[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9953-9967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4853]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 
1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and 1872


Contracting by Negotiation

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This is an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 
parts to conform to the regulatory changes effected by Federal 
Acquisition Circular (FAC) 97-02, FAR Part 15 Rewrite; reflect the 
expiration of the waiver to the requirement to publish synopsis in the 
Commerce Business Daily for certain acquisitions under NASA's MidRange 
procedures; and specify that the NASA Acquisition Internet Service 
(NAIS) is the Agency Internet site for posting solicitations and other 
acquisition information.

DATES: This rule is effective February 27, 1998. All comments on this 
rule should be in writing and must be received by April 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Tom O'Toole, Code HK, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20456-0001.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    FAC 97-02, published in the Federal Register (62 FR 51224) on 
September 30, 1997, completely revised FAR part 15, Contracting by 
Negotiation. The final rule allowed agencies to delay implementation 
until January 1, 1998. The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) is in substantive 
compliance with the revised FAR, but extensive redesignation of NFS 
subparts and sections is required for structural conformance. 
Accordingly, NFS part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, is revised in 
its entirety, and parts 1852, Solicitation Provisions and Contract 
Clauses, and 1853, Forms, are amended. Regulatory references in other 
parts are also amended to reflect revised FAR numbering. In addition, 
NASA is revising its MidRange procedures in part 1871 to reflect the 
expiration of the waiver of the requirement to publish synopses in the 
Commerce Business Daily for certain acquisitions under NASA's MidRange 
procedures. Previously, these synopses had been posted only on the 
Internet. Finally, changes are made to indicate that the NASA 
Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) is the single Agency Internet site 
for posting solicitations and other acquisition information. NASA 
considers all these revisions to be either administrative or editorial, 
and no significant changes in Agency policy are implemented.

B. Impact

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

C. Interim Rule

    In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 418b(d), NASA has determined that 
urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule 
without prior opportunity for public comment. This determination is 
made on the following bases: (1) The required implementation date of 
the revised FAR part 15 is January 1, 1998; (2) NFS part 1815 coverage 
is of critical importance to the effective and efficient accomplishment 
of NASA acquisitions; and (3) the substance of the NFS coverage was 
published previously for public comment in the Federal Register (61 FR 
52325) on October 7, 1996.

Lists of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814, 
1815, 1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and 
1872

    Government procurement.
Deidre A. Lee,
Associate Administrator for Procurement.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1814, 1815, 
1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 1871, and 1872 
are amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 
1805, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1844, 1852, 1853, 
1871, and 1872 continues to read as follows:

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

PART 1801--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

    2. In section 1801.106, paragraph (1) is revised to read as 
follows:


1801.106  OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (NASA 
paragraphs (1) and (2))

    (1) NFS requirements. The following OMB control numbers apply:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                        NFS segment                              No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1819.......................................................    2700-0073
1819.72....................................................    2700-0078
1827.......................................................    2700-0052
1843.......................................................    2700-0054
NF 533.....................................................    2700-0003
NF 667.....................................................    2700-0004
NF 1018....................................................    2700-0017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 1802--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

    3. In section 1802.101, the following definition is added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


1802.101  Definitions.

    NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) means the Internet service 
(URL: hhtp://procurement.nasa.gov) NASA uses to broadcast its business 
opportunities, procurement regulations, and associated information.

[[Page 9954]]

PART 1804--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Subpart 1804.5--[Added]

    4. Subpart 1804.5 is added to read as follows:

Subpart 1804.5--Electronic Commerce in Contracting


1804.570  NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS).


1804.570-1  General.

    The NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) provides an electronic 
means for posting procurement synopses, solicitations, procurement 
regulations, and associated information on the Internet.


1804.570-2  Electronic posting system.

    (a) The NAIS Electronic Posting System (EPS) enables the NASA 
procurement staff to:
    (1) Electronically create and post synopses on the Internet and in 
the Commerce Business Daily (CBD); and
    (2) Post solicitation documents and other procurement information 
on the Internet.
    (b) The EPS maintains an on-line index linking the posted synopses 
and solicitations for viewing and downloading.
    (c) The EPS shall be used to:
    (1) Create and post all synopses in accordance with FAR part 5 and 
NFS 1805; and
    (2) Post all competitive solicitation files, excluding large 
construction and other drawings, for acquisitions exceeding $25,000.
    (d) The NAIS is the official site for solicitation postings. In the 
event supporting materials, such as program libraries, cannot be 
reasonably accommodated by the NAIS, Internet sites external to NAIS 
may be established after coordination with the Contracting Officer. 
Such sites must be linked from the NAIS business opportunities index 
where the solicitations reside. External sites should not duplicate any 
of the files residing on the NAIS.

PART 1805--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS


1805.201  [Removed]

    5. Section 1805.201 is removed.
    6. In section 1805.207, paragraph (a) is added to read as follows:


1805.207  Preparation and transmittal of synopses. (NASA supplement 
paragraph (a))

    (a) Synopses shall be transmitted in accordance with 1804.570.

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

    7. Part 1815 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 1815.2--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information

1815.201  Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals.
1815.203  Requests for proposals.
1815.203-70  Installation reviews.
1815.203-71  Headquarters reviews.
1815.204  Contract format.
1815.204-2  Part I--The Schedule.
1815.204-5  Part IV--Representations and instructions.
1815.204-70  Page limitations.
1815.207  Handling proposals and information.
1815.207-70  Release of proposal information.
1815.207-71  Appointing non-Government evaluators as special 
Government employees.
1815.208  Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of 
proposals.
1815.209  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.209-70  NASA solicitation provisions.

Subpart 1815.3--Source Selection

1815.300  Scope of subpart.
1815.300-70  Applicability of subpart.
1815.303  Responsibilities.
1815.304  Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
1815.304-70  NASA evaluation factors.
1815.305  Proposal evaluation.
1815.305-70  Identification of unacceptable proposals.
1815.305-71  Evaluation of a single proposal.
1815.306  Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
1815.307  Proposal revisions.
1815.308  Source selection decision.
1815.370  NASA source evaluation boards.

Subpart 1815.4--Contract Pricing

1815.403  Obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1  Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-170  Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation 
(CCC).
1815.403-3  Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
1815.403-4  Requiring cost or pricing data.
1815.404  Proposal analysis.
1815.404-2  Information to support proposal analysis.
1815.404-4  Profit.
1815.404-470  NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.404-471  Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.
1815.406  Documentation.
1815.406-1  Prenegotiation objectives.
1815.406-170  Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
1815.406-171  Installation reviews.
1815.406-172  Headquarters reviews.
1815.406-3  Documenting the negotiation.
1815.407  Special cost or pricing areas.
1815.407-2  Make-or-buy programs.
1815.408  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
1815.408-70  NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
Subpart 1815.5--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, Protests, 
and Mistakes
1815.504  Award to successful offeror.
1815.506  Postaward debriefing of offerors.
1815.506-70  Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.

Subpart 1815.6--Unsolicited Proposals

1815.602  Policy.
1815.604  Agency points of contact.
1815.606  Agency procedures.
1815.606-70  Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.
1815.609  Limited use of data.
1815.609-70  Limited use of proposals.
1815.670  Foreign proposals.

Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman

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

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

Subpart 1815.2--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and 
Information


1815.201  Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals. (NASA 
supplements paragraphs (c) and (f))

    (c)(6)(A) Except for acquisitions described in 1815.300-70(b) 
contracting officers shall issue draft requests for proposals (DRFPs) 
for all competitive negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed 
$1,000,000 (including all options or later phases of the same project). 
DRFPs shall invite comments from potential offerors on all aspects of 
the draft solicitation, including the requirements, schedules, proposal 
instructions, and evaluation approaches. Potential offerors should be 
specifically requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient 
requirements. When considered appropriate, the statement of work or the 
specifications may be issued in advance of other solicitation sections.
    (B) Contracting officers shall plan the acquisition schedule to 
include adequate time for issuance of the DRFP, potential offeror 
review and comment, and NASA evaluation and disposition of the 
comments.
    (C) When issuing DRFPs, potential offerors should be advised that 
the DRFP is not a solicitation and NASA is not requesting proposals.

[[Page 9955]]

    (D) Whenever feasible, contracting officers should include a 
summary of the disposition of significant DRFP comments with the final 
RFP.
    (E) The procurement officer may waive the requirement for a DRFP 
upon written determination that the expected benefits will not be 
realized given the name of the supply or service being acquired. The 
DRFP shall not be waived because of poor or inadequate planning.
    (f)(i) Upon release of the formal RFP, the contracting officer 
shall direct all personnel associated with the acquisition to refrain 
from communicating with prospective offerors and to refer all inquiries 
to the contracting officer or other authorized representative. This 
procedure is commonly known as a ``blackout notice'' and shall not be 
imposed before release of the RFP. The notice may be issued in any 
format (e.g., letter or electronic) appropriate to the complexity of 
the acquisition.
    (ii) Blackout notices are not intended to terminate all 
communication with offerors. Contracting officers should continue to 
provide information as long as it does not create an unfair competitive 
advantage or reveal proprietary data.


1815.203  Requests for proposals.


1815.203-70  Installation reviews.

    (a) Installations shall establish procedures to review all RFPs 
before release. When appropriate given the complexity of the 
acquisition or the number of offices involved in solicitation review, 
centers should consider use of a single review meeting called a 
Solicitation Review Board (SRB) as a streamlined alternative to the 
serial or sequential coordination of the solicitation with reviewing 
offices. The SRB is a meeting in which all offices having review and 
approval responsibilities discuss the solicitation and their concerns. 
Actions assigned and changes required by the SRB shall be documented.
    (b) When source evaluation board (SEB) procedures are used in 
accordance with 1815.370, the SEB shall review and approve the RFP 
prior to issuance.


1815.203-71  Headquarters reviews.

    For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the 
procurement officer shall submit ten copies of the RFP to the Associate 
Administrator for Procurement (Code HS). Any significant information 
relating to the RFP or the planned evaluation methodology omitted from 
the RFP itself should also be provided.


1815.204  Contract format.


1815.204-2  Part I--The Schedule. (NASA supplements paragraph (c))

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


1815.204-5  Part IV--Representations and instructions. (NASA 
supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) The information required in proposals should be kept to the 
minimum necessary for the source selection decision.


1815.204-70  Page limitations.

    (a) Technical and contracting personnel will agree on page 
limitations for their respective portions of an RFP. Unless approved in 
writing by the procurement officer, the page limitation for the 
contracting portion of an RFP (all sections except Section C, 
Description/specifications/work statement) shall not exceed 150 pages, 
and the page limitation for the technical portion (Section C) shall not 
exceed 200 pages. Attachments to the RFP count as part of the section 
to which they relate. In determining page counts, a page is defined as 
one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', with at least one inch margins on 
all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. Foldouts count as an 
equivalent number of 8\1/2\'' x 11'' pages. The metric standard format 
most closely approximating the described standard 8\1/2\'' x 11'' size 
may also be used.
    (b) Page limitations shall also be established for proposals 
submitted in competitive acquisitions. Accordingly, technical and 
contracting personnel will agree on page limitations for each portion 
of the proposal. Unless a different limitation is approved in writing 
by the procurement officer, the total initial proposal, excluding title 
pages, tables of content, and cost/price information, shall not exceed 
500 pages using the page definition of 1815.204-70(a). Firm page 
limitations shall also be established for final proposal revisions, if 
requested. The appropriate page limitations for final proposal 
revisions should be determined by considering the complexity of the 
acquisition and the extent of any discussions. The same page 
limitations shall apply to all offerors. Pages submitted in excess of 
specified limitations will not be evaluated by the Government and will 
be returned to the offeror.


1815.207  Handling proposals and information.


1815.207-70  Release of proposal information.

    (a) NASA personnel participating in any way in the evaluation may 
not reveal any information concerning the evaluation to anyone not also 
participating, and then only to the extent that the information is 
required in connection with the evaluation. When non-NASA personnel 
participate, they shall be instructed to observe these restrictions.
    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
procurement officer is the approval authority to disclose proposal 
information outside the Government. This authorization may be granted 
only after compliance with FAR 37.2 and 1837.204, except that the 
determination of unavailability of Government personnel required by FAR 
37.2 is not required for disclosure of proposal information to JPL 
employees.
    (2) Proposal information in the following classes of proposals may 
be disclosed with the prior written approval of a NASA official one 
level above the NASA program official responsible for overall conduct 
of the evaluation. The determination of unavailability of Government 
personnel required by FAR 37.2 is not required for disclosure in these 
instances.
    (i) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
    (ii) Unsolicited proposals;
    (iii) NASA Research Announcement proposals;
    (iv) SBIR and STTR proposals.
    (3) If JPL personnel, in evaluating proposal information released 
to them by NASA, require assistance from non-JPL, non-Government 
evaluators, JPL must obtain written approval to release the information 
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.


1815.207-71  Appointing non-Government evaluators as special Government 
employees.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, non-
Government evaluators, except employees of JPL, shall be appointed as 
special Government employees.
    (b) Appointment as a special Government employee is a separate 
action from the approval required by paragraph 1815.207-70(b) and may 
be processed concurrently. Appointment as a special Government employee 
shall be made by:
    (1) The NASA Headquarters personnel office when the release of 
proposal information is to be made by a NASA Headquarters office; or

[[Page 9956]]

    (2) The installation personnel office when the release of proposal 
information is to be made by the installation.
    (c) Non-Government evaluators need not be appointed as special 
Government employees when they evaluate:
    (1) NASA Announcements of Opportunity proposals;
    (2) Unsolicited proposals;
    (3) NASA Research Announcement proposals; and
    (4) SBIR and STTR proposals.


1815.208  Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of 
proposals. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) The FAR late proposal criteria do not apply to Announcements of 
Opportunity (see 1872.705-1 paragraph VII), NASA Research Announcements 
(see 1852.235-72), and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase 
I and Phase II solicitations, and Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) solicitations. For these solicitations, proposals or proposal 
modifications received from qualified firms after the latest date 
specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in 
cost to the Government is probable or if there are significant 
technical advantages, as compared with proposals previously received. 
In such cases, the project office shall investigate the circumstances 
surrounding the late submission, evaluate its content, and submit 
written recommendations and findings to the selection official or a 
designee as to whether there is an advantage to the Government in 
considering it. The selection official or a designee shall determine 
whether to consider the late submission.


1815.209  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (NASA 
supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-1 in all 
competitive negotiated solicitations.


1815.209-70  NASA solicitation provisions.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for 
proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to 
conduct a prepoposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate 
specific information relating to the conference.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.214-71, 
Grouping for Aggregate Award, in solicitations when it is in the 
Government's best interest not to make award for less than specified 
quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items. Insert 
the item numbers and/or descriptions applicable for the particular 
acquisition.
    (c) The contracting office shall insert the clause at 1852.214-72, 
Full Quantities, in solicitations when award will be made only on the 
full quantities solicited.
    (d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for 
proposals.

Subpart 1815.3--Source Selection


1815.300  Scope of subpart.


1815.300-70  Applicability of subpart.

    (a)(1) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA 
competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:
    (i) Acquisitions of $50 million or more--in accordance with FAR 
15.3 and this subpart.
    (ii) Other acquisitions--in accordance with FAR 15.3 and this 
subpart except section 1815.370.
    (2) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the 
values of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same 
project.
    (b) FAR 15.3 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions 
conducted under the following procedures:
    (1) MidRange (see part 1871).
    (2) Announcements of Opportunity (see part 1872).
    (3) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-70).
    (4) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the 
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the 
authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
    (5) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and 
1836.6).


1815.303  Responsibilities. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for 
each acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR designation of the 
contracting officer as SAA, the SSA for center acquisitions shall be 
established in accordance with center procedures. For acquisitions 
designated as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as 
part of the Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).
    (b)(i) The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official 
responsible for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection 
process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has 
the following responsibilities in addition to those listed in the FAR:
    (A) Approve the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, the 
weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors, and any special 
standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2) before release of the 
RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate management personnel;
    (B) Appoint the source selection team. However, when the 
Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the 
cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and
    (C) Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance and 
special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection 
procedures.
    (b)(2) Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Acquisition 
Strategy Meetings are in accordance with 1807.103.


1815.304  Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.


1815.304-70  NASA evaluation factors.

    (a) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission 
Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation factors may 
be further defined by subfactors. Although discouraged, subfactors may 
be further defined by elements. Evaluation subfactors and any elements 
should be structured to identify significant discriminators, or ``key 
swingers''--the essential information required to support a source 
selection decision. Too many subfactors and elements undermine 
effective proposal evaluation. All evaluation subfactors and elements 
should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and redundancy.
    (b) Mission Suitability factor. (1) This factor indicates the merit 
or excellence of the work to be performed or product to be delivered. 
It includes, as appropriate, both technical and management subfactors. 
Mission Suitability shall be numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-
point scale.
    (2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation 
subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission 
Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival 
rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the 
subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission 
Suitability subfactors is limited to four. The Mission Suitability 
evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
    (3) Although discouraged, elements that further define the content 
of each subfactor may be identified. Elements, if used, shall not be 
numerically weighted and scored. The total number of elements is 
limited to eight. Any Mission Suitability elements shall be identified 
in the RFP.

[[Page 9957]]

    (4) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability 
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis. 
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may 
significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.
    (c) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness 
and, if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs/prices. The 
Cost/Price factor is not numerically weighted or scored.
    (d) Past Performance factor. (1) This factor indicates the relevant 
quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror's record of 
performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, 
and complexity to the requirements of the instant acquisition.
    (2) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data 
from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private 
contracts) that can be used to evaluate their past performance. 
Typically, the RFP will require:
    (i) A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to 
the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of 
contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from 
the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested 
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years. 
However, in acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate 
performance quality, such as hardware development, the time period 
should be tailored accordingly.
    (ii) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or 
underruns, completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
    (3) The contracting officer may start collecting past performance 
data before proposal receipt. One method for early evaluation of past 
performance is to request offerors to submit their past performance 
information in advance of the proposal due date. The RFP could also 
include a past performance questionnaire for offerors to send their 
previous customers with instructions to return the completed 
questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its 
past performance information early or of the customers to submit the 
completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the 
proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government's evaluation of 
the offeror's past performance.


1815.305  Proposal evaluation. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and 
(b))

    (a) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
    (i) Any deficiencies;
    (ii) All strengths and weaknesses, classified as significant or 
insignificant;
    (iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission 
Suitability subfactors and for the Mission Suitability factor in total;
    (iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
    (v) The Past Performance evaluation factor; and
    (vi) Any technical, schedule, and cost risk. Risks may result from 
the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of 
materials, processes, equipment, etc., or as a result of the cost, 
schedule, and performance impacts associated with their approaches. 
Risk evaluations must consider the probability of success, the impact 
of failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirements. 
Risk assessments shall be considered in determining Mission Suitability 
strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical/adjectival ratings. 
Identified risk areas and the potential for cost impact shall be 
considered in the cost or price evaluation.
    (a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.
    (A) Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive 
acquisitions. See 1815.403-1(b)(1) and 1815.403-3(b).
    (B) When contracting on a basis other than firm-fixed-price, the 
contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to 
assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost 
realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror's proposal 
are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear 
understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various 
elements of the offeror's technical proposal. The analysis should 
include:
    (a) The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including 
any recommended additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor 
hours, direct rates, and indirect rates. The probable cost should 
reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which might 
result from that offeror's proposal.
    (b) The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and 
practices as they affect cost.
    (c) A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each 
proposal.
    (C) The cost realism analysis may result in adjustments to Mission 
Suitability scores in accordance with the procedure described in 
1815.305(a)(3)(B).
    (a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
    (A) The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor's 
performance under previously awarded contracts.
    (B) The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past 
performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may 
include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other 
aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation 
requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance 
selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all 
offerors in that acquisition.
    (C) Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit 
assessments of the offerors's performance, as either a prime or 
subcontractor, from the offeror's previous customers.
    (D) All pertinent information, including customer assessments and 
any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection 
records and included in the evaluation.
    (a)(3) Technical Evaluation.
    (A) Mission Suitability subfactors and the total Mission 
Suitability factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival 
ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Percentile 
             Adjectival rating                                    Definitions                           range   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent.................................  A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional      91-100    
                                             merit with one or more significant strengths. No                   
                                             deficiency or significant weakness exists.                         
Very Good.................................  A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates     71-90    
                                             over-all competence. One or more significant                       
                                             strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance                
                                             any weaknesses that exist.                                         
Good......................................  A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a          51-70    
                                             reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or               
                                             weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-               
                                             set by strengths do not significantly detract from                 
                                             the offeror's response.                                            
Fair......................................  A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or       31-50    
                                             more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.              

[[Page 9958]]

                                                                                                                
Poor......................................  A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or             0-30    
                                             significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of                  
                                             overall competence or would require a major proposal               
                                             revision to correct.                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    (a)(4) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism 
analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs. 
Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the 
cost volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.
    (b) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination 
to reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.


1815.305-70  Identification of unacceptable proposals.

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


1815.305-71   Evaluation of a single proposal.

    (a) If only one proposal is received in response to the 
solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the 
solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the 
single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the 
SSA shall direct the contracting officer to:
    (1) Award without discussions provided for contracting officer 
determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR 15.403-
1(c)(1)(ii));
    (2) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The 
requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined 
in accordance with FAR 15.403-1); or
    (3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.
    (b) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also applies when the number of 
proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one 
acceptable proposal is received.


1815.306  Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. (NASA 
supplements paragraphs (c), (d), and (e))

    (c)(2) A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working 
goal in establishing the competitive range. Field installations may 
establish procedures for approval of competitive range determinations 
commensurate with the complexity or dollar value of an acquisition.
    (d)(3)(A) The contracting officer shall advise an offeror if, 
during discussions, an offeror introduces a new deficiency or 
significant weakness. The offeror can be advised during the course of 
the discussions or as part of the request for final proposal revision.
    (B) The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price elements 
that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to submit 
their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but shall not 
discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other offeror. 
The contracting officer shall question inadequate, conflicting, 
unrealistic, or unsupported cost information; differences between the 
offeror's proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost realism 
concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs; 
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not 
appear responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price 
elements or a ``bottom line'' is necessary.
    (C) The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and 
conditions so that a ``model'' contract can be sent to each offeror 
with the request for final proposal revisions. If the solicitation 
allows, any proposed technical performance capabilities above those 
specified in the RFP that have value to the Government and are 
considered proposal strengths should be discussed with the offeror and 
proposed for inclusion in that offeror's ``model'' contract. These 
items are not to be discussed with, or proposed to, other offerors. If 
the offeror declines to include these strengths in its ``model'' 
contract, the Government evaluators

[[Page 9959]]

should reconsider their characterization as strengths.
    (e)(1) In no case shall the contacting officer relax or amend RFP 
requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting 
the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed 
requirements. 


1815.307  Proposal revisions. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(i) The request for final proposal revisions (FPRs) shall also:
    (A) Identify any remaining deficiencies and significant weaknesses;
    (B) Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers 
resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial 
proposals;
    (C) Require offerors to complete and execute the ``model'' 
contract, which includes any special provisions or performance 
capabilities the offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;
    (D) Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their 
proposals; and
    (E) Establish a page limit for FPRs.
    (ii) Approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code 
HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of $50 million 
or more. Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other 
acquisitions.
    (iii) Proposals are rescored based on FPR evaluations. Scoring 
changes between initial and FPRs shall be clearly traceable.


1815.308  Source selection decision. (NASA paragraphs (1), (2) and (3))

    (1) All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented 
and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical 
audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and 
scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the 
selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria 
established in the RFP.
    (2) Before aware, the SSA shall sign a source selection statement 
that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source selection 
statements must describe: the acquisition; the evaluation procedures; 
the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the evaluation 
of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement also 
addresses unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination, 
late proposals, or any other considerations pertinent to the decision. 
The statement shall not reveal any confidential business information. 
Except for certain major system acquisition competitions (see 1815.506-
70), source selection statements shall be releasable to competing 
offerors and the general public upon request. The statement shall be 
available to the Debriefing Official to use in postaward debriefings of 
unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon 
request.
    (3) Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer 
shall award the contract.


1815.370  NASA source evaluation boards.

    (a) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for 
those acquisitions identified in 1815.300-700(a)(1)(i).
    (b) General. The SEB assists the SSA by providing expert analyses 
of the offerors' proposals in relation to the evaluation factors, 
subfactors, and elements contained in the solicitation. The SEB will 
prepare and present its findings to the SSA, avoiding trade-off 
judgments among either the individual offerors or among the evaluation 
factors. The SEB will not make recommendations for selection to the 
SSA.
    (c) Designation. (1) The SEB shall be comprised of competent 
individuals fully qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and 
risks associated with proposals submitted in response to the 
solicitation. The SEB shall be appointed as early as possible in the 
acquisition process, but not later than acquisition plan or acquisition 
strategy meeting approval.
    (2) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant 
installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other 
Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose 
the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval 
shall be obtained in accordance with 1815.207-70.
    (3) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters 
Office of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments. 
Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade 
level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.
    (d) Organization. (1) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the 
requirements of the particular acquisition. This can range from the 
simplest situation, where the SEB conducts the evaluation and 
factfinding without the use of committees or panels/consultants (as 
described in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section) to a highly 
complex situation involving a major acquisition where two or more 
committees are formed and these, in turn, are assisted by special 
panels or consultants in particular areas. The number of committees or 
panels/consultants shall be kept to a minimum.
    (2) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the 
SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without 
compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the 
basis for a sound selection decision.
    (3) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative 
assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for 
logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.
    (4) An SEB committee functions as a factfinding arm of the SEB, 
usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or 
management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or 
portion thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved 
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and summarizes its 
evaluation in a written report to the SEB. The committee will also 
respond to requirements assigned by the SEB, including further 
justification or reconsideration of its findings. Committee 
chairpersons shall manage the administrative and procedural matters of 
their committees.
    (5) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a factfinding arm of 
the committee in a specialized area of the committee's 
responsibilities. Panels are established or consultants named when a 
particular area requires deeper analysis than the committee can 
provide.
    (6) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, 
consultants, etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) 
shall be limited to a maximum of 20, unless approved in writing by the 
procurement officer.
    (e) Voting members. (1) Voting members of the SEB shall include 
people who will have key assignments on the project to which the 
acquisition is directed. However, it is important that this should be 
tempered to ensure objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may 
even be appropriate to designate a management official from outside the 
project as SEB Chairperson.
    (2) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of 
an SEB.
    (3) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels, or 
consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB 
evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB 
shall have equal status as rating officials.
    (4) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting 
individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a 
voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not

[[Page 9960]]

feasible, SEB membership shall take precedence over other duties.
    (5) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:
    (i) Chairperson.
    (ii) A senior, key technical representative for the project.
    (iii) An experienced procurement representative.
    (iv) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as 
appropriate.
    (v) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue 
workload).
    (f) Ex officio members. (1) The number of nonvoting ex officio 
(advisory) members shall be kept as small as possible. Ex officio 
members should be selected for the experience and expertise they can 
provide to the SEB. Since their advisory role may require access to 
highly sensitive SEB material and findings, ex officio membership for 
persons other than those identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section 
is discouraged.
    (2) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and 
contribute to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not 
participate in the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder 
should be present during rating sessions.
    (3) For field installation selections, the following shall be 
nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:
    (i) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting 
members.
    (ii) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated 
a voting member.
    (iii) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition, 
unless designated a voting member.
    (iv) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.
    (v) The installation small business specialist.
    (vi) The SEB recorder.
    (g) Evaluation. (1) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson 
shall send them the proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated, 
along with instructions regarding the expected function of each 
committee, and all data considered necessary or helpful.
    (2) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee 
shall submit a written report which should include the following:
    (i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the 
lowest level evaluated;
    (ii) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; 
and
    (iii) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths, 
deficiencies, or significant weaknesses which significantly affected 
the evaluation and stating any reservations or concerns, together with 
supporting rationale, which the committee or any of its members want to 
bring to the attention of the SEB.
    (3) Clear traceability must exist at all levels of the SEB process. 
All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part 
of the SEB records.
    (4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal 
and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the 
proposals for each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own 
collective judgment. SEB minutes shall reflect this evaluation process.
    (h) SEB presentation. (1) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA 
on the results of the SEB deliberations to permit an informed and 
objective selection of the best source(s) for the particular 
acquisition.
    (2) The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths, 
deficiencies, and significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the 
probable cost of each proposal, and any significant issues and problems 
identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable 
special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors, subfactors, 
and elements; the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of 
the offerors; the Government cost estimate, if applicable; the 
offerors' proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee 
arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and scores to the 
subfactor level.
    (3) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved 
in the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The 
designated individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:
    (i) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied 
with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation 
accurately conveys the SEB's activities and findings;
    (ii) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors, 
elements, weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB's 
findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural 
omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its 
findings, or revise the presentation.
    (4) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation 
including arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring 
proper attendance, and distributing presentation material.
    (5) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of 
Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including 
approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary 
presentation should be made to the center director and to the Official-
in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office.
    (i) Recommended SEB presentation format. (1) Identification of the 
acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of the services or 
hardware to be acquired, some quantitative measure including the 
Government cost estimate for the acquisition, and the planned 
contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed objectives of the acquisition.
    (2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased 
acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services, 
identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes 
from the existing structure.
    (3) Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. Explains the 
evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements, and any special standards 
of responsibility. Lists the relative order of importance of the 
evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability 
subfactors. Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission 
Suitability and Past Performance evaluations.
    (4) Sources. Indicates the number of offerors solicited and the 
number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a 
preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals, 
indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and 
women-owned businesses.
    (5) Summary of findings. Lists the initial and final Mission 
Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors' proposed cost/prices, and 
any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear 
discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection. 
Addresses any competitive range determination.
    (6) Significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses 
of offerors. Summarizes the SEB's findings, using the following 
guidelines:
    (i) Present only the significant strengths, deficiencies, and 
significant weaknesses of individual offerors.
    (ii) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and 
significant weaknesses to the evaluation factors, subfactors, and 
elements.
    (iii) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and 
FPRs on ratings and scores.
    (7) Final mission suitability ratings and scores. Summarizes the 
evaluation subfactors and elements, the maximum points achievable, and 
the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.

[[Page 9961]]

    (8) Final cost/price evaluation. Summarizes proposed cost/prices 
and any probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed 
fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as possible, showing 
SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies the SEB's 
confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors, noting the 
reasons for low or high confidence.
    (9) Past performance. Reflects the summary conclusions, supported 
by specific case data.
    (10) Special interest. Includes only information of special 
interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g., 
procedural errors or other matters that could affect the selection 
decision.
    (j) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance 
with 1815.308. For installation selections, the installation Chief 
Counsel or designee will prepare the source selection statement. For 
Headquarters selections, the Office of General Counsel or designee will 
prepare the statement.

Subpart 1815.4--Contract Pricing


1815.403  Obtaining cost or pricing data.


1815.403-1  Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data. (NASA 
supplements paragraphs (b) and (c))

    (b)(1) The adequate price competition exception is applicable to 
both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type acquisitions. Contracting 
officers shall assume that all competitive acquisitions qualify for 
this exception.
    (c)(4) Waivers of the requirement for submission of cost or pricing 
data shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 1.704. A copy of each 
waiver shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code 
HK).


1815.403-170  Acquisitions with the Canadian Commercial Corporation 
(CCC).

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


1815.403-3  Requiring information other than cost or pricing data. 
(NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b) As indicated in 1815.403-1(b)(1), the adequate price 
competition exception applies to all competitive acquisitions. For 
other than firm-fixed-price competitions, only the minimum information 
other than cost or pricing data necessary to ensure price 
reasonableness and assess cost realism should be requested. For firm-
fixed-price acquisitions, the contracting officer shall not request any 
cost information, unless proposed prices appear unreasonable or 
unrealistically low given the offeror's proposed approach and there are 
concerns that the contractor may default.


1815.403-4  Requiring cost or pricing data. (NASA supplements paragraph 
(b))

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


1815.404  Proposal analysis.


1815.404-2  Information to support proposal analysis. (NASA supplements 
paragraph (a))

    (a)(1)(A) A field pricing report consists of a technical report and 
an audit report by the cognizant contract audit activity. Contracting 
officers should request a technical report from the ACO only if NASA 
resources are not available.
    (B) When the required participation of the ACO or auditor involves 
merely a verification of information, contracting officers should 
obtain this verification from the cognizant office by telephone rather 
than formal request of field pricing support.
    (C) When the cost proposal is for a product of a follow-on nature, 
contracting officers shall ensure that the following items, at a 
minimum are considered: actuals incurred under the previous contract, 
learning experience, technical and production analysis, and subcontract 
proposal analysis. This information may be obtained through NASA 
resources or the cognizant DCMC ACO or DCAA.
    (D) Requests for field pricing assistance may be made on NASA Form 
1434, Letter of Request for Pricing-Audit-Technical Evaluation 
Services.


1815.404-4  Profit. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(1)(i) The NASA structured approach for determining profit or 
fee objectives, described in 1815.404-470, shall be used to determine 
profit or fee objectives for conducting negotiations in those 
acquisitions that require cost analysis.
    (ii) The use of the NASA structured approach for profit or fee is 
not required for:
    (a) Architect-engineer contracts;
    (b) Management contracts for operation and/or maintenance of 
Government facilities;
    (c) Construction contracts;
    (d) Contracts primarily requiring delivery of material supplied by 
subcontractors;
    (e) Termination settlements;
    (f) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts (however, contracting officers 
may find it advantageous to perform a structured profit/fee analysis as 
an aid in arriving at an appropriate fee arrangement); and
    (g) Contracts having unusual pricing situations when the 
procurement officer determines in writing that the structured approach 
is unsuitable.


1815.404-470  NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.

    (a) General. (1) The NASA structured approach for determining 
profit or fee objectives is a system of assigning weights to cost 
elements and other factors to calculate the objective. Contracting 
officers shall use NASA Form 634 to develop the profit or fee objective 
and shall use the weight ranges listed after each category and factor 
on the form after considering the factors in this subsection. The 
rationale supporting the assigned weights shall be documented in the 
PPM in accordance with 1815.406-170(d)(3).
    (2)(i) The structured approach was designed for determining profit 
or fee objectives for commercial organizations. However, the structured 
approach shall be used as a basis for arriving at fee objectives for 
nonprofit organizations (FAR subpart 31.7), excluding educational 
institutions (FAR subpart 31.3), in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii) of this section. (It is NASA policy not to pay profit or fee 
on contracts with educational institutions.)
    (ii) For contracts with nonprofit organizations under which profits 
or fees are involved, an adjustment of up to 3 percent shall be 
subtracted from the total profit/fee objective. In developing this 
adjustment, it will be necessary to consider the following factors:
    (A) Tax position benefits;
    (B) Granting of financing through letters of credit;
    (C) Facility requirements of the nonprofit organization; and
    (D) Other pertinent factors that may work to either the advantage 
or disadvantage of the contractor in its position as a nonprofit 
organization.

[[Page 9962]]

    (b) Contractor effort. (1) This factor takes into account what 
resources are necessary and what the contractor must do to meet the 
contract performance requirements. The suggested cost categories under 
this factor are for reference purposes only. The format of individual 
proposals will vary, but these broad categories provide a sample 
structure for the evaluation of all categories of cost. Elements of 
cost shall be separately listed under the appropriate category and 
assigned a weight from the category range.
    (2) Regardless of the categories of cost defined for a specific 
acquisition, neither the cost of facilities nor the amount calculated 
for the cost of money for facilities capital shall be included as part 
of the cost base in column 1.(a) in the computation of profit or fee.
    (3) Evaluation of this factor requires analyzing the cost content 
of the proposed contract as follows:
    (i) Material acquisition (subcontracted items, purchased parts, and 
other material).
    (A) Consider the managerial and technical efforts necessary for the 
prime contractor to select subcontractors and administer subcontracts, 
including efforts to introduce and maintain competition. These 
evaluations shall be performed for purchases of raw materials or basic 
commodities; purchases of processed material, including all types of 
components of standard or near-standard characteristics; and purchases 
of pieces, assemblies, subassemblies, special tooling, and other 
products special to the end item. In performing the evaluation, also 
consider whether the contractor's purchasing program makes a 
substantial contribution to the performance of a contract through the 
use of subcontracting programs involving many sources, new complex 
components and instrumentation, incomplete specifications, and close 
surveillance by the prime contractor.
    (B) Recognized costs proposed as direct material costs, such as 
scrap charges, shall be treated as material for profit/fee evaluation. 
If intracompany transfers are accepted at price in accordance with FAR 
31.205-26(e), they shall be evaluated as a single element under the 
material acquisition category. For other intracompany transfers, the 
constituent elements of cost shall be identified and weighted under the 
appropriate cost category, i.e., material, labor, and overhead.
    (ii) Direct labor (engineering, service, manufacturing, and other 
labor). (A) Analysis of the various items of cost should include 
evaluation of the comparative quality and level of the engineering 
talents, service contract labor, manufacturing skills, and experience 
to be employed. In evaluating engineering labor for the purpose of 
assigning profit/fee weights, consideration should be given to the 
amount of notable scientific talent or unusual or scarce engineering 
talent needed, in contrast to journeyman engineering effort or 
supporting personnel.
    (B) Evaluate service contract labor in a like manner by assigning 
higher weights to engineering, professional, or highly technical skills 
and lower weights to semiprofessional or other skills required for 
contract performance.
    (C) Similarly, the variety of engineering, manufacturing and other 
types of labor skills required and the contractor's manpower resources 
for meeting these requirements should be considered. For purposes of 
evaluation, subtypes of labor (for example, quality control, and 
receiving and inspection) proposed separately from engineering, 
service, or manufacturing labor should be included in the most 
appropriate labor type. However, the same evaluation considerations as 
outlined in this section will be applied.
    (iii) Overhead and general management (G&A). (A) Analysis of 
overhead and G&A includes the evaluation of the makeup of these 
expenses, how much they contribute to contract performance, and the 
degree of substantiation provided for rates proposed in future years.
    (B) Contracting officers should also consider the historical 
accuracy of the contractor's proposed overheads as well as the ability 
to control overhead pool expenses.
    (C) The contracting officer, in an evaluation of the overhead rate 
of a contractor using a single indirect cost rate, should break out the 
applicable sections of the composite rate which could be classified as 
engineering overhead, manufacturing overhead, other overhead pools, and 
G&A expenses, and apply the appropriate weight.
    (iv) Other costs. Include all other direct costs associated with 
contractor performance under this item, for example, travel and 
relocation, direct support, and consultants. Analysis of these items of 
cost should include their nature and how much they contribute to 
contract performance.
    (c) Other factors.
    (1) Cost risk. The degree of risk assumed by the contractor should 
influence the amount of profit or fee a contractor is entitled to 
anticipate. For example, if a portion of the risk has been shifted to 
the Government through cost-reimbursement or price redetermination 
provisions, unusual contingency provisions, or other risk reducing 
measures, the amount of profit or fee should be less than for 
arrangements under which the contractor assumes all the risk. This 
factor is one of the most important in arriving at prenegotiation 
profit/fee objectives.
    (i) Other risks on the part of the contractor, such as loss of 
reputation, losing a commercial market, or losing potential profit/fee 
in other fields, shall not be considered in this factor. Similarly, any 
risk on the part of the contracting office, such as the risk of not 
acquiring an effective space vehicle, is not within the scope of this 
factor.
    (ii) The degree of cost responsibility assumed by the contractor is 
related to the share of total contract cost risk assumed by the 
contractor through the selection of contract type. The weight for risk 
by contract type would usually fall within the 0 to 3 percent range for 
cost-reimbursement contracts and 3 to 7 percent range for fixed-price 
contracts.
    (A) Within the ranges set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 
subsection, a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract normally would not justify a 
reward for risk in excess of 0 percent, unless the contract contains 
cost risk features such as ceilings on overheads, etc. In such cases, 
up to 0.5 percent may be justified. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts 
fill the remaining portion of the range, with weightings directly 
related to such factors as confidence in target cost, share ratio of 
fees, etc.
    (B) The range for fixed-price type contracts is wide enough to 
accommodate the various types of fixed-price arrangements. Weighting 
should be indicative of the price risk assumed and the end item 
required, with only firm-fixed-price contracts with requirements for 
prototypes or hardware reaching the top end of the range.
    (iii) The cost risk arising from contract type is not the only form 
of cost risk to consider.
    (A) The Contractor's subcontracting program may have a significant 
impact on the contractor's acceptance of risk under a particular 
contract type. This consideration should be a part of the contracting 
officer's overall evaluation in selecting a weight to apply for cost 
risk. It may be determined, for instance, that the prime contractor has 
effectively transferred real cost risk to a subcontractor, and the 
contract cost risk weight may, as a result, be below the range that 
would otherwise apply for the contract type proposed. The contract cost 
risk weight should not be lowered, however, merely on the basis that a

[[Page 9963]]

substantial portion of the contract costs represents subcontracts 
unless those subcontract costs represent a substantial transfer of the 
contractor's risk.
    (B) In making a contract cost risk evaluation in an acquisition 
that involves definitization of a letter contract, unpriced change 
orders, or unpriced orders under BOAs, consideration should be given to 
the effect on total contract cost risk as a result of having partial 
performance before definitization. Under some circumstances it may be 
reasoned that the total amount of cost risk has been effectively 
reduced. Under other circumstances it may be apparent that the 
contractor's cost risk is substantially unchanged. To be equitable, 
determination of a profit/fee weight for application to the total of 
all recognized costs, both incurred and yet to be expended, must be 
made with consideration of all attendant circumstances and should not 
be based solely on the portion of costs incurred, or percentage of work 
completed, before definitization.
    (2) Investment. NASA encourages its contractors to perform their 
contracts with a minimum of financial, facilities, or other assistance 
from the Government. As such, it is the purpose of this factor to 
encourage the contractor to acquire and use its own resources to the 
maximum extent possible. Evaluation of this factor should include an 
analysis of the contractor's facilities and the frequency of payments.
    (i) To evaluate how facilities contribute to the profit/fee 
objective requires knowledge of the level of facilities utilization 
needed for contract performance, the source and financing of the 
required facilities, and the overall cost effectiveness of the 
facilities offered. Contractors furnishing their own facilities that 
significantly contribute to lower total contract costs should be 
provided additional profit/fee. On the other hand, contractors that 
rely on the Government to provide or finance needed facilities should 
receive a correspondingly lower profit/fee. Cases between the examples 
in this paragraph should be evaluated on their merits, with either a 
positive or negative adjustment, as appropriate, in the profit/fee 
objective. However, where a highly facilitized contractor is to perform 
a contract that does not benefit from this facilitization, or when a 
contractor's use of its facilities has a minimum cost impact on the 
contract, profit/fee need not be adjusted.
    (ii) In analyzing payments, consider the frequency of payments by 
the Government to the contractor and unusual payments. The key to this 
weighting is proper consideration of the impact the contract will have 
on the contractor's cash flow. Generally, negative consideration should 
be given for payments more frequent than monthly, with maximum 
reduction being given as the contractor's working capital approaches 
zero. Positive consideration should be given for payments less frequent 
than monthly.
    (3) Performance. The contractor's past and present performance 
should be evaluated in such areas as product quality, meeting 
performance schedules, efficiency in cost control (including the need 
for and reasonableness of costs incurred), accuracy and reliability of 
previous cost estimates, degree of cooperation by the contractor (both 
business and technical), timely processing of changes and compliance 
with other contractual provisions.
    (4) Subcontract program management. Subcontract program management 
includes evaluation of the contractor's commitment to its competition 
program and its past and present performance in competition in 
subcontracting. If a contractor has consistently achieved excellent 
results in these areas in comparison with other contractors in similar 
circumstances, such performance merits a proportionately greater 
opportunity for profit or fee. Conversely, a poor record in this regard 
should result in a lower profit or fee.
    (5) Federal socioeconomic programs. In addition to rewarding 
contractors for unusual initiative in supporting Government 
socioeconomic programs, failure or unwillingness on the part of the 
contractor to support these programs should be viewed as evidence of 
poor performance for the purpose of establishing this profit/fee 
objective factor.
    (6) Special situations. (i) Occasionally, unusual contract pricing 
arrangements are made with the contractor under which it agrees to 
accept a lower profit or fee for changes or modifications within a 
prescribed dollar value. In such circumstances, the contractor should 
receive favorable consideration in developing the profit/fee objective.
    (ii) This factor need not be limited to situations that increase 
profit/fee levels. A negative consideration may be appropriate when the 
contractor is expected to obtain spin-off benefits as a direct result 
of the contract, for example, products with commercial application.
    (d) Facilities capital cost of money. (1) When facilities capital 
cost of money is included as an item of cost in the contractor's 
proposal, it shall not be included in the cost base for calculating 
profit/fee. In addition, a reduction in the profit/fee objective shall 
be made in the amount equal to the facilities capital cost of money 
allowed in accordance with FAR 31.205-10(a)(2).
    (2) CAS 417, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital 
assets under construction, should not appear in contract proposals. 
These costs are included in the initial value of a facility for 
purposes of calculating depreciation under CAS 414.


1815.404-471  Payment of profit or fee under letter contracts.

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


1815.406  Documentation.


1815.406-1  Prenegotiation objectives. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

    (b)(i) Before conducting negotiations requiring installation or 
Headquarters review, contracting officers or their representatives 
shall prepare a prenegotiation position memorandum setting forth the 
technical, business, contractual, pricing, and other aspects to be 
negotiated.
    (ii) A prenegotiation position memorandum is not required for 
contracts awarded under the competitive negotiated procedures of FAR 
15.3 and 1815.3.


1815.406-170  Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.

    The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain 
the contractor and Government positions. Since the PPM will ultimately 
become the basis for negotiation, it should be structured to track to 
the price negotiation memorandum (see FAR 15.406-3 and 1815.406-3). In 
addition to the information described in FAR 15.406-1 and, as 
appropriate, 15.406-3(a), the PPM should address the following 
subjects, as applicable, in the order presented:
    (a) Introduction. Include a description of the acquisition and a 
history of prior acquisitions for the same or similar items. Address 
the extent of competition and its results. Identify the contractor and 
place of performance (if not evident from the description of the 
acquisition). Document compliance with law, regulations and policy, 
including JOFOC, synopsis, EEO compliance, and current status of 
contractor systems (see FAR 15.406-3(a)(4)). In addition, the 
negotiation schedule should be addressed and the Government negotiation 
team members identified by name and position.
    (b) Type of contract contemplated. Explain the type of contract

[[Page 9964]]

contemplated and the reasons for its suitability.
    (c) Special features and requirements. In this area, discuss any 
special features (and related cost impact) of the acquisition, 
including such items as--
    (1) Letter contract or precontract costs authorized and incurred;
    (2) Results of preaward survey;
    (3) Contract option requirements;
    (4) Government property to be furnished;
    (5) Contractor/Government investment in facilities and equipment 
(and any modernization to be provided by the contractor/Government); 
and
    (6) Any deviations, special clauses, or unusual conditions 
anticipated, for example, unusual financing, warranties, EPA clauses 
and when approvals were obtained, if required.
    (d) Cost analysis. For the basic requirement, and any option, 
include--
    (1) A parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of 
the contractor's proposal and the Government's negotiation objective. 
The negotiation objective represents the fair and reasonable price the 
Government is willing to pay for the supplies/services. For each 
element of cost, compare the contractor's proposal and the Government 
position, explain the differences and how the Government position was 
developed, including the estimating assumptions and projection 
techniques employed, and how the positions differ in approach. Include 
a discussion of excessive wages found (if applicable) and their planned 
resolution. Explain how historical costs, including costs incurred 
under a letter contract (if applicable), were used in developing the 
negotiation objective.
    (2) Significant differences between the field pricing report 
(including any audit reports) and the negotiation objectives and/or 
contractor's proposal shall be highlighted and explained. For each 
proposed subcontract meeting the requirement of FAR 15.404-3(c), there 
shall be a discussion of the price and, when appropriate, cost analyses 
performed by the contracting officer, including the negotiation 
objective for each such subcontract. The discussion of each major 
subcontract shall include the type of subcontract, the degree of 
competition achieved by the prime contractor, the price and, when 
appropriate, cost analyses performed on the subcontractor's proposal by 
the prime contractor, any unusual or special pricing or finance 
arrangements, and the current status of subcontract negotiations.
    (3) The rationale for the Government's profit/fee objectives and, 
if appropriate, a completed copy of the NASA Form 634, Structured 
Approach--Profit/Fee Objective, and DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities 
Capital Cost of Money, should be included. For incentive and award fee 
contracts, describe the planned arrangement in terms of share lines, 
ceilings, and cost risk.
    (e) Negotiation approval sought. The PPM represents the 
Government's realistic assessment of the fair and reasonable price for 
the supplies and services to be acquired. If negotiations subsequently 
demonstrate that a higher dollar amount (or significant term or 
condition) is reasonable, the contracting officer shall document the 
rationale for such a change and request approval to amend the PPM from 
the original approval authority.


1815.406-171  Installation reviews.

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


1815.406-172  Headquarters reviews.

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


1815.406-3  Documenting the negotiation. (NASA supplements paragraph 
(a))

    (a)(i) The price negotiation memorandum (PNM) serves as a detailed 
summary of: the technical, business, contractual, pricing (including 
price reasonableness), and other elements of the contract negotiated; 
and the methodology and rationale used in arriving at the final 
negotiated agreement.
    (ii) A PNM is not required for a contract awarded under competitive 
negotiated procedures. However, the information required by FAR 15.406-
3 shall be reflected in the evaluation and selection documentation to 
the extent applicable.
    (iii) When the PNM is a ``stand-alone'' document, it shall contain 
the information required by the FAR and NFS for both PPMs and PNMs. 
However, when a PPM has been prepared under 1815.406-1, the subsequent 
PNM need only provide any information required by FAR 15.406-3 that was 
not provided in the PPM, as well as any changes in the status of 
factors affecting cost elements (e.g., use of different rates, hours, 
or subcontractors; wage rate determinations; or the current status of 
the contractor's systems).


1815.407  Special cost or pricing areas.


1815.407-2  Make-or-buy programs. (NASA supplements paragraph (e))

    (e)(1) Make-or-buy programs should not include items or work 
efforts estimated to cost less than $500,000.


1815.408  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.


1815.408-70  NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-
78, Make-or-Buy Program Requirements, in solicitations requiring make-
or-buy programs as provided in FAR 15.407-2(c). This provision shall be 
used in conjunction with the clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or 
Additions to Make-or-Buy Program. The contracting officer may add 
additional paragraphs identifying any other information required in 
order to evaluate the program.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.215-79, 
Price Adjustment for ``Make-or-Buy'' Changes, in contracts that include 
FAR 52.215-9 with its Alternate I or II. Insert in the appropriate 
columns the items that will be subject to a reduction in the contract 
value.

Subpart 1815.5--Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, 
Protests, and Mistakes


1815.504  Award to successful offeror.

    The reference to notice of award in FAR 15.504 on negotiated 
acquisitions is a generic one. It relates only to the formal 
establishment of a contractual document obligating both the Government 
and the offeror. The notice is effected by the transmittal of a fully 
approved and executed definitive contract document, such as the award 
portion of SF 33, SF 26, SF 1449, or SF

[[Page 9965]]

1447, or a letter contract when a definitized contract instrument is 
not available but the urgency of the requirement necessitates immediate 
performance. In this latter instance, the procedures in 1816.603 for 
approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.


1815.506  Postaward debriefing of offerors.


1815.506-70  Debriefing of offerors--Major System acquisitions.

    (a) When an acquisition is conducted in accordance with the Major 
System acquisition procedures in part 1834 and multiple offerors are 
selected, the debriefing will be limited in such a manner that it does 
not prematurely disclose innovative concepts, designs, and approaches 
of the successful offerors that would result in a transfusion of ideas.
    (b) When Phase B awards are made for alternative system design 
concepts, the source selection statements shall not be released to 
competing offerors or the general public until the release of the 
source selection statement for Phase C/D without the approval of the 
Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS).

Subpart 1815.6--Unsolicited Proposals


1815.602  Policy. (NASA paragraphs (1) and (2))

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


1815.604  Agency points of contact. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

    (a) Information titled ``Guidance for the Preparation and 
Submission of Unsolicited Proposals'' is available on the Internet at 
http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov/nashdbk.html. A deviation is required for 
use of any modified or summarized version of the Internet information 
or for alternate means of general dissemination of unsolicited proposal 
information.


1815.606  Agency procedures. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b))

    (a) NASA will not accept for formal evaluation unsolicited 
proposals initially submitted to another agency or to the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) without the offeror's express consent.
    (b)(i) NASA Headquarters and each NASA field installation shall 
designate a point of contact for receiving and coordinating the 
handling and evaluation of unsolicited proposals.
    (ii) Each installation shall establish procedures for handling 
proposals initially received by other offices within the installation. 
Misdirected proposals shall be forwarded by the point of contact to the 
proper installation. Points of contact are also responsible for 
providing guidance to potential offerors regarding the appropriate NASA 
officials to contact for general mission-related inquiries or other 
preproposal discussions.
    (iii) Points of contact shall keep records of unsolicited proposals 
received and shall provide prompt status information to requesters. 
These records shall include, at a minimum, the number of unsolicited 
proposals received, funded, and rejected during the fiscal year; the 
identity of the offerors; and the office to which each was referred. 
The numbers shall be broken out by source (large business, small 
business, university, or nonprofit institution).


1815.606-70  Relationship of unsolicited proposals to NRAs.

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


1815.609  Limited use of data.


1815.609-70  Limited use of proposals.

    Unsolicited proposals shall be evaluated outside the Government 
only to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with, the 
procedures prescribed in, 1815.207-70.


1815.670  Foreign proposals.

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

Subpart 1815.70--Ombudsman


1815.7001  NASA Ombudsman Program.

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


1815.7002  Synopses of solicitations and contracts.

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


1815.7003  Contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the 
same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations 
(including draft solicitations) and contracts.

PART 1816--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

    8. In section 1816.402-270, paragraph (e)(1) is revised to read as 
follows:


1816.402-270  NASA technical performance incentives.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) For a CPFF contract, the sum of the maximum positive 
performance incentive and fixed fee shall not exceed the limitations in 
FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i).
* * * * *

PART 1834--MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION


1834.7003-1  [Amended]

    9. In section 1834.7003-1, paragraph (c) is amended by adding ``and 
1804.570-2,'' after the reference ``FAR 5.205,''.

PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

    10. Part 1852 is amended as set forth below:


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

    11. Sections 1852.215-73, 1852.215-74 and 1852.215-75 are removed.


1852.215-77  [Amended]

    12. In section 1852.215-77, the prescription ``1815.407-70(d)'' is 
revised to read ``1815.209-70(a)''.


1842.215-78  [Amended]

    13. In section 1852.215-78, the prescription ``11815.708-70(a)'' is 
revised to read ``1815.408-70(a)'', the

[[Page 9966]]

provision date ``(December 1988)'' is revised to read February 1998, 
and in the introductory text to the provision, the reference ``FAR 
15.705'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.407-2''.


1852.215-79  [Amended]

    14. In section 1852.215-79, the prescription ``1815.708-70(b)'' is 
revised to read ``1815.407-70(b)''.


1852.215-81  [Amended]

    15. In section 1852.215-81, the introductory text, provision date, 
and in the provision, the first sentence of paragraph (b), and 
paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:


1852.215-81  Proposal page limitations.

    As prescribed in 1815.209-70(d), insert the following provision:

Proposal Page Limitations

February 1998.

* * * * *
    (b) A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8\1/2\'' x 11'', 
with at least one inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 
12 point type. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) If final proposal revisions are requested, separate page 
limitations will be specified in the Government's request for that 
submission.
* * * * *


1852.215-82  [Removed]

    16. Section 1852.215-82 is removed.


1852.243-70  [Amended]

    17. In section 1852.243-70, the clause date ``(MAR 1997)'' is 
revised to read (Insert month and year of Federal Register 
publication), and in paragraph (d)(1) to the clause, the reference 
``FAR 15.804-6'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.403-5'' and the reference 
``FAR 15.804-2'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.403-4''.

PART 1853--FORMS


1853.215-2  [Amended]

    18. Section 1853.215-2 is redesignated as section 1853.215-70.


1853.215-70  [Amended]

    19. In paragraph (a) to the newly designated section 1853.215-70, 
the reference ``1815.970-1(a)'' is revised to read ``1815.404-470''.


1853.232  [Amended]

    20. Section 1853.232 is redesignated as section 1853.232-70.


1853.245  [Amended]

    21. Section 1853.245 is redesignated as section 1853.245-70.


1853.249  [Amended]

    22. Section 1853.249 is redesignated as section 1853.249-70.

PART 1871--MIDRANGE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES


1871.103  [Amended]

    23. In the first sentence to paragraph (b) of section 1871.103, the 
phrase ``greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) (FAR 
Part 1813) and'' is removed.


1871.104  [Amended]

    24. In section 1871.104, paragraph (a) is removed, and paragraphs 
(b) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (d).
    25. In the newly designated paragraph (c), the reference ``FAR 
15.601'' is revised to read ``FAR 15.306''.


1871.105  [Amended]

    26. In section 1871.105, paragraph (a) is revised to read as 
follows:


1871.105  Policy.

    (a) Under MidRange procedures, pricing requirements shall be 
determined in accordance with FAR 15.402 and 15.403.
* * * * *

Subpart 1871.3--[Removed]

    27. Subpart 1871.3 is removed.


1871.401-3  [Amended]

    28. In section 1871.401-3, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as 
follows:


1871.401-3  Competitive negotiated procurement not using qualitative 
criteria.

    (a) * * *
    (3) See FAR 15.304, FAR 15.305(a)(2), and 1815.305(a)(2) regarding 
the evaluation of past performance.
* * * * *


1871.401-4  [Amended]

    29. In section 1871.401-4, paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as 
follows:


1871.401-4  Competitive negotiations using qualitative criteria (Best 
Value Selection).

    (a) * * *
    (4) See FAR 15.304, FAR 15.305(a)(2), and 1815.305(a)(2) regarding 
the evaluation of past performance.
* * * * *


1871.401-5  [Amended]

    30. In section 1871.401-5, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


1871.401-5  Noncompetitive negotiations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The buying team shall request pricing information in accordance 
with FAR 15.402 and 15.403.
* * * * *


1871.403  [Removed]

    31. Section 1871.403 is removed.


1871.604-2  [Amended]

    32. In section 1871.604-2, the third sentence to paragraph (a) and 
paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:


1871.604-2  Determination of ``Finalists''.

    (a) * * * Finalists will include the most highly rated offerors in 
accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1) and 1815.306(c)(2). * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Offerors determined not to be finalists or not selected for 
contract award will be electronically notified.

PART 1872--ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS


1872.302  [Amended]

    33. In section 1872.302, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as 
follows:


1872.302  Preparatory effort.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Synopsize the AO in the Commerce Business Daily and on the NAIS 
prior to release.
* * * * *


1872.403-2  [Amended]

    34. In paragraph (c)(2) to section 1872.403-2, the phrase ``and the 
conditions set forth in 1815.413-2 Alternate II'' is removed.
    35. Amend the internal references throughout the NFS as indicated 
in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NFS location                             Remove                              Insert               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1803.104-5(a)(i)........................  1815.612-70....................  1815.370                             
1814.201-670(d).........................  1815.407-70(d).................  1815.209-70(a)                       
1816.405-270(b)(2)(ii)..................  FAR 15-9 and 1815.9............  FAR 15.404-4, 1815.404-4 and 1815.404-
                                                                            470                                 

[[Page 9967]]

                                                                                                                
1817.503(a)(2)..........................  FAR 15.405.....................  FAR 15.201                           
1832.409-170(d).........................  1815.9.........................  1815.404-470                         
1835.016-70(d)(1).......................  1815.508-70 and 1815.509-70....  FAR 15.608, FAR 15.609, and 1815.609-
                                                                            70                                  
1835.016-70(d)(2).......................  1815.412-70....................  1815.208                             
1835.016-70(d)(3).......................  FAR 15.413-2(f) and 1815.413-2.  1815.207                             
1835.016-70(d)(3).......................  FAR 15.601.....................  FAR 15.306                           
1835.016-70(d)(5).......................  FAR 15.610(e)(1)...............  FAR 15.306(e)                        
1835.016-70(d)(7).......................  FAR 15.1004....................  FAR 15.5                             
1844.201-2(c)(2)........................  FAR 15.806-2(a)(1) or (2)......  FAR 15.404-3(c)                      
1853.242-70(g)..........................  1815.805-5(a)(1)(E)............  1815.404-2(a)(1)(D)                  
1871.105(f).............................  FAR 15.406.....................  FAR 15.204                           
1871.401-3(a)(2)........................  FAR 52.215-16, Alternate II....  FAR 52.215-1                         
1871.401-3(b)(4)........................  FAR 15.610.....................  FAR 15.306                           
1871.401-4(a)(2)........................  FAR 52.215-16, Alternate II....  FAR 52.215-1                         
1871.402(d).............................  15.402(i)......................  FAR 15.203(d)                        
1871.505 introductory text..............  FAR 15.1001....................  FAR 15.503                           
1871.604-3(a)...........................  FAR 15.610.....................  FAR 15.306                           
1872.505 introductory text..............  FAR 15.1004....................  FAR 15.5                             
1872.702(b)(1)..........................  1815.412.......................  1815.208                             
1872.705-1 paragraph VI.................  FAR 15.8.......................  FAR 15.403-5                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-4853 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M