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

**OFFICE WORK INSTRUCTION**

**CONDUCT PEER REVIEW**

**(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 |        | /26/99 |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | A      | 5      | Section 2.0, paragraph 2.1: Clarified   |
| evision |        | /10/99 | relationship to other OWIs.             |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 4.0: Deleted references not     |
|         |        |        | called out in the procedure. Added      |
|         |        |        | reference on unsolicited proposals.     |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 5.0: Added outputs to           |
|         |        |        | Activities 1 and 2. Rearranged layout   |
|         |        |        | to fit on a single page, without        |
|         |        |        | changing the flow.                      |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0, Activities 1 and 2: Added  |
|         |        |        | descriptions of Letters Of Intent (LOI) |
|         |        |        | and proposal logs. Clarified use of     |
|         |        |        | LOIs, and handling of unsolicited       |
|         |        |        | proposals.                              |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0, Activity 3: Expanded       |
|         |        |        | discussions of proposal screening and   |
|         |        |        | non-responsive proposal disposition.    |
|         |        |        | Clarified references and relationship   |
|         |        |        | to other OWIs.                          |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0, Activity 7: Added          |
|         |        |        | references for unsolicited proposals.   |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0, Activity 10: Described     |
|         |        |        | contents of documentation. Clarified    |
|         |        |        | relationship to other OWIs.             |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 7.0: Added NPG 1441.1           |
|         |        |        | reference. Added text to describe how   |
|         |        |        | to retrieve quality records from        |
|         |        |        | support contractor. Changed mapping to  |
|         |        |        | NPG from Schedule 5, Item 1,            |
|         |        |        | "Procurement Files," paragraph D        |
|         |        |        | (retain for two years) to Schedule 7,   |
|         |        |        | Item 9, "R&D Peer Review and            |
|         |        |        | Evaluations."                           |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | B      | 11     | Section 5.0, step 3, and Section 6.0,   |
| evision |        | /13/00 | step 3, revised to include Code IY      |
|         |        |        | notification of unacceptable Foreign    |
|         |        |        | Letters of Endorsement. Section 6.0,    |
|         |        |        | paragraph 4 revised to reflect new name |
|         |        |        | for Code YO. Footnotes in section 7.0   |
|         |        |        | revised to reflect new Peer Review      |
|         |        |        | Contractor.                             |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
|         |        |        |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+

**PREFACE**

The NASA Office Work Instruction (OWI) for Conduct Peer Review 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 [5](#purpose)**

2.0 SCOPE and Applicability [5](#scope-and-applicability)

3.0 DEFINITIONS [5](#definitions)

4.0 references [5](#references)

5.0 Flowchart [6](#flowchart)

6.0 PROCedure [7](#procedure)

7.0 QUALITY RECORDS [12](#quality-records)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# 1.0 Purpose

The NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) uses a peer review process,
sometimes also called merit review or scientific review, to evaluate
both solicited and unsolicited proposals. This OWI documents the ESE
procedure for conducting peer reviews.

# 2.0 SCOPE and Applicability

2.1 [Scope]{.underline}. The ESE peer review procedure includes
receiving and logging proposals, identifying reviewers, determining the
type of review (mail and/or panel), conducting mail and panel reviews,
and documenting the results.

The ESE conducts peer reviews to evaluate proposals. As such, ESE
executes this process in support of higher-level processes as documented
by HQOWI 7120-Y003, *Formulate and Approve Flight Missions,* and HQOWI
8310-Y005, *Solicit and Select Science, Applications, Education, and
Technology Investigations.*

2.2 [Applicability]{.underline}. This work instruction for Conduct Peer
Review 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:

> FAR 6.102(d)(2) Use of competitive procedures
>
> FAR 35.016 Broad agency announcement
>
> NFS 1835.016-70 NASA Research Announcements
>
> NFS 1837.204 Guidelines for determining availability of personnel
>
> NFS 1852.235-72(J) Instructions for Responding to NASA Research
> Announcements
>
> NPG 5800.1 Sec A Part 1260.11(a) Grant & Cooperative Agreement
> Handbook
>
> NFS 1872.705-3 Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations Associated with
> Investigations
>
> FAR 15.6 Unsolicited Proposals
>
> NFS 1815.6 Unsolicited Proposals
>
> [http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/msfc/nasahdbk.html]{.underline} Guidance for
> the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals

# ![](media/image2.wmf)Flowchart

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

# 6.0 PROCedure

Peer review is used extensively in NASA science, applications,
education, technology (SAET) and appropriate flight mission
acquisitions. It is essential for a high quality, relevant program. The
use of external peer review enhances the quality of NASA's
investigations and activities because it brings the best and most
critical national and international experts to the evaluation process.
External peer review ensures that fresh viewpoints, alternative
perspectives and state-of-the-art understanding are included in the
evaluation process. Each review includes a written record of the
evaluation and evaluation records are maintained. The evaluation results
are used to make a judgment about the merits of each proposal and
ultimately are used as the basis to make a selection for an award.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 35.016 "Broad agency
announcements" dictates that peer review will be the method used to
evaluate and select research for funding. This applies to the
acquisition of all research investigations in which the applicable type
of solicitation is used, for example, a NASA Research Announcement
(NRA), an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) or a Cooperative Agreement
Notice (CAN). The scientific, data and information systems, and
engineering communities are asked to participate in the peer review of
proposals submitted for consideration.

Peer review processes are described in each NASA solicitation. Although
the mechanical details of the review process may vary from program to
program, the basic use of discipline experts to evaluate and document
their findings is universal across NASA. The sponsoring program office
for each solicitation is responsible to implement the peer review and
maintain the integrity of the evaluations.

Solicitation initiators from the Research Division (Code YS), the
Program Planning and Development Division (YF), and the Applications
Division (Code YO) conduct this process. The solicitation initiator is
usually a science, applications, or education program manager, or a
Program Coordinator 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 from the Business
Division (Code YB) provides administrative support for the solicitation
process.

The flowchart of Section 5 depicts typical mail and panel peer review
processes. Variations on these processes or somewhat different peer
review processes may be employed from time to time, as appropriate. The
following table describes the flowchart of Section 5.

+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Actionee       |   | Action                                          |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Support        | 1 | [Receive, Log, and Assess Letters of Intent to  |
| Contractor     |   | Propose]{.underline}. At the discretion of the  |
|                |   | solicitation initiator, the solicitation may    |
| Solicitation   |   | request that proposers submit a Letter of       |
| Initiator      |   | Intent (LOI)[^1] within a given time frame[^2]  |
|                |   | after solicitation release and in advance of    |
|                |   | proposal submission. The support contractor     |
|                |   | receives and logs the LOIs, noting the related  |
|                |   | solicitation identifier, NASA-assigned proposal |
|                |   | number, Principal Investigator (PI) name, PI    |
|                |   | institution, proposal title, and the date       |
|                |   | received.                                       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator uses the LOIs to     |
|                |   | scope the peer review effort by assessing the   |
|                |   | number of proposals to be reviewed, and the     |
|                |   | science and technical discipline skills likely  |
|                |   | required by the peer review team.               |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Support        | 2 | [Receive and Log Proposals]{.underline}.        |
| Contractor     |   | Prospective researchers (proposers) generate    |
|                |   | responses to a solicitation, and submit these   |
|                |   | solicited proposals to NASA for evaluation.     |
|                |   | Proposals also may be submitted in the absence  |
|                |   | of a solicitation wholly on the initiative of   |
|                |   | the prospective researcher. If such unsolicited |
|                |   | proposals are for science investigations and    |
|                |   | are responsive to the NASA ESE program, they    |
|                |   | will be evaluated. For flight missions and      |
|                |   | technology development, however, proposals are  |
|                |   | accepted and evaluated only in response to a    |
|                |   | formal solicitation.                            |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The ESE support contractor receives and logs    |
|                |   | both solicited and unsolicited proposals. The   |
|                |   | proposal log identifies the related             |
|                |   | solicitation, NASA proposal number, Principal   |
|                |   | Investigator (PI) name, PI institution,         |
|                |   | proposal title, and the date received.          |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 3 | [Screen Proposals]{.underline}. The             |
| Initiator      |   | solicitation initiator screens the proposals    |
|                |   | for compliance with the solicitation            |
|                |   | requirements, and rejects any non-responsive    |
|                |   | proposals. Generally, the solicitation          |
|                |   | initiator looks for completeness of technical   |
|                |   | and cost information (that is, sufficient for   |
|                |   | evaluation), and responsiveness to the research |
|                |   | areas solicited. The solicitation initiator     |
|                |   | also may further identify the skills and        |
|                |   | expertise required by the peer review team.     |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Additionally, the solicitation initiator        |
|                |   | screens unsolicited proposals in accordance     |
|                |   | with the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part         |
|                |   | 1815.606-70, *Relationship of unsolicited       |
|                |   | proposals to NRAs*: \"An unsolicited proposal   |
|                |   | for a new effort or a renewal, identified by an |
|                |   | evaluating office as being within the scope of  |
|                |   | an open NRA, shall be evaluated as a response   |
|                |   | to that NRA (see 1835.016-70), provided that    |
|                |   | the evaluating office can either: (a) State     |
|                |   | that the proposal is not at a competitive       |
|                |   | disadvantage, or (b) Give the offeror an        |
|                |   | opportunity to amend the unsolicited proposal   |
|                |   | to ensure compliance with the applicable NRA    |
|                |   | proposal preparation instructions. If these     |
|                |   | conditions cannot be met, the proposal must be  |
|                |   | evaluated separately.\"                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator receives             |
|                |   | notification from the Code IY Action Officer    |
|                |   | for the NRA of any unacceptable letters of      |
|                |   | endorsement from foreign institutions. The      |
|                |   | solicitation initiator will take action, often  |
|                |   | after consultation with Code IY, to either      |
|                |   | reject these foreign proposals or to seek an    |
|                |   | acceptable letter of endorsement from the       |
|                |   | proposer's sponsor.                             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | If a proposal is rejected, the solicitation     |
|                |   | initiator informs the offeror of the reasons    |
|                |   | for rejection in writing and of the proposed    |
|                |   | disposition of the proposal. These letters may  |
|                |   | be posted at this point in the process, or in   |
|                |   | conjunction with the final Accept/Reject        |
|                |   | letters as described in HQOWI 7120-Y003,        |
|                |   | *Formulate and Approve Flight Missions,* and in |
|                |   | HQOWI 8310-Y005, *Solicit and Select Science,   |
|                |   | Applications, Education, and Technology         |
|                |   | Investigations.*                                |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 4 | [Determine Peer Review Type]{.underline}. The   |
| Initiator      |   | solicitation initiator, with the concurrence of |
|                |   | the appropriate division director(s) \-- for    |
| Cognizant      |   | example, the Research Division Director when    |
| Reviewing      |   | reviewing proposed science investigations \--   |
| Division       |   | determines the characteristics of the peer      |
| Director       |   | review process to be used. The characteristics  |
|                |   | include how the review is to be conducted and   |
|                |   | the source of peer reviewers. For example,      |
|                |   | reviews may be conducted by mail, by panel, or  |
|                |   | by some combination or variation of these       |
|                |   | methods, including single or multi-step         |
|                |   | proposal review processes. Also, ESE may make   |
|                |   | full use of external peer reviewers, or conduct |
|                |   | an internal peer review \-- that is, involving  |
|                |   | only civil servants. The solicitation initiator |
|                |   | bases these decisions on the urgency of the     |
|                |   | schedule for a selection, the complexity of the |
|                |   | proposals to be evaluated, the number of        |
|                |   | responses, what type of process was advertised  |
|                |   | in the solicitation and other considerations    |
|                |   | unique to the solicitation.                     |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | ESE evaluates proposals using a mail peer       |
|                |   | review, a panel peer review, or both, and       |
|                |   | involves external reviewers from all types of   |
|                |   | institutions. If both mail and panel reviews    |
|                |   | are to be used, the panel review almost always  |
|                |   | follows and receives input from the mail        |
|                |   | review.                                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | Situations in which internal peer reviewers     |
|                |   | alone may be appropriate include proposals that |
|                |   | involve minor funding for non-research          |
|                |   | activities such as workshops or symposia, or    |
|                |   | research situations requiring a quick response  |
|                |   | to an unexpected opportunity such as a volcanic |
|                |   | eruption or foreign aircraft mission.           |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 5 | [Identify Mail Peer Reviewers]{.underline}.     |
| Initiator      |   | Mail peer review allows for selecting reviewers |
|                |   | with the very specialized expertise required    |
|                |   | for delving deeply into the technical and       |
|                |   | scientific merits of the solicitation topic and |
|                |   | technical approach.                             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The NASA ESE draws its peer reviewers from the  |
|                |   | entire scientific, technical, educational,      |
|                |   | information systems, and engineering            |
|                |   | communities, including experts from both public |
|                |   | and private academic institutions, industry,    |
|                |   | government (such as NASA Centers, other         |
|                |   | government laboratories, and Federally Funded   |
|                |   | Research and Development Centers), and foreign  |
|                |   | countries. NASA and its support contractors     |
|                |   | maintain a list of discipline experts within    |
|                |   | the System for Codes E, Y, F, U, and S (also    |
|                |   | known as SYS-EYFUS system), and this list is    |
|                |   | drawn upon to find the appropriate reviewers.   |
|                |   | Additional names are added as new people enter  |
|                |   | the field.                                      |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator identifies potential |
|                |   | reviewers based on their experience, knowledge  |
|                |   | of the SAET technical areas, information        |
|                |   | systems, and engineering or management areas.   |
|                |   | In addition recommendations may be obtained     |
|                |   | from other program managers, acknowledged       |
|                |   | experts, NASA management, university professors |
|                |   | and corporate executives. Criteria considered   |
|                |   | reflect the reviewers' scientific, technical,   |
|                |   | and professional expertise, credentials, and    |
|                |   | abilities. For example, criteria may include    |
|                |   | quality of scholarly research, relevant         |
|                |   | publications, amount and relevance of research, |
|                |   | and knowledge of and experience within the      |
|                |   | discipline. Availability and willingness to     |
|                |   | accomplish the review are also factors.         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The ability of a potential peer reviewer to     |
|                |   | conduct an impartial review is a critical       |
|                |   | factor. The solicitation initiator screens      |
|                |   | potential reviewers for any perceived or real   |
|                |   | conflicts of interest. \"Conflict of interest\" |
|                |   | means that because of other interests,          |
|                |   | activities, or relationships, a person is       |
|                |   | unable or potentially unable to render          |
|                |   | impartial assistance or advice to the           |
|                |   | Government, or the person\'s objectivity in     |
|                |   | performing the review is or might be otherwise  |
|                |   | impaired. Other interests, activities, or       |
|                |   | relationships include financial interests,      |
|                |   | institutional affiliations, professional biases |
|                |   | and associations, as well as familiar           |
|                |   | relationships. Conflicts could further occur as |
|                |   | a result of imbalance between Government and    |
|                |   | non-Government appointees, a member evaluating  |
|                |   | a proposal from their own parent organization,  |
|                |   | or panel members representing a singular school |
|                |   | of thought in discipline areas involving        |
|                |   | competitive theories and approaches without     |
|                |   | appropriate balance from those representing     |
|                |   | competitive schools of thought.                 |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator sets a due date for  |
|                |   | the mail reviews and directs the support        |
|                |   | contractor to distribute the proposals and      |
|                |   | evaluation criteria to the mail reviewers.      |
|                |   | Prior to distributing the proposals, the        |
|                |   | solicitation initiator may elect to contact the |
|                |   | reviewers and request their participation.      |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Support        | 6 | [Distribute Proposals and Mail Review           |
| Contractor     |   | Evaluation Criteria]{.underline}. The support   |
|                |   | contractor distributes the proposals and        |
|                |   | evaluation criteria through the mail to the     |
|                |   | peer reviewers. Mail reviewers are sent the     |
|                |   | proposals for which their reviews are needed,   |
|                |   | with a letter requesting their review and       |
|                |   | asking for immediate return of the proposal(s)  |
|                |   | if the reviewer cannot comply. Reviewers        |
|                |   | perform the review on a voluntary basis without |
|                |   | payment for services.                           |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Mail Peer      | 7 | [Evaluate Proposals (Mail Peer                  |
| Reviewers      |   | Review)]{.underline}. Mail reviewers            |
|                |   | individually evaluate each proposal according   |
|                |   | to its own merits and using the evaluation      |
|                |   | criteria provided by NASA and listed in the     |
|                |   | solicitation or in the NASA guidelines for      |
|                |   | unsolicited proposals (FAR Subpart 15.6,        |
|                |   | *Unsolicited Proposals*; NFS Part 1815.6,       |
|                |   | *Unsolicited Proposals*; and \"Guidance for the |
|                |   | Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited       |
|                |   | Proposals,\" available on the Internet at       |
|                |   | http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/msfc/nasahdbk.html).    |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The mail peer reviewers return their reviews    |
|                |   | and evaluations by mail (sometimes FAX and      |
|                |   | e-mail) to the support contractor.              |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Solicitation   | 8 | [Identify and Invite Panel Peer                 |
| Initiator      |   | Reviewers]{.underline}. A panel peer review     |
|                |   | brings together scientific and technical        |
|                |   | experts that cover an appropriate breadth of    |
|                |   | professional knowledge and expertise and offer  |
|                |   | balanced perspectives on the topics to be       |
|                |   | evaluated. It allows for a thorough discussion  |
|                |   | of the merits of each proposal and the          |
|                |   | opportunity to reconcile differing evaluations  |
|                |   | on the part of individual panelists. If a mail  |
|                |   | review has preceded the panel review, the       |
|                |   | results of the mail review are made available,  |
|                |   | and the panel will be asked to reconcile        |
|                |   | differences among the mail reviews as well as   |
|                |   | to put the work proposed into a larger          |
|                |   | scientific and programmatic context.            |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator identifies potential |
|                |   | panel peer reviewers in the same way he or she  |
|                |   | identifies them for mail reviews. Refer to      |
|                |   | Activity 5, Identify Mail Peer Reviewers, for a |
|                |   | discussion of how peer reviewers are            |
|                |   | identified, screened, and chosen.               |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator solicits             |
|                |   | participation in a formally convened panel, or  |
|                |   | in some cases asks the support contractor to    |
|                |   | call the selected reviewer on his/her behalf.   |
|                |   | This invitation is commonly extended by phone   |
|                |   | and followed by formal letter, but may be       |
|                |   | extended through a formal letter only.          |
|                |   | Reviewers perform the review without payment    |
|                |   | for services. Travel costs for the panel        |
|                |   | meeting are reimbursed.                         |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator, with the support    |
|                |   | contractor, arranges the panel meeting by       |
|                |   | planning the schedule, budget, and logistics.   |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator often assigns a lead |
|                |   | reviewer for each proposal from amongst the     |
|                |   | panelists. The lead reviewer summarizes the     |
|                |   | proposed research, the mail review results (if  |
|                |   | a mail review was conducted), and his or her    |
|                |   | own evaluation as a means of initiating the     |
|                |   | panel discussion of a proposal.                 |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Support        | 9 | [Distribute Panel Review                        |
| Contractor     |   | Materials]{.underline}. The support contractor  |
|                |   | distributes the proposals, the evaluation       |
|                |   | criteria, and any mail review results to the    |
|                |   | panel members.                                  |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+
| Panel Peer     | 1 | [Evaluate Proposals (Panel Peer                 |
| Reviewers      | 0 | Review)]{.underline}. The peer review panel     |
|                |   | meets as a group and discusses the scope,       |
| Solicitation   |   | strengths and weaknesses of the various         |
| Initiator      |   | proposals. The proposals are rated in           |
|                |   | accordance with the evaluation criteria and the |
| Support        |   | panel gives an overall rating based on a vote   |
| Contractor     |   | or consensus. The peer panel may also be asked  |
|                |   | to recommend aircraft campaign payloads or      |
|                |   | assemblages of proposals that best meet focused |
|                |   | program objectives.                             |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The solicitation initiator, often with help     |
|                |   | from the panelists and/or a recording secretary |
|                |   | provided by the ESE support contractor,         |
|                |   | documents the panel review evaluation and       |
|                |   | results. The documentation may contain, for     |
|                |   | example, a summary of the analyses performed,   |
|                |   | scores and ratings, statements of fatal flaws,  |
|                |   | and summaries of proposal strengths and         |
|                |   | weaknesses. At a minimum, it must summarize the |
|                |   | reviewers\' findings and recommendations in     |
|                |   | sufficient detail for making a selection        |
|                |   | decision.                                       |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   | The peer review results feed subsequent         |
|                |   | selection recommendation activities as          |
|                |   | documented by HQOWI 7120-Y003, *Formulate and   |
|                |   | Approve Flight Missions,* and HQOWI 8310-Y005,  |
|                |   | *Solicit and Select Science, Applications,      |
|                |   | Education, and Technology Investigations.*      |
+----------------+---+-------------------------------------------------+

#  

# 7.0 QUALITY RECORDS

+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| RECORD        | OWNER | L       | MEDIA  | SCHEDULE | RETENTION / |
| I             |       | OCATION |        | AND ITEM | DISPOSITION |
| DENTIFICATION |       |         | Elec   | N        |             |
|               |       |         | tronic | UMBERS\* |             |
|               |       |         | or     |          |             |
|               |       |         | Ha     |          |             |
|               |       |         | rdcopy |          |             |
+===============+=======+=========+========+==========+=============+
| Mail Peer     | So    | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Review        | licit | Contrac | rdcopy | 7, Item  | Federal     |
| Results       | ation | tor\*\* |        | 9, "R&D  | Records     |
|               | Init  |         |        | Peer     | Center      |
|               | iator |         |        | Review   | (FRC) when  |
|               |       |         |        | and      | 1 year old. |
|               |       |         |        | Evalu    | Destroy     |
|               |       |         |        | ations," | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | p        | years old.  |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Panel Peer    | So    | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Review        | licit | Contrac | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| Results       | ation | tor\*\* |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
|               | Init  |         |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
|               | iator |         |        | Review   | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | and      | years old.  |
|               |       |         |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       |         |        | ations," |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+

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

\*\* GST stores peer review results (including accept/reject letters) at
500 E Street SW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C., telephone 202/479-9030.
These records are available for on-site inspection in GST offices during
normal working hours. For off-site use, copies must be requested.

-   For on-site inspection, the solicitation initiator may call in
    advance to request record retrieval and work space in the GST
    offices. Specify the solicitation name or acronym, the solicitation
    number, and the type of document required \-- for example,
    accept/reject letters, mail evaluation forms, panel evaluation
    forms, summary reports.

-   To request copies for use outside GST offices, the solicitation
    initiator may contact either the support contractor\'s Code Y
    Project Manager, or the Task Lead who was assigned to support a
    particular peer review. Specify the solicitation name and number,
    the type of document, and the number of copies required. Copies will
    be provided within 1 to 3 days, depending on the volume.

[^1]: A solicitation will not [require]{.underline} a Letter of Intent,
    but will "strongly encourage" submission of an LOI. In other words,
    NASA will evaluate all proposals received regardless of whether an
    LOI was submitted.

[^2]: The solicitation will specify an appropriate time frame for
    submission of the LOI -- for example, after any planned bidder's
    conference. Thirty (30) days after release of the solicitation is a
    common time frame.