1.  In response to improving communication, what are your thoughts about
    submitting feedback through a draft 1680 or a 1680 at the midpoint
    of the evaluation period?

> Whatever mechanism is used it's the communication and discussion of
> the contractor's performance that should be stressed. A draft NF1680
> could be done at the midpoint of the evaluation period but doesn't
> have to be. There are other ways provide feedback to contractors and
> it is the communication with contractors that is important.

2.  Does the 1680 process apply to utility contractors (telephone,
    electricity, water etc..)?

Yes. NF1680s are required to be completed for utility contracts.

3.  How does the Past Performance Database relate to Past Performance in
    the SEB process? Should it supersede the questionnaires sent to past
    customers?

> SEBs use various forms of information for Past Performance. The Past
> Performance Database and NF1680s are one form of information used for
> past performance. It should not supersede the questionnaires sent to
> past customers but should be used in conjunction with those
> questionnaires.

4.  What recourse does a contractor have if there is adverse information
    in the past performance database that it believes is in error?

> Normally, there shouldn't be adverse information in the database that
> is in error. Once the Government makes its comments on the NF1680
> those comments are provided to the contractor for review and comment.
> If something is in error the contractor should correct it at that
> point or notify the Contracting Officer that there is an error. If by
> some chance something did get into the PPDB by error, the contractor
> should contact the Contracting Officer.

5.  The Presentation stated that the contractor can pull the 1680 down
    off the system and later it was said that the CO sends it to the
    contractor. Can the CO notify the contractor via email tha the 1680
    is complete and then allow the contractor to get it electronically?

> When the NF1680 is completed by the Government it is normally sent to
> the contractor with a url and a code. The contractor can use this url
> to access the form and respond to the Governments comments as they are
> supposed to. It was previously thought by the Team that contractors
> could also use this url to print out their version of the fully
> completed and signed form. It turned out this was [not]{.underline}
> correct. The team has changed its recommendation based on the new
> information and now recommends that Contract Specialists/Contracting
> Officers send hard copies of completed NF1680s to the contractors.
> This can be done by hardcopy, fax, or it can be scanned and emailed to
> the contractor.

6.  How does a contractor get access to data in the Government Past
    Performance Database (PPDB)?

> Contractors do not have access to this database and do not need it.
> Copies of a particular contractors NF1680 (interim and finals) will be
> mailed to that contractor to which it pertains. Access to the PPDB
> will not be given to contractors as there is sensitive information in
> the database.

7.  When the 1680s are shared with the contractor it is recommended that
    they be shared with the subs. How is that physically done? ...1680
    form or what?

> A prime contractor can choose how they want to share the information
> with a subcontractor. It can happen several ways but what is important
> is that the feedback from the Government contained in the NF1680 is
> shared with the sub(s) not so much the actual 1680 form itself.

8.  For Award Fee contracts, is the only section to be completed "Other"
    or will "Price/Cost", "Technical" also need to be completed?

> On the NF1680 the category options are: Quality, Timeliness,
> Price/Cost, and Other". For Award Fee contracts, the Team recommends
> only completing the "Price/Cost" and "Other" categories since those
> usually match up directly with the Award Fee Criteria.

9.  Given that the NASA Procurement Administrator wants to standardize
    all processes for consistency across the agency will this info be
    shared with NASA HQ to formulate new policy?

> This process improvement team was focused on how we do NF1680s at JSC
> specifically. We would certainly share the information with NASA HQ
> but it would be their call as to whether new policy would be
> formulated.

10. SBIR contracts: for closeout purposes a final evaluation NF1680 was
    required per the previous closeout PAN. The current PAN does not
    address the NF1680. Is this final evaluation still required for SBIR
    closeout?

> Yes. A final NF1680 is required for SBIR contracts.

11. Are there guidelines for contractor evaluations of subcontractors
    when these 2 companies could be competing for future work?

> There are no formal guidelines for this. When the Government completes
> a NF1680 it is provided to the prime contractor only. It is the prime
> contractor's responsibility to communicate, discuss and provide
> comments on performance to their major and minor subcontracts. The
> prime does not have to provide the NF1680 to anyone.

12. Can you tie the 1680 process to performance reporting? More
    specifically, can you enter info into the database on shorter
    intervals than just 6 month, 12 month and final?

> There is nothing in the regulations that prohibits doing a NF1680 on
> an interval less than a year but a NF1680 must be done at least
> annually for contracts greater than \$100,000 and greater than 1 year
> in duration.

13. There was clear emphasis on providing subcontractors with CPAR
    information. Does the Government believe that the data it provides
    is discrete/discernable enough to actually do this?

> The data we provide may not always be discrete/discernable enough to
> provide to subcontractors. When the Government completes a NF1680 it
> is provided to the prime contractor. The prime contractor should be
> cognizant of the work and be able to know which comments under the
> evaluation categories on the NF1680 apply to a particular
> subcontractor. If the prime contractor is not able to discern this
> they should discuss the evaluation with the Government and ask
> questions. Normally prime contractors know better than anyone which
> areas of the statement of work and which products their subcontractors
> are responsible for.

14. How does the Government know that prime to subcontractor
    communication is not happening as the presentation seems to suggest?

> The Government does not know definitively that this communication is
> not happening. However, there are contractors that were a part of the
> NF1680 Team and the lack of communication between the prime and
> subcontractors (major & minor) was a major area of concern. So, in the
> cases where it is not happening we would encourage primes to
> communicate with their subs and provide feedback.

15. For the final evaluation, which per the NFS should cover the entire
    contract period of performance: what guidelines are there (if any)
    to establish the criteria for that evaluation? For example, would
    you average the AF scores for previous periods or would it be more
    subjective? How would those guidelines be conveyed to the
    contractor?

> The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) really speaks to non Award Fee
> contracts. The team's recommendations for the [final]{.underline}
> NF1680 apply to non Award Fee contracts. The team is recommending that
> interim NF1680 evaluations continue to be done for Award Fee contracts
> in accordance with the Award Fee periods established in the Award Fee
> Plan. Final NF1680s are not required for Award Fee contracts.

16. With regard to the Final NF1680 -- will there be one final that
    includes the last interim or will there be 2, an interim and a
    final?

> The team's recommendation is that 2 NF 1680s be completed at the end
> of the contract for [non]{.underline} Award Fee contracts. One for the
> last year only (interim final) and then a final that covers the entire
> period of performance of the contract.