[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