[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4466-4492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1864]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1839, 1841, 
1852, 1870, 1871, and 1872


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 is revising its regulations in 
48 CFR part 1834, Major System Acquisitions; part 1835, Research and 
Development Contracting; part 1836, Construction and Architect-Engineer 
Contracts; part 1837, Service Contracting; part 1839, Acquisition of 
Information Technology; and part 1841, Acquisition of Utility Services. 
This rule also adds a new part 1872 on Acquisitions of Investigations 
and amends part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, to reflect these 
other regulatory changes.
    This rule restores some sections in part 1831, Contract Cost 
Principles and Procedures, and in part 1852, Solicitation Provisions 
and Contract Clauses, that were inadvertently removed in a final rule 
published October 28, 1996 (61 FR 55753).
    This rule amends part 1871, Midrange Procurement Procedures, in 
order to conform its provisions to those of recently established FAR 
regulations on a test program for certain commercial items. Also in 
this rule, the numbering of regulatory sections has been changed to 
indicate the exact section of the FAR being implemented or 
supplemented.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Thomas O'Toole, (202) 358-0478; Mr. Bruce King, (202) 358-0461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Performance Review urged agencies to streamline and 
clarify their regulations. The NFS rewrite initiative was established 
to pursue these goals by conducting a section by section review of the 
NFS to verify its accuracy, relevancy, and validity. The NFS will be 
rewritten in blocks of parts and issued through Procurement Notices 
(PNs). 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 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836, 
1837, 1839, 1841, 1852, 1870, 1871, and 1872

    Government Procurement.
Tom Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1805, 1815, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 
1839, 1841, 1852, 1870, 1871 and 1872 are amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 1805 continues to read as 
follows:

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

PART 1805--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS


1805.303-71  [Amended]

    2. In section 1805.303-71, the section heading and paragraphs (a) 
introductory text and (a)(3) are revised to read as follows:


1805.303-71  Administrator's notice of significant contract actions 
(ANOSCAs).

    (a) In addition to the public announcement requirements described 
in 1805.303-70, contracting officers shall notify the Administrator of 
the following significant actions at least five (5) workdays prior to 
planned public announcement of the actions:
* * * * *
    (3) Planned award of other actions, to include cooperative 
agreements resulting from a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN), at any 
dollar value

[[Page 4467]]

thought to be of significant interest to Headquarters.
* * * * *

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION


1815.807  [Amended]

    3.-6. In section 1815.807, paragraph (b)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


1815.807  Prenegotiation objectives.

    (b)(i) * * *
    (ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for 
contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR 
15.6 and 1815.6.

PART 1831--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES


1831.205-670, 1831.205-671  [Added]

    7. Sections 1831.205-670 and 1831.205-671 are added to read as 
follows:


1831.205-670  Evaluation of contractor and subcontractor compensation 
for service contracts.

    (a) The contracting officer shall evaluate the reasonableness of 
compensation for service contracts:
    (1) Prior to the award of a cost reimbursement or non-competitive 
fixed-price type contract which has a total potential value in excess 
of $500,000, and
    (2) Periodically after award for cost reimbursement contracts, but 
at least every three years.
    (b) The contracting officer shall ensure the reasonableness of 
compensation is evaluated for cost reimbursement or non-competitive 
fixed-price type service subcontracts under a prime contract meeting 
the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section where:
    (1) The subcontract has a total potential value in excess of 
$500,000; and
    (2) The cumulative value of all of a subcontractor's service 
subcontracts under the prime contract is in excess of 10 percent of the 
prime contract's total potential value.
    (c)(1) Offerors shall be required to submit as part of their 
proposals a compensation plan addressing all proposed labor categories. 
Offerors also shall demonstrate in writing that their proposed 
compensation is reasonable.
    (2) Subcontractors meeting the criteria in paragraph (b) of this 
section shall be required to comply with paragraph (c)(1).
    (d) The contracting officer's preaward evaluation of each offeror's 
and their subcontractors' compensation should be done as part of, or in 
addition to DCAA audits, price analyses, or any other means deemed to 
be necessary.
    (e) The results of the contracting officer's evaluation, including 
any excessive compensation found and its planned resolution, shall be 
addressed in the prenegotiation position memorandum, with the final 
resolution discussed in the price negotiation memorandum.
    (f) The contracting officer shall ensure that the reasonableness of 
compensation for cost reimbursement subcontracts meeting the criteria 
in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section is periodically reviewed 
after award, but at least every three years.
    (g) The results of the periodic evaluations of contractor and 
subcontractor compensation after contract award shall be documented in 
the contract file.


1831.205-671  Solicitation provision.

    The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the 
same as the provision at 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation, in 
solicitations for services which contemplate the award of a cost 
reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type service contract 
having a total potential value in excess of $500,000.
    8. Part 1834 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1834--MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

Subpart 1834.0--General

Sec.
1834.003  Responsibilities.

Subpart 1834.70--Acquisition of Major Systems

1834.7001  Definitions.
1834.7002  Phased acquisitions
1834.7003  Down selections in phased acquisitions.
1834.7003-1  Pre-solicitation planning.
1834.7003-2  Evaluation factors.
1834.7003-3  Down selection milestones.
1834.7003-4  Synopsis.
1834.7003-5  Progressive competition.
1834.7004  Contract clauses.

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

Subpart 1834.0--General


1834.003  Responsibilities. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) NASA's implementation of OMB Circular No. A-109, Major Systems 
Acquisitions, and FAR part 34 is contained in this part and in NASA 
Policy Directive (NPD) 7120.4, ``Program/Project Management,'' and NASA 
Procedures and Guidance (NPG) 7120.5, ``Program/Project Management 
Guide''.

Subpart 1834.70--Acquisition of Major Systems


1834.7001  Definitions.

    (a) Down-selection. In a phased acquisition, the process of 
selecting contractors for phases subsequent to the initial phase from 
among the preceding phase contractors.
    (b) Major system. For NASA, ``major system'' is a program fitting 
the criteria of FAR 34.003(c) in lieu of the definition provided in FAR 
2.101.
    (c) Phased acquisition. A program comprised of several distinct 
steps or phases where the realization of program objectives requires a 
planned, sequential acquisition of each step or phase. The phases may 
be acquired separately, in combination, or through a down-selection 
strategy.
    (d) Progressive competition. A type of down-selection strategy for 
a phased acquisition. In this method, a single solicitation is issued 
for all phases of this program. The initial phase contracts are 
awarded, and the contractors for subsequent phases are expected to be 
chosen through a down-selection from among the preceding phase 
contractors. In each phase, progressively fewer contracts are awarded 
until a single contractor is chosen for the final phase. Normally, all 
down-selections are accomplished without issuance of a new, formal 
solicitation.


1834.7002  Phased acquisitions.

    (a) In acquisitions subject to the provisions of OMB Circular No. 
A-109 and NPD 7120.4 and NPG 7120.5, or other similar phased 
acquisitions, it is NASA policy to ensure competition in the selection 
of contractors for award in each phase of the process not performed in-
house.
    (b) There are five phases in the life cycle of a NASA major system 
acquisition:
    (1) Phase A, Preliminary Analysis, involves the analysis of 
alternate overall project concepts for accomplishing a proposed agency 
technical objective or mission.
    (2) Phase 3, Definition, involves the detailed study, comparative 
analysis, and preliminary system design of selected Phase A concepts.
    (3) Phase C, Design, involves the detailed system design (with 
mock-ups and test articles of critical systems and

[[Page 4468]]

subsystems) of the systems design concept determined to provide the 
best overall system for the Government.
    (4) Phase D, Development, involves final detailed design, 
fabrication, delivery of an operational system that meets program 
requirements.
    (5) Phase E, Operations, involves operation and use of the system 
in its intended environment, continuing until the system leaves the 
agency inventory. This phase includes any system modifications and 
upgrades.
    (c) The preferred approach in NASA for the acquisition of the 
phases of a Major System is the following:
    (1) Phase A is accomplished primarily through in-house studies.
    (2) Phases B, C, and D are acquired through a phased acquisition 
process in which two or more Phase B contracts are awarded 
competitively and then a down-selection is made among these contractors 
to determine the single combined Phase C/D awardee.
    (3) Phase E is normally acquired separately.
    (d) Each phase of a major system acquisition not performed in-house 
must be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.201 and must include all 
the information required by FAR 5.207.
    (e) Whether or not down-selection procedures are used, contracts 
awarded in phased acquisitions shall not include requirements for 
submission of subsequent phase proposals. Instead, proposals shall be 
requested through a solicitation or other appropriate mechanism (e.g., 
by letter when using the progressive competition technique). Priced 
options for preparation of subsequent phase proposals are prohibited.
    (f) Time gaps between phases should be minimized in all major 
system phased acquisitions. Accordingly, early synopsis of subsequent 
phase competition is encouraged. Also, when sufficient programmatic and 
technical information is available to all potential offerors, proposal 
evaluation and source selection activities need not be delayed until 
completion of a given phase. When appropriate, these activities should 
commence as early as practicable during the period of performance of a 
phase to ensure the expeditious award of the succeeding phase.


1834.7003  Down-selections in phased acquisitions.


1834.7003-1  Pre-solicitation planning.

    (a) The rationale for the use of the down-selection technique shall 
be thoroughly justified in the acquisition planning requirement. 
Because the Phase B solicitation will also lead to Phase C/D award, the 
decision to use a down-selection strategy must be made prior to 
initiation of the Phase B acquisition. Accordingly, both phases must be 
addressed in the initial acquisition strategy planning and documented 
in the acquisition plan or ASM minutes.
    (b) If there is no direct link between successful performance in 
the preceding phase and successful performance in the subsequent phase, 
down-selection is inappropriate. In this case, the major system 
acquisition phases should be contracted for separately without a down-
selection between phases.
    (c) With one exception, both the initial and subsequent phase(s) of 
a major system acquisition down-selection process are considered to be 
full and open competition if the procedures in 1834.7003-4 and 
1834.7003-5 (if using the progressive competition technique) are 
followed. If only one contractor successfully completed a given phase 
and no other offers are solicited for the subsequent phase, award of 
the subsequent phase may be made only if justified by one of the 
exceptions in FAR 6.302 or one of the exclusions in FAR 6.2, and only 
after compliance with the synopsis requirements of FAR 5.202 and 5.205, 
when appropriate.


1834.7003-2  Evaluation factors.

    A separate set of evaluation factors must be developed for each 
phase in a down-selection competition. Since these competitive down-
selection strategies anticipate that one of the Phase B contractors 
will also be the Phase C/D contractor, the Phase B offerors must 
clearly demonstrate the ability to perform the subsequent phases. The 
evaluation factors for Phase B award must specifically include the 
evaluation of the Phase B offerors' abilities to perform Phase C/D as 
well as Phase B.


1834.7003-3  Down-selection milestones.

    The Phase B contracts should be structured to allow for down-
selection at a discrete performance milestone such as a significant 
design review or at contract completion. This will avoid time gaps 
between phases and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and the 
need to terminate the remaining Phase B efforts of an unsuccessful 
Phase C/D offeror. However, the appropriate contract structure must 
reflect program technical objectives as well as schedule 
considerations. For example, if the acquisition strategy calls for 
formal completion of Phase B effort at Preliminary Design Review (PDR), 
but it is not financially practical or technically necessary for Phase 
C/D award and performance to carry all Phase B contractors through PDR, 
the Phase B contracts should be structured with a basic period of 
performance through a significant, discrete milestone before PDR with a 
priced option for effort from that milestone to PDR. The down-selection 
would occur at the earlier milestone, the PDR option exercised only for 
the down-selection winner, and Phase C/D performance begun at the 
completion of the PDR option. Any down-selection milestone must ensure 
that sufficient design maturity exists to allow for an informed 
selection decision leading to a successful completion of Phase C/D.


1834.7003-4  Synopsis.

    (a) When the phased acquisition process identified in 
1834.7002(c)(2) is used, the synopsis for the initial competitive 
phase, normally Phase B, should also state the following:
    (1) The Government plans to conduct a phased acquisition involving 
a competitive down-selection process. (Include a description of the 
process and the phases involved).
    (2) Subsequent competitions for identified follow-on phases will 
build on the results of previous phases.
    (3) The award criteria for subsequent phases will include 
demonstrated completion of specified previous phase requirements.
    (4) The Government expects that only the initial phase contractors 
will be capable of successfully competing for the subsequent phase(s). 
Proposals for the subsequent phase(s) will be automatically requested 
from these contractors.
    (5) The Government intends to issue (or not issue) a new, formal 
solicitation(s) for subsequent phase(s). If new solicitations are not 
planned, the acquisition must be identified as a ``progressive 
competition'' (see 1834.7003-5), and the mechanism for providing 
pertinent subsequent phase proposal information (e.g., statements of 
work, specifications, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation 
factors for award) must be described.
    (6) Each subsequent phase of the acquisition will be synopsized.
    (7) Notwithstanding the expectation that only the initial phase 
contractors will be capable of successfully competing for the 
subsequent phase(s), proposals from all responsible sources submitted 
by the specified due date will be considered by the agency. In order to 
contend for subsequent phase awards, however, such prospective offerors 
must demonstrate a design maturity equivalent to that of the prior 
phase contractors. Failure to fully and

[[Page 4469]]

completely demonstrate the appropriate level of design maturity may 
render the proposal unacceptable with no further consideration for 
contract award.
    (b) In addition to the information in paragraph (a) of this 
section, the synopsis for the subsequent phases, normally a combined C/
D, must identify the current phase contractors.


1834.7003-5  Progressive competition.

    (a) To streamline the major system acquisition process, the 
preferred approach for NASA phased acquisitions is the ``progressive 
competition'' down-selection technique in which new, formal 
solicitations are not issued for phases subsequent to the initial 
phase. Subsequent phase proposals are requested by less formal means, 
normally by a letter accompanied by the appropriate proposal 
preparation and evaluation information.
    (b) When using the progressive competition technique, if a 
prospective offeror other than one of the preceding phase contractors 
responds to the synopsis for a subsequent phase and indicates an 
intention to submit a proposal, the contracting officer shall provide 
to that offeror all the material furnished to the preceding phase 
contractors necessary to submit a proposal. This information includes 
the preceding phase solicitation, contracts, and system performance and 
design requirements, as well as all proposal preparation instructions 
and evaluation factors. In addition, the prospective offerors must be 
advised of all requirements necessary for demonstration of a design 
maturity equivalent to that to the preceding phase contractors.
    (c) Although a key feature of the progressive competition technique 
is that a formal solicitation is issued for the initial phase only, a 
new, formal solicitation may nonetheless be required for subsequent 
phases. When the Government requirements or evaluation procedures 
change so significantly after release of the initial phase solicitation 
that a substantial portion of the information provided in the initial 
phase synopsis, solicitation, or contract is invalidated, a new 
solicitation shall be issued for the next phase.
    (d) Phase C/D proposals should be requested by a letter including 
the following:
    (1) A specified due date for the proposals along with a statement 
that FAR 52.215-10, Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of 
Proposals, applies to this proposal due date.
    (2) Complete instructions for proposal preparation, including page 
limitations, if any.
    (3) Final evaluation factors.
    (4) Any statement of work, specifications, or other contract 
requirements that have changed since the Phase B solicitation.
    (5) All required clause changes applicable to new work effective 
since Phase B contract award.
    (6) Any representations or certifications, if required.
    (7) Any other required contract updates (e.g., Phase C/D small and 
small disadvantaged business goals).
    (e) Certain factors may clearly dictate that the progressive 
competition techniques should not be used. For example, if it is likely 
that NASA may introduce a design concept independent of those explored 
by the Phase B contractors, it is also likely that a new, formal 
solicitation is necessary for Phase C/D and all potential offerors 
should be solicited. In this circumstance, progressive competition is 
inappropriate.


1834.7004  Contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.234-70, 
Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures, in solicitations 
and contracts for phased acquisitions using down-selection procedures 
other than the progressive competition technique described in 
1834.7003-5. The clause shall be included in the solicitation for each 
phase and in all contracts except that for the final phase.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.234-71, 
Phased Acquisition Using Progressive Competition Down-Selection 
Procedures, in solicitations and contracts for phased acquisitions 
using the progressive competition technique described in 1834.7003-5. 
The clause shall be included in the initial phase solicitation and all 
contracts except that for the final phase.
    9. Part 1835 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1835--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

1835.003  Policy.
1835.015  Contracts for research with educational institutions and 
nonprofit organizations.
1835.016  Broad agency announcements.
1835.016-70  NASA Research Announcements.
1835.070  NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.

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


1835.003  Policy.

    See NPG 5800.1, Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, for 
policy regarding the use of grants and cooperative agreements.


1835.015  Contracts for research with educational institutions and 
nonprofit organizations. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a)(1)(iv) The research contract shall include a requirement that 
the contractor obtain the contracting officer's approval when it plans 
to continue the research work during a continuous period in excess of 3 
months without the participation of an approved principal investigator 
or project leader.


1835.016  Broad agency announcements. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) 
and (c))

    (a)(i) The following forms of broad agency announcements (BAAs) are 
authorized for use:
    (A) Announcements of Opportunity (see 1872).
    (B) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
    (C) Other forms of announcements approved by the Associate 
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).
    (ii) Other program announcements, notices, and letters not 
authorized by paragraph (a)(i) of this section shall not be used to 
solicit proposals that may result in contracts.
    (c) BAAs may not preclude the participation of any offeror capable 
of satisfying the Government's needs unless a justification for other 
than full and open competition is approved under FAR 6.304.


1835.016-70  NASA Research Announcements

    (a) Scope. An NRA is used to announce research interests in support 
of NASA's programs, and, after peer or scientific review using factors 
in the NRA, select proposals for funding. Unlike an RFP containing a 
statement of work or specification to which offerors are to respond, an 
NRA provides for the submission of competitive project ideas, conceived 
by the offerors, in one or more program areas of interest. An NRA shall 
not be used when the requirement is sufficiently defined to specify an 
end product or service.
    (b) Issuance. (1) Before issuance, each field-generated NRA shall 
be approved by the installation director or designee, with the 
concurrence of the

[[Page 4470]]

procurement officer, and each Headquarters-generated NRA shall be 
approved by the cognizant Program Associate Administrator or designee, 
with the concurrence of the Headquarters Offices of General Counsel 
(Code GK) and Procurement (Code HS). The NRA approval authority shall 
designate the selection official.
    (2) The selecting official shall assure that the NRA is synopsized 
prior to issuance in accordance with FAR 5.201 and 1815.201. The 
synopsis shall be brief, and the technical section describing the area 
of interest should not exceed 50 words.
    (3) If a Headquarters-generated NRA may result in awards by a NASA 
field installation, the issuing office shall notify the installation 
procurement officer and provide a copy of the NRA.
    (4) The selecting official is responsible for the preparation and 
distribution of the NRA.
    (5) NRAs normally shall remain open for at least 90 days.
    (c) Content. The NRA shall consist of the following sections and 
items. The entire package shall be provided in response to requests.
    (1) Cover. The cover shall display:
    (i) ``OMB Approval Number 2700-0087'' in the upper right corner.
    (ii) Title.
    (iii) ``NASA Research Announcement Soliciting Research Proposals 
for the Period Ending
________''.
    (iv) NRA number.
    (v) Official address for the office issuing the NRA.
    (2) Summary and Supplemental Information. (i) The Summary and 
Supplemental Information should not exceed two pages and shall include:
    (A) Title and NRA number.
    (B) Introductory paragraphs describing the purpose of the NRA and 
the period for receipt of proposals.
    (C) Address for submitting proposals.
    (D) Number of copies required.
    (E) Selecting official's title.
    (F) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers for the technical and 
contracting points of contact.
    (G) The following statement when the NRA is to be issued before 
funds are available:

    Funds are not currently available for awards under this NRA. The 
Government's obligation to make award(s) is contingent upon the 
availability of appropriated funds from which payment can be made 
and the receipt of proposals that NASA determines are acceptable for 
award under this NRA.

    (ii) The Summary and Supplemental Information may include estimates 
of the amount of funds that will be available and the number of 
anticipated awards. A breakdown of the estimates by research area may 
also be shown.
    (3) Technical Description. The first page shall contain the NRA 
number and title at the top. A brief description not exceeding two 
pages is preferable, but it should be detailed enough to enable ready 
comprehension of the research areas of interest. Specifications 
containing detailed statements of work should be avoided. Any program 
management information included must be limited to matters that are 
essential for proposal preparation.
    (4) Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements. The 
NRA shall contain instructions as stated in 1852.235-72 (see 
1835.070(c)).
    (d) Receipt of proposals, evaluation, and selection. (1) Proposals 
shall be protected as provided in 1815.508-70 and 1815.509-70.
    (2) Late proposals and modifications shall be treated in accordance 
with 1815.412-70.
    (3) The selection decision shall be made following peer or 
scientific review of a proposal. Peer or scientific review shall 
involve evaluation by an in-house specialist, a specialist outside 
NASA, or both. Evaluation by specialists outside NASA shall be 
conducted subject to the conditions in FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2. 
After receipt of a proposal and before selection, scientific or 
engineering personnel shall communicate with an offeror only for the 
purpose of clarification (as defined in FAR 15.601), or to understand 
the meaning of some aspect of the proposal that is not clear, or to 
obtain confirmation or substantiation of a proposed approach, solution, 
or cost estimate.
    (4) Competitive range determinations shall not be made, and best 
and final offers shall not be requested.
    (5) Part of a proposal may be selected unless the offeror requests 
otherwise. In addition, changes to a selected proposal may be sought if 
(i) the ideas or other aspects of the proposal on which selection is 
based are contained in the proposal as originally submitted, and are 
not introduced by the changes; and (ii) the changes sought would not 
involve a material alteration to the requirements stated in the NRA. 
Changes that would affect a proposal's selection shall not be sought. 
When changes are desired, the selecting official may request revisions 
from the offeror or request the contracting officer to implement them 
during negotiations with the successful offeror(s). The changes shall 
not transfer information from one offeror's proposal to another offeror 
(see FAR 15.610(e)(1)). When collaboration between offerors would 
improve proposed research programs, collaboration may be suggested to 
the offerors.
    (6) The basis for selection of a proposal shall be documented in a 
selection statement applying the evaluation factors in the NRA. The 
selection statement represents the conclusions of the selecting 
official and must be self-contained. It shall not incorporate by 
reference the evaluations of the reviewers.
    (7) The selecting official shall notify each offeror whose proposal 
was not selected for award and explain generally why the proposal was 
not selected. If requested, the selecting official shall arrange a 
debriefing under FAR 15.1004, with the participation of a contracting 
officer.
    (8) The selecting official shall forward to the contracting officer 
the following information:
    (i) A copy of the NRA;
    (ii) The results of the technical evaluation, including the total 
number of proposals received, the selection statement, and the 
proposal(s) selected for funding;
    (iii) A description of any changes desired in any offeror's 
statement of work, including the reasons for the changes and any effect 
on level of funding;
    (iv) If a contract will be used to fund the proposal, a description 
of deliverables, including technical reports, and delivery dates, 
consistent with the requirements of the NRA;
    (v) A procurement request;
    (vi) Comments on the offeror's cost proposal (either the selecting 
official's comments, which may be based on the reviewer's comments, or 
copies of the reviewers' comments with any different conclusions of the 
selecting official); these comments shall address the need for and 
reasonableness of travel, computer time, materials, equipment, 
subcontracted items, publication costs, labor hours, labor mix, and 
other costs; and
    (vii) A copy of the selected proposal as originally submitted, any 
revisions, and any correspondence from the successful offeror.
    (9) The selecting official may provide to the contracting officer 
copies of the reviewers' evaluations. Reviewers' names and institutions 
may be omitted.
    (10) The selecting official may provide each offeror whose proposal 
was selected for negotiation a notification stating:
    (i) The proposal has been selected for negotiation;
    (ii) The offeror's business office will be contacted by a 
contracting officer,

[[Page 4471]]

who is the only official authorized to obligate the Government; and
    (iii) Any costs incurred by the offeror in anticipation of an award 
are at the offeror's risk.
    (e) Award. The contracting officer shall choose the appropriate 
award instrument. If a contract is selected, the contracting officer 
shall----
    (1) Advise the offeror that the Government contemplates entering 
into negotiations; the type of contract contemplated; and the estimated 
award date, anticipated effort, and delivery schedule;
    (2) Send the offeror a model contract, if necessary, including 
modifications contemplated in the offeror's statement of work, and 
request agreement or identification of any exceptions (the contract 
statement of work may summarize the proposed research, state that the 
research shall be conducted in accordance with certain technical 
sections of the proposal (which shall be identified by incorporating 
them into the contract by reference), and identify any changes to the 
proposed research);
    (3) Request the offeror to complete and return certifications and 
representations and Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, 
or other appropriate forms;
    (4) Conduct negotiations in accordance with FAR subparts 15.8 and 
15.9, as applicable;
    (5) Award a contract; and
    (6) Comply with FAR subparts 4.6 and 5.3 on contract reporting and 
synopses of contract awards.
    (f) Cancellation of an NRA. when program changes, program funding, 
or any other reasons require cancellation of an NRA, the office issuing 
the NRA shall notify potential offerors by using the mailing list of 
the NRA.


1835.070  NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.235-70, 
Center for AeroSpace Information, in all research and development 
contracts and in cost-reimbursement supply contracts involving research 
and development work.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.235-71, 
Key Personnel and Facilities, in contracts when source selection has 
been substantially predicated upon the possession by a given offer or 
of special capabilities, as represented by key personnel or facilities.
    (c) The contracting officer shall ensure that the provision at 
1852.235-72, Instructions for Responding to NASA Research 
Announcements, is inserted in all NRAs. The instructions may be 
supplemented, but only to the minimum extent necessary.
    10. Part 1836 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1836--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

Subpart 1836.2--Special Aspects of Contracting for construction

Sec.
1836.203  Government estimate of construction costs.
1836.209  Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

Subpart 1836.3--Special Aspects Sealed Bidding in Construction 
Contracts

1836.303  Invitations for bids.
1836.303-70  Additive and deductive items.
1836.304  Notice of Award.

Subpart 1836.5--Contract Clauses

1836.570  NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause.

Subpart 1836.6--Architect-Engineer Services

1836.602  Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
1836.602-1  Selection criteria.
1836.602-2  Evaluation boards.
1836.602-4  Selection authority.
1836.602-5  Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the 
simplified acquisition threshold.
1836.602-70  Selection of architect-engineers for master planning.
1836.603  Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
1836.605  Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work.

Subpart 1836.7--Standard and Optional Forms for Contracting for 
Construction, Architect-Engineer Services, and Dismantling, 
Demolition, or Removal of Improvements

1836.702  Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer 
services.

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

Subpart 1836.2--Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction


1836.203  Government estimate of construction costs. (NASA supplements 
paragraph (c))

    (c)(i) If the acquisition is by sealed bidding, the contracting 
officer shall file a sealed copy of the detailed Government estimate 
with the bids until bid opening. After the bids are read and recorded, 
the contracting officer shall read the estimate, and record it in the 
same detail as the bids.
    (ii) If the acquisition is by negotiation, the contracting officer 
may disclose the overall amount of the Government estimate after award 
upon request of offerors.


1836.209  Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

    (1) Except as indicated in paragraph (2) of this section, the 
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is the approval 
authority.
    (2) A construction contract may be awarded to the firm that 
designed the project (or its subsidiaries or affiliates) if the 
contract is awarded on the basis of performance specifications for the 
construction of a facility, and it requires the contractor to furnish 
construction drawings, specifications, or site adaptation drawings of 
the facility.
    (3) In no case shall the firm that prepared the drawings and 
specifications supervise and inspect, on behalf of the Government, the 
construction of the facility involved.

Subpart 1836.3--Special Aspects of Sealed Bidding in Construction 
Contracts


1836.303  Invitations for bids.


1836.303-70  Additive and deductive items.

    When it appears that funds available for a project may be 
insufficient for all the desired features of construction, the 
contracting officer may provide in the invitation for bids for a first 
or base bid item covering the work generally as specified and one or 
more additive or deductive bid items progressively adding or omitting 
specified features of the work in a stated order of priority. In such 
case, the contracting officer, before the opening of bids, shall record 
in the contract file the amount of funds available for the project and 
determine the low bidder and the items to be awarded in accordance with 
the provision at 1852.236-71, Additive or Deductive Items.


1836.304  Notice of Award (NASA supplements paragraph (e))

    (e) Contract delivery or performance schedules, commencement of 
work, or notices to proceed shall not be expressed in terms of a notice 
of award (See 1814.408-1).

Subpart 1836.5--Contract Clauses


1836.570  NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
71, Additive or Deductive Items, in invitations for bids for 
construction when it is desired to add or deduct bid items to meet 
available funding.

[[Page 4472]]

    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
72, Bids with Unit Prices, in invitations for bids for construction 
when the invitation contemplates unit prices of items.
    (c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.236-73, 
Hurricane Plan, in solicitations and contracts for construction at 
sites that experience hurricanes.
    (d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-
74, Magnitude of Requirement, in solicitations for construction. Insert 
the appropriate estimated dollar range in accordance with FAR 36.204.

Subpart 1836.6--Architect-Engineer Services


1836.602  Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.


1836.602-1  Selection criteria. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a)(2) The evaluation of specialized experience and technical 
competence shall be limited to the immediately preceding ten years.
    (4) The evaluation of past performance shall be limited to the 
immediately preceding ten years.
    (7) The architect-engineer selection board may also establish 
evaluation criteria regarding the volume of work previously awarded to 
the firm by NASA, with the object of effecting an equitable 
distribution of contracts among qualified architect-engineer firms, 
including minority-owned firms and firms that have not had prior NASA 
contracts.


1836.602-2  Evaluation boards. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) Installations shall establish an architect-engineer selection 
board to be composed of the selection authority and at least three 
voting members. Membership shall at least include: one currently 
registered architect or professional engineer, who shall serve as the 
board chairperson; an official from the requiring office; if 
appropriate, a technical official familiar with any unique subject 
matter critical to the requirement; and a procurement official (a 
contracting officer, if feasible) as an ad hoc advisor to the board. 
Where appropriate, the procurement official may serve as a voting 
member. Non-Government employees shall not be appointed as voting 
members.


1836.602-4  Selection authority. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) The selection authority shall be appointed in accordance with 
installation procedures.


1836.602-5  Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the 
simplified acquisition threshold.

    The procedures at FAR 36.602-5 (a) or (b) may be used at the 
discretion of the selection authority.


1836.602-70  Selection of architect-engineers for master planning. 
(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a) Definition of master plan. A master plan is an integrated 
series of documents presenting in graphic, narrative, and tabular form 
the present composition of the installation and the plan for its 
orderly and comprehensive development to perform its various missions 
in the most efficient and economical manner.
    (b) Selection.
    (1) Selection of an Architect-Engineer for the development of a 
master plan in connection with the establishment of a new NASA activity 
or installation shall be made by the Associate Administrator having 
institutional responsibility. The report of the architect-engineer 
selection board will be concurred in at NASA Headquarters by the 
Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities, the 
Associate Administrator for Procurement, the Chief Financial Officer, 
and the General Counsel.
    (2) The Associate Administrator for Management Systems and 
Facilities shall be responsible for the architect-engineer selection 
board report required by FAR 36.602-3(d) before presentation to the 
Associate Administrator having institutional responsibility.


1836.603  Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.

    The architect-engineer selection boards (see 1836.602-2) are 
designated as NASA's evaluation boards for the purposes of FAR 36.603.


1836.605  Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work. (NASA 
supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) The contracting officer may disclose the overall amount of the 
Government estimate after award upon request of offerors.

Subpart 1836.7--Standard and Optional Forms for Contracting for 
Construction, Architect-Engineer Services, and Dismantling, 
Demolition, or Removal of Improvements


1836.702  Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services. 
(NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a)(i) Instructions for completing Standard Form 252, Architect-
Engineer Contract, are as follows:
    (a) Block 5-Project Title and Location. Include a short description 
of the construction project and the estimated cost of constructing the 
facilities for the project. If the space provided is insufficient, 
include a more detailed description in the contract's specification/
work statement and identify the location of the more detailed 
description in Block 10.
    (b) Block 6-Contract For (General description of services to be 
provided). Include a brief description of the services and state that 
the are fully set out in the specification/work statement. Clearly 
specify the date by which design services must be completed. If 
supervision and inspection services during construction are to be 
acquired, clearly specify the date by which they must be completed and 
add a statement that the Government may extend the period for their 
performance as provided in the Changes clause of the contract.
    (c) Block 7-Contract Amount. If the contract is for both design and 
supervision and inspection services, set out the amounts for each 
effort separately.
    (ii) The services to be furnished by an architect-engineer should 
be carefully defined during negotiation of the contract and a statement 
of them inserted in the contract's specification/work statement. The 
statement should clearly and concisely set forth the nature and extent 
of the services and include any special services, such as the nature 
and extent of subsurface exploration prior to designing foundations. A 
similar statement of supervision and inspection services should be 
inserted in the specification/work statement if supervision and 
inspection services are to be acquired.
    11. Part 1837 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1837--SERVICE CONTRACTING

Subpart 1837.1--Service Contracts--General

Sec.
1837.101  Definitions.
1837.102  Policy.
1837.102-70  NASA policy.
1837.104  Personal services contracts.
1837.110  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1837.110-70  NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses.
1837.170  Pension portability.

Subpart  1837.2--Advisory and Assistance Services

1837.203  Policy.
1837.204  Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.

[[Page 4473]]

Subpart 1837.70--Acquisition of Training

1837.7000  Acquisition of off-the-shelf training courses.
1837.7001  Acquisition of new training courses.

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

Subpart 1837.1--Service Contracts--General


1837.101  Definitions.

    Pension portability means the recognition and continuation in a 
successor service contract of the predecessor service contract 
employees' pension rights and benefits.


1837.102  Policy.


1837.102-70   NASA Policy.

    To the maximum extent practicable, contracting officers shall 
acquire services on a performance based contracting basis.


1837.104  Personal services contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) Section 203(c)(9) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(9)) authorizes NASA ``to obtain services as 
authorized by Section 3109 of Title 5, United States Code.'' It is NASA 
policy to obtain the personal services of experts and consultants by 
appointment rather than by contract. The policies, responsibilities, 
and procedures pertaining to the appointment of experts and consultants 
are in NMI 3304.1G.


1837.110  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.


1837.110-70  NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-70, 
Emergency Evacuation Procedures, in solicitations and contracts for on-
site support services where emergency evacuations of the NASA 
installation may occur, e.g., snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, 
or other emergencies.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-71, 
Pension Portability, in solicitations, contracts or negotiated contract 
modifications for additional work when the procurement officer makes 
the determination in 1837.170(a)(2).
    (c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.237-
72, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, in cost reimbursement 
level-of-effort contracts expected to exceed $1,000,000.


1837.170  Pension portability.

    (a) It is NASA's policy not to require pension portability in 
service contracts. However, pension portability requirements may be 
included in solicitations, contracts, or contract modifications for 
additional work under the following conditions:
    (1)(i) There is a continuing need for the same or similar services 
for a minimum of five years (inclusive of options), and, if the 
contractor changes, a high percentage of the predecessor contractor's 
employees are expected to remain with the program; or
    (ii) The employees under a predecessor contract were covered by a 
portable pension plan, a follow-on contract or a contract consolidating 
existing services is awarded, and the total contract period covered by 
the plan covers a minimum of five years (including both the predecessor 
and successor contracts); and
    (2) The procurement officer determines in writing, with full 
supporting rationale, that such a requirement is in the Government's 
best interest. The procurement officer shall maintain a record of all 
such determinations.
    (b) When pension portability is required, the plan shall comply 
with the requirements of the clause at 1852.237-71, Pension 
Portability, (see 1837.110-70(b)), and the contract shall also include 
a clear description of the plan, including service, pay, liabilities, 
vesting, termination, and benefits from prior contracts.

Subpart 1837.2--Advisory and Assistance Services


1837.203  Policy. (NASA supplements paragraph (c))

    (c) Advisory and assistance services of individual experts and 
consultants shall normally be obtained by appointment rather than by 
contract (see NMI 3304.1, Employment of Experts and Consultants).


1837.204  Guidelines for determining availability of personnel. (NASA 
supplements paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e))

    (a)(i) Outside peer review evaluators may be used to evaluate SBIR, 
STTR, NRA, AO, and unsolicited proposals without making the 
determination of non-availability.
    (ii) For all other actions, the NASA official one level above the 
NASA program official responsible for the evaluation shall make the 
determination, with the concurrence of the legal office. The 
contracting officer shall ensure that a copy of the determination is in 
the contract file prior to issuance of a solicitation.
    (b) The official designated in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section is 
responsible for the actions required in FAR 37.204(b).
    (c) The agreement shall be made by the program official responsible 
for the evaluation and the contracting officer.
    (e) The Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is the 
approval authority for class determinations. The class determination 
request shall include the assessment required by FAR 37.204(b).

Subpart 1837.70--Acquisition of Training


1837.7000  Acquisition of off-the-shelf training courses.

    The Training Act of 1958 (5 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) may be used as the 
authority for training of NASA employees by, in, or through non-
Government off-the-shelf training courses which are available to the 
public. These include established university catalog courses or 
commercial course offerings that are offered to the general public at 
catalog or market prices.


1837.7001  Acquisition of new training courses.

    The acquisition of a new training course that must be developed to 
fulfill a specific NASA need shall be conducted in accordance with the 
FAR and the NFS.
    12. Part 1839 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1839--ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Subpart 1829.1--General

Sec.
1839.105  Privacy.
1839.106  Contract clause.
1839.106-70  NASA contract clause.

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

Subpart 1839.1--General.


1839.105  Privacy.

    See 1804.470.


1839.106  Contract clause.


1839.106-70  NASA contract clause.

    (a)(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause 
substantially as stated at 1852.239-70, Alternate Delivery Points, in 
solicitations and contracts for information technology when:

[[Page 4474]]

    (i) An indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract will be 
used or when the contract will include options for additional 
quantities; and
    (ii) Delivery is F.O.B. destination to the contracting activity.
    (2) When delivery is F.O.B. origin and Government bills of lading 
(GBL) are used, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its 
Alternate I.
    13. Part 1841 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1841--ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES

Subpart 1841.2--Acquiring Utility Services

Sec.
1841.203  GSA assistance.
1841.205  Separate contracts.
1841.205-70  Authorization for acquisition of wellhead natural gas.

Subpart 1841.3--Requests for Assistance

1841.301  Requirements.

Subpart 1841.4--Administration

1841.402  Rate changes and regulatory intervention.

Subpart 1841.5--Solicitation Provision and Contract Clauses

1841.501  Solicitation provision and contract clauses.
1841.501-70  NASA contract clause.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

Subpart 1841.2--Acquiring Utility Services


1841.203  GSA assistance. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) Before soliciting technical assistance, technical personnel 
shall contact the Headquarters Environmental Management Division (Code 
JE).


1841.205   Separate contracts.


1841.205-70  Authorization for acquisition of wellhead natural gas.

    (a) Acquisition of wellhead natural gas and interstate 
transportation of the natural gas to locally franchised distribution 
utility companies' receipt points (city gate) is considered the 
acquisition of supplies rather than the acquisition of public utility 
services described in FAR Part 41. Therefore, wellhead natural gas and 
interstate transportation of such gas should be obtained directly by 
NASA under applicable authorities and FAR procedures governing the 
acquisition of supplies. Redelivery of the gas from the city gate to 
the NASA facility is considered a utility service since it is provided 
only by the locally franchised utility. GSA is responsible for 
obtaining an appropriate contract for the redelivery service in 
accordance with FAR 41.204.
    (b) GSA provides assistance to Federal agencies in the acquisition 
of natural gas wellhead supplies. Contracting officers may obtain 
assistance from GSA in the acquisition of wellhead natural gas by 
contacting GSA at the address specified in FAR 41.301(a).

Subpart 1841.3--Requests for Assistance


1841.301   Requirements. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) Procurement officers shall submit requests for delegation of 
contracting authority directly to the cognizant GSA regional office 
after coordinating with the cognizant center technical office.

Subpart 1841.4--Administration


1841.402  Rate changes and regulatory intervention. (NASA supplements 
paragraph (b))

    (b) A copy of all correspondence with GSA shall be provided to the 
Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HS) at the time of its 
submittal to the GSA regional office.

Subpart 1841.5--Solicitation Provision and Contract Clauses


1841.501  Solicitation provision and contract clauses.


1841.501-70  NASA contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.241-70, 
Renewal of Contract, in solicitations and contracts for utility 
services if it is desirable that the utility service be provided under 
the same terms and conditions for more than 1 year.

PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


1852.231-71   [Added]

    14.-15. Section 1852.231-71 is added to read as follows:


1852.231-71   Determination of Compensation Reasonableness.

    As prescribed at 1831.205-671, insert the following provision.

Determination of Compensation Reasonableness (March 1994)

    (a) The proposal shall include a total compensation plan. This plan 
shall address all proposed labor categories, including those personnel 
subject to union agreements, the Service Contract Act, and those exempt 
from both of the above. The total compsensation plan shall include the 
salaries/wages, fringe benefits and leave programs proposed for each of 
these categories of labor. The plan also shall include a discussion of 
the consistency of the plan among the categories of labor being 
proposed. Differences between benefits offered professional and non-
professional employees shall be highlighted. The requirements of this 
plan may be combined with that required by the clause at FAR 52.222-46, 
``Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.''
    (b) The offeror shall provide written support to demonstrate that 
its proposed compensation is reasonable.
    (c) The offeror shall include the rationale for any conformance 
procedures used or those Service Contract Act employees proposed that 
do not fail within the scope of any classification listed in the 
applicable wage determination.
    (d) The offeror shall require all service subcontractors (1) with 
proposed cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type 
subcontracts having a total potential value in excess of $500,000 and 
(2) the cumulative value of all their service subcontracts under the 
proposed prime contract in excess of 10 percent of the prime contract's 
total potential value, provide as part of their proposals the 
information identified in (a) through (c) of this provision.
(End of provision)


1852.234-70   [Amended]

    16. In section 1852.234-70, the section heading and clause title 
``Phased Procurement Using Down-Selection Procedures'' is revised to 
read ``Phased Acquisition Using Down-Selection Procedures''.
    17. In the introductory text to section 1852.234-70, the citation 
``1834.005-170 (a)'' is revised to read ``1834.7004(a)'' and the word 
``procurements'' is revised to read ``acquisitions''.


1852.234-71   [Amended]

    18. In section 1852.234-71, the section heading and clause title 
``Phased Procurement Using Progressive Competition Down-Selection 
Procedures'' is revised to read ``Phased Acquisition Using Progressive 
Competition Down-Selection Procedures''.
    19. In the introductory text to section 1852.234-71, the citation 
``1834.005-170 (b)'' is revised to read ``1834.7004(b)'' and the word 
``procurements'' is revised to read ``acquisitions''.

[[Page 4475]]

1852.235-72   [Amended]

    20. Section 1852.235-72 is revised to read as follow:


1852.235-72   Instructions for responding to NASA Research 
Announcements.

    As prescribed in 1835.070(c), insert the following provision:

Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements (January 
1997)

    (a) General.
    (1) Proposals received in response to a NASA Research 
Announcement (NRA) will be used only for evaluation purposes. NASA 
does not allow a proposal, the contents of which are not available 
without restriction from another source, or any unique ideas 
submitted in response to an NRA to be used as the basis of a 
solicitation or in negotiation with other organizations, nor is a 
pre-award synopsis published for individual proposals.
    (2) A solicited proposal that results in a NASA award becomes 
part of the record of that transaction and may be available to the 
public on specific request; however, information or material that 
NASA and the awardee mutually agree to be of a privileged nature 
will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, including 
the Freedom of Information Act.
    (3) NRAs contain programmatic information and certain 
requirements which apply only to proposals prepared in response to 
that particular announcement. These instructions contain the general 
proposal preparation information which applies to responses to all 
NRAs.
    (4) A contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement 
may be used to accomplish an effort funded in response to an NRA. 
NASA will determine the appropriate instrument. Contracts resulting 
from NRAs are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the 
NASA FAR Supplement. Any resultant grants or cooperative agreements 
will be awarded and administered in accordance with the NASA Grant 
and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (NPG 5800.1).
    (5) NASA does not have mandatory forms or formats for responses 
to NRAs; however, it is requested that proposals conform to the 
guidelines in these instructions. NASA may accept proposals without 
discussion; hence, proposals should initially be as complete as 
possible and be submitted on the proposers' most favorable terms.
    (6) To be considered for award, a submission must, at a minimum, 
present a specific project within the areas delineated by the NRA; 
contain sufficient technical and cost information to permit a 
meaningful evaluation; be signed by an official authorized to 
legally bind the submitting organization; not merely offer to 
perform standard services or to just provide computer facilities or 
services; and not significantly duplicate a more specific current or 
pending NASA solicitation.
    (b) NRA-Specific Items. Several proposal submission items appear 
in the NRA itself: the unique NRA identifier; when to submit 
proposals; where to send proposals; number of copies required; and 
sources for more information. Items included in these instructions 
may be supplemented by the NRA.
    (c) The following information is needed to permit consideration 
in an objective manner. NRAs will generally specify topics for which 
additional information or greater detail is desirable. Each proposal 
copy shall contain all submitted material, including a copy of the 
transmittal letter if it contains substantive information.
    (1) Transmittal Letter or Prefatory Material.
    (i) The legal name and address of the organization and specific 
division or campus identification if part of a larger organization;
    (ii) A brief, scientifically valid project title intelligible to 
a scientifically literate reader and suitable for use in the public 
press;
    (iii) Type of organization: e.g., profit, nonprofit, 
educational, small business, minority, women-owned, etc;
    (iv) Name and telephone number of the principal investigator and 
business personnel who may be contacted during evaluation or 
negotiation;
    (v) Identification of other organizations that are currently 
evaluating a proposal for the same efforts;
    (vi) Identification of the NRA, by number and title, to which 
the proposal is responding;
    (vii) Dollar amount requested, desired starting date, and 
duration of project;
    (viii) Date of submission; and
    (ix) Signature of a responsible official or authorized 
representative of the organization, or any other person authorized 
to legally bind the organization (unless the signature appears on 
the proposal itself).
    (2) Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal Information. 
Information contained in proposals is used for evaluation purposes 
only. Offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of 
trade secrets or other information that is confidential or 
privileged, place the following notice on the title page of the 
proposal and specify the information subject to the notice by 
inserting an appropriate identification in the notice. In any event, 
information contained in proposals will be protected to the extent 
permitted by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and 
disclosure of information not made subject to the notice.

Notice--Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal Information

    The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or 
other identification] of this proposal constitutes a trade secret 
and/or information that is commercial or financial and confidential 
or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in confidence with 
the understanding that it will not, without permission of the 
offeror, be used or disclosed other than for evaluation purposes; 
provided, however, that in the event a contract (or other agreement) 
is awarded on the basis of this proposal the Government shall have 
the right to use and disclose this information (data) to the extent 
provided in the contract (or other agreement). This restriction does 
not limit the Government's right to use or disclose this information 
(data0 if obtained from another source without restriction.
    (3) Abstract. Include a concise (200-300 word if not otherwise 
specified in the NRA) abstract describing the objective and the 
method of approach.
    (4) Project Description.
    (i) The main body of the proposal shall be a detailed statement 
of the work to be undertaken and should include objectives and 
expected significance; relation to the present state of knowledge; 
and relation to previous work done on the project and to related 
work in progress elsewhere. The statement should outline the plan of 
work, including the broad design of experiments to be undertaken and 
a description of experimental methods and procedures. The project 
description should address the evaluation factors in these 
instructions and any specific factors in the NRA. Any substantial 
collaboration with individuals not referred to in the budget or use 
of consultants should be described. Subcontracting significant 
portions of a research project is discouraged.
    (ii) When it is expected that the effort will require more than 
one year, the proposal should cover the complete project to the 
extent that it can be reasonably anticipated. Principal emphasis 
should be on the first year of work, and the description should 
distinguish clearly between the first year's work and work planned 
for subsequent years.
    (5) Management Approach. For large or complex efforts involving 
interactions among numerous individuals or other organizations, 
plans for distribution of responsibilities and arrangements for 
ensuring a coordinated effort should be described.
    (6) Personnel. The principal investigator is responsible for 
supervision of the work and participates in the conduct of the 
research regardless of whether or not compensated under the award. A 
short biographical sketch of the principal investigator, a list of 
principal publications and any exceptional qualifications should be 
included. Omit social security number and other personal items which 
do not merit consideration in evaluation of the proposal. Give 
similar biographical information on other senior professional 
personnel who will be directly associated with the project. Give the 
names and titles of any other scientists and technical personnel 
associated substantially with the project in an advisory capacity. 
Universities should list the approximate number of students or other 
assistants, together with information as to their level of academic 
attainment. Any special industry-university cooperative arrangements 
should be described.
    (7) Facilities and Equipment.
    (i) Describe available facilities and major items of equipment 
especially adapted or suited to the proposed project, and any 
additional major equipment that will be required. Identify any 
Government-owned facilities, industrial plant equipment, or special 
tooling that are proposed for use. Include evidence of its 
availability and the cognizant Government points of contact.
    (ii) Before requesting a major item of capital equipment, the 
proposer should determine if sharing or loan of equipment already 
within the organization is a feasible alternative. Where such 
arrangements cannot be made, the proposal should so state. The need 
for items that typically can be used for

[[Page 4476]]

research and non-research purposes should be explained.
    (8) Proposed Costs
    (i) Proposals should contain cost and technical parts in one 
volume: do not use separate ``confidential'' salary pages. As 
applicable, include separate cost estimates for salaries and wages; 
fringe benefits; equipment; expendable materials and supplies; 
services; domestic and foreign travel; ADP expenses; publication or 
page charges; consultants; subcontracts; other miscellaneous 
identifiable direct costs; and indirect costs. List salaries and 
wages in appropriate organizational categories (e.g., principal 
investigator, other scientific and engineering professionals, 
graduate students, research assistants, and technicians and other 
non-professional personnel). Estimate all staffing data in terms of 
staff-months or fractions of full-time.
    (ii) Explanatory notes should accompany the cost proposal to 
provide identification and estimated cost of major capital equipment 
items to be acquired; purpose and estimated number and lengths of 
trips planned; basis for indirect cost computation (including date 
of most recent negotiation and cognizant agency); and clarification 
of other items in the cost proposal that are not self-evident. List 
estimated expenses as yearly requirements by major work phases.
    (iii) Allowable costs are governed by FAR Part 31 and the NASA 
FAR Supplement Part 1831 (and OMB Circulars A-21 for educational 
institutions and A-122 for nonprofit organizations).
    (9) Security. Proposals should not contain security classified 
material. If the research requires access to or may generate 
security classified information, the submitter will be required to 
comply with Government security regulations.
    (10) Current Support. For other current projects being conducted 
by the principal investigator, provide title of project, sponsoring 
agency, and ending date.
    (11) Special Matters.
    (i) Include any required statements of environmental impact of 
the research, human subject or animal care provisions, conflict of 
interest, or on such other topics as may be required by the nature 
of the effort and current statutes, executive orders, or other 
current Government-wide guidelines.
    (ii) Proposers should include a brief description of the 
organization, its facilities, and previous work experience in the 
field of the proposal. Identify the cognizant Government audit 
agency, inspection agency, and administrative contracting officer, 
when applicable.
    (d) Renewal Proposals.
    (1) Renewal proposals for existing awards will be considered in 
the same manner as proposals for new endeavors. A renewal proposal 
should not repeat all of the information that was in the original 
proposal. The renewal proposal should refer to its predecessor, 
update the parts that are no longer current, and indicate what 
elements of the research are expected to be covered during the 
period for which support is desired. A description of any 
significant findings since the most recent progress report should be 
included. The renewal proposal should treat, in reasonable detail, 
the plans for the next period, contain a cost estimate, and 
otherwise adhere to these instructions.
    (2) NASA may renew an effort either through amendment of an 
existing contract or by a new award.
    (e) Length. Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, effort should 
be made to keep proposals as brief as possible, concentrating on 
substantive material. Few proposals need exceed 15-20 pages. 
Necessary detailed information, such as reprints, should be included 
as attachments. A complete set of attachments is necessary for each 
copy of the proposal. As proposals are not returned, avoid use of 
``one-of-a-kind'' attachments.
    (f) Joint Proposals.
    (1) Where multiple organizations are involved, the proposal may 
be submitted by only one of them. It should clearly describe the 
role to be played by the other organizations and indicate the legal 
and managerial arrangements contemplated. In other instances, 
simultaneous submission of related proposals from each organization 
might be appropriate, in which case parallel awards would be made.
    (2) Where a project of a cooperative nature with NASA is 
contemplated, describe the contributions expected from any 
participating NASA investigator and agency facilities or equipment 
which may be required. The proposal must be confined only to that 
which the proposing organization can commit itself. ``Joint'' 
proposals which specify the internal arrangements NASA will actually 
make are not acceptable as a means of establishing an agency 
commitment.
    (g) Late Proposals. A proposal or modification received after 
the date or dates specified in an NRA may be considered if doing so 
is in the best interests of the Government.
    (h) Withdrawal. Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at 
any time before award. Offerors are requested to notify NASA if the 
proposal is funded by another organization or of other changed 
circumstances which dictate termination of evaluation.
    (i) Evaluation Factors
    (1) Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, the principal 
elements (of approximately equal weight) considered in evaluating a 
proposal are its relevance to NASA's objectives, intrinsic merit, 
and cost.
    (2) Evaluation of a proposal's relevance to NASA's objectives 
includes the consideration of the potential contribution of the 
effort to NASA's mission.
    (3) Evaluation of its intrinsic merit includes the consideration 
of the following factors of equal importance:
    (i) Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal or 
unique and innovative methods, approaches, or concepts demonstrated 
by the proposal.
    (ii) Offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, 
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral 
factors for achieving the proposal objectives.
    (iii) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the 
proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel 
critical in achieving the proposal objectives.
    (iv) Overall standing among similar proposals and/or evaluation 
against the state-of-the-art.
    (4) Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort may include the 
realism and reasonableness of the proposed cost and available funds.
    (j) Evaluation Techniques. Selection decisions will be made 
following peer and/or scientific review of the proposals. Several 
evaluation techniques are regularly used within NASA. In all cases 
proposals are subject to scientific review by discipline specialists 
in the area of the proposal. Some proposals are reviewed entirely 
in-house, others are evaluated by a combination of in-house and 
selected external reviewers, while yet others are subject to the 
full external peer review technique (with due regard for conflict-
of-interest and protection of proposal information), such as by mail 
or through assembled panels. The final decisions are made by a NASA 
selecting official. A proposal which is scientifically and 
programmatically meritorious, but not selected for award during its 
initial review, may be included in subsequent reviews unless the 
proposer requests otherwise.
    (k) Selection for Award.
    (1) When a proposal is not selected for award, the proposer will 
be notified. NASA will explain generally why the proposal was not 
selected. Proposers desiring additional information may contact the 
selecting official who will arrange a debriefing.
    (2) When a proposal is selected for award, negotiation and award 
will be handled by the procurement office in the funding 
installation. The proposal is used as the basis for negotiation. The 
contracting officer may request certain business data and may 
forward a model award instrument and other information pertinent to 
negotiation.
    (l) Cancellation of NRA. NASA reserves the right to make no 
awards under this NRA and to cancel this NRA. NASA assumes no 
liability for canceling the NRA or for anyone's failure to receive 
actual notice of cancellation.


1852.236-71  [Amended]

    21. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-71, the citation 
``1836.370(a)'' is revised to read ``1836.570(a)''.


1852.236-72  [Amended]

    22. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-72, the citation 
``1836.370(b)'' is revised to read ``1836.570(b)''.


1852.236-73  [Amended]

    23. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-73, the citation 
``1836.570-1'' is revised to read ``1836.570(c)''.


1852.236-74  [Amended]

    24. In the introductory text to section 1852.236-74, the citation 
``1836.570-2'' is revised to read ``1836.570(d)''.


1852.237-70  [Amended]

    25. In the introductory text to section 1852.237-70, the citation 
``1837.110-70'' is revised to read ``1837.110-70(a)''.

[[Page 4477]]

1852.237-71, 1852.237-72  [Amended]

    26. Sections 1852.237-71 and 1852.237-72 are revised to read as 
follows:


1852.237-71  Pension Portability.

    As prescribed at 1837.110-70(b), insert the following clause:

Pension Portability, January 1997

    (a) In order for pension costs attributable to employees 
assigned to this contract to be allowable costs under this contract, 
the plans covering such employees must:
    (1) Comply with all applicable Government laws and regulations;
    (2) Be a defined contribution plan, or a multiparty defined 
benefit plan operated under a collective bargaining agreement. In 
either case, the plan must be portable, i.e., the plan follows the 
employee, not the employer;
    (3) Provide for 100 percent employee vesting at the earlier of 
one year of continuous employee service or contract termination; and
    (4) Not be modified, terminated, or a new plan adopted without 
the prior written approval of the cognizant NASA Contracting 
Officer.
    (b) The Contractor shall include paragraph (a) of this clause in 
subcontracts for continuing services under a service contract if:
    (1) The prime contract requires pension portability;
    (2) The subcontracted labor dollars (excluding any burdens or 
profit/fee) exceed $2,500,000 and ten percent of the total prime 
contract labor dollars (excluding any burdens or profit/fee); and
    (3) Either of the following conditions exists:
    (i) There is a continuing need for the same or similar 
subcontract services for a minimum of five years (inclusive of 
options), and if the subcontractor changes, a high percentage of the 
predecessor subcontractor's employees are expected to remain with 
the program; or
    (ii) The employees under a predecessor subcontract were covered 
by a portable pension plan, a follow-on subcontract or a subcontract 
consolidating existing services is awarded, and the total 
subcontract period covered by the plan covers a minimum of five 
years (including both the predecessor and successor subcontracts).

(End of clause)


1852.237-72  Identification of Uncompensated Overtime.

    As prescribed in 1837.110-70(c), insert the following provision:

Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, January 1997

    The use of uncompensated overtime is neither encouraged nor 
discouraged. When the proposed uncompensated overtime is consistent 
with an officer's written policies and practices, NASA will consider 
it in proposal evaluation, including the evaluation of cost and of 
professional compensation.
    (a) Definitions. As used in this provision:
    ``Uncompensated overtime'' means the hours worked in excess of 
an average of 40 hours per week, by direct charge employees who are 
exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) without additional 
compensation. Compensated personal absences, such as holidays, 
vacations, and sick leave shall be included in the normal work week 
for purposes of computing uncompensated overtime hours.
    ``Effective hourly rate'' is the rate that results from 
multiplying the hourly rate for a 40-hour work week by 40, and then 
dividing by the proposed hours per week. For example, 45 hours 
proposed on a 40-hour work seek basis at $20.00 per hour would be 
converted to an effective hourly rate of $17.78 per hour 
[($20.00 x 40) divided by 45=$17.78].
    (b) For any hours proposed against which an effective hourly 
rate is applied, the Offeror shall identify in its proposal the 
hours in excess of an average of 40 hours per week, at the same 
level of detail as compensated hours, and the effective hourly rate, 
whether at the prime or subcontract level. This includes 
uncompensated overtime hours that are in indirect cost pools for 
personnel whose regular hours are normally charged direct. The 
proposal shall include the rationale and methodology used to 
estimate the proposed amount of uncompensated overtime.
    (c) The Offeror's accounting practices used to estimate 
uncompensated overtime must be consistent with its cost accounting 
practices used to accumulate and report uncompensated overtime 
hours.
    (d) The Offeror shall include with its proposal a copy of its 
policy addressing uncompensated overtime, a description of the 
timekeeping and accounting systems used to record all hours worked 
by FLSA-exempt employees, and the historical basis for the 
uncompensated overtime hours proposed.

(End of provision)


1852.239-70  [Amended]

    27. In the introductory text to section 1852.239-70, the citation 
``1839.7008(a)'' is revised to read ``1836.106(a)(1)''.
    28. In the introductory text to Alternate I of section 1852.239-70, 
the citation ``1839.7008(b)'' is revised to read ``1839.106-70(a)(2)''.


1852.241-70  [Amended]

    29. In the introductory text to section 1852.241-70, the citation 
``1841.501(b)'' is revised to read ``1841.501-70''.

PART 1870--NASA SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS

Subpart 1870.2--[Removed]

    30. Subpart 1870.2 is removed.

Subpart 1870.5--[Removed]

    31. Subpart 1870.5 is removed.

PART 1871--MIDDRANGE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES


1871.406-1  [Amended]

    32. In section 1871.401-6, paragraph (a)(2) is revised and a new 
paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:


1871.401-6  Commercial Items.

    (a) * * *
    (2) MidRange procedures shall also be used, to the extent 
applicable, for commercial item acquisitions accomplished under FAR 
subpart 13.6, Test Program for Certain Commercial Items.
    (3) Contract type shall be in accordance with FAR 12.207.

PART 1872--[ADDED]

    33. Part 1872 is added to read as follows:

PART 1872--ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS

Sec.
1872.000  Scope of part.

Subpart 1872.1--The Investigation Acquisition System

1872.101  General.
1872.102  Key features of the system.
1872.103  Management responsibilities.

Subpart 1872.2--Applicability of the Process

1872.201  General.
1872.202  Criteria for determining applicability.
1872.203  Applicable programs and activities.
1872.204  Approval.

Subpart 1872.3--The Announcement of Opportunity

1872.301  General.
1872.302  Preparatory effort.
1872.303  Responsibilities.
1872.304  Proposal opportunity period.
1872.305  Guidelines for announcement of opportunity.
1872.306  Announcement of opportunity soliciting foreign 
participation.
1872.307  Guidelines for proposal preparation.

Subpart 1872.4--Evaluation of Proposals

1872.401  General.
1872.402  Criteria for evaluation.
1872.403  Methods of evaluation.
1872.403-1  Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.
1872.403-2  Contractor evaluation process.
1872.403-3  Government evaluation process.
1872.404  Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.
1872.405  Program office evaluation.
1872.406  Steering committee review.
1872.407  Principles to apply.

[[Page 4478]]

Subpart 1872.5--The Selection Process

1872.501  General.
1872.502  Decisions to be made.
1872.503  The selection statement.
1872.504  Notification of proposers.
1872.505  Debriefing.

Subpart 1872.6--Payload Formulation

1872.601  Payload formulation.

Subpart 1872.7--Acquisition and Other Considerations

1872.701  Early involvement essential.
1872.702  Negotiation, discussions and contract award.
1872.703  Applications of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
and the NASA FAR Supplement.
1872.704  Other administrative and functional requirements.
1872.705  Format of announcement of opportunity.
1872.705-1  Appendix A: General instructions and provisions.
1872.705-2  Appendix B: Guidelines for proposal preparation.
1872.705-3  Appendix C: Glossary of terms and abbreviations 
associated with investigations.

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


1872.000  Scope of part.

    This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of 
investigations.

Subpart 1872.1--The Investigation Acquisition System


1872.101  General.

    The investigation acquisition system encourages the participation 
of investigators and the selection of investigations which contribute 
most effectively to the advancement of NASA's scientific and 
technological objectives. It is a system separate from the acquisition 
process, but requiring the same management and discipline to assure 
compliance with statutory requirements and considerations of equity.


1872.102  Key features of the system.

    (a)(1) Use of the system commences with a Program Associate 
Administrator's determination that the investigation acquisition 
process is appropriate for a program. An Announcement of Opportunity 
(AO) is disseminated to the interested scientific and technical 
communities. This solicitation does not specify the investigations to 
be proposed but solicits investigative ideas which contribute to broad 
objectives. In order to determine which of the proposals should be 
selected, a formal competitive evaluation process is utilized. The 
evaluation for merit is normally made by experts in the fields 
represented by the proposals. Care should be taken to avoid conflicts 
of interest. These evaluators may be from NASA, other Government 
agencies, universities, or the commercial sector. Along with or 
subsequent to the evaluation for merit, the other factors of the 
proposals, such as engineering, cost, and integration aspects, are 
reviewed by specialists in those areas. The evaluation conclusions as 
well as considerations of budget and other factors are used to 
formulate a complement of recommended investigations. A steering 
committee serving as staff to the Program Associate Administrator 
(Program AA), or designee when source selection authority is delegated, 
reviews the proposed payload or program of investigation, the iterative 
process, and the selection recommendations. The steering committee 
serves as a forum where different interests, such as flight program, 
discipline management, and administration, can be weighed.
    (2) The Program AA, or designee, selects the proposals that will 
participate in the program. Once selected, an investigator is assigned 
appropriate responsibilities relating to the investigation through a 
contract with the institution. For foreign investigators, these 
responsibilities will usually be outlined in an agreement between NASA 
and the sponsoring governmental agency in the investigator's country.
    (b) The AO process provides a disciplined approach to investigation 
acquisition. The following major steps must be followed in each case:
    (1) The AO shall be signed by the Program AA and shall be widely 
distributed to the scientific, technological, and applications user 
communities, as appropriate.
    (2) An evaluation team shall be formed including recognized peers 
of the investigators.
    (3) A project office will be assigned to assess the engineering, 
cost, integration, and management aspects of the proposals.
    (4) A program office will be responsible to formulate a complement 
of investigations consistent with the objectives stated in the AO, 
cost, and schedule constraints.
    (5) A steering committee appointed by the appropriate Program AA 
shall review the proposed investigations for relevance and merit, will 
assure compliance with the system as described in this Handbook, and 
make selection recommendations.
    (6) The Source Selection Official shall be the Program AA or the 
Program AA's designee.
    (c) Payloads will be formulated consisting of investigations 
selected through the AO process and/or other authorized methods.


1872.103  Management responsibilities.

    (a) Program AAs are responsible for overseeing the process and for 
making key decisions essential to the process including:
    (1) Determination to use the investigation acquisition system.
    (2) Appointment of the steering committee members.
    (3) Designation of a staff to assure uniformity in the issuance of 
the AO and conformity with the required procedures in the evaluation 
and selection.
    (4) Reuse, to the maximum extent practicable, of space hardware and 
support equipment.
    (5) Determination to use advisory subcommittees, contractor, or 
full-time Government employees only in the evaluation process.
    (6) Issuance of the AO.
    (7) Selection of investigations and investigators, determination of 
need of a definition phase, determination of the role of the 
investigator with regard to providing essential investigation hardware 
and services, and determination of the need for payload specialists.
    (8) Assure consideration is given to minorities in the 
establishment of peer groups, distribution of the AO and in the 
selection of investigations.
    (9) Provide a framework for cooperative foreign participation in 
Space Shuttle, Spacelab, and Space Station missions.
    (b) The Program AA should call upon any required experts throughout 
the process.

Subpart 1872.2--Applicability of the Process


1872.201  General.

    The system used for acquisition of investigations is separate from 
the agency procedures for acquisition of known requirements. A decision 
to use this special acquisition process will be based on a 
determination that it is the most suitable to meet program needs. The 
decision-making official will consider the criteria for use of the 
system. The project plan or other documentation should discuss the 
proposed mode of investigations selection.

[[Page 4479]]

1872.202  Criteria for determining applicability.

    (a) The decision to use the investigations acquisition process as 
an alternative to the normal planning and acquisition process can only 
be made after consideration of the conditions which require its use. 
All of the following conditions should exist before deciding that the 
system is applicable:
    (1) NASA has a general objective which can be furthered through 
novel experimental approaches. To develop such approaches, NASA wishes 
to draw upon the broadest possible reservoir of ideas.
    (2) Choices must be made among competing ideas in expanding 
knowledge.
    (3) Individual participation of an investigator is essential to 
exploitation of the opportunity.
    (b) The investigations acquisition process shall not be used when 
any of the following characteristics are present:
    (1) The requiring office can define a requirement sufficiently to 
allow for normal acquisition.
    (2) The program is extremely complex, requiring specialized 
integration, coordination, or other special handling, or extending over 
a lengthy period wherein individual participation is not essential.


1872.203  Applicable programs and activities.

    The investigation acquisition process is most suitable for 
investigations aimed at exploration requiring several unique sensors or 
instruments, but it has been used successfully in the following types 
of activities:
    (a) Exploration and space research flights. (1) Examples include 
Space Transportation System (STS) flights with attached payloads, 
generally Spacelab payloads; and free-flying spacecraft, such as 
Explorers, Pioneers, Space Telescope, Landsats, and Long Duration 
Exposure Facilities.
    (2) Types of opportunity include:
    (i) Participation as a Principal Investigator (PI) responsible for 
conceiving and conducting a space investigation (This may involve a 
major piece of instrumentation. In the case of a ``facility'' or 
``multiuser'' payload, each PI's responsibilities would ordinarily 
involve a relatively minor portion of the total instrument.);
    (ii) An opportunity to serve on a PI's team as a member or Co-
Investigator;
    (iii) An opportunity that generally involves the use of data from 
another investigator's instrument as a guest investigator or guest 
observer (Guest investigators usually participate after the primary 
objectives have been satisfied for the investigations involved.); and
    (iv) A team formed from selected investigators to assist in 
defining planned mission objectives and/or to determine, in a general 
manner, the most meaningful instruments to accomplish the mission 
objectives.
    (3) The investigation acquisition process may be applicable to all 
types of opportunities. The supposition common in these opportunities 
is that the best ideas and approaches are likely to result from the 
broadest possible involvement of the scientific, technological or 
applications user communities.
    (b) Minor missions. (1) Examples include research aircraft, 
sounding rockets, balloons, and minor missions that are generally of 
short duration, small in size, often single purpose, and subject to 
repetition. Many investigations are follow-on to past-flight 
investigations.
    (2) Types of opportunity include:
    (i) PIs responsible for investigation; and
    (ii) Data use or analysis.
    (3) Opportunities for participation on minor missions are generally 
suitable for normal acquisition procedures. The use of an announcement 
describing the general nature and schedule of flights may be 
appropriate when considered necessary to broaden participation by 
requesting investigator-initiated research proposals. Normal 
acquisition procedures shall be used for follow-on repeat flights. 
Although NASA seeks unique, innovative ideas for these missions, the 
prospect of reflight and the latitude in determining number and 
schedule of flights argue against the need for the use of the 
investigations acquisition process to force dissimilar proposals into 
an annual or periodic competitive structure. On the other hand, there 
are some minor missions addressed to specific limited opportunities; 
for example, a solar eclipse. When such limitations indicate that the 
special competitive structure is needed, it should be authorized.
    (c) Operational and operational prototype spacecraft. (1) Examples 
include spacecraft built for NASA and other agencys' missions.
    (2) The user agency can be expected to specify performance 
parameters. Payload definition will be the responsibility of the user 
agency and NASA. Specifications sufficient for normal acquisition 
procedures can be produced. Use of data from the mission is the 
responsibility of the user agency. Thus, the investigation acquisition 
process is not required.
    (d) Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T). (1) Examples include 
studies, minor developments, instrument conceptualization, ground-based 
observations, laboratory and theoretical supporting research, and data 
reduction and analysis which is unconstrained by a specific 
opportunity.
    (2) Programs in these areas tend to go forward on a continuing 
basis, rather than exploiting unique opportunities. Normal acquisition 
procedures should be used. A general announcement of area of interest 
could be made when greater participation is deemed advisable.


1872.204  Approval.

    The Program AA is responsible for determining whether or not to use 
the investigations acquisition process. Normally on major projects, or 
when a project plan is required, use of the investigation acquisition 
system will be justified and recommended in the project planning 
documentation and will be coordinated with staff offices and discussed 
in the planning presentation to the Deputy Administrator or designee.

Subpart 1872.3--The Announcement of Opportunity


1872.301  General.

    An announcement of opportunity (AO) is characterized by its 
generality. However, it is essential that the AO contains sufficient 
data in order to obtain meaningful proposals. To a considerable extent, 
the detail and depth of the AO will depend on the objective. The 
purpose is to get adequate information to assess the relevance, merit, 
cost, and management requirements without overburdening the proposer.


1872.302  Preparatory effort.

    (a) Headquarters offices and the responsible project installation 
must consult prior to release of the AO.
    (b) The program office shall:
    (1) Synopsize the AO in the Commerce Business Daily prior to the 
time of release;
    (2) Determine if there is instrumentation or support equipment 
available which may be appropriate to the AO with all necessary 
background data considered essential for use by a proposer;
    (3) Determine mailing lists, including the mailing list maintained 
by the International Affairs Division, Office of External Relations, 
for broad dissemination of the AO; and
    (4) Assure mandatory provisions are contained in the AO.

[[Page 4480]]

    (c) Other methods of dissemination of the AO may also be used, such 
as the use of press releases, etc. When possible, the AO should be 
widely publicized through publications of appropriate professional 
societies; however, NASA policy does not allow payment for the 
placement of advertisements.


1872.303  Responsibilities.

    (a) The program office originator is responsible for the content of 
the AO and coordination with concerned Headquarters offices and field 
installations. All personnel involved in the evaluation of proposals 
are responsible for familiarizing themselves and complying with this 
part and other applicable regulations. To this end, they are expected 
to seek the advice and guidance of appropriate Headquarters program and 
staff offices, and Project Installation management.
    (b) The Program Office is also responsible for coordinating the AO 
with the International Affairs, Educational Affairs, Management Support 
Divisions, Office of External Relations, Office of General Counsel, and 
Office of Acquisition prior to issuance (see NMI 1362.1, Initiation and 
Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautical 
Programs).
    (c) Concurrence of the Office of Acquisition is required before 
issuance of an AO.


1872.304  Proposal opportunity period.

    (a) The AO must accommodate to the maximum extent practicable 
opportunities afforded by the Shuttle/Spacelab flights. The following 
methods may be used to enable an AO to be open for an extended period 
of time and/or to cover a series or range of flight possibilities or 
disciplines:
    (1) The AO may be issued establishing a number of proposal 
submission dates. Normally, no more than three proposal submission 
dates should be established. The submittal dates may be spread over the 
number of months most compatible with the possible flight opportunities 
and the availability of resources necessary to evaluate and fund the 
proposals.
    (2) The AO may be issued establishing a single proposal submission 
date. However, the AO could provide that NASA amend the AO to provide 
for subsequent dates for submission of proposals, if additional 
investigations are desired within the AO objectives.
    (3) The AO may provide for an initial submission date with the AO 
to remain open for submission of additional proposals up to a final 
cutoff date. This final date should be related to the availability of 
resources necessary to evaluate the continuous flow of proposals, the 
time remaining prior to the flight opportunity(s) contemplated by the 
AO, and payload funding and availability.
    (b) Generally, a core payload of investigations would be selected 
from the initial submission of proposals under the above methods of 
open-ended AOs. These selections could be final or tentative 
recognizing the need for further definition. Proposals received by 
subsequent submission dates would be considered in the scope of the 
original AO but would be subject to the opportunities and resources 
remaining available or the progress being made by prior selected 
investigations.
    (c) Any proposal, whether received on the initial submission or 
subsequent submission, requires notification to the investigator and 
the investigator's institution of the proposal disposition. Some of the 
proposals will be rejected completely and the investigators immediately 
notified. The remaining unselected proposals may, if agreeable with the 
proposers, be held for later consideration and funding and the 
investigator so notified. However, if an investigator's proposal is 
considered at a later date, the investigator must be given an 
opportunity to validate the proposal with the investigator's 
institution and for updating the cost and other data contained in the 
original submission prior to a final selection. In summary, NASA may 
retain proposals, receiving Category I, II, or III classifications (see 
1872.403-1(e)), for possible later sponsorship until no longer feasible 
to consider the proposal. When this final stage is reached, the 
investigator must be promptly notified. Proposing investigators not 
desiring their proposals be held for later consideration should be 
given the opportunity to so indicate in their original submissions.


1872.305  Guidelines for Announcement of Opportunity.

    (a) The AO should be tailored to the particular needs of the 
contemplated investigations and be complete in itself. Each AO will 
identify the originating program office and be numbered consecutively 
by calendar year, e.g., OA-1-95, OA-2-95; OLMSA-1-95; OSS-1-95; etc. 
The required format and detailed instructions regarding the contents of 
the AO are contained in 1872.705.
    (b) The General Instructions and Provisions, Appendix A (see 
1872.705-1) are necessary to accommodate the unique aspects of the AO 
process. Therefore, they must be appended to each AO.
    (c) At the time of issuance, copies of the AO must be furnished to 
Headquarters, Office of Acquisition (Code HS) and Office of General 
Counsel (Code GK).
    (d) Proposers should be informed of significant departures from 
scheduled dates for activities related in the AO.


1872.306  Announcement of Opportunity soliciting foreign participation.

    Proposals for participation by individuals outside the U.S. shall 
be submitted in the same format (excluding cost plans) as U.S. 
proposals, typewritten in English, and reviewed and endorsed by the 
appropriate foreign governmental agency. If letters of ``Notice of 
Intent'' are required, the AO should indicate that they be sent to 
Headquarters, Office of External Relations, International Relations 
Division (Code IR). Should a foreign proposal be selected, NASA will 
arrange with the sponsoring foreign agency for the proposed 
participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the 
sponsoring agency will each bear the cost of discharging its respective 
responsibilities. Note that additional guidelines applicable to foreign 
proposers are contained in the Management Plan Section of Appendix B 
(see 1872.705-2) and must be included in any Guidelines for Proposal 
Preparation or otherwise furnished to foreign proposers.


1872.307  Guidelines for proposal preparation.

    While not all of the guidelines outlined in Appendix B will be 
applicable in response to every AO, the investigator should be informed 
of the relevant information required. The proposal may be submitted on 
a form supplied by the Program Office. However, the proposal should be 
submitted in at least two sections:
    (a) Investigation and Technical Section; and (b) Management and 
Cost Section as described in Appendix B.

Subpart 1872.4--Evaluation of Proposals


1872.401  General.

    (a) The evaluation process considers the aspects of each proposal 
by the following progressive sorting:
    (1) A review resulting in a categorization is performed by using 
one of the methods or combination of the methods outlined in 1872.403. 
The purpose of this initial review is to determine the scientific and/
or technological merit of the proposals in the context of the AO 
objectives.

[[Page 4481]]

    (2) Those proposals which are considered to have the greatest 
scientific or technological merit are then reviewed in detail for the 
engineering, management, and cost aspects, usually by the project 
office at the installation responsible for the project.
    (3) Final reviews are performed by the program office and the 
steering committee and are aimed at developing a group of 
investigations which represent an integrated payload or a well-balanced 
program of investigation which has the best possibility for meeting the 
AO's objectives within programmatic constraints.
    (b) The importance of considering the interrelationship of the 
several aspects of the proposals to be reviewed in the process and the 
need for carefully planning their treatment should not be overlooked. 
An evaluation plan should be developed before issuance of the AO. It 
should cover the recommended staffing for any subcommittee or 
contractor support, review guidelines as well as the procedural flow 
and schedule of the evaluation. While not mandatory, such a plan should 
be considered for each AO. A fuller discussion of the evaluation and 
selection process is included in the following sections of this 
subpart.


1872.402  Criteria for evaluation.

    (a) Each AO must indicate those criteria which the evaluators will 
apply in evaluating a proposal. The relative importance of each 
criterion must also be stated. This information will allow 
investigators to make informed judgments in formulating proposals that 
best meet the stated objectives.
    (b) Following is a list of general evaluation criteria appropriate 
for inclusion in most AOs:
    (1) The scientific, applications, and/or technological merit of the 
investigation.
    (2) The relevance of the proposed investigation to the AO's stated 
scientific, applications, and/or technological objectives.
    (3) The competence and experience of the investigator and any 
investigative team.
    (4) Adequacy of whatever apparatus may be proposed with particular 
regard to its ability to supply the data needed for the investigation.
    (5) The reputation and interest of the investigator's institution, 
as measured by the willingness of the institution to provide the 
support necessary to ensure that the investigation can be completed 
satisfactorily.
    (6) Cost and management aspects will be considered in all 
selections.
    (7) Other or additional criteria may be used, but the evaluation 
criteria must be germane to the accomplishment of the stated 
objectives.
    (c) Once the AO is issued, it is essential that the evaluation 
criteria be applied in a uniform manner. If it becomes apparent, before 
the date set for receipt of proposals, that the criteria or their 
relative importance should be changed, the AO will be amended, and all 
known recipients will be informed of the change and given an adequate 
opportunity to consider it in submission of their proposals. Evaluation 
criteria and/or their relative importance will not be changed after the 
date set for receipt of proposals.


1872.403  Methods of evaluation.

    Alternative methods are available to initiate the evaluation of 
proposals received in response to an AO. These are referred to as the 
Advisory Subcommittee Evaluation Process, the Contractor Evaluation 
Process, and the Government Evaluation Process. In all processes, a 
subcommittee of the appropriate Program Office Steering Committee will 
be formed to categorize the proposals. Following categorization, those 
proposals still in consideration will be processed to the selection 
official.


1872.403-1  Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.

    (a) Evaluation of scientific and/or technological merit of proposed 
investigations is the responsibility of an advisory subcommittee of the 
Steering Committee. The subcommittee constitutes a peer group qualified 
to judge the scientific and technological aspects of all investigation 
proposals. One or more subcommittees may be established depending on 
the breadth of the technical or scientific disciplines inherent in the 
AO's objectives. Each subcommittee represents a discipline or grouping 
of closely related disciplines. To maximize the quality of the 
subcommittee evaluation and categorization, the following conditions of 
selection and appointment should be considered.
    (1) The subcommittee normally should be established on an ad hoc 
basis.
    (2) Qualifications and acknowledgment of the professional abilities 
of the subcommittee members are of primary importance. Institutional 
affiliations are not sufficient qualifications.
    (3) The executive secretary of the subcommittee must be a full-time 
NASA employee.
    (4) Subcommittee members should normally be appointed as early as 
possible and prior to receipt of proposals.
    (5) Care must be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These 
include financial interests, institutional affiliations, professional 
biases and associations, as well as familiar relationships. Conflicts 
could further occur as a result of imbalance between Government and 
non-Government appointees or membership from institutions representing 
a singular school of thought in discipline areas involving competitive 
theories in approach to an investigation.
    (6) The subcommittee should convene as a group in closed sessions 
for proposal evaluation to protect the proposer's proprietary ideas and 
to allow frank discussion of the proposer's qualifications and the 
merit of the proposer's ideas. Lead review responsibility for each 
proposal may be assigned to members most qualified in the involved 
discipline. It is important that each proposal be considered by the 
entire subcommittee.
    (b) It may not be possible to select a subcommittee fully 
satisfying all of the conditions described in paragraph (a) of this 
section. It is the responsibility of the nominating and appointing 
officials to make trade-offs, where necessary, among the criteria in 
paragraph (a) of this section. This latitude permits flexibility in 
making decisions in accord with circumstances of each application. In 
so doing, however, it is emphasized that recognized expertise in 
evaluating dissimilar proposals is essential to the continued 
workability of the investigation acquisition process.
    (c) Candidate subcommittee members should be nominated by the 
office having responsibility for the evaluation. Nominations should be 
approved in accordance with NMI 1150.2, ``Establishment, Operation, and 
Duration of NASA Advisory Committees.'' The notification of appointment 
should specify the duration of assignment on the subcommittee, 
provisions concerning conflicts of interest, and arrangements regarding 
honoraria, per diem, and travel when actually employed.
    (d) It is important that members of the subcommittee be formally 
instructed as to their responsibilities with respect to the 
investigation acquisition process, even where several or all of the 
members have served previously. This briefing of subcommittee members 
should include:
    (1) Instruction of subcommittee members on agency policies and 
procedures pertinent to acquisition of investigations.

[[Page 4482]]

    (2) Review of the program goals, AO objectives, and evaluation 
criteria, including relative importance, which provide the basis for 
evaluation.
    (3) Instruction on the use of preliminary proposal evaluation data 
furnished by the Installation Project Office. The subcommittee should 
examine these data to gain a better understanding of the proposed 
investigations, any associated problems, and to consider cost in 
relation to the value of the investigations' objectives.
    (4) Definition of responsibility of the subcommittee for evaluation 
and categorization with respect to scientific and/or technical merit in 
accordance with the evaluation criteria.
    (5) Instruction for documentation of deliberations and 
categorizations of the subcommittee.
    (6) Inform the chairperson of the subcommittee and all members that 
they should familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Standards 
of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR part 
2635, and the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for employees 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 5 CFR part 6901, 
regarding conflicts of interest. Members should inform the appointing 
authority if their participation presents a real or apparent conflict 
of interest situation. In addition, all participants should inform the 
selection official in the event they are subjected to pressure or 
improper contacts.
    (7) Inform members that prior to the selection and announcement of 
the successful investigators and investigations, subcommittee members 
and NASA personnel shall not reveal any information concerning the 
evaluation to anyone who is not also participating in the same 
evaluation proceedings, and then only to the extent that such 
information is required in connection with such proceedings. Also, 
inform members that subsequent to selection of an investigation and 
announcement of negotiations with the investigator's institution, 
information concerning the proceedings of the subcommittee and data 
developed by the subcommittee will be made available to others within 
NASA only when the requestor demonstrates a need to know for a NASA 
purpose. Such information will be made available to persons outside 
NASA including other Government agencies, only when such disclosure is 
concurred in by the Office of General Counsel. In this connection, 
reference is made to 18 U.S.C. 1905 which provides criminal sanctions 
if any officer or employee (including special employees) of the United 
States discloses or divulges certain kinds of business confidential and 
trade secret information unless authorized by law.
    (e) The product of an advisory subcommittee is the classification 
of proposals into four categories. The categories are:
    (1) Category I--Well conceived and scientifically and technically 
sound investigations pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO's 
objectives and offered by a competent investigator from an institution 
capable of supplying the necessary support to ensure that any essential 
flight hardware or other support can be delivered on time and that data 
can be properly reduced, analyzed, interpreted, and published in a 
reasonable time. Investigations in Category I are recommended for 
acceptance and normally will be displaced only by other Category I 
investigations.
    (2) Category II--Well conceived and scientifically or technically 
sound investigations which are recommended for acceptance, but at a 
lower priority than Category I.
    (3) Category III--Scientifically and technically sound 
investigations which require further development. Category III 
investigations may be funded for development and may be reconsidered at 
a later time for the same or other opportunities.
    (4) Category IV--Proposed investigations which are recommended for 
rejection for the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever 
the reason.
    (f) A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee shall be 
prepared by the assigned executive secretary and shall be signed by the 
Chairperson. The minutes shall contain the categorizations with basic 
rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and weaknesses 
of the proposals evaluated.


1872.403-2  Contractor evaluation process.

    (a) The use of the contractor method for obtaining support for 
evaluation purposes of proposals received in response to an AO requires 
the approval of the Program AA. Prior to the use of this method, 
discussion should be held with the Office of Acquisition.
    (b) It is NASA policy to avoid situations in the acquisition 
process where, by virtue of the work or services performed for NASA, or 
as a result of data acquired from NASA or from other entities, a 
particular company:
    (1) Is given an unfair competitive advantage over other companies 
with respect to future NASA business;
    (2) Is placed in position to affect Government actions under 
circumstances in which there is potential that the company's judgment 
may be biased; or
    (3) Otherwise finds that a conflict exists between the performance 
of work or services for the Government in an impartial manner and the 
company's own self-interest.
    (c) To reduce the possibility of an organizational conflict of 
interest problem arising, the following minimum restrictions will be 
incorporated into the contract:
    (1) No employee of the contractor will be permitted to propose in 
response to the AO;
    (2) The ``Limitation on Future Contracting'' clause contained in 
1852.209-71 and the conditions set forth in 1815.413-2 Alternate II 
will be included in all such contracts; and
    (3) Unless authorized by the NASA contracting officer, the 
contractor shall not contact the originator of any proposal concerning 
its contents.
    (d) The scope of work for the selected contractor will provide for 
an identification of strengths and weaknesses and a summary of the 
proposals. The contractor will not make selections nor recommend 
investigations.
    (e) The steps to be taken in establishing evaluation panels and the 
responsibilities of NASA and the contractor in relation to the panels 
will be as follows:
    (1) The contractor will be required to establish and provide 
support to panels of experts for review of proposals to evaluate their 
scientific and technical merit;
    (2) These panels will be composed of scientists and specialists 
qualified to evaluate the proposals;
    (3) The agency may provide to the contractor lists of scientist(s) 
and specialist(s) in the various disciplines it believes are qualified 
to serve on the panels;
    (4) The contractor will report each panel's membership to NASA for 
approval; and
    (5) The contractor must make all the necessary arrangements with 
the panel members.
    (f) The evaluation support by the contractor's panels of experts 
will be accomplished as follows:
    (1) The panels will review the scientific and technical merit of 
the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the AO and 
will record their strengths and weaknesses;
    (2) The contractor will make records of each panel's deliberations 
which will form the basis for a report summarizing the results of the 
evaluations. Upon

[[Page 4483]]

request, the contractor shall provide all such records to NASA;
    (3) The chairperson of each panel shall certify that the evaluation 
report correctly represents the findings of the review panel; and
    (4) A final report will be submitted as provided in the contract.
    (g) A subcommittee of the Program Office Steering Committee will be 
established on an ad hoc basis. Utilizing furnished data, the 
subcommittee will classify the proposals into the four categories 
enumerated in 1872.403-1(e)(1), Advisory Subcommittee Evaluation 
Process. A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee should be 
prepared by an assigned executive secretary and signed by the 
chairperson. The minutes should contain the categorizations with the 
basic rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and 
weaknesses of the proposals evaluated.


1872.403-3  Government evaluation process.

    (a) The Program AA may, in accordance with NMI 1150.2, appoint one 
or more full-time Government employees as subcommittee members of the 
Program Office Steering Committee to evaluate and categorize the 
proposals.
    (b) Each subcommittee member should be qualified and competent to 
evaluate the proposals in accordance with the AO evaluation criteria. 
It is important that a subcommittee's evaluation not be influenced by 
others either within or outside of NASA.
    (c) The subcommittee members will not contact the proposers for 
additional information.
    (d) The subcommittee members will classify the proposals in 
accordance with the four categories indicated in 1872.403-1(e)(1). Each 
categorization will be supported by an appropriate rationale including 
a narrative of each proposal's strengths and weaknesses.


1872.404  Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.

    (a) The subcommittee responsible for categorization of each 
proposal in terms of its scientific applications, or technical merit 
should receive information on probable cost, technical status, 
developmental risk, integration and safety problems, and management 
arrangements in time for their deliberations.
    (b) This information should be provided at the discretion of the 
Headquarters Program Office by the Project Office at the installation. 
This information can be in general terms and should reflect what 
insights the Project Office can provide without requesting additional 
details from the proposers. This limited Project Office review will not 
normally give the subcommittees information of significant precision. 
The purpose is to give the subcommittee sufficient information so it 
can review the proposals in conjunction with available cost, 
integration, and management considerations to gain an impression of 
each investigator's understanding of the problems of the experiment and 
to permit gross trade-offs of cost versus value of the investigation 
objective.
    (c) Following categorization, the Project Office shall evaluate 
proposals in contention, in depth, including a thorough review of each 
proposal's engineering, integration, management, and cost aspects. This 
review should be accomplished by qualified engineering, cost, and 
business analysts at the project center.
    (d) In assessing proposed costs, the evaluation must consider:
    (1) The investigation objective.
    (2) Comparable, similar or related investigations.
    (3) Whether NASA or the investigator should procure the necessary 
supporting instrumentation or services and the relative cost of each 
mode.
    (4) Total overall or probable costs to the Government including 
integration and data reduction and analysis. In the case of 
investigations proposed by Government investigators, this includes all 
associated direct and indirect cost. With respect to cooperative 
investigations, integration, and other applicable costs should be 
considered.
    (e) The Project Office, as part of the in-depth evaluation of 
proposals that require instrumentation or support equipment, will 
survey all potential sources for Government-owned instrumentation or 
support equipment that may be made available, with or without 
modifications, to the potential investigator. Such items contributed by 
foreign cooperating groups which are still available under cooperative 
project agreements will also be considered for use under the terms and 
conditions specified in the agreements. As part of the evaluation 
report to the Program Office, the availability or nonavailability of 
instrumentation or support equipment will be indicated.
    (f) Proposals which require instrumentation should be evaluated by 
project personnel. This evaluation should cover the inter-faces and the 
assessment of development risks. This evaluation should furnish the 
selection official with sufficient data to contribute to the instrument 
determinations. Important among these are:
    (1) Whether the instrument requires further definition;
    (2) Whether studies and designs are necessary to provide a 
reasonably accurate appreciation of the cost;
    (3) Whether the investigation can be carried out without incurring 
undue cost, schedule, or risk of failure penalties; and
    (4) Whether integration of the instrument is feasible.
    (g) In reviewing an investigator's management plan, the Project 
Office should evaluate the investigator's approach for efficiently 
managing the work, the recognition of essential management functions, 
and the effective overall integration of these functions. Evaluation of 
the proposals under final consideration should include, but not be 
limited to: workload--present and future related to capacity and 
capability; past experience; management approach and organization; 
e.g.:
    (1) With respect to workload and its relationship to capacity and 
capability, it is important to ascertain the extent to which the 
investigator is capable of providing facilities and personnel skills 
necessary to perform the required effort on a timely basis. This review 
should reveal the need for additional facilities or people, and provide 
some indication of the Government support the investigator will 
require.
    (2) A review should be made of the investigator, the investigator's 
institution, and any supporting contractor's performance on prior 
investigations. This should assist in arriving at an assessment of the 
investigator and the institution's ability to perform the effort within 
the proposed cost and time constraints.
    (3) The proposed investigator's management arrangements should be 
reviewed, including make or buy choices, support of any co-
investigator, and preselected subcontractors or other instrument 
fabricators to determine whether such arrangements are justified. The 
review should determine if the proposed management arrangements enhance 
the investigator's ability to devote more time to the proposed 
experiment objectives and still effectively employ the technical and 
administrative support required for a successful investigation. In 
making these evaluations, the Project Office should draw on the 
installation's engineering, business, legal, and other staff resources, 
as necessary, as well as its scientific resources. If further 
information is needed from the proposers, it should be obtained through 
the proper contacts.

[[Page 4484]]

1872.405  Program office evaluation.

    (a) A Program Office responsible for the project or program at 
Headquarters will receive the evaluation of the proposals, and weigh 
the evaluative data to determine an optimum payload or program of 
investigation. This determination will involve recommendations 
concerning individual investigations; but, more importantly, should 
result in a payload or program which is judged to optimize total 
mission return within schedule, engineering, and budgetary constraints. 
The recommendations should facilitate sound selection decisions by the 
Program AA. Three sets of recommendations result from the Program 
Office evaluation:
    (1) Optimum payload or program of investigations, or options for 
alternative payloads or programs.
    (2) Recommendation for final or tentative selection based on a 
determination of the degree of uncertainty associated with individual 
investigations. A tentative selection may be considered step one of a 
two-step selection technique.
    (3) Upon consideration of the guidelines contained in 
1872.502(a)(3), recommending responsibility for instrument development.
    (b) The Installation Project Office evaluation is principally 
concerned with ensuring that the proposed investigation can be managed, 
developed, integrated, and executed with an appropriate probability of 
technical success within the estimated probable cost. The Headquarters 
Program Director, drawing upon these inputs, should be mainly concerned 
with determining a payload or program from the point of view of 
programmatic goals and budgetary constraints. Discipline and cost 
trade-offs are considered at this level. The Headquarters Program 
Office should focus on the potential contribution to program objectives 
that can be achieved under alternative feasible payload integration 
options.
    (c) It may be to NASA's advantage to consider certain 
investigations for tentative selection pending resolution of 
uncertainties in their development. Tentative selections should be 
reconsidered after a period of time for final selection in a payload or 
program of investigations. This two-step selection process should be 
considered when:
    (1) The potential return from the investigation is sufficient, 
relative to that of the other investigations under consideration, and 
that its further development appears to be warranted before final 
selection.
    (2) The investigation potential is of such high priority to the 
program that the investigation should be developed for flight if at all 
possible.
    (3) The investigative area is critical to the program and 
competitive approaches need to be developed further to allow selection 
of the optimum course.
    (d) Based on evaluation of these considerations associated with the 
investigations requiring further development of hardware, the following 
information should be provided to the Steering Committee and the 
Program AA responsible for selection:
    (1) The expected gain in potential return associated with the 
eventual incorporation of tentatively recommended investigations in the 
payload(s) or program.
    (2) The expected costs required to develop instrumentation to the 
point of ``demonstrated capability.''
    (3) The risk involved in added cost, probability of successfully 
developing the required instrument capability, and the possibility of 
schedule impact.
    (4) Identification of opportunities, if any, for inclusion of such 
investigations in later missions.
    (e) In those cases where investigations are tentatively selected, 
an explicit statement should be made of the process to be followed in 
determining the final payload or program of investigations and the 
proposers so informed. The two-phase selection approach provides the 
opportunity for additional assurance of development potential and 
probable cost prior to a final commitment to the investigation.
    (f) As instruments used in investigations become increasingly 
complex and costly, the need for greater control of their development 
by the responsible Headquarters Program Office also grows. Accordingly, 
as an integral part of the evaluation process, a deliberate decision 
should be made regarding the role of the Principal Investigator with 
respect to the provision of the major hardware associated with that 
person's investigation. The guidelines for the hardware acquisition 
determination are discussed in 1872.502(a)(3).
    (g) The range of options for responsibility for the instrumentation 
consists of:
    (1) Assignment of full responsibility to the Principal 
Investigator. The responsibility includes all in-house or contracted 
activity to provide the instrumentation for integration.
    (2) Retention of developmental responsibility by the Government 
with participation by the Principal Investigator in key events defined 
for the program. In all cases the right of the Principal Investigator 
to counsel and recommend is paramount. Such involvement of the 
Principal Investigator may include:
    (i) Provision of instrument specifications.
    (ii) Approval of specifications.
    (iii) Independent monitorship of the development and advice to the 
Government on optimization of the instrumentation for the 
investigation.
    (iv) Participation in design reviews and other appropriate reviews.
    (v) Review and concurrence in changes resulting from design 
reviews.
    (vi) Participation in configuration control board actions.
    (vii) Advice in definition of test program.
    (viii) Review and approval of test program and changes thereto.
    (ix) Participation in conduct of the test program.
    (x) Participation in calibration of instrument.
    (xi) Participation in final inspection and acceptance of the 
instrument.
    (xii) Participation in subsequent test and evaluation processes 
incident to integration and flight preparation.
    (xiii) Participation in the development and support of the 
operations plan.
    (xiv) Analysis and interpretation of data.
    (h) The Principal Investigator should as a minimum:
    (1) Approve the instrument specification.
    (2) Advise the project manager in development and fabrication.
    (3) Participate in final calibration.
    (4) Develop and support the operations plan.
    (5) Analyze and interpret the data.
    (i) The Project Installation is responsible for implementing the 
program or project and should make recommendations concerning the role 
for the Principal Investigators. The Program AA will determine the 
role, acting upon the advice of the Headquarters Program Office and the 
Steering Committee. The Principal Investigator's desires will be 
respected in the negotiation of the person's role allowing an appeal to 
the Program AA and the right to withdraw from participation.
    (j) The Program Office should make a presentation to the Steering 
Committee with supporting documentation on the decisions to be made by 
the responsible Program AA.


1872.406  Steering committee review.

    (a) The most important role of the Steering Committee is to provide 
a substantive review of a potential

[[Page 4485]]

payload or program of investigations and to recommend a selection to 
the Program AA. The Steering Committee applies the collective 
experience of representatives from the program and discipline 
communities and offers a forum for discussing the selection from those 
points of view. In addition to this mission-specific evaluation 
function, the Steering Committee provides guidance to subcommittee 
chairpersons and serves as a clearinghouse for problems and complaints 
regarding the process. The Steering Committee is responsible for 
assuring adherence to required procedures. Lastly, it is the forum 
where discipline objectives are weighed against program objectives and 
constraints.
    (b) The Steering Committee represents the means for exercising 
three responsibilities in the process of selecting investigations to:
    (1) Review compliance with procedures governing application of the 
AO process.
    (2) Ensure that adequate documentation has been made of the steps 
in the evaluation process.
    (3) Review the results of the evaluation by the subcommittee, 
Project, and Program Offices and prepare an assessment or endorsement 
of a recommended payload or program of investigations to the Program 
AA.
    (c) The Purpose in exercising the first of the responsibilities in 
paragraph (b) of this section is to ensure equity and consistency in 
the application of the process. The Steering Committee is intended to 
provide the necessary reviews and coordination inherent in conventional 
acquisition practices.
    (d) The second and third responsibilities of the Steering Committee 
in paragraph (b) are technical. They require that the Steering 
Committee review the evaluations by subcommittee, the Project Office, 
and the Program Office for completeness and appropriateness before 
forwarding to the Program AA. Most important in this review are:
    (1) Degree to which results of evaluations and recommendations 
follow logically from the criteria in the AO.
    (2) Consistency with objectives and policies generally beyond the 
scope of Project/Program Offices.
    (3) Sufficiency of reasons stated for tentative recommendations of 
those investigations requiring further instrument research and 
development.
    (4) Sufficiency of reasons stated for determining responsibilities 
for instrument development.
    (5) Sufficiency of consideration of reusable space flight hardware 
and support equipment for the recommended investigations.
    (6) Sufficiency of reasons for classifying proposed investigations 
in their respective categories.
    (7) Fair treatment of all proposals.
    (e) The Steering Committee makes recommendations to the selection 
official on the payload or program of investigations and notes caveats 
or provisions important for consideration of the selection official.


1872.407  Principles to apply.

    (a) 1872.406 contains a description of the evaluation function 
appropriate for a major payload or very significant program of 
investigation. The levels of review, evaluation, and refinement 
described should be applied in those selections where warranted but 
could be varied for less significant selection situations. It is 
essential to consider the principles of the several evaluative steps, 
but it may not be essential to consider the principles of the several 
evaluative steps, but it may not be essential to maintain strict 
adherence to the sequence and structure of the evaluation system 
described. The selection official is responsible for determining the 
evaluation process most appropriate for the selection situation using 
this subpart 1872.4 as a guide.
    (b) Significant deviations from the provisions of this part 1872 
must be fully documented and be approved by the Program AA after 
concurrence by the Office of General Counsel and Office of Acquisition.

Subpart 1872.5--The Selection Process


1872.501  General.

    The Program AA is responsible for selecting investigations for 
contract negotiation. This decision culminates the evaluations and 
processes that can be summarized as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Evaluation stage                 Principal emphasis                        Results                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contractor (when authorized)..........  Summary evaluation         Report to Subcommittee.                      
                                         (strengths and                                                         
                                         weaknesses).                                                           
Subcommittee individual...............  Science and technological  Categorization of proposals.                 
                                         relevance, value, and                                                  
                                         feasibility.                                                           
Project Office........................  Engineering/cost/          Reports to Subcommittee and Program Office.  
                                         integration/management                                                 
                                         assessment.                                                            
Program Office........................  Consistency with           Recommendations to Steering Committee of     
                                         Announcement and program   payload or program of investigations.       
                                         objectives, and cost and                                               
                                         schedule constraints.                                                  
Steering Committee....................  Logic of proposed          Recommendations to Program Associate         
                                         selections and             Administrator.                              
                                         compliance with proper                                                 
                                         procedures.                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1872.502  Decisions to be made.

    (a) The selection decisions by the Program AA constitute management 
judgments balancing individual and aggregate scientific or 
technological merit, the contribution of the recommended investigations 
to the AO's objectives, and their consonance with budget constraints to 
make the following decisions:
    (1) Determination of the adequacy of scientific/technical analysis 
supporting the recommended selections. This supporting rationale should 
involve considerations including:
    (i) Assurance that the expected return contributes substantially to 
program objectives and is likely to be realized.
    (ii) Assurance that the evaluation criteria were applied 
consistently to all proposed investigations.
    (iii) Assurance that the set of recommended investigations 
constitutes the optimum program or payload considering potential value 
and constraints.
    (iv) Assurance that only one investigator is assigned as the 
Principal Investigator to each investigation and that the Principal 
Investigator will assume the associated responsibilities and be the 
single point of contact and leader of any other investigators selected 
for the same investigation.
    (2) Determination as to whether available returned space hardware 
or support equipment, with or without modification, would be adequate 
to meet or support investigation objectives.
    (3) Determination as to whether the proposed instrument fabricator 
qualifies and should be accepted as a sole source

[[Page 4486]]

or whether the requirement should be competitively procured. The 
following guidelines apply:
    (i) The hardware required should be subjected to competitive 
solicitation where it is clear that the capability is not sufficiently 
unique to justify sole source acquisition.
    (ii) The hardware requirement should be purchased from the 
fabricator proposed by the investigator, which may be the 
investigator's own institution,
    (A) When the fabricator's proposal contains technical data that are 
not available from another source, and it is not feasible or 
practicable to define the fabrication requirement in such a way as to 
avoid the necessity of using the technical data contained in the 
proposal;
    (B) When the fabricator offers unique capabilities that are not 
available from another source;
    (C) When the selection official determines that the proposed 
hardware contributes so significantly to the value of the 
investigator's proposal as to be an integral part of it.
    (iii) If a producer other than the one proposed by the investigator 
offers unique capabilities to produce the hardware requirement, NASA 
may buy the hardware from the qualified fabricator.
    (iv) If a NASA employee submits a proposal as a principal 
investigator, any requirement for hardware necessary to perform the 
investigation must either be competed by the installation acquisition 
office or a justification must be written, synopsized, and approved in 
accordance with the requirements of FAR and the NASA FAR Supplement.
    (4) Determination of the desirability for tentative selection of 
investigations. This determination involves considerations including:
    (i) Assessment of the state of development of the investigative 
hardware, the cost and schedule for development in relation to the gain 
in potential benefits at the time of final selection.
    (ii) Assurance that there is adequate definition of investigation 
hardware to allow parallel design of other project hardware.
    (iii) Assurance that appropriate management procedures are 
contained in the project plan for reevaluation and final selection (or 
rejection) on an appropriate time scale.
    (5) Determination of the acceptability of the proposer's management 
plan, including the proposed hardware development plan, and the 
necessity, if any, of negotiating modifications to that plan.
    (b) In the process of making the determinations described in 
paragraph (a) (1) of this section, the Program AA may request 
additional information or evaluations. In most instances, this 
information can be provided by the Program Office responsible for the 
mission, project, or program. However, the Program AA may reconvene the 
subcommittee or poll the members individually or provide for additional 
analysis or require additional data from evaluators or proposers as 
considered necessary to facilitate the Program AA's decision.


1872.503  The selection statement.

    Upon completion of deliberations, the responsible Program AA shall 
issue a selection statement. Ordinarily this statement will, upon 
request, be releasable to the public. As a minimum, the selection 
statement should include:
    (a) The general and specific evaluation criteria and relative 
importance used for the selection.
    (b) The categorizations provided by the subcommittee and the 
rationale for accepting or not accepting each Category I proposal and a 
succinct statement concerning the nonacceptance of all other proposals.
    (c) A concise description of each investigation accepted including 
an indication as to whether the selection is a partial acceptance of a 
proposal and/or a combination with other investigators.
    (d) The role of the Principal Investigator with regard to hardware 
essential to the investigation and whether the Principal Investigator 
will be responsible for hardware acquisition and the basis therefor.
    (e) An indication of the plan and acquisition using the regular 
acquisition processes, if the Principal Investigator is not to acquire 
the hardware.
    (f) A statement indicating whether the selection is final or 
tentative, recognizing the need for better definition of the 
investigation and its cost.
    (g) A statement indicating use of Government-owned space flight 
hardware and/or support equipment.


1872.504  Notification of proposers.

    (a) It is essential that investigators whose proposals have no 
reasonable chance for selection be so apprised as soon as practicable. 
The responsible Program Office will, upon such determination, notify 
investigators of that fact with the major reason(s) why the proposals 
were so considered. The notification letter should also inform such 
investigators that they may obtain a detailed oral debriefing provided 
they request it in writing.
    (b) Letters of notification will be sent to those Principal 
Investigators selected to participate. This letter should not commit 
the agency to more than negotiations for the selected investigation, 
but it should indicate the decision made and contain:
    (1) A concise description of the Principal Investigator's 
investigation as selected, noting substantive changes, if any, from the 
investigation originally proposed by the Principal Investigator.
    (2) The nature of the selection, i.e., whether it should be 
considered final or tentative requiring additional hardware or cost 
definition.
    (3) A description of the role of the Principal Investigator 
including the responsibility for the provision of instruments for 
flight experiments.
    (3) Identification of the principal technical and management points 
to be treated in subsequent negotiations.
    (5) Any rights to be granted on use of data, publishing of data, 
and duration of use of the data.
    (6) Where applicable, indication that a foreign selectee's 
participation in the program will be arranged between the International 
Affairs Division, Office of External Relations, and the foreign 
government agency which endorsed the proposal.
    (c) In conjunction with the notification of successful foreign 
proposers, the Program Office shall forward a letter to the responsible 
International Affairs Division, Office of External Relations, 
addressing the following:
    (1) The scientific technological objective of the effort.
    (2) The period of time for the effort.
    (3) The responsibilities of NASA and of the sponsoring governmental 
agency; these may include:
    (i) Provision and disposition of hardware and software.
    (ii) Responsibilities for reporting, reduction and dissemination of 
data.
    (iii) Responsibilities for transportation of hardware.
    (4) Any additional information pertinent to the conduct of the 
experiment.
    (d) Using the information provided above, the International Affairs 
Division, Office of External Relations will negotiate an agreement with 
the sponsoring foreign agency.
    (e) Notices shall also be sent to those proposers not notified 
pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, and, as 
applicable, a copy to the sponsoring foreign government agency. It is 
important that these remaining proposers be informed at the same time

[[Page 4487]]

as those selected. Other agency notifications and press release 
procedures will apply, as appropriate.


1872.505  Debriefing.

    It is the policy to debrief, if requested, unsuccessful proposers 
of investigations in accordance with FAR 15.1004. The following shall 
be considered in arranging and conducting debriefings:
    (a) Debriefing shall be done by an official designated by the 
responsible Program AA. Any other personnel receiving requests for 
information concerning the rejection of a proposal shall refer to the 
designated official.
    (b) Debriefing of unsuccessful offerors shall be made at the 
earliest possible time; debriefing will generally be scheduled 
subsequent to selection but prior to award of contracts to the 
successful proposers.
    (c) Material discussed in debriefing shall be factual and consonant 
with the documented findings of several stages of the evaluation 
process and the selection statement.
    (d) The debriefing official shall advise of weak or deficient areas 
in the proposal, indicate whether those weaknesses were factors in the 
selection, and advise of the major considerations in selecting the 
competing successful proposer where appropriate.
    (e) The debriefing official shall not discuss other unsuccessful 
proposals, rankings, votes of members, or attempt to make a point-by-
point comparison with successful proposals.
    (f) A memorandum of record of the debriefing shall be provided the 
Chairperson of the Steering Committee.

Subpart 1872.6--Payload Formulation


1872.601  Payroll formulation.

    (a) Payload elements for Space Transportation System (STS) missions 
can come from many sources. These include those selected through AOs, 
those generated by in-house research, unsolicited proposals and those 
derived from agreements between NASA and external entities. However, it 
is anticipated that the primary source of NASA payload elements will be 
the AO process. Generally, proposals for payload elements submitted 
outside the AO process will not be selected if they would have been 
responsive to an AO objective.
    (b) Payload elements for STS flights fall into two major 
categories. ``NASA or NASA-related'' payload elements are those which 
are developed by a NASA Program Office or by another party with which 
NASA has a shared interest. ``Non-NASA'' payload elements are those 
which require only STS operation services from NASA and interface with 
NASA through the Office of Space Flight.
    (c) In general, a Program Office will be designated responsibility 
for formulating the ``NASA or NASA-related'' portion of an STS payload. 
The Office of Space Flight will be responsible for formulating the 
``non-NASA'' portion of an STS payload. Flights may, of course, consist 
wholly of payload elements of either type. Resource allocation for 
mixed missions will be determined by the Program Office and the Office 
of Space Flight.

Subpart 1872.7--Acquisition and Other Considerations


1872.701  Early involvement essential.

    (a) The distinctive feature of the AO process is that it is both a 
program planning system and an acquisition system in one procedure. The 
choice of what aeronautical and space phenomena to investigate is 
program planning. Acquisition is involved with the purchase of property 
and services to carry out the selected investigations.
    (b) Because of both the programmatic and multi-functional aspects 
of the AO process, early involvement of external program office 
elements is essential. Success of the process requires that it proceed 
in a manner that meets program goals and complies with statutory 
requirements and acquisition policy.
    (c) The planning, preparation and selection schedule for the 
investigation should commence early enough to meet statutory and 
regulatory requirements. Chief of these are the requirements for 
soliciting maximum feasible competition and for conducting discussions 
with offerors within the competitive range by the Project Office and/or 
any other evaluation group or office authorized by the selection 
official.


1872.702  Negotiation, discussions, and contract award.

    (a) The AO shall be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily. 
Responses to the synopsis must be added to the AO mailing list. Every 
effort should be made to publish opportunities far enough in advance to 
encourage a broad response. (In no case less than 45 days before the 
date set for receipt of proposals).
    (b) Significant items for consideration after receipt of proposals:
    (1) Late proposals--The policy on late proposals contained in 
1815.412 is applicable. Potential investigators should be informed of 
this policy. In the AO context, the selection official or designee will 
determine whether a late proposal will be considered.
    (2) Competitive considerations. (i) The proposals submitted in 
response to the AOs are not necessarily fully comparable. However, all 
proposals within the scope of an opportunity must be evaluated in 
accordance with the criteria in the AO.
    (ii) Cost must be considered in the evaluation if costs are 
involved in the investigation. General cost information should be given 
to the subcommittee by the Installation Project Office for use in 
determining the categories into which the subcommittee places 
proposals.
    (iii) Further information should be obtained, as necessary, by the 
Installation Project Office and/or any other evaluation group 
authorized by the selection official and from the investigators whose 
proposals are being considered. This is similar to the acquisition 
procedure for conducting written and oral discussions. A major 
consideration during discussions is to avoid unfairness and unequal 
treatment. Good judgment is required by in the extent and content of 
the discussions. There should be no reluctance in obtaining the advice 
and guidance of management and staff offices during the discussion 
phase. A summary should be prepared of the primary points covered in 
the written and oral discussions and show the effect of the discussions 
on the evaluation of proposals. This summary should also contain 
general information about the questions submitted to the investigators, 
the amount of time spent in oral discussion, and revisions in 
proposals, if any, resulting from the discussions.
    (iv) During the conduct of discussions, all proposers being 
considered shall be offered an equitable opportunity to submit cost, 
technical, or other revisions in their proposals as may result from the 
discussions. All proposers shall be informed that any revisions to 
their proposals must be submitted by a common cut-off date in order to 
be considered. The record should note compliance of the investigators 
with that cut-off date.
    (c) Significant items for consideration before award:
    (1) Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP)--A formal RFP should 
not be issued to obtain additional information on proposals accepted 
under the AO process. Additional technical, cost, or other data 
received should be considered as a supplement to the original proposal.
    (2) Selection of Investigator/Contractor--The selection decision of 
the Program AA approves the selected investigators and their 
institutions as the only satisfactory sources for the investigations. 
The selection of the

[[Page 4488]]

investigator does not constitute the selection of that person's 
proposed supporting hardware fabricator unless the selection official 
specifically incorporates the fabricator in the selection decision.


1872.703  Application of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and 
the NASA FAR Supplement.

    The AO process supplants normal acquisition procedures only to the 
extent necessary to meet the distinctive features of the process. This 
process is not intended to conflict with any established statutory 
requirements.


1872.704  Other administrative and functional requirements.

    After selection, all other applicable administrative and functional 
requirements will be complied with or incorporated in any resultant 
contract.


1872.705  Format of Announcement of Opportunity (AO).

    Use the following format instructions when drafting AOs:

OMB Approval Number 2700-0085

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

Announcement of Opportunity

AO No. ________________ (Issuance Date)

(Descriptive Heading)

I. Description of the Opportunity

    This section should set forth the basic purpose of the AO and 
describe the opportunity in terms of NASA's desire to obtain 
proposals which will meet the stated scientific, applications and/or 
technological objectives. These objectives may be directed to the 
generation of proposals for investigations and/or they may pertain 
to the acquisition of dissimilar ideas leading to selection of 
investigators, guest observers, guest investigators, or theorists. 
In those instances where proposals for investigations are sought, 
this section should describe the requirement, if any, for selected 
investigators to serve on advisory or working groups. In those 
instances where the project or program has not yet been approved, a 
qualifying statement should be included to indicate that this AO 
does not constitute an obligation for the Government to carry the 
effort to completion.

II. AO Objectives

    This section will give a succinct statement of the specific 
scientific, applications, and/or technological objective(s) for the 
opportunity(s) for which proposals are sought.

III. Background

    This section should provide an explanation of the context of the 
opportunity, i.e., information which will help the reader understand 
the relevance of the opportunity.

IV. Proposal Opportunity Period

    This section should provide the proposal opportunity period(s). 
The following methods may be used individually or in conjunction for 
establishing the proposal opportunity period(s):
    (a) The AO may be issued establishing a single date by which 
proposals may be received. However, the AO could provide that the 
agency may amend the AO to provide for subsequent dates for 
submission of proposals, if additional investigations are desired.
    (b) The AO may be issued to provide for an initial submission 
date with the AO to remain open for submission of additional 
proposals up to a final cutoff date. This final date should be 
related to the availability of resources necessary to evaluate the 
continuous flow of proposals and the time remaining prior to the 
flight opportunities contemplated by the AO.
    (c) The AO may be issued establishing a number of dates by which 
proposals may be received. Normally no more than three proposal 
submission dates should be established. The submittal dates may be 
spread over the number of months most compatible with the possible 
flight opportunities and the availability of resources necessary to 
evaluate and fund the proposal. If desired, this section should 
further inform the reader that if a proposal receives a Category I, 
II, or III rating but is not selected for immediate support, the 
proposal may, if desired by the proposer, be held by NASA for later 
consideration within the ground rules set forth in paragraphs 1 and 
2. The section should inform the reader that if the person wishes 
the proposal to be so treated, it should be indicated in the 
proposal. This section should further indicate that offerors whose 
proposals are to be considered at a later time will be given the 
opportunity to revalidate their proposals with their institution and 
update cost data.

V. Requirements and Constraints

    (a) This section will include technical, programmatic, cost, and 
schedule requirements or constraints, as applicable, and will 
specify performance limits such as lifetime, flight environment, 
safety, reliability, and quality assurance provisions for flight-
worthiness. It will specify the requirements and constraints related 
to the flight crew and the ground support. It will also include 
requirements for data analysis, estimated schedule of data shipment 
to user for observer, need for preliminary or raw data analysis and 
interim reports. It will specify the planned period (time) for data 
analysis to be used for budgeting. It will provide any additional 
information necessary for a meaningful proposal.
    (b) When NASA determines that instrumentation, ground support 
equipment, or NASA supporting effort will be required or may be 
expected to be required by the contemplated investigations, the AO 
should indicate to the potential investigators that they must submit 
specific information regarding this requirement to allow an in-depth 
evaluation of the technical aspects, cost, management, and other 
factors by the Installation Project Office.

VI. Proposal Submission Information

    (a) Preproposal Activities--In this section, the AO will 
indicate requiremets and activities such as the following:
    (1) Submittal of ``Notice of Intent'' to propose (if desired), 
date for submission, and any additional required data to be 
submitted. Indicate whether there are information packages which 
will only be sent to those who submit ``Notice of Intent.''
    (2) Attendance at the preproposal conference (if held). 
Information should be provided as to time, place, whether attendance 
will be restricted in number from each institution, and whether 
prior notice of intention to attend is required. If desired, a 
request may be included that questions be submitted in writing 
several days before the conference in order to prepare replies.
    (3) The name and address of the scientific or technical contact 
for questions or inquiries.
    (4) Any other preproposal data considered necessary.
    (b) Format of Proposals--This section should provide the 
investigator with the information necessary to enable an effective 
evaluation of the proposal. The information is as follows:
    (1) Proposal--The AO should indicate how the proposal should be 
submitted to facilitate evaluation. The proposal should be submitted 
in at least two sections; (i) Investigation and Technical Section; 
and (ii) Management and Cost Section.
    (2) Signatory--The proposal must be signed by an institutional 
official authorized to ensure institutional support, sponsorship of 
the investigation, management, and financial aspects of the 
proposal.
    (3) Quantity--The number of copies of the proposal should be 
specified. One copy should be clear black and white, and on white 
paper of quality suitable for reproduction.
    (4) Submittal Address--Proposals from domestic sources should be 
mailed to arrive not later than the time indicated for receipt of 
proposals to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of (Program)

Code-------------------------------------------------------------------

AO No.-----------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC 20546

    (5) Format--To aid in proposal evaluation, and to facilitate 
comparative analysis, a uniform proposal format will be required for 
each AO. The number of pages, page size, and restriction on photo 
reduction, etc., may be included. The format contained in Appendix C 
can be used as a guide. Proposers may be requested to respond to all 
of the items or the AO may indicate that only selected items need be 
addressed. Using the Appendix format as a guide, specific guidelines 
may be prepared for the AO or an appropriate form developed.
    (c) Additional Information--This section may be used to request 
or furnish data necessary to obtain clear proposals that should not 
require further discussions with the proposer by the evaluators. 
Other pertinent data could also be included, such as significant 
milestones.

[[Page 4489]]

    (d) Foreign Proposals--The procedures for submission of 
proposals from outside the U.S. are contained in Appendix B, 
``General Instructions and Provisions.'' This section will describe 
any additional requirements, for example, if information copies of 
proposals are required to be furnished by the proposer to other 
organizations at the same time the proposal is submitted.
    (e) Cost Proposals (U.S. Investigators Only)--This section 
defines any special requirements regarding cost proposals of 
domestic investigators. Reference than should be made to the cost 
proposal certifications indicated in Appendix B, ``General 
Instructions and Provisions.''

VII. Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and Implementation

    (a) Evaluation and Selection Procedure.
    (1) This section should notify the proposers of the evaluation 
process.
    (2) For example, a statement similar to the following should be 
included:
    ``Proposals received in response to this AO will be reviewed by 
a subcommittee appointed by the (appropriate Program AA). The 
purpose of the review is to determine the scientific/technical merit 
of the proposals in the context of this AO and so categorize the 
proposals. Those proposals with are considered to have the greatest 
scientific/technical merit are further reviewed for engineering, 
integration, management, and cost aspects by the Project Office at 
the installation responsible for the project. On the basis of these 
reviews, and the reviews of the responsible Program Office and the 
Steering Committee, the (appropriate Program Associate 
Administrator) will appoint/select the investigators/
investigations.''
    (b) Evaluation Criteria.
    (1) This section should indicate that the selection proposals 
which best meet the specific scientific, applications, and/or 
technological objectives, stated in the AO, is the aim of the 
solicitation. This section should list the criteria to be used in 
the evaluation of proposals and indicate their relative importance. 
See NASA FAR Supplement 1872.402 for a listing of criteria generally 
appropriate.
    (2) This section will also inform the proposers that cost and 
management factors, e.g., proposed small business participation in 
instrumentation fabrication or investigation support, will be 
separately considered.

VIII. Schedule

    This section should include the following, as applicable:
    (a) Preproposal conference date.
    (b) Notice of Intent submittal date.
    (c) Proposal submittal date(s).
    (d) Target date for announcement of selections.

IX. Appendices

    (a) General Instructions and Provisions (must be attached to 
each AO).
    (b) Other Pertinent Data, e.g., Spacelab Accommodations Data.

/s/ Associate Administrator
for (Program)


1872.705-1 Appendix A:   General Instructions and Provisions

    Include the following in all Announcements of Opportunity:

I. Instrumentation and/or Ground Equipment

    By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree 
that NASA has the option to accept all or part of the offeror's plan 
to provide the instrumentation or ground support equipment required 
for the investigation or NASA may furnish or obtain such 
instrumentation or equipment from any other source as determined by 
the selecting official. In addition, NASA reserves the right to 
require use, by the selected investigator, of Government 
instrumentation or property that becomes available, with or without 
modification, that will meet the investigative objectives.

II. Tentative Selections, Phased Development, Partial Selections, and 
Participation With Others

    By submitting a proposal, the investigator and the organization 
agree that NASA has the option to make a tentative selection pending 
a successful feasibility or definition effort. NASA has the option 
to contract in phases for a proposed experiment, and to discontinue 
the investigative effort at the completion of any phase. The 
investigator should also understand that NASA may desire to select 
only a portion of the proposed investigation and/or that NASA may 
desire the individual's participation with other investigators in a 
joint investigation, in which case the investigator will be given 
the opportunity to accept or decline such partial acceptance or 
participation with other investigators prior to a selection. Where 
participation with other investigators as a team is agreed to, one 
of the team members will normally be designated as its team leader 
or contact point.

III. Selection Without Discussion

    The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals 
received in response to this AO when such action shall be considered 
in the best interest of the Government. Notice is also given of the 
possibility that any selection may be made without discussion (other 
than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). 
It is therefore emphasized that all proposals should be submitted 
initially on the most favorable terms that the offeror can submit.

IV. Foreign Proposals

    See Appendix B, Management Plan and Cost Plan, paragraph (a)(3).

V. Treatment of Proposal Data

    It is NASA policy to use information contained in proposals and 
quotations for evaluation purposes only. While this policy does not 
require that the proposal or quotation bear a restrictive notice, 
offerors or quoters should place the following notice on the title 
page of the proposal or quotation and specify the information, 
subject to the notice by inserting appropriate identification, such 
as page numbers, in the notice. Information (data) contained in 
proposals and quotations will be protected to the extent permitted 
by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and disclosure of 
information not made subject to the notice. To prevent inadvertent 
disclosure, proposal data shall not be included in submissions (e.g. 
final reports) that are routinely released to the public.

Restriction on Use and Disclosure of Proposal and Quotation Information 
(Data)

    The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or 
other identification] of this proposal or quotation constitutes a 
trade secret and/or information that is commercial or financial and 
confidential or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in 
confidence with the understanding that it will not, without 
permission of the offeror, be used or disclosed for other than 
evaluation purposes; provided, however, that in the event a contract 
is awarded on the basis of this proposal or quotation the Government 
shall have the right to use and disclose this information (data) to 
the extent provided in the contract. This restriction does not limit 
the Government's right to use or disclose this information (data) if 
obtained from another source without restriction.

VI. Status of Cost Proposals (U.S. Proposals Only)

    The investigator's institution agrees that the cost proposal is 
for proposal evaluation and selection purposes, and that following 
selection and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract, 
the institution may be required to resubmit cost information in 
accordance with FAR 15.8.

VII. Late Proposals

    The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or 
modifications thereof received after the date indicated, should such 
action be in the interest of the Government.

VIII. Source of Space Transportation System Investigations

    Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for 
Space Transportation System (STS) missions can come from many 
sources.

IX. Disclosure of Proposals Outside Government

    NASA may find it necessary to obtain proposal evaluation 
assistance outside the Government. Where NASA determines it is 
necessary to disclose a proposal outside the Government for 
evaluation purposes, arrangements will be made with the evaluator 
for appropriate handling of the proposal information. Therefore, by 
submitting a proposal the investigator and institution agree that 
NASA may have the proposal evaluated outside the Government. If the 
investigator or institution desire to preclude NASA from using an 
outside evaluation, the investigator or institution should so 
indicate on the cover. However, notice is given that if NASA is 
precluded from using outside evaluation, it may be unable to 
consider the proposal.

[[Page 4490]]

X. Equal Opportunity (U.S. Proposals Only)

    By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree 
to accept the following clause in any resulting contract:

Equal Opportunity

    During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees 
as follows:
    (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or 
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin.
    (b) The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that 
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during 
employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin. This shall include, but not be limited to, (1) 
employment, (2) upgrading, (3) demotion, (4) transfer, (5) 
recruitment or recruitment advertising, (6) layoff or termination, 
(7) rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and (8) selection 
for training, including apprenticeship.
    (c) The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places available to 
employees and applicants for employment the notices to be provided 
by the Contracting Officer that explain this clause.
    (d) The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements 
for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that 
all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment 
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
    (e) The Contractor shall send to each labor union or 
representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining 
agreement or other contract or understanding the notice to be 
provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the labor union or 
workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under this 
clause, and post copies of the notice in conspicuous places 
available to employees and applicants for employment.
    (f) The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as 
amended, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of 
Labor.
    (g) The Contractor shall furnish to the contracting agency all 
information required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and by 
the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. 
Standard Form 100 (EEO-1), or any successor form, is the prescribed 
form to be filed within 30 days following the award, unless filed 
within 12 months preceding the date of award.
    (h) The Contractor shall permit access to its books, records, 
and accounts by the contracting agency or the Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for the purposes of 
investigation to ascertain the Contractor's compliance with the 
applicable rules, regulations, and orders.
    (i) If the OFCCP determines that the Contractor is not in 
compliance with this clause or any rule, regulation, or order of the 
Secretary of Labor, the contract may be canceled, terminated, or 
suspended in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared 
ineligible for further Government contracts, under the procedures 
authorized in Executive Order 11246, as amended. In addition, 
sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked against the Contractor 
as provided in Executive Order 11246, as amended, the rules, 
regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise 
provided by law.
    (j) The Contractor shall include the terms and conditions of 
subparagraph 1 through 9 of this clause in every subcontract or 
purchase order that is not exempted by the rules, regulations, or 
orders of the Secretary of Labor issued under Executive Order 11246, 
as amended, so that these terms and conditions will be binding upon 
each subcontractor or vendor.
    (k) The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any 
subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct 
as a means of enforcing these terms and conditions, including 
sanctions for non-compliance; provided, that if the Contractor 
becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a 
subcontractor or vendor as a result of direction, the Contractor may 
request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect 
the interests of the United States.

XI. Patent Rights

    (a) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to 
other than a small business firm or nonprofit organization, the 
clause at 1852.227-70, ``New Technology,'' shall apply. Such 
contractor may, in advance of contract, request waiver of rights as 
set forth in the provision at 1852.227-71, ``Request for Waiver of 
Rights to Inventions.''
    (b) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to 
a small business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR 
52.227-11, ``Patent Rights--Retention by the Contractor (Short 
Form)'' (as modified by 1852.227-11), shall apply.


1872.705-2  Appendix B: Guidelines for Proposal Preparation

    The following guidelines apply to the preparation of proposals in 
response to an AO. The material is a guide for the proposer and not 
intended to be encompassing or directly applicable to the various types 
of proposals which can be submitted. The proposer should provide 
information relative to those items applicable or as required by the 
AO.

I. Cover Letter

    A letter or cover page should be forwarded with the proposal 
signed by the investigator and an official by title of the 
investigator's organization who is authorized to commit the 
organization responsible for the proposal.

II. Table of Contents

    The proposal should contain a table of contents.

III. Identifying Information

    The proposal should contain a short descriptive title for the 
investigation, the names of all investigators, the name of the 
organization or institution and the full name, address, and 
telephone number of the Principal Investigator.

Investigation and Technical Plan

(a) Investigation and Technical Plan

    The investigation and technical plan generally will contain the 
following:
    (1) Summary. A concise statement about the investigation, its 
conduct, and the anticipated results.
    (2) Objective and Significant Aspects. A brief definition of the 
objectives, their value, and their relationships to past, current, 
and future effort. The history and basis for the proposal and a 
demonstration of the need for such an investigation. A statement of 
present development in the discipline field.
    (3) Investigation Approach.
    (i) Fully describe the concept of the investigation.
    (ii) Detail the method and procedure for carrying out the 
investigation.

(b) Instrumentation

    This section should describe all information necessary to plan 
for experiment development, integration, ground operations, and 
flight operations. This section must be complete in itself without 
need to request additional data. Failure to furnish complete data 
may preclude evaluation of the proposal.
    (1) Instrument Description--This section should fully describe 
the instrument and indicate items which are proposed to be developed 
as well as any existing instrumentation. Performance characteristics 
should be related to the experiment objectives as stated in the 
proposal.
    (2) Instrument Integration--This section should describe all 
parameters of the instrument pertinent to the accommodation of the 
instrument in the spacecraft, Spacelab, Shuttle Orbiter, Space 
Station, etc. These include, but are not limited to, volumetric 
envelope; weight; power requirements; thermal requirements; 
telemetry requirement; sensitivity to or generation of contamination 
(e.g., EMI gaseous effluent); data processing requirements.
    (3) Ground Operations--This section should identify requirements 
for pre-launch or post-launch ground operations support.
    (4) Flight Operations--This section should identify any 
requirements for flight operations support including mission 
planning. Operational constraints, viewing requirements, and 
pointing requirements should also be identified. Details of 
communications needs, tracking needs, and special techniques, such 
as extravehicular activity or restrictions in the use of control 
thrusters at stated times should be delineated. Special 
communications facilities that are needed must be described. Any 
special orbital requirements, such as time of month, of day, phase 
of moon, and lighting conditions are to be given in detail. Describe 
real-time ground support requirements and indicate any special 
equipment or skills required of ground personnel.

(c) Data Reduction and Analysis

    A discussion of the data reduction and analysis plan including 
the method and format. A section of the plan should include a 
schedule for the submission of reduced data to the receiving point. 
In the case of Space Science programs, the National Space

[[Page 4491]]

Science Data Center, Greenbelt, MD, will be the repository for such 
data and the Department of Interior, Sioux Falls, SD, for earth 
observations data.

(d) Orbiter Crew and/or Payload Specialist Training Requirement

    A description of the tasks required of each crew member 
(Commander, Pilot, Mission Specialist) or payload specialist should 
be provided, including the task duration and equipment involved. 
Indicate special training necessary to provide the crew members or 
payload specialist(s) with the capability for performing the 
aforementioned tasks.

Management Plan and Cost Plan

(a) Management Plan

    The management plan should summarize the management approach and 
the facilities and equipment required. Additional guidelines 
applicable to non-U.S. proposers are contained herein:

(1) Management

    (i) The management plan sets forth the approach for managing the 
work, the recognition of essential management functions, and the 
overall integration of these functions.
    (ii) The management plan gives insight into the organization 
proposed for the work, including the internal operations and lines 
of authority with delegations, together with internal interfaces and 
relationships with the NASA major subcontractors and associated 
investigators. Likewise, the management plan usually reflects 
various schedules necessary for the logical and timely pursuit of 
the work accompanied by a description of the investigator's work 
plan and the responsibilities of the co-investigators.
    (iii) The plan should describe the proposed method of instrument 
acquisition. It should include the following, as applicable.
    (A) Rationale for the investigator to obtain the instrument 
through or by the investigator's institution.
    (B) Method and basis for the selection of the instrument 
fabricator.
    (C) Unique capabilities of the instrument fabricator that are 
not available from any other source.
    (D) Characteristics of the proposed fabricator's instrument that 
make it an inseparable part of the investigation.
    (E) Availability of personnel to administer the instrument 
contract and technically monitor the fabrication.
    (F) Status of development of the instrument.
    (G) Method by which the investigator proposes to:
    (a) Prepare instrument specifications.
    (b) Review development progress.
    (c) Review design and fabrication changes.
    (d) Participate in testing program.
    (e) Participate in final checkout and calibration.
    (f) Provide for integration of instrument.
    (g) Support the flight operations.
    (h) Coordinate with co-investigators, other related 
investigations, and the payload integrator.
    (i) Assure safety, reliability, and quality.
    (j) Provide required support for Payload Specialist(s), if 
applicable.
    (H) Planned participation by small and/or minority business in 
any subcontracting for instrument fabrication or investigative 
support functions.

(2) Facilities and Equipment

    All major facilities, laboratory equipment, and ground-support 
equipment (GSE) (including those of the investigator's proposed 
contractors and those of NASA and other U.S. Government agencies) 
essential to the experiment in terms of its system and subsystems 
are to be indicated, distinguishing insofar as possible between 
those already in existence and those that will be developed in order 
to execute the investigation. The outline of new facilities and 
equipment should also indicate the lead time involved and the 
planned schedule for construction, modification, and/or acquisition 
of the facilities.

(3) Additional Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposers Only

    The following guidelines are established for foreign responses 
to NASA's AO. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific announcement, 
these guidelines indicate the appropriate measures to be taken by 
foreign proposers, prospective foreign sponsoring agencies, and NASA 
leading to the selection of a proposal and execution of appropriate 
arrangements. They include the following:
    (i) Where a ``Notice of Intent'' to propose is requested, 
prospective foreign proposers should write directly to the NASA 
official designated in the AO and send a copy of this letter to the 
International Relations Division, Office of External Relations, Code 
IR, NASA, Washington, DC 20546, U.S.A.
    (ii) Unless otherwise indicated in the AO, proposals will be 
submitted in accordance with this Appendix excluding cost plans. 
Proposals should be typewritten and written in English.
    (iii) Persons planning to submit a proposal should arrange with 
an appropriate foreign governmental agency for a review and 
endorsement of the proposed activity. Such endorsement by a foreign 
organization indicates that the proposal merits careful 
consideration by NASA and that, if the proposal is selected, 
sufficient funds will be available to undertake the activity 
envisioned.
    (iv) Proposals including the requested number of copies and 
letters of endorsement from the foreign governmental agency must be 
forwarded to NASA in time to arrive before the deadline established 
for each AO. These documents should be sent to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, International 
Relations Division, Code IR, Office of External Relations, 
Washington, DC 20546, U.S.A.

    (v) Those proposals received after the closing date will be 
treated in accordance with NASA's provisions for late proposals. 
Sponsoring foreign government agencies may, in exceptional 
situations, forward a proposal directly to the above address if 
review and endorsement is not possible before the announced closing 
date. In such cases, NASA should be advised when a decision on 
endorsement can be expected.
    (vi) Shortly after the deadline for each AO, NASA's 
International Relations Division will be advised the appropriate 
sponsoring agency which proposals have been received and when the 
selection process should be completed. A copy of this acknowledgment 
will be provided to each proposer.
    (vii) Successful and unsuccessful proposers will be contacted 
directly by the NASA Program Officer coordinating the AO. Copies of 
these letters will be sent to the sponsoring Government agency.
    (viii) NASA's International Relations Division will then begin 
making the arrangements to provide for the selectee's participation 
in the appropriate NASA program. Depending on the nature and extent 
of the proposed cooperation, these arrangements may entail:
    (A) A letter of notification by NASA.
    (B) An exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring 
foreign governmental agency.
    (C) An agreement or Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and 
the sponsoring foreign governmental agency.

(b) Cost Plan (U.S. Investigations Only)

    The cost plan should summarize the total investigation cost by 
major categories of cost as well as by function.
    (1) The categories of cost should include the following:
    (i) Director Labor--List by labor category, with labor hours and 
rates for each. Provide actual salaries of all personnel and the 
percentage of time each individual will devote to the effort.
    (ii) Overhead--Include indirect costs. Usually this is in the 
form of a percentage of the direct labor costs.
    (iii) Materials--This should give the total cost of the bill of 
materials including estimated cost of each major item. Include lead 
time of critical items.
    (iv) Subcontracts--List those over $25,000, specify the vendor 
and the basis for estimated costs. Include any baseline or 
supporting studies.
    (v) Special Equipment--Include a list of special equipment with 
lead and/or development time.
    (vi) Travel--List estimated number of trips, destinations, 
duration, purpose, number of travelers, and anticipated dates.
    (vii) Other Costs--Costs not covered elsewhere.
    (viii) General and Administrative Expense--This includes the 
expenses of the institution's general and executive offices and 
other miscellaneous expenses related to the overall business.
    (ix) Fee (if applicable).
    (2) Separate schedules, in the above format, should be attached 
to show total cost allocable to the following:
    (i) Principal Investigator and other Investigators' costs.
    (ii) Instrument costs.
    (iii) Integration costs.
    (iv) Data reduction and analysis including the amount and cost 
of computer time.
    (e) If the effort is sufficiently known and defined, a funding 
obligation plan should provide the proposed funding requirements of 
the investigations by quarter and/or annum keyed to the work 
schedule.

[[Page 4492]]

1872.705-3  Appendix C:  Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Associated 
with Investigations.

    Advisory Committee Subcommittee--Any committee, board, commission, 
council, conference, panel, task force; or other similar group, or any 
subcommittee or other subgroup thereof, that is not wholly composed of 
full-time Federal Government employees, and that is established or 
utilized by NASA in the interest of obtaining advice or 
recommendations.
    Announcement of Opportunity (AO)--A document used to announce 
opportunities to participate in NASA programs.
    AO Process--A term used to describe the program planning and 
acquisition procedure used to acquire investigative effort, initiated 
by an AO.
    Categorization--The process whereby proposed investigations are 
classified into four categories: synopsized here as Category I--
recommended for immediate acceptance; Category II--recommended for 
acceptance but at a lower priority than Category I proposals; Category 
III--sound investigations requiring further development; Category IV--
rejected.
    Co-Investigator (Co-I)--Associate of a Principal Investigator, 
responsible to the Principal Investigator for discrete portions or 
tasks of the investigation. A NASA employee can participate as a Co-I 
on an investigation proposed by a private organization.
    Data Users--Participants in NASA programs, selected to perform 
investigations utilizing data from NASA payloads or facilities.
    Experiments--Activities or effort aimed at the generation of data. 
NASA-sponsored experiments generally concern generation of data 
obtained through measurement of aeronautical and space phenomena or use 
of space to observe earth phenomena.
    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)--The regulations governing the 
conduct of acquisition.
    Flight--That portion of the mission encompassing the period from 
launch to landing or launch to termination of the active life of 
spacecraft. The term shuttle ``flight'' means a single shuttle round 
trip--its launch, orbital activity, and return; one flight might 
deliver more than one payload. More than one flight might be required 
to accomplish one mission.
    Flight Investigaton--Investigation conducted utilizing aeronautical 
or space instrumentation.
    Flight Opportunity--A flight mission designed to accommodate one or 
more experiments or investigations.
    Guest Investigators--Investigators selected to conduct observations 
and obtain data within the capability of a NASA mission, which are 
additional to the mission's primary objectives. Sometimes referred to 
as Guest Observers
    Investigaton--Used interchangeably with ``Experiments.''
    Investigation Team--A group of investigators collaborating on a 
single investigation.
    Investigator--A participant in an investigation. May refer to the 
Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator, or member of an investigation 
team.
    Mission--The performance of a coherent set of investigations or 
operations in space to achieve program goals. (Example: Measure 
detailed structure of Sun's chromosphere; survey mineral resources of 
North America.)
    NASA FAR Supplement--Acquisition regulations promulgated by NASA in 
addition to the FAR.
    NMI--NASA Management Instruction.
    Notice of Intent--A notice or letter submitted by a potential 
investigator indicating the intent to submit a proposal in response to 
an AO.
    Payload--A specific complement of instruments, space equipment, and 
support hardware carried to space to accomplish a mission or discrete 
activity in space.
    Peer Group--A gathering of experts in related disciplinary areas 
convened as a subcommittee of the Program Office Steering Committee to 
review proposals for flight investigations.
    Peer Review--The process of proposal review utilizing a group of 
peers in accordance with the categorization criteria as outlined in 
this Handbook.
    Principal Investigator (PI)--A person who conceives an 
investigation and is responsible for carrying it out and reporting its 
results. A NASA employee can participate as a PI only on a government-
proposed investigation.
    Program--An activity involving human resources, materials, funding, 
and scheduling necessary to achieve desired goals.
    Project--Within a program, an undertaking with a scheduled 
beginning and ending, which normally involves the design, construction, 
and operation of one or more aeronautical or space vehicles and 
necessary ground support in order to accomplish a scientific or 
technical objective.
    Project Office--An office generally established at a NASA field 
installation to manage a project.
    Selection Official--The NASA official designated to determine the 
source for award of a contract or grant.
    Space Facility--An instrument or series of instruments in space 
provided by NASA to satisfy a general objective or need.
    Steering Committee--A standing NASA sponsored committee providing 
advice to the Program Associate Administrators and providing procedural 
review over the investigation selection process. Composed wholly of 
full-time Federal Government employees.
    Study Office--An office established at a NASA field installation to 
manage a potential undertaking which has not yet developed into project 
status.
    Subcommittee--An arm of the Program Office Steering Committee 
consisting of experts in relevant disciplines to review and categorize 
proposals for investigations submitted in response to an AO.
    Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T)--The programs devoted to 
the conduct of research and development necessary to support and 
sustain NASA programs.
    Team--A group of investigators responsible for carrying out and 
reporting the results of an investigation or group of investigations.
    Team Leader--The person appointed to manage and be the point of 
contact for the team and who is responsible for assigning respective 
roles and privileges to the team members and reporting the results of 
the investigation.
    Team Member--A person appointed to a team who is an associate of 
the other members of the team and is responsible to the team leader for 
assigned tasks or portions of the investigation.

[FR Doc. 97-1864 Filed 1-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M