[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30012-30013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11729]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR parts 1815, 1819, and 1852


Elimination of Elements as a Category in Evaluations

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) by 
eliminating the term ``elements'' as a category in evaluations. NASA 
does not numerically weight and score ``elements'' and therefore they 
have ceased to have significance in the evaluation and award of NASA's 
contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Brundage, (202) 358-0481, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44342636312a20252321042c356a2a2537256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52223020273c36333537123a237c3c3321337c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 
16, 1999 (64 FR 70208-70209). No comments were received. This final 
rule adopts the proposed rule without change.

[[Page 30013]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the change modifies administrative procedures and does not 
impose any new requirements on offerors or contractors.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to 
the NFS do not impose record keeping or information collection 
requirements, or collections of information from offerors, contractors, 
or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of 
Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Lists of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1819, and 1852

    Government procurement.

Tom Luedtke,
Associate Administrator for Procurement.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1815, 1819, and 1852 are amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1815, 1819, and 1852 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1815--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION


1815.303  [Amended]

    2. In section 1815.303, paragraph (b)(i)(A) is amended by removing 
the words ``and elements,''.


    3. In section 1815.304-70, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to 
read as follows:


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.
    (2) The Mission Suitability factor may identify evaluation 
subfactors to further define the content of the factor. Each Mission 
Suitability subfactor shall be weighted and scored. The adjectival 
rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) shall be applied to the 
subfactor weight to determine the point score. The number of Mission 
Suitability subfactors is limited to five. The Mission Suitability 
evaluation subfactors and their weights shall be identified in the RFP.
    (3) For cost reimbursement acquisitions, the Mission Suitability 
evaluation shall also include the results of any cost realism analysis. 
The RFP shall notify offerors that the realism of proposed costs may 
significantly affect their Mission Suitability scores.
* * * * *

    4. In section 1815.370, paragraphs (b), (d)(4), and (h)(2) are 
revised; paragraph (h)(3)(ii) is amended by removing ``elements,''; 
paragraph (i)(3) is amended by removing ``and elements,''; and 
paragraphs (i)(6)(ii) and (i)(7) are revised to read as follows:


1815.370  NASA source evaluation boards.

* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) An SEB committee functions as a factfinding 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.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (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 subfactors; 
the significant strengths and significant weaknesses of the offerors; 
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.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and 
significant weaknesses to the evaluation factors and subfactors.
* * * * *
    (7) Final Mission Suitability Ratings and Scores. Summarizes the 
evaluation subfactors, the maximum points achievable, and the scores of 
the offerors in the competitive range.
* * * * *

PART 1819--SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS


1819.7206  [Amended]

    5. In section 1819.7206, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the 
words ``or element''.

PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


1852.217-71  [Amended]

    6. In section 1852.217-71, ``(OCTOBER 1998)'' is revised to read 
``(MAY 2000)'', and paragraph (g) is amended by removing the words 
``and elements''.


1852.217-72  [Amended]

    7. In section 1852.217-72, ``(OCTOBER 1998)'' is revised to read 
``(MAY 2000)'', and paragraph (g) is amended by removing the words 
``and elements''.

[FR Doc. 00-11729 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>