.
(c) Implementation. Cost-sharing shall be stated as a minimum
percentage of the total allowable costs of the project. The
contractor's contributed costs may not be charged to the Government
under any other contract or grant, including allocation to other
contracts and grants as part of an independent research and development
program.
1816.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph
(d)).
(d) Completion and term forms.
(4) Term form contracts are incompatible with performance base
contracting (PBC) and should not be used with PBC requirements.
1816.307 Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (b), (d),
and (g)).
(a) In paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) of the Allowable Cost and Payment
clause at FAR 52.216-7, the period of years may be increased to
correspond with any statutory period of limitation applicable to claims
of third parties against the contractor; provided, that a corresponding
increase is made in the period for retention of records required in
paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records--
Negotiation.
(b) In solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR
52.216-8,
[[Page 3479]]
Fixed Fee, the Schedule shall include appropriate terms, if any, for
provisional billing against fee.
(d) In solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR
52.216-10, Incentive Fee, the Schedule shall include appropriate terms,
if any, for provisional billing against fee.
(g) In paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the Allowable Cost and Payment--
Facilities clause at FAR 52.216-13, the period of years may be
increased to correspond with any statutory period of limitation
applicable to claims of third parties against the contractor; provided,
that a corresponding increase is made in the period for retention of
records required in paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit
and Records--Negotiation.
1816.307-70 NASA contract clauses.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-73,
Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing, in each contract in which costs are
shared by the contractor pursuant to 1816.303-70.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause substantially
as stated at 1852.216-74, Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, in cost-plus-
fixed-fee contracts.
(c) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-75,
Payment of Fixed Fee, in cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. Modifications
to the clause are authorized.
(d) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-81,
Estimated Cost, in cost-no-fee contracts that are not cost sharing or
facilities contracts.
(e) The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as
stated at 1852.216-87, Submission of Vouchers for Payment, in cost-
reimbursement solicitations and contracts.
(f) When either FAR clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, or
FAR clause 52.216-13, Allowable Cost and Payment--Facilities, is
included in the contract, as prescribed at FAR 16.307 (a) and (g), the
contracting officer should include the clause at 1852.216-89,
Assignment and Release Forms.
Subpart 1816.4--Incentive Contracts
1816.402 Application of pre-determined, formula-type incentives.
1816.402-2 Technical performance incentives.
1816.402-270 NASA technical performance incentives.
(a) A performance incentive shall be included in all contracts
where the primary deliverable(s) is (are) hardware and where total
estimated cost and fee is greater than $25 million unless it is
determined that the nature of the acquisition (for example, commercial
off-the-shelf computers) would not effectively lend itself to a
performance incentive. Any exception to this requirement shall be
approved in writing by the Center Director. Performance incentives may
be included in hardware contracts valued under $25 million at the
discretion of the procurement officer. Performance incentives, which
are objective and measure hardware performance after delivery and
acceptance, are separate from other incentives, such as cost or
delivery incentives.
(b) When a performance incentive is used, it shall be structured to
be both positive and negative based on hardware performance after
delivery and acceptance. In doing so, the contract shall establish a
standard level of performance based on the salient hardware performance
requirement. This standard performance level is normally the contract's
minimum performance requirement. No incentive amount is earned at this
standard performance level. Discrete units of measurement based on the
same performance parameter shall be identified for performance both
above and below the standard. Specific incentive amounts shall be
associated with each performance level from maximum beneficial
performance (maximum positive incentive) to minimal beneficial
performance or total failure (maximum negative incentive). The
relationship between any given incentive, both positive and negative,
and its associated unit of measurement should reflect the value to the
Government of that level of hardware performance. The contractor should
not be rewarded for above-standard performance levels that are of no
benefit to the Government.
(c) The final calculation of the performance incentive shall be
done when hardware performance, as defined in the contract, ceases or
when the maximum positive incentive is reached. When hardware
performance ceases below the standard established in the contract, the
Government shall calculate the amount due and the contractor shall pay
the Government that amount. Once hardware performance exceeds the
standard, the contractor may request payment of the incentive amount
associated with a given level of performance, provided that such
payments shall not be more frequent than monthly. When hardware
performance ceases above the standard level of performance, or when the
maximum positive incentive is reached, the Government shall calculate
the final performance incentive earned and unpaid and promptly remit it
to the contractor. The exclusion at FAR 16.405(e)(3) does not apply to
decisions made as to the amount(s) of positive or negative incentive.
(d) When the deliverable hardware lends itself to multiple,
meaningful measures of performance, multiple performance incentives may
be established. When the contract requires the sequential delivery of
several hardware items (e.g.. multiple spacecraft), separate
performance incentive structures may be established to parallel the
sequential delivery and use of the deliverables.
(e) In determining the value of the maximum performance incentives
available, the contracting officer shall follow the following rules.
(1) The sum of the maximum positive performance incentive and other
fixed or earnable fees on the contract shall not exceed the limitations
in FAR 15.903(c).
(2) For an award fee contract.
(i) The individual values of the maximum positive performance
incentive and the total potential award fee (including any base fee)
shall each be at least one-third of the total potential contract fee.
The remaining one-third of the total potential contract fee may be
divided between award fee and the maximum performance incentive at the
discretion of the contracting officer.
(ii) The maximum negative performance incentive for research and
development hardware (e.g., the first and second units) shall be equal
in amount to the total earned award fee (including any base fee). The
maximum negative performance incentives for production hardware (e.g.,
the third and all subsequent units of any hardware items) shall be
equal in amount to the total potential award fee (including any base
fee). Where one contract contains both cases described above, any base
fee shall be allocated reasonably among the items.
(3) For cost reimbursement contracts other than award fee
contracts, the maximum negative performance incentives shall not exceed
the total earned fee under the contract.
1816.404 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
1816.404-2 Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.
1816.404-270 CPAF contracts.
(a) For purposes of this subsection, ``performance based
contracting'' means effort which can be contractually defined so that
the results of the contractor's effort can be objectively measured in
terms of technical and
[[Page 3480]]
quality achievement, schedule progress or cost performance.
``Nonperformance based contracting'' means contractor effort that
cannot be objectively measured but is evaluated based on subjective,
qualitative assessments (e.g., controlling changes or interfacing with
other agencies, contractors and international organizations).
(b)(1) Normally, award fee incentives are not used when contract
requirements can be defined in sufficient detail to allow for
performance based contracting. If incentives are considered necessary,
objectively measured incentives as described in FAR 16.402 are
preferred.
(2) Award fee incentives may be used as follows:
(i) As a CPAF contract where a cost reimbursement contract is
appropriate and none of the requirements can be defined to permit
performance based contracting;
(ii) As a CPAF line item for nonperformance based requirements in
conjunction with a non-CPAF line item(s) for performance based
requirements. In this instance, fees for the performance based and
nonperformance based requirements shall be developed separately IAW FAR
15-9 and 1815.9; and
(iii) Under a performance based contract when it is determined to
be necessary to motivate the contractor toward exceptional performance
(see FAR 16.404-2(b)(ii)) and the increased level of performance
justifies the additional administrative expense. When an award fee
incentive is used in this instance, the basic contract type shall be
other than CPAF (e.g., CPIF or FPIF). The potential award fee should
not exceed 10 percent of the total contract fee or profit and shall not
be used to incentivize cost performance.
(3) Award fee incentives shall not be used with a cost-plus-fixed-
fee (CPFF) contract.
(c) Use of an award fee incentive shall be approved in writing by
the procurement officer. The procurement officer's approval shall
include a discussion of the other types of contracts considered and
shall indicate why an award fee incentive is the appropriate choice.
Award fee incentives should be used on contracts with a total estimated
cost and fee greater than $2 million per year. The procurement officer
may authorize use of award fee for lower-valued acquisitions, but
should do so only in exceptional situations, such as contract
requirements having direct health or safety impacts, where the
judgmental assessment of the quality of contractor performance is
critical.
1816.404-271 Base fee.
(a) A base fee shall not be used on CPAF contracts for which the
periodic award fee evaluations are final (1816.404-273(a)). In these
circumstances, contractor performance during any award fee period is
independent of and has no effect on subsequent performance periods or
the final product/results at contract completion. For other contracts,
such as those for hardware or software development, the procurement
officer may authorize the use of a base fee not to exceed 3 percent.
Base fee shall not be used when an award fee incentive is used in
conjunction with a performance based contract structure, such as an
incentive fee arrangement.
(b) When a base fee is authorized for use in a CPAF contract, it
shall be paid only if the final award fee evaluation is
``satisfactory'' or better. (See 1816.404-273 and 1816.404-275) Pending
final evaluation, base fee may be paid during the life of the contract
at defined intervals on a provisional basis. If the final award fee
evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory'', all provisional base fee
payments shall be refunded to the Government.
1816.404-272 Award fee evaluation periods.
(a) Award fee evaluation periods should be at least 6 months in
length. When appropriate, the procurement officer may authorize shorter
evaluation periods after ensuring that the additional administrative
costs associated with the shorter periods are offset by benefits
accruing to the Government. Where practicable, such as developmental
contracts with defined performance milestones (e.g., Preliminary Design
Review, Critical Design Review, initial system test), establishing
evaluation periods at conclusion of the milestones rather than calendar
dates, or in combination with calendar dates should be considered. In
no case shall an evaluation period be longer than 12 months.
(b) A portion of the total available award fee contract shall be
allocated to each of the evaluation periods. This allocation may result
in an equal or unequal distribution of fee among the periods. The
contracting officer should consider the nature of each contract and the
incentive effects of fee distribution in determining the appropriate
allocation structure.
1816.404-273 Award fee evaluations.
(a) Award fee evaluations are either interim or final. On contracts
where the contract deliverable is the performance of a service over any
given time period, contractor performance is often definitively
measurable within each evaluation period. In these cases, all
evaluations are final, and the contractor keeps the fee earned in any
period regardless of the evaluations of subsequent periods. Unearned
award fee in any given period in a service contract is lost and shall
not be carried forward, or ``rolled-over,'' into subsequent periods.
(b) On other contracts, such as those for end item deliverables
where the true quality of contractor performance cannot be measured
until the end of the contract, only the last evaluation is final. At
that point, the total contract award fee pool is available, and the
contractor's total performance is evaluated against the award fee plan
to determine total earned award fee. In addition, interim evaluations
are done to monitor performance prior to contract completion and
provide feedback to the contractor on the Government's assessment of
the quality of its performance. Interim evaluations are also used to
establish the basis for making interim award fee payments. These
interim payments are superseded by the fee determination made in the
final evaluation at contract completion. The Government will then pay
the contractor, or the contractor will refund to the Government, the
difference between the final award fee determination and the cumulative
interim fee payment.
(c) Provisional award fee payments, i.e., payments made within
evaluation periods, may be included in the contract and should be
negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The amount of the provisional award
fee payment is determined by applying the lesser of the prior period's
interim evaluation score (see 1816.404-275) or 80 percent of the fee
allocated to the current period. The provisional award fee payments are
superseded by the fee determinations made at the conclusion of each
award fee performance period.
(d) The Fee Determination Official's rating for both interim and
final evaluations will be provided to the contractor within 45 calendar
days of the end of the period being evaluated. Any fee, interim or
final, due to the contractor will be paid no later than 60 calendar
days after the end of the period being evaluated.
1816.404-274 Award fee evaluation factors.
(a) Explicit evaluation factors shall be established for each award
fee period.
(b) Evaluation factors will be developed by the contracting officer
based upon the characteristics of an
[[Page 3481]]
individual procurement. Normally, technical and schedule considerations
will be included in all CPAF contracts as evaluation factors. Cost
control shall be included as an evaluation factor in all CPAF
contracts. When explicit evaluation factor weightings are used, cost
control shall be no less than 25 percent of the total weighted
evaluation factors. The predominant consideration of the cost control
evaluation should be a measurement of the contractor's performance
against the negotiated estimated cost of the contract. This estimated
cost may include the value of undefinitized change orders when
appropriate.
(c) In rare circumstances, contract costs may increase for reasons
outside the contractor's control and for which the contractor is not
entitled to an equitable adjustment. One example is a weather-related
launch delay on a launch support contract. The Government shall take
such situations into consideration when evaluating contractor cost
control.
(d) Emphasis on cost control should be balanced against other
performance requirement objectives. The contractor should not be
incentivized to pursue cost control to the point that overall
performance is significantly degraded. For example, incentivizing an
underrun that results in direct negative impacts on technical
performance, safety, or other critical contract objectives is both
undesirable and counterproductive. Therefore, evaluation of cost
control shall conform to the following guidelines:
(1) Normally, the contractor should be given a score of 0 for cost
control when there is a significant overrun within its control.
However, the contractor may receive higher scores for cost control if
the overrun is insignificant. Scores should decrease sharply as the
size of the overrun increases. In any evaluation of contractor overrun
performance, the Government shall consider the reasons for the overrun
and assess the extent and effectiveness of the contractor's efforts to
control or mitigate the overrun.
(2) The contractor should normally be rewarded for an underrun
within its control, up to the maximum score allocated for cost control,
provided the average numerical rating for all other award fee
evaluation factors is 81 or greater (see 1816.404-275). An underrun
shall be rewarded as if the contractor has met the estimated cost of
the contract (see 1816.404-274(d)(3)) when the average numerical rating
for all other factors is less than 81 but greater than 60.
(3) The contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated
cost of the contract, but not to the maximum score allocated for cost
control, to the degree that the contractor has prudently managed costs
while meeting contract requirements. No award shall be given in this
circumstance unless the average numerical rating for all other award
fee evaluation factors is 61 or greater.
(e) When an AF arrangement is used in conjunction with a
performance based contract structure (see 1816.404-270(b)(2)(iii)), the
award fee's cost control factor will only apply to a subjective
assessment of the contractor's efforts to control costs and not the
actual cost outcome incentivized under the basic contract type (e.g.,
CPIF, FPIF).
(f) Only the award fee performance evaluation factors set forth in
the performance evaluation plan shall be used to determine award fee
scores.
(g) The Government may unilaterally modify the applicable award fee
performance evaluation factors and performance evaluation areas prior
to the start of an evaluation period. The contracting officer shall
notify the contractor in writing of any such changes 30 days prior to
the start of the relevant evaluation period.
1816.404-275 Award fee evaluation scoring.
(a) A scoring system of 0-100 shall be used for all award fee
ratings. Award fee earned is determined by applying the numerical score
to the award fee pool. For example, a score of 85 yields an award fee
of 85 percent of the award fee pool. No award fee shall be paid unless
the total score is 61 or greater.
(b) The following standard adjectival ratings and the associated
numerical scores shall be used on all award fee contracts.
(1) Excellent (100-91): Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance
in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any)
deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance.
(2) Very good (90-81): Very effective performance, fully responsive
to contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and
economical manner for the most part; only minor deficiencies.
(3) Good (80-71): Effective performance; fully responsive to
contract requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little
identifiable effect on overall performance.
(4) Satisfactory (70-61): Meets or slightly exceeds minimum
acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable deficiencies with
identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.
(5) Poor/Unsatisfactory (less than 61): Does not meet minimum
acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in
one or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which adversely
affect overall performance.
(c) As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated
``Excellent,'' the contractor must be under cost, on or ahead of
schedule, and have provided excellent technical performance.
(d) A scoring system appropriate for the circumstances of the
individual contract requirement should be developed. Weighted scoring
is recommended. In this system, each evaluation factor (e.g.,
technical, schedule, cost control) is assigned a specific percentage
weighting with the cumulative weightings of all factors totaling 100.
During the award fee evaluation, each factor is scored from 0-100
according to the ratings defined in 1816.404-275(b). The numerical
score for each factor is then multiplied by the weighting for that
factor to determine the weighted score. For example, if the technical
factor has a weighting of 60 percent and the numerical score for that
factor is 80, the weighted technical score is 48 (80 x 60 percent). The
weighted scores for each evaluation factor are then added to determine
the total award fee score.
1816.405 Contract clauses.
1816.405-70 NASA contract clauses.
(a) As authorized by FAR 16.405(e), the contracting officer shall
insert the clause at 1852.216-76, Award Fee for Service Contracts, in
solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is
contemplated and the contract deliverable is the performance of a
service. When provisional award fee payments are authorized, use
Alternate I.
(b) As authorized by FAR 16.405(e), the contracting officer shall
insert the clause at 1852.216-77, Award Fee for End Item Contracts, in
solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is
contemplated and the contract deliverables are hardware or other end
items for which total contractor performance cannot be measured until
the end of the contract.
(c) The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as
stated at 1852.216-83, Fixed Price Incentive, in fixed-price-incentive
solicitations and contracts utilizing firm or successive targets. For
items subject to incentive price revision, identify the target cost,
target profit, target price, and ceiling price for each item.
[[Page 3482]]
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-84,
Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee, in cost-plus-incentive-fee
solicitations and contracts.
(e) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-85,
Estimated Cost and Award Fee, in cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and
contracts. When the contract includes performance incentives, use
Alternate I.
(f) As provided at 1816.402-270, the contracting officer shall
insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.216-88, Performance
Incentive, when the primary deliverable(s) is (are) hardware and total
estimated cost and fee is greater than $25 million. A clause
substantially as stated at 1852.216-88 may be included in lower dollar
value hardware contracts with the approval of the procurement officer.
Subpart 1816.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts
1816.504 Indefinite quantity contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph
(a))
(a)(4)(ii) ID/IQ service contract values and task order values
shall be expressed only in dollars.
1816.505 Ordering. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))
(a)(2) Task and delivery orders shall be issued by the contracting
officer.
(b)(4) The Agency and installation ombudsmen designated in
accordance with 1815.70 shall review complaints from contractors on
task order contracts and delivery order contracts.
1816.505-70 Task ordering.
(a) The contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent possible,
state task order requirements in terms of functions and the related
performance and quality standards such that the standards may be
objectively measured.
(b) To the maximum extent possible, contracting officers shall
solicit contractor task plans to use as the basis for finalizing task
order requirements and enable evaluation and pricing of the
contractor's proposed work on a performance based approach as described
in 1816.404-270(a).
(c) Task order contract type shall be individually determined,
based on the nature of each task order's requirements.
(1) Task orders may be grouped by contract type for administrative
convenience (e.g., all CPIF orders, all FFP orders, etc.) for
contractor progress and cost reporting.
(2) Under multiple awards, solicitations for individual task plans
shall request the same pricing structure from all offerors.
(d) Any undefinitized task order issued under paragraph (f) of the
clause at 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure, shall be treated and
reported as an undefinitized contract action in accordance with 1843-
70.
1816.506-70 NASA contract clause.
Insert the clause at 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure, in
solicitations and contracts when an indefinite-delivery, task order
contract is contemplated. The clause is applicable to both fixed-price
and cost-reimbursement type contracts. If the contract does not require
533M reporting (See NHB 9501.2), use the clause with its Alternate I.
Subpart 1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter
Contracts
1816.603 Letter contracts.
1816.603-370 Approvals.
(a) All requests for authority to issue a letter contract shall
include the following:
(1) Proposed contractor's name and address.
(2) Location where contract is to be performed.
(3) Contract number, including modification number, if applicable.
(4) Brief description of the work or services to be performed.
(5) Performance period or delivery schedule.
(6) Amount of letter contract.
(7) Performance period of letter contract.
(8) Estimated total amount of definitive contract.
(9) Type of definitive contract to be executed.
(10) A statement that the definitive contract will contain all
required clauses or identification of specific clause deviations that
have been approved.
(11) A statement as to the necessity and advantage to the
Government of the proposed letter contract.
(12) The definitization schedule described in FAR 16.603-2(c)
expected to be negotiated with the contractor.
(b) Requests for authority to issue letter contracts having an
estimated definitive contract amount equal to or greater than the
Master Buy Plan submission thresholds of 1807.7101 (or modifications
thereto) shall be signed by the procurement officer and submitted to
the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) for approval.
(c) Authority to approve the issuance of letter contracts below the
Master Buy Plan submission thresholds specified in 1807.7101 is
delegated to the procurement officer.
(d) Any modification of an undefinitized letter contract approved
by a procurement officer in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section that increases the estimated definitized contract amount to or
above the Master Buy Plan submission thresholds must have the prior
approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
4. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
1852.215-73, 1852.215-74, 1852.215-75 [Revised]
5-6. Sections 1852.215-73, 1852.215-74 and 1852.215-75 are revised
to read as follows:
1852.215-73 Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of
Proposals (AO, SBIR, and STTR Programs).
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(a), insert the following provision:
Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO,
SBIR, and STTR Programs)
(October 1996)
(a) The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or
modifications, including any revision of an otherwise successful
proposal, received after the date indicated for receipt of proposals
if it would be in the Government's best interest to do so.
(b) Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice of telegram
(Including mailgram) received at any time before award. Proposals
maybe withdrawn in person by an offeror or an authorized
representative, if the representative's identity is made known and
the representative signs a receipt for the proposal before award.
(End of provision)
1852.215-74 Alternate Proposals.
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(b), insert the following provision:
Alternate Proposals
(October 1996)
(A) The offeror may submit an alternate proposal to accomplish
any aspect of the effort or product contemplated by the solicitation
in a manner that might create a beneficial improvement to the
Government. The Government will consider an alternate proposal if it
is accompanied by a basic proposal prepared in accordance with
instructions contained in this solicitation. The alternate proposal
must be complete by itself and comply with the proposal instructions
of this solicitation. The alternate proposal will be evaluated in
accordance with the evaluation factors of this solicitation.
(b) In the event the Government receives an alternate proposal
that, it accepted, would result in a contract with terms varying in
one or more material respects from those
[[Page 3483]]
contained in this solicitation, and the Government concludes that
implementation of the approach contained in the alternate proposal
would be in its best interest, the Government may modify its
solicitation in a manner appropriate the incorporate the changes but
not reveal the substance of the alternate proposal, and thereafter
give all offerors (and others if the facts warrant) an opportunity
to respond to the modified solicitation.
(End of provision)
1852.215-75 Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions.
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(c), insert the following provision:
Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions
(December 1988)
This solicitation neither commits the Government to pay any cost
incurred in the submission of the offer or in making necessary
studies or designs for preparing the offer, nor to contract for
services or supplies. Any costs incurred in anticipation of a
contract shall be at the offeror's own risk.
(End of provision)
1852.215-77, 1852.215-78, 1852.215-79 [Revised]
7.-8. Sections 1852.215-77, 1852.215-78 and 1852.215-79 are revised
to read as follows:
1852.215-77 Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference.
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(d), insert the following provision:
Preproposal/Pre-Bid Conference
(December 1988)
(a) A preproposal/pre-bid conference will be held as indicated
below:
Date:
Time:
Location:
Other Information, as applicable:
[Insert the applicable conference information.]
(b) Attendance at the preproposal/pre-bid conference is
recommended; however, attendance is neither required nor a
prerequisite for proposal/bid submission and will not be considered
in the evaluation.
(End of provision)
1852.215-78 Make or Buy Program Requirements.
As prescribed in 1815.708-70(a), insert the following provision:
Make or Buy Program Requirements
(December 1988)
The offeror shall submit a Make-or-Buy Program in accordance
with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
15.705. The offeror shall include the following supporting
documentation with its proposal:
(a) A description of each major item or work effort (see FAR
15.704).
(b) Categorization of each major item or work effort as ``must
make,'' ``must buy,'' or ``can either make or buy.''
(c) For each item or work effort categorized as ``can either
make or buy,'' a proposal either to ``make'' or ``buy.''
(d) Reasons for (i) categorizing items and work effort as ``must
make'' or ``must buy'' and (ii) proposing to ``make'' or ``buy''
those categorized as ``can either make or buy.'' The reasons must
include the consideration given to the applicable evaluation factors
described in the solicitation and be in sufficient detail to permit
the Contracting Officer to evaluate the categorization and proposal.
(e) Designation of the offeror's plant or division proposed to
make each item or perform each work effort and a statement as to
whether the existing or proposed new facility is in or near a labor
surplus area.
(f) Identification of proposed subcontractors, if known, and
their location and size status.
(g) Any recommendations to defer make-or-buy decisions when
categorization of some items or work efforts is impracticable at the
time of submission.
(End of provision)
1852.215-79 Price Adjustment for ``Make- or-Buy'' Changes.
As prescribed in 1815.708-70(b), insert the following clause:
Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes
(December 1988)
The following make-or-buy items are subject to the provisions of
paragraph (d) of the clause at FAR 52.215-21, Change or Additions to
Make-or-Buy Program, of this contract:
Item Description Make-or-Buy Determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(End of clause)
1852.215-81, 1852.215-82 [Revised]
9. Section 1852.215-81 and 1852-215-82 are revised to read as
follows:
1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations.
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(g), insert the following provision:
Proposal Page Limitations
(January 1994)
(a) The following page limitations are established for each
portion of the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.
Proposed Section (List each
volume or section) Page Limit (Specify limit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________ __________________
__________________ __________________
__________________ __________________
__________________ __________________
(b) A page is defined as one side of sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'',
with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than
12 characters per inch (or equivalent) type. Foldouts count as an
equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages. The metric standard
format most closely approximating the described standard 8\1/2\'' x
11'' size may also be used.
(c) Title pages and tables of contents are excluded from the
page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision. In
addition, the Cost section of your proposal is not page limited.
However, this section is to be strictly limited to cost and price
information. Information that can be construed as belonging in one
of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and
counted against that section's page limitation.
(d) If Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) are requested, separate
page limitations will be specified in the Government's request for
that submission.
(e) Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in
this provision will not be evaluated by the Government and will be
returned to the offeror.
(End of provision)
1852.215-82 Offeror oral presentations.
As prescribed in 1815.407-70(h), insert the following provision:
Offeror Oral Presentations
(November 1993)
(a) Offerors are invited to give an oral presentation to the
Government on the structure and general content of their proposals.
These presentations are intended to assist Government evaluation by
providing a ``roadmap'' to understanding proposals, i.e., an
overview of the proposal organization and layout, and where required
information and elements are located. Although the offeror's basic
approach to satisfying solicitation requirements may be explained,
it is to be done so only in general terms and only to expedite the
Government's formal evaluation.
(b) The Government will not engage in any discussions during the
oral presentation, and no proposal revisions will be accepted as
part of the presentation. The Government's evaluation of offeror
proposals will be based on the contents of the initial proposal, and
any information not included in the initial proposal that is
provided at the oral presentation will not be evaluated.
(c) Offerors should indicate in their proposals if they wish to
give an oral presentation. These presentations are not mandatory,
and electing not to give a presentation will not, in itself, affect
proposal evaluation.
(d) Because the presentations are intended to assist the
Government's evaluation, they will be scheduled to take place prior
to commencement of the formal initial evaluation, normally within
three days after proposal receipt. Offerors unable to accommodate
this schedule forfeit their opportunity to provide a presentation.
(e) The presentations will consist of an offeror briefing not to
exceed [insert 1 or 2] hours to be followed by a question and answer
period. The order of offeror presentations will be determined at
random. The exact time and place of the presentation, along with any
other guidance, will be provided to the offeror by the contracting
officer or his/her representative.
[[Page 3484]]
(f) Presentation materials are not required, but if used, the
Government will retain one copy in its official file as a historical
record of the presentation even though these materials will not be
used in the Government's evaluation process.
(End of provision)
1852.215-84 [Revised]
10.-11. Section 1852.215-84 is revised to read as follows:
1852.215-84 Ombudsman.
As prescribed in 1815.7003, insert the following clause:
Ombudsman
(October 1996)
An ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the
resolution of concerns from offerors, potential offerors, and
contractors during the preaward and postaward phases of this
acquisition. When requested, the ombudsman will maintain strict
confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The existence of
the ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the contracting
officer, the Source Evaluation Board, or the selection official.
Further, the ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of
proposals, the source selection process, or the adjudication of
formal contract disputes. Therefore, before consulting with an
ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns,
issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the contracting
officer for resolution. If resolution cannot be made by the
contracting officer, interested parties may contact the installation
ombudsman, [Insert name], at __________ [Insert telephone number].
Concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations which cannot be
resolved at the installation may be referred to the NASA ombudsman,
the Deputy Administrator for Procurement, at 202-358-2090. Please do
not contact the ombudsman to request copies of the solicitation,
verify offer due date, or clarify technical requirements. Such
inquiries shall be directed to the contracting officer or as
specified elsewhere in this document.
(End of clause)
1852.216-73, 1852.216-74, 1852.216-75, 1852.216-76, 1852.216-77,
1852.216-78 [Revised]
12.-13. Sections 1852.216-73, 1852.216-74, 1852.216-75, 1852.216-
76, 1852.216-77 and 1852.216-78 are revised to read as follows:
1852.216-73 Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing.
As prescribed in 1816.307-70(a), insert the following clause:
Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing
(December 1991)
(a) It is estimated that the total cost of performing the work
under this contract will be $__________.
(b) For performance of the work under this contract, the
Contractor shall be reimbursed for not more than ______ percent of
the costs of performance determined to be allowable under the
Allowable Cost and Payment clause. The remaining ______ percent or
more of the costs of performance so determined shall constitute the
Contractor's share, for which it will not be reimbursed by the
Government.
(c) For purposes of the ______________ [insert ``Limitation of
Cost'' or ``Limitation of Funds''] clause, the total estimated cost
to the Government is hereby established as $________ (insert
estimated Government share); this amount is the maximum Government
liability.
(d) The Contractor shall maintain records of all contract costs
claimed by the Contractor as constituting part of its share. Those
records shall be subject to audit by the Government. Costs
contributed by the Contractor shall not be charged to the Government
under any other grant, contract, or agreement (including allocation
to other grants, contracts, or agreements as part of an independent
research and development program).
(End of clause)
1852.216-74 Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee.
As prescribed in 1816.307-70(b), insert the following clause:
Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee
(December 1991)
The estimated cost of this contract is ____________ exclusive of
the fixed fee of ____________. The total estimated cost and fixed
fee is ____________.
(End of clause)
1852.216-75 Payment of Fixed Fee.
As prescribed in 1816.307-70(c), insert the following clause:
Payment of Fixed Fee
(December 1988)
The fixed fee shall be paid in monthly installments based upon
the percentage of completion of work as determined by the
Contracting Officer.
(End of clause)
1852.216-76 Award Fee for Service Contracts.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(a), insert the following clause:
Award Fee for Service Contracts
(October 1996)
(a) The contractor can earn award fee from a minimum of zero
dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR Supplement clause
1852.216-85, ``Estimated Cost and Award Fee'' in this contract.
(b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this
contract, the Government shall evaluate the Contractor's performance
every 6* months to determine the amount of award fee earned by the
contractor during the period. The Contractor may submit a self-
evaluation of performance for each evaluation period under
consideration. These self-evaluations will be considered by the
Government in its evaluation. The Government's Fee Determination
Official (FDO) will determine the award fee amounts based on the
Contractor's performance in accordance with [identify performance
evaluation plan]. The plan may be revised unilaterally by the
Government prior to the beginning of any rating period to redirect
emphasis.
(c) The Government will advise the Contractor in writing of the
evaluation results. The [insert payment office] will make payment
based on [Insert method of authorizing award fee payment, e.g.,
issuance of unilateral modification by contracting officer].
(d) After 85 percent of the potential award fee has been paid,
the Contracting Officer may direct the withholding of further
payment of award fee until a reserve is set aside in an amount that
the Contracting Office considers necessary to protect the
Government's interest. This reserve shall not exceed 15 percent of
the total potential award fee.
(e) The amount of award fee which can be awarded in each
evaluation period is limited to the amounts set forth at [identify
location of award fee amounts]. Award fee which is not earned in an
evaluation period cannot be reallocated to future evaluation
periods.
(f) Award fee determinations made by the Government under this
contract are not subject to the Disputes clause.
*[A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be
substituted in accordance with 1816.404-272(a).]
Alternate I
(October 1996)
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(a), insert the following paragraph
(f) and reletter existing paragraph (f) to (g):
(f)(1) Pending a determination of the amount of award fee earned
for an evaluation period, a portion of the available award fee for
that period will be paid to the contractor on a [Insert the
frequency of provisional payments (not more often than monthly)]
basis. The portion paid will be ____________ [Insert percentage (not
to exceed 80 percent)] percent of the current period's available
amount or the equivalent of the prior period's interim fee,
whichever is lower; provided, however, that when the Contracting
Officer determines that the Contractor will not achieve a level of
performance commensurate with the provisional rate, payment of
provisional award fee will be discontinued or reduced in such
amounts as the Contracting Officer deems appropriate. The
Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing if it is
determined that such discontinuance or reduction is appropriate.
This determination is not subject to the Disputes clause.
(2) In the event the amount of award fee earned, as determined
by the FDO, is less than the sum of the provisional payments made
for that period, the Contractor will either credit the next payment
voucher for the amount of such overpayment or refund the difference
to the Government, as directed by the Contracting Officer.
(3) Provisional award fee payments will [insert ``not'' if
appropriate] be made prior to
[[Page 3485]]
the first award fee determination by the Government.
(End of clause)
1852.216-77 Award Fee for End Item Contracts.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(b), insert the following clause:
Award Fee for End Item Contracts
(Insert Month of Publication)
(a) The contractor can earn award fee, or base fee, if any, from
a minimum of zero dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR
Supplement clause 1852.216-85, ``Estimated Cost and Award Fee'' in
this contract. All award fee evaluations, with the exception of the
last evaluation, will be interim evaluations. At the last
evaluation, which is final, the Contractor's performance for the
entire contract will be evaluated to determine total earned award
fee. No award fee or base fee will be paid to the Contractor if the
final award fee evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory.''
(b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this
contract, the Government will evaluate the Contractor's interim
performance every 6* months to monitor Contractor performance prior
to contract completion and to provide feedback to the Contractor.
The evaluation will be performed in accordance with [identify
performance evaluation plan] to this contract. The Contractor may
submit a self-evaluation of performance for each period under
consideration. These self-evaluations will be considered by the
Government in its evaluation. The Government will advise the
Contractor in writing of the evaluation results. The plan may be
revised unilaterally by the Government prior to the beginning of any
rating period to redirect emphasis.
(c)(1) Base fee, if applicable, will be paid in [Insert
``monthly'', or less frequent period] installments based on the
percent of completion of the work as determined by the Contracting
Officer.
(2) Interim award fee payments will be made to the Contractor
based on each interim evaluation. The amount of the interim award
fee payment is limited to the lesser of the interim evaluation score
or 80 percent of the fee allocation to that period less any
provisional payments made during the period. All interim award fee
payments will be superseded by the final award fee determination.
(3) Provisional award fee payments will [insert ``not'' if
applicable] be made under this contract pending each interim
evaluation. If applicable, provisional award fee payments will be
made to the Contractor on a [insert the frequency of provisional
payments (not more often than monthly)] basis. The amount of award
fee which will be provisionally paid in each evaluation period is
limited to [Insert a percent not to exceed 80 percent] of the prior
interim evaluation score (see [insert applicable cite]). Provisional
award fee payments made each evaluation period will be superseded by
the interim award fee evaluation for that period. If provisional
payments made exceed the interim evaluation score, the Contractor
will either credit the next payment voucher for the amount of such
overpayment or refund the difference to the Government, as directed
by the Contracting Officer. If the Government determines that (i)
the total amount of provisional fee payments will apparently
substantially exceed the anticipated final evaluation score, or (ii)
the prior interim evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory,'' the
Contracting Officer will direct the suspension or reduction of the
future payments and/or request a prompt refund of excess payments as
appropriate. Written notification of the determination will be
provided to the Contractor with a copy to the Deputy Chief Financial
Officer (Finance). This determination is not subject to the Disputes
clause.
(4) All interim (and provisional, if applicable) fee payments
will be superseded by the fee determination made in the final award
fee evaluation. The Government will then pay the Contractor, or the
Contractor will refund to the Government the difference between the
final award fee determination and the cumulative interim (and
provisional, if applicable) fee payments. If the final award fee
evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory'', any base fee paid will be
refunded to the Government.
(5) Payment of base fee, if applicable, will be made based on
submission of an invoice by the Contractor. Payment of award fee
will be made by the [insert payment office] based on [Insert method
of making award fee payment, e.g., issuance of a unilateral
modification by the Contracting Officer].
(d) Award fee determinations made by the Government under this
contract are not subject to the Disputes clause.
* [A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be
substituted in accordance with 1816.404-272(a).]
(End of clause)
1852.216-78 Firm Fixed Price.
As prescribed in 1816.202-70, insert the following clause:
Firm Fixed Price
(December 1988)
The total firm fixed price of this contract is $ [Insert the
appropriate amount].
(End of clause)
1852.216-80, 1852.216-81 [Revised]
14.-15. Sections 1852.216-80 and 1852.216-81 are revised to read as
follows:
1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedure.
As prescribed in 1816.506-70, insert the following clause:
Task Ordering Procedures
(October 1996)
(a) Only the Contracting Officer may issue task orders to the
Contractor, providing specific authorization or direction to perform
work within the scope of the contract and as specified in the
schedule. The Contractor may incur costs under this contract in
performance of task orders and task order modifications issued in
accordance with this clause. No other costs are authorized unless
otherwise specified in the contract or expressly authorized by the
Contracting Officer.
(b) Prior to issuing a task order, the Contracting Officer shall
provide the Contractor with the following date:
(1) A functional description of the work identifying the
objectives or results desired from the contemplated task order.
(2) Proposed performance standards to be used as criteria for
determining whether the work requirements have been met.
(3) A request for a task plan from the Contractor to include the
technical approach, period of performance, appropriate cost
information, and any other information required to determine the
reasonableness of the Contractor's proposal.
(c) Within ____ calendar days after receipt of the Contracting
Officer's request, the Contractor shall submit a task plan
conforming to the request.
(d) After review and any necessary discussions, the Contracting
Officer may issue a task order to the Contractor containing, as a
minimum, the following:
(1) Date of the order.
(2) Contract number and order number.
(3) Functional description of the work identifying the
objectives or results desired from the task order, including special
instructions or other information necessary for performance of the
task.
(4) Performance standards, and where appropriate, quality
assurance standards.
(5) Maximum dollar amount authorized (cost and fee or price).
This includes allocation of award fee among award fee periods, if
applicable.
(6) Any other resources (travel, materials, equipment,
facilities, etc.) authorized.
(7) Delivery/performance schedule including start and end dates.
(8) If contract funding is by individual task order, accounting
and appropriation data.
(e) The Contractor shall provide acknowledgement of receipt to
the Contracting Officer within ____ calendar days after receipt of
the task order.
(f) If time constraints do not permit issuance of a fully
defined task order in accordance with the procedures described in
paragraphs (a) through (d), a task order which includes a ceiling
price may be issued.
(g) The Contracting officer may amend tasks in the same manner
in which they are issued.
(h) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the
task order and the Contractor's approved task plan, the task order
shall prevail.
(End of clause)
Alternate I
(October 1996)
As prescribed in 1816.506-70, insert the following paragraph (i)
if the contract does not include 533M reporting:
(i) Contractor shall submit monthly task order progress reports.
As a minimum, the reports shall contain the following information:
(1) Contract number, task order number, and date of the order.
[[Page 3486]]
(2) Task ceiling price.
(3) Cost and hours incurred to date for each issued task.
(4) Costs and hours estimated to complete each issued task.
(5) Significant issues/problems associated with a task.
(6) Cost summary of the status of all tasks issued under the
contract.
1852.216-81 Estimated Cost.
As prescribed in 1816.307-70(d), insert the following clause:
Estimated cost
(December 1988)
The total estimated cost for complete performance of this
contract is $ [Insert total estimated cost of the contract]. See
FAR clause 52.216-11, Cost Contract--No Fee, of this contract.
(End of clause)
1852.216-83, 1852.216-84, 1852.216-85 [Revised]
16.-17. Sections 1852.216-83, 1852.216-84 and 1852.216-85 are
revised to read as follows:
1852.216-83 Fixed Price Incentive.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(c), insert the following clause:
Fixed Price Incentive
(October 1996)
The target cost of this contract is $______. The Target profit
of this contract is $______. The target price (target cost plus
target profit) of this contract is $______. [The ceiling price is
$______.]
The cost sharing for target cost underruns is: Government
______percent; Contractor ______percent.
The cost sharing for target cost overruns is: Government
______percent; Contractor ______percent.
(End of clause)
1852.216-84 Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(d), insert the following clause:
Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee
(October 1996)
The target cost of this contract is $______. The target fee of
this contract is $______. The total target cost and target fee as
contemplated by the Incentive Fee clause of this contract are
$______.
The maximum fee is $______.
The minimum fee is $______.
The cost sharing for cost underruns is: Government
______percent; Contractor ______percent.
The cost sharing for cost overruns is: Government ______percent;
Contractor ______percent.
(End of clause)
1852.216-85 Estimated Cost and Award Fee.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(e), insert the following clause:
Estimated Cost and Award Fee
(September 1993)
The estimated cost of this contract is $______. The maximum
available award fee, excluding base fee, if any, is $______. The
base fee is $______. Total estimated cost, base fee, and maximum
award fee are $______.
(End of clause)
Alternate I
(September 1993)
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(e), insert the following sentence
at the end of the clause:
The maximum positive performance incentive is $______. The
maximum negative performance incentive is (1).
(1) For research development hardware contracts, insert [equal
to total earned award fee (including any base fee)]. For production
hardware contracts, insert [$total potential award fee amount,
including any base fee)].
(End of clause)
1852.216-87, 1852.216-88, 1852.216-89 [Revised]
18-19. Sections 1852.216-87, 1852.216-88 and 1852.216-89 are
revised to read as follows:
1852.216-87 Submission of Vouchers for Payment.
As prescribed in 1816.307-70(e), insert the following clause:
Submission of Vouchers for Payment
(December 1988)
(a) Public vouchers for payment of costs shall include a
reference to this contract [Insert the contract number] and be
forwarded to:
[Insert the mailing address for submission of cost vouchers.]
This is the designated billing office for cost vouchers for
purposes of the Prompt Payment clause of this contract.
(b) The Contractor shall prepare vouchers as follows:
(1) One original Standard Form (SF) 1034, SF 1035, or equivalent
Contractor's attachment.
(2) Seven copies of SF 1034A, SF 1035A, or equivalent
Contractor's attachment.
(3) The Contractor shall mark SF 1034A copies 1, 2, 3, 4, and
such other copies as may be directed by the Contracting Officer by
insertion in the memorandum block the names and addresses as
follows:
(i) Copy 1 NASA Contracting Officer;
(ii) Copy 2 Auditor;
(iii) Copy 3 Contractor;
(iv) Copy 4 Contract administration office; and
(v) Copy 5 Project management office.
(c) Public vouchers for payment of fee shall be prepared
similarly and be forwarded to:
[Insert the mailing address for submission of fee vouchers.]
This is the designated billing office for fee vouchers for
purposes of the Prompt Payment clause of this contract.
(d) In the event that amounts are withheld from payment in
accordance with provisions of this contract, a separate voucher for
the amount withheld will be required before payment for that amount
may be made.
1852.216-88 Performance Incentive.
As prescribed in 1816.405-70(f), insert the following clause:
Performance Incentive
(January 1997)
(a) A performance incentive applies to the following hardware
item(s) delivered under this contract: (1).
The performance incentive will measure the performance of those
items against the salient hardware performance requirement, called
``unit(s) of measurement,'' e.g., months in service or amount of
data transmitted, identified below. The performance incentive
becomes effective when the hardware is put into service. It includes
a standard performance level, a positive incentive, and a negative
incentive, which are described in this clause.
(b) Standard performance level. At the standard performance
level, the Contractor has met the contract requirement for the unit
of measurement. Neither positive nor negative incentives apply when
this level is achieved but not exceeded. The standard performance
level for (1) ____ is established as follows: (2).
(c) Positive incentive. The Contractor earns a separate positive
incentive amount for each hardware item listed in paragraph (a) of
this clause when the standard performance level for that item is
exceeded. The amount earned for each item varies with the units of
measurement achieved, up to a maximum positive performance incentive
amount of $ (3) ____ per item. The units of measurement and the
incentive amounts associated with achieving each unit are shown
below: (4).
(d) Negative incentive. The Contractor will pay to the
Government a negative incentive amount for each hardware item that
fails to achieve the standard performance level. The amount to be
paid for each item varies with the units of measurement achieved, up
to the maximum negative incentive amount of $ (5) ____. The units of
measurement and the incentive amounts associated with achieving each
unit are shown below: (6).
(e) The final calculation of positive or negative performance
incentive amounts shall be done when performance (as defined by the
unit of measurement) ceases or when the maximum positive incentive
is reached.
(1) When the Contracting Officer determines that the performance
level achieved fell below the standard performance level, the
Contractor will either pay the amount due the Government or credit
the next payment voucher for the amount due, as directed by the
Contracting Officer.
(2) When the performance level exceeds the standard level, the
Contractor may request payment of the incentive amount associated
with a given level of performance, provided that such payments shall
not be more frequent than monthly. When performance ceases or the
maximum positive incentive is reached, the Government shall
calculate the final performance incentive earned and unpaid and
promptly remit it to the contractor.
(f) If performance cannot be demonstrated, through no fault of
the Contractor, within
[[Page 3487]]
[insert number of months or years] after the date of hardware
acceptance by the Government, the Contractor will be paid [insert
percentage] of the maximum performance incentive.
(g) The decisions made as to the amount(s) of positive or
negative incentives are subject to the Disputes clause.
(1) Insert applicable item number(s) and/or nomenclature.
(2) Insert a specific unit of measurement for each hardware item
listed in (1) and each salient characteristic, if more than one.
(3) Insert the maximum positive performance incentive amount
(see 1816.402-270(e) (1) and (2)).
(4) Insert all units of measurement and associated dollar
amounts up to the maximum performance incentive.
(5) Insert the appropriate amount in accordance with 1816.402-
270(e).
(6) Insert all units of measurement and associated dollar
amounts up to the maximum negative performance incentive.
(End of clause)
1852.216-89 Assignment and release forms.
As prescribed at 1816.307-70(f), insert the following clause:
Assignment and Release Forms
(October 1996)
The Contractor shall use the following forms to fulfill the
assignment and release requirements of FAR Clause 52.216-7,
Allowable Cost and Payment, and FAR Clause 52.216-13, Allowable Cost
and Payment (Facilities):
NASA Form 778, Contractor's Release
NASA Form 779, Assignee's Release
NASA Form 780, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits,
and Other Amounts
Computer generated forms are acceptable, provided that they
comply with FAR Clause 52.253-1.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 97-1240 Filed 1-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
