![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.8243055555555555in"
height="0.6888888888888889in"} Procurement Notice

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

##  PN 04-11

###  December 29, 2005

## ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES FOR NASA ANNOUNCEMENTS OF OPPORTUNITY

*Background:* NASA's Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)/Announcement of
Opportunity (AO) procurements are conducted as public/private
competitions meeting the spirit and intent of the guidelines promulgated
by the Competitive Sourcing element of the President's Management
Agenda. The agency seeks to increase the effectiveness of BAA/AO
competitions and raise the efficiency level with which the BAA/AO
competitions are conducted.

*ACQUISITIONS AFFECTED BY CHANGES:* All solicitations released and
contracts awarded as a result of the BAA/AO processes.

*ACTION REQUIRED BY CONTRACTING OFFICERS:* Compliance with the revised
guidance addressing proposal preparation procedures as contained in the
newly added section 1872.308, and adherence to the clarification
language regarding requirements for justifications for other than full
and open competition, as contained in the revisions to section 1872.502.

***CLAUSE CHANGES:*** None

***PARTS AFFECTED:*** Changes are made in Part 1872.

*REPLACEMENT PAGES:* You may use the enclosed pages to replace 72:1,
72:2, 72:7 through 72:32 of the NFS.

***TYPE OF RULE AND PUBLICATION DATE:*** Not Applicable. This change
does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating
procedures of the Agency or have a significant cost or administrative
impact on contractors or offerors and therefore does not require
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or publication for
public comment.

***HEADQUARTERS CONTACT:*** Jamiel Commodore, Contract Management
Division, (202) 358-0302, email: jamiel.c.commodore@nasa.gov.

Tom Luedtke

Assistant Administrator for Procurement

Enclosures

**DISTRIBUTION:**

**PN List**

PART 1872

**ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

1872.000 Scope of part.

**SUBPART 1872.1 THE INVESTIGATION ACQUISITION SYSTEM**

1872.101 General.

1872.102 Key features of the system.

1872.103 Management responsibilities.

**SUBPART 1872.2 APPLICABILITY OF THE PROCESS**

1872.201 General.

1872.202 Criteria for determining applicability.

1872.203 Applicable programs and activities.

1872.204 Approval.

**SUBPART 1872.3 THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY**

1872.301 General.

1872.302 Preparatory effort.

1872.303 Responsibilities.

1872.304 Proposal opportunity period.

1872.305 Guidelines for announcement of opportunity.

1872.306 Announcement of opportunity soliciting foreign participation.

1872.307 Guidelines for proposal preparation.

1872.308 Proposals submitted by NASA investigators.

**SUBPART 1872.4 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS**

1872.401 General.

1872.402 Criteria for evaluation.

1872.403 Methods of evaluation.

1872.403-1 Advisory subcommittee evaluation process.

1872.403-2 Contractor evaluation process.

1872.403-3 Government evaluation process.

1872.404 Engineering, integration, and management evaluation.

1872.405 Program office evaluation.

1872.406 Steering committee review.

1872.407 Principles to apply.

**SUBPART 1872.5 THE SELECTION PROCESS**

1872.501 General.

1872.502 Decisions to be made.

1872.503 The selection statement.

1872.504 Notification of proposers.

1872.505 Debriefing.

**SUBPART 1872.6 PAYLOAD FORMULATION**

1872.601 Payload formulation.

**SUBPART 1872.7 ACQUISITION AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS**

1872.701 Early involvement essential.

1872.702 Negotiation, discussions and contract award.

1872.703 Applications of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and
the

NASA FAR Supplement.

1872.704 Other administrative and functional requirements.

1872.705 Format of announcement of opportunity.

1872.705-1 Appendix A: General instructions and provisions.

1872.705-2 Appendix B: Guidelines for proposal preparation.

1872.705-3 Appendix C: Glossary of terms and abbreviations associated
with

investigations.

**PART 1872**

**ACQUISITIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS**

**1872.000 Scope of part.**

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

**Subpart** **1872.1\--The Investigation Acquisition System**

**1872.101 General.**

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

**1872.102 Key Features of the system.**

(a)(1) Use of the system commences with the Enterprise Associate
Administrator\'s determination that the investigation acquisition
process is appropriate for a program. An Announcement of Opportunity
(AO) is disseminated to the interested scientific and technical
communities. The AO is a form of broad agency announcement (BAA) (see
FAR 35.016 and 1835.016 for general BAA requirements). This solicitation
does not specify the investigations to be proposed but solicits
investigative ideas which contribute to broad objectives. In order to
determine which of the proposals should be selected, a formal
competitive evaluation process is utilized. The evaluation for merit is
normally made by experts in the fields represented by the proposals.
Care should be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These evaluators
may be from NASA, other Government agencies, universities, or the
commercial sector. Along with or subsequent to the evaluation for merit,
the other factors of the proposals, such as engineering, cost, and
integration aspects, are reviewed by specialists in those areas. The
evaluation

spread over the number of months most compatible with the possible
flight opportunities and the avail­ability of resources necessary to
evaluate and fund the proposals.

\(2\) The AO may be issued establish­ing a single proposal submission
date. However, the AO could provide that NASA amend the AO to provide
for subse­quent dates for submission of proposals, if addi­tional
inves­tigations are desired within the AO objec­tives.

\(3\) The AO may provide for an initial submission date with the AO to
remain open for submission of additional proposals up to a final cutoff
date. This final date should be related to the availabil­ity of resources
necessary to evaluate the continu­ous flow of proposals, the time
remaining prior to the flight opportunity(s) contem­plated by the AO, and
payload fund­ing and availability.

\(b\) Generally, a core payload of investi­gations would be selected from
the initial submission of proposals under the above methods of
open-ended AOs. These selec­tions could be final or tentative recog­nizing
the need for further definition. Proposals received by subsequent
submis­sion

dates would be considered in the scope of the original AO but would be
subject to the opportunities and resources remaining available or the
progress being made by prior selected investigations.

\(c\) Any proposal, whether received on the initial submission or
subsequent submis­sion, requires notification to the investiga­tor and the
investigator\'s institu­tion of the proposal disposition. Some of the
proposals will be rejected completely and the investi­gators immediately
notified. The remaining unselected proposals may, if agreeable with the
proposers, be held for later consider­ation and funding and the
investigator so notified. However, if an investigator\'s proposal is
considered at a later date, the investigator must be given an
opportunity to validate the proposal with the investigator\'s
institution and for updat­ing the cost and other data contained in the
original submission prior to a final selec­tion. In summary, NASA may
retain pro­posals, receiving Category I, II, or III classi­fications (see
1872.403-1(e)), for possible later sponsorship until no longer feasible
to consider the proposal. When this final stage is reached, the
investigator must be prompt­ly notified. Proposing investigators not
desiring their proposals be held for later consider­ation should be given
the opportu­nity to so indicate in their original submis­sions.

**1872.305 Guidelines** **for** **announcement of opportunity.**

\(a\) The AO should be tailored to the particular needs of the
contemplated inves­tigations and be complete in itself. Each AO will
identify the originating program office and be numbered consecutively by
calendar year, e.g., OA‑1-95, OA-2-95; OLMSA-1-95; OSS-1-95; etc. The
required format and detailed instructions regarding the contents of the
AO are contained in 1872.705.

\(b\) The General Instructions and Provi­sions (1872.705-1) are necessary
to accom­modate the unique aspects of the AO pro­cess. Therefore, they
must be appended to each AO.

\(c\) At the time of issuance, copies of the AO must be furnished to
Headquarters, Office of Procurement (Code HS) and Office of Gener­al
Counsel (Code GK).

\(d\) Proposers should be informed of significant departures from
scheduled dates for activities related in the AO.

**1872.306 Announcement of opportunity soliciting foreign
participation.**

Foreign proposals or U.S. proposals with foreign participation shall be
treated in accordance with 1835.016-70. Additional guidelines applicable
to foreign proposers are contained in the Management Plan Section of
1872.705-2 and must be included in any Guidelines for Proposal
Preparation or otherwise furnished to foreign proposers.

**1872.307 Guidelines for proposal** **preparation.**

While not all of the guidelines outlined in 1872.705-2 will be
applicable in response to every AO, the investigator should be informed
of the relevant infor­mation re­quired. The proposal may be submitted on a
form supplied by the Pro­gram Office. However, the proposal should be
submitted in at least two sections: (a) Investigation and Technical
Plan; and (b) Management and Cost Plan as de­scribed in 1872.705-2.
Investigators shall be required to identify and discuss risk factors and
issues throughout the proposal where they are relevant**,** and describe
their approach to managing these risks.

**1872.308 Proposals submitted by NASA investigators.**

\(a\) NASA solicits, accepts, and evaluates proposals submitted by NASA
Centers in response to an AO. A NASA investigator may team with one or
more non-Government co-investigators. A NASA investigator may also need
to acquire supplies, including instruments and other hardware, and
non-research services in support of the proposed investigation. If a
proposal submitted by a NASA Center is selected, formal assembly of the
team and acquisition of hardware and support services must be
accomplished through the award of new Government contracts, unless
existing Government contracts are available. The award of new Government
contracts must comply with procurement laws and regulations.

\(b\) In addition to complying with proposal preparation instructions
contained in the AO, proposals submitted by NASA Centers should address
the following matters.

\(1\) Non-Government co-investigators.

\(i\) The proposal should describe the open and competitive process that
was used for selecting proposed team members. While a formal
solicitation is not required, the process should include the following
competitive aspects: notice of the opportunity to participate to
potential sources, submissions from and/or discussions with potential
sources, and objective criteria for selecting team members among
interested sources. If proposed team members are selected without using
an open and competitive process, the proposal should contain a full
justification consistent with the requirements of FAR Subpart 6.3.

\(ii\) The proposal should also include a representation that the NASA
investigator has examined his/her financial interests and has determined
that no personal conflict of interest exists.

\(2\) Supplies and support services.

\(i\) The proposal should indicate that the supplies or services are
available under an existing Government contract; or

\(ii\) The proposal should state that the supplies or services will be
acquired under a full and open competition; or

\(iii\) The proposal should explain the basis of a justification for
acquiring the supplies or services noncompetitively (see FAR Subpart
6.3).

\(c\) A selection decision approving the non-Government team members as
selected co-investigators satisfies legal and regulatory requirements
without further competition or justification (see 1872.702).

\(d\) For the acquisition of supplies, including hardware, and support
services by non-Government co-investigators, see 1872.502(a)(4).

# Subpart 1872.4\--Evaluation of Proposals

**1872.401 General.**

\(a\) The evaluation process consid­ers the aspects of each proposal by
the following progressive sorting:

\(1\) A review resulting in a categoriza­tion is performed by using one
of the meth­ods or combination of the methods outlined in 1872.403. The
purpose of this initial review is to determine the scientific and/or
technological merit of the proposals in the context of the AO
objectives.

\(2\) Those proposals which are considered to have the greatest
scientific or technological merit are then reviewed in detail for the
engineering, management, and cost aspects, usually by the project office
at the installation re­sponsible for the project.

\(3\) Final reviews are performed by the program office and the steering
committee and are aimed at devel­oping a group of investigations which
rep­resent an integrated payload or a well-balanced program of
investigation which has the best possibility for meeting the AO's
objectives within programmatic constraints.

\(b\) The importance of considering the interrelationship of the several
aspects of the proposals to be reviewed in the pro­cess and the need for
carefully planning their treatment should not be overlooked. An
evaluation plan should be developed before issuance of the AO. It should
cover the recommended staffing for any subcommit­tee or contractor
support, review guidelines as well as the procedural flow and schedule
of the evaluation. While not mandatory, such a plan should be considered
for each AO. A fuller discussion of the evaluation and selection process
is included in the following sections of this subpart.

**1872.402 Criteria for evaluation.**

\(a\) Each AO must indicate those criteria which the evaluators will
apply in evaluat­ing a proposal. The relative impor­tance of each
criterion must also be stated. This information will allow investigators
to make informed judgments in formulating proposals that best meet the
stated objec­tives.

\(b\) Following is a list of general evalua­tion criteria appropriate for
inclu­sion in most AOs:

\(1\) The scientific, applica­tions, and/or technological merit of the
investiga­tion.

\(2\) The relevance of the pro­posed inves­tigation to the AO\'s stated
scien­tific, appli­cations, and/or technological objec­tives.

\(3\) The competence and expe­rience of the investigator and any
investi­gative team.

\(4\) Adequacy of whatever appara­tus may be proposed with particular
regard to its ability to supply the data needed for the investigation.

\(5\) The reputation and interest of the investigator\'s institution, as
mea­sured by the willingness of the institution to provide the support
necessary to ensure that the investigation can be completed
satisfac­torily.

\(6\) Cost and management aspects will be considered in all selections.

\(7\) The proposed approach to managing risk (e.g., level of technology
maturity being applied or developed, technical complexity, performance
specifications and tolerances, delivery schedule, etc.).

\(8\) Other or additional criteria may be used, but the evaluation
criteria must be germane to the accomplishment of the stated objectives.

\(c\) Once the AO is issued, it is essen­tial that the evaluation
criteria be applied in a uniform manner. If it becomes appar­ent, before
the date set for receipt of pro­posals, that the criteria or their
relative impor­tance should be changed, the AO will be amended, and all
known recipients will be informed of the change and given an ade­quate
opportunity to consider it in submis­sion of their proposals. Evaluation
criteria and/or their relative importance will not be changed after the
date set for receipt of proposals.

**1872.403  Methods of evaluation.**

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

**1872.403-1** **Advisory** **subcommittee evaluation process.**

\(a\) Evaluation of scientific and/or tech­nological merit of proposed
investiga­tions is the responsibility of an advisory subcom­mittee of the
Steering Committee. The subcommittee constitutes a peer group qualified
to judge the scientific and technological aspects of all investiga­tion
proposals. One or more subcommittees may be established depending on the
breadth of the technical or scientific disci­plines inher­ent in the AO\'s
objectives. Each subcom­mittee represents a discipline or grouping of
closely related disciplines. To maximize the quality of the subcommittee
evaluation and categorization, the follow­ing conditions of selection and
appointment should be consid­ered.

\(1\) The subcommittee normal­ly should be established on an ad hoc
basis.

\(2\) Qualifications and acknowledgment of the professional abili­ties of
the subcom­mittee members are of primary importance. Institutional
affilia­tions are not sufficient qualifications.

\(3\) The executive secretary of the sub­committee must be a full-time
NASA em­ployee.

\(4\) Subcommittee members should nor­mally be appointed as early as
possible and prior to receipt of proposals.

\(5\) Care must be taken to avoid conflicts of interest. These include
finan­cial inter­ests, institutional affilia­tions, professional biases and
associations, as well as familiar relationships. Conflicts could further
occur as a result of imbalance between Govern­ment and non-Government
appointees or membership from institutions representing a singular
school of thought in discipline areas involving competitive theories in
approach to an investigation.

\(6\) The subcommittee should con­vene as a group in closed sessions for
pro­posal evaluation to protect the proposer\'s propri­etary ideas and to
allow frank discus­sion of the proposer\'s qualifications and the merit
of the proposer\'s ideas. Lead review re­sponsibility for each proposal
may be as­signed to members most qualified in the involved discipline. It
is important that each proposal be considered by the entire
subcommittee.

\(b\) It may not be possible to select a subcommittee fully satisfying
all of the conditions described in paragraph (a) of this section. It is
the responsibility of the nominating and appointing officials to make
trade-offs, where necessary, among the criteria in paragraph (a) of this
section. This latitude permits flexibility in making deci­sions in accord
with circumstances of each application. In so doing, however, it is
emphasized that recognized expertise in evaluating dissimilar proposals
is essential to the continued workability of the investi­gation
acquisition process.

\(c\) Candidate subcommittee mem­bers should be nominated by the office
having responsibility for the evaluation. Nomina­tions should be approved
in accor­dance with NPD 1150.11, \"Federal Advisory Committee Act
Committees.\" The notification of appoint­ment should specify the
duration of assign­ment on the subcommittee, provisions con­cerning
conflicts of interest, and arrange­ments regarding honoraria, per diem,
and travel when actually employed.

\(d\) It is important that members of the subcommittee be formally
instructed as to their responsibilities with respect to the
investigation acquisition process, even where several or all of the
members have served previously. This briefing of subcom­mittee members
should include:

\(1\) Instruction of subcommittee mem­bers on agency policies and
procedures pertinent to acquisition of investigations.

\(2\) Review of the program goals, AO objectives, and evaluation
crite­ria, includ­ing relative importance, which provide the basis for
evaluation.

\(3\) Instruction on the use of prelimi­nary proposal evaluation data
fur­nished by the Installation Project Office. The sub­commit­tee should
examine these data to gain a better understanding of the proposed
inves­tigations, any associated problems, and to consider cost in
relation to the value of the investigations\' objectives.

\(4\) Definition of responsibility of the subcommittee for evaluation
and cate­gori­zation with respect to scientific and/or technical merit in
accordance with the evaluation criteria.

\(5\) Instruction for documenta­tion of deliberations and categorizations
of the subcommittee.

\(6\) Inform the chairperson of the sub­committee and all members that
they should familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Standards
of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part
2635, and the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for employees of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 5 CFR Part 6901,
regarding conflicts of interest. Members should inform the appointing
authority if their participation presents a real or apparent conflict of
interest situa­tion. In addition, all partici­pants should inform the
selection official in the event they are subjected to pressure or
improper contacts.

\(7\) Inform members that prior to the selection and announcement of the
success­ful investigators and investigations, sub­committee members and
NASA person­nel shall not reveal any information con­cerning the
evaluation to anyone who is not also participating in the same
evaluation pro­ceedings, and then only to the extent that such
information is required in connec­tion with such proceedings. Also,
inform mem­bers that subsequent to selection of an investigation and
announcement of negotia­tions with the investigator\'s institution,
information concerning the proceedings of the subcommittee and data
developed by the subcommittee will be made available to others within
NASA only when the request­or demonstrates a need to know for a NASA
purpose. Such information will be made available to persons outside NASA
includ­ing other Government agencies, only when such disclosure is
concurred in by the Of­fice of General Counsel. In this connection,
reference is made to 18 U.S.C. 1905 which provides criminal sanctions if
any officer or employee (including special employees) of the United
States discloses or divulges certain kinds of business confidential and
trade secret information unless authorized by law.

\(e\) The product of an advisory subcom­mittee is the classification of
pro­posals into four categories. The categories are:

\(1\) **Category** **I\--**Well conceived and scien­tifically and
technically sound investi­ga­tions pertinent to the goals of the pro­gram
and the AO\'s objectives and of­fered by a competent investigator from an
institu­tion capable of supplying the neces­sary support to ensure that
any essential flight hardware or other support can be delivered on time
and that data can be properly re­duced, analyzed, interpreted, and
published in a reasonable time. Investi­gations in Category I are
recommended for acceptance and normally will be displaced only by other
Category I investigations.

\(2\) **Category II\--**Well conceived and scientifically or technically
sound investi­gations which are recommended for accep­tance, but at a
lower priority than Category I.

\(3\) **Category III\--**Scientifically or tech­nically sound
investigations which require further development. Category III
investi­gations may be funded for develop­ment and may be reconsidered at
a later time for the same or other opportunities.

\(4\) **Category IV\--**Proposed investiga­tions which are recommended
for rejection for the particular opportunity under con­sider­ation,
whatever the reason.

\(f\) A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee shall be
prepared by the assigned executive secretary and shall be signed by the
Chairperson. The minutes shall contain the categorizations with basic
rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and weaknesses
of the proposals evaluated.

**1872.403-2 Contractor evaluation** **process.**

\(a\) The use of the contractor method for obtaining support for
evaluation pur­poses of proposals received in response to an AO requires
the approval of the Program AA. Prior to the use of this method,
dis­cussion should be held with the Office of Acquisition.

\(b\) It is NASA policy to avoid situa­tions in the acquisition process
where, by virtue of the work or services performed for NASA, or as a
result of data acquired from NASA or from other entities, a partic­ular
company:

\(1\) Is given an unfair competi­tive ad­vantage over other companies with
respect to future NASA business;

\(2\) Is placed in a position to affect Gov­ernment actions under
circum­stances in which there is potential that the company\'s judgment
may be biased; or

\(3\) Otherwise finds that a conflict exists between the performance of
work or servic­es for the Government in an impartial manner and the
company\'s own self-inter­est.

\(c\) To reduce the possibility of an orga­nizational conflict of
interest problem arising, the following minimum restrictions will be
incorporated into the contract:

\(1\) No employee of the con­tractor will be permitted to propose in
response to the AO;

\(2\) The \"Limitation on Future Contract­ing\" clause contained in
1852.209-71 will be included in all such contracts; and

\(3\) Unless authorized by the NASA con­tracting officer, the contractor
shall not contact the originator of any proposal concerning its
contents.

\(d\) The scope of work for the select­ed contractor will provide for an
identifica­tion of strengths and weaknesses and a summary of the
proposals. The contractor will not make selections nor recommend
investigations.

\(e\) The steps to be taken in estab­lishing evaluation panels and the
responsi­bilities of NASA and the contractor in relation to the panels
will be as follows:

\(1\) The contractor will be required to establish and provide support
to panels of experts for review of proposals to evalu­ate their
scientific and technical merit;

\(2\) These panels will be com­posed of scientists and specialists
qualified to evalu­ate the proposals;

\(3\) The agency may provide to the con­tractor lists of scientist(s) and
spe­cial­ist(s) in the various disciplines it be­lieves are qualified to
serve on the panels;

\(4\) The contractor will report each panel\'s membership to NASA for
approval; and

\(5\) The contractor must make all the necessary arrangements with the
panel members.

\(f\) The evaluation support by the contractor\'s panels of experts will
be ac­complished as follows:

\(1\) The panels will review the scien­tific and technical merit of the
propos­als in accordance with the evaluation crite­ria in the AO and will
record their strengths and weaknesses.

\(2\) The contractor will make records of each panel\'s deliberations
which will form the basis for a report summariz­ing the results of the
evaluations. Upon request, the contractor shall provide all such records
to NASA;

\(3\) The chairperson of each panel shall certify that the evaluation
report correctly represents the findings of the review panel; and

\(4\) A final report will be sub­mitted as provided in the contract.

\(g\) A subcommittee of the Program Of­fice Steering Committee will be
estab­lished on an ad hoc basis. Utilizing fur­nished data, the
subcommittee will classify the proposals into the four categories
enu­merat­ed in 1872.403-1(e)(1), Advisory Sub­commit­tee Evaluation
Process. A record of the deliberations of the subcommittee should be
prepared by an assigned execu­tive secretary and signed by the
chairper­son. The minutes should contain the catego­rizations with the
basic rationale for such ratings and the significant strengths and
weaknesses of the proposals evaluated.

**1872.403-3 Government evaluation process.**

\(a\) The Program AA may appoint one or more full-time Government
employees as subcom­mittee members of the Program Office Steering
Committee to evaluate and catego­rize the proposals.

\(b\) Each subcommittee member should be qualified and competent to
evalu­ate the proposals in accordance with the AO evalu­ation criteria. It
is important that a subcommittee\'s evaluation not be influ­enced by
others either within or outside of NASA.

\(c\) The subcommittee members will not contact the proposers for
additional infor­mation.

\(d\) The subcommittee members will classi­fy the proposals in accordance
with the four categories indicated in 1872.403-1(e)(1). Each
categorization will be supported by an appropriate rationale including a
narrative of each proposal\'s strengths and weaknesses.

**1872.404 Engineering,** **integration, and management**
**evaluation.**

\(a\) The subcommittee responsible for categorization of each proposal
in terms of its scientific, applications, or technical merit should
receive information on proba­ble cost, technical status, developmental
risk, integration and safety problems, and management arrangements in
time for their deliberations.

\(b\) This information should be provided at the discretion of the
Headquar­ters Pro­gram Office by the Project Office at the installation.
This information can be in general terms and should reflect what
insights the Project Office can provide without requesting additional
details from the proposers. This limited Project Office review will not
normally give the subcom­mittees information of significant preci­sion.
The purpose is to give the subcommit­tee sufficient information so it can
review the proposals in conjunction with available cost, integration,
and management consider­ations to gain an impression of each
investi­gator\'s understanding of the problems of the experiment and to
permit gross trade-offs of cost versus value of the investiga­tion
objective.

\(c\) Following categorization, the Project Office shall evaluate
proposals in conten­tion, in depth, including a thorough review of each
proposal\'s engineering, integration, management, and cost aspects. This
review should be accomplished by qualified engi­neering, cost, and
business analysts at the project center.

\(d\) In assessing proposed costs, the evalu­ation must consider:

\(1\) The investigation objec­tive.

\(2\) Comparable, similar or related inves­tigations.

\(3\) Whether NASA or the inves­tiga­tor should procure the necessary
sup­porting instrumentation or services and the relative cost of each
mode.

\(4\) Total overall or probable costs to the Government including
integra­tion and data reduction and analysis. In the case of
investigations proposed by Govern­ment investigators, this includes all
associ­ated direct and indirect cost. With respect to cooperative
investigations, integration, and other applicable costs should be
consid­ered.

\(e\) The Project Office, as part of the in-depth evaluation of
proposals that re­quire instrumentation or support equip­ment, will survey
all potential sources for Govern­ment-owned instrumentation or support
equipment that may be made avail­able, with or without modifications, to
the poten­tial investigator. Such items contrib­uted by foreign
cooperating groups which are still available under cooperative project
agree­ments will also be considered for use under the terms and
conditions specified in the agreements. As part of the evaluation report
to the Program Office, the availabili­ty or nonavailability of
instrumentation or support equipment will be indicated.

\(f\) Proposals which require instru­men­ta­tion should be evaluated by
project per­son­nel. This evaluation should cover the inter­faces and the
assessment of develop­ment risks. This evaluation should furnish the
selection official with sufficient data to contribute to the instrument
determinations. Important among these are:

\(1\) Whether the instrument requires fur­ther definition;

\(2\) Whether studies and designs are nec­essary to provide a reasonably
accu­rate appreciation of the cost;

\(3\) Whether the investigation can be carried out without incurring
undue cost, schedule, or risk of failure penalties; and

\(4\) Whether integration of the in­stru­ment is feasible.

\(g\) In reviewing an investigator\'s man­agement plan, the Project
Office should evaluate the investigator\'s approach for efficiently
managing the work, the recogni­tion of essential management functions,
and the effective overall integration of these functions. Evaluation of
the proposals under final consideration should include, but not be
limited to: workload\--present and future related to capacity and
capabili­ty; past experience; management approach and organization; e.g.:

\(1\) With respect to workload and its rela­tionship to capacity and
capabil­ity, it is important to ascertain the extent to which the
investigator is capable of provid­ing facilities and personnel skills
necessary to perform the required effort on a timely basis. This review
should reveal the need for additional facilities or people, and provide
some indication of the Government support the investigator will require.

\(2\) A review should be made of the inves­tigator, the investigator\'s
insti­tution, and any supporting contractor\'s perfor­mance on prior
investigations. This should assist in arriving at an assessment of the
investigator and the institution\'s ability to perform the effort within
the proposed cost and time constraints.

\(3\) The proposed investigator\'s manage­ment arrangements should be
re­viewed, including make or buy choices, support of any co-investigator,
and preselected subcon­tractors or other instrument fabricators to
determine whether such arrangements are justified. The review should
determine if the proposed manage­ment arrangements enhance the
investigator\'s ability to devote more time to the proposed experiment
ob­jectives and still effectively employ the technical and ad­ministrative
support re­quired for a success­ful investigation. In making these
evalua­tions, the Project Of­fice should draw on the installation\'s
engi­neering, business, legal, and other staff resources, as necessary,
as well as its scien­tific resources. If further information is needed
from the proposers, it should be obtained through the proper contacts.

**1872.405 Program Office evaluation.**

\(a\) A Program Office responsible for the project or program at
Headquarters will receive the evaluation of the proposals, and weigh the
evaluative data to determine an optimum payload or program of
investi­ga­tion. This determination will involve rec­ommendations
concerning individual inves­tigations; but, more importantly, should
result in a payload or program which is judged to optimize total mission
return within schedule, engineering, and budget­ary constraints. The
recommendations should facilitate sound selection decisions by the
Program AA. Three sets of recom­mendations result from the Program Office
evaluation:

\(1\) Optimum payload or pro­gram of investigations, or options for
alter­native payloads or programs.

\(2\) Recommendation for final or tenta­tive selection based on a
determina­tion of the degree of uncertainty associated with individual
investigations. A tentative selection may be considered step one of a
two-step selection technique.

\(3\) Upon consideration of the guide­lines contained in 1872.502(a)(3),
recom­mend­ing responsibility for instrument develop­ment.

\(b\) The Installation Project Office eval­uation is principally
concerned with ensur­ing that the proposed investigation can be managed,
developed, integrated, and execut­ed with an appropriate probability of
tech­nical success within the estimated probable cost. The Headquarters
program Director, drawing upon these inputs, should be main­ly concerned
with determining a payload or program from the point of view of
pro­grammatic goals and budgetary con­straints. Discipline and cost
trade-offs are consid­ered at this level. The Headquarters Pro­gram Office
should focus on the poten­tial contribution to program objectives that
can be achieved under alternative feasible payload integration options.

\(c\) It may be to NASA\'s advantage to consider certain investigations
for tenta­tive selection pending resolution of uncer­tain­ties in their
development. Tentative selec­tions should be reconsidered after a period
of time for final selection in a pay­load or program of investigations.
This two-step selection process should be consid­ered when:

\(1\) The potential return from the inves­ti­gation is sufficient,
relative to that of the other investigations under con­sider­ation, and
that its further development appears to be warranted before final
selec­tion.

\(2\) The investigation potential is of such high priority to the
program that the inves­tigation should be developed for flight if at all
possible.

\(3\) The investigative area is critical to the program and competitive
approaches need to be developed further to allow selec­tion of the
optimum course.

\(d\) Based on evaluation of these consid­er­ations associated with the
investi­gations requiring further development of hardware, the following
information should be provid­ed to the Steering Committee and the Pro­gram
AA responsible for selection:

\(1\) The expected gain in po­tential return associated with the eventual
incorpo­ration of tentatively recommended investi­gations in the
payload(s) or program.

\(2\) The expected costs required to devel­op instrumentation to the
point of \"demon­strated capability.\"

\(3\) The risk involved in added cost, prob­ability of successfully
developing the re­quired instrument capability, and the possi­bility of
schedule impact.

\(4\) Identification of opportu­nities, if any, for inclusion of such
investi­gations in later missions.

\(e\) In those cases where investiga­tions are tentatively selected, an
explicit state­ment should be made of the process to be fol­lowed in
determining the final pay­load or program of investigations and the
pro­posers so informed. The two-phase selection ap­proach provides the
opportunity for addi­tional assurance of development poten­tial and
probable cost prior to a final com­mit­ment to the investigation.

\(f\) As instruments used in investi­ga­tions become increasingly complex
and costly, the need for greater control of their develop­ment by the
responsible Headquar­ters Pro­gram Office also grows. According­ly, as an
integral part of the evaluation process, a deliberate decision should be
made regard­ing the role of the Principal Investigator with respect to
the provision of the major hardware associated with that person\'s
investigation. The guidelines for the hard­ware acquisition determination
are dis­cussed in 1872.502(a)(3).

\(g\) The range of options for respon­sibili­ty for the instrumentation
consists of:

\(1\) Assignment of full responsi­bility to the Principal Investigator.
The responsi­bility includes all in-house or con­tracted activity to
provide the instrumenta­tion for integration.

\(2\) Retention of developmen­tal respon­sibility by the Government with
participa­tion by the Principal Investigator in key events defined for
the program. In all cases the right of the Principal Investi­gator to
counsel and recommend is para­mount. Such involvement of the Principal
Investigator may include:

\(i\) Provision of instrument specifica­tions.

\(ii\) Approval of specifica­tions.

\(iii\) Independent monitorship of the development and advice to the
Govern­ment on optimization of the instru­mentation for the investigation.

\(iv\) Participation in design re­views and other appropriate reviews.

\(v\) Review and concur­rence in chang­es resulting from design reviews.

\(vi\) Participation in config­ura­tion con­trol board actions.

\(vii\) Advice in definition of test pro­gram.

\(viii\) Review and approval of test pro­gram and changes thereto.

\(ix\) Participation in conduct of the test program.

\(x\) Participation in cali­bration of instrument.

\(xi\) Participation in final in­spection and acceptance of the
instru­ment.

\(xii\) Participation in sub­sequent test and evaluation processes
inci­dent to inte­gration and flight preparation.

\(xiii\) Participation in the devel­opment and support of the operations
plan.

\(xiv\) Analysis and interpre­tation of data.

\(h\) The Principal Investigator should as a minimum:

\(1\) Approve the instrument specifi­ca­tion.

\(2\) Advise the project manager in devel­opment and fabrication.

\(3\) Participate in final cali­bration.

\(4\) Develop and support the opera­tions plan.

\(5\) Analyze and interpret the data.

\(i\) The Project Installation is re­sponsi­ble for implementing the
program or project and should make recommendations concern­ing the role
for the Principal Inves­tigators. The Program AA will determine the role,
acting upon the advice of the Headquarters Program Office and the
Steering Commit­tee. The Principal Investigator\'s desires will be
respected in the negotiation of the person\'s role allowing an appeal to
the Program AA and the right to withdraw from participation.

\(j\) The Program Office should make a presentation to the Steering
Com­mittee with supporting documentation on the decisions to be made by
the responsible Program AA.

**1872.406 Steering Committee review.**

\(a\) The most important role of the Steer­ing Committee is to provide a
substan­tive review of a potential payload or pro­gram of investigations
and to recommend a selection to the Program AA. The Steering Commit­tee
applies the collective experience of representatives from the program
and disci­pline communities and offers a forum for discussing the
selection from those points of view. In addition to this
mission-specific evaluation function, the Steering Commit­tee provides
guidance to subcommit­tee chairpersons and serves as a clearing­house for
problems and complaints regard­ing the process. The Steering Committee is
respon­sible for assuring adherence to re­quired procedures. Lastly, it is
the forum where discipline objectives are weighed against program
objectives and constraints.

\(b\) The Steering Committee repre­sents the means for exercising three
respon­sibili­ties in the process of selecting investi­ga­tions to:

\(1\) Review compliance with proce­dures governing application of the AO
process.

\(2\) Ensure that adequate docu­menta­tion has been made of the steps in
the eval­uation process.

\(3\) Review the results of the evalua­tion by the subcommittee, Project,
and Program Offices and prepare an assess­ment or en­dorsement of a
recommended payload or program of investigations to the Program AA.

\(c\) The purpose in exercising the first of the responsibilities in
paragraph (b) of this section is to ensure equity and consistency in the
application of the pro­cess. The Steering Committee is intend­ed to
provide the necessary reviews and coordina­tion inherent in conventional
acquisition practices.

\(d\) The second and third responsibil­ities of the Steering Committee in
paragraph (b) are technical. They require that the Steering Commit­tee
review the evaluations by subcommittee, the Project Office, and the
Program Office for completeness and appropriateness be­fore forwarding to
the Program AA. Most im­portant in this review are:

\(1\) Degree to which results of evalu­ations and recommendations follow
logical­ly from the criteria in the AO.

\(2\) Consistency with objectives and poli­cies generally beyond the
scope of Project/Program Offices.

\(3\) Sufficiency of reasons stated for tentative recommendations of
those investi­gations requiring further in­strument re­search and
development.

\(4\) Sufficiency of reasons stated for determining responsibilities for
instrument development.

\(5\) Sufficiency of consider­ation of reus­able space flight hardware and
support equipment for the recommended investiga­tions.

\(6\) Sufficiency of reasons for classi­fying proposed investigations in
their re­spective categories.

\(7\) Fair treatment of all pro­posals.

\(e\) The Steering Committee makes rec­om­mendations to the selection
official on the payload or program of investigations and notes caveats
or provisions important for consideration of the selection official.

**1872.407 Principles to apply.**

\(a\) 1872.406 contains a de­scription of the evaluation function
appro­priate for a major payload or very signifi­cant pro­gram of
investigation. The levels of review, evaluation, and refinement
described should be applied in those selec­tions where warranted but
could be varied for less significant selection situations. It is
essen­tial to consider the principles of the several evaluative steps,
but it may not be essential to maintain strict adherence to the sequence
and structure of the evalua­tion system described. The selection offi­cial
is respon­sible for determining the evaluation process most appropriate
for the selection situation using this Subpart 1872.4 as a guide.

\(b\) Significant deviations from the provi­sions of this Part 1872 must
be fully docu­mented and be approved by the Pro­gram AA after concurrence
by the Office of General Counsel and Office of Acquisition.

**Subpart** **1872.5\--The Selection Process**

**1872.501 General.**

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

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

**1872.502 Decisions to be made.**

\(a\) The selection decisions by the Pro­gram AA constitute management
judg­ments balancing individual and aggregate scien­tific or technological
merit, the contri­bu­tion of the recommended investigations to the AO\'s
objectives, and their conso­nance with budget constraints to make the
following decisions:

\(1\) Determination of the ade­quacy of scientific/technical analysis
sup­porting the recommended selections. This supporting rationale should
involve consid­erations including:

\(i\) Assurance that the expected return contributes substantially to
program objec­tives and is likely to be real­ized.

\(ii\) Assurance that the evalua­tion crite­ria were applied consistent­ly
to all proposed investigations.

\(iii\) Assurance that the set of recom­mend­ed investigations constitutes
the opti­mum program or payload consider­ing poten­tial value and
constraints.

\(iv\) Assurance that only one investiga­tor is assigned as the Principal
Investigator to each investigation and that the Principal Investigator
will assume the associated responsibilities and be the single point of
contact and leader of any other investiga­tors selected for the same
investi­gation.

\(2\) Determination as to wheth­er avail­able returned space hardware or
sup­port equip­ment, with or without modifi­cation, would be adequate to
meet or sup­port inves­tiga­tion objectives.

\(3\) Determination, with regard to a non-Government principal
investigator, as to wheth­er the pro­posed instrument fabricator quali­fies
and should be accepted as a sole source or whet­her the requirement
should be com­petitively procured. The following guidelines apply:

\(i\) The hardware required should be subjected to competitive
solicita­tion where it is clear that the capability is not suffi­ciently
unique to justify sole source acquisition.

\(ii\) The hardware require­ment should be purchased from the fabrica­tor
proposed by the investigator, which may be the investigator\'s own
institution, (A) when the fabricator\'s proposal contains technical data
that are not available from another source, and it is not feasible or
practicable to define the fabrication re­quirement in such a way as to
avoid the necessity of using the technical data con­tained in the
proposal; (B) when the fabrica­tor offers unique capabilities that are
not available from another source; (C) when the selection official
determines that the pro­posed hard­ware contributes so significantly to
the value of the investigator\'s proposal as to be an integral part of
it.

\(iii\) While it is NASA policy that acquisition of the necessary
hardware be the responsibility of the principal investigator, NASA may
buy the hardware and furnish it to the investigator only if a producer
other than the one proposed by the investigator offers unique
capabilities. The NASA acquisition must be justified as prescribed in
FAR Subpart 6.3.

\(4\) If a NASA Center submits a pro­posal, any re­quirement for hardware
neces­sary to per­form the investigation must be acquired under existing
Government contracts, be com­peted by the installation acquisition
office, or a justification must be written, synopsized, and approved in
accor­dance with the requirements of the FAR and the NASA FAR Supplement
(see 1872.308). In the event that a proposal submitted by a NASA Center
includes non-Government team members that will have substantial
responsibilities for performing the investigation (co-investigator
organizations), and one or more of these organizations will be
responsible for the acquisition of hardware, the determination described
in subparagraph (a)(3) of this section must be made.

\(5\) Determination of the desir­ability for tentative selection of
investiga­tions. This determination involves consid­erations including:

\(i\) Assessment of the state of develop­ment of the investigative
hard­ware, the cost and schedule for development in relation to the gain
in potential benefits at the time of final selection.

\(ii\) Assurance that there is ade­quate definition of investigation
hard­ware to allow parallel design of other pro­ject hard­ware.

\(iii\) Assurance that appro­priate man­agement procedures are contained
in the project plan for reevalua­tion and final selection (or rejection)
on an appropriate time scale.

\(6\) Determination of the ac­ceptabili­ty of the proposer\'s management
plan, includ­ing the proposed hardware development plan, and the
necessity, if any, of negotiat­ing modifications to that plan.

\(b\) In the process of making the determinations described in para­graph
(a)(1) of this section, the Program AA may request addi­tional
information or evaluations. In most in­stances, this information can be
provided by the Program Office responsible for the mission, project, or
program. However, the Program AA may reconvene the subcommit­tee or poll
the members individually or provide for additional analysis or require
additional data from evaluators or propos­ers as considered necessary to
facilitate the Program AA\'s decision.

**1872.503  The Selection Statement.**

Upon completion of deliberations, the responsible Program AA shall issue
a selec­tion statement. Ordinarily this statement will, upon request, be
releasable to the public. As a minimum, the selection state­ment should
include:

\(a\) The general and specific evalua­tion criteria and relative
importance used for the selection.

\(b\) The categorizations provided by the subcommittee and the rationale
for accept­ing or not accepting each Category I propos­al and a succinct
statement concern­ing the nonacceptance of all other propos­als.

\(c\) A concise description of each inves­ti­gation accepted including an
indica­tion as to whether the selection is a partial accep­tance of a
proposal and/or a combination with other investigators.

\(d\) The role of the Principal Inves­tiga­tor with regard to hardware
essential to the investigation and whether the Principal Investigator
will be responsible for hard­ware acquisition and the basis therefor.

\(e\) An indication of the plan and acqui­sition using the regular
acquisition pro­cesses, if the Principal Investigator is not to acquire
the hardware.

\(f\) A statement indicating whether the selection is final or
tentative, recogniz­ing the need for better definition of the
inves­tigation and its cost.

\(g\) A statement indicating use of Gov­ern­ment-owned space flight
hardware and/or support equipment.

**1872.504  Notification of proposers.**

\(a\) It is essential that investigators whose proposals have no
reasonable chance for selection be so apprised as soon as prac­ticable.
The responsible Program Office will, upon such determination, notify
inves­tigators of that fact with the major rea­son(s) why the proposals
were so considered. The notification letter should also inform such
investigators that they may obtain a detailed oral debriefing provided
they request it in writing.

\(b\) Letters of notification will be sent to those Principal
Investigators selected to participate. This letter should not com­mit the
agency to more than negotiations for the selected investigation, but it
should indicate the decision made and contain:

\(1\) A concise description of the Princi­pal Investigator\'s
investigation as selected, noting substantive changes, if any, from the
investigation originally proposed by the Principal Investigator.

\(2\) The nature of the selection, i.e., whet­her it should be considered
final or tenta­tive requiring additional hardware or cost definition.

\(3\) A description of the role of the Prin­cipal Investigator including
the respon­sibility for the provision of instru­ments for flight
experiments.

\(4\) Identification of the princi­pal tech­nical and management points to
be treat­ed in subsequent negotiations.

\(5\) Any rights to be granted on use of data, publishing of data, and
dura­tion of use of the data.

\(6\) Where applicable, indica­tion that a foreign selectee\'s
participation in the pro­gram will be arranged between the Office of
External Relations, and the foreign government agency which endorsed the
proposal.

\(c\) In conjunction with the notifica­tion of successful foreign
proposers, the Pro­gram Office shall forward a letter to the responsible
Office of External Relations, addressing the following:

\(1\) The scientific technological objec­tive of the effort.

\(2\) The period of time for the effort.

\(3\) The responsibilities of NASA and of the sponsoring governmental
agency; these may include:

\(i\) Provision and disposi­tion of hard­ware and software.

\(ii\) Responsibilities for report­ing, re­duction and dissemination of
data.

\(iii\) Responsibilities for transpor­tation of hardware.

\(4\) Any additional informa­tion perti­nent to the conduct of the
experi­ment.

\(d\) Using the information provided above, the Office of External
Relations will negotiate an agreement with the sponsoring foreign
agency.

\(e\) Notices shall also be sent to those proposers not notified
pursuant to the paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, and, as
applicable, a copy to the sponsoring foreign government agency. It is
important that these remain­ing proposers be informed at the same time as
those selected. Other agency notifica­tions and press release procedures
will apply, as appropriate.

**1872.505 Debriefing.**

It is the policy to debrief, if requested, unsuccessful proposers of
investigations in accordance with FAR 15.5. The fol­lowing shall be
considered in ar­ranging and conducting debriefings:

\(a\) Debriefing shall be done by an official designated by the
responsible Pro­gram AA. Any other personnel receiving requests for
information concerning the rejection of a proposal shall refer to the
designated official.

\(b\) Debriefing of unsuccessful offerors shall be made at the earliest
possible time; debriefing will generally be scheduled subsequent to
selection but prior to award of contracts to the successful proposers.

\(c\) Material discussed in debriefing shall be factual and consonant
with the documented findings of several stages of the evaluation process
and the selection statement.

\(d\) The debriefing official shall advise of weak or deficient areas in
the proposal, indicate whether those weaknesses were factors in the
selection, and advise of the major considerations in selecting the
com­peting successful proposer where appro­priate.

\(e\) The debriefing official shall not discuss other unsuccessful
proposals, rank­ing, votes of members, or attempt to make a
point-by-point comparison with successful proposals.

\(f\) A memorandum of record of the debriefing shall be provided the
Chairper­son of the Steering Committee.

**Subpart** **1872.6\--Payload** **Formulation**

**1872.601 Payload** **formulation.**

\(a\) Payload elements for Space Trans­portation System (STS) missions
can come from many sources. These include those selected through AOs,
those generated by in-house research, unsolicited proposals and those
derived from agreements between NASA and external entities. However, it
is anticipated that the primary source of NASA payload elements will be
the AO process. Generally, proposals for payload elements submitted
outside the AO process will not be selected if they would have been
responsive to an AO objective.

\(b\) Payload elements for STS flights fall into two major categories.
\"NASA or NASA-related\" payload elements are those which are developed
by a NASA Program Office or by another party with which NASA has a
shared interest. \"Non-NASA\" payload elements are those which require
only STS operation services from NASA and interface with NASA through
the Office of Space Flight.

\(c\) In general, a Program Office will be designated responsibility for
formu­lating the \"NASA or NASA-related\" portion of an STS payload. The
Office of Space Flight will be responsible for formulating the
\"non-NASA\" portion of an STS payload. Flights may, of course, consist
wholly of payload elements of either type. Resource allocation for mixed
missions will be deter­mined by the Program Office and the Of­fice of
Space Flight.

**Subpart** **1872.7\--Acquisition and Other Considerations**

**1872.701 Early involvement** **essential.**

\(a\) The distinctive feature of the AO process is that it is both a
program planning system and an acquisition system in one procedure. The
choice of what aeronauti­cal and space phenomena to inves­tigate is
program planning. Acquisition is involved with the purchase of property
and services to carry out the selected investiga­tions.

\(b\) Because of both the program­matic and multi-functional aspects of
the AO process, early involvement of external program office elements is
essential. Suc­cess of the process requires that it proceed in a manner
that meets program goals and complies with statutory requirements and
acquisition policy.

\(c\) The planning, preparation and selec­tion schedule for the
investigation should commence early enough to meet statutory and
regulatory requirements. Chief of these are the requirements for
soliciting maximum feasible competition and for conducting discussions
with offer­ors within the competitive range by the Project Office and/or
any other evaluation group or office authorized by the selection
official.

**1872.702** **Negotiation, discussions, and** **contract award.**

\(a\) The AO shall be synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily.
Responses to the synopsis must be added to the AO mailing list. Every
effort should be made to publish opportunities far enough in advance to
encourage a broad response. (In no case less than 45 days before the
date set for receipt of proposals).

\(b\) Significant items for consideration after receipt of proposals:

\(1\) Late Proposals **\--** The policy on late proposals contained in
1815.208 is applicable. Potential investigators should be informed of
this policy. In the AO context, the selection official or designee will
determine whether a late proposal will be considered.

\(2\) Competitive Consideration*.*

\(i\) The proposals submitted in re­sponse to the AOs are not necessarily
fully compa­rable. However, all proposals within the scope of an
opportunity must be evalu­ated in accordance with the criteria in the AO.

\(ii\) Cost must be considered in the evalu­ation if costs are involved
in the investiga­tion. General cost information should be given to the
subcommittee by the Installa­tion Project Office for use in deter­mining
the categories into which the sub­committee places proposals.

\(iii\) Further information should be ob­tained, as necessary, by the
Installa­tion Project Office and/or any other evaluation group authorized
by the selec­tion official and from the investigators whose proposals are
being considered. This is similar to the acquisition procedure for
conducting written and oral discussions. A major consideration during
discussions is to avoid unfairness and unequal treatment. Good judgment
is required by in the extent and content of the discussions. There
should be no reluctance in obtaining the advice and guidance of
management and staff offices during the discussion phase. A summary
should be prepared of the primary points covered in the written and oral
discussions and show the effect of the discussions on the evaluation of
proposals. This summary should also contain general information about
the questions submitted to the inves­tigators, the amount of time spent
in oral discussion, and revisions in proposals, if any, resulting from
the discus­sions.

\(iv\) During the conduct of dis­cussions, all proposers being considered
shall be offered an equitable opportunity to submit cost, technical, or
other revisions in their propos­als as may result from the discus­sions.
All proposers shall be informed that any revi­sions to their proposals
must be submitted by a common cut-off date in order to be considered.
The record should note compli­ance of the investigators with that cut-off
date.

\(c\) Significant items for consider­ation before award:

\(1\) Issuance of a Request for Pro­posal (RFP)**\--**A formal RFP should
not be issued to obtain additional information on propos­als accepted
under the AO process. Addi­tional technical, cost, or other data received
should be considered as a supple­ment to the original proposal.

\(2\) Selection of Investigator/Con­trac­tor**\--**The selection decision
of the Pro­gram AA approves the selected investi­gators and their
institutions as the only satisfacto­ry sources for the investigations.
The selec­tion of the investigator does not constitute the selection of
that person\'s proposed support­ing hardware fabricator unless the
selection official specifically incorporates the fabri­cator in the
selection decision.

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

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

**1872.704 Other administrative** **and function­al** **requirements.**

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

**1872.705 Format of Announcement of Opportunity (AO).**

Use the following format instructions when drafting AOs:

OMB Approval Number 2700-0085

**NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION**

**Washington, DC 20546**

**ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY**

**A0 No. [         ]{.underline}  (Issuance Date)**

**(Descriptive Heading)**

**I. Description of the Opportunity.**

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

**II. NASA's Safety Priority.**

Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death,
injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or
property, or damage to the environment. NASA's safety priority is to
protect:

\(1\) the public,

\(2\) astronauts and pilots,

\(3\) the NASA workforce (including NASA employees working under NASA
instruments), and

\(4\) high-value equipment and property.

**III. AO Objectives.**

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

**IV. Background.**

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

**V. Proposal Opportunity Period.**

This section should provide the pro­pos­al opportunity period(s). The
following meth­ods may be used individually or in conjunc­tion for
establishing the proposal opportu­nity period(s):

\(a\) The AO may be issued establish­ing a single date by which proposals
may be received. However, the AO could provide that the agency may amend
the AO to pro­vide for subsequent dates for submission of proposals, if
additional investigations are desired.

\(b\) The AO may be issued to pro­vide for an initial submission date
with the AO to remain open for submission of addi­tional proposals up to
a final cutoff date. This final date should be related to the
availabil­ity of resources necessary to evalu­ate the continuous flow of
proposals and the time remaining prior to the flight op­portunities
contemplated by the AO.

\(c\) The AO may be issued establish­ing a number of dates by which
proposals may be received. Normally no more than three proposal
submission dates should be estab­lished. The submittal dates may be
spread over the number of months most compatible with the possible
flight opportu­nities and the availability of resources necessary to
evaluate and fund the proposal. If desired, this section should further
in­form the reader that if a proposal receives a Catego­ry I, II, or III
rating but is not selected for immediate support, the proposal may, if
desired by the proposer, be held by NASA for later consideration within
the ground rules set forth in paragraphs l and 2. The section should
inform the reader that if the person wishes the proposal to be so
treated, it should be indicated in the pro­posal. This section should
further indicate that offer­ors whose proposals are to be considered at a
later time will be given the opportunity to revalidate their proposals
with their institu­tion and update cost data.

**VI. Requirements and Constraints.**

\(a\) This section will include techni­cal, programmatic, cost, and
schedule re­quire­ments or constraints, as applicable, and will specify
performance limits such as lifetime, flight environment, safety,
reli­ability, and quality assurance provisions for flight-worthiness. It
will specify the re­quirements and constraints related to the flight crew
and the ground support. It will also in­clude requirements for data
analysis, esti­mated schedule of data shipment to user or observ­er, need
for preliminary or raw data analy­sis and interim reports. It will
specify the planned period (time) for data analysis to be used for
budgeting. It will provide any additional information neces­sary for a
meaningful proposal.

\(b\) When NASA determines that instru­mentation, ground support
equipment, or NASA supporting effort will be required or may be expected
to be required by the contemplated investigations, the AO should
indicate to the potential investigators that they must submit specific
information regarding this requirement to allow an in-depth evaluation
of the technical aspects, cost, management, and other factors by the
Installation Project Office.

**VII. Proposal Submission Information.**

\(a\) **Preproposal Activities\--**In this sec­tion, the AO will indicate
requirements and activities such as the following:

\(1\) Submittal of \"Notice of Intent\" to propose (if desired), date
for submission, and any additional required data to be submitted.
Indicate whether there are information packages which will only be sent
to those who submit \"Notice of Intent.\"

\(2\) Attendance at the preproposal con­ference (if held). Informa­tion
should be provided as to time, place, whether atten­dance will be
restricted in number from each institution, and whether prior notice of
intention to attend is re­quired. If de­sired, a request may be includ­ed
that ques­tions be submitted in writing several days before the
conference in order to prepare replies.

\(3\) The name and address of the scien­tif­ic or technical contact for
ques­tions or inqui­ries.

\(4\) Any other preproposal data consid­ered necessary.

\(b\) **Format of Proposals\--**This sec­tion should provide the
investigator with the information necessary to enable an effec­tive
evaluation of the proposal. The infor­mation is as follows:

\(1\) **Proposal\--**The AO should indi­cate how the proposal should be
submit­ted to facilitate evaluation. The proposal should be submitted in
at least two sections; (i) Investigation and Technical Section; and (ii)
Management and Cost Section.

\(2\) **Signatory\--**The propos­al must be signed by an institutional
official autho­rized to ensure institutional support, spon­sorship of the
investigation, manage­ment, and financial aspects of the proposal.

\(3\) **Quantity\--**The number of copies of the proposal should be
specified. One copy should be clear black and white, and on white paper
of quality suitable for repro­duction.

\(4\) **Submittal Address\--**Propos­als from domestic sources should be
mailed to arrive not later than the time indicated for receipt of
proposals to:

National Aeronautics and Space Adminis­tration

Office of (Program)

Code [          ]{.underline}  AO No. [          ]{.underline} 

Washington, DC 20546

\(5\) **Format\--**To aid in proposal evalua­tion, and to facilitate
comparative analysis, a uniform proposal format will be required for
each AO. The number of pages, page size, and restriction on photo
reduction, etc., may be included. The for­mat contained in Appendix B can
be used as a guide. Proposers may be requested to re­spond to all of the
items or the AO may indicate that only selected items need be addressed.
Using the Appendix format as a guide, specific guidelines may be
prepared for the AO or an appropriate form devel­oped.

\(c\) **Additional Information\--**This sec­tion may be used to request
or furnish data necessary to obtain clear proposals that should not
require further discussions with the proposer by the evaluators. Other
perti­nent data could also be included, such as significant milestones.

\(d\) **Foreign Proposals\--**The proce­dures for submission of proposals
from outside the U.S. are contained in Appendix B, \"Guidelines for
Proposal Preparation.\" This section will describe any additional
require­ments, for example, if information copies of proposals are
required to be fur­nished by the proposer to other organiza­tions at the
same time the proposal is sub­mitted.

\(e\) **Cost Proposals (U.S. Investiga­tors Only)\--**This section
defines any special requirements regarding cost proposals of domestic
investigators. Reference then should be made to the cost proposal
certifi­cations indicated in Appendix B, \"Guidelines for Proposal
Preparation.\"

**VIII.**  **Proposal Evaluation, Selection, and** **Implementation.**

\(a\) **Evaluation and Selection Proce­dure.**

\(1\) This section should notify the pro­posers of the evaluation
process.

\(2\) For example, a statement similar to the following should be
included:

\"Proposals received in response to this AO will be reviewed by a
subcommittee ap­pointed by the (appropriate Program AA). The purpose of
the review is to determine the scientific/technical merit of the
propos­als in the context of this AO and so catego­rize the proposals.
Those proposals which are considered to have the greatest
scientif­ic/technical merit are further reviewed for engineering,
integration, management, and cost aspects by the Project Office at the
installation responsible for the project. On the basis of these reviews,
and the reviews of the responsible Program Office and the Steering
Committee, the (appropriate Pro­gram Associate Administrator) will
appoint/select the investigators/investiga­tions.\"

\(b\) **Evaluation Criteria.**

\(1\) This section should indi­cate that the selection of proposals which
best meet the specific scientific, applica­tions, and/or technological
objectives, stated in the AO, is the aim of the solicita­tion. This
section should list the criteria to be used in the evaluation of
proposals and indicate their relative importance. See NASA FAR
Supplement 1872.402 for a listing of criteria gener­ally appropriate.

\(2\) This section will also in­form the proposers that cost and
manage­ment factors, e.g., proposed small business participation in
instrumentation fabrication or investigation support, will be separately
considered.

**IX. Schedule.**

This section should include the follow­ing, as applicable:

\(a\) Preproposal conference date.

\(b\) Notice of Intent submittal date.

\(c\) Proposal submittal date(s).

\(d\) Target date for announcement of selections.

**X. Appendices.**

\(a\) General Instructions and Provi­sions (must be attached to each AO).

\(b\) Other Pertinent Data, e.g., Spacelab Accommodations Data.

/s/ Associate Administrator

    for (Program)

**1872.705-1 Appendix A: General Instructions and Provisions.**

Include the following in all Announcements of Opportunity:

**I. Instrumentation and/or Ground** **Equip­ment.**

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

**II. Tentative Selections**, **Phased** **Develop­ment, Partial
Selections, and** **Partici­pa­tion with Others.**

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

**III. Selection Without Discussion.**

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

**IV. Foreign Proposals.**

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

**V. Treatment of Proposal Data.**

It is NASA policy to use information con­tained in proposals and
quotations for evaluation purposes only. While this policy does not
require that the proposal or quota­tion bear a restrictive notice,
offerors or quoters should place the following notice on the title page
of the proposal or quotation and specify the information, subject to the
notice by inserting appropriate identifica­tion,

such as page numbers, in the notice. Information (data) contained in
proposals and quotations will be protected to the extent permitted by
law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and disclosure of infor­mation
not made subject to the notice. To prevent inadvertant disclosure,
proposal data shall not be included in submissions (e.g. final reports)
that are routinely released to the public.

**RESTRICTION ON USE AND DISCLOSURE OF**

**PROPOSAL AND QUOTATION INFORMATION (DATA)**

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

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

The investigator\'s institution agrees that the cost proposal is for
proposal evalu­ation and selection purposes, and that fol­lowing selec­tion
and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract, the
institu­tion may be required to resubmit cost information in accordance
with FAR 15.403-5.

**VII. Late Proposals.**

Proposals or proposal modifications received 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.

**VIII. Source of Space Transportation System Investigations.**

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

**IX. Disclosure of Proposals Outside** **Gov­ernment.**

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

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

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

**EQUAL OPPORTUNITY**

During the performance of this con­tract, the Contractor agrees as
follows:

\(a\) The Contractor will not discrim­inate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.

\(b\) The Contractor will take affir­ma­tive action to ensure that
applicants are em­ployed, and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. This shall include, but not be limited to, (1)
employment, (2) upgrading, (3) demotion, (4) transfer, (5) recruitment
or recruit­ment advertising, (6) layoff or termination, (7) rates of pay
or other forms of compensa­tion, and (8) selection for training,
includ­ing apprenticeship.

\(c\) The Contractor shall post in conspic­u­ous places available to
employees and appli­cants for employment the notices to be provided by
the Contracting Officer that explain this clause.

\(d\) The Contractor shall, in all solicita­tions or advertisements for
employ­ees placed by or on behalf of the Contrac­tor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment with­out
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

\(e\) The Contractor shall send to each labor union or representative of
work­ers with which it has a collective bargain­ing agreement or other
contract or under­stand­ing the notice to be provided by the Con­tracting
Officer, advising the labor union or workers\' representative of the
Contractor\'s commitments under this clause, and post copies of the
notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for
employment.

\(f\) The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as
amended, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secre­tary of
Labor.

\(g\) The Contractor shall furnish to the contracting agency all
information required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and by the
rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. Standard Form
100 (EEO-1), or any successor form, is the pre­scribed form to be filed
within 30 days following the award, unless filed within 12 months
preceding the date of award.

\(h\) The Contractor shall permit access to its books, records, and
accounts by the contracting agency or the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for the purposes of investigation to
ascer­tain the Contractor\'s compliance with the applicable rules,
regulations, and orders.

\(i\) If the OFCCP determines that the Contractor is not in compliance
with this clause or any rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of
Labor, the contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole
or in part, and the Contractor may be de­clared ineligible for further
Government contracts, under the procedures authorized in Executive Order
11246, as amended. In addition, sanctions may be imposed and remedies
invoked against the Contractor as provided in Executive Order 11246, as
amended, the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor,
or as otherwise provided by law.

\(j\) The Contractor shall include the terms and conditions of
subparagraph l through 9 of this clause in every subcon­tract or purchase
order that is not exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the
Secretary of Labor issued under Executive Order 11246, as amended, so
that these terms and conditions will be binding upon each subcontractor
or vendor.

\(k\) The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any
subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct as
means of enforcing these terms and conditions, including sanctions for
non-compliance; provided, that if the Contractor becomes involved in, or
is threatened with, litigation with a subcon­tractor or vendor as a
result of direction, the Contractor may request the United States to
enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

**XI. Patent Rights.**

\(a\) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to other
than a small business firm or nonprofit organiza­tion, the clause at
1852.227-70, \"New Technolo­gy,\" shall apply. Such contractors may, in
advance of contract, request waiver of rights as set forth in the
provision at 1852.227-71, \"Requests for Waiver of Rights to
Inventions.\"

\(b\) For any contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to a
small business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR
52.227-11, \"Patent Rights\--Retention by the Contractor (Short Form)\"
(as modi­fied by 1852.227-11), shall apply.

2.  **Appendix B: Guidelines for Proposal Preparation.**

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

**I. Cover Letter.**

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

**II. Table of Contents.**

The proposal should contain a table of contents.

**III. Identifying Information.**

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

**INVESTIGATION AND TECHNICAL PLAN**

\(a\) **Investigation and** **Technical Plan**

The investigation and technical plan gener­ally will contain the
following:

\(1\) **Summary.** A concise state­ment about the investigation, its
conduct, and the antic­ipated results.

\(2\) **Objective and Significant** **As­pects.** A brief definition of
the objec­tives, their value, and their relationships to past, cur­rent,
and future effort. The histo­ry and basis for the proposal and a
demon­stration of the need for such an investiga­tion. A statement of
present development in the discipline field.

\(3\) **Investigation Approach**

\(i\) Fully describe the concept of the investigation.

\(ii\) Detail the method and proce­dures for carrying out the
investi­gation.

\(b\) **Instrumentation**

This section should describe all infor­mation necessary to plan for
experiment develop­ment, integration, ground opera­tions, and flight
operations. This section must be complete in itself without need to
request additional data. Failure to furnish com­plete data may preclude
evaluation of the proposal.

\(1\) **Instrument Description\--**This section should fully describe
the in­strumen­tation and indicate items which are proposed to be
developed as well as any existing instru­mentation. Performance
characteristics should be related to the experiment objec­tives as stated
in the proposal.

\(2\) **Instrument Integration\--**This section should describe all
parameters of the instru­ment pertinent to the accommo­dation of the
instrument in the spacecraft, Spacelab, Shuttle Orbiter, Space Station,
etc. These include, but are not limited to, volu­metric envelope; weight;
power require­ments; thermal requirements; telemetry require­ment;
sensitivity to or generation of contamination (e.g., EMI gaseous
effluent); data processing requirements.

\(3\) **Ground Operations\--**This section should identify requirements
for pre-launch or post-launch ground opera­tions support.

\(4\) **Flight Operations\--**This section should identify any
requirements for flight opera­tions support including mission plan­ning.
Operational constraints, viewing require­ments, and pointing requirements
should also be identified. Details of com­munica­tions needs, tracking
needs, and special techniques, such as extravehicular activity or
restrictions in the use of control

thru­st­ers at stated times should be delineat­ed. Special communications
facilities that are needed must be described. Any special orbital
requirements, such as time of month, of day, phase of moon, and lighting
condi­tions are to be given in detail. Describe real-time ground support
requirements and indicate any special equipment or skills required of
ground personnel.

\(c\) **Data Reduction and** **Analysis**

A discussion of the data reduction and analysis plan including the
method and format. A section of the plan should in­clude a schedule for
the submission of reduced data to the receiving point. In the case of
Space Science programs, the Nation­al Space Science Data Center,
Greenbelt, MD, will be the repository for such data and the Department
of Interior, Sioux Falls, SD, for earth observations data.

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

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

**MANAGEMENT PLAN AND** **COST PLAN**

\(a\) **Management Plan**

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

\(1\) **Management**

\(i\) The management plan sets forth the approach for managing the work,
the recognition of essential management func­tions, and the overall
integration of these func­tions.

\(ii\) The management plan gives insight into the organization proposed
for the work, including the internal operations and lines of authority
with delegations, together with internal interfaces and rela­tionships
with the NASA major subcontrac­tors and associated investigators.
Likewise, the management plan usually reflects vari­ous schedules
necessary for the logical and timely pursuit of the work accompanied by
a description of the investigator\'s work plan and the responsibilities
of the co-investiga­tors.

\(iii\) The plan should describe the pro­posed method of instrument
acquisition. It should include the following, as applica­ble.

\(A\) Rationale for the investiga­tor to obtain the instrument through or
by the investigator\'s institution.

\(B\) Method and basis for the selec­tion of the instrument fabricator.

\(C\) Unique capabilities of the instru­ment fabricator that are not
available from any other source.

\(D\) Characteristics of the pro­posed fabri­cator\'s instrument that make
it an insepara­ble part of the investigation.

\(E\) Availability of personnel to admin­ister the instrument contract
and technical­ly monitor the fabrication.

\(F\) Status of development of the in­stru­ment.

\(G\) Method by which the inves­tigator proposes to:

(*a*) Prepare instrument specifica­tions.

(*b*) Review development progress.

(*c*) Review design and fabrica­tion chan­ges.

(*d*) Participate in testing pro­gram.

(*e*) Participate in final checkout and calibration.

(*f*) Provide for integration of instru­ment.

(*g*) Support the flight opera­tions.

(*h*) Coordinate with co-investi­gators, other related investigations,
and the pay­load integrator.

(*i*) Assure safety, reliabili­ty, and quali­ty.

(*j*) Provide required sup­port for Pay­load Specialist(s), if applicable.

\(H\) Planned participa­tion by small and/or minority business in any
subcon­tracting for instrument fabrication or investigative support
functions.

\(2\) **Facilities and** **Equipment**

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

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

The following guidelines are estab­lished for foreign responses to
NASA\'s AO. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific announce­ment, these
guidelines indicate the appro­priate measures to be taken by foreign
proposers, prospective foreign sponsoring agencies, and NASA leading to
the selection of a proposal and execution of appropriate arrangements.
They include the following:

\(i\) Where a \"Notice of Intent\" to pro­pose is requested, prospective
foreign pro­posers should write directly to the NASA official designated
in the AO.

\(ii\) Unless otherwise indicated in the AO, proposals will be submitted
in accor­dance with this Appendix. Proposals should be typewritten and
written in English. Foreign entities are generally not eligible for
funding from NASA. Therefore, proposals from foreign entities should