[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5143]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 10, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1807, 1815, 1852, and 1870

 

Acquisition Streamlining Techniques

AGENCY: Office of Procurement, Procurement Policy Division, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the NASA FAR Supplement to incorporate a 
number of techniques that will streamline the acquisition planning and 
competitive source selection processes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom O'Toole, NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Procurement 
Policy Division (Code HP), Washington, DC 20546. Telephone: (202) 358-
0478.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 22, 1993, an interim rule to amend the NASA FAR 
Supplement to streamline the acquisition planning and competitive 
source selection processes was published in the Federal Register for 
comment (58 FR 61629-61634). Public comments on the interim rule 
suggested NASA consider revising its policy to address several issues.
    The first of these issues concerns the statement in section 
1807.103(b)(4) that approval of a procurement plan does not constitute 
approval of any special conditions or special clauses that may be 
required unless the plan so specifies and the individual having 
approval authority is a signatory of the plan. The comment suggests 
that this approach is of questionable value and recommends that the 
interim rule be changed to indicate that procurement plans should only 
be approved by the level that has authority to grant approval to all 
aspects of the plan.
    The policy in the interim rule allows a single document--the 
procurement plan--to accommodate the approval of special requirements 
that would normally be processed separately, thereby preventing 
duplicative effort. NASA believes that this technique is an effective 
streamlining tool. On the other hand, the public comment recommendation 
would be counter productive in that it would raise approval of the 
procurement plan to the highest levels when it is unnecessary to do so. 
For example, economic price adjustment (EPA) clauses require the 
approval of NASA Headquarters. If the public comment recommendation 
were adopted, the entire procurement plan would need to be approved at 
the Headquarters level rather than just the EPA clause. Under the NASA 
procedure, the procurement plan would be approved at the lowest 
appropriate level at the field installation, and only the EPA clause 
need be submitted for Headquarters approval. NASA does not believe the 
recommended change is appropriate.
    The second issue raised in the public comments concerns the 
proposal page limitations imposed by the interim rule. The comment 
noted that section 1815.406(d) does not address whether proposal 
attachments are included in the page limitations and suggested that the 
interim rule be changed to exclude attachments such as key personnel 
resumes and management plans. If these exceptions were not made, the 
comment argues that NASA would be forced to generate questions during 
the discussions phase to obtain the information that could not be 
accommodated by the page limitations.
    We do not believe that the public comment recommendation will 
contribute to streamlining acquisitions. The intent of the page 
limitation initiative is to streamline the acquisition process by 
focusing the attention of both the Government and prospective offerors 
on the key discriminators upon which selection will be based. Once so 
focused, solicitation requirements can be concisely articulated and 
proposals can be constructed in a like manner. Furthermore, with less 
material to evaluate, fewer resources need be committed to the 
evaluation process. These benefits can be achieved without degradation 
of the integrity, fairness, or thoroughness of the procurement process.
    Section 1815.406(d) lists the specific elements of a proposal that 
are excluded from the proposal page limitations (title pages, tables of 
content, and cost/price information). Attachments to the proposal are 
not included in this list because they are intentionally subject to the 
page limitations. If they were not, and large sections of a proposal 
were excluded from the page limitations, the benefits of this 
initiative would be largely dissipated.
    In addition, the public comment assertion that the Government would 
generate questions during the discussion phase to obtain information 
that could not be included in the proposal because the page limitations 
is speculative at best. Consequently, NASA does not believe a change is 
appropriate in this instance.
    The third issue raised in the public comments addresses the 
statement in section 1807.170-4(a) that approved Acquisition Strategy 
Meeting (ASM) minutes satisfy the requirement of a formal procurement 
plan. The comment expressed concern that the interim rule does not 
ensure that an ASM will address all the issues required of a 
procurement plan and recommended that the interim rule be changed to 
ensure this happens.
    This recommended revision is unnecessary since adequate coverage is 
already in the interim rule. Section 1807.170-4(e) requires that 
``ASMs, whether held at Headquarters or field installations, shall 
address the mandatory procurement plan topics specified in 1807.170''.
    The fourth issue identified in the public comments concerns the 
accuracy of the statement in section 1815.613-71(b)(4)(i) that cost is 
``neither scored nor ranked''. The public comment suggests that cost is 
always ranked.
    Under NASA's long-standing source selection procedures, four 
evaluation factors are used. Mission suitability is scored both 
numerically and assessed an adjectival ranking. Past Performance and 
Other Considerations are both ranked adjectivally but neither is given 
a numerical score. Cost, the fourth factor, is neither scored 
numerically nor ranked adjectivally.
    The NASA system is rooted in the best value concept in which 
selection decisions are made after performing informed trade-offs 
between most probable cost and the evaluation of the non-cost 
evaluation factors. Under this system, ``ranking'' cost is not 
meaningful. Both numerical evaluations and adjectival ratings are 
inappropriate, and the relative standing of offerors' evaluated costs 
in itself has no utility. Accordingly, NASA does not believe a change 
to indicate that cost is ``ranked'' is appropriate. However, we are 
making an editorial change in the final rule to clarify that cost is 
``neither scored numerically nor ranked adjectivally.''
    The fifth issue addressed in the public comment is the NASA 
alternative scoring method described in section 1815.613-71(b)(ii). The 
comment objects to this policy on the grounds that it deprives the 
Source Selection Official (SSO) from learning the extent of an 
offeror's improvement from its initial proposal to its BAFO and that it 
increases the potential for technical leveling and technical 
transfusion.
    NASA believes that both of the concerns are unfounded. The 
alternative scoring method requires the identification of strengths and 
weaknesses of initial proposals, and the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) 
always presents to the SSO the strengths and weaknesses of both an 
offeror's initial proposal and its BAFO. Clear traceability between the 
two is provided and the SSO had full visibility into any improvement 
(or degradation) of an offeror's proposal during the course of the 
evaluation. Also, the nature and conduct of written or oral discussions 
is the same under the alternative scoring method as under the standard 
method. Either way, under the NASA system of limited discussions, 
technical leveling and technical transfusion are virtually eliminated. 
No changes to the interim rule are necessary in this area.
    The last issue raised in the public comments questions the 
statement in section 1815.613-71(b)(4)(iv) that the competitive range 
may be further narrowed as a result of written or oral discussions.
    NASA's policy is that the competitive range consists of all 
proposals with a reasonable chance of award. Where there is doubt about 
whether a proposal should be included in the competitive range, it is 
resolved by including it. If a proposal is included in the competitive 
range under the latter circumstances, and the written or oral 
discussions resolve the doubtful issues by clarifying that the proposal 
should not have been included in the competitive range, the proposal 
may be eliminated at that point. This procedure is already described in 
section 1815.613-71(b)(4)(iv), and no change to the interim rule is 
necessary.
    NASA is adopting as a final rule the text set out in the interim 
rule with minor changes to parts 1815, 1852, and 1870 that have no 
significant effect on the substance of the interim rule. These changes 
either correct errata and inconsistencies or provide further 
clarification of the published interim rule. No changes are made to 
part 1807.

Impact

    NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et seq.). This rule does not 
impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1807, 1815, 1852, 1870

    Government procurement.
Tom Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.
    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1807, 1815, 1852, and 1870 are amended as 
follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts, 1815, 1852, and 1870 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION


1815.406  [Amended]

    2. Section 1815.406 is amended by revising the fourth sentence of 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


1815.406  Preparing requests for proposals (RFP's) and requests for 
quotations (RFQ's).

* * * * *
    (c) * * * 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. * * *
* * * * *


1815.613-71  [Amended]

    3. Section 1815.613-71 is amended by revising the fourth sentence 
of paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read as follows:


1815.613-71  Evaluation and negotiation of procurements conducted in 
accordance with source evaluation board (SEB) procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * * This evaluation will be fully documented, including 
scoring or ranking proposals in accordance with the numerical and 
adjectival standards identified in the RFP and this handbook, except 
cost which is neither scored numerically nor ranked adjectivally. * * *
* * * * *
    4. Section 1815.613-71 is amended by revising the parenthetical 
reference ``(e.g., two or three)'' in the third sentence of paragraph 
(b)(4)(ii) to read ``(e.g., five or fewer)''.

PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


1852.215-81  [Amended]

    5. In section 1852.215-81, the reference ``(October 1993)'' after 
the clause title is revised to read ``(January 1994)'', and the first 
sentence of paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


1852.215-81  Proposal Page Limitations.

* * * * *
    (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. * * *
* * * * *

PART 1870--NASA SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS


1870.303  Appendix I--[Amended]

    6. In section 1870.303, Appendix I, chapter 4, paragraph 404 is 
amended by revising the third sentence of paragraph 2.m. to read as 
follows:

Appendix I to 1870.303, NASA Source Evaluation Board Procedures 
(Handbook)

* * * * *
CHAPTER 4--SEB OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR SOLICITATION AND EVALUATION
* * * * *


404  Request for Proposals (RFPs)--Review and Approval

* * * * *
    2. * * * 
    m. * * * Firm page limitations shall also be established for BAFOs, 
if requested. * * *
* * * * *
    7. In section 1870.303, appendix I, chapter 4, paragraph 407.6.d is 
amended by revising the parenthetical reference ``(e.g., two or 
three)'' in the second sentence to read ``(e.g., five or fewer)'' and 
by removing the language ``and complete'' in the last sentence.

[FR Doc. 94-5143 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M