NASA FAR Sup 1815

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNASA FAR SupNext Page



PART 1815
CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
(Revised October 12, 2016)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBPART 1815.1 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES
1815.101 Best value continuum.

SUBPART 1815.2 SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND

1815.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals.
1815.203 Requests for proposals.
1815.203-70 Installation reviews.
1815.203-71 Headquarters reviews.
1815.203-72 Risk management.
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

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 certified cost or pricing data.
1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.
1815.403-170 Waivers of certified cost or pricing data.
1815.403-3 Requiring information other than cost or pricing data.
1815.403-4 Requiring cost or pricing data.
1815.404 Proposal analysis.
1815.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques.
1815.404-2 Data to support proposal analysis.
1815.404-4 Profit.
1815.404-470 NASA Form 634
1815.404-471 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.
1815.404-471-1 General.
1815.404-471-2 Performance risk.
1815.404-471-3 Contract type risk and working capital adjustment.
1815.404-471-4 Other considerations.
1815.404-471-6 Modification to structured profit/fee approach for nonprofit

1815.404-472 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

1815.504 Award to successful offeror.
1815.505 Preaward debriefing of offerors.
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.

PART 1815

CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 1815.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques

1815.101 Best value continuum.
When a written acquisition plan is not required by 1807.103, the contracting officer must document in the contract file the source selection approach to be used (e.g. full trade-off utilizing mission suitability, cost/price, and past performance factors; lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA), as described in FAR 15.101-2, where there is no tradeoff; price performance tradeoff (PPTO) where there is a tradeoff between price and past performance factors; or a combination of approaches) and the rating method (numerical scoring, acceptable/unacceptable, adjectival ratings & definitions) to be used, how they will be used, and how these will result in selection of the best value to the government. Identify all factors and their relative importance to one another and how the non-cost factors relate to the cost factor. To the extent that subfactors are utilized under any of the factors, the solicitation shall also provide the relative importance of each subfactor to one another under the specific factor.

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.
For RFPs requiring Headquarters review and approval, the procurement officer shall send a copy of the RFP to the Assistant Administrator for Procurement, through the Program Operations Division. Transmission of this copy should be made via an encrypted email using NASA Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). If the RFP is too large for transmission via email, transmission of the RFP should be coordinated with the cognizant Program Operations Division Analyst.

1815.203-72 Risk management.
In all RFPs for supplies or services for which a technical proposal is required, proposal instructions shall require offerors to identify and discuss risk factors and issues throughout the proposal where they are relevant, and describe their approach to managing these risks.

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.

(b) The identification of the differences between the probable cost and offeror’s proposed costs regarding business methods, operating procedures, and practices as they affect cost.

Very High Level of Confidence
The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

High Level of Confidence
The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

Moderate Level of Confidence
The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

Low Level of Confidence
The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

Very Low Level of Confidence
The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)

Neutral
In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)).

ADJECTIVAL RATING

DEFINITIONS

PERCENTILE RANGE

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a 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.

51-70

Fair

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31-50

Poor

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

0-30

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.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/documents/Source_Selection_Guide_March_2012.pdf. Source selection statements must describe: the acquisition, the evaluation procedures, the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation, when used, and the evaluation of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement must also address unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination, late proposals, or any other considerations pertinent to the decision. The source selection statement shall include the successful offeror’s overall proposed cost or price (contract award value) as well as the successful offeror’s overall evaluated cost or price (probable). The source selection statement shall not disclose the proposed or overall evaluated cost or price for unsuccessful offerors. Instead, the source selection statement shall describe the overall proposed and probable cost or price of unsuccessful offerors in relative terms of comparison to the successful offeror’s cost or price, e.g. offeror ABC’s probable cost or price was minimally or substantially, higher or lower than the successful offeror’s cost/price. The source selection statement shall not reveal any confidential business information, to include trade secrets and commercial or financial information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202 or exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. Questions about confidential business information, disclosure of such information, and contents of source selection statements shall be directed to the Office of General Counsel or Office of Chief Counsel. 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 contracting officer or other Debriefing Official to use in postaward debriefings of unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed offerors upon request. If the source selection and contract award are not protested or otherwise challenged, the contracting officer shall post the source selection statement on the Federal Business Opportunities web page https://www.fbo.gov/ not later than 11 calendar days after the final debriefing has been conducted. If the source selection or contract award is protested or otherwise challenged, the source selection statement shall not be posted and shall be controlled as sensitive source selection information until the protest or challenge has been resolved. The source selection statement shall be posted for a period of not less than 30 days.

1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.

The presentation to the SSA shall include the total mission suitability point score for each offeror’s proposal. An adjectival rating (e.g. excellent, very good, etc.) shall be assigned for each mission suitability subfactor, but an adjectival rating shall not be assigned for the total mission suitability factor of each offeror’s proposal. The SEB shall compute the total mission suitability point score by adding all of the mission suitability subfactors points assessed, with the maximum possible total mission suitability point score being 1000 points. The total mission suitability point score does not represent a precise measure of the relative merit of any one offeror’s proposal, rather it shows an offeror’s relative standing by providing the total points each offeror’s proposal is assessed out of the possible1000 points so that the offerors can be compared.

Subpart 1815.4—Contract Pricing

1815.403 Obtaining certified cost or pricing data.

1815.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data.

1815.403-170 Waivers of certified cost or pricing data.

1815.403-3 Requiring data other than certified cost or pricing data.

1815.403-4 Requiring cost or pricing data.

1815.404 Proposal analysis.

1815.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques.

1815.404-2 Data to support proposal analysis.

1815.404-4 Profit.

1815.404-470 NASA Form 634.
NASA Form (NF) 634 shall be used in performing the analysis necessary to develop profit or fee objectives as required in 1815.404-4(b)(1)(i)(a). Contracting officers shall complete and document the profit or fee analysis in the contract file in accordance with the instruction sheet attached to the NF 634.

1815.404-471 NASA structured approach for profit or fee objective.

1815.404-471-1 Modification to structured profit/fee approach for nonprofit organizations.

1815.404-472 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.

1815.406-170 Content of the prenegotiation position memorandum.
The prenegotiation position memorandum (PPM) should fully explain the contractor and Government objective positions. A Government maximum position may be developed and included along with the Government objective position in the PPM in accordance with Center contracting activity procedures. Where there is a Government objective and a maximum position, the basis for each amount, as well as why it is reasonable, must be explained in detail in the PPM for each element (cost and profit/fee) involved. 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, FAR 15.406-3(a), the PPM should address the following subjects, as applicable, in the order presented:

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, cost/price analyst 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.

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.
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 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 for approval and issuance of letter contracts shall be followed.

1815.505 Preaward debriefing of offerors.
The NASA Procurement Debriefing Guide provides agency-wide guidance for preaward debriefings and is available at: http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/documents/NASA_Debriefing_Guide.pdf

1815.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
The NASA Procurement Debriefing Guide provides agency-wide guidance for postaward debriefings and is available at the link provided in 1815.505.

1815.506-70 Debriefing of offerors—Major System acquisitions.

Subpart 1815.6—Unsolicited Proposals

1815.602 Policy.
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.

1815.606 Agency procedures.

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 1835.016-71), provided that the evaluating office can either:

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 NPD 1360.2, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautics Programs.

Subpart 1815.70—Ombudsman

1815.7001 NASA Ombudsman Program.
NASA's implementation of an ombudsman program is in NPR 5101.33, Procurement Advocacy Programs.

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 with the associated link.

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. Use the clause with its Alternate I when a task or delivery order contract is contemplated.

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsNASA FAR SupNext Page