Contracting by Negotiation

Federal RegisterFeb 27, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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.

(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.

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))

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

proposal.

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.

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;

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.

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;

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.

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.

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;

(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;

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

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,

(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-

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.