[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3464-3487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1240]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852, and 1870


Rewrite of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: As part of the National Performance Review initiative to 
streamline and clarify regulations, NASA issued an interim rule (61 FR 
52325-52347, October 7, 1996) as corrected (61 FR 56271, October 31, 
1996) which revised part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, and part 
1816, Types of Contracts; made conforming changes to part 1852, 
Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses; and removed subpart 
1870.3, NASA Source Evaluation. The interim rule is being adopted as a 
final rule with minor editorial revisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom O'Toole, (202) 358-0478.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    No comments were received by the closing date in response to the 
interim rule. Several comments were received after the closing date, 
primarily

[[Page 3465]]

addressing the changes in NASA's source selection process. 
Specifically, the comments requested NASA: Eliminate the competitive 
range numerical goal of three proposals (1815.609(a)); clarify that the 
restrictions of the Procurement Integrity Act apply before a blackout 
notice is issued (1815.408-70); clarify that the evaluation of relevant 
experience and past performance for new businesses may include an 
evaluation of the company's principals (1815.605-70(d)); clarify the 
definition of proposal weakness (1815.610(c)(2)(A)); and eliminate the 
requirement that source selection statements be publicly releasable 
(1815.611(d)(iii)). NASA considered these comments and believes the 
sections in question are both adequately stated and integral to the 
Agency's acquisition streamlining initiatives. Accordingly, no changes 
are made to the interim rule as a result of public comment.
    However, the following editorial and administrative changes are 
made to ensure consistency among the rewritten and renumbered NFS 
parts:
    1. In 1815.407-70(a), the reference to ``issued pursuant to subpart 
1870.1'' is deleted.
    2. In 1815.602(b) (ii) and (iii), the parenthetical cross 
references are corrected.
    3. In 1815.708-70, the title is changed to ``NASA contract 
clauses''.
    4. In 1815.902(a)(2)(G), the redundant language after 
``unsuitable'' is deleted.
    5. In 1816.404-270(b)(3), the reference to ``CPAF'' is a 
typographical error and is corrected to ``cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF).''
    6. In 1852.216-76, the NFS reference in the footnote is corrected 
to ``1816.404-272(a).''
    7. In 1852.216-77(c)(4), the phrase ``cumulative provisional fee 
payments'' in the second sentence is corrected to ``cumulative interim 
(and provisional, if applicable) fee payments'' to reflect the policy 
in 1816.404-2.
    8. In 1852.216-88, footnote (5) is deleted and corrected to ``(5) 
Insert the appropriate amount in accordance with 1816.402-270(e).''
    In addition, other miscellaneous revisions are made to correct 
printing errors in the published interim rule.
    The National Performance Review urged agencies to streamline and 
clarify their regulations. The NFS rewrite initiative was established 
to pursue these goals by conducting a section by section review of the 
NFS to verify its accuracy, relevancy, and validity. The NFS will be 
rewritten in blocks of parts and upon completion of all parts, the NFS 
will be reissued in a new edition.

Impact

    NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule does not 
impose any reporting or record keeping requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852 and 1870

    Government procurement.
Thomas S. Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1816, 1852, and 1870 are amended as 
follows:
    1.-2. Part 1815 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations

Sec.
1815.405  Solicitations for information or planning purposes.
1815.405-70  Draft requests for proposals.
1815.406  Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for 
quotations (RFQs).
1815.406-2  Part I--The Schedule.
1815.406-5  Part IV--Representations and instructions.
1815.406-70  Page limitations.
1815.406-71  Installation reviews.
1815.406-72  Headquarters reviews.
1815.407  Solicitation provisions.
1815.407-70  NASA solicitation provisions.
1815.408  Issuing solicitations.
1815.408-70  Blackout notices.
1815.412  Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of 
proposals.
1815.412-70  Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business 
Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) solicitations.
1815.413  Disclosure and use of information before award.
1815.413-2  Alternate II.
1815.413-270  Appointing non-Government evaluators as special 
Government employees.

Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals

1815.502  Policy.
1815.503  General.
1815.504  Advance guidance.
1815.506  Agency procedures.
1815.506-70  Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
1815.508  Prohibitions.
1815.508-70  NASA prohibitions.
1815.509  Limited use of data.
1815.509-70  Limited use of proposals.
1815.570  Foreign proposals.

Subpart 1815.6--Source Selection

1815.601  Definitions.
1815.602  Applicability.
1815.605-70  Evaluation factors and subfactors.
1815.608  Proposal evaluation.
1815.608-70  Identification of unacceptable proposals.
1815.608-71  Evaluation of a single proposal.
1815.609  Competitive range.
1815.610  Written or oral discussions.
1815.611  Best and Final Offers.
1815.612-70  NASA formal source selection.

Subpart 1815.7--Make-or-Buy Programs

1815.704  Items and work included.
1815.706  Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.
1815.708  Contract clause.
1815.708-70  NASA contract clause.

Subpart 1815.8--Price Negotiation

1815.804  Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or 
pricing data.
1815.804-1  Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.804-170  Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation 
(CCC).
1815.804-2  Requiring cost or pricing data.
1815.805-5  Field pricing support.
1815.807  Pre-negotiation objectives.
1815.807-70  Content of the pre-negotiation position memorandum.
1815.807-71  Installation reviews.
1815.807-72  Headquarters reviews.
1815.808  Price negotiation memorandum.

Subpart 1815.9--Profit

1815.902  Policy.
1815.903  Contracting officer responsibilities.
1815.970  NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.970-1  General.
1815.970-2  Contractor effort.
1815.970-3  Other factors.
1815.970-4  Facilities capital cost of money.
1815.971  Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, 
Protests, and Mistakes
1815.1003  Notification to successful offeror.
1815.1004-70  Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.

Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman

1815.7001  NASA Ombudsman Program.
1815.7002  Synopses of solicitations and contracts.
1815.7003  Contract clause.

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

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 1815.4--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and 
Quotations


1815.405  Solicitations for information or planning purposes.


1815.405-70  Draft requests for proposals.

    (a) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.602(b), contracting 
officers shall

[[Page 3466]]

issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) for all competitive 
negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000 (including all 
options or later phases of the same project). DRFPs shall invite 
comments from potential offerors on all aspects of the draft 
solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal 
instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be 
specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient 
requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the 
specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.
    (b) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to 
include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror 
review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the 
comments.
    (c) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that 
the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.
    (d) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a 
summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final 
RFP.
    (e) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DFRP 
upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be 
realized given the nature of the supply or service being acquired. The 
DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.


1815.406  Preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for 
quotations (RFQs).


1815.406-2  Part I--The Schedule.

(NASA supplements paragraph (c))

    (c) To the maximum extent practicable, requirements should be 
defined as performance based specifications/statements of work that 
focus on required outcomes or results, not methods of performance or 
processes.


1815.406-5  Part IV--Representations and instructions.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) The information required in proposals should be kept to the 
minimum necessary for the source selection decision. Although offerors 
should be provided the maximum flexibility in developing their 
proposals, contracting officers shall specify any information and 
standard formats required for the efficient and impartial evaluation of 
proposals.


1815.406-70  Page limitations.

    (a) Technical and contracting personnel will mutually agree on page 
limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless approved in 
writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the 
contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C, 
Description/specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages, 
and the page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not 
exceed 200 pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section 
to which they relate. In determining page counts, a page is defined as 
one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', with at least one inch margins on 
all sides, using not smaller than 12 characters per inch or equivalent 
type. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages. 
The metric standard format most closely approximating the described 
standard 8\1/2\'' x 11'' size may also be used.
    (b) Page limitations shall also be established for proposals 
submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly, technical and 
contracting personnel will mutually agree on page limitations for each 
portion of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in 
writing by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal, 
excluding title pages, tables of contents, and cost/price information, 
shall not exceed 500 pages using the page definition of 1815.406-70(a). 
Firm page limitations shall also be established for Best and Final 
Offers (BAFOs), if requested. The appropriate BAFO page limitations 
should be determined by considering the complexity of the acquisition 
and the extent of any written or oral discussions. The same BAFO page 
limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of 
the specified limitations for the initial proposal and BAFO will not be 
evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the offeror.


1815.406-71  Installation reviews.

    (a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs 
before release. When appropriate given the complexity of the 
acquisition or the number of offices involved in solicitation review, 
centers should consider use of a single review meeting, called a 
Solicitation Review Board (SRB), as a streamlined alternative to the 
serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing 
offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and 
approval responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns. 
Actions assigned and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.
    (b) When source evaluation board (SEB) procedures are used in 
accordance with 1815.612-70, the SEB shall review and approve the RFP 
prior to issuance.


1815.406-72  Headquarters reviews.

    For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the 
procurement officer shall submit ten copies of the RFP to the Associate 
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any significant information 
relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation methodology that are not 
included in the RFP itself should also be provided.


1815.407  Solicitation provisions.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (c) and (d))

    (c)(6) The provision at FAR 52.215-10, Late Submissions, 
Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals shall not be used in 
solicitations for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or 
Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, or for broad agency 
announcements listed in 1835.016. See instead 1815.407-70(a).
    (d)(4) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-16 Alternate 
II in all competitive negotiated solicitations.


1815.407-70  NASA solicitation provisions.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
73, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, 
SBIR, and STTR Programs), in lieu of the provision at FAR 52.215-10 in 
Announcements of Opportunity and in Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer solicitations. (See 
1815.412.)
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially 
as stated at 1852.215-74, Alternate Proposals, in competitive requests 
for proposals if receipt of alternate proposals would benefit the 
Government.
    (c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
75, Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions, in all requests for 
proposals.
    (d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
77, Pre-proposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for 
proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to 
conduct a pre-proposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate 
specific information relating to the conference.
    (e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71, 
Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the 
Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified 
quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert 
the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular 
acquisition.

[[Page 3467]]

    (f) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72, 
Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the 
full quantities solicited.
    (g) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-
81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for 
proposals.
    (h) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
82, Offeror Oral Presentations, in competitive requests for proposals 
when the Government intends to allow offerors to make oral 
presentations prior to commencement of the Government's formal 
evaluation.


1815.408  Issuing solicitations.


1815.408.70  Blackout notices.

    (a) Upon release of the formal RFP, the Contracting Officer shall 
direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain from 
communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries to 
the Contracting Officer or other authorized representative. This 
procedure is commonly known as a ``blackout notice'' and shall not be 
imposed prior to release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any 
format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of 
the acquisition.
    (b) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all 
communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to 
provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive 
advantage or reveal offeror proprietary data.


1815.412  Late proposals, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals.


1815.412-70  Broad agency announcements (BAAs), Small Business 
Innovative Research (SBIR), and Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) solicitations.

    For BAAs listed in 1835.016, SBIR Phase I and Phase II 
solicitations, and STTR solicitations--
    (a) Proposals, or modifications to them, received from qualified 
firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if 
a significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if 
there are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals 
previously received. In such cases, the project office shall 
investigate the circumstances surrounding the submission of the late 
proposal or modification, evaluate its content, and submit written 
recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as 
to whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering the 
proposal.
    (b) The selection official or a designee shall determine whether to 
consider the proposal.
    (c) Offerors may withdraw proposals any time before award, provided 
the conditions in paragraph (b) of the provision at 1852.215-73, Late 
Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, SBIR, and 
STTR Programs), are satisfied.


1815.413  Disclosure and use of information before award.


1815.413-2  Alternate II.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (e), and (f))

    The alternate procedures at FAR 15.413-2 shall be used for NASA 
acquisitions in lieu of those prescribed at FAR 15.413-1. These 
procedures, as implemented by this section, apply both before and after 
award.
    (a) During evaluation proceedings, NASA personnel participating in 
any way in the evaluation may not reveal any information concerning the 
evaluation to anyone not also participating, and then only to the 
extent that the information is required in connection with the 
evaluation. When non-NASA personnel participate, they shall be 
instructed to observe these restrictions.
    (e) The notice at FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover 
sheet of all proposals, whether solicited or unsolicited. (See 1805.402 
regarding release of the names of firms submitting offers.)
    (f)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(ii) of this section, the 
procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal 
information outside the Government. This authorization may be granted 
only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the 
determination of nonavailability of Government personnel required by 
FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL 
employees.
    (ii) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may 
be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one 
level above the NASA program official responsible for overall conduct 
of the evaluation. The determination of nonavailability of Government 
personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these 
instances.
    (A) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
    (B) Unsolicited proposals;
    (C) NASA Research Announcement proposals;
    (D) SBIR and STTR proposals.
    (iii) The written approvals required by paragraphs (f) (i) and (ii) 
of this section shall be provided to the contracting officer before the 
release of the proposal information. As a minimum, the approval shall:
    (A) Identify the precise proposal information being released;
    (B) Identify the person receiving the proposal information and 
evidence of their appointment as a special government employee or a 
statement of the applicable exception (see 1815.413-270);
    (C) Provide a justification of the need for disclosure of the 
proposal information to the non-Government evaluator(s); and
    (D) Provide a statement that a signed ``Agreement and Conditions 
for Evaluation of Proposals,'' in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section, will be obtained prior to release of the proposal to the 
evaluator.
    (iv) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released 
to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government 
evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information 
in accordance with paragraphs (f)(i) and (f)(ii) of this section.
    (f)(2) The NASA official approving the disclosure of any proposal 
information to a non-Government evaluator, including employees of JPL, 
shall, prior to such disclosure, require each non-Government evaluator 
to sign the following ``Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of 
Proposals.''

Agreement and Conditions for Evaluation of Proposals (October 1996)

    (1) The recipient agrees to use proposal information for NASA 
evaluation purposes only. This limitation does not apply to 
information that is otherwise available without restrictions to the 
Government, another competing contractor, or the public.
    (2) The recipient agrees that the NASA proposal cover sheet 
notice (FAR 15.413-2(e) and NFS 1815.413-2(e)), and any notice that 
may have been placed on the proposal by its originator, shall be 
applied to any reproduction or abstract of any proposal information 
furnished.
    (3) Upon completion of the evaluation, the recipient agrees to 
return all copies of proposal information or abstracts, if any, to 
the NASA office that initially furnished the proposal information 
for evaluation.
    (4) Unless authorized in writing by the NASA official releasing 
the proposal information, the recipient agrees not to contact either 
the business entities originating the proposals or any of their 
employees, representatives, or agents concerning any aspect of the 
proposal information or extracts covered by this agreement.
    (5) The recipient agrees to review his or her financial 
interests relative to the entities whose proposal information NASA 
furnishes for evaluation. At any time the recipient

[[Page 3468]]

becomes aware that he or she or a person with a close personal 
relationship (household family members, business partners, or 
associates) has or acquires a financial interest in the entities 
whose proposal information is subject to this agreement, the 
recipient shall immediately advise the NASA official releasing the 
proposal information, protect the proposal information, and cease 
evaluation activities pending a NASA decision resolving the conflict 
of interest.

Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------

Name typed or printed:-------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

[End of agreement]


1815.413-270  Appointing non-Government evaluators as special 
Government employees.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-
Government participants in proposal evaluation proceedings, except 
employees of JPL, shall be appointed as special Government employees.
    (b) Appointment as a Special Government employee is a separate 
action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.413-2(f) and may be 
processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee 
shall be made by:
    (1) The NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of 
proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or
    (2) The Field Installation personnel office when the release of 
proposal information is to be made by the Field Installation.
    (c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special 
Government employees when they evaluate:
    (1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
    (2) Unsolicited proposals;
    (3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and
    (4) SBIR and STTR proposals.

Subpart 1815.5--Unsolicited Proposals


1815.502  Policy.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (1) and (2))

    (1) An unsolicited proposal may result in the award of a contract, 
a grant, a cooperative agreement, or other agreement. If a grant or 
cooperative agreement is used, the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement 
Handbook (NPG 5800.1) applies.
    (2) Renewal proposals, (i.e., those for the extension or 
augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS 
regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in 
Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.


1815.503  General.

(NASA supplements paragraph (e))

    (e) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited 
proposals initially submitted to another agency or to the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without the offeror's express consent.


1815.504  Advance guidance.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) The Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK) is responsible 
for preparing for public use a brochure titled ``Guidance for the 
Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals,'' which shall be 
provided without charge by the Office of Procurement and other NASA 
officials in response to requests for proposal submission information. 
A deviation is required for use of any modified or summarized version 
of the brochure or for alternate means of general dissemination of 
unsolicited proposal information. Code HK is responsible for internal 
distribution of the brochure.


1815.506  Agency procedures.

(NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall 
designate an organizational entity as its unsolicited proposal 
coordinating office for receiving and coordinating the handling and 
evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
    (ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling 
proposals initially received by other offices within the installation. 
Misdirected proposals shall be forwarded by the coordinating office to 
the proper installation. Field installation coordinating offices are 
also responsible for providing guidance to potential offerors regarding 
the appropriate NASA officials to contact for general mission-related 
inquiries or other preproposal discussions.
    (iii) Coordinating offices shall keep records of unsolicited 
proposals received and shall provide prompt status information to 
requesters. These records shall include, at a minimum, the number of 
unsolicited proposals received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal 
year; the identity of the offerors; and the office to which each was 
referred. The numbers shall be broken out by source (larger business, 
small business, university, or nonprofit institution).


1815.506-70  Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.

    An unsolicited proposal for a new effort or a renewal, identified 
by an evaluating office as being within the scope of an open NRA, shall 
be evaluated as a response to that NRA (see 1835.016-70), provided that 
the evaluating office can either:
    (a) State that the proposal is not at a competitive disadvantage, 
or
    (b) Give the offeror an opportunity to amend the unsolicited 
proposal to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA proposal 
preparation instructions. If these conditions cannot be met, the 
proposal must be evaluated separately.


1815.508  Prohibitions.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) FAR 15.508(b) shall not apply to NASA; see instead 1815.508-70.


1815.508-70  NASA prohibitions.

    Information (data) in unsolicited proposals furnished to the 
Government is to be used for evaluation purposes only. Disclosure 
outside the Government for evaluation is permitted only to the extent 
authorized by, and in accordance with procedures in, FAR 15.413-2 and 
1815.413-2.


1815.509  Limited use of data.

    FAR 15.509 shall not apply to NASA. See instead 1815.509-70.


1815.509-70  Limited use of proposals.

    (a) The provision at FAR 52.215-12, Restriction on Disclosure and 
Use of Data, is applicable to unsolicited proposals.
    (b) If an unsolicited proposal is received with a more restrictive 
legend than made applicable by paragraph (a) of this section, the 
procedures of FAR 15.413-2(c) apply.
    (c) Upon receipt in the coordinating office, the Government notice 
in FAR 15.413-2(e) shall be placed on the cover sheet of all 
unsolicited proposals.
    (d) Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government 
only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with the procedures 
prescribed in, FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2.
    (e) If a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act for 
any information contained in an unsolicited proposal, the procedures of 
FAR 15.413-2(g) apply.


1815.570  Foreign proposals.

    Unsolicited proposals from foreign sources are subject to NMI 
1362.1, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in 
Space and Aeronautical Programs.

Subpart 1815.6--Source Selection


1815.601  Definitions.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (1) and (2))

    (1) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official 
responsible

[[Page 3469]]

for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process and 
for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has the 
following responsibilities:
    (i) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the 
weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, and any special 
standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2) prior to release of the 
RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
    (ii) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the 
Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the 
cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and
    (iii) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance 
and special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection 
procedures.
    (2) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for 
each acquisition. For acquisitions designated as Headquarters 
selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the Master Buy Plan 
process (see 1807.71).


1815.602  Applicability.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a)(i) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA 
competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:
    (A) Acquisitions of $50 million or more--in accordance with FAR 
15.6 and this subpart.
    (B) Other acquisitions--in accordance with FAR 15.6 and this 
subpart except section 1815.612-70.
    (ii) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the 
values of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same 
project.
    (b) FAR 15.6 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions 
conducted under the following procedures:
    (i) MidRange (see part 1871).
    (ii) Announcements of Opportunity (see part 1872).
    (iii) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
    (iv) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the 
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the 
authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
    (v) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and 
1836.6).


1815.605-70  Evaluation factors and subfactors

    (a) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission 
Suitability, Cost/Price, and Relevant Experience and Past Performance. 
Evaluation factors may be further defined by subfactors. Although 
discouraged, subfactors may be further defined by elements. Evaluation 
subfactors and any elements should be structured to identify 
significant discriminators, or ``key swingers''--the essential 
information required to support a source selection decision. Too many 
subfactors and elements undermine effective proposal evaluation. All 
evaluation subfactors and any elements should be clearly defined to 
avoid overlap and redundancy.
    (b) Mission Suitability factor. (1) This factor indicates the merit 
or excellence of the work to be performed or product to be delivered. 
It includes, as appropriate, both technical and management subfactors. 
Mission Suitability shall be numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-
point scale.
    (2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation 
subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission 
Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival 
rating percentages in 1815.608(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the 
subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission 
Suitability subfactors is limited to four. The Mission Suitability 
evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
    (3) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content 
of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be 
numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is 
limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified 
in the RFP.
    (4) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability 
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis. 
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may 
significantly affect their Million Suitability scores.
    (c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness 
and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs, prices. The 
Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
    (d) Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor. (1) This 
factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of 
each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products 
similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the 
instant acquisition. The Relevant Experience and Past Performance 
factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
    (2) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data 
from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private 
contracts) that can be used to evaluate their relevant experience and 
past performance. Typically, the RFP will require:
    (i) A list of contracts similar in size, content and complexity to 
the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of 
contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from 
the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested 
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years. 
However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate 
performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period 
should be tailored accordingly.
    (ii) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or 
underruns, completion delays, performance problems and terminations.
    (3) The Contracting Officer may start collecting past performance 
data prior to proposal receipt. One method for initiating the past 
performance evaluation early is to request offerors to submit their 
past performance information in advance of the proposal due date. The 
RFP could also include a past performance questionnaire for offerors to 
send their previous customers with instructions to return the completed 
questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its 
past performance information early or of the customers to submit the 
completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the 
proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of 
the offeror's past performance.


1815.608  Proposal evaluation.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
    (i) Any failures to meet any terms and conditions of the RFP;
    (ii) All strengths and weaknesses, classified as major or minor to 
further underscore discriminators among proposals;
    (iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission 
Suitability subfactor and for the Mission Suitability factor in total;
    (iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
    (v) The adjectival rating of the Relevant Experience and Past 
Performance evaluation factor; and
    (vi) Any technical, schedule, and cost risk. Risks may result from 
the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of 
materials, processes, equipment, etc., or as a result of the cost, 
schedule and performance impacts associated with these approaches. Risk 
evaluations must consider the probability of success, the impact of

[[Page 3470]]

failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirements. Risk 
assessments shall be considered in determining Mission Suitability 
strengths; weaknesses and numerical/adjectival ratings. Identified risk 
areas and the potential for cost impact shall be considered in the cost 
or price evaluation.
    (1) Cost or price evaluation.
    (A) In accordance with 1815.804-1, cost or pricing data shall not 
be requested in competitive acquisitions. Only the minimal information 
other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price 
reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested.
    (B) When contracting on a firm fixed price basis, the contracting 
officer shall not request any cost information, unless proposed prices 
appear unreasonable or unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed 
approach and there are concerns that the contractor may default.
    (C) When contracting on a basis other than firm fixed price, the 
contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to 
assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost 
realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal 
are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear 
understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various 
elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The analysis should 
include:
    (a) The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including 
any recommended additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor 
hours, direct rates and indirect rates. The probable cost should 
reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which might 
result from the offeror's proposal.
    (b) The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and 
practices as they impact cost.
    (c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each 
proposal.
    (D) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission 
Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in 
1815.608(a)(3)(B).
    (E) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism 
analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs. 
Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the 
cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
    (a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
    (A) The Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation 
assesses the contractor's performance under previously awarded 
contracts. It should evaluate the company, not the individuals, 
involved with contract performance. Relevant Experience and Past 
Performance is not numerically scored, but is assigned an adjectival 
rating.
    (B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past 
performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may 
include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other 
aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation 
requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance 
selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all 
offerors in that acquisition.
    (C) The evaluation may consider past performance data provided by 
offerors and data from other sources. Questionnaires and interviews may 
be used to solicit assessments of the offeror's performance, as either 
a prime or subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
    (D) All pertinent information, including customer assessments and 
any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection 
records and included in the evaluation.
    (a)(2) (iii) Firms without relevant experience or a past 
performance record shall not be given a proposal deficiency or weakness 
(see 1815.610) and shall be given a neutral rating. If the adjectival 
rating system of 1815.608(a)(3)(A) is used for the Relevant Experience 
and Past Performance factor, a rating of ``Good'' shall be assigned in 
such cases.
    (3) Technical Evaluation.
    (A) Mission Suitability subfactors and the total Mission 
Suitability factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival 
ratings, definitions and percentile ranges.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percentile
             Adjectival rating                                     Definitions                          range   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent..................................  A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional         91-100
                                              merit with one or more major strengths. No weaknesses             
                                              or only minor weaknesses exist.                                   
Very Good..................................  A proposal which demonstrates overall competence. One         71-90
                                              or more major strengths have been found, and                      
                                              strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.                   
Good.......................................  A proposal which shows a reasonably sound response.           51-70
                                              There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a               
                                              whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not                 
                                              significantly detract from the offeror's response.                
Fair.......................................  A proposal that has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses        31-50
                                              have been found that outbalance any strengths that                
                                              exist.                                                            
Poor.......................................  A proposal that has one or more major weaknesses that          0-30
                                              demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would                 
                                              require a major proposal revision to address..                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, the Mission 
Suitability evaluation shall reflect the results of any required cost 
realism analysis performed under the cost/price factor. A structured 
approach shall be used to adjust Mission Suitability scores based on 
the degree of assessed cost realism. An example of such an approach 
would:
    (a) Establish a threshold at which Mission Suitability adjustments 
would start. The threshold should reflect the acquisition's estimating 
uncertainty (i.e., the higher the degree of estimating uncertainty, the 
higher the threshold);
    (b) Use a graduated scale that proportionally adjusts a proposal's 
Mission Suitability score for its assessed cost realism;
    (c) Affect a significant number of points in order to encourage 
realistic pricing.
    (d) Calculate a Mission Suitability point adjustment based on the 
percentage difference between proposed and probable cost as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Point  
              Services                 Hardward development   adjustment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+/- 5 percent.......................  +/- 30 percent........          0 
+/- 6 to 10 percent.................  +/- 31 to 40 percent..        -50 
+/- 11 to 15 percent................  +/- 41 to 50 percent..       -100 
+/- 16 to 20 percent................  +/- 51 to 60 percent..       -150 
+/- 21 to 30 percent................  +/- 61 to 70 percent..       -200 
+/- more than 30 percent............  +/- more than 70             -300 
                                       percent.                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 3471]]

    (b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination 
to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.


Sec. 1815.608-70  Identification of unacceptable proposals.

    (a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial 
evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is 
unacceptable because:
    (1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address 
itself to the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates 
that the offeror does not understand the requirements;
    (2) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design 
drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or 
improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually 
an entirely new technical proposal; or
    (3) It contains major technical or business deficiencies or 
omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could 
not reasonably be expected to cure.
    (b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for 
discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with 
this section.


1815.608-71  Evaluation of a single proposal.

    (a) If only one proposal is received in response to the 
solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the 
solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the 
single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the 
Source Selection Authority shall direct the contracting officer to:
    (1) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer 
determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.804-
1(b)(1)(ii));
    (2) Award after negotiating a mutually acceptable contract. (The 
requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined 
in accordance with FAR 15.804-1); or
    (3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
    (b) The procedure in 1815.608-71(a) also applies when the number of 
proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one 
acceptable proposal is received.


1815.609  Competitive range.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (a))

    (a) Proposals shall not be included in the competitive range when 
they do not have a reasonable chance of selection. To reduce 
unnecessary expense to both offerors and NASA, a total of no more than 
three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive 
range. Field installations may establish procedures for approval of 
competitive range determinations commensurate with the complexity or 
dollar value of an acquisition.


1815.610  Written or oral discussions.

(NASA supplements paragraph (c))

    (c)(2)(A) The contracting officer shall identify, and give offerors 
a reasonable opportunity to address, all weaknesses that have an 
adverse impact on the evaluation. Weaknesses are defined as 
deficiencies (see FAR 15.601) and other proposal inadequacies. 
Weaknesses may include all proposal areas that are inadequate for 
evaluation, contain contradictory statements, or strain credibility. 
However, minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical 
mistakes are not considered weaknesses. They may be identified to 
offerors through the clarification technique defined in FAR 15.601, 
rather than discussions as contemplated in this section.
    (B) The contracting officer shall advise an offeror if, during 
written or oral discussions, an offeror introduces a new weakness. The 
offeror can be advised during the course of the discussions or as part 
of the request for BAFO.
    (C)The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price elements 
that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to submit 
their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but shall not 
discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other offeror. 
The contracting officer should question inadequate, conflicting, 
unrealistic or unsupported cost information; differences between the 
offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost realism 
concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs; 
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not 
appear responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price 
elements or a ``bottom line'' is necessary.
    (c)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and 
conditions so that a ``model'' contract can be sent to each offeror 
with the request for BAFO. Any proposed technical performance 
capabilities above those specified in the RFP that have value to the 
Government and are considered proposal strengths should be discussed 
with the offeror and proposed for inclusion in that offeror's ``model'' 
contract. These items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to, 
other offerors. If the offeror declines to include these strengths in 
its ``model'' contract, the Government evaluators should reconsider 
their characterization as strengths.
    (B) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP 
requirements for any offeror, without amending the RFG and permitting 
the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed 
requirements.


1815.611  Best and Final Offers.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (b), (c) and (d))

    (b) The request for BAFOs shall also:
    (i) Identify for any remaining weaknesses.
    (ii) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers 
resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial 
proposals;
    (iii) Require offerors to complete and execute the ``model'' 
contract, which includes any special provisions or performance 
capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
    (iv) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their 
proposals; and
    (v) Establish a page limit for BAFOs.
    (c)(i) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement 
(Code HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 
million or more.
    (ii) Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other 
acquisitions.
    (d)(i) Proposals are rescored based on BAFO evaluations. Scoring 
changes between initial and BAFO proposals shall be clearly traceable.
    (ii) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented 
and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical 
audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and 
scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the 
selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria 
established in the RFP.
    (iii) Prior to award, the SSA shall sign a source selection 
statement that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source 
selection statements must describe: The acquisition; the SEB evaluation 
procedures; the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and 
the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Relevant Experience and Past 
Performance factors. The statement also addresses unacceptable 
proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals, or any 
other considerations pertinent to the decision. The statement shall not 
reveal any confidential business information. Except for certain major 
system acquisition competitions

[[Page 3472]]

(see 1815.1004-70), source selection statements shall be releasable to 
competing offerors and the general public upon request. The statement 
shall be available to the Debriefing Official to use in debriefing 
unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon 
request.
    (iv) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer 
shall, without post-selection negotiations, award the contract.


1815.612-70  NASA formal source selection.

    (a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for 
those acquisitions identified in 1815.602(a)(i)(A).
    (b) General. The SEB assists the SSA in decisionmaking by providing 
expert analyses of the offerors' proposals in relation to the 
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements contained in the 
solicitation. The SEB will prepare and present its findings to the SSA, 
avoiding trade-off judgments among either the individual offerors or 
among the evaluation factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for 
selection to the SSA.
    (c) Designation. (1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent 
individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and 
risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the 
solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the 
acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan approval.
    (2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant 
installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other 
Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose 
the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval 
shall be obtained in accordance with NFS 1815.413-2.
    (3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters 
Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments. 
Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade 
level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
    (d) Organization. (1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the 
requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the 
simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-
finding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as 
described in 1815.612-70(d) (4) and (5)), to a highly complex situation 
involving a major acquisition where two or more committees are formed 
and these, in turn, are assisted by special panels or consultants in 
particular areas. The number of committees or panels/ consultants shall 
be kept to a minimum.
    (2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the 
SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without 
compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the 
basis for a sound selection decision.
    (3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative 
assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for 
logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.
    (4) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding arm of the SEB, 
usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or 
management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or 
portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved 
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its 
evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also 
respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further 
justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee 
chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of 
their committees.
    (5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a fact-finding arm of 
the committee in a specialized area of the committee's 
responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a 
particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can 
provide.
    (6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, 
consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) 
shall be limited to a maximum of 20 people, unless approved in writing 
by the procurement officer.
    (e) Voting members. (1) Voting members of the SEB shall include 
people who will have key assignments on the project to which the 
acquisition is directed. However, it is important that this should be 
tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may 
even be appropriate to designate a management official from outside the 
project as SEB Chairperson.
    (2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of a 
NASA SEB.
    (3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels or 
consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB 
evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB 
shall have equal status as rating officials.
    (4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting 
individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a 
voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not feasible, SEB 
membership shall take precedence over other duties.
    (5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
    (i) Chairperson.
    (ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
    (iii) An experienced procurement representative.
    (iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as 
appropriate.
    (v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue 
workload).
    (f) Ex officio members.
    (1) The number of nonvoting ex officio (advisory) members shall be 
kept as small as possible. Ex officio members should be selected for 
the experience and expertise they can provide to the SEB. Since their 
advisory role may require access to highly sensitive SEB material and 
findings, ex officio membership for persons other than those identified 
in 1815.612-70(f)(3) is discouraged.
    (2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and 
contribute to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not 
participate in the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder 
should be present during rating sessions.
    (3) For field installation selections, the following shall be 
nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:
    (i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting 
members.
    (ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated 
a voting member.
    (iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition, 
unless designated a voting member.
    (iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
    (v) The installation small business specialist.
    (vi) The SEB recorder.
    (g) Evaluation plan. (1) The SEB evaluation plan consists of 
general and specific evaluation guidelines (and special standards of 
responsibility, where applicable) established to assess each offeror's 
proposal against the RFP evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. 
The evaluation guidelines are designed to focus the evaluators' 
assessment. They are not weighted and are not listed in the RFP. 
However, the substance of the guidelines may be included in a narrative 
description of the subfactors and elements. In addition, the plan 
includes the system used in conducting the evaluation and scoring of 
each offeror's proposal.

[[Page 3473]]

    (2) The evaluation plan shall be approved by the SEB (and other 
personnel designated in accordance with installation procedures) before 
the formal RFP is issued.
    (h) Evaluation. (1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson 
shall send them the proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated, 
along with instructions regarding the expected function of each 
committee, and all data considered necessary or helpful.
    (2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee 
shall submit a written report which should include the following:
    (i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the 
lowest level evaluated;
    (ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; 
and
    (iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths or 
weaknesses which significantly affected the evaluation and stating any 
reservations or concerns, together with supporting rationale, which the 
committee or any of its members want to bring to the attention of the 
SEB.
    (3) Clear traceability must exist at all levels of the SEB process. 
All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part 
of the SEB records.
    (4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal 
and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the 
proposals for each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own 
collective judgment, consistent with the approved evaluation plan. SEB 
minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
    (i) SEB presentation. (1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA 
on the results of the SEB deliberations to permit an informed and 
objective selection of the best source(s) for the particular 
acquisition.
    (2) The presentation shall focus on the major strengths and 
weaknesses found in the proposals, the probable cost of each proposal, 
and any significant issues and problems identified by the SEB. This 
presentation must explain any applicable special standards of 
responsibility; evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements; the major 
strengths and weaknesses of the offerors; the Government cost estimate, 
if applicable; the offerors' proposed cost/price; the probable cost; 
the proposed fee arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and 
scores to the subfactor level.
    (3) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved 
in the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The 
designated individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
    (i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied 
with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation 
accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
    (ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors, 
elements, weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's 
findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural 
omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its 
findings, or revise the presentation.
    (4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation 
including arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring 
proper attendance, and distributing presentation material.
    (5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of 
Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including 
approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary 
presentation should be made to the Field Installation Director and to 
the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant headquarters Program Office.
    (j) Recommended SEB presentation format--(1) Identification of the 
acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or 
hardware to be procured, some quantitative measure including the 
Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned 
contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
    (2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased 
acquisition or, as in the case of the continuing support services, 
identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes 
from the existing structure.
    (3) Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. Explains any 
special standards of responsibility and the evaluation factors, 
subfactors, and elements. Lists the relative order of importance of the 
evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability 
subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission 
Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluations.
    (4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the 
number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a 
preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals, 
indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and 
women-owned businesses.
    (5) Summary of findings. Lists the initial and final Mission 
Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed costs/prices, 
and any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear 
discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection. 
Addresses any competitive range determination.
    (6) Strengths and weaknesses of offerors. Summarizes the SEB's 
findings, using the following guidelines:
    (i) Present only the major strengths and weaknesses of individual 
offerors.
    (ii) Directly relate the strengths and weaknesses to the evaluation 
factors, subfactors, and elements.
    (iii) Indicate the significance of major strengths and weaknesses.
    (iv) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of written and/or 
oral discussions and BAFOs on ratings and scores.
    (7) Final mission suitability ratings and scores. Summarizes the 
evaluation subfactors and elements, the maximum points achievable, and 
the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.
    (8) Final cost/price evaluation. Summarizes proposed costs/prices 
and any probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed 
fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as possible, showing 
SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies the SEB's 
confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors, noting the 
reasons for low or high confidence.
    (9) Relevant experience and past performance. Reflects the summary 
conclusions, supported by specific case data, with particular emphasis 
on exemplary or inferior performance and its potential bearing on the 
instant acquisition.
    (10) Special interest. Includes only information of special 
interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g., 
procedural errors or other matters that could have an effect on the 
selection decision.
    (k) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance 
with 1815.611(d)(iii). For installation selections, the Field 
Installation Chief Counsel or designee will prepare the source 
selection statement. For Headquarters selections, the Office of General 
Counsel or designee will prepare the statement.

Subpart 1815.7--Make-or-Buy Programs


1815.704  Items and work included.

    Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work efforts 
estimated to cost less than $500,000.


1815.706  Evaluation, negotiation, and agreement.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))


[[Page 3474]]


    (b) The make-or-buy program review by the installation's small and 
disadvantaged business utilization specialist and the SBA 
representative should be concurrent with the contracting officer's 
review. When urgent circumstances preclude this or if the small and 
disadvantaged business specialist or SBA representative fails to 
respond on a timely basis, the contracting officer shall include an 
explanatory statement in the contract file and transmit copies to the 
specialist and the representative.


1815.708  Contract clause.


1815.708-70  NASA contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
78, Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-
or-buy programs as provided in FAR 15.703. This provision shall be used 
in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-21, Changes or Additions 
to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting officer may add additional 
paragraphs identifying any other information required in order to 
evaluate the program.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79, 
Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes, in contracts that include 
FAR 52.215-21 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate 
columns the items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract 
value.

Subpart 1815.8--Price Negotiation


1815.804  Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or 
pricing data.


1815.804-1  Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to 
both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting 
officers shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for 
this exception. In such cases, information other than cost or pricing 
data may be requested to the extent necessary to ensure price 
reasonableness and assess cost realism.
    (2)(iii) The contracting officer shall document the comparison of 
the item with the catalog or market priced commercial item, including 
the technical similarities and differences and the price justification 
methodology.
    (5) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing 
data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each 
waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code 
HC).


1815.804-170  Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation 
(CCC).

    NASA has waived the requirement for the submission of cost or 
pricing data when contracting with the CCC. This waiver applies through 
March 31, 1999. The CCC will provide assurance of the fairness and 
reasonableness of the proposed prices, and will also provide for 
follow-up audit activity to ensure that excess profits are found and 
refunded to NASA. However, contracting officers shall ensure that the 
appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is 
submitted to permit any required Government cost/price analysis.


1815.804-2  Requiring cost or pricing data.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(2) If a certificate of current cost or pricing data is made 
applicable as of a date other than the date of price agreement, the 
agreed date should generally be within two weeks of the date of price 
agreement.


1815.805-5  Field pricing support.

(NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a)(1)(A) The threshold for obtaining a field pricing report for 
cost reimbursement contracts is $1,000,000.
    (B) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and an 
audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting 
officers should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA 
resources are not available.
    (C) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves 
merely a verification of information, contracting officers should 
obtain this verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather 
than formal request of field pricing support.
    (D) When the threshold for requiring field pricing support is met 
and the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature, 
contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a 
minimum are considered: actuals incurred under the previous contract, 
learning experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract 
proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA 
resources or the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.


1815.807  Prenegotiation objectives.

(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(i) Before conducting negotiations requiring installation or 
Headquarters review, contracting officers or their representatives 
shall prepare a prenegotiation position memorandum setting forth the 
technical, business, contractual, pricing, and other aspects to be 
negotiated.
    (ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for 
contracts awarded under competitive negotiated procedures.


1815.807-70  Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.

    The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain 
the contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately 
become the basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to 
the price negotiation memorandum (see FAR 15.808 and 1815.808). In 
addition to the information described in FAR 15.807 and, as 
appropriate, 15.808(a), the PPM should address the following subjects, 
as applicable, in the order presented:
    (a) Introduction. Include a description of the acquisition and a 
history of prior acquisitions for the same or similar items. Address 
the extent of competition and its results. Identify the contractor and 
place of performance (if not evident from the description of the 
acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations and policy, 
including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of 
contractor systems (see FAR 15.808(a)(4)). In addition, the negotiation 
schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation team 
members identified by name and position.
    (b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract 
contemplated and the reasons for its suitability.
    (c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any 
special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition, 
including such items as--
    (1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized and incurred;
    (2) Results of preaward survey;
    (3) Contract option requirements;
    (4) Government property to be furnished;
    (5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment 
(and any modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government); 
and
    (6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions 
anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses 
and when approvals were obtained, if required.
    (d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option, 
include--
    (1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of 
the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective. 
The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the 
Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each 
element of cost, compare the

[[Page 3475]]

contractor's proposal and the Government position, explain the 
differences and how the Government position was developed, including 
the estimating assumptions and projection techniques employed, and how 
the positions differ in approach. Include a discussion of excessive 
wages found (if applicable) and their planned resolution. Explain how 
historical costs, including costs incurred under a letter contract (if 
applicable), were used in developing the negotiation objective;
    (2) Significant differences between the field pricing report 
(including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or 
contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each 
proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.806-2(a), there 
shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses 
performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation 
objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major 
subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of 
competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when 
appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by 
the prime contractor, and unusual or special pricing or finance 
arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
    (3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and, 
if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured 
Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD form 1861, Contract Facilities 
Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee 
contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines, 
ceilings, cost risk, and so forth, as applicable.
    (e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the 
Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for 
the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently 
demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or 
condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the 
rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from 
the original approval authority.


1815.807-71  Installation reviews.

    Each contracting activity shall establish a formal system for the 
review of prenegotiation position memoranda. The scope of coverage, 
exact procedures to be followed, levels of management review, and 
contract file documentation requirements should be directly related to 
the dollar value and complexity of the acquisition. The primary purpose 
of these reviews is to ensure that the negotiator, or negotiation team, 
is thoroughly prepared to enter into negotiations with a well-
conceived, realistic, and fair plan.


1815.807-72  Headquarters reviews.

    (a) When a prenegotiation position has been selected for 
Headquarters review and approval, the contracting activity shall submit 
to the Office of Procurement (Code HS) one copy each of the 
prenegotiation position memorandum, the contractor's proposal, the 
Government technical evaluation, and all pricing reports (including any 
audit reports).
    (b) The required information described in paragraph (a) of this 
section shall be furnished to Headquarters as soon as practicable and 
sufficiently in advance of the planned commencement of negotiations to 
allow a reasonable period of time for Headquarters review. Electronic 
submittal is acceptable.


1815.808  Price negotiation memorandum.

 (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a)(i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed 
summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including 
price reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated; 
and the methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final 
negotiated agreement.
    (ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive 
negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR 15.808 
shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to the 
extent applicable.
    (b) When the PNM is a ``stand-alone'' document, it shall contain 
the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs. 
However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.807, the subsequent 
PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.808 that was 
not provided in the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of 
factors affecting cost elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours, 
subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of the 
contractor's systems).

Subpart 1815.9--Profit


1815.902  Policy.

(NASA supplements paragraph (a)).

    (a)(1) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee 
objectives, described in 1815.970, shall be used to determine profit or 
fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those acquisitions that 
require cost analysis, except as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is 
not required for:
    (A) Architect-engineer contractors;
    (B) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of 
Government facilities;
    (C) Construction contracts;
    (D) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by 
subcontractors;
    (E) Termination settlements;
    (F) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers 
may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as 
an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
    (G) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the 
procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach 
is unsuitable.


1815.903  Contracting officer responsibilities.

(NASA supplements paragraph (d))

    (d)(1)(ii) In architect-engineer contracts, the price or estimated 
cost and fee for services other than the production and delivery of 
designs, plans, drawings, and specifications, are not subject to the 6 
percent limitation set forth in FAR 15.903(d)(1).


1815.970  NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.


1815.970-1  General.

    (a) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee 
objectives is a system of assigning weights to cost elements and other 
factors to calculate the objective. Contracting officers shall use NASA 
Form 634 to develop the profit or fee objective and shall use the 
weight ranges listed after each category and factor on the form after 
considering the factors in 1815.970-2 through 1815.970-4. The rationale 
supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the PPM in 
accordance with 1815.807-70(d)(3).
    (b)(1) The structured approach was designed for determining profit 
or fee objectives for commercial organizations. However, the structured 
approach shall be used as a basis for arriving at fee objectives for 
nonprofit organizations (FAR subpart 31.7), excluding educational 
institutions (FAR subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee on contracts 
with educational institutions.)
    (2) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profits 
or

[[Page 3476]]

fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be subtracted 
from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this adjustment, it 
will be necessary to consider the following factors:
    (i) Tax position benefits;
    (ii) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
    (iii) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
    (iv) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage 
or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit 
organization.


1815.970-2  Contractor effort.

    (a) This factor takes into account what resources are necessary and 
what the contractor must do to meet the contract performance 
requirements. The suggested cost categories under this factor are for 
reference purposes only. The format of individual proposals will vary, 
but these broad categories provide a sample structure for the 
evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of cost shall be 
separately listed under the appropriate category and assigned a weight 
from the category range.
    (b) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific 
acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated 
for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part 
of the cost base in column 1. (a) in the computation of profit or fee.
    (c) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content 
of the proposed contract as follows:
    (1) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and 
other material). (i) Consider the managerial and technical efforts 
necessary for the prime contractor to select subcontractors and 
administer subcontracts, including efforts to introduce and maintain 
competition. These evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw 
materials or basic commodities; purchases of processed material, 
including all types of components of standard of near-standard 
characteristics; and purchases of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies, 
special tooling, and other products special to the end item. In 
performing the evaluation, also consider whether the contractor's 
purchasing program makes a substantial contribution to the performance 
of a contract through the use of subcontracting programs involving many 
sources, new complex components and instrumentation, incomplete 
specifications, and close surveillance by the prime contractor.
    (ii) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as 
scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation. 
If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR 
31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the 
material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the 
constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the 
appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
    (2) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other 
labor). (i) Analysis of the various items of cost should include 
evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering 
talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience 
to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of 
assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the 
amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering 
talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or 
supporting personnel.
    (ii) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning 
higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills 
and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for 
contract performance.
    (iii) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and 
other types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower 
resources for meeting these requirements should be considered. For 
purposes of evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality 
control, and receiving and inspection) proposed separately from 
engineering, service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the 
most appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation 
considerations as outlined in this section will be applied.
    (3) Overhead and general management (G&A). (i) Analysis of overhead 
and G&A includes the evaluation of the makeup of these expenses, how 
much they contribute to contract performance, and the degree of 
substantiation provided for the rates proposed in future years.
    (ii) Contracting officers should also consider the historical 
accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability 
to control overhead pool expenses.
    (iii) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead 
rate of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break 
out the applicable sections of the composite rate which could be 
classified as engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other 
overhead pools, and G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
    (4) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with 
contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and 
relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of 
cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to 
contract performance.


1815.970-3  Other factors.

    (a) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should 
influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to 
anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to 
the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination 
provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing 
measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for 
arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This 
factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation 
profit/fee objectives.
    (1) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of 
reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee 
in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any 
risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not 
acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this 
factor.
    (2) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is 
related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the 
contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk 
by contract type would usually fall within the 0-to-3 percent range for 
cost-reimbursement contracts and 3-to-7 percent range for fixed-price 
contracts.
    (i) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a 
reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains 
cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases, 
up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts 
fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly 
related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of 
fees, etc.
    (ii) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to 
accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting 
should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item 
required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for 
prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
    (3) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form 
of cost risk to consider.

[[Page 3477]]

    (i) The contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant 
impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular 
contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting 
officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost 
risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has 
effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the 
contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that 
would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost 
risk weigh should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a 
substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts 
unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the 
contractor's risk.
    (ii) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition 
that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change 
orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to 
the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial 
performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be 
reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively 
reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the 
contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable, 
determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of 
all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be 
made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not 
be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work 
completed, before definitization.
    (b) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their 
contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance 
from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to 
encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the 
maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an 
analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
    (1) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee 
objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization 
needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the 
required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the 
facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that 
significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be 
provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that 
rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should 
receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the above 
examples should be evaluated on their merits, with either a positive or 
negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee objective. 
However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform a contract 
that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a contractor's 
use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the contract, 
profit/fee need not be adjusted.
    (2) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by 
the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this 
weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have 
on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should 
be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum 
reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches 
zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent 
than monthly.
    (c) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance 
should be evaluated in such areas as product quality, meeting 
performance schedules, efficiency in cost control (including the need 
for and reasonableness of costs incurred), accuracy and reliability of 
previous cost estimates, degree of cooperation by the contractor (both 
business and technical), timely processing of changes and compliance 
with other contractual provisions.
    (d) Subcontract program management. Subcontract program management 
includes evaluation of the contractor's commitment to its competition 
program and its past and present performance in competition in 
subcontracting. If a contractor has consistently achieved excellent 
results in these areas in comparison with other contractors in similar 
circumstances, such performance merits a proportionately greater 
opportunity for profit or fee. Conversely, a poor record in this regard 
should result in a lower profit or fee.
    (e) Federal socioeconomic programs. In addition to rewarding 
contractors for unusual initiative in supporting Government 
socioeconomic programs, failure or unwillingness on the part of the 
contractor to support these programs should be viewed as evidence of 
poor performance for the purpose of establishing this profit/fee 
objective factor.
    (f) Special situations. (1) Occasionally, unusual contract pricing 
arrangements are made with the contractor under which it agrees to 
accept a lower profit or fee for changes or modifications within a 
prescribed dollar value. In such circumstances, the contractor should 
receive favorable consideration in developing the profit/fee objective.
    (2) This factor need not be limited to situations that increase 
profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when the 
contractor is expected to obtain spin-off benefits as a direct result 
of the contract, for example, products with commercial application.


1815.970-4  Facilities capital cost of money.

    (a) When facilities capital cost of money is included as an item of 
cost in the contractor's proposal, it shall not be included in the cost 
base for calculating profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the 
profit/fee objective shall be made in the amount equal to the 
facilities capital cost of money allowed in accordance with FAR 31.205-
10(a)(2).
    (b) CAS 417, Cost of money as an element of the cost of capital 
assets under construction, should not appear in contract proposals. 
These costs are included in the initial value of a facility for 
purposes of calculating depreciation under CAS 414.


1815.971  Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.

    NASA's policy is to pay profit or fee only on definitized 
contracts.

Subpart 1815.10--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, 
Protests, and Mistakes


1815.1003  Notification to successful offeror.

    The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.1003 on negotiated 
acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal 
establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government 
and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully 
approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award 
portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF 1447, or a letter contract when 
a definitized contract instrument is not available but the urgency of 
the requirement necessitates immediate performance. In this latter 
instance, the procedures in 1816.603 for approval and issuance of 
letter contracts shall be followed:


1815.1004-70  Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.

    (a) When an acquisition is conducted in accordance with the Major 
System acquisition procedures in part 1834 and multiple offerors are 
selected, the debriefing will be limited in such a manner that it does 
not prematurely

[[Page 3478]]

disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches of the successful 
offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
    (b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design 
concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to 
competing offerors or the general public until the release of the 
source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the 
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).

Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman


1815.7001  NASA Ombudsman Program.

    NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPG 5101.33, 
Procurement Guidance.


1815.7002  Synopses of solicitations and contracts.

    In all synopses announcing competitive acquisitions, the contacting 
officer shall indicate that the clause at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, is 
applicable. This may be accomplished by referencing the clause number 
and identifying the installation Ombudsman.


1815.7003  Contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the 
same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations 
(including draft solicitations) and contracts.
    3. Part 1816 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts

Sec.
1816.202  Firm-fixed-price contracts.
1816.202-70  NASA contract clause.
1816.203  Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
1816.203-4  Contract clauses.

Subpart 1816.3--Cost-Reimbursement Contracts

1816.303-70  Cost-sharing contracts.
1816.306  Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
1816.307  Contract clauses.
1816.307-70  NASA contract clauses.

Subpart 1816.4--Incentive Contracts

1816.402  Application of pre-determined, formula-type incentives.
1816.402-2  Technical performance incentives.
1816.402-270  NASA technical performance incentives.
1816.404  Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
1816.404-2  Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.
1816.404-270  CPAF contracts.
1816.404-271  Base fee.
1816.404-272  Award fee evaluation periods.
1816.404-273  Award fee evaluations.
1816.404-274  Award fee evaluation factors.
1816.404-275  Award fee evaluation scoring.
1816.405  Contract clauses.
1816.405-70  NASA contract clauses.

Subpart 1816.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts

1816.504  Indefinite quantity contracts.
1816.505  Ordering.
1816.505-70  Task Ordering.
1816.506-70  NASA contract clause.

Subpart 1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-House, and Letter Contracts

1816.603  Letter contracts.
1816.603-370  Approvals.

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

PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 1816.2--Fixed-Price Contracts


1816.202  Firm-fixed-price contracts.


1816.202-70  NASA contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-78, 
Firm-Fixed-Price, in firm-fixed-price solicitations and contracts. 
Insert the appropriate amount in the resulting contract.


1816.203  Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.


1816.203-4  Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and 
(d)).

    (a) In addition to the approval requirements in the prescriptions 
at FAR 52.216-2 through 52.216-4, the contracting officer shall 
coordinate with the installation's Deputy Chief Financial Officer 
(Finance) before exceeding the ten-percent limit in paragraph (c)(1) of 
the clauses at FAR 52.216-2 through 52.216-4.
    (d)(2) Contracting officers shall contact the Office of 
Procurement, Code HC, for specific guidance on preparing clauses using 
cost indexes. Such clauses require advance approval by the Associate 
Administrator for Procurement. Requests for approval shall be submitted 
to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS).

Subpart 1816.3--Cost-Reimbursement Contracts


1816.303-70  Cost-sharing contracts.

    (a) Cost-sharing with for-profit organizations. (1) Cost sharing by 
for-profit organizations is mandatory in any contract for basic or 
applied research resulting from an unsolicited proposal, and may be 
accepted in any other contract when offered by the proposing 
organization. The requirement for cost-sharing may be waived when the 
contracting officer determines in writing that the contractor has no 
commercial, production, education, or service activities that would 
benefit from the results of the research, and the contractor has no 
means of recovering its shared costs on such projects.
    (2) The contractor's cost-sharing may be any percentage of the 
project cost. In determining the amount of cost-sharing, the 
contracting officer shall consider the relative benefits to the 
contractor and the Government. Factors that should be considered 
include--
    (i) The potential for the contractor to recover its contribution 
from non-Federal sources;
    (ii) The extent to which the particular area of research requires 
special stimulus in the national interest; and
    (iii) The extent to which the research effort or result is likely 
to enhance the contractor's capability, expertise, or competitive 
advantage.
    (b) Cost-sharing with not-for-profit organizations. (1) Costs to 
perform research stemming from an unsolicited proposal by universities 
and other educational or not-for-profit institutions are usually fully 
reimbursed. When the contracting officer determines that there is a 
potential for significant benefit to the institution cost-sharing will 
be considered.
    (2) The contracting officer will normally limit the institution's 
share to no more than 10 percent of the project's cost.
    (c) Implementation. Cost-sharing shall be stated as a minimum 
percentage of the total allowable costs of the project. The 
contractor's contributed costs may not be charged to the Government 
under any other contract or grant, including allocation to other 
contracts and grants as part of an independent research and development 
program.


1816.306  Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph 
(d)).

    (d) Completion and term forms.
    (4) Term form contracts are incompatible with performance base 
contracting (PBC) and should not be used with PBC requirements.


1816.307  Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (b), (d), 
and (g)).

    (a) In paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) of the Allowable Cost and Payment 
clause at FAR 52.216-7, the period of years may be increased to 
correspond with any statutory period of limitation applicable to claims 
of third parties against the contractor; provided, that a corresponding 
increase is made in the period for retention of records required in 
paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records--
Negotiation.
    (b) In solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 
52.216-8,

[[Page 3479]]

Fixed Fee, the Schedule shall include appropriate terms, if any, for 
provisional billing against fee.
    (d) In solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 
52.216-10, Incentive Fee, the Schedule shall include appropriate terms, 
if any, for provisional billing against fee.
    (g) In paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the Allowable Cost and Payment--
Facilities clause at FAR 52.216-13, the period of years may be 
increased to correspond with any statutory period of limitation 
applicable to claims of third parties against the contractor; provided, 
that a corresponding increase is made in the period for retention of 
records required in paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit 
and Records--Negotiation.


1816.307-70  NASA contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-73, 
Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing, in each contract in which costs are 
shared by the contractor pursuant to 1816.303-70.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause substantially 
as stated at 1852.216-74, Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, in cost-plus-
fixed-fee contracts.
    (c) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-75, 
Payment of Fixed Fee, in cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. Modifications 
to the clause are authorized.
    (d) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-81, 
Estimated Cost, in cost-no-fee contracts that are not cost sharing or 
facilities contracts.
    (e) The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as 
stated at 1852.216-87, Submission of Vouchers for Payment, in cost-
reimbursement solicitations and contracts.
    (f) When either FAR clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, or 
FAR clause 52.216-13, Allowable Cost and Payment--Facilities, is 
included in the contract, as prescribed at FAR 16.307 (a) and (g), the 
contracting officer should include the clause at 1852.216-89, 
Assignment and Release Forms.

Subpart 1816.4--Incentive Contracts


1816.402  Application of pre-determined, formula-type incentives.


1816.402-2  Technical performance incentives.


1816.402-270  NASA technical performance incentives.

    (a) A performance incentive shall be included in all contracts 
where the primary deliverable(s) is (are) hardware and where total 
estimated cost and fee is greater than $25 million unless it is 
determined that the nature of the acquisition (for example, commercial 
off-the-shelf computers) would not effectively lend itself to a 
performance incentive. Any exception to this requirement shall be 
approved in writing by the Center Director. Performance incentives may 
be included in hardware contracts valued under $25 million at the 
discretion of the procurement officer. Performance incentives, which 
are objective and measure hardware performance after delivery and 
acceptance, are separate from other incentives, such as cost or 
delivery incentives.
    (b) When a performance incentive is used, it shall be structured to 
be both positive and negative based on hardware performance after 
delivery and acceptance. In doing so, the contract shall establish a 
standard level of performance based on the salient hardware performance 
requirement. This standard performance level is normally the contract's 
minimum performance requirement. No incentive amount is earned at this 
standard performance level. Discrete units of measurement based on the 
same performance parameter shall be identified for performance both 
above and below the standard. Specific incentive amounts shall be 
associated with each performance level from maximum beneficial 
performance (maximum positive incentive) to minimal beneficial 
performance or total failure (maximum negative incentive). The 
relationship between any given incentive, both positive and negative, 
and its associated unit of measurement should reflect the value to the 
Government of that level of hardware performance. The contractor should 
not be rewarded for above-standard performance levels that are of no 
benefit to the Government.
    (c) The final calculation of the performance incentive shall be 
done when hardware performance, as defined in the contract, ceases or 
when the maximum positive incentive is reached. When hardware 
performance ceases below the standard established in the contract, the 
Government shall calculate the amount due and the contractor shall pay 
the Government that amount. Once hardware performance exceeds the 
standard, the contractor may request payment of the incentive amount 
associated with a given level of performance, provided that such 
payments shall not be more frequent than monthly. When hardware 
performance ceases above the standard level of performance, or when the 
maximum positive incentive is reached, the Government shall calculate 
the final performance incentive earned and unpaid and promptly remit it 
to the contractor. The exclusion at FAR 16.405(e)(3) does not apply to 
decisions made as to the amount(s) of positive or negative incentive.
    (d) When the deliverable hardware lends itself to multiple, 
meaningful measures of performance, multiple performance incentives may 
be established. When the contract requires the sequential delivery of 
several hardware items (e.g.. multiple spacecraft), separate 
performance incentive structures may be established to parallel the 
sequential delivery and use of the deliverables.
    (e) In determining the value of the maximum performance incentives 
available, the contracting officer shall follow the following rules.
    (1) The sum of the maximum positive performance incentive and other 
fixed or earnable fees on the contract shall not exceed the limitations 
in FAR 15.903(c).
    (2) For an award fee contract.
    (i) The individual values of the maximum positive performance 
incentive and the total potential award fee (including any base fee) 
shall each be at least one-third of the total potential contract fee. 
The remaining one-third of the total potential contract fee may be 
divided between award fee and the maximum performance incentive at the 
discretion of the contracting officer.
    (ii) The maximum negative performance incentive for research and 
development hardware (e.g., the first and second units) shall be equal 
in amount to the total earned award fee (including any base fee). The 
maximum negative performance incentives for production hardware (e.g., 
the third and all subsequent units of any hardware items) shall be 
equal in amount to the total potential award fee (including any base 
fee). Where one contract contains both cases described above, any base 
fee shall be allocated reasonably among the items.
    (3) For cost reimbursement contracts other than award fee 
contracts, the maximum negative performance incentives shall not exceed 
the total earned fee under the contract.


1816.404  Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.


1816.404-2  Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.


1816.404-270  CPAF contracts.

    (a) For purposes of this subsection, ``performance based 
contracting'' means effort which can be contractually defined so that 
the results of the contractor's effort can be objectively measured in 
terms of technical and

[[Page 3480]]

quality achievement, schedule progress or cost performance. 
``Nonperformance based contracting'' means contractor effort that 
cannot be objectively measured but is evaluated based on subjective, 
qualitative assessments (e.g., controlling changes or interfacing with 
other agencies, contractors and international organizations).
    (b)(1) Normally, award fee incentives are not used when contract 
requirements can be defined in sufficient detail to allow for 
performance based contracting. If incentives are considered necessary, 
objectively measured incentives as described in FAR 16.402 are 
preferred.
    (2) Award fee incentives may be used as follows:
    (i) As a CPAF contract where a cost reimbursement contract is 
appropriate and none of the requirements can be defined to permit 
performance based contracting;
    (ii) As a CPAF line item for nonperformance based requirements in 
conjunction with a non-CPAF line item(s) for performance based 
requirements. In this instance, fees for the performance based and 
nonperformance based requirements shall be developed separately IAW FAR 
15-9 and 1815.9; and
    (iii) Under a performance based contract when it is determined to 
be necessary to motivate the contractor toward exceptional performance 
(see FAR 16.404-2(b)(ii)) and the increased level of performance 
justifies the additional administrative expense. When an award fee 
incentive is used in this instance, the basic contract type shall be 
other than CPAF (e.g., CPIF or FPIF). The potential award fee should 
not exceed 10 percent of the total contract fee or profit and shall not 
be used to incentivize cost performance.
    (3) Award fee incentives shall not be used with a cost-plus-fixed-
fee (CPFF) contract.
    (c) Use of an award fee incentive shall be approved in writing by 
the procurement officer. The procurement officer's approval shall 
include a discussion of the other types of contracts considered and 
shall indicate why an award fee incentive is the appropriate choice. 
Award fee incentives should be used on contracts with a total estimated 
cost and fee greater than $2 million per year. The procurement officer 
may authorize use of award fee for lower-valued acquisitions, but 
should do so only in exceptional situations, such as contract 
requirements having direct health or safety impacts, where the 
judgmental assessment of the quality of contractor performance is 
critical.


1816.404-271  Base fee.

    (a) A base fee shall not be used on CPAF contracts for which the 
periodic award fee evaluations are final (1816.404-273(a)). In these 
circumstances, contractor performance during any award fee period is 
independent of and has no effect on subsequent performance periods or 
the final product/results at contract completion. For other contracts, 
such as those for hardware or software development, the procurement 
officer may authorize the use of a base fee not to exceed 3 percent. 
Base fee shall not be used when an award fee incentive is used in 
conjunction with a performance based contract structure, such as an 
incentive fee arrangement.
    (b) When a base fee is authorized for use in a CPAF contract, it 
shall be paid only if the final award fee evaluation is 
``satisfactory'' or better. (See 1816.404-273 and 1816.404-275) Pending 
final evaluation, base fee may be paid during the life of the contract 
at defined intervals on a provisional basis. If the final award fee 
evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory'', all provisional base fee 
payments shall be refunded to the Government.


1816.404-272  Award fee evaluation periods.

    (a) Award fee evaluation periods should be at least 6 months in 
length. When appropriate, the procurement officer may authorize shorter 
evaluation periods after ensuring that the additional administrative 
costs associated with the shorter periods are offset by benefits 
accruing to the Government. Where practicable, such as developmental 
contracts with defined performance milestones (e.g., Preliminary Design 
Review, Critical Design Review, initial system test), establishing 
evaluation periods at conclusion of the milestones rather than calendar 
dates, or in combination with calendar dates should be considered. In 
no case shall an evaluation period be longer than 12 months.
    (b) A portion of the total available award fee contract shall be 
allocated to each of the evaluation periods. This allocation may result 
in an equal or unequal distribution of fee among the periods. The 
contracting officer should consider the nature of each contract and the 
incentive effects of fee distribution in determining the appropriate 
allocation structure.


1816.404-273  Award fee evaluations.

    (a) Award fee evaluations are either interim or final. On contracts 
where the contract deliverable is the performance of a service over any 
given time period, contractor performance is often definitively 
measurable within each evaluation period. In these cases, all 
evaluations are final, and the contractor keeps the fee earned in any 
period regardless of the evaluations of subsequent periods. Unearned 
award fee in any given period in a service contract is lost and shall 
not be carried forward, or ``rolled-over,'' into subsequent periods.
    (b) On other contracts, such as those for end item deliverables 
where the true quality of contractor performance cannot be measured 
until the end of the contract, only the last evaluation is final. At 
that point, the total contract award fee pool is available, and the 
contractor's total performance is evaluated against the award fee plan 
to determine total earned award fee. In addition, interim evaluations 
are done to monitor performance prior to contract completion and 
provide feedback to the contractor on the Government's assessment of 
the quality of its performance. Interim evaluations are also used to 
establish the basis for making interim award fee payments. These 
interim payments are superseded by the fee determination made in the 
final evaluation at contract completion. The Government will then pay 
the contractor, or the contractor will refund to the Government, the 
difference between the final award fee determination and the cumulative 
interim fee payment.
    (c) Provisional award fee payments, i.e., payments made within 
evaluation periods, may be included in the contract and should be 
negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The amount of the provisional award 
fee payment is determined by applying the lesser of the prior period's 
interim evaluation score (see 1816.404-275) or 80 percent of the fee 
allocated to the current period. The provisional award fee payments are 
superseded by the fee determinations made at the conclusion of each 
award fee performance period.
    (d) The Fee Determination Official's rating for both interim and 
final evaluations will be provided to the contractor within 45 calendar 
days of the end of the period being evaluated. Any fee, interim or 
final, due to the contractor will be paid no later than 60 calendar 
days after the end of the period being evaluated.


1816.404-274  Award fee evaluation factors.

    (a) Explicit evaluation factors shall be established for each award 
fee period.
    (b) Evaluation factors will be developed by the contracting officer 
based upon the characteristics of an

[[Page 3481]]

individual procurement. Normally, technical and schedule considerations 
will be included in all CPAF contracts as evaluation factors. Cost 
control shall be included as an evaluation factor in all CPAF 
contracts. When explicit evaluation factor weightings are used, cost 
control shall be no less than 25 percent of the total weighted 
evaluation factors. The predominant consideration of the cost control 
evaluation should be a measurement of the contractor's performance 
against the negotiated estimated cost of the contract. This estimated 
cost may include the value of undefinitized change orders when 
appropriate.
    (c) In rare circumstances, contract costs may increase for reasons 
outside the contractor's control and for which the contractor is not 
entitled to an equitable adjustment. One example is a weather-related 
launch delay on a launch support contract. The Government shall take 
such situations into consideration when evaluating contractor cost 
control.
    (d) Emphasis on cost control should be balanced against other 
performance requirement objectives. The contractor should not be 
incentivized to pursue cost control to the point that overall 
performance is significantly degraded. For example, incentivizing an 
underrun that results in direct negative impacts on technical 
performance, safety, or other critical contract objectives is both 
undesirable and counterproductive. Therefore, evaluation of cost 
control shall conform to the following guidelines:
    (1) Normally, the contractor should be given a score of 0 for cost 
control when there is a significant overrun within its control. 
However, the contractor may receive higher scores for cost control if 
the overrun is insignificant. Scores should decrease sharply as the 
size of the overrun increases. In any evaluation of contractor overrun 
performance, the Government shall consider the reasons for the overrun 
and assess the extent and effectiveness of the contractor's efforts to 
control or mitigate the overrun.
    (2) The contractor should normally be rewarded for an underrun 
within its control, up to the maximum score allocated for cost control, 
provided the average numerical rating for all other award fee 
evaluation factors is 81 or greater (see 1816.404-275). An underrun 
shall be rewarded as if the contractor has met the estimated cost of 
the contract (see 1816.404-274(d)(3)) when the average numerical rating 
for all other factors is less than 81 but greater than 60.
    (3) The contractor should be rewarded for meeting the estimated 
cost of the contract, but not to the maximum score allocated for cost 
control, to the degree that the contractor has prudently managed costs 
while meeting contract requirements. No award shall be given in this 
circumstance unless the average numerical rating for all other award 
fee evaluation factors is 61 or greater.
    (e) When an AF arrangement is used in conjunction with a 
performance based contract structure (see 1816.404-270(b)(2)(iii)), the 
award fee's cost control factor will only apply to a subjective 
assessment of the contractor's efforts to control costs and not the 
actual cost outcome incentivized under the basic contract type (e.g., 
CPIF, FPIF).
    (f) Only the award fee performance evaluation factors set forth in 
the performance evaluation plan shall be used to determine award fee 
scores.
    (g) The Government may unilaterally modify the applicable award fee 
performance evaluation factors and performance evaluation areas prior 
to the start of an evaluation period. The contracting officer shall 
notify the contractor in writing of any such changes 30 days prior to 
the start of the relevant evaluation period.


1816.404-275  Award fee evaluation scoring.

    (a) A scoring system of 0-100 shall be used for all award fee 
ratings. Award fee earned is determined by applying the numerical score 
to the award fee pool. For example, a score of 85 yields an award fee 
of 85 percent of the award fee pool. No award fee shall be paid unless 
the total score is 61 or greater.
    (b) The following standard adjectival ratings and the associated 
numerical scores shall be used on all award fee contracts.
    (1) Excellent (100-91): Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance 
in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) 
deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall performance.
    (2) Very good (90-81): Very effective performance, fully responsive 
to contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and 
economical manner for the most part; only minor deficiencies.
    (3) Good (80-71): Effective performance; fully responsive to 
contract requirements; reportable deficiencies, but with little 
identifiable effect on overall performance.
    (4) Satisfactory (70-61): Meets or slightly exceeds minimum 
acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable deficiencies with 
identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.
    (5) Poor/Unsatisfactory (less than 61): Does not meet minimum 
acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in 
one or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which adversely 
affect overall performance.
    (c) As a benchmark for evaluation, in order to be rated 
``Excellent,'' the contractor must be under cost, on or ahead of 
schedule, and have provided excellent technical performance.
    (d) A scoring system appropriate for the circumstances of the 
individual contract requirement should be developed. Weighted scoring 
is recommended. In this system, each evaluation factor (e.g., 
technical, schedule, cost control) is assigned a specific percentage 
weighting with the cumulative weightings of all factors totaling 100. 
During the award fee evaluation, each factor is scored from 0-100 
according to the ratings defined in 1816.404-275(b). The numerical 
score for each factor is then multiplied by the weighting for that 
factor to determine the weighted score. For example, if the technical 
factor has a weighting of 60 percent and the numerical score for that 
factor is 80, the weighted technical score is 48 (80 x 60 percent). The 
weighted scores for each evaluation factor are then added to determine 
the total award fee score.


1816.405  Contract clauses.


1816.405-70  NASA contract clauses.

    (a) As authorized by FAR 16.405(e), the contracting officer shall 
insert the clause at 1852.216-76, Award Fee for Service Contracts, in 
solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is 
contemplated and the contract deliverable is the performance of a 
service. When provisional award fee payments are authorized, use 
Alternate I.
    (b) As authorized by FAR 16.405(e), the contracting officer shall 
insert the clause at 1852.216-77, Award Fee for End Item Contracts, in 
solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is 
contemplated and the contract deliverables are hardware or other end 
items for which total contractor performance cannot be measured until 
the end of the contract.
    (c) The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as 
stated at 1852.216-83, Fixed Price Incentive, in fixed-price-incentive 
solicitations and contracts utilizing firm or successive targets. For 
items subject to incentive price revision, identify the target cost, 
target profit, target price, and ceiling price for each item.

[[Page 3482]]

    (d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.216-84, 
Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee, in cost-plus-incentive-fee 
solicitations and contracts.
    (e) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 1852.216-85, 
Estimated Cost and Award Fee, in cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and 
contracts. When the contract includes performance incentives, use 
Alternate I.
    (f) As provided at 1816.402-270, the contracting officer shall 
insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.216-88, Performance 
Incentive, when the primary deliverable(s) is (are) hardware and total 
estimated cost and fee is greater than $25 million. A clause 
substantially as stated at 1852.216-88 may be included in lower dollar 
value hardware contracts with the approval of the procurement officer.

Subpart 1816.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts


1816.504  Indefinite quantity contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph 
(a))

    (a)(4)(ii) ID/IQ service contract values and task order values 
shall be expressed only in dollars.


1816.505  Ordering. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a)(2) Task and delivery orders shall be issued by the contracting 
officer.
    (b)(4) The Agency and installation ombudsmen designated in 
accordance with 1815.70 shall review complaints from contractors on 
task order contracts and delivery order contracts.


1816.505-70  Task ordering.

    (a) The contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent possible, 
state task order requirements in terms of functions and the related 
performance and quality standards such that the standards may be 
objectively measured.
    (b) To the maximum extent possible, contracting officers shall 
solicit contractor task plans to use as the basis for finalizing task 
order requirements and enable evaluation and pricing of the 
contractor's proposed work on a performance based approach as described 
in 1816.404-270(a).
    (c) Task order contract type shall be individually determined, 
based on the nature of each task order's requirements.
    (1) Task orders may be grouped by contract type for administrative 
convenience (e.g., all CPIF orders, all FFP orders, etc.) for 
contractor progress and cost reporting.
    (2) Under multiple awards, solicitations for individual task plans 
shall request the same pricing structure from all offerors.
    (d) Any undefinitized task order issued under paragraph (f) of the 
clause at 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure, shall be treated and 
reported as an undefinitized contract action in accordance with 1843-
70.


1816.506-70  NASA contract clause.

    Insert the clause at 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure, in 
solicitations and contracts when an indefinite-delivery, task order 
contract is contemplated. The clause is applicable to both fixed-price 
and cost-reimbursement type contracts. If the contract does not require 
533M reporting (See NHB 9501.2), use the clause with its Alternate I.

Subpart 1816.6--Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter 
Contracts


1816.603  Letter contracts.


1816.603-370  Approvals.

    (a) All requests for authority to issue a letter contract shall 
include the following:
    (1) Proposed contractor's name and address.
    (2) Location where contract is to be performed.
    (3) Contract number, including modification number, if applicable.
    (4) Brief description of the work or services to be performed.
    (5) Performance period or delivery schedule.
    (6) Amount of letter contract.
    (7) Performance period of letter contract.
    (8) Estimated total amount of definitive contract.
    (9) Type of definitive contract to be executed.
    (10) A statement that the definitive contract will contain all 
required clauses or identification of specific clause deviations that 
have been approved.
    (11) A statement as to the necessity and advantage to the 
Government of the proposed letter contract.
    (12) The definitization schedule described in FAR 16.603-2(c) 
expected to be negotiated with the contractor.
    (b) Requests for authority to issue letter contracts having an 
estimated definitive contract amount equal to or greater than the 
Master Buy Plan submission thresholds of 1807.7101 (or modifications 
thereto) shall be signed by the procurement officer and submitted to 
the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) for approval.
    (c) Authority to approve the issuance of letter contracts below the 
Master Buy Plan submission thresholds specified in 1807.7101 is 
delegated to the procurement officer.
    (d) Any modification of an undefinitized letter contract approved 
by a procurement officer in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section that increases the estimated definitized contract amount to or 
above the Master Buy Plan submission thresholds must have the prior 
approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).

PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

    4. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as 
follows:


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


1852.215-73, 1852.215-74, 1852.215-75  [Revised]

    5-6. Sections 1852.215-73, 1852.215-74 and 1852.215-75 are revised 
to read as follows:


1852.215-73  Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of 
Proposals (AO, SBIR, and STTR Programs).

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(a), insert the following provision:

Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals (AO, 
SBIR, and STTR Programs)

(October 1996)

    (a) The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or 
modifications, including any revision of an otherwise successful 
proposal, received after the date indicated for receipt of proposals 
if it would be in the Government's best interest to do so.
    (b) Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice of telegram 
(Including mailgram) received at any time before award. Proposals 
maybe withdrawn in person by an offeror or an authorized 
representative, if the representative's identity is made known and 
the representative signs a receipt for the proposal before award.

(End of provision)


1852.215-74  Alternate Proposals.

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(b), insert the following provision:

Alternate Proposals

(October 1996)

    (A) The offeror may submit an alternate proposal to accomplish 
any aspect of the effort or product contemplated by the solicitation 
in a manner that might create a beneficial improvement to the 
Government. The Government will consider an alternate proposal if it 
is accompanied by a basic proposal prepared in accordance with 
instructions contained in this solicitation. The alternate proposal 
must be complete by itself and comply with the proposal instructions 
of this solicitation. The alternate proposal will be evaluated in 
accordance with the evaluation factors of this solicitation.
    (b) In the event the Government receives an alternate proposal 
that, it accepted, would result in a contract with terms varying in 
one or more material respects from those

[[Page 3483]]

contained in this solicitation, and the Government concludes that 
implementation of the approach contained in the alternate proposal 
would be in its best interest, the Government may modify its 
solicitation in a manner appropriate the incorporate the changes but 
not reveal the substance of the alternate proposal, and thereafter 
give all offerors (and others if the facts warrant) an opportunity 
to respond to the modified solicitation.

(End of provision)


1852.215-75  Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions.

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(c), insert the following provision:

Expenses Related to Offeror Submissions

(December 1988)

    This solicitation neither commits the Government to pay any cost 
incurred in the submission of the offer or in making necessary 
studies or designs for preparing the offer, nor to contract for 
services or supplies. Any costs incurred in anticipation of a 
contract shall be at the offeror's own risk.

(End of provision)


1852.215-77, 1852.215-78, 1852.215-79  [Revised]

    7.-8. Sections 1852.215-77, 1852.215-78 and 1852.215-79 are revised 
to read as follows:


1852.215-77  Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference.

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(d), insert the following provision:

Preproposal/Pre-Bid Conference

(December 1988)

    (a) A preproposal/pre-bid conference will be held as indicated 
below:
    Date:
    Time:
    Location:
    Other Information, as applicable:
    [Insert the applicable conference information.]
    (b) Attendance at the preproposal/pre-bid conference is 
recommended; however, attendance is neither required nor a 
prerequisite for proposal/bid submission and will not be considered 
in the evaluation.

(End of provision)


1852.215-78  Make or Buy Program Requirements.

    As prescribed in 1815.708-70(a), insert the following provision:

Make or Buy Program Requirements

(December 1988)

    The offeror shall submit a Make-or-Buy Program in accordance 
with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
15.705. The offeror shall include the following supporting 
documentation with its proposal:
    (a) A description of each major item or work effort (see FAR 
15.704).
    (b) Categorization of each major item or work effort as ``must 
make,'' ``must buy,'' or ``can either make or buy.''
    (c) For each item or work effort categorized as ``can either 
make or buy,'' a proposal either to ``make'' or ``buy.''
    (d) Reasons for (i) categorizing items and work effort as ``must 
make'' or ``must buy'' and (ii) proposing to ``make'' or ``buy'' 
those categorized as ``can either make or buy.'' The reasons must 
include the consideration given to the applicable evaluation factors 
described in the solicitation and be in sufficient detail to permit 
the Contracting Officer to evaluate the categorization and proposal.
    (e) Designation of the offeror's plant or division proposed to 
make each item or perform each work effort and a statement as to 
whether the existing or proposed new facility is in or near a labor 
surplus area.
    (f) Identification of proposed subcontractors, if known, and 
their location and size status.
    (g) Any recommendations to defer make-or-buy decisions when 
categorization of some items or work efforts is impracticable at the 
time of submission.

(End of provision)


1852.215-79  Price Adjustment for ``Make- or-Buy'' Changes.

    As prescribed in 1815.708-70(b), insert the following clause:

Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes

(December 1988)

    The following make-or-buy items are subject to the provisions of 
paragraph (d) of the clause at FAR 52.215-21, Change or Additions to 
Make-or-Buy Program, of this contract:

                                                                        
          Item Description                 Make-or-Buy Determination    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        

(End of clause)


1852.215-81, 1852.215-82  [Revised]

    9. Section 1852.215-81 and 1852-215-82 are revised to read as 
follows:


1852.215-81  Proposal Page Limitations.

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(g), insert the following provision:

Proposal Page Limitations

(January 1994)

    (a) The following page limitations are established for each 
portion of the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.

                                                                        
   Proposed Section (List each                                          
       volume or section)               Page Limit (Specify limit)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________                __________________                    
__________________                __________________                    
__________________                __________________                    
__________________                __________________                    

    (b) A page is defined as one side of sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', 
with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 
12 characters per inch (or equivalent) type. Foldouts count as an 
equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages. The metric standard 
format most closely approximating the described standard 8\1/2\'' x 
11'' size may also be used.
    (c) Title pages and tables of contents are excluded from the 
page counts specified in paragraph (a) of this provision. In 
addition, the Cost section of your proposal is not page limited. 
However, this section is to be strictly limited to cost and price 
information. Information that can be construed as belonging in one 
of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and 
counted against that section's page limitation.
    (d) If Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) are requested, separate 
page limitations will be specified in the Government's request for 
that submission.
    (e) Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in 
this provision will not be evaluated by the Government and will be 
returned to the offeror.

(End of provision)


1852.215-82  Offeror oral presentations.

    As prescribed in 1815.407-70(h), insert the following provision:

Offeror Oral Presentations

(November 1993)

    (a) Offerors are invited to give an oral presentation to the 
Government on the structure and general content of their proposals. 
These presentations are intended to assist Government evaluation by 
providing a ``roadmap'' to understanding proposals, i.e., an 
overview of the proposal organization and layout, and where required 
information and elements are located. Although the offeror's basic 
approach to satisfying solicitation requirements may be explained, 
it is to be done so only in general terms and only to expedite the 
Government's formal evaluation.
    (b) The Government will not engage in any discussions during the 
oral presentation, and no proposal revisions will be accepted as 
part of the presentation. The Government's evaluation of offeror 
proposals will be based on the contents of the initial proposal, and 
any information not included in the initial proposal that is 
provided at the oral presentation will not be evaluated.
    (c) Offerors should indicate in their proposals if they wish to 
give an oral presentation. These presentations are not mandatory, 
and electing not to give a presentation will not, in itself, affect 
proposal evaluation.
    (d) Because the presentations are intended to assist the 
Government's evaluation, they will be scheduled to take place prior 
to commencement of the formal initial evaluation, normally within 
three days after proposal receipt. Offerors unable to accommodate 
this schedule forfeit their opportunity to provide a presentation.
    (e) The presentations will consist of an offeror briefing not to 
exceed [insert 1 or 2] hours to be followed by a question and answer 
period. The order of offeror presentations will be determined at 
random. The exact time and place of the presentation, along with any 
other guidance, will be provided to the offeror by the contracting 
officer or his/her representative.

[[Page 3484]]

    (f) Presentation materials are not required, but if used, the 
Government will retain one copy in its official file as a historical 
record of the presentation even though these materials will not be 
used in the Government's evaluation process.

(End of provision)


1852.215-84  [Revised]

    10.-11. Section 1852.215-84 is revised to read as follows:


1852.215-84  Ombudsman.

    As prescribed in 1815.7003, insert the following clause:

Ombudsman

(October 1996)

    An ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the 
resolution of concerns from offerors, potential offerors, and 
contractors during the preaward and postaward phases of this 
acquisition. When requested, the ombudsman will maintain strict 
confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The existence of 
the ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the contracting 
officer, the Source Evaluation Board, or the selection official. 
Further, the ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of 
proposals, the source selection process, or the adjudication of 
formal contract disputes. Therefore, before consulting with an 
ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, 
issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the contracting 
officer for resolution. If resolution cannot be made by the 
contracting officer, interested parties may contact the installation 
ombudsman, [Insert name], at __________ [Insert telephone number]. 
Concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations which cannot be 
resolved at the installation may be referred to the NASA ombudsman, 
the Deputy Administrator for Procurement, at 202-358-2090. Please do 
not contact the ombudsman to request copies of the solicitation, 
verify offer due date, or clarify technical requirements. Such 
inquiries shall be directed to the contracting officer or as 
specified elsewhere in this document.

(End of clause)


1852.216-73, 1852.216-74, 1852.216-75, 1852.216-76, 1852.216-77, 
1852.216-78  [Revised]

    12.-13. Sections 1852.216-73, 1852.216-74, 1852.216-75, 1852.216-
76, 1852.216-77 and 1852.216-78 are revised to read as follows:


1852.216-73  Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing.

    As prescribed in 1816.307-70(a), insert the following clause:

Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing

(December 1991)

    (a) It is estimated that the total cost of performing the work 
under this contract will be $__________.
    (b) For performance of the work under this contract, the 
Contractor shall be reimbursed for not more than ______ percent of 
the costs of performance determined to be allowable under the 
Allowable Cost and Payment clause. The remaining ______ percent or 
more of the costs of performance so determined shall constitute the 
Contractor's share, for which it will not be reimbursed by the 
Government.
    (c) For purposes of the ______________ [insert ``Limitation of 
Cost'' or ``Limitation of Funds''] clause, the total estimated cost 
to the Government is hereby established as $________ (insert 
estimated Government share); this amount is the maximum Government 
liability.
    (d) The Contractor shall maintain records of all contract costs 
claimed by the Contractor as constituting part of its share. Those 
records shall be subject to audit by the Government. Costs 
contributed by the Contractor shall not be charged to the Government 
under any other grant, contract, or agreement (including allocation 
to other grants, contracts, or agreements as part of an independent 
research and development program).

(End of clause)


1852.216-74  Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee.

    As prescribed in 1816.307-70(b), insert the following clause:

Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee

(December 1991)

    The estimated cost of this contract is ____________ exclusive of 
the fixed fee of ____________. The total estimated cost and fixed 
fee is ____________.

(End of clause)


1852.216-75  Payment of Fixed Fee.

    As prescribed in 1816.307-70(c), insert the following clause:

Payment of Fixed Fee

(December 1988)

    The fixed fee shall be paid in monthly installments based upon 
the percentage of completion of work as determined by the 
Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)


1852.216-76  Award Fee for Service Contracts.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(a), insert the following clause:

Award Fee for Service Contracts

(October 1996)

    (a) The contractor can earn award fee from a minimum of zero 
dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR Supplement clause 
1852.216-85, ``Estimated Cost and Award Fee'' in this contract.
    (b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this 
contract, the Government shall evaluate the Contractor's performance 
every 6* months to determine the amount of award fee earned by the 
contractor during the period. The Contractor may submit a self-
evaluation of performance for each evaluation period under 
consideration. These self-evaluations will be considered by the 
Government in its evaluation. The Government's Fee Determination 
Official (FDO) will determine the award fee amounts based on the 
Contractor's performance in accordance with [identify performance 
evaluation plan]. The plan may be revised unilaterally by the 
Government prior to the beginning of any rating period to redirect 
emphasis.
    (c) The Government will advise the Contractor in writing of the 
evaluation results. The [insert payment office] will make payment 
based on [Insert method of authorizing award fee payment, e.g., 
issuance of unilateral modification by contracting officer].
    (d) After 85 percent of the potential award fee has been paid, 
the Contracting Officer may direct the withholding of further 
payment of award fee until a reserve is set aside in an amount that 
the Contracting Office considers necessary to protect the 
Government's interest. This reserve shall not exceed 15 percent of 
the total potential award fee.
    (e) The amount of award fee which can be awarded in each 
evaluation period is limited to the amounts set forth at [identify 
location of award fee amounts]. Award fee which is not earned in an 
evaluation period cannot be reallocated to future evaluation 
periods.
    (f) Award fee determinations made by the Government under this 
contract are not subject to the Disputes clause.

*[A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be 
substituted in accordance with 1816.404-272(a).]

Alternate I

(October 1996)

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(a), insert the following paragraph 
(f) and reletter existing paragraph (f) to (g):
    (f)(1) Pending a determination of the amount of award fee earned 
for an evaluation period, a portion of the available award fee for 
that period will be paid to the contractor on a [Insert the 
frequency of provisional payments (not more often than monthly)] 
basis. The portion paid will be ____________ [Insert percentage (not 
to exceed 80 percent)] percent of the current period's available 
amount or the equivalent of the prior period's interim fee, 
whichever is lower; provided, however, that when the Contracting 
Officer determines that the Contractor will not achieve a level of 
performance commensurate with the provisional rate, payment of 
provisional award fee will be discontinued or reduced in such 
amounts as the Contracting Officer deems appropriate. The 
Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing if it is 
determined that such discontinuance or reduction is appropriate. 
This determination is not subject to the Disputes clause.
    (2) In the event the amount of award fee earned, as determined 
by the FDO, is less than the sum of the provisional payments made 
for that period, the Contractor will either credit the next payment 
voucher for the amount of such overpayment or refund the difference 
to the Government, as directed by the Contracting Officer.
    (3) Provisional award fee payments will [insert ``not'' if 
appropriate] be made prior to

[[Page 3485]]

the first award fee determination by the Government.

(End of clause)


1852.216-77  Award Fee for End Item Contracts.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(b), insert the following clause:

Award Fee for End Item Contracts

(Insert Month of Publication)

    (a) The contractor can earn award fee, or base fee, if any, from 
a minimum of zero dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR 
Supplement clause 1852.216-85, ``Estimated Cost and Award Fee'' in 
this contract. All award fee evaluations, with the exception of the 
last evaluation, will be interim evaluations. At the last 
evaluation, which is final, the Contractor's performance for the 
entire contract will be evaluated to determine total earned award 
fee. No award fee or base fee will be paid to the Contractor if the 
final award fee evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory.''
    (b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this 
contract, the Government will evaluate the Contractor's interim 
performance every 6* months to monitor Contractor performance prior 
to contract completion and to provide feedback to the Contractor. 
The evaluation will be performed in accordance with [identify 
performance evaluation plan] to this contract. The Contractor may 
submit a self-evaluation of performance for each period under 
consideration. These self-evaluations will be considered by the 
Government in its evaluation. The Government will advise the 
Contractor in writing of the evaluation results. The plan may be 
revised unilaterally by the Government prior to the beginning of any 
rating period to redirect emphasis.
    (c)(1) Base fee, if applicable, will be paid in [Insert 
``monthly'', or less frequent period] installments based on the 
percent of completion of the work as determined by the Contracting 
Officer.
    (2) Interim award fee payments will be made to the Contractor 
based on each interim evaluation. The amount of the interim award 
fee payment is limited to the lesser of the interim evaluation score 
or 80 percent of the fee allocation to that period less any 
provisional payments made during the period. All interim award fee 
payments will be superseded by the final award fee determination.
    (3) Provisional award fee payments will [insert ``not'' if 
applicable] be made under this contract pending each interim 
evaluation. If applicable, provisional award fee payments will be 
made to the Contractor on a [insert the frequency of provisional 
payments (not more often than monthly)] basis. The amount of award 
fee which will be provisionally paid in each evaluation period is 
limited to [Insert a percent not to exceed 80 percent] of the prior 
interim evaluation score (see [insert applicable cite]). Provisional 
award fee payments made each evaluation period will be superseded by 
the interim award fee evaluation for that period. If provisional 
payments made exceed the interim evaluation score, the Contractor 
will either credit the next payment voucher for the amount of such 
overpayment or refund the difference to the Government, as directed 
by the Contracting Officer. If the Government determines that (i) 
the total amount of provisional fee payments will apparently 
substantially exceed the anticipated final evaluation score, or (ii) 
the prior interim evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory,'' the 
Contracting Officer will direct the suspension or reduction of the 
future payments and/or request a prompt refund of excess payments as 
appropriate. Written notification of the determination will be 
provided to the Contractor with a copy to the Deputy Chief Financial 
Officer (Finance). This determination is not subject to the Disputes 
clause.
    (4) All interim (and provisional, if applicable) fee payments 
will be superseded by the fee determination made in the final award 
fee evaluation. The Government will then pay the Contractor, or the 
Contractor will refund to the Government the difference between the 
final award fee determination and the cumulative interim (and 
provisional, if applicable) fee payments. If the final award fee 
evaluation is ``poor/unsatisfactory'', any base fee paid will be 
refunded to the Government.
    (5) Payment of base fee, if applicable, will be made based on 
submission of an invoice by the Contractor. Payment of award fee 
will be made by the [insert payment office] based on [Insert method 
of making award fee payment, e.g., issuance of a unilateral 
modification by the Contracting Officer].
    (d) Award fee determinations made by the Government under this 
contract are not subject to the Disputes clause.

* [A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be 
substituted in accordance with 1816.404-272(a).]

(End of clause)


1852.216-78  Firm Fixed Price.

    As prescribed in 1816.202-70, insert the following clause:

Firm Fixed Price

(December 1988)

    The total firm fixed price of this contract is $     [Insert the 
appropriate amount].

(End of clause)


1852.216-80, 1852.216-81  [Revised]

    14.-15. Sections 1852.216-80 and 1852.216-81 are revised to read as 
follows:


1852.216-80  Task Ordering Procedure.

    As prescribed in 1816.506-70, insert the following clause:

Task Ordering Procedures

(October 1996)

    (a) Only the Contracting Officer may issue task orders to the 
Contractor, providing specific authorization or direction to perform 
work within the scope of the contract and as specified in the 
schedule. The Contractor may incur costs under this contract in 
performance of task orders and task order modifications issued in 
accordance with this clause. No other costs are authorized unless 
otherwise specified in the contract or expressly authorized by the 
Contracting Officer.
    (b) Prior to issuing a task order, the Contracting Officer shall 
provide the Contractor with the following date:
    (1) A functional description of the work identifying the 
objectives or results desired from the contemplated task order.
    (2) Proposed performance standards to be used as criteria for 
determining whether the work requirements have been met.
    (3) A request for a task plan from the Contractor to include the 
technical approach, period of performance, appropriate cost 
information, and any other information required to determine the 
reasonableness of the Contractor's proposal.
    (c) Within ____ calendar days after receipt of the Contracting 
Officer's request, the Contractor shall submit a task plan 
conforming to the request.
    (d) After review and any necessary discussions, the Contracting 
Officer may issue a task order to the Contractor containing, as a 
minimum, the following:
    (1) Date of the order.
    (2) Contract number and order number.
    (3) Functional description of the work identifying the 
objectives or results desired from the task order, including special 
instructions or other information necessary for performance of the 
task.
    (4) Performance standards, and where appropriate, quality 
assurance standards.
    (5) Maximum dollar amount authorized (cost and fee or price). 
This includes allocation of award fee among award fee periods, if 
applicable.
    (6) Any other resources (travel, materials, equipment, 
facilities, etc.) authorized.
    (7) Delivery/performance schedule including start and end dates.
    (8) If contract funding is by individual task order, accounting 
and appropriation data.
    (e) The Contractor shall provide acknowledgement of receipt to 
the Contracting Officer within ____ calendar days after receipt of 
the task order.
    (f) If time constraints do not permit issuance of a fully 
defined task order in accordance with the procedures described in 
paragraphs (a) through (d), a task order which includes a ceiling 
price may be issued.
    (g) The Contracting officer may amend tasks in the same manner 
in which they are issued.
    (h) In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the 
task order and the Contractor's approved task plan, the task order 
shall prevail.

(End of clause)

Alternate I

(October 1996)

    As prescribed in 1816.506-70, insert the following paragraph (i) 
if the contract does not include 533M reporting:
    (i) Contractor shall submit monthly task order progress reports. 
As a minimum, the reports shall contain the following information:
    (1) Contract number, task order number, and date of the order.

[[Page 3486]]

    (2) Task ceiling price.
    (3) Cost and hours incurred to date for each issued task.
    (4) Costs and hours estimated to complete each issued task.
    (5) Significant issues/problems associated with a task.
    (6) Cost summary of the status of all tasks issued under the 
contract.


1852.216-81  Estimated Cost.

    As prescribed in 1816.307-70(d), insert the following clause:

Estimated cost

(December 1988)

    The total estimated cost for complete performance of this 
contract is $     [Insert total estimated cost of the contract]. See 
FAR clause 52.216-11, Cost Contract--No Fee, of this contract.

(End of clause)


1852.216-83, 1852.216-84, 1852.216-85  [Revised]

    16.-17. Sections 1852.216-83, 1852.216-84 and 1852.216-85 are 
revised to read as follows:


1852.216-83  Fixed Price Incentive.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(c), insert the following clause:

Fixed Price Incentive

(October 1996)

    The target cost of this contract is $______. The Target profit 
of this contract is $______. The target price (target cost plus 
target profit) of this contract is $______. [The ceiling price is 
$______.]
    The cost sharing for target cost underruns is: Government 
______percent; Contractor ______percent.
    The cost sharing for target cost overruns is: Government 
______percent; Contractor ______percent.

(End of clause)


1852.216-84  Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(d), insert the following clause:

Estimated Cost and Incentive Fee

(October 1996)

    The target cost of this contract is $______. The target fee of 
this contract is $______. The total target cost and target fee as 
contemplated by the Incentive Fee clause of this contract are 
$______.
    The maximum fee is $______.
    The minimum fee is $______.
    The cost sharing for cost underruns is: Government 
______percent; Contractor ______percent.
    The cost sharing for cost overruns is: Government ______percent; 
Contractor ______percent.

(End of clause)


1852.216-85  Estimated Cost and Award Fee.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(e), insert the following clause:

Estimated Cost and Award Fee

(September 1993)

    The estimated cost of this contract is $______. The maximum 
available award fee, excluding base fee, if any, is $______. The 
base fee is $______. Total estimated cost, base fee, and maximum 
award fee are $______.

(End of clause)

Alternate I

(September 1993)

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(e), insert the following sentence 
at the end of the clause:
    The maximum positive performance incentive is $______. The 
maximum negative performance incentive is (1).
    (1) For research development hardware contracts, insert [equal 
to total earned award fee (including any base fee)]. For production 
hardware contracts, insert [$total potential award fee amount, 
including any base fee)].

(End of clause)


1852.216-87, 1852.216-88, 1852.216-89  [Revised]

    18-19. Sections 1852.216-87, 1852.216-88 and 1852.216-89 are 
revised to read as follows:


1852.216-87  Submission of Vouchers for Payment.

    As prescribed in 1816.307-70(e), insert the following clause:

Submission of Vouchers for Payment

(December 1988)

    (a) Public vouchers for payment of costs shall include a 
reference to this contract [Insert the contract number] and be 
forwarded to:
    [Insert the mailing address for submission of cost vouchers.]
    This is the designated billing office for cost vouchers for 
purposes of the Prompt Payment clause of this contract.
    (b) The Contractor shall prepare vouchers as follows:
    (1) One original Standard Form (SF) 1034, SF 1035, or equivalent 
Contractor's attachment.
    (2) Seven copies of SF 1034A, SF 1035A, or equivalent 
Contractor's attachment.
    (3) The Contractor shall mark SF 1034A copies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
such other copies as may be directed by the Contracting Officer by 
insertion in the memorandum block the names and addresses as 
follows:
    (i) Copy 1 NASA Contracting Officer;
    (ii) Copy 2 Auditor;
    (iii) Copy 3 Contractor;
    (iv) Copy 4 Contract administration office; and
    (v) Copy 5 Project management office.
    (c) Public vouchers for payment of fee shall be prepared 
similarly and be forwarded to:
    [Insert the mailing address for submission of fee vouchers.]
    This is the designated billing office for fee vouchers for 
purposes of the Prompt Payment clause of this contract.
    (d) In the event that amounts are withheld from payment in 
accordance with provisions of this contract, a separate voucher for 
the amount withheld will be required before payment for that amount 
may be made.


1852.216-88  Performance Incentive.

    As prescribed in 1816.405-70(f), insert the following clause:

Performance Incentive

(January 1997)

    (a) A performance incentive applies to the following hardware 
item(s) delivered under this contract: (1).
    The performance incentive will measure the performance of those 
items against the salient hardware performance requirement, called 
``unit(s) of measurement,'' e.g., months in service or amount of 
data transmitted, identified below. The performance incentive 
becomes effective when the hardware is put into service. It includes 
a standard performance level, a positive incentive, and a negative 
incentive, which are described in this clause.
    (b) Standard performance level. At the standard performance 
level, the Contractor has met the contract requirement for the unit 
of measurement. Neither positive nor negative incentives apply when 
this level is achieved but not exceeded. The standard performance 
level for (1) ____ is established as follows: (2).
    (c) Positive incentive. The Contractor earns a separate positive 
incentive amount for each hardware item listed in paragraph (a) of 
this clause when the standard performance level for that item is 
exceeded. The amount earned for each item varies with the units of 
measurement achieved, up to a maximum positive performance incentive 
amount of $ (3) ____ per item. The units of measurement and the 
incentive amounts associated with achieving each unit are shown 
below: (4).
    (d) Negative incentive. The Contractor will pay to the 
Government a negative incentive amount for each hardware item that 
fails to achieve the standard performance level. The amount to be 
paid for each item varies with the units of measurement achieved, up 
to the maximum negative incentive amount of $ (5) ____. The units of 
measurement and the incentive amounts associated with achieving each 
unit are shown below: (6).
    (e) The final calculation of positive or negative performance 
incentive amounts shall be done when performance (as defined by the 
unit of measurement) ceases or when the maximum positive incentive 
is reached.
    (1) When the Contracting Officer determines that the performance 
level achieved fell below the standard performance level, the 
Contractor will either pay the amount due the Government or credit 
the next payment voucher for the amount due, as directed by the 
Contracting Officer.
    (2) When the performance level exceeds the standard level, the 
Contractor may request payment of the incentive amount associated 
with a given level of performance, provided that such payments shall 
not be more frequent than monthly. When performance ceases or the 
maximum positive incentive is reached, the Government shall 
calculate the final performance incentive earned and unpaid and 
promptly remit it to the contractor.
    (f) If performance cannot be demonstrated, through no fault of 
the Contractor, within

[[Page 3487]]

[insert number of months or years] after the date of hardware 
acceptance by the Government, the Contractor will be paid [insert 
percentage] of the maximum performance incentive.
    (g) The decisions made as to the amount(s) of positive or 
negative incentives are subject to the Disputes clause.
    (1) Insert applicable item number(s) and/or nomenclature.
    (2) Insert a specific unit of measurement for each hardware item 
listed in (1) and each salient characteristic, if more than one.
    (3) Insert the maximum positive performance incentive amount 
(see 1816.402-270(e) (1) and (2)).
    (4) Insert all units of measurement and associated dollar 
amounts up to the maximum performance incentive.
    (5) Insert the appropriate amount in accordance with 1816.402-
270(e).
    (6) Insert all units of measurement and associated dollar 
amounts up to the maximum negative performance incentive.

(End of clause)


1852.216-89  Assignment and release forms.

    As prescribed at 1816.307-70(f), insert the following clause:

Assignment and Release Forms

(October 1996)

    The Contractor shall use the following forms to fulfill the 
assignment and release requirements of FAR Clause 52.216-7, 
Allowable Cost and Payment, and FAR Clause 52.216-13, Allowable Cost 
and Payment (Facilities):

NASA Form 778, Contractor's Release
NASA Form 779, Assignee's Release
NASA Form 780, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits, 
and Other Amounts
    Computer generated forms are acceptable, provided that they 
comply with FAR Clause 52.253-1.

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 97-1240 Filed 1-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M