AUDIT REPORT IG-03-006 

Report Recipients: 

M/Associate Administrator 

 for Space Flight 

R/Associate Administrator 

 for Aerospace 

 Technology 

S/Associate Administrator 

 for Space Science 

Y/Associate Administrator 

 for Earth Science 

GSFC/100/Director, 

 Goddard Space Flight 

 Center 

JSC/AA/Director, Lyndon B. 

 Johnson Space Center 

LaRC/106/Acting Director, 

 Langley Research Center 

NASA’S MONITORING OF CONTRACTOR 

COMPLIANCE WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

February 13, 2003 

cc: 

B/Deputy Chief 

 Financial Officer for 

 Financial 

 Management 

B/Deputy Chief 

 Financial Officer for 

 Resources

 (Comptroller) 

BF/Director, Financial 

 Management 

 Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Assistant 

 Administrator for 

 Procurement 

JM/Director,

 Management 

 Assessment Division 

JM/Team Lead (Audit) 

 National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Released by: ____[Original Signed By]_____________

Alan J. Lamoreaux, Assistant Inspector General for Audits
IG-03-006 February 13, 2003 

 A-02-009-00

NASA’s Monitoring of Contractor Compliance with 

New Technology Reporting Requirements 

We performed this audit to follow up on Agency actions in response to a previous review 

and to determine whether NASA effectively monitored contractor reporting of new 

technology developments. NASA is required to review the technical progress of work 

performed under contracts to determine whether contractors are complying with the 

reporting requirements. Monitoring contractors’ reporting of new technology 

developments allows NASA to provide the widest practicable dissemination, early 

utilization, expeditious development, and continued availability of new technologies for 

the general public. Our audit focused on the initial phase of NASA’s technology 

commercialization process, that is, a contractor’s reporting of a new technology 

development. We did not examine the potential transfer of such technologies to foreign 

partners because these transfers would occur in a later phase of NASA’s technology 

commercialization process. Transfers of technology to foreign partners are generally 

subject to export control laws and regulations such as the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations. 

We found that some of the previously reported concerns continued to exist. Specifically, 

NASA did not follow up with contractors that were required to submit reports for 6 (55 

percent) of the 11 active contracts and for 1 of the 4 completed contracts reviewed. As a

result, the Agency could not be assured that new technologies, developed under contracts 

valued at $9.8 billion, were transferred to private industry for commercial use. 

Management Emphasis and Training Needed on New Technology Reporting and 

Follow-up 

The Office of Inspector General previously reported on the lack of management emphasis 

on and training in new technology reporting requirements, and NASA took corrective 

actions. However, these two areas continue to be concerns. 

Lack of Management Emphasis. Management at Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, and Langley Research Center had not clearly 

communicated follow-up responsibilities to new technology representatives and 

contracting officer’s technical representatives (COTRs). For example, the position 

descriptions for new technology representatives did not always include new technology 

reporting-related responsibilities. Consequently, the new technology representatives 

either were unaware of the responsibilities or believed that they had been assigned to, or 

should be performed by, other NASA officials. Additionally, COTRs placed higher 

priority on other delegated responsibilities. 
Lack of Training. New technology representatives and COTRs were not sufficiently 

trained in new technology reporting requirements. Only one of the six new technology 

representatives interviewed had attended the Agency-provided “Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization for Project Personnel” training, and none of the seven COTRs we 

interviewed had attended training. Further, new technology reporting is not included in 

NASA’s COTR training course because NASA has not designated the responsibility as a 

core area of responsibility for COTRs. 

Only one of the new technology representatives had received training on NASA’s 

Technology Tracking System (NTTS). The NTTS is the Agency’s commercial 

technology management system located at each Center and NASA Headquarters. 

Although the NTTS is a major productivity tool for new technology representatives, none 

of them used it to assist in managing and monitoring the reporting process. 

Benefits of Contractor Compliance with Reporting Requirements 

Compliance with interim and final reporting requirements does not provide complete 

assurance that contractors are reporting technologies. However, the reporting 

requirement is an added management control to monitor contractor development of 

Agency-funded technologies and provides greater assurance that contractors are aware of 

their obligation to report and disseminate the benefits of those technologies. 

During fiscal year 2001, NASA had 495 research and development contracts with large 

businesses. The contracts were valued at $84 billion. Some of the products resulting 

from reported technologies were fire retardant materials, air pollution monitors, 

noninvasive cardiac monitors, and sensors for environmental control. The return benefits 

on products similar to these represent a significant dividend to the taxpayer and the 

nation’s investment in aerospace research. Therefore, it is crucial that Agency 

representatives monitor contractor-reporting requirements. 

Recommendations 

We recommended that the Associate Administrators for Aerospace Technology, Space 

Flight, Earth Science, and Space Science emphasize to their applicable Center Directors 

the requirement to monitor and follow up on contractors’ reporting of new technologies. 

We also recommended that the Center Directors at Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, and Langley Research Center: 

• incorporate new technology reporting-related responsibilities into new 

technology representatives’ position descriptions and performance plans; 

• direct COTRs to perform their new technology reporting-related duties; 

• direct new technology representatives and COTRs to coordinate new technology 

activities; and 

• train new technology representatives and COTRs on new technology reporting 

requirements. 

2
Management’s Response and our Evaluation of the Response 

NASA concurred with the report recommendations and has planned or completed 

corrective actions. We considered management’s comments (see Appendix F) to be 

responsive to the recommendations. Details related to disposition and closure of the 

recommendations are in Appendices A and E. 

Appendices 

Among the appendices, note that Appendix B includes a summary of the prior Office of 

Inspector General review on new technology reporting, Appendix C describes the new 

technology reporting and follow-up requirements, and Appendix D lists the NASA 

contracts we reviewed. Appendix G shows the report distribution. 

3
List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Status of Recommendations 

Appendix B – Objective, Background, Scope, Methodology, and Prior 

 Review Summary

Appendix C – New Technology Reporting and Follow-up Requirements 

 

Appendix D – NASA Contracts Reviewed 

Appendix E – Recommendations, Management’s Response, and 

 Evaluation of Management’s Response 

Appendix F – Management’s Comments 

Appendix G – Report Distribution

Acronyms Used in the Report 

COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

GAO General Accounting Office 

NPD NASA Policy Directive 

NPG NASA Procedures and Guidelines 

NTTS NASA Technology Tracking System

OIG Office of Inspector General

4
Appendix A. Status of Recommendations 

Recommendation No. Resolved Unresolved Open/ECD* Closed 

1 X 30 days after 

issuance of 

final report 

2 X 30 days after 

issuance of 

final report 

3 X 30 days after 

issuance of 

final report 

4 X 30 days after 

issuance of 

final report 

5 X 04-30-03

6 X X

7 X X

8 X X

9 X 05-31-03

10 X 05-31-03

11 X 05-31-03

12 X 05-31-03

13 X X

14 X X

15 X X

16 X X

* ECD – Estimated Completion Date 

5
Appendix B. Objective, Background, Scope, Methodology, and Prior 

Review Summary 

Objective

The overall objective was to determine whether contractors and NASA were in 

compliance with the Agency’s new technology reporting and follow-up requirements. 

Background 

Several NASA Headquarters Offices are responsible for new technology reporting: the 

Office of Procurement; the Office of General Counsel; and the Strategic Enterprise 

Offices of Aerospace Technology, Space Flight, Space Science, and Earth Science. The 

Office of Procurement prepares, issues, and maintains the NASA Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement, which contains procurement policies, procedures, and contract 

clauses related to the new technology reporting requirements. The Office of General 

Counsel provides guidance to ensure that NASA applies uniform criteria to the 

contractors’ invention reporting. Associate Administrators for the Enterprise Offices 

ensure that applicable activities under their cognizance are in compliance with NASA 

technology commercialization policy established by the Office of Aerospace Technology. 

The Office of Aerospace Technology also develops and maintains an Agencywide 

commercial technology information system, establishes requirements and curriculum for 

technology commercialization training, and provides necessary commercial technology 

training to NASA employees involved in the technology commercialization processes. 

NASA Center Directors are responsible for implementing an effective technology 

commercialization program at the Centers. Each NASA Center has designated 

individuals as the Center’s new technology representatives. Each Center’s procurement 

office is responsible for incorporating applicable new technology reporting clauses1

 into 

research and development contracts for the performance of experimental, developmental, 

research, design, or engineering work. Center procurement officials also appoint 

qualified Center employees to act as Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives 

(COTRs) and to ensure that the COTRs receive adequate training. 

Scope and Methodology 

We limited our audit scope to NASA contracts with large businesses because the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) had announced plans to review NASA’s compliance with the 

Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act applies to small businesses, universities, and nonprofit organizations. It generally gives those organizations the right to retain title and 

 

1

 Two new technology-related clauses apply to research and development contracts with large businesses: 

NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-70, “New Technology," and NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-72, 

“Designation of New Technology Representative and Patent Representative.” 

6
Appendix B 

profit from their inventions, provided the organizations follow certain requirements, such 

as submitting interim reports. Because of GAO’s planned review, we focused our work 

on contracts with large businesses. 

Using the NASA Technology Tracking System (NTTS), we judgmentally selected a total 

of 11 contracts (see Appendix D) from Goddard Space Flight Center (Goddard), 

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (Johnson), and Langley Research Center (Langley) 

using the following selection criteria: 

• the contract was awarded to a large business, 

• the contract was one of the Center’s 10 largest in terms of estimated dollar value, 

and 

• the contract included the new technology clause. 

We reviewed the procurement and technology and commercialization offices’ files and 

interviewed Center procurement officials, COTRs, and new technology representatives. 

We also interviewed personnel from the NASA Headquarters Offices of Aerospace 

Technology, Procurement, and General Counsel. 

We reviewed the following documentation at Goddard, Johnson, and Langley: 

• New technology interim and final reports. 

• COTR letters of delegation. 

• NASA employee position descriptions for new technology representatives and 

patent representatives. 

• NASA employee performance plans for new technology representatives. 

Use of Computer-Processed Data 

We determined that the computer-processed data in the NTTS was reliable to meet the 

objectives of our audit. Therefore, we relied on that data to judgmentally select 11 

contracts for review. We compared the information in the NTTS to the same information 

in the NASA Financial and Contractual Status system (an online query system of active 

NASA awards) and the Center procurement and technology and commercialization 

offices’ files, where appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance that the NTTS data was 

reliable. 

Management Controls Reviewed 

We reviewed laws, regulations, and Agency policies and procedures related to the 

reporting and follow-up requirements for new technologies that are developed with 

Agency funds. Specifically, we reviewed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 

7
Appendix B 

1958, as amended; the Code of Federal Regulations; the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement; and NASA policy directives, procedures, and 

guidelines. 

We considered the lack of management emphasis and training for monitoring new 

technology reporting to be control weaknesses that needed additional attention. 

Audit Field Work 

We performed audit field work from November 2001 through November 2002 at NASA 

Headquarters, Goddard, Johnson, Langley, and the John F. Kennedy Space Center. We 

performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Prior Review

“Review of NASA New Technology Reporting,” Report Number P&A 96-001, 

September 30, 1996. (See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/pubreports.html for a 

copy of the report.) 

The objectives of the review were to evaluate the required reporting of new technologies 

developed by NASA's large business contractors during contract performance and the 

processes and procedures NASA officials followed in managing such reporting. The 

review showed that the new technology reporting process, as it related to reporting by 

large business contractors, lacked Agencywide direction and management support. 

Principle observations follow: 

• Existing new technology reporting policies and procedures were inadequate, and 

Agencywide operating guidelines were lacking. 

• The NTTS was not widely used by the Centers and was being developed with 

limited input from Center users. 

• Staff resources assigned to new technology reporting were insufficient to carry 

out new technology tracking and reporting functions. 

• Contracting officers, COTRs, and new technology and patent representatives were 

not adequately trained on new technology reporting requirements. 

The report recommended that NASA completely reassess the new technology reporting 

process and develop an implementation strategy for it. At a minimum, the reassessment 

was to define an active role for NASA senior management, include a detailed 

implementation strategy, and provide sufficient staff for new technology reporting 

activities to implement the new strategy. The report also recommended that NASA: 

 

• Include specific actions regarding new technology reporting in the COTRs Letter 

of Delegation. 

8
Appendix B 

• Include elements directly related to new technology reporting in the position 

descriptions and performance appraisals of personnel assigned those 

responsibilities. 

• Provide in-depth training on new technology reporting to all personnel considered 

key players in the new technology process. 

NASA initiated corrective actions in response to the recommendations. 

9
Appendix C. New Technology Reporting and Follow-Up Requirements 

Legislative New Technology Reporting Requirements. In accordance with the 

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, NASA must require 

contractors to furnish “a written report containing full and complete technical information 

concerning any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation” made in performance 

of work for the Agency. The Act is intended to protect the Government's interest. 

Contractors’ prompt reporting also allows the Agency to provide the widest practicable and 

appropriate dissemination, early utilization, expeditious development, and continued 

availability of new technologies for the benefit of the scientific, industrial, and commercial 

communities and the general public. 

Agency New Technology Reporting Requirements. To comply with the intent of the 

Space Act, NASA established NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement 

Part 1827.302, “Patent Rights Under Government Contracts.” The Supplement states that 

NASA contracts and subcontracts with large businesses are subject to the Space Act and 

that NASA must ensure the prompt reporting of new technologies to protect the 

Government's interest and to provide the widest practicable dissemination for the benefit 

of the general public. 

NASA incorporates NASA FAR Supplement 1852.227-70, "New Technology,” into 

contracts that involve experimental, developmental, research, design, or engineering work. 

The clause requires a contractor to submit the following: 

• Interim reports every 12 months (or such longer period as may be specified by the 

contracting officer) from the date of the contract, listing reportable items during 

that period and certifying that all reportable items have been disclosed or that 

there were no reportable items. 

• A final report within 3 months after completion of the contracted work, listing all 

reportable items or certifying that there were no reportable items. The new 

technology clause states that final payment shall not be made before the 

contractor submits an acceptable final report. This statement provides an 

incentive for the contractor to submit a final report. 

• A new technology report for each reportable item within 2 months after the 

inventor discloses it in writing to the contractor personnel responsible for the 

administration of the new technology clause. 

Agency New Technology Follow-up Requirements. NASA FAR Supplement 

1827.305-370(b), “NASA Patent Rights and New Technology Follow-up Procedures,” 

requires that new technology representatives review the technical progress of work 

performed under contracts to determine whether the contractors are complying with the 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the new technology clause.

10
Appendix C 

In 1998, the Office of Aerospace Technology provided guidelines for follow-up 

procedures in the "Technology Commercialization Process Handbook." The handbook 

lists nine follow-up procedures for the new technology representative: 

• Review the technical progress of work performed under the contract to ascertain 

whether the contractor is complying with the clause’s reporting requirements. 

• Receive and review new technology, interim, and final reports from the contractor 

and determine, in consultation with the Contracting Officer’s Technical 

Representative (COTR), whether submitted reports are acceptable. 

• Request that the contractor submit interim and/or final reports if not submitted in 

a timely manner. 

• Forward copies of all new technology reports submitted by the contractor to the 

patent representative. 

• Forward to the patent representative all correspondence relating to inventions and 

to waivers under the new technology clause. (A large business contractor may 

submit a request for a waiver that, if approved by NASA, gives up the rights of 

the United States Government to acquire title in a subject invention.) 

• Enter new technology reporting information into the NASA Technology Tracking 

System (NTTS), an integrated Agencywide server located at Langley. The NTTS 

is used for capturing and managing reports of new technology and for providing 

status metrics. Agency officials commonly refer to the system as the TechTracS. 

• After consulting with the COTR, request that the contractor resubmit interim 

reports deemed to be incomplete. 

• After consulting with the COTR, request that the contractor submit any new 

technology reports identified in interim or final reports that have not yet been 

submitted. 

• Upon receipt of any final report required by the new technology clause and upon 

determination that all work is complete, determine whether the contractor has 

complied with the clause’s reporting requirements. If compliance occurred, the 

new technology representative shall certify to it, obtain the patent representative’s 

concurrence, and forward the certification to the contracting officer. 

The handbook lists two follow-up procedures for the COTR: 

• Monitor the technical progress of work performed under the contract to ascertain 

whether the contractor is complying with the clause’s reporting requirements. 

• Review all interim and final reports to determine whether all expected reportable 

items or subject inventions have been disclosed, and provide input to the new 

technology representative. 

In December 2001, NASA published NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 7500.1, 

"NASA Technology Commercialization Process." The NPG provides guidance for 

implementing NASA’s technology commercialization requirements, including the 

11
Appendix C 

responsibilities of the new technology representative and COTR as listed in the 

"Technology Commercialization Process Handbook." 

12
Appendix D. NASA Contracts Reviewed 

Center Contract

Number

Contractor Submitted

Interim 

Reports 

Submitted 

Final 

Report 

Contract 

Value 

(Millions) 

Goddard NAS5 – 29500 Space Systems Loral, 

 Inc. 

No N/A* $ 1,100 

Goddard NAS5 – 60000 Raytheon Information 

 System Co. 

No N/A* 1,000 

Johnson NAS9 – 18000 Boeing North

 American, Inc. 

No Yes 5,300 

Johnson NAS9 – 98100 Lockheed-Martin Space 

 Operations 

No N/A* 2,100 

Langley NAS1 – 19570 Science Applications 

 International Corp. 

No Yes 142 

Langley NAS1 – 20048 Computer Sciences 

 Corp. 

No Yes 151 

Subtotal $ 9,793

Goddard NAS5 – 98069 Boeing Satellite 

 Systems Inc. 

Yes N/A* 511 

Johnson NAS9 – 17800 Boeing North

 American, Inc. 

Yes No 1,900

Johnson NAS9 – 20000 United Space Alliance Yes N/A* 9,700 

Langley NAS1 – 19039 TRW, Inc. Yes N/A* 122 

Langley NAS1 – 98100 Wyle Laboratories Yes N/A* 57 

Subtotal $12,290

 Total $22,083

* Denotes active contract. Therefore, the final report was not due as of July 31, 2002. 

13
Appendix E. Recommendations, Management’s Response, and 

Evaluation of Management’s Response 

1. The Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology should emphasize to the 

Directors of Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, Langley 

Research Center, and John H. Glenn Research Center the requirement to follow up 

on contractors’ reporting of new technologies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The Associate Administrator for Aerospace 

Technology will emphasize by letter the importance of complying with the required 

reporting of new technologies to all the Research Centers. 

2. The Associate Administrator for Space Flight should emphasize to the Directors 

of Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, John F. Kennedy Space Center, George C.

Marshall Space Flight Center, and John C. Stennis Space Center the requirement to 

follow up on contractors’ reporting of new technologies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The Office of Space Flight will direct the Centers to 

enforce compliance with Federal procurement regulations and NASA policy guidance. 

3. The Associate Administrator for Space Science should emphasize to the NASA 

Management Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the requirement to follow up 

on contractors’ reporting of new technologies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The Associate Administrator for Space Science will 

emphasize the requirement to follow up on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s reporting of 

new technologies in a memorandum to the Director, NASA Management Office. 

4. The Associate Administrator for Earth Science should emphasize to the Director, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, the requirement to follow up on contractors’ 

reporting of new technologies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The Office of Earth Science will emphasize the 

importance of following Recommendations 5 through 8 in a letter to the Director, 

Goddard Space Flight Center. 

Evaluation of Management’s Responses. Management’s planned actions for 

recommendations 1 through 4 are responsive. The recommendations are resolved but 

will remain undispositioned and open until the agreed-to corrective action is completed. 

The Director, Goddard Space Flight Center, should: 

5. Incorporate the new technology reporting-related responsibilities 

specified in NASA FAR Supplement 1827.305-370(b) and NPG 7500.1 into new 

technology representatives’ position descriptions and performance plans. 

14
Appendix E 

Management’s Response. Concur. Goddard’s Technology Commercialization Office 

will incorporate new technology-related responsibilities into new technology 

representatives’ position descriptions and performance plans. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

and open until the agreed-to corrective action is completed. 

6. Direct COTRs to perform new technology reporting-related duties 

delegated to them by contracting officers. The COTR duties should include, but not 

be limited to, ensuring contractor compliance with new technology reporting 

requirements as part of his/her review of the contract performance. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Goddard’s Technology Commercialization Office, 

in coordination with the Procurement Office, prepared a pamphlet on new technology 

reporting requirements and e-mailed the pamphlet to all Goddard COTRs. The e-mail 

included a reminder that, as part of their contract surveillance, COTRs are responsible for 

ensuring that contractors comply with new technology reporting requirements. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s completed action is responsive 

to the recommendation. Based on our review of the pamphlet and reminder, the 

recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting purposes. 

7. Direct COTRs and the new technology representatives to coordinate 

activities to ensure that contractors are submitting interim reports. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Goddard’s Technology Commercialization Office 

developed a training briefing package for new technology representatives and COTRs. 

The training briefing package addresses coordination between COTRs and new 

technology representatives. The Center provided the training to its new technology 

representatives in September 2002. The Center incorporated the training material into the 

COTR training program and began training COTRs with the new training program in 

December 2002. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s completed action is responsive 

to the recommendation. Based on our review of the training package, the 

recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting purposes. 

8. Train the new technology representatives and COTRs on new technology 

reporting requirements. New technology representative training should include 

reporting requirements and the use of NTTS features to the maximum extent. 

COTR training should include COTR responsibilities as stipulated in the 

"Technology Commercialization Process Handbook" and NPG 7500.1, delegated

responsibilities related to new technology reporting requirements, definitions of 

15
Appendix E 

reportable items, and instructions to contact new technology representatives with 

questions on whether a technology is a reportable item. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Goddard’s Technology Commercialization Office 

has a training package for new technology representatives and for inclusion into the 

Center’s COTR training program. The Center provided the training to its new technology 

representatives in September 2002 and to COTRs in December 2002. The Center 

provided training on NTTS features to new technology representatives in April 2002. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s completed actions are 

responsive to the recommendation. We reviewed the training package and found that it 

included reporting requirements, COTR new technology-related responsibilities, 

definitions of reportable items, and instructions for COTRs to contact new technology 

representatives with questions on whether a technology is a reportable item. We also 

reviewed evidence of the NTTS training provided to the new technology representatives. 

Based on those reviews, the recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for 

reporting purposes. 

The Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center should: 

9. Incorporate the new technology reporting-related responsibilities 

specified in NASA FAR Supplement 1827.305-370(b) and NPG 7500.1 into new 

technology representatives’ position descriptions and performance plans. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Johnson’s Office of Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization will update the position descriptions and the performance plans of the 

new technology representatives. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

and open until the agreed-to corrective action is completed. 

10. Direct COTRs to perform new technology reporting-related duties 

delegated to them by contracting officers. The COTR duties should include, but not 

be limited to, ensuring contractor compliance with new technology reporting 

requirements as part of his/her review of the contract performance. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Johnson’s Office of Procurement will, with 

assistance from the Office of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, communicate 

new technology reporting duties and responsibilities to existing and future COTRs. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive 

to the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

16
Appendix E 

and open until management provides to us evidence that the Center has communicated 

the duties and responsibilities to existing COTRs. 

11. Direct COTRs and new technology representatives to coordinate 

activities to ensure that contractors are submitting interim reports. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Johnson’s Office of Technology, with the 

assistance of the Office of Procurement, will implement a plan to verify contractor’s 

interim reports. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain undispositioned 

and open until the agreed-to corrective action is completed. 

12. Train the new technology representatives and COTRs on new technology 

reporting requirements. New technology representative training should include 

reporting requirements and the use of NTTS features to the maximum extent. 

COTR training should include COTR responsibilities as stipulated in the 

"Technology Commercialization Process Handbook" and NPG 7500.1, delegated

responsibilities related to new technology reporting requirements, definitions of 

reportable items, and instructions to contact new technology representatives with 

questions on whether a technology is a reportable item. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Johnson has incorporated new technology reporting 

requirements into COTR training and will incorporate the requirements into training 

plans for new technology representatives. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s actual and planned actions are 

responsive to the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved but will remain 

undispositioned and open until management provides us evidence that the Center has 

incorporated new technology reporting requirements into COTR training and the training 

plans for new technology representatives. 

The Director, Langley Research Center, should: 

13. Incorporate the new technology reporting-related responsibilities 

specified in NASA FAR Supplement 1827.305-370(b) and NPG 7500.1 into the new 

technology representative’s position description. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Langley’s Technology Commercialization Program

Office incorporated the responsibilities into the new technology representative’s position 

description on September 20, 2002. 

17
Appendix E 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s completed action is responsive 

to the recommendation. Based on our review of the position description, the 

recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting purposes. 

14. Direct COTRs to perform new technology reporting-related duties 

delegated to them by contracting officers. The COTR duties should include, but not 

be limited to, ensuring contractor compliance with new technology reporting 

requirements as part of his/her review of the contract performance. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Langley’s Technology Commercialization Program

Office incorporated additions to the material it uses to train COTRs on new technology 

reporting. The material includes COTR’s new technology reporting-related 

responsibilities and stresses the importance of ensuring proper reporting. Training of 

COTRs with the additional material began in November 2002. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s completed action is responsive 

to the recommendation. Based on our review of the additions to the COTR training 

material, the recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting 

purposes. 

15. Direct COTRs and the new technology representative to coordinate 

activities to ensure that contractors are submitting interim reports. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Langley’s Technology Commercialization Program

Office, representing the new technology representative, and Office of Procurement, 

representing the COTRs, have agreed to coordinate activities to ensure contractors submit 

interim reports. Based on the agreement, the Office of Procurement will send an initial 

letter reminding the contractors of their responsibility to provide the required reports, 

establish a deadline submission date in each year, and inform contractors that failure to 

submit the required reports may affect their annual performance evaluation rating. The 

Office of Procurement will also remind each contractor annually of the requirement to 

submit interim reports and will add language to new contract awards that specifically 

identifies required reports. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s actions are responsive to the 

recommendation. Based on our review of the initial letter and language for new contract 

awards the recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting purposes. 

16. Train the new technology representatives and COTRs on new technology 

reporting requirements. New technology representative training should include 

reporting requirements and the use of NTTS features to the maximum extent. 

COTR training should include COTR responsibilities as stipulated in the 

"Technology Commercialization Process Handbook" and NPG 7500.1, delegated

responsibilities related to new technology reporting requirements, definitions of 

18
Appendix E 

reportable items, and instructions to contact new technology representatives with 

questions on whether a technology is a reportable item. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Langley has trained its new technology 

representative on new technology reporting requirements and the use of NTTS features 

through actions taken under Recommendations 13 and 15. As noted in the response to 

Recommendation 14, Langley will include additional information and emphasis on new 

technology reporting requirements in future COTR training. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s actions are responsive to the 

recommendation, and the recommendation is resolved. We consider the recommendation 

resolved, dispositioned, and closed for reporting purposes based on (1) our review of the 

new technology representative’s modified position description, (2) the new technology 

representative’s understanding of new technology reporting requirements and NTTS 

features as demonstrated to us through subsequent discussions, and (3) our review of the 

additional information for the COTR training. 

 

Office of General Counsel Recommendation 

A NASA Office of General Counsel official suggested an additional action, discussed 

below, that may improve contractor compliance with the reporting requirements. 

At present, contracting officers normally incorporate the NASA FAR Supplement “New 

Technology” clause, along with other clauses, into research and development contracts 

by reference only. Some NASA officials believe that contractors are more likely to 

comply with the reporting requirements if the full text of the new technology clause is 

included in the contracts. Therefore, the official suggested that the full text of the clause 

be included in all research and development contracts. We agree that the suggested 

action may improve contractors’ compliance with the reporting requirements and believe 

that management should take it under consideration. 

The Office of Inspector General made a similar recommendation in its “Review of NASA 

New Technology Reporting,” Report Number P&A 96-001, September 30, 1996 (see 

Appendix B for a summary). However, NASA disagreed with the recommendation at 

that time, responding that the text of the new technology clause was available to 

contractors and that including the full text in contracts would waste paper and effort. 

19
Appendix F. Management’s Comments 

20
Appendix F

21
Appendix F

22
Appendix F

23
Appendix F

24
Appendix F

25
Appendix G. Report Distribution 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters 

A/Administrator 

AA/Chief of Staff 

ADI/Associate Administrator for Institutions and Asset Management 

ADT/Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Financial Management 

B/Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Resources (Comptroller) 

BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

HK/Director, Contract Management Division 

HS/Director, Program Operations Division 

J/Assistant Administrator for Management Systems 

L/Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs 

M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight 

R/Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology 

S/Associate Administrator for Space Science 

Y/Associate Administrator for Earth Science 

NASA Centers 

ARC/D/Director, Ames Research Center 

DFRC/X/Director, Dryden Flight Research Center 

GRC/0100/Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

GSFC/100/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

JPL/1000/Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSC/AA/Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

LaRC/106/Acting Director, Langley Research Center 

KSC/AA/Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

KSC/CC/Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

MSFC/DA01/Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 

SSC/AA00/Director, John C. Stennis Space Center 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and 

 Budget 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office 

 of Management and Budget 

26
Appendix G 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals (Cont.)

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

 Space 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and 

Subcommittees 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

House Committee on Government Reform

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and 

 Intergovernmental Relations 

House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy 

House Committee on Science 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives 

27
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Reader Survey 

The NASA Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the 

usefulness of our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ 

interests, consistent with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing 

our reader survey? For your convenience, the questionnaire can be completed 

electronically through our homepage at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html

or can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector General for Audits; NASA Headquarters, 

Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

Report Title: NASA’s Monitoring Contractor Compliance With New Technology 

Reporting Requirements 

Report Number: Report Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree N/A 

1. The report was clear, readable, and logically 

organized. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

2. The report was concise and to the point. 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

3. We effectively communicated the audit 

objectives, scope, and methodology.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

4. The report contained sufficient information to

support the finding(s) in a balanced and 

objective manner. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

Overall, how would you rate the report? 

# Excellent # Fair

# Very Good # Poor

# Good

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above 

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 

 
How did you use the report?

How could we improve our report?

How would you identify yourself? (Select one) 

# Congressional Staff # Media 

# NASA Employee # Public Interest 

# Private Citizen # Other:

# Government: Federal: State: Local:

May we contact you about your comments? 

Yes: ______ No: ______ 

Name: ____________________________

Telephone: ________________________ 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. 
Additional Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for 

Audits at (202) 358-1232. 

Suggestions for Future Audits 

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General 

for Audits. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Code W 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

NASA Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline at 

(800) 424-9183, (800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; 

or write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, 

Washington, DC 20026. The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, 

upon request, to the extent permitted by law. 

Major Contributors to the Report 

Sandra Massey, Program Director, Safety and Technology Audits 

Carol St. Armand, Program Manager, Financial Audits, Management and Oversight 

Douglas Orton, Auditor-in-Charge 

Eugene Bauer, Auditor