Procurement Notice

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546

#  PN 04-34

> **May 29, 2008**

**SOURCE SELECTION CHANGES**

***BACKGROUND***: This PN revises the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) as
follows:

\(1\) Clarifies in NFS 1815.300-70 (a)(1)(i) that acquisitions valued at
\$50 million or more are required to use a mission suitability factor,
numerically score, and utilize SEB procedures in 1815.370.

\(2\) Eliminates the requirement to provide an adjectival rating for the
total mission suitability factor at 1815.305(a)(3).

\(3\) Eliminates the requirement to perform a mission suitability point
adjustment as a result of cost realism at 1815.305(a)(3)(B)

\(4\) Incorporates level of confidence ratings when evaluating offeror's
past performance at 1815.305(a)(2).

\(5\) Further defines the purpose of source selection decisions in NFS
1815.308 and the contents of an SEB presentation in NFS 1815.370 (h).

***ACQUISITIONS AFFECTED BY CHANGES*: The changes are applicable to
acquisitions identified in 1815.300-70 for which a solicitation has not
been issued.**

***ACTION REQUIRED BY CONTRACTING OFFICERS*:** Advise all SEB
participants of the revisions in NFS 1815.3, the resultant changes in
the Source Selection Guide and the Cost Realism Handbook used during the
source selection evaluation process, and the effects these changes have
on their cognizant roles and responsibilities.

***CLAUSE CHANGES*:** None.

***PARTS AFFECTED*:** Part 1815.

***REPLACEMENT PAGES*:** You may use the enclosed pages to replace Part
1815 pages 15:7 thru 15:16, 15:16.1 and 15:16.2 (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*:** Marilyn J. Seppi, Contract Management
Division; 202-358-0447, email: marilyn.seppi-1@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 are required to use a mission suitability factor,
numerically score, and use the procedures in 1815.370.

\(ii\) 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)** NASA estimated goals should be specified for each small business
category in solicitations that require the submission of a
subcontracting plan under 52.219-9. When estimated goals are evaluated
in competitive negotiated acquisitions, the suggested SDB subcontracting
goal shall not be discretely evaluated, but should be included in the
evaluation of the cumulative goal for all the small business categories
identified in the plan.

**(C)** In solicitations that include the FAR 19.12 evaluation of
participation of SDBs in the designated North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes, NASA estimated targets should not
be specified for the expected participation. Proposed SDB participation
levels shall be evaluated based on a standard of reasonableness relative
to the offeror's proposed effort. 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)](http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart_15_3.html#1046497)
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.

\(i\) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability
evaluation shall consider the adequacy of the offeror's proposed
approach to meeting the requirements of the solicitation including the
appropriateness of the offeror's proposed resources. The solicitation
shall notify offerors that a lack of resource realism may adversely
affect their Mission Suitability scores, and result in cost realism
adjustments under the cost factor.

\(3\) 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 submit its
past performance information early or of the customers to submit the
completed questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the
proposal nor shall it be reflected in the Government\'s evaluation of
the offeror\'s past performance.

\(4\) The contracting officer shall evaluate the offeror\'s past
performance in occupational health, security, safety, and mission
success (e.g., mishap rates and problems in delivered hardware and
software that resulted in mishaps or failures) when these areas are
germane to the requirement.

**1815.305 Proposal evaluation.**

\(a\) Each proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:

**(i)** Any deficiencies;

**(ii)** All strengths and weaknesses. These findings will include a
description of how each strength and weakness will impact performance in
terms of benefit or risk statements;

**(iii)** The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission
Suitability subfactor, if applicable;

**(iv)** Cost realism, if appropriate;

**(v)** The Past Performance evaluation factor; and

**(vi)** Any programmatic risk to mission success, e.g., technical,
schedule, cost, safety, occupational health, security, export control,
or environmental. Risks may result from the offeror\'s technical
approach, manufacturing plan, selection of materials, processes,
equipment, or as a result of the cost, schedule, and performance impacts
associated with its approach. Risk evaluations must consider the
probability of the risk occurring, the impact and severity of the risk,
the timeframe when the risk should be addressed, and the alternatives
available to meet the requirements. Risk assessments shall be captured
as part of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical or
adjectival ratings. Identified risks and the potential for cost impact
shall be considered in the cost or price evaluation.

(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.

**(A)** Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in competitive
acquisitions. See 1815.403-1(b)(1) and 1815.403-3(b).

**(B)** When contracting on a basis other than firm-fixed-price, the
contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism analyses to
assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost
realism analysis will determine if the costs in an offeror\'s proposal
are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear
understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various
elements of the offeror\'s technical proposal. The analysis should
include:

***(a)*** The probable cost to the Government of each proposal,
including any recommended additions or reductions in materials,
equipment, labor hours, direct rates, and indirect rates. The probable
cost should reflect the best estimate of the cost of any contract which
might result from that offeror\'s proposal.

***(b)*** The differences in business methods, operating procedures, and
practices as they affect cost.

***(c)*** A level of confidence in the probable cost assessment for each
proposal.

(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.

**(A)** The Past Performance evaluation assesses the contractor\'s
performance under previously awarded contracts. The past performance
evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and this
section. When applying the definitions below to arrive at a confidence
rating, the SEB's evaluation shall clearly document each Offeror's
relevant past performance (e.g. currency/recency, size, content and
complexity) to assess the Offeror's overall confidence rating assigned.
The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government's
confidence in the offeror's ability to perform the solicitation
requirements. Past Performance shall be evaluated for each offeror using
the following levels of confidence ratings:

[Very High Level of Confidence]{.underline}

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

[High Level of Confidence]{.underline}

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

[Moderate Level of Confidence]{.underline}

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

[Low Level of Confidence]{.underline}

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

[Very Low Level of Confidence]{.underline}

The Offeror's relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable
standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more
areas; problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect overall
performance. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is a very
low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the
required effort. \*\* (One or more deficiencies or significant
weaknesses exist.)

[Neutral]{.underline}

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

\*\* (At the Installations' discretion strengths and weaknesses may be
assigned.)

**(B)** The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past
performance considered most germane for the instant acquisition. It may
include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any other
aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation
requirements or challenges. Regardless of the areas of past performance
selected for evaluation, the same areas shall be evaluated for all
offerors in that acquisition.

**(C)** Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit assessments
of the offeror\'s performance, as either a prime or subcontractor, from
the offeror\'s previous customers.

**(D)** All pertinent information, including customer assessments and
any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source selection records
and addressed in the evaluation of past performance.

(a)(3) Technical Evaluation.

**(A)** Mission Suitability subfactors shall be evaluated using the
following adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.

+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **ADJECTIVAL       | #### DEFINITIONS            | #                 |
| RATING**           |                             |  PERCENTILE RANGE |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Excellent          | A comprehensive and         | 91-100            |
|                    | thorough proposal of        |                   |
|                    | exceptional merit with one  |                   |
|                    | or more significant         |                   |
|                    | strengths. No deficiency or |                   |
|                    | significant weakness        |                   |
|                    | exists.                     |                   |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Very Good          | A proposal having no        | 71-90             |
|                    | deficiency and which        |                   |
|                    | demonstrates over-all       |                   |
|                    | competence. One or more     |                   |
|                    | significant strengths have  |                   |
|                    | been found, and strengths   |                   |
|                    | outbalance any weaknesses   |                   |
|                    | that exist.                 |                   |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Good               | A proposal having no        | 51-70             |
|                    | deficiency and which shows  |                   |
|                    | a reasonably sound          |                   |
|                    | response. There may be      |                   |
|                    | strengths or weaknesses, or |                   |
|                    | both. As a whole,           |                   |
|                    | weaknesses not off-set by   |                   |
|                    | strengths do not            |                   |
|                    | significantly detract from  |                   |
|                    | the offeror's response.     |                   |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Fair               | A proposal having no        | 31-50             |
|                    | deficiency and which has    |                   |
|                    | one or more weaknesses.     |                   |
|                    | Weaknesses outbalance any   |                   |
|                    | strengths.                  |                   |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Poor               | A proposal that has one or  | 0-30              |
|                    | more deficiencies or        |                   |
|                    | significant weaknesses that |                   |
|                    | demonstrate a lack of       |                   |
|                    | overall competence or would |                   |
|                    | require a major proposal    |                   |
|                    | revision to correct.        |                   |
+--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+

**(B)** When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, a cost realism
analysis shall be performed consistent with FAR 15.404-1(d).

(a)(4) The cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism
analysis, often requires a technical evaluation of proposed costs.
Contracting officers may provide technical evaluators a copy of the cost
volume or relevant information from it to use in the analysis.

\(b\) The contracting officer is authorized to make the determination to
reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation.

**1815.305-70 Identification of unacceptable proposals.**

\(a\) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation
of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable
because:

\(1\) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the
essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the
offeror does not understand the requirements;

\(2\) In research and development acquisitions, a substantial design
drawback is evident in the proposal, and sufficient correction or
improvement to consider the proposal acceptable would require virtually
an entirely new technical proposal; or

\(3\) It contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs
which discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to
cure.

\(b\) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for
discontinuing the initial evaluation of a proposal in accordance with
this section.

**1815.305-71 Evaluation of a single proposal.**

\(a\) If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation,
the contracting officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed
or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an
acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the SSA shall direct the
contracting officer to:

\(1\) Award without discussions provided the contracting officer
determines that adequate price competition exists (see FAR
15.403-1(c)(1)(ii));

\(2\) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement
for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance
with FAR 15.403-1); or

\(3\) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.

\(b\) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also applies when the number of
proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one
acceptable proposal is received.

**1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.**

(c)(2) A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working goal
in establishing the competitive range. Field installations may establish
procedures for approval of competitive range determinations commensurate
with the complexity or dollar value of an acquisition.

(d)(3)**(A)** The contracting officer shall identify any cost/price
elements that do not appear to be justified and encourage offerors to
submit their most favorable and realistic cost/price proposals, but
shall not discuss, disclose, or compare cost/price elements of any other
offeror. The contracting officer should question inadequate,
conflicting, unrealistic, or unsupported cost information; differences
between the offeror\'s proposal and most probable cost assessments; cost
realism concerns; differences between audit findings and proposed costs;
proposed rates that are too high/low; and labor mixes that do not appear
responsive to the requirements. No agreement on cost/price elements or a
\"bottom line \" is necessary.

**(B)** The contracting officer shall discuss contract terms and
conditions so that a \"model\" contract can be sent to each offeror with
the request for final proposal revisions. If the solicitation allows,
any proposed technical performance capabilities above those specified in
the RFP that have value to the Government and are considered proposal
strengths should be discussed with the offeror and proposed for
inclusion in that offeror's \"model\" contract. If the offeror declines
to include these strengths in its \"model\" contract, the Government
evaluators should reconsider their characterization as strengths.

(e)(1) In no case shall the contracting officer relax or amend RFP
requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting the
other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed
requirements.

**1815.307 Proposal revisions.**

(b)**(i)** The request for final proposal revisions (FPRs) shall also:

**(A)** Instruct offerors to incorporate all changes to their offers
resulting from discussions, and require clear traceability from initial
proposals;

**(B)** Require offerors to complete and execute the \"model\" contract,
which includes any special provisions or performance capabilities the
offeror proposed above those specified in the RFP;

**(C)** Caution offerors against unsubstantiated changes to their
proposals; and

**(D)** Establish a page limit for FPRs.

**(ii)** Approval of the Assistant Administrator for Procurement (Code
HS) is required to reopen discussions for acquisitions of \$50 million
or more. Approval of the procurement officer is required for all other
acquisitions.

**(iii)** Proposals are rescored or rerated based on FPR evaluations.
Scoring or rating changes between initial and FPRs shall be clearly
traceable.

**1815.308 Source selection decision.**

**(1)** A Source Selection Decision is a deliberative decision that is
documented in the Source Selection Statement, reflecting the thought
process behind the selection and representing the independent judgment
of the SSA. The SSA has broad discretion in determining the manner and
extent to which to make use of the technical, past performance, and cost
evaluation results of the SEB, subject only to the tests of rationality
and consistency with the evaluation criteria identified in the
solicitation. The adjectival ratings and numerical scoring presented to
the SSA represent the SEB's relative ranking of proposals within the
mission suitability factor cannot be the sole basis for a selection
decision. Instead the selection shall be based upon a comparative
assessment of the relative discriminators that includes a discussion of
the benefits or risks/detriments associated with the discriminators of
the selected offeror over all other offerors considering all evaluation
factors (i.e. past performance factor, cost/price factor, other
non-price factors).

**(2)** All significant evaluation findings shall be fully documented
and considered in the source selection decision. A clear and logical
audit trail shall be maintained for the rationale for ratings and
scores, including a detailed account of the decisions leading to the
selection. Selection is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP.

**(3)** Before award, the SSA shall sign a source selection statement
that clearly and succinctly justifies the selection. Source selection
statements must describe: the acquisition; the evaluation procedures;
the substance of the Mission Suitability evaluation; and the evaluation
of the Cost/Price and Past Performance factors. The statement also
addresses unacceptable proposals, the competitive range determination,
late proposals, or any other considerations pertinent to the decision.
The statement shall not reveal any confidential business information.
Except for certain major system acquisition competitions (see
1815.506-70), source selection statements shall be releasable to
competing offerors and the general public upon request. The statement
shall be available to the Debriefing Official to use in postaward
debriefings of unsuccessful offerors and shall be provided to debriefed
offerors upon request.

**(4)** Once the selection decision is made, the contracting officer
shall award the contract.

**1815.370 NASA source evaluation boards.**

\(a\) The source evaluation board (SEB) procedures shall be used for
those acquisitions identified in 1815.300-70(a)(1)(i). The NASA Source
Selection Guide provides agency-wide guidance to individuals
participating in the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) process and is
available at
http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/sourceselection/guide.pdf.

\(b\) The SEB assists the SSA by providing expert analyses of the
offerors\' proposals in relation to the evaluation factors and
subfactors contained in the solicitation. The SEB will prepare and
present its findings to the SSA, avoiding trade-off judgments among
either the individual offerors or among the evaluation factors. The SEB
will not make recommendations for selection to the SSA.

\(c\) Designation.

\(1\) The SEB shall be comprised of competent individuals fully
qualified to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and risks associated
with proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. The SEB shall
be appointed as early as possible in the acquisition process, but not
later than acquisition plan or procurement strategy meeting approval.

\(2\) While SEB participants are normally drawn from the cognizant
installation, personnel from other NASA installations or other
Government agencies may participate. When it is necessary to disclose
the proposal (in whole or in part) outside the Government, approval
shall be obtained in accordance with 1815.207-70.

\(3\) When Headquarters retains SSA authority, the Headquarters Office
of Procurement (Code HS) must concur on the SEB appointments.
Qualifications of voting members, including functional title, grade
level, and related SEB experience, shall be provided.

\(d\) Organization.

\(1\) The organization of an SEB is tailored to the requirements of the
particular acquisition. This can range from the simplest situation,
where the SEB conducts the evaluation and fact-finding without the use
of committees or panels/consultants (as described in paragraphs (d)(4)
and (5) of this section) to a highly complex situation involving a major
acquisition where two or more committees are formed and these, in turn,
are assisted by special panels or consultants in particular areas. The
number of committees or panels/consultants shall be kept to a minimum.

\(2\) The SEB Chairperson is the principal operating executive of the
SEB. The Chairperson is expected to manage the team efficiently without
compromising the validity of the findings provided to the SSA as the
basis for a sound selection decision.

\(3\) The SEB Recorder functions as the principal administrative
assistant to the SEB Chairperson and is principally responsible for
logistical support and recordkeeping of SEB activities.

\(4\) An SEB committee functions as a fact-finding arm of the SEB,
usually in a broad grouping of related disciplines (e.g., technical or
management). The committee evaluates in detail each proposal, or portion
thereof, assigned by the SEB in accordance with the approved evaluation
factors and subfactors and summarizes its evaluation in a written report
to the SEB. The committee will also respond to requirements assigned by
the SEB, including further justification or reconsideration of its
findings. Committee chairpersons shall manage the administrative and
procedural matters of their committees.

\(5\) An SEB panel or consultant functions as a fact-finding arm of the
committee in a specialized area of the committee\'s responsibilities.
Panels are established or consultants named when a particular area
requires deeper analysis than the committee can provide.

\(6\) The total of all such evaluators (committees, panels, consultants,
etc. excluding SEB voting members and ex officio members) shall be
limited to a maximum of 20, unless approved in writing by the
procurement officer.

\(e\) Voting members.

\(1\) Voting members of the SEB shall include people who will have key
assignments on the project to which the acquisition is directed.
However, it is important that this should be tempered to ensure
objectivity and to avoid an improper balance. It may even be appropriate
to designate a management official from outside the project as SEB
Chairperson.

\(2\) Non-government personnel shall not serve as voting members of an
SEB.

\(3\) The SEB shall review the findings of committees, panels, or
consultants and use its own collective judgment to develop the SEB
evaluation findings reported to the SSA. All voting members of the SEB
shall have equal status as rating officials.

\(4\) SEB membership shall be limited to a maximum of 7 voting
individuals. Wherever feasible, an assignment to SEB membership as a
voting member shall be on a full-time basis. When not feasible, SEB
membership shall take precedence over other duties.

\(5\) The following people shall be voting members of all SEBs:

\(i\) Chairperson.

\(ii\) A senior, key technical representative for the project.

\(iii\) An experienced procurement representative.

\(iv\) A senior Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative, as
appropriate.

\(v\) Committee chairpersons (except where this imposes an undue
workload).

\(f\) Ex officio members*.*

\(1\) The number of nonvoting ex officio (advisory) members shall be
kept as small as possible. Ex officio members should be selected for the
experience and expertise they can provide to the SEB. Since their
advisory role may require access to highly sensitive SEB material and
findings, ex officio membership for persons other than those identified
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section is discouraged.

\(2\) Nonvoting ex officio members may state their views and contribute
to the discussions in SEB deliberations, but they may not participate in
the actual rating process. However, the SEB recorder should be present
during rating sessions.

\(3\) For field installation selections, the following shall be
nonvoting ex officio members on all SEBs:

\(i\) Chairpersons of SEB committees, unless designated as voting
members.

\(ii\) The procurement officer of the installation, unless designated a
voting member.

\(iii\) The contracting officer responsible for the acquisition, unless
designated a voting member.

\(iv\) The Chief Counsel and/or designee of the installation.

\(v\) The installation small business specialist.

\(vi\) The SEB recorder.

\(g\) Evaluation.

\(1\) If committees are used, the SEB Chairperson shall send them the
proposals or portions thereof to be evaluated, along with instructions
regarding the expected function of each committee, and all data
considered necessary or helpful.

\(2\) While oral reports may be given to the SEB, each committee shall
submit a written report which should include the following:

\(i\) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting comments to the
lowest level evaluated;

\(ii\) An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; and

\(iii\) A statement for each proposal describing any strengths,
deficiencies, or significant weaknesses which significantly affected the
evaluation and stating any reservations or concerns, together with
supporting rationale, which the committee or any of its members want to
bring to the attention of the SEB.

\(3\) The SEB process must be adequately documented. Clear traceability
must exist at all levels of the SEB process. All reports submitted by
committees or panels will be retained as part of the SEB records.

\(4\) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review each proposal and
any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the
proposals for each evaluation factor and

subfactor according to its own collective judgment. SEB minutes shall
reflect this evaluation process.

\(h\) SEB presentation.

\(1\) The SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA on the results of the SEB
deliberations to permit an informed and objective selection of the best
source(s) for the particular acquisition.

\(2\) The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths,
deficiencies, and significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the
probable cost of each proposal, and any significant issues and problems
identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable
special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors and sub factors;
the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of the offerors
which includes a description of the benefits or risks associated with
the significant findings; the Government cost estimate, if applicable;
the offerors\' proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee
arrangements; and the final adjectival ratings and scores to the
subfactor level. The presentation to the SSA shall include the total
mission suitability point score for each offeror's proposal. An
adjectival rating (e.g. excellent, very good, etc.) shall be assigned
for each mission suitability subfactor, but an adjectival rating shall
[not]{.underline} be assigned for the total mission suitability factor
of each offeror's proposal. The SEB shall compute the total mission
suitability point score by adding all of the mission suitability
subfactors points assessed, with the maximum possible total mission
suitability point score being 1000 points. The total mission suitability
point score does not represent a precise measure of the relative merit
of any one offeror's proposal, but rather it is to summarize the total
points each offeror's proposal is assessed out of the possible 1000
points.

\(3\) Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved in
the selection process or who have a valid need to know. The designated
individuals attending the SEB presentation(s) shall:

\(i\) Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied
with all applicable agency policies and that the presentation accurately
conveys the SEB's activities and findings;

\(ii\) Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors,
weights, or scoring systems; or the substance of the SEB\'s findings.
They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify procedural omissions,
irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its findings, or revise
the presentation.

\(4\) The SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation including
arranging the time and place of the presentation, assuring proper
attendance, and distributing presentation material.

\(5\) For Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of
Procurement (Code HS) will coordinate the presentation, including
approval of attendees. When the Administrator is the SSA, a preliminary
presentation should be made to the head of the contracting activity and
to the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant Headquarters Program Office.

\(i\) Recommended SEB presentation format.

\(1\) [Identification of the Acquisition]{.underline}. Identifies the
installation, the nature of the services or hardware to be acquired,
some quantitative measure including the Government cost estimate for the
acquisition, and the planned contractual arrangement. Avoids detailed
objectives of the acquisition.

\(2\) [Background.]{.underline} Identifies any earlier phases of a
phased acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services,
identifies the incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes from
the existing structure.

\(3\) [Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.]{.underline} Explains the
evaluation factors, subfactor, and any special standards of
responsibility. Lists the relative order of importance of the evaluation
factors and the numerical weights of the Mission Suitability subfactors.
Presents the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission Suitability
and Past Performance evaluations.

\(4\) [Sources.]{.underline} Indicates the number of offerors solicited
and the number of offerors expressing interest (e.g., attendance at a
preproposal conference). Identifies the offerors submitting proposals,
indicating any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and
women-owned businesses.

\(5\) [Summary of Findings]{.underline}. Lists the initial and final
Mission Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors\' proposed
costs/prices, and any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any
clear discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection.
Addresses any competitive range determination. List the adjectival
rating (e.g. excellent, very good, etc.) assigned for each mission
suitability subfactor for each offeror's proposal. List the total
mission suitability point score for each offeror\'s proposal by adding
all of the mission suitability subfactors points assessed out of the
possible 1000 points.

\(6\) [Significant Strengths, Deficiencies, and Significant Weaknesses
of Offerors]{.underline}*.* Summarizes the SEB\'s findings, using the
following guidelines:

\(i\) Present only the significant strengths, deficiencies, and
significant weaknesses of individual offerors accompanied with a
description of the benefits or risks associated with each discriminator.

\(ii\) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and
significant weaknesses to the evaluation factors, and subfactors.

\(iii\) Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and FPRs
on ratings and scores.

\(7\) [Final Mission Suitability Ratings and Scores]{.underline}.
Summarizes the evaluation subfactors, the maximum points achievable, and
the scores of the offerors in the competitive range.

\(8\) [Final Cost/Price Evaluation.]{.underline} Summarizes proposed
costs/prices and any probable costs associated with each offeror
including proposed fee arrangements. Presents the data as accurately as
possible, showing SEB adjustments to achieve comparability. Identifies
the SEB\'s confidence in the probable costs of the individual offerors,
noting the reasons for low or high confidence.

\(9\) [Past Performance]{.underline}. Provides a summary of the assessed
level of confidence associated with each offeror's proposal.

\(10\) [Special Interest.]{.underline} Includes only information of
special interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g.,
procedural errors or other matters that could affect the selection
decision.

\(j\) A source selection statement shall be prepared in accordance with
1815.308. For installation selections, the installation Chief Counsel or
designee will prepare the source selection statement.