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

Procurement Notice

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

**PN 04-31**

**February 1, 2008**

**SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION SUBFACTOR**

***BACKGROUND*:**  The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.304(c)(4)**(A)**
is being modified to require that Small Business Utilization (SBU),
which includes Small Business subcontracting and Small Disadvantaged
Business (SDB) participation, be evaluated as a single subfactor under
the Mission Suitability factor. NFS guidance further requires that the
small business utilization subfactor shall provide for a separate and
distinct evaluation of Small Business subcontracting from SDB
participation. Previously, the guidance set forth at NFS
1815.304(c)(4)**(A)** had required only that the extent of participation
of small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns be evaluated as a
separate subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. The evaluation
of small business subcontracting (other than SDB participation) has
therefore generally been part of the evaluation of the management
subfactor under Mission Suitability. This change will ensure proper
emphasis on all aspects of small business utilization through evaluation
as a separate subfactor, while also ensuring compliance with the
requirements of FAR 19.1202 for a separate evaluation of SDB
participation.

***ACQUISITIONS AFFECTED BY CHANGES***: The changes to NFS
1815.304(c)(4)**(A)** are applicable to acquisitions identified in
1815.300-70. However, for such acquisitions where evaluation factors and
subfactors have been established prior to the issuance of this PN, these
changes are not required.

***ACTION REQUIRED BY CONTRACTING OFFICERS***: For competitive
negotiated acquisitions as identified in 1815.300-70, comply with
revised guidance set forth at 1815.304(c)(4)**(A),** except in such
situations where evaluation factors and subfactors have been established
prior to the issuance of this PN.

***CLAUSE CHANGES***: None.

***PARTS AFFECTED***: NFS 1815.

***REPLACEMENT PAGES***:  You may use the enclosed pages to replace
pages 15:7, 15:8, and 15:8.1 (added) of the NFS.

***TYPE OF RULE AND PUBLICATION DATE***:  These changes do not have a
significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of NASA and
do not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors
or offerors, and therefore do not require codification in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) or publication for public comment.

***HEADQUARTERS CONTACT***:  Diane Thompson, Office of Procurement,
Contract Management Division, (202) 358-0514, email:
Diane.Thompson@nasa.gov.

William P. McNally

Assistant Administrator for Procurement

Enclosures

 **DISTRIBUTION LIST:**

**  PN List** 

**1815.300-70 Applicability of subpart.**

(a)(1) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, NASA
competitive negotiated acquisitions shall be conducted as follows:

\(i\) Acquisitions of \$50 million or more \-- in accordance with FAR
15. 3 and this subpart.

\(ii\) Other acquisitions \-- in accordance with FAR 15.3 and this
subpart except section 1815.370 and use of a mission suitability factor
and numerical scoring is optional.

\(2\) Estimated dollar values of acquisitions shall include the values
of multiple awards, options, and later phases of the same project.

\(b\) FAR 15. 3 and this subpart are not applicable to acquisitions
conducted under the following procedures:

\(1\) Announcements of Opportunity (see Part 1872).

\(2\) NASA Research Announcements (see 1835.016-71).

\(3\) The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) pilot program under the
authority of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).

\(4\) Architect and Engineering (A&E) services (see FAR 36.6 and
1836.6).

**1815.303 Responsibilities.**

\(a\) The SSA shall be established at the lowest reasonable level for
each acquisition. Notwithstanding the FAR designation of the contracting
officer as SSA, the SSA for center acquisitions shall be established in
accordance with center procedures. For acquisitions designated

as Headquarters selections, the SSA will be identified as part of the
Master Buy Plan process (see 1807.71).

(b)**(i)** The source selection authority (SSA) is the Agency official
responsible for proper and efficient conduct of the source selection
process and for making the final source selection decision. The SSA has
the following responsibilities in addition to those listed in the FAR:

**(A)** Approve the source selection approach, rating method, evaluation
factors, subfactors, the weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors
when used, and any special standards of responsibility (see FAR 9.104-2)
before release of the RFP, or delegate this authority to appropriate
management personnel;

**(B)** Appoint the source selection team. However, when the
Administrator will serve as the SSA, the Official-in-Charge of the
cognizant Headquarters Program Office will appoint the team; and

**(C)** Provide the source selection team with appropriate guidance and
special instructions to conduct the evaluation and selection procedures.

(b)**(ii)** See 1803.104-70 for restrictions on participating in
evaluation or selection of proposals.

(b)(2) Approval authorities for Acquisition Plans and Procurement
Strategy Meetings are in accordance with 1807.103.

**1815.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.**

(c)(4)**(A)** Small Business Utilization shall be evaluated as a
subfactor under the Mission Suitability factor. The Small Business
Utilization subfactor shall provide for a separate and distinct
evaluation of Small Business plans and SDB participation. If a Mission
Suitability factor is not used, Small Business Utilization, including a
separate and distinct evaluation of SDB concerns, shall be evaluated as
a separate factor or subfactor, as appropriate.

**(B)** SDB concerns that choose the FAR 19.11 price evaluation
adjustment shall receive the lowest possible score/rating under the FAR
15.304(c)(4) evaluation.

**1815.304-70 NASA evaluation factors.**

\(a\) Typically, NASA establishes three evaluation factors: Mission
Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance. Evaluation factors may be
further defined by subfactors. Evaluation subfactors should be
structured to identify significant discriminators, or \"key swingers\" -
the essential information required to support a source selection
decision. Too many subfactors undermine effective proposal evaluation.
All evaluation subfactors should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and
redundancy.

\(b\) Mission Suitability factor.

\(1\) This factor indicates the merit or excellence of the work to be
performed or product to be delivered. It includes, as appropriate, both
technical and management subfactors. Mission Suitability shall be
numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-point scale. (See
1815.300-70(a)(1)(ii).)

\(2\) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation subfactors
to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission Suitability
subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival rating
percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the subfactor
weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission Suitability
subfactors is limited to five. The Mission Suitability evaluation
subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.

\(3\) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis.
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may
significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.

\(4\) If the solicitation requires the submission of a Safety and Health
Plan (see 1823.7001(c) and NPR 8715.3, NASA Safety Manual, Appendix H),
safety and health must be a consideration in the evaluation. The Mission
Suitability factor, if used, shall include a subfactor for safety and
health.

\(c\) Cost/Price factor. This factor evaluates the reasonableness and,
if necessary, the cost realism, of proposed costs/prices. The Cost/Price
factor is not numerically weighted or scored.

\(d\) Past Performance factor.

\(1\) This factor indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative
aspects of each offeror\'s record of performing services or delivering
products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of
the instant acquisition.

\(2\) The RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data
from relevant Federal, State, and local governments and private
contracts) that can be used to evaluate their past performance.
Typically, the RFP will require:

\(i\) A list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to
the instant acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of
contract, a brief description of the work, and a point of contact from
the organization placing the contract. Normally, the requested contracts
are limited to those received in the last three years. However, in
acquisitions that require longer periods to demonstrate performance
quality, such as hardware development, the time period should be
tailored accordingly.

\(ii\) The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or
underruns, completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.

\(3\) The contracting officer may start collecting past performance data
before proposal receipt. One method for early evaluation of past
performance is to request offerors to

submit their past performance information in advance of the proposal due
date. The RFP could also include a past performance questionnaire for
offerors to send their previous customers with instructions to return
the completed questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to