![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.1680555555555556in"
height="1.8416666666666666in"}

**OFFICE WORK INSTRUCTION**

SOLICIT AND SELECT SCIENCE, APPLICATIONS, EDUCATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
INVESTIGATIONS

**(Conforming to ISO 9001 Quality System Requirements)**

**Original Signed By:**

**Ghassem R. Asrar**

**Associate Administrator**

**Office of Earth Science**

**DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG**

+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| Status  | Do     | Eff    | Description                             |
|         | cument | ective |                                         |
| (Ba     |        |        |                                         |
| seline/ | Re     | Date   |                                         |
|         | vision |        |                                         |
| Re      |        |        |                                         |
| vision/ |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        |                                         |
| Ca      |        |        |                                         |
| nceled) |        |        |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| B       |        | 1      |                                         |
| aseline |        | 2/2/98 |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | A      | 5      | Sections 1.0 and 2.0: Expanded the      |
| evision |        | /10/99 | HQOWI to include technology             |
|         |        |        | investigations. Made minor edits.       |
|         |        |        | Expanded the scope to include renewing  |
|         |        |        | investigations.                         |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 4.0: Deleted references not     |
|         |        |        | called out in the procedure.            |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 5.0: Added TBD to ACE           |
|         |        |        | Implementation Plan. Changed name of    |
|         |        |        | Flight Mission Plan to Approved Flight  |
|         |        |        | Mission Profile to be consistent with   |
|         |        |        | HQOWI 7120-Y003. Added two new          |
|         |        |        | technology inputs to Activity 3.        |
|         |        |        | Changed name of Activity 5\'s output to |
|         |        |        | Peer Review Results and made it a       |
|         |        |        | Quality Record to be consistent with    |
|         |        |        | HQOWI 7120-Y012. Broke Activity 9 into  |
|         |        |        | the three distinct award paths. Added   |
|         |        |        | reference to HQOWI 7410-Y008. Changed   |
|         |        |        | Signed Procurement Package to           |
|         |        |        | Procurement Package. Added path to      |
|         |        |        | review, evaluate, and renew             |
|         |        |        | investigations.                         |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0: Made several minor         |
|         |        |        | clarifications and accuracy             |
|         |        |        | corrections. Moved decision on          |
|         |        |        | solicitation instrument from Activity 1 |
|         |        |        | to Activity 3. Expanded the HQOWI to    |
|         |        |        | include technology investigations.      |
|         |        |        | Added a step in Activity 3 for          |
|         |        |        | consultation with Codes G, H, and I.    |
|         |        |        | Added reference to HQOWI 5100-Y014,     |
|         |        |        | Obtain Approval for Release of          |
|         |        |        | Solicitation Instrument in Activity 4.  |
|         |        |        | In Activity 5, replaced text on peer    |
|         |        |        | review with reference to HQOWI          |
|         |        |        | 7040-Y012, Conduct Peer Review          |
|         |        |        | (incorporated additional information in |
|         |        |        | Y012 as appropriate). Also made Peer    |
|         |        |        | Review Results a Quality Record to be   |
|         |        |        | consistent with HQOWI 7120-Y012. Moved  |
|         |        |        | the decision on funding instrument from |
|         |        |        | Activity 1 to Activity 6. Used text     |
|         |        |        | from old Activity 9, Initiate           |
|         |        |        | Procurement Paperwork, to describe the  |
|         |        |        | three new award paths. Developed text   |
|         |        |        | for the new path to review, evaluate,   |
|         |        |        | and renew investigations. Added a       |
|         |        |        | reference to HQOWI 7410-Y008, Execute   |
|         |        |        | the ESE Budget, for details on          |
|         |        |        | providing field centers resources to    |
|         |        |        | make an award (new Activities 9 and     |
|         |        |        | 10).                                    |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 7.0: Added NPG 1441.1           |
|         |        |        | reference. Modified location and        |
|         |        |        | retention for Accept/Reject letters.    |
|         |        |        | Removed the following from the list of  |
|         |        |        | quality records: Selection              |
|         |        |        | Recommendation with Rationale &         |
|         |        |        | Justification (Briefing) and Signed     |
|         |        |        | Procurement Package. Added Peer Review  |
|         |        |        | Results, Summary of Selection Results,  |
|         |        |        | and Resource Authority (NASA Form 506   |
|         |        |        | White) to the list of quality records.  |
|         |        |        | Changed mappings from NPG Schedule 5,   |
|         |        |        | "Industry Relations and Procurement,"   |
|         |        |        | to NPG Schedule 7, "Program Formulation |
|         |        |        | Records."                               |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Appendix A: Added Appendix A,           |
|         |        |        | Solicitation and Funding Instruments.   |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | B      | 10     | Section 6.0: **Activity 2**, deleted    |
| EVISION |        | /14/99 | "pursuit by" and added "by the          |
|         |        |        | appropriate ESE division director (s)". |
|         |        |        | **Activity 6**, added "interagency      |
|         |        |        | transfers" to 3^rd^ paragraph.          |
|         |        |        | **Activity 8**, Added "Program Manager  |
|         |        |        | or the" to 1^st^ paragraph. **Activity  |
|         |        |        | 9**, changed location of last bullet    |
|         |        |        | and put it in as the 6^th^ bullet.      |
|         |        |        | **Activity 10**, deleted "actual        |
|         |        |        | procurement package" and added          |
|         |        |        | "procurement request which              |
|         |        |        | electronically commits the funding.     |
|         |        |        | They then send the package to           |
|         |        |        | procurement". **Activity 11**, in the   |
|         |        |        | 4^th^ bullet, changed "or" for "and",   |
|         |        |        | deleted "either the Technical           |
|         |        |        | Evaluation and Selection Statement, the |
|         |        |        | Justification for Acceptance of an      |
|         |        |        | Unsolicited Proposal, or Justification  |
|         |        |        | for Other Agency Performing Activity,   |
|         |        |        | whichever is appropriate" and added     |
|         |        |        | "the required statements and            |
|         |        |        | justification. The YB program analyst   |
|         |        |        | prepares the procurement package        |
|         |        |        | request form which is submitted         |
|         |        |        | electronically to the Headquarters      |
|         |        |        | Accounting Division, Code 155". Deleted |
|         |        |        | "procurement package" and added "award  |
|         |        |        | document". **Activity 15**, Added       |
|         |        |        | "Program Manager or the" to the last    |
|         |        |        | sentence and changed "any" for "the".   |
|         |        |        | **Appendix A**, deleted the word "an"   |
|         |        |        | from the second paragraph.              |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | C      | 6/2/00 | Changed "Business Management Division"  |
| EVISION |        |        | to "Business Division" throughout the   |
|         |        |        | document. Revised Section 6.4,          |
|         |        |        | paragraph 4, to include new requirement |
|         |        |        | to fax certification for release of     |
|         |        |        | solicitation to the GSFC Headquarters   |
|         |        |        | Acquisition Branch. Revised Section 6.7 |
|         |        |        | to include new process of sending draft |
|         |        |        | accept/reject letters to Code I for     |
|         |        |        | review and concurrence. Revised Section |
|         |        |        | 7.0, Summary of Selection Results       |
|         |        |        | location to Support Contractor. Revised |
|         |        |        | Section 6.7 to include advance notice   |
|         |        |        | for Codes P and L of selections.        |
|         |        |        | Section 6.3: added language concerning  |
|         |        |        | the importance of commercial data       |
|         |        |        | purchases. Changed "Administrative      |
|         |        |        | Team" to "Implementation Team"          |
|         |        |        | throughout the document. Changed        |
|         |        |        | "Earthworks database" to "SYS-EYFUS     |
|         |        |        | database" throughout the document.      |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | D      | 12     | Changed Applications,                   |
| EVISION |        | /28/00 | Commercialization, and Education        |
|         |        |        | Division to Applications Division       |
|         |        |        | throughout the document; Revised last   |
|         |        |        | paragraph in section 6.4 in response to |
|         |        |        | a Code Y internal corrective and        |
|         |        |        | preventive action; Deleted references   |
|         |        |        | to Jorge Scientific Corporation in      |
|         |        |        | section 7.0 as a result of the          |
|         |        |        | consolidated peer review contract.      |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+

**PREFACE**

The NASA Office Work Instruction (OWI) for Solicit and Select Science,
Applications, Education, and Technology Investigations documents the
tasks and activities in conformance with the International Organization
for Standardization's (ISO) 9001 requirements for quality systems. The
OWI supplements the *NASA Strategic Plan*, the *NASA Strategic
Management Handbook*, and other higher level NASA directives, which form
the basis for how NASA conducts business.

This OWI is not intended to duplicate or contradict any other NASA
policy, procedures or guidelines, which currently exist. As such, the
OWI will reference prevailing documents where a topic is addressed and
existing coverage is deemed adequate. Additional information provided
within is intended to supplement existing documentation regarding
Headquarters (HQ) implementation of strategic and program/project
management, as well as HQ conformance with the ISO 9001 Quality
Management System (QMS) requirements.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[PARAGRAPH]{.underline} PAGE

**1.0 Purpose [6](#purpose)**

2.0 SCOPE and Applicability [6](#scope-and-applicability)

3.0 DEFINITIONS [6](#definitions)

4.0 References [7](#references)

5.0 FLOWchart [8](#flowchart)

6.0 Procedure [12](#procedure)

7.0 QUALITY RECORDS [21](#quality-records)

Appendix A. Solicitation and Funding Instruments
[22](#appendix-a.-solicitation-and-funding-instruments)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# 1.0 Purpose

This OWI provides instructions on what must be done to solicit and
select NASA Earth science, application, education, and technology (SAET)
investigations and activities. It describes the tasks that are performed
for a typical solicitation. The OWI describes what is to be accomplished
by the process, not how the work is to be performed. Solicitation
initiators are expected to apply their experience, expertise,
professional contacts, and knowledge in order to successfully process
and recommend awards.

# 2.0 SCOPE and Applicability

2.1 [Scope]{.underline}. This work instruction describes procedures for
the NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) solicitation and selection of
SAET investigations and activities. The process begins with the
conceptualization of NASA solicitations. Example solicitation
instruments include a NASA Research Announcement (NRA), an Announcement
of Opportunity (AO), or a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN). The
process includes the following:

-   Conceptualizing, developing, and releasing solicitations;

-   Receiving, evaluating, and selecting proposals to fund;

-   Preparing procurement package inputs and distributing resource
    authority documents; and

-   Monitoring the procurement process, evaluating the investigation's
    performance, and renewing, terminating, or certifying completion of
    the investigation.

Solicitation initiators from the Research Division (Code YS), the
Applications Division (Code YO), and Program Planning and Development
Division (Code YF) conduct this process regularly, with some
solicitations being issued on an annual basis and others on a periodic
or as needed basis. Unsolicited proposals may be submitted and evaluated
at any time.

The solicitation initiator is usually a science, applications,
education, or technology program manager, but could be a division
director, deputy division director, or someone such as a discipline
scientist who is not a program manager. The Research Opportunity
Administrator as designated by the Business Division (Code YB) Director
provides administrative support.

2.2 [Applicability]{.underline}. This work instruction for Solicit and
Select Science, Applications, Education, and Technology Investigations
applies to the NASA Office of Earth Science (OES, Code Y) offices and
divisions. The Associate Administrator for Earth Science is responsible
for maintaining this document. The controlled version of this OWI is
available on the World Wide Web (WWW) via the HQ ISO 9000 Document
Library at [http://hqiso9000.hq.nasa.gov]{.underline}. Any printed
version of this OWI is uncontrolled (reference: HCP 1400.1, *Document
and Data Control*). Proposed revisions will be accomplished by following
HQOWI 1410-Y015, *Approve Quality Documents*.

# 3.0 DEFINITIONS

Appendix B of the *Earth Science Enterprise Management Handbook*
provides ESE-specific terms and definitions.

# 4.0 References

The following documents contain provisions that, through reference in
this OWI or in policy or procedure documents, constitute the basis for
the documented procedure:

> NFS Part 1835 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1835, Research and Development
> Contracting
>
> NFS Part 1871 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1871, MidRange Procurement
> Procedures
>
> NFS Part 1872 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1872, Acquisition of
> Investigations
>
> HQOWI 7040-Y012 Conduct Peer Review
>
> HQOWI 5100-Y014 Obtain Approval for Release of Solicitation Instrument

# 5.0 FLOWchart

The following flowchart depicts the procedure described in Section 6.
Outputs in boldface type represent the quality records listed in Section
7.

![](media/image2.wmf)

5.0 FLOWCHART (Continued)

![](media/image3.wmf)

![](media/image4.wmf)5.0 FLOWCHART (Continued)

![](media/image5.wmf)5.0 FLOWCHART (Continued)

# 6.0 Procedure

The following table describes the flowchart of Section 5.

+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Actionee       |   | Action                                          |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 1 | [Conceptualize Candidate                        |
| Initiator      |   | Solicitations]{.underline}. Conceptualizing     |
|                |   | candidate solicitations is driven by the        |
|                |   | science questions, themes, priorities,          |
|                |   | strategies, and requirements documented in the  |
|                |   | *ESE Science Implementation Plan*, and the      |
|                |   | applications and education needs documented in  |
|                |   | the *ACE Implementation Plan*. Additionally,    |
|                |   | when formulating candidate solicitations, the   |
|                |   | solicitation initiator considers information    |
|                |   | obtained from existing investigations in the    |
|                |   | form of progress, success, and identified new   |
|                |   | opportunities. The solicitation initiator also  |
|                |   | obtains advice from a variety of advisory       |
|                |   | committees, including the Earth System Science  |
|                |   | and Applications Advisory Committee (ESSAAC),   |
|                |   | and relevant conferences and workshops. The     |
|                |   | solicitation initiator tempers the content,     |
|                |   | approach, and importance of planned             |
|                |   | solicitations by the realities of the budget    |
|                |   | (current, advocated, and formulated versions),  |
|                |   | budget changes, and other ESE priorities.       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | As part of the effort to conceptualize a        |
|                |   | solicitation, the solicitation initiator        |
|                |   | develops preliminary definitions of each        |
|                |   | candidate solicitation. The solicitation        |
|                |   | initiator also may consider candidate           |
|                |   | solicitation and funding instruments, but those |
|                |   | decisions are actually made in Activity 3       |
|                |   | (Develop Solicitation) and Activity 7 (Make     |
|                |   | Selection Decision, Prepare Accept/Reject       |
|                |   | Letters, and Summarize Selection Results)       |
|                |   | respectively.                                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Solicitations can be for independent            |
|                |   | investigation by a Principal Investigator,      |
|                |   | investigation as part of a larger SAET team, or |
|                |   | investigation as part of a focused field        |
|                |   | campaign. If a solicitation is for an SAET team |
|                |   | or a field campaign focused on a particular set |
|                |   | of questions or needs, then a plan for that     |
|                |   | activity may be prepared at the discretion of   |
|                |   | the solicitation initiator. This plan may be    |
|                |   | called, for example, a Science Program Plan, an |
|                |   | Experiment Plan, a Campaign Plan, or an         |
|                |   | Expedition Plan. It is often developed through  |
|                |   | a series of workshops involving the SAET        |
|                |   | community. The solicitation initiator often,    |
|                |   | but not always, is involved in its development. |
|                |   | The plan usually is developed prior to or       |
|                |   | during this first activity, but it may be       |
|                |   | developed during later activities.              |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 2 | [Discuss and Develop Consensus for Candidate    |
| Initiator      |   | Solicitations]{.underline}. The solicitation    |
|                |   | initiator discusses the candidate               |
|                |   | solicitation(s) with his/her colleagues and the |
|                |   | appropriate ESE division directors to determine |
|                |   | which solicitations to pursue. The objective is |
|                |   | to ensure that only important, feasible, and    |
|                |   | affordable solicitations are pursued in a       |
|                |   | timely manner.                                  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Some candidate solicitations will need to be    |
|                |   | revised or refined. These are recycled through  |
|                |   | Activity 1, Conceptualize Candidate             |
|                |   | Solicitations, and then reconsidered in their   |
|                |   | revised form.                                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Candidate solicitations that are judged         |
|                |   | suitable for NASA by the appropriate ESE        |
|                |   | division director (s) move forward to Activity  |
|                |   | 3, Develop Solicitation. The criteria for       |
|                |   | candidate solicitations to move forward include |
|                |   | the following:                                  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Does the solicitation address requirements  |
|                |   |     documented in the *Science Implementation   |
|                |   |     Plan*, the *ACE Implementation Plan*, or    |
|                |   |     the *Technology Development/Investment      |
|                |   |     Plan*?                                      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Does the solicitation deal with problems    |
|                |   |     that are tractable?                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Does the solicitation fit within the        |
|                |   |     budget?                                     |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Does it fit into NASA's overall plans?      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Is the problem well formulated?             |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 3 | [Develop Solicitation]{.underline}. For         |
| Initiator      |   | candidate solicitations, the solicitation       |
|                |   | initiator begins development of a solicitation  |
|                |   | by establishing program relevant goals and      |
|                |   | objectives for the solicitation, defining the   |
|                |   | solicitation\'s scope, and setting sub-topic    |
|                |   | priorities. Desired results, SAET products, and |
|                |   | deliverables (if appropriate) are identified,   |
|                |   | along with the proposal evaluation criteria.    |
|                |   | The solicitation is drafted and prepared for    |
|                |   | ESE coordination as determined appropriate by   |
|                |   | the solicitation initiator and ESE division     |
|                |   | director(s).                                    |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | For solicitations of technology investigations, |
|                |   | the conceptualization, coordination, and        |
|                |   | decision on what investigations to pursue are   |
|                |   | accomplished in HQOWI 7120-Y011, *Formulating   |
|                |   | ESE Technology Development* . Identification of |
|                |   | which technology investigations to pursue are   |
|                |   | documented in the *Technology Development /     |
|                |   | Investment Plan* which is developed in HQOWI    |
|                |   | 7120-Y011. The specific technology solicitation |
|                |   | requirements also are generated by the          |
|                |   | activities described in HQOWI 7120-Y011. These  |
|                |   | serve as inputs to this activity where the      |
|                |   | actual technology investigation solicitation is |
|                |   | developed.                                      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The technology solicitation initiator also      |
|                |   | produces a separate written evaluation plan.    |
|                |   | For other types of investigation solicitations, |
|                |   | the evaluation plan is simply incorporated into |
|                |   | the solicitation. As described in NFS 1872, the |
|                |   | evaluation plan should include review           |
|                |   | guidelines, and cover the procedural flow, the  |
|                |   | evaluation schedule, and the recommended        |
|                |   | staffing for any subcommittee or contractor     |
|                |   | support.                                        |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator may also consult     |
|                |   | with representatives from procurement (Code H)  |
|                |   | and legal (Code G) to decide what solicitation  |
|                |   | instrument to use. A solicitation instrument    |
|                |   | can be a NASA Research Announcement (NRA), an   |
|                |   | Announcement of Opportunity (AO), or a          |
|                |   | Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN). Refer to    |
|                |   | Appendix A for more information on the various  |
|                |   | solicitation instruments available to the       |
|                |   | solicitation initiator.                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | NASA's Earth Science Enterprise has adopted     |
|                |   | commercial data purchases as a mainstream way   |
|                |   | of acquiring research-quality data as these     |
|                |   | commercial capabilities become available. NASA  |
|                |   | encourages the use of commercially-available    |
|                |   | data sets by Principal Investigators as long as |
|                |   | they meet the scientific requirements and are   |
|                |   | cost-effective. All science Research            |
|                |   | Opportunities should include language           |
|                |   | encouraging proposers to find                   |
|                |   | scientifically-acceptable and cost-effective    |
|                |   | commercially-available data sources for use in  |
|                |   | their investigation and to request funds to     |
|                |   | purchase this data as part of their proposal.   |
|                |   | When responding to a Research Opportunity, the  |
|                |   | proposer should identify the commercial data    |
|                |   | sources intended for use and the associated     |
|                |   | cost. Announcements of Opportunity should       |
|                |   | include language promoting the submission of    |
|                |   | alternative means of meeting the announcement's |
|                |   | scientific objectives through the purchase of   |
|                |   | commercially-available data, which is           |
|                |   | scientifically acceptable and cost effective.If |
|                |   | the investigation includes international        |
|                |   | considerations, the solicitation initiator may  |
|                |   | also consult with a representative from         |
|                |   | international affairs (Code I). The advice      |
|                |   | obtained from the Code I representative, as     |
|                |   | well as the Code G and H representatives helps  |
|                |   | shape the solicitation.                         |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 4 | [Obtain Concurrence and Release                 |
| Initiator      |   | Solicitation]{.underline}. NASA procurement     |
|                |   | policy requires completion of a formal          |
| Research       |   | concurrence process before a solicitation can   |
| Opportunity    |   | be publicly released. HQOWI 5100-Y014, *Obtain  |
| Administrator  |   | Approval for Release of Solicitation            |
|                |   | Instrument*, provides details on ESE's          |
| ESE Division   |   | implementation of the solicitation concurrence  |
| Directors      |   | and release procedure. Refer to it for          |
|                |   | specifics. The following paragraphs in this     |
| Support        |   | activity summarize the procedures from the      |
| Contractor     |   | perspective of soliciting an investigation.     |
|                |   |                                                 |
| Designated     |   | The solicitation initiator, with the assistance |
| Procuring      |   | of the Code YB Research Opportunity             |
| Organization   |   | Administrator, is responsible for shepherding   |
|                |   | the solicitation through this process. A        |
|                |   | concurrence cover page is prepared and attached |
|                |   | to the solicitation. This package is then       |
|                |   | distributed to the individuals and offices      |
|                |   | indicated on the cover page in the order        |
|                |   | listed. Some concurrences may be obtained in    |
|                |   | parallel using duplicate packages, but others   |
|                |   | must be obtained in series. It is usual to      |
|                |   | obtain all but the final Code Y concurrences    |
|                |   | before seeking concurrences from Codes I, H,    |
|                |   | and G. At a minimum, the concurring individuals |
|                |   | should include the solicitation initiator and   |
|                |   | the appropriate ESE division director(s). Once  |
|                |   | concurrence has been obtained to release the    |
|                |   | solicitation, the solicitation initiator        |
|                |   | forwards the solicitation to the Research       |
|                |   | Opportunity Administrator who logs the          |
|                |   | solicitation, completes the solicitation        |
|                |   | package, assigns a solicitation number, and     |
|                |   | sends the package to the ESE AA for release     |
|                |   | approval and signature.                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Once the solicitation package is approved for   |
|                |   | release, the Research Opportunity Administrator |
|                |   | sends an electronic copy of the solicitation    |
|                |   | package to a support contractor for conversion  |
|                |   | to various formats and generation of hard       |
|                |   | copies for internal and external distribution.  |
|                |   | The conversions are verified by both the        |
|                |   | Research Opportunity Administrator and the      |
|                |   | solicitation initiator before they are          |
|                |   | released. Refer to HQOWI 5100-Y014 for          |
|                |   | instructions on verifying format conversions.   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | At this time, the solicitation initiator and    |
|                |   | the Research Opportunity Administrator also     |
|                |   | work together to prepare a Commerce Business    |
|                |   | Daily (CBD) synopsis for posting in the CBD and |
|                |   | on the ESE Home Page. The CBD synopsis is sent  |
|                |   | through electronic mail to the GSFC             |
|                |   | Headquarters Acquisition Branch (GSFC Code      |
|                |   | 210.H), Grants Administration Office. The GSFC  |
|                |   | Headquarters Acquisition Branch posts the       |
|                |   | synopsis in the CBD 15 days prior to release of |
|                |   | the solicitation. A signed copy of NPG 7120.5   |
|                |   | Certification for Release of Solicitation is    |
|                |   | faxed to GSFC Headquarters Acquisition Branch   |
|                |   | and the original is kept with the Solicitation  |
|                |   | Package by the Research Opportunity             |
|                |   | Administrator. Again, refer to HQOWI 5100-Y014  |
|                |   | for instructions on preparing and releasing the |
|                |   | CBD synopsis.                                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Once the CBD synopsis is released, a support    |
|                |   | contractor posts the synopsis on the ESE Home   |
|                |   | Page to alert potential proposers of the        |
|                |   | pending release. The contractor also provides   |
|                |   | electronic notification to potential            |
|                |   | proposersand contacts the solicitation          |
|                |   | initiator to determine an appropriate           |
|                |   | distribution list for this notification. To     |
|                |   | construct the distribution list, the            |
|                |   | solicitation initiator will select categories   |
|                |   | of interest from the ESE mailing list           |
|                |   | maintained by the support contractor.           |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | On the release date, a support contractor posts |
|                |   | the solicitation in full on the ESE Home Page.  |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 5 | [Receive Proposals and Conduct Peer             |
| Initiator      |   | Review]{.underline}. The ESE conducts peer      |
|                |   | reviews to evaluate proposals. The ESE peer     |
| Support        |   | review procedure includes receiving and logging |
| Contractor     |   | proposals, identifying reviewers, determining   |
|                |   | the type of review (e.g., mail review and/or    |
| Peer Reviewers |   | panel review), conducting mail and panel        |
|                |   | reviews, and documenting the results. HQOWI     |
|                |   | 7040-Y012, *Conduct Peer Review,* documents the |
|                |   | NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) procedure   |
|                |   | for conducting peer reviews.                    |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 6 | [Review Results of Peer Review, Conduct Program |
| Initiator      |   | Review, and Prepare Selection                   |
|                |   | Recommendation]{.underline}. The solicitation   |
|                |   | initiator reviews the peer review panel\'s      |
|                |   | findings for consistency and completeness of    |
|                |   | documentation. This review is conducted to      |
|                |   | ensure there is consistency in the level of     |
|                |   | evaluation across the proposals. If consistency |
|                |   | is lacking in the solicitation initiator's      |
|                |   | judgement, then the reviewers are asked to      |
|                |   | elaborate on their evaluations or the           |
|                |   | solicitation initiator asks for additional      |
|                |   | reviews from other peer reviewers.              |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator also conducts an     |
|                |   | internal programmatic review to identify any    |
|                |   | logistical, implementation, cost, or management |
|                |   | concerns, and/or partnering arrangements.       |
|                |   | Additionally, the solicitation initiator        |
|                |   | assesses the balance amongst the competitive    |
|                |   | proposals relative to the science themes;       |
|                |   | applications, education, or technology needs;   |
|                |   | and ESE strategies formulated during ESE        |
|                |   | strategic planning processes and specific to    |
|                |   | the solicitation.                               |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator may also consult     |
|                |   | with procurement and legal representatives      |
|                |   | (Codes H and G respectively) to identify        |
|                |   | preferred funding instrument(s). Generally, AOs |
|                |   | result in contracts. Under certain              |
|                |   | circumstances, another funding instrument may   |
|                |   | be used but this is not typical. NRAs can       |
|                |   | result in any funding instrument, such as       |
|                |   | grants, contracts, interagency transfers, or    |
|                |   | cooperative agreements. CANs result in          |
|                |   | cooperative agreements only. Refer to Appendix  |
|                |   | A for more information on the various funding   |
|                |   | instruments available.                          |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Based on these reviews and available resources, |
|                |   | the solicitation initiator prepares a           |
|                |   | recommendation, with supporting justifications, |
|                |   | as to which proposals should be selected for    |
|                |   | award. This recommendation may include options. |
|                |   | The recommendation and supporting justification |
|                |   | are usually packaged for a presentation to the  |
|                |   | NASA selecting official for his or her          |
|                |   | selection decision.                             |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 7 | [Make Selection Decision, Prepare Accept/Reject |
| Initiator      |   | Letters, and Summarize Selection                |
|                |   | Results]{.underline}. The solicitation          |
| Selecting      |   | initiator presents his or her recommendation,   |
| Official       |   | possibly with options or issues to be resolved, |
|                |   | to the NASA selecting official. The NASA        |
|                |   | selecting official is identified by title in    |
|                |   | the solicitation and is usually the Research,   |
|                |   | Applications, or Program Planning and           |
|                |   | Development Division Director, as appropriate.  |
|                |   | Occasionally the selecting official is the ESE  |
|                |   | Associate Administrator, an SAET program        |
|                |   | manager, or other Code Y official. The          |
|                |   | solicitation initiator usually presents his or  |
|                |   | her recommendation as to funding instrument,    |
|                |   | implementing field center, and any other        |
|                |   | special factors with regard to the awards       |
|                |   | process at this time.                           |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The selecting official reviews the              |
|                |   | recommendation, considers the options, helps    |
|                |   | resolve issues, and ultimately approves, in     |
|                |   | part or in full, the selection recommendation.  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | If the selecting official rejects the           |
|                |   | solicitation initiator's recommendation, the    |
|                |   | recommendation and justification are refined.   |
|                |   | When the recommendations are accepted, the      |
|                |   | solicitation initiator prepares accept and      |
|                |   | reject letters that officially notify           |
|                |   | successful and unsuccessful proposers and       |
|                |   | announce the selecting official's decisions. As |
|                |   | the letters are being prepared, the             |
|                |   | solicitation initiator notifies representatives |
|                |   | from public affairs (Code P) and legislative    |
|                |   | affairs (Code L) about their impending release. |
|                |   | Code I will review for concurrence all draft    |
|                |   | accept/reject letters involving proposals from  |
|                |   | foreign entities and proposals from U.S.        |
|                |   | entities that include foreign participation.    |
|                |   | The selecting official signs these letters.     |
|                |   | Prior to their transmission to proposers, the   |
|                |   | selection results are made known to Codes P and |
|                |   | L. The solicitation initiator is responsible    |
|                |   | for coordinating with the Associate             |
|                |   | Administrator, the Office of Public Affairs     |
|                |   | (Code P), the Office of Legislative Affairs     |
|                |   | (Code L), and the Office of External Relations  |
|                |   | (Code I) to insure that:                        |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | 1)  the letters are concurred on by Code I      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | 2)  Code L notifies appropriate Congressional   |
|                |   |     personnel prior to public announcement      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | 3)  Code I has the opportunity to notify        |
|                |   |     appropriate international partners prior to |
|                |   |     public announcement                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | 4)  The AA has the opportunity to personally    |
|                |   |     contact successful proposers or their       |
|                |   |     institutional leadership prior to public    |
|                |   |     announcement or release of the letters      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator summarizes the       |
|                |   | selection results, typically in the form of a   |
|                |   | list of accepted and rejected proposals and a   |
|                |   | re-packaging of the selection recommendation    |
|                |   | presentation, including the summary of results  |
|                |   | from the peer review and a summary of the       |
|                |   | program review. This information is used in     |
|                |   | Activity 9, 10, or 11 to prepare the Technical  |
|                |   | Evaluation and Selection Statement or           |
|                |   | Justification for Acceptance of an Unsolicited  |
|                |   | Proposal required as part of the Procurement    |
|                |   | Package to request an award. It is also used as |
|                |   | a source of information to answer any questions |
|                |   | concerning the rejected proposals or the        |
|                |   | reasons for the overall selection.              |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Code YB        | 8 | [Enter Budget Information into SYS-EYFUS        |
| Implementation |   | Database]{.underline}. Based on the final       |
| Team Leader    |   | selection decisions documented in the           |
|                |   | accept/reject letters, the Program Manager      |
| Solicitation   |   | enters the data into the ESE System for Codes   |
| Initiator      |   | E, Y, F, U, and S (also known as SYS-EYFUS)     |
|                |   | database as coordinated with the YB             |
|                |   | Implementation Team Leader. Often, recommended  |
|                |   | budgets will differ from those requested in the |
|                |   | proposal, and the solicitation initiator will   |
|                |   | have to negotiate budget changes with the       |
|                |   | successful proposer. This happens immediately   |
|                |   | after the selection has been announced, but     |
|                |   | could occur earlier, during preparation and     |
|                |   | finalization of the selection recommendation in |
|                |   | Activities 6 and 7. Once the budget data are    |
|                |   | entered into the database, the funding becomes  |
|                |   | available to apply to the actual awards to be   |
|                |   | made by the designated procuring organization.  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator then initiates the   |
|                |   | procurement process. The particular initiation  |
|                |   | tasks depend upon the type of funding           |
|                |   | instrument, and upon the organization that will |
|                |   | hold technical responsibility for the award.    |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 9 | [Prepare Partial Procurement Package Inputs for |
| Initiator      |   | Designated Field Center]{.underline}. If        |
|                |   | technical responsibility for the award is to be |
|                |   | delegated to a NASA center and the award is to  |
|                |   | be a Grant, Cooperative Agreement, Interagency  |
|                |   | Transfer, or Contract, then the solicitation    |
|                |   | initiator contacts the NASA center and arranges |
|                |   | for appropriate support and identification of a |
|                |   | responsible individual. This step may have been |
|                |   | taken during Activity 1, Conceptualize          |
|                |   | Candidate Solicitations, or at any time         |
|                |   | thereafter up to this stage.                    |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The procurement actions desired are             |
|                |   | communicated to the responsible individual at   |
|                |   | the center as procurement package inputs. These |
|                |   | inputs include the following:                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   The list of accepted proposals,             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Agreed-upon budget profiles for each        |
|                |   |     proposal,                                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   The original proposals,                     |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Copies of the award letters,                |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   A Summary of Selection Results,             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Justification for Other Agency Performing   |
|                |   |     Activity (when the award is to be an        |
|                |   |     Interagency Transfer), and                  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   The Technical Evaluation and Selection      |
|                |   |     Statement, or                               |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Justification for Acceptance of an          |
|                |   |     Unsolicited Proposal,                       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator sends the            |
|                |   | procurement package inputs to the designated    |
|                |   | field center. These inputs enable the           |
|                |   | designated field center to prepare the          |
|                |   | procurement package and make an award.          |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Solicitation initiators keep copies of the      |
|                |   | procurement package inputs until they receive   |
|                |   | award documentation that signals the end of     |
|                |   | Activity 13, Monitor Procurement Process.       |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 1 | [Prepare Procurement Package Inputs for GFSC    |
| Initiator      | 0 | Code 201.1]{.underline}. If technical           |
|                |   | responsibility for the award is to remain at    |
| Code YB        |   | NASA HQ and the award is to be a Grant or       |
| Impl           |   | Cooperative Agreement, then the solicitation    |
| ementationTeam |   | initiator prepares procurement package inputs   |
| Leader         |   | to be given to the Goddard Space Flight Center  |
|                |   | (GSFC) Grants Administration Office (GSFC Code  |
| OPR Division   |   | 201.1). The solicitation initiator\'s inputs    |
| Director       |   | include the following:                          |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Information needed to complete Procurement  |
|                |   |     Request Form, GSFC 18-27,                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   The original proposal and a copy of the     |
|                |   |     award letter,                               |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   A Statement of Cooperative Interactions (if |
|                |   |     necessary), and                             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   The Technical Evaluation and Selection      |
|                |   |     Statement or                                |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Justification for Acceptance of an          |
|                |   |     Unsolicited Proposal.                       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator provides these       |
|                |   | inputs to the Code YB Implementation Team       |
|                |   | Leader. The ImplementationTeam Leader obtains   |
|                |   | the signature of the division director for the  |
|                |   | Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) on       |
|                |   | either the Technical Evaluation and Selection   |
|                |   | Statement or the Justification for Acceptance   |
|                |   | of an Unsolicited Proposal, whichever is        |
|                |   | appropriate. The Implementation Team Leader     |
|                |   | then forwards the procurement package inputs on |
|                |   | to the GSFC Grants Administration Office (GSFC  |
|                |   | Code 201.1). The GSFC Grants Administration     |
|                |   | Office uses the procurement package inputs to   |
|                |   | produce the procurement request which           |
|                |   | electronically commits the funding. They then   |
|                |   | send the package to procurement.                |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Solicitation initiators keep copies of the      |
|                |   | procurement package inputs until they receive   |
|                |   | award documentation that signals the end of     |
|                |   | Activity 13, Monitor Procurement Process.       |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 1 | [Prepare Procurement Package Inputs for GFSC    |
| Initiator      | 1 | Code 210.H]{.underline}. If technical           |
|                |   | responsibility for the award is to remain at    |
| Code YB        |   | NASA HQ and the award is to be an Interagency   |
|                |   | Transfer or a Contract, then the solicitation   |
| Implementation |   | initiator and Code YB implementation team       |
| Team Leader    |   | prepare procurement package inputs to be given  |
|                |   | to the GSFC Headquarters Acquisition Branch     |
| OPR Division   |   | (GSFC Code 210.H). The solicitation             |
| Director       |   | initiator\'s inputs include the following:      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Information needed to complete Procurement  |
|                |   |     Request Form, NHQ 163,                      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Original proposal and a copy of the award   |
|                |   |     letter,                                     |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Statement of Work (if necessary), and       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Justification for Other Agency Performing   |
|                |   |     Activity (if necessary), and                |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Technical Evaluation and Selection          |
|                |   |     Statement, or                               |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | -   Justification for Acceptance of an          |
|                |   |     Unsolicited Proposal.                       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator provides these       |
|                |   | inputs to the Code YB Implementation Team       |
|                |   | Leader. The Implementation Team Leader obtains  |
|                |   | the signature of the division director for the  |
|                |   | OPR on the required statements and              |
|                |   | justifications. The YB program analyst prepares |
|                |   | the procurement package request form which is   |
|                |   | submitted electronically to the Headquarters    |
|                |   | Accounting Division, Code 155. The              |
|                |   | Implementation Team Leader then forwards the    |
|                |   | procurement package inputs on to the GSFC       |
|                |   | Headquarters Acquisition Branch (GSFC Code      |
|                |   | 210.H). The GSFC Headquarters Acquisition       |
|                |   | Branch uses the procurement package inputs to   |
|                |   | produce the actual award document.              |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Solicitation initiators keep copies of the      |
|                |   | procurement package inputs until they receive   |
|                |   | award documentation that signals the end of     |
|                |   | Activity 13, Monitor Procurement Process.       |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| [Code          | 1 | [Distribute Resource Authority]{.underline}.    |
| Y              | 2 | The Business Division (Code YB) distributes the |
| B]{.underline} |   | resources authority (NASA Form 506 White) to    |
|                |   | the appropriate field center via a NASA funding |
| [              |   | document, Form 506 White. Funding to be         |
| Implementation |   | distributed for research and applications tasks |
| Team           |   | must be specified within the SYS-EYFUS          |
| Leade          |   | database. The appropriate procurement office    |
| r]{.underline} |   | uses this information to initiate a procurement |
|                |   | request and make an award. The Form 506 White   |
|                |   | enables the supporting procurement organization |
|                |   | to go forward and release a procurement         |
|                |   | package, and ultimately fund an investigation.  |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | In the context of this work instruction, the    |
|                |   | appropriate procurement office could be at a    |
|                |   | designated field center, the GSFC Grants        |
|                |   | Administration Office (GSFC Code 201.1), or the |
|                |   | GSFC Headquarters Acquisition Branch (GSFC Code |
|                |   | 210.H). Refer to HQOWI 7410-Y008, *Execute the  |
|                |   | ESE Budget*, for additional information.        |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 1 | [Monitor Procurement Process]{.underline}. If   |
| Initiator      | 3 | the technical oversight responsibility for the  |
|                |   | award is to remain at NASA Headquarters, then   |
| [Code          |   | the solicitation initiator monitors the         |
| Y              |   | procurement process to ensure the award is      |
| B]{.underline} |   | completed. The process for each year of the     |
|                |   | award ends with receipt of the award            |
| [              |   | documentation from the procurement office and   |
| Implementation |   | when the Code YB Implementation Team Leader     |
| Team           |   | makes any necessary budget adjustments in the   |
| Leade          |   | SYS-EYFUS Database.                             |
| r]{.underline} |   |                                                 |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Science,       | 1 | [Receive and Evaluate Progress                  |
| Applications,  | 4 | Report]{.underline}. ESE program managers are   |
| Education, or  |   | responsible for overseeing ESE funded           |
| Technology     |   | investigations. Many important reasons exist    |
| Program        |   | for this responsibility. They include           |
| Manager        |   | monitoring to identify and leverage new         |
|                |   | opportunities based on emerging results, and    |
|                |   | ensuring that sound use is being made of ESE\'s |
|                |   | resources. From the perspective of soliciting   |
|                |   | and selecting investigations, ESE program       |
|                |   | managers oversee ESE funded investigations for  |
|                |   | the purpose of making renewal decisions.        |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Program managers receive and review various     |
|                |   | progress reports and reports of interim         |
|                |   | results. They also receive annual or final      |
|                |   | results which can take the form of an annual    |
|                |   | report, journal article, or a final report.     |
|                |   | Based on these inputs, the ESE program manager  |
|                |   | determines if the investigation is completed or |
|                |   | if renewal is warranted.                        |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Principal investigators seeking renewals        |
|                |   | document this in their progress report. If the  |
|                |   | program manager believes renewal is warranted,  |
|                |   | he or she determines if resources exist in the  |
|                |   | budget to continue the investigation. If        |
|                |   | resources exist, the program manager prepares   |
|                |   | inputs for a renewal procurement package (see   |
|                |   | Activity 15).                                   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | If resources are not available or the           |
|                |   | investigation does not warrant further funding, |
|                |   | the program manager supports the responsible    |
|                |   | procurement office's close-out process (see     |
|                |   | Activities 16 and 17).                          |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Science,       | 1 | [Prepare Renewal Procurement Package            |
| Applications,  | 5 | Inputs]{.underline}. If renewal is appropriate  |
| Education, or  |   | for a grant or cooperative agreement, the ESE   |
| Technology     |   | program manager prepares inputs for a renewal   |
| Program        |   | procurement package. These inputs include the   |
| Manager        |   | investigation's progress report, a renewal      |
|                |   | memorandum, and any recommended budget changes  |
|                |   | with justifications. If a renewal is            |
|                |   | appropriate for a contract or interagency       |
|                |   | transfer, inputs for a full procurement package |
|                |   | are prepared (see Activity 11). No renewal      |
|                |   | memorandum is required, but the principal       |
|                |   | investigator's progress report is included. The |
|                |   | Program Manager or the Code YB                  |
|                |   | ImplementationTeam Leader makes the necessary   |
|                |   | budget adjustments in the SYS-EYFUS Database.   |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Science,       | 1 | [Prepare Termination                            |
| Applications,  | 6 | Recommendation]{.underline}. If the             |
| Education, or  |   | investigation is being terminated, then the ESE |
| Technology     |   | program manager must prepare a termination      |
| Program        |   | recommendation letter that informs both the     |
| Manager        |   | procurement office and the investigator that    |
|                |   | the investigation is to be terminated.          |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Science,       | 1 | [Certify Completion]{.underline}. In the case   |
| Applications,  | 7 | where the investigation is completed, the ESE   |
| Education, or  |   | program manager responds to a procurement       |
| Technology     |   | office request to verify that the work has been |
| Program        |   | completed satisfactorily and there are no       |
| Manager        |   | outstanding matters. This interaction is        |
|                |   | completed through an electronic mail exchange   |
|                |   | between the program manager and the closeout    |
|                |   | specialist in the responsible procurement       |
|                |   | office.                                         |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+

# 7.0 QUALITY RECORDS

+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| RECORD        | OWNER | L       | MEDIA  | SCHEDULE | RETENTION / |
| I             |       | OCATION |        | AND ITEM | DISPOSITION |
| DENTIFICATION |       |         | Elec   | N        |             |
|               |       |         | tronic | UMBERS\* |             |
|               |       |         | or     |          |             |
|               |       |         | Ha     |          |             |
|               |       |         | rdcopy |          |             |
+===============+=======+=========+========+==========+=============+
| Solicitation  | Res   | Kept by | Ha     | Schedule | Transfer    |
| Package       | earch | R       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | all files   |
| (Includes     | O     | esearch |        | 8, "NASA | to the      |
| Signed        | pport | Oppo    |        | Research | responsible |
| Concurrence   | unity | rtunity |        | Announ   | division /  |
| Cover Sheet)  | Adm   | Admini  |        | cement." | project 2   |
|               | inist | strator |        |          | years after |
| (See HQOWI    | rator |         |        |          | award.      |
| 5100-Y014,    |       |         |        |          | Records     |
| *Obtain       |       |         |        |          | will be     |
| Approval for  |       |         |        |          | i           |
| Release of    |       |         |        |          | ncorporated |
| Solicitation  |       |         |        |          | into the    |
| Instrument*). |       |         |        |          | official    |
|               |       |         |        |          | project     |
|               |       |         |        |          | file, or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | gra         |
|               |       |         |        |          | nt/contract |
|               |       |         |        |          | file.       |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Peer Review   | So    | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Results       | licit | Con     | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
|               | ation | tractor |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
| (See HQOWI    | Init  |         |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
| 7040-Y012,    | iator |         |        | Review   | when 5      |
| *Conduct Peer |       |         |        | and      | years old.  |
| Review*).     |       |         |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       |         |        | ations," |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Signed        | So    | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Accept/Reject | licit | Con     | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| Letters       | ation | tractor |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
|               | Init  |         |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
|               | iator |         |        | Review   | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | and      | years old.  |
|               |       |         |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       |         |        | ations," |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Summary of    | So    | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Selection     | licit | Con     | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| Results       | ation | tractor |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
|               | Init  |         |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
|               | iator |         |        | Review   | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | and      | years old.  |
|               |       |         |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       |         |        | ations," |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| SYS-EYFUS     | So    | Support | Elec   | Schedule | Destroy     |
| Database      | licit | Con     | tronic | 7, Item  | when 5      |
|               | ation | tractor |        | 22,      | years old.  |
|               | Init  |         |        | \"       |             |
|               | iator |         |        | Program/ |             |
|               |       |         |        | Project  |             |
|               |       |         |        | O        |             |
|               |       |         |        | perating |             |
|               |       |         |        | Plan     |             |
|               |       |         |        | (POP).   |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Resource      | Reso  | B       | Ha     | Schedule | Destroy 2   |
| Authority     | urces | usiness | rdcopy | 7, Item  | years after |
| (NASA Form    | Team  | D       |        | 21,      | the close   |
| 506 White)    | Lead  | ivision |        | "Budget  | of the      |
|               |       |         |        | and      | fiscal      |
| (See HQOWI    |       |         |        | Pro      | year.       |
| 7410-Y008,    |       |         |        | gramming |             |
| *Execute the  |       |         |        | R        |             |
| Budget*).     |       |         |        | esources |             |
|               |       |         |        | /        |             |
|               |       |         |        | Appor    |             |
|               |       |         |        | tionment |             |
|               |       |         |        | Files,"  |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | D.1.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Termination   | Pr    | Re      | Ha     | Schedule | File        |
| R             | ogram | search, | rdcopy | 7, Item  | do          |
| ecommendation | Ma    | Applic  |        | 9, "R&D  | cumentation |
| Letter        | nager | ations, |        | Peer     | with the    |
|               |       | or      |        | Review   | related     |
|               |       | Program |        | and      | case file   |
|               |       | P       |        | Evalu    | (grant or   |
|               |       | lanning |        | ations," | contract);  |
|               |       | and     |        | p        | destroy     |
|               |       | Deve    |        | aragraph | a           |
|               |       | lopment |        | B.1.     | ccordingly. |
|               |       | D       |        |          |             |
|               |       | ivision |        |          |             |
|               |       | as      |        |          |             |
|               |       | appr    |        |          |             |
|               |       | opriate |        |          |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+

\* Quality Records are retained in accordance with the referenced
schedule and item numbers from NPG 1441.1, *NASA Records Retention
Schedules.*

# Appendix A. Solicitation and Funding Instruments

The primary factor used in determining the proper solicitation and
funding instruments is the nature of the work to be done. The level of
NASA involvement, the specificity and definitiveness of the
requirements, the desire (or not) for a midrange procurement, the
complexity of the effort, and the type of research all affect what
instruments should be used.

The profit status of the funded entity is not a primary factor. For
example, a funded entity that operates on a not-for-profit basis may
receive funding through a contract and is not limited to receiving
grants or cooperative agreements. Similarly, a profit-making firm may
receive funding through grants, cooperative agreements or contracts.

The following references provide details on making these decisions,
however, consultation with representatives from procurement (Code H) and
legal (Code G) is essential:

-   NFS Part 1835 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1835, Research and
    Development Contracting

-   NFS Part 1871 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1871, MidRange Procurement
    Procedures

-   NFS Part 1872 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1872, Acquisition of
    Investigations

-   NPG 5800.1 Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook

-   NMI 8310.1 Maintaining Continuity and Stability in NASA-Funded
    University Projects

-   NMI 8320.1 Basic Policy for NASA University Relationships

**A.1 Determine Proper Solicitation Instrument**

ESE typically uses four kinds of solicitation instruments:

-   NASA Research Announcements (NRAs),

-   Cooperative Agreement Notices (CANS),

-   Announcements of Opportunity (AOs) and

-   Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Although RFPs are not normally used to acquire research at NASA and not
done at NASA Headquarters, a brief discussion of RFPs is included since
they are applicable to very specific missions direct to industry and to
commercial data purchases.

A fifth kind of solicitation instrument can be used if a MidRange
procurement process[^1] is expected to be followed. In these cases, a
Request for Offer (RFO) is used as the solicitation instrument.

Note: Selection of a solicitation instrument does not necessarily
dictate the resulting funding instrument. Generally, AOs result in
contracts. Under certain circumstances, another funding instrument may
be used, but this is not typical. NRAs can result in any award
instrument (grant, contract, or cooperative agreement). CANs result only
cooperative agreements and RFOs result in contracts.

A brief discussion of each type of solicitation instrument is provided
below to assist the reader in determining the most suitable instrument.
Refer to the referenced documents for more details and consult with
representatives from procurement (Code H) and legal (Code G).

**NASA Research Announcements (NRAs):** An NRA is used to announce
research interests in support of NASA's program and provides for the
submission of competitive project ideas, conceived by the offerors, or
one or more program areas of interest. The research requirement is not
sufficiently defined to specify an end product or service. An NRA may
result in the award of a grant, cooperative agreement or contract. If
NASA selects a proposal under which NASA is required to be involved in
the performance of the research, a cooperative agreement may be awarded.
Although only independent efforts may be contemplated by the NRA, a
competitive idea may be received in which NASA finds that government
participation is desirable, and a cooperative agreement could be
awarded. It is also possible that a proposal could be received in which
the proposer is only willing to accept a procurement contract. If the
selecting official determines that the research to be done is
meritorious and deserving of funding, then a contract can be awarded. In
that case, specific reports, data, due dates, etc., are defined,
consistent with the NRA, and made part of the procurement contract.

**Announcements of Opportunity (AOs):** AOs are used to solicit and
acquire science investigations in a broad area of interest to NASA.
Although AOs are used to implement research, they differ significantly
from NRAs in that they contemplate only the award of contracts, and
contracts stipulate that scientific research is performed and delivered
to NASA for NASA purposes. NRAs may result in the award of a grant,
cooperative agreement or contract. AOs are further distinguished from
NRAs in that they are traditionally based on a particular space flight
mission, instrument or launch opportunity. While a contract resulting
from an AO may include requirements for hardware procurement or
development, the hardware itself is ancillary to the research. An AO may
stipulate that, as a part of the investigation, data must be acquired or
purchased. In this case, although the contractor will purchase data, the
data is ancillary to the overall research purpose and the primary
deliverable is the completed research or scientific investigation.

**Cooperative Agreement Notices (CANs):** CANs are used when NASA
anticipates that the research can be done most effectively through a
collaborative relationship between NASA and the recipient. If a funding
instrument other than a Cooperative Agreement is anticipated, a CAN is
probably not the correct solicitation instrument. However, it is
possible for a grant to be awarded resulting from a CAN. For example, an
institution or firm could provide a proposal in response to the CAN with
an approach that did not call for the participation of NASA, and yet the
NASA peer review and selection process may determine that this alternate
funding approach is in the best interest of the Government. Finally, if
the Government anticipates the delivery of a product or service in
fulfillment of a NASA mission or operating requirement, a CAN is not the
appropriate solicitation instrument. This is because, by definition, a
CAN envisions the award of a Cooperative Agreement, and Cooperative
Agreements are not used to provide supplies and services to NASA.

**Request for Proposals (RFPs):** RFPs are used to solicit supplies and
services to fulfill a NASA requirement and the resultant funding
instrument is a contract. RFPs can be tailored to fit specific needs and
are very flexible in what they may dictate as specifications, work
statements and terms and conditions. Although there is no statutory
reason to prevent NASA from using RFPs to acquire research, they are not
normally used. Since an RFP should contain well-defined requirements,
this solicitation instrument usually does not support the kind of
leading edge investigations and research NASA funds. RFPs are an
effective way to solicit the purchase of data, but in that case, a
contract is awarded for the data deliverable itself, not the conduct of
a science investigation. A subset of the RFP is an RFO or Request for
Offer. The RFO is a streamlined solicitation instrument (used under what
is termed a MidRange procurement) which leads to the award of a
contract. The RFO is a much shorter document than an RFP and the
solicitation and award of the contract under an RFO can be accomplished
by a small team in a much shorter time compared to an RFP. RFOs may be
used when the anticipated basic value and aggregate value including
options does not exceed \$2M and \$10M, respectively. There are other
rules that apply and the Contracting Officer can provide advice on the
use of RFOs.

After considering the above information, the solicitation initiator must
consult with a NASA Contracting Officer or procurement representative as
well as a NASA attorney regarding the determination of the proper
solicitation and funding instrument to be used.

**A.2 Determine Proper Funding Instrument**

ESE normally uses three kinds of funding instruments to fund research:

-   Grants,

-   Cooperative Agreements, and

-   Contracts.

Within a research area, multiple funding instruments may be selected or
exist simultaneously to implement the various parts or phases of the
research area. For example, a research area could have certain research
being conducted under grants while other research is pursued using a
contract. This point is made only to remind the reader that requirements
can be implemented using various funding instruments and it is not
necessary that all requirements of a research area be implemented on one
type or single funding instrument.

**Grants:** Grants are financial assistance instruments to enable the
recipient to do research in the area desired as proposed to NASA. A
grant accomplishes a public purpose of support or stimulation as opposed
to acquiring the results of the research to meet a specific NASA mission
or operating requirement. The grant is performed autonomously by the
recipient (i.e., grantee) with no substantial involvement between NASA
and the recipient. Only technical reports are produced and no formal
deliverable is provided to NASA, nor is there any inspection or
acceptance required for information produced or submitted at the
completion of the grant. However, NASA normally would receive licenses
to use any products resulting from performance of the grant without
having to pay royalties.

**Cooperative Agreements:** Cooperative agreements are enormously varied
in form and their chief purpose must be to support or stimulate a public
purpose. They must involve the transfer of a thing of value, usually
money, to the recipient. Unlike grants, cooperative agreements must
include substantial NASA involvement in the performance of the effort.
The nature of the NASA involvement may be primarily through the
contribution of expertise and human resources or through the
contribution of facilities or equipment or both. The recipient and NASA
are responsible for abiding to the terms of the cooperative agreement.
However, either the Government or the recipient may unilaterally
terminate the agreement and cease activity after giving appropriate
notice (usually 60 days) to the other party. The recipient is
responsible for the programmatic direction and conduct of the
cooperative agreement and its autonomy is limited only to the degree
defined by the NASA involvement. Regardless of NASA involvement, the
overall programmatic responsibility and decision-making authority lies
with the recipient.

As mentioned before, a cooperative agreement accomplishes a public
purpose of support or stimulation as opposed to acquiring the results of
the research to meet a specific NASA mission or operating requirement.
Another aspect of cooperative agreements is their application to
commercial firms. Cooperative agreements can be awarded to commercial
firms to: (1) support research and development, (2) provide technology
transfer from the Government to the recipient and (3) develop a
capability among U.S. firms to potentially enhance U.S. competitiveness.

**Contracts:** Contracts are funding instruments that reflect a mutually
binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish supplies or
services in exchange for funds from NASA. Contracts are used to procure
goods and services for NASA. Use of a contract provides NASA with many
rights that are not normally obtained in grants and cooperative
agreements. A contract is the required funding instrument when the
effort is used to fulfill a NASA mission or operating requirement. A
contract requires a delivery of an end item or services, according to
specifications (detailed, essential physical characteristic, performance
or functional), and which passes inspection and acceptance criteria
required for satisfactory completion or delivery.

Funding of university projects requires consideration of continuity
issues. As stated in NMI 8320.1, *Basic Policy for NASA University
Relationships*, academic efforts of a continuing nature should be
supported by suitable long-term funding arrangements, providing
continuity through timely renewal, step-funding, multiple-year awards,
or simplified renewal requirements; normally, however, incremental
funding should be avoided. NMI 8310.1, *Maintaining Continuity and
Stability in NASA-Funded University Projects*, sets forth the policies,
procedures, and techniques pertinent to maintaining continuity and
stability in university projects.

[^1]: The MidRange procurement process is a pilot test of new
    procurement procedures authorized by the Office of Federal
    Procurement Policy. NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
    Supplement (NFS) 1871, MidRange Procurement Procedures, describes
    the criteria and conditions in which an enterprise might elect to
    follow the MidRange procurement procedures. In general, a MidRange
    procurement is for supplies, including commercial items, and
    services. NFS 1871 describes dollar thresholds, but also suggests
    several ways to exceed the dollar thresholds. MidRange procurement
    procedures typically are intended for acquisitions from small
    business concerns. Again, however, NFS 1871 provides for conditions
    when the MidRange procurement procedures may be used on an
    unrestricted basis.