<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee18037575e">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1994-01-31</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:RCED-94-31</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee18037575e</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:rc94031</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-23</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31</accessId>
 <reportNumber>RCED-94-31</reportNumber>
 <subject>Contract administration</subject>
 <subject>Contracting procedures</subject>
 <subject>Bid evaluation</subject>
 <subject>Evaluation criteria</subject>
 <subject>Competitive procurement</subject>
 <subject>Sole source procurement</subject>
 <subject>Research and development contracts</subject>
 <subject>Federal procurement</subject>
 <subject>Research grants</subject>
 <subject>Solicitation specifications</subject>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>RCED</seriesAbbrev>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Federal Contracting: Weaknesses Exist in NSF&apos;s Process for Awarding Contracts</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Weaknesses exist in the National Science Foundation&apos;s (NSF) process for
awarding competitive contracts. Among the 10 competitive contracts it
reviewed, GAO discovered that NSF, when soliciting for proposals,
sometimes did not clearly describe the work needed or identify the
specific items that it would consider in evaluating the offerors&apos;
proposals. In addition, NSF sometimes either changed or improperly
scored evaluation factors during the evaluation process. These
weaknesses were mainly due to the NSF&apos;s overall lack of emphasis of
contracting activity, including inadequate internal oversight of the
contract award process. Insufficient guidance for preparing
solicitations and evaluating offerors&apos; proposals were also contributing
factors. In addition, GAO discovered shortcomings in NSF&apos;s process for
awarding noncompetitive contracts. Although agencies are allowed to
obtain services from a sole source rather than through competition, the
agency must justify the decision to do so in writing. The justification
documents what efforts were taken to identify other potential offerors
and what steps the agency plans to take to remover barriers to future
competition. NFS did not meet either of these requirements for 6 of 11
noncompetitive contracts it awarded during fiscal years 1990 and 1991.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31/html/GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31.htm</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/RCED-94-31</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-94-31</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/RCED-94-31; Federal Contracting: Weaknesses Exist in NSF&apos;s Process for Awarding Contracts;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Contract administration</topic>
 <topic>Contracting procedures</topic>
 <topic>Bid evaluation</topic>
 <topic>Evaluation criteria</topic>
 <topic>Competitive procurement</topic>
 <topic>Sole source procurement</topic>
 <topic>Research and development contracts</topic>
 <topic>Federal procurement</topic>
 <topic>Research grants</topic>
 <topic>Solicitation specifications</topic>
</subject>
</mods>