96-25189. Rewrite of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 195 (Monday, October 7, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 52325-52347]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-25189]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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: Interim rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: Part 1815 is revised to delete the NASA-unique source 
    selection procedures and established those in FAR 15.6 as the standard 
    for NASA negotiated competitive acquisition, with appropriate 
    supplementation; implement recent FAR changes resulting from provisions 
    of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994; and 
    incorporate other acquisition streamlining procedures or delete 
    unnecessary regulatory coverage, consistent with the NFS rewrite 
    philosophy. Part 1816 is revised for the same reasons as above, as well 
    as to clarify the relationship between cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) 
    contracting and performance based contracting (PBC). Subpart 1870.3 is 
    deleted in its entirety. The numbering of NFS sections has been changed 
    to indicate the exact section of the FAR being implemented or 
    supplemented. Since the changes either conform NASA procedures to those 
    of the FAR, implement FASA-related FAR changes, or affect acquisition 
    procedures to the extent that immediate adoption is necessary, NASA is 
    issuing the changes as an interim rule, with an effective date 30 days 
    after publication.
    
    DATES: This rule is effective November 6, 1996. All comments on this 
    interim rule should be in writing and must be received by November 6, 
    1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: Bruce King, Code HC, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., 
    Washington, DC 20546-0001; Tom O'Toole, Code HC, NASA Headquarters, 300 
    E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Thomas O'Toole, (202) 358-0478; Mr. Bruce King, (202) 358-0461.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    
    Background
    
        The National Performance Review urged agencies to streamline and 
    clarify their regulations. The NFS rewrite initiative was established 
    to pursue these goals by conducting a section by section review of the 
    NFS to verify its accuracy, relevancy, and validity. The NFS will be 
    rewritten in blocks of parts and 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.
    Deidre A Lee,
    Associate Administrator for Procurement.
    
        Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852, and 1870 are amended as 
    follows:
        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 (REPs) and requests for 
    quotations (FRQs).
    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 Reearch (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer 
    (STTR) solicitations.
    1815.413  Disclosure and use of information before award.
    1815.413-2  Alternate II.
    
    [[Page 52326]]
    
    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 Negotiaton
    
    1815.804  Cost or pricing data and information other than cost of 
    pricing data.
    1815.804-1  Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
    1815.804-170  Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation 
    (CCC).
    1815.804-2  Requiring cost or pricing data.
    1815.805-5  Field pricing support.
    1815.807  Prenegotiation objectives.
    1815.807-70  Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
    1815.807-71  Installation reviews.
    1815.807-72  Headquarters reviews.
    1815.808  Price negotiation memorandum.
    
    Subpart 1815.9--Profit
    
    1815.902  Policy.
    1815.903  Contracting officer responsibilities.
    1815.970  NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
    1815.970-1  General.
    1815.970-2  Contractor effort.
    1815.970-3  Other factors.
    1815.970-4  Facilities capital cost of money.
    1815.971  Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
    
    Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, 
    Protests, and Mistakes
    
    1815.1003  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)
    
    Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and 
    Quotations
    
    
    1815.405  Soliciations for information or planning purposes.
    
    
    1815.405-70  Draft requests for proposals.
    
        (a) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.602(b), contracting 
    officers shall issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) for all 
    competitive negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000 
    (including all options or later phases of the same project). DRFPs 
    shall invite comments from potential offerors on all aspects of the 
    draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal 
    instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be 
    specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient 
    requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the 
    specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.
        (b) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to 
    include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror 
    review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the 
    comments.
        (c) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that 
    the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.
        (d) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a 
    summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final 
    RFP.
        (e) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DRFP 
    upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be 
    realized given the nature of the supply or service being acquired. The 
    DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.
    
    
    1815.406  Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for 
    quotations (RFQs).
    
    
    1815.406-2  Part I--The Schedule. (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 content, and cost/price information, 
    shall not exceed 500 pages using the page definition of 1815.406-70(a). 
    Firm page limitations shall also be established for Best and Final 
    Offers (BAFOs), if requested. The appropriate BAFO page limitations 
    should be determined by considering the complexity of the acquisition 
    and the extent of any written or oral discussions. The same BAFO page 
    limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of 
    the specified limitations for the initial proposal and BAFO will not be 
    evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the offeror.
    
    
    1815.406-71  Installation reviews.
    
        (a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs 
    before release. When appropriate given the
    
    [[Page 52327]]
    
    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 issued pursuant to subpart 1870.1 and in 
    Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 
    Transfer solicitations. (See 1815.412).
        (b) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially 
    as stated at 1852.215-74, Alternate Proposals, in competitive requests 
    for proposals if receipt of alternate proposals would benefit the 
    Government.
        (c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
    75, Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions, in all requests for 
    proposals.
        (d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
    77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for 
    proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to 
    conduct a preproposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate 
    specific information relating to the conference.
        (e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71, 
    Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the 
    Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified 
    quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert 
    the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular 
    acquisition.
        (f) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72, 
    Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the 
    full quantities solicited.
        (g) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
    81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for 
    proposals.
        (h) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
    82, Offeror Oral Presentations, in competitive requests for proposals 
    when the Government intends to allow offerors to make oral 
    presentations prior to commencement of the Government's formal 
    evaluation.
    
    
    1815.408  Issuing solicitations.
    
    
    1815.408-70  Blackout notices.
    
        (a) Upon release of the formal RFP, the Contracting Officer shall 
    direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain from 
    communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries to 
    the Contracting Officer or other authorized representative. This 
    procedure is commonly known as a ``blackout notice'' and shall not be 
    imposed prior to release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any 
    format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of 
    the acquisition.
        (b) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all 
    communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to 
    provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive 
    advantage or reveal offeror proprietary data.
    
    
    1815.412  Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals.
    
    
    1815.412-70  Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business 
    Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer 
    (STTR) solicitations.
    
        For BAAs listed in 1835.016, SBIR Phase I and Phase II 
    solicitations, and STTR solicitations--
        (a) Proposals, or modifications to them, received from qualified 
    firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if 
    a significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if 
    there are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals 
    previously received. In such cases, the project office shall 
    investigate the circumstances surrounding the submission of the late 
    proposal or modification, evaluate its content, and submit written 
    recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as 
    to whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering the 
    proposal.
        (b) The selection official or a designee shall determine whether to 
    consider the proposal.
        (c) Offerors may withdraw proposals any time before award, provided 
    the conditions in paragraph (b) of the provision at 1852.215-73, Late 
    Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, SBIR, and 
    STTR Programs), are satisfied.
    
    
    1815.413  Disclosure and use of information before award.
    
    
    1815.413-2  Alternate II.
    
        (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
    
    [[Page 52328]]
    
    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 nonavailbility of Government personnel 
    required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these instances.
        (A) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
        (B) Unsolicited proposals;
        (C) NASA Research Announcement proposals;
        (D) SBIR and STTR proposals.
        (iii) The written approvals required by paragraphs (f) (i) and (ii) 
    of this section shall be provided to the contracting officer before the 
    release of the proposal information. As a minimum, the approval shall:
        (A) Identify the precise proposal information being released;
        (B) Identify the person receiving the proposal information and 
    evidence of their appointment as a special government employee or a 
    statement of the applicable exception (see 1815.413-270);
        (C) Provide a justification of the need for disclosure of the 
    proposal information to the non-Government evaluator(s); and
        (D) Provide a statement that a signed ``Agreement and Conditions 
    for Evaluation of Proposals,'' in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of 
    this section, will be obtained prior to release of the proposal to the 
    evaluator.
        (iv) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released 
    to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government 
    evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information 
    in accordance with paragraphs (f)(i) and (f)(ii) of this section.
        (f)(2) The NASA official approving the disclosure of any proposal 
    information to a non-Government evaluator, including employees of JPL, 
    shall, prior to such disclosure, require each non-Government evaluator 
    to sign the following ``Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of 
    Proposals.''
    
    Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of Proposals, October 1996
    
        (1) The recipient agrees to use proposal information for NASA 
    evaluation purposes only. This limitation does not apply to 
    information that is otherwise available without restrictions to the 
    Government, another competing contractor, or the public.
        (2) The recipient agrees that the NASA proposal cover sheet 
    notice (FAR 15.413-2(e) and NFS 1815.413-2(e)), and any notice that 
    may have been placed on the proposal by its originator, shall be 
    applied to any reproduction or abstract of any proposal information 
    furnished.
        (3) Upon completion of the evaluation, the recipient agrees to 
    return all copies of proposal information or abstracts, if any, to 
    the NASA office that initially furnished the proposal information 
    for evaluation.
        (4) Unless authorized in writing by the NASA official releasing 
    the proposal information, the recipient agrees not to contact either 
    the business entities originating the proposals or any of their 
    employees, representatives, or agents concerning any aspect of the 
    proposal information or extracts covered by this agreement.
        (5) The recipient agrees to review his or her financial 
    interests relative to the entities whose proposal information NASA 
    furnishes for evaluation. At any time the recipient becomes aware 
    that he or she or a person with a close personal relationship 
    (household family members, business partners, or associates) has or 
    acquires a financial interest in the entities whose proposal 
    information is subject to this agreement, the recipient shall 
    immediately advise the NASA official releasing the proposal 
    information, protect the proposal information, and cease evaluation 
    activities pending a NASA decision resolving the conflict of 
    interest.
    
    Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Name typed or printed:-------------------------------------------------
    
    Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    [End of agreement]
    
    
    1815.413-270  Appointing non-Government evaluators as special 
    Government employees.
    
        (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-
    Government participants in proposal evaluation proceedings, except 
    employees of JPL, shall be appointed as special Government employees.
        (b) Appointment as a Special Government employee is a separate 
    action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.413-2(f) and may be 
    processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee 
    shall be made by:
        (1) The NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of 
    proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or
        (2) The Field Installation personnel office when the release of 
    proposal information is to be made by the Field Installation.
        (c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special 
    Government employees when they evaluate:
        (1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
        (2) Unsolicited proposals;
        (3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and
        (4) SBIR and STTR proposals.
    
    Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals
    
    
    1815.502  Policy. (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
    
    [[Page 52329]]
    
    status information to requesters. These records shall include, at a 
    minimum, the number of unsolicited proposals received, funded, and 
    rejected during the fiscal year; the identity of the offerors; and the 
    office to which each was referred. The numbers shall be broken out by 
    source (large business, small business, university, or nonprofit 
    institution).
    
    
    1815.506-70  Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
    
        An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified 
    by an evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall 
    be evaluated as a response to that NRS (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.
    
    
    Sec. 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
    
    
    Sec. 1815.601  Definitions. (NASA supplements paragraph (1) and (2))
    
        (1) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official 
    responsible for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection 
    process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has 
    the following responsibilities:
        (i) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the 
    weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, and any special 
    standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2) prior to release of the 
    RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
        (ii) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the 
    Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the 
    cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and
        (iii) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance 
    and special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection 
    procedures.
        (2) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for 
    each acquisition. For acquisitions designated as Headquarters 
    selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan 
    process (see 1807.71).
    
    
    Sec. 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 1870.102, App. I).
        (iii) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70 and 1870.203, 
    App. I).
        (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 discriminations, 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 Mission 
    Suitability subfactors is limited to four. The Mission Suitability 
    evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
        (3) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content 
    of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be 
    numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is 
    limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified 
    in the RFP.
        (4) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability 
    evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis. 
    The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may 
    significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.
        (c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness 
    and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed cost/prices. The Cost/
    Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
    
    [[Page 52330]]
    
        (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 
    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 that offeror's proposal.
        (b) The differences in business methods; operating procedures, and 
    practices as they impact cost.
        (c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each 
    proposal.
        (D) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission 
    Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in 
    1815.608(a)(3)(B).
        (E) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism 
    analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs. 
    Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the 
    cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
        (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 contractor 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.
        (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.
    
    [[Page 52331]]
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Adjectival rating                                Definitions                       Percentile range  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Excellent.............................  A comprehensive and thorough proposal of            91-100.             
                                             exceptional merit with one or more major                               
                                             strengths. No weaknesses or only minor weaknesses                      
                                             exist..                                                                
    Very Good.............................  A proposal which demonstrates over-all competence.  71-90.              
                                             One or more major strengths have been found, and                       
                                             strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist..                       
    Good..................................  A proposal which shows a reasonably sound           51-70.              
                                             response. There may be strengths or weaknesses,                        
                                             or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by                         
                                             strengths do not significantly detract from the                        
                                             offeror's response..                                                   
    Fair..................................  A proposal that has one or more weaknesses.         31-50.              
                                             Weaknesses have been found that outbalance any                         
                                             strengths that exist..                                                 
    Poor..................................  A proposal that has one or more major weaknesses    0-30.               
                                             that 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                 Hardware 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.                         
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination 
    to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.
    
    
    1815.608-70  Identification of unacceptable proposals.
    
        (a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial 
    evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is 
    unacceptable because:
        (1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address 
    itself to the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates 
    that the offeror does not understand the requirements;
        (2) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design 
    drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or 
    improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually 
    an entirely new technical proposal; or
        (3) It contains major technical or business deficiencies or 
    omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could 
    not reasonably be expected to cure.
        (b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for 
    discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with 
    this section.
    
    
    1815.608-71  Evaluation of a single proposal.
    
        (a) If only one proposal is received in response to the 
    solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the 
    solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the 
    single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the 
    Source Selection Authority shall direct the contracting officer to:
        (1) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer 
    determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.804-
    1(b)(1)(ii));
        (2) Award after negotiating a mutually acceptable contract. (The 
    requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined 
    in accordance with FAR 15.804-1); or
        (3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
        (b) The procedure in 1815.608-71(a) also applies when the number of 
    proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one 
    acceptable proposal is received.
    
    
    1815.609  Competitive range. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))
    
        (a) Proposals shall not be included in the competitive range when 
    they do not have a reasonable chance of selection. To reduce 
    unnecessary expenses 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
    
    [[Page 52332]]
    
    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.
        (3)(A) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and 
    conditions so that a ``model'' contract can be sent to each offeror 
    with the request for BAFO. Any proposed technical performance 
    capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to the 
    Government and are considered proposal strengths should be discussed 
    with the offeror and proposed for inclusion in that offeror's ``model'' 
    contract. These items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to, 
    other offerors. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in 
    its ``model'' contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider 
    their characterization as strengths.
        (B) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP 
    requirements for any offeror, without amending the RFP and permitting 
    the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed 
    requirements.
    
    
    1815.611  Best and Final Offers. (NASA supplements paragraphs (b), (c) 
    and (d))
    
        (b) The request for BAFOs shall also:
        (i) Identify any remaining weaknesses;
        (ii) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers 
    resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial 
    proposals;
        (iii) Require offerors to complete and execute the ``model'' 
    contract, which includes any special provisions or performance 
    capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
        (iv) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their 
    proposals; and
        (v) Establish a page limit for BAFOs.
        (c) (i) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement 
    (Code HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 
    million more.
        (ii) Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other 
    acquisitions.
        (d) (i) Proposals are rescored based on BAFO evaluations. Scoring 
    changes between initial and BAFO proposals shall be clearly traceable.
        (ii) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented 
    and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical 
    audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and 
    scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the 
    selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria 
    established in the RFP.
        (iii) Prior to award, the SSA shall sign a source selection 
    statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source 
    selection statements must describe: the acquisition; the SEB evaluation 
    procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and 
    the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Relevant Experience and Past 
    Performance factors. The Statement also addresses unacceptable 
    proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals, or any 
    other considerations pertinent to the decision. The statement shall not 
    reveal any confidential business information. Except for certain major 
    system acquisition competitions (see 1815.1004-70), 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 contacting 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 decision making by 
    providing expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in relation to the 
    evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements contained in the 
    solicitation. The SEB will prepare and present its findings to the SSA, 
    avoiding trade-off judgments among either the individual offerors or 
    among the evaluation factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for 
    selection to the SSA.
        (c) Designation. (1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent 
    individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and 
    risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the 
    solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the 
    acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan approval.
        (2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant 
    installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other 
    Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose 
    the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval 
    shall be obtained in accordance with NFS 1815.413-2.
        (3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters 
    Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments. 
    Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade 
    level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
        (d) Organization. (1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the 
    requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the 
    simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-
    finding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as 
    described in 1815.612-70(d) (4) and (5)), to a highly complex situation 
    involving a major acquisition where two or more committees are formed 
    and these, in turn, are assisted by special panels or consultants in 
    particular areas. The number of committees or panels/consultants shall 
    be kept to a minimum.
        (2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the 
    SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without 
    compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the 
    basis for a sound selection decision.
        (3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative 
    assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for 
    logistical support and record-keeping of SEB activities.
        (4) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding arm of the SEB, 
    usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or 
    management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or 
    portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved 
    evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its 
    evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also 
    respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further 
    justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee 
    chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of 
    their committees.
        (5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a fact-finding arm of 
    the committee in a specialized area of the committee's 
    responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a 
    particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can 
    provide.
        (6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, 
    consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) 
    shall be limited to a maximum of 20 people, unless approved in writing 
    by the procurement officer.
        (e) Voting members. (1) Voting members of the SEB shall include 
    people who will have key assignments on the project to which the 
    acquisition is directed. However, it is important that
    
    [[Page 52333]]
    
    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 experience procurement representative.
        (iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as 
    appropriate.
        (v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue 
    workload).
        (f) Ex officio members. (1) The number of nonvoting ex officio 
    (advisory) members shall be kept as small as possible. Ex officio 
    members should be selected for the experience and expertise they can 
    provide to the SEB. Since their advisory role may require access to 
    highly sensitive SEB material and findings, ex officio membership for 
    persons other than those identified in paragraph 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.
        (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 
    acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or 
    hardware to be procured, some quantitative measure including the 
    Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned 
    contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
        (2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased 
    acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services, 
    identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes 
    from the existing structure.
        (3) Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. Explains any 
    special standards of responsibility and the evaluation factors, 
    subfactors, and elements. Lists the relative order of importance of the 
    evaluation factors and
    
    [[Page 52334]]
    
    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 strength 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))
    
        (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 clause.
    
        (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
    
    [[Page 52335]]
    
    experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract proposal 
    analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA resources or 
    the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.
    
    
    1816.807  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, method of contracting D&F, 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 deviation, special clauses, or unusual conditions 
    anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses 
    and when approvals were obtained, if required.
        (d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option, 
    include--
        (1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of 
    the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective. 
    The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the 
    Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each 
    element of cost, compare the contractor's proposal and the Government 
    position, explain the differences and how the Government position was 
    developed, including the estimating assumptions and projection 
    techniques employed, and how the positions differ in approach. Include 
    a discussion of excessive wages found (if applicable) and their planned 
    resolution. Explain how historical costs, including costs incurred 
    under a letter contract (if applicable), were used in developing the 
    negotiation objective;
        (2) Significant differences between the field pricing report 
    (including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or 
    contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each 
    proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.806-2(a), there 
    shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses 
    performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation 
    objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major 
    subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of 
    competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when 
    appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by 
    the prime contractor, any unusual or special pricing or finance 
    arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
        (3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and, 
    if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured 
    Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities 
    Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee 
    contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines, 
    ceilings, cost risk, and so forth, as applicable.
        (e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the 
    Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for 
    the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently 
    demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or 
    condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the 
    rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from 
    the original approval authority.
    
    
    1815.807-71  Installation reviews.
    
        Each contracting activity shall establish a formal system for the 
    review of prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage, 
    exact procedures to be followed, levels of management review, and 
    contract file documentation requirements should be directly related to 
    the dollar value and complexity of the acquisition. The primary purpose 
    of these reviews is to ensure that the negotiator, or negotiating 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
    
    [[Page 52336]]
    
    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.
        (a)(2) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is 
    not required for:
        (A) Architect-engineer contracts;
        (B) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of 
    Government facilities;
        (C) Construction contracts;
        (D) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by 
    subcontractors;
        (E) Termination settlements;
        (F) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers 
    may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as 
    an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
        (G) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the 
    procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach 
    is unsuitable and the exemption is:
        (1) Justified in writing, and
        (2) Authorized by the procurement officer.
    
    
    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 fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be 
    subtracted from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this 
    adjustment, it will be necessary to consider the following factors:
        (i) Tax position benefits;
        (ii) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
        (iii) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
        (iv) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage 
    or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit 
    organization.
    
    
    1815.970-2  Contractor effort.
    
        (a) This factor takes into account what resources are necessary and 
    what the contractor must do to meet the contract performance 
    requirements. The suggested cost categories under this factor are for 
    reference purposes only. The format of individual proposals will vary, 
    but these broad categories provide a sample structure for the 
    evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of cost shall be 
    separately listed under the appropriate category and assigned a weight 
    from the category range.
        (b) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific 
    acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated 
    for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part 
    of the cost base in column 1.(a) in the computation of profit or fee.
        (c) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content 
    of the proposed contract as follows:
        (1) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and 
    other material.). (i) Consider the managerial and technical efforts 
    necessary for the prime contractor to select subcontractors and 
    administer subcontracts, including efforts to introduce and maintain 
    competition. These evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw 
    materials or basic commodities; purchases of processed material, 
    including all types of components of standard or near-standard 
    characteristics; and purchases of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies, 
    special tooling, and other products special to the end item. In 
    performing the evaluation, also consider whether the contractor's 
    purchasing program makes a substantial contribution to the performance 
    of a contract through the use of subcontracting programs involving many 
    sources, new complex components and instrumentation, incomplete 
    specifications, and close surveillance by the prime contractor.
        (ii) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as 
    scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation. 
    If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR 
    31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the 
    material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the 
    constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the 
    appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
        (2) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other 
    labor). (i) Analysis of the various items of cost should include 
    evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering 
    talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience 
    to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of 
    assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the 
    amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering 
    talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or 
    supporting personnel.
        (ii) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning 
    higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills 
    and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for 
    contract performance.
        (iii) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and 
    other types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower 
    resources for meeting these requirements should be considered. For 
    purposes of evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality 
    control, and receiving and inspection) proposed separately from 
    engineering, service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the 
    most appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation 
    considerations as outlined above 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
    
    [[Page 52337]]
    
    contract performance, and the degree of substantiation provided for 
    rates proposed in future years.
        (ii) Contracting officers should also consider the historical 
    accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability 
    to control overhead pool expenses.
        (iii) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead 
    rate of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break 
    out the applicable sections of the composite rate which could be 
    classified as engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other 
    overhead pools, and G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
        (4) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with 
    contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and 
    relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of 
    cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to 
    contract performance.
    
    
    1815.970-3  Other factors.
    
        (a) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should 
    influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to 
    anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to 
    the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination 
    provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing 
    measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for 
    arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This 
    factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation 
    profit/fee objectives.
        (1) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of 
    reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee 
    in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any 
    risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not 
    acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this 
    factor.
        (2) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is 
    related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the 
    contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk 
    by contract type would usually fall within the 0-to-3 percent range for 
    cost-reimbursement contracts and 3-to-7 percent range for fixed-price 
    contracts.
        (i) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
    section, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a 
    reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains 
    cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases, 
    up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts 
    fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly 
    related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of 
    fees, etc.
        (ii) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to 
    accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting 
    should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item 
    required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for 
    prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
        (3) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form 
    of cost risk to consider.
        (i) The contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant 
    impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular 
    contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting 
    officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost 
    risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has 
    effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the 
    contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that 
    would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost 
    risk weight should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a 
    substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts 
    unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the 
    contractor's risk.
        (ii) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition 
    that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change 
    orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to 
    the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial 
    performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be 
    reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively 
    reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the 
    contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable, 
    determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of 
    all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be 
    made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not 
    be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work 
    completed, before definitization.
        (b) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their 
    contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance 
    from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to 
    encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the 
    maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an 
    analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
        (1) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee 
    objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization 
    needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the 
    required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the 
    facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that 
    significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be 
    provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that 
    rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should 
    receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the above 
    examples should be evaluated on their merits, with either a positive or 
    negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee objective. 
    However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform a contract 
    that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a contractor's 
    use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the contract, 
    profit/fee need not be adjusted.
        (2) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by 
    the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this 
    weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have 
    on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should 
    be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum 
    reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches 
    zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent 
    than monthly.
        (c) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance 
    should be evaluated in such area 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
    
    [[Page 52338]]
    
    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 disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches 
    of the successful offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
        (b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design 
    concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to 
    competing offerors or the general public until the release of the 
    source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the 
    Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
    
    Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman
    
    
    1815.7001  NASA Ombudsman Program.
    
        NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPG 5101.33, 
    Procurement Guidance.
    
    
    1815.7002  Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
    
        In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the 
    contracting officer shall indicate that the clause at 1852.215-84, 
    Ombudsman, is applicable. This may be accomplished by referencing the 
    clause number and identifying the installation Ombudsman.
    
    
    1815.7003  Contract clause.
    
        The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the 
    same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations 
    (including draft solicitations) and contracts.
        3. Part 1816 is revised to read as follows:
    
    PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
    
    Subpart 1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts
    
    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 predetermined, 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-Hour, and Letter Contracts
    
    1816.603  Letter contracts.
    1816.603-370  Approvals.
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1)
    
    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 adjustments.
    
    
    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 42.216-4, 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
    
    [[Page 52339]]
    
    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 based 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, Adult and Records--
    Negotiation.
        (b) In solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 
    52.216-8, 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, Adult 
    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 shall 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 tha 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
    
    [[Page 52340]]
    
    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 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 CPAF 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 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 the conclusion of the milestones rather than
    
    [[Page 52341]]
    
    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 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 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 extend 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 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 economic manner;
    
    [[Page 52342]]
    
    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.
        (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 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
    
    [[Page 52343]]
    
    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 (c) of this section that 
    increases the estimated definitized contract amount to or above the 
    Master Buy Plan submission threshold must have the prior approval of 
    the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
    
    PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    
    
    1852.215-70, 1852.215-71, 1852.215-72  [Removed]
    
        4.-5. Sections 1852.215-70, 1852.215-71 and 1852.215-72 are 
    removed.
    
    
    1852.215-73, 1852.215-74, 1852.215-75  [Revised]
    
        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 or telegram 
    (including mailgram) received at any time before award. Proposals 
    may be 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, if accepted, would result in a contract with terms varying in 
    one or more material respects from those contained in this 
    solicitation, and the government concludes that implementation of 
    the approach contained in the alternate proposal would be in its 
    best interests, the Government may modify its solicitation in a 
    manner appropriate to 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)
    
    
    1852.215-76  [Removal]
    
        7. Section 1852.215-76 is removed.
        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)
    
    
    1852.215-80  [Removed]
    
        8. Section 1852.215-80 is removed.
        9. Sections 1852.215-81 and 1852.215-82 are revised to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    1852.215-81  Proposed 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.
    
    [[Page 52344]]
    
    
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Proposed Section (List each volume                                     
                or section)                   Page Limit (Specify limit)    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         ...................................
                                         ...................................
                                         ...................................
                                         ...................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (b) A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\''  x  11'', 
    with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 
    12 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.
        (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)
    
    
    1852.215-83  [Removed]
    
        10. Section 1852.215-83 is removed.
    
    
    1852.215-84  [Amended]
    
        11. 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 
    solicilation, 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)
    
    
    1852.216-72  [Removed]
    
        12. Section 1852.216-72 is removed.
        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 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 \1\ months after the effective date of this 
    contract, the Government shall
    
    [[Page 52345]]
    
    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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ (A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be 
    substituted in accordance with 18-16.404-272(a).)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (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 Officer 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.
    
    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 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 (October 1996)
    
        (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 \1\ months after the effective date of this 
    contract, the Government will evaluate the Contractor's interim 
    performance every 6 \1\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ (A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be 
    substituted in accordance with 1816.404-272(a).)
    
        (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 allocated 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 provisional 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 Dispute clause.
    
    (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)
    
    
    1852.216-79  [Removed]
    
        14. Section 1852.216-79 is removed.
        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 Procedure (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
    
    [[Page 52346]]
    
    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 data:
        (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 acknowledgment 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 were 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.
        (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)
    
    
    1852.216-82  [Removed]
    
        16. Section 1852.216-82 is removed.
        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)
    
    
    1852.216-86  [Removed]
    
        18. Section 1852.216-86 is removed.
    
    
    1852.216-87, 1852.216-88, 1852.216-89  [Revised]
    
        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, SR 1035, or equivalent 
    Contractor's attachment.
        (2) Seven copies of SF 1034A, SF1035A, 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.)
    
    [[Page 52347]]
    
        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 (October 1996)
    
        (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 $XX (3) X 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) X. 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 with 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 (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) For research and 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)) (see 1816.402-270(2)(ii)).
        (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)
    
    PART 1870--NASA SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
    
    Subpart 1870.3--[Removed]
    
        20. Subpart 1870.3, NASA Source Evaluation, is removed.
    [FR Doc. 96-25189 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/6/1996
Published:
10/07/1996
Department:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Interim rule.
Document Number:
96-25189
Dates:
This rule is effective November 6, 1996. All comments on this interim rule should be in writing and must be received by November 6, 1996.
Pages:
52325-52347 (23 pages)
PDF File:
96-25189.pdf
CFR: (71)
48 CFR 1836.6)
48 CFR 1815.610)
48 CFR 31.205-26(e)
48 CFR 1815.608(a)(3)(B)
48 CFR 15.6
More ...