The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted the procurement management survey at the Glenn Research Center (Glenn) under the authority of NASA Procedures and Guidelines 1000.3, The NASA Organization. The survey was conducted from April 23 through May 4, 2007. The report contains the survey strengths, weaknesses, and considerations.
An exit briefing was held on May 4, 2007 to discuss the survey findings.
This report serves as a basis, in part, for fulfilling internal control requirements in accordance with the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-255).
Yolande B. Harden/Ronald Backes
Survey Program Managers
Office of Procurement
Analysis Division
SECTION II ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT
SECTION III PRE - AWARD PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION
SECTION IV POST - AWARD PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION
SECTION V PRICING/FINANCIAL/AUDITS
SECTION VI GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES
SECTION VII SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
The Glenn Procurement Division is providing meaningful support to their technical and program customers. A randomly selected group of representatives from the technical community were interviewed by the Procurement Management Survey Team to ascertain issues or concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Glenn Procurement Division. Based on the results of these interviews, a significant degree of customer satisfaction is apparent. Additionally, interviews were conducted with various members of the Glenn Procurement Division to determine the internal perception of the effectiveness of the organization. Individuals interviewed represented all grade levels and a wide range of tenure. The general perception from members of the procurement division was mixed. The impression from the Office of Chief Counsel was that the procurement division was doing a good job.
The Procurement Management Survey consists of two primary components: 1) interviews with technical, procurement and legal personnel regarding the effectiveness of the procurement division and 2) compliance reviews that consist of a review of contracting actions focused on adherence to procurement statutes, regulations and procedures. The primary emphasis of the compliance portion of the Survey is on systemic procurement processes rather than individual file anomalies. Current procurement innovations, both Agency-wide and Center specific are also reviewed.
The results of both the interviews and compliance reviews are compiled into narrative summaries with strengths, weaknesses and areas of consideration identified as appropriate. Strengths are generally defined as best practices utilized in support of the procurement system. Weaknesses are defined as problems, typically systemic, that require actions to improve processes and/or procedures. Considerations are defined as issues that; 1) if not addressed could turn into a problem or problems that are not necessarily systemic but should be addressed or 2) would result in better business practices if addressed.
To promote the exchange of successful lessons learned and innovative procurement methodologies between Centers, the team sought to identify Glenn processes or initiatives that may be beneficial to other Centers and conversely sought to identify suggested approaches utilized by other Centers that may be beneficial to Glenn.
The exit conference at the conclusion of the survey typically consists of a direct exchange of observations and ideas between the participants. To emphasize Center ownership of the resolution of any identified weaknesses or considerations, the survey follow-up process focuses on actions or initiatives undertaken by the Center to address survey findings. At an appropriate interval (approximately six months after this report is issued) the Glenn Procurement Officer will brief the Acting Assistant Administrator for Procurement and the survey team leader on Center achievements in these areas.
Below is a list of team members and the areas they reviewed:
YOLANDE HARDEN |
Survey Team Manager, Interviews (Legal, 1102, & COTR), and Metrics |
RON BACKES |
Self-Assessment Program, NF-634 Use of Structure Fee Approach, Multiple Award Contracts, Award/Incentive Fee Contracts and CMM Issues |
EUGENE JOHNSON (HQ) |
Inter-Agency Agreements, HSPD-12 Compliance, Deviations and Waivers and Master Buy Plan Actions |
ANN SHARPE |
Purchase Card Program, Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOCs), UCAs and Subcontract Consent |
LEIGH POMPONIO |
Commercial Acquisitions, Simplified Acquisitions, Environmental Issues, Technical Evaluations, Administrative and Clerical Contracts and Contract Safety Requirements |
BILL AUTRY |
Exercise of Options, Award/Incentive Fee Contracts,1102 Career Development and Training, Synopsis of Contract Award and COTR Delegations and Surveillance |
DEAN YOSHIOKA |
Cost/Price Analysis, Grants and Cooperative Agreements, COTR Training, Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations |
REGINA CLIFTON |
Financial Management Reporting, Audit Follow-Up, Acquisitions in Process, Market Research and Government Furnished Property |
DAVE JONES |
Adequacy of documentation resulting from Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), SBIR/STTR Program and Construction and A&E contracts |
RHONDA BAKER |
Internal Policies and Procedures, Pre/Post Negotiation Memorandums and Contractor Performance Evaluations NF-1680 |
SHIRLEY PEREZ |
Small Business Programs |
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of the following individuals:
| ROBIN STROHACKER |
Glenn Point of Contact |
| TIARA VARNER | Glenn Administrative Support |
| FRANCINE MCWHORTER | Glenn Administrative Support |
1. Organization Structure and Staffing:
The Glenn Procurement Division was recently reorganized into three operational branches to more closely align with the proposed Center reorganization effort. The Procurement Officer and Branch Chiefs expressed concern regarding their ability to effectively support Center organizations since the reorganization at the Center level is still underway. It appears that the Center reorganization effort has been on-going for approximately nine months.
The Glenn Procurement Division consists of a division office and the following three operational branches: Exploration Systems, Research and Space Operations and Institutional Services. The division office includes overall division management, small business and industry assistance, procurement policy, employee training and development, budgets, personnel administration, purchase card program, contract closeout administration, programs and systems.
A significant portion of the responsibilities for the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, grants and cooperative agreements previously administered by the Glenn Procurement Division is now administered by the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC). Glenn is still responsible for the administration of existing SBIRs, grants and cooperative agreements however new awards in these areas are the responsibility of the NSSC. Glenn will retain responsibility for the Ohio Aerospace Institute and the National Center for Microgravity Research, both cooperative agreements. Glenn procurement personnel provided significant support to the NSSC transition efforts.
The Glenn Procurement Division has a total complement of 60 individuals. The management team is comprised of the Procurement Officer, Deputy Procurement Officer and three Branch Chiefs. One of the branch chiefs was on a temporary duty assignment away from the Center at the time of the survey. The overall procurement division consists of contract specialists, procurement analysts, purchasing agents, a price analyst, an information technology specialist and a systems analyst. There are a significant number of GS 1105 purchasing agents within the division, substantially more than most other procurement organizations across the agency. The Glenn management team determined that the high volume of workload within the simplified acquisition threshold at the Center justifies the need for the number of individuals within this classification category and that the grade structure supports the complexity of the work. As the purchasing agents retire or leave the positions, it is anticipated that the work will transition to the support contractor.
The Glenn Procurement Division management expressed concern regarding the division’s ability to attract and retain employees. Two key factors contribute to this concern. Historically, the Glenn Procurement Division has experienced problems with a grade structure that is lower than other Centers with similar size and workload. As a result, promotion potential is limited. It is noted that the price analyst received a promotion during the course of the survey. The other factor is associated with the age of the workforce. The average age of personnel within the procurement division is approximately 50. There are currently 14 individuals who are currently retirement eligible, several within that group plan to retire by the end of the calendar year. Conversely, new hires are limited to one cooperative education student who converted to a permanent position in April 2007.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its contributions to the NSSC transition efforts.
CONSIDERATION:
Due to the current grade structure within the Glenn Procurement Division, promotion opportunities are limited. The Glenn Procurement Division should establish rotational, cross training or other developmental opportunities for the procurement staff to mitigate potential stagnation within the division until more promotion opportunities become available.
2. Procurement Staff Interviews:
Interviews were conducted with several members of the Glenn procurement workforce to gain a greater insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization. Interviews were conducted with a wide range of individuals varying from the most junior levels to senior personnel with more than 30 years procurement experience. Most of the people interviewed fall within the over 25 years of service at the Center category.
There are high levels of stress and frustration throughout the procurement division. Contributing factors include difficulties adjusting to the Contract Management Module (CMM); on-going Center and division re-organizations and loss of funding for major programs at the Center and mission directorate levels. There appeared to be higher levels of frustration among individuals with longer tenure however the reasons varied from person to person. Many pointed out that there is a noticeable increase in health problems among the division workforce in recent months. One individual was required to take extended sick leave due the stress related issues on the job. It is interesting to note that many people acknowledge that aside from the concerns related to the implementation of CMM, things are going fairly well within the division.
Many indicated that morale is low across the division. However, there is a sense that morale is higher within the branches where people are more engaged and programs are viable and not experiencing significant funding cuts.
Generally, the workload levels are manageable. There are peaks and valleys across the division. The highest levels of workload appear to be within the Institutional Services Branch among contract specialists, contracting officers and purchasing agents. The perception within this branch is that people are reaching the point of overload. It is also noted that the branch chief is away on a temporary duty assignment and the acting branch chief functions are rotated among the senior contracting officers.
The general consensus of individuals interviewed is that there is a good line of communication between management and the workforce. This is evident both at the branch and division levels. The branch managers conduct regular staff meetings and minutes from division level meetings are made available electronically to all members of the division.
Management is perceived as accessible and responsive to the needs of the individuals. All agreed that managers are very supportive of flexible work schedules regarding telecommuting, family friendly leave, overtime, compensatory time, etc. In fact, several individuals indicated that managers may be too flexible with regard to the telecommuting policies. (It is noted that none of the individuals who voiced this concern participate in the telecommuting program.) The managers interviewed were comfortable with their telecommuting policies and confident that the individuals involved were utilizing it properly.
Employees indicated that branch managers provide the appropriate levels of feedback both on a formal and informal basis. Individual Development Plans are established on a regular basis however the degree of utilization varies. The vast majority of individuals agreed that sufficient training opportunities are available and that managers encourage employees to attend necessary training. Some individuals indicated that although encouraged, workload pressures prevent them from taking advantage of the opportunities. A few people indicated that they were unable to attend the required courses due to an inability to travel outside of the Cleveland area. Many stated that there are no longer Center funds available to support academic courses.
Everyone interviewed indicated that relationships with customer organizations were good. The program and project offices included procurement in the information flow. In many instances, procurement division team members attended regular meetings with their program/project counterparts. Relationships with the legal office are viewed as positive. The primary legal counsel for reviewing procurement documents is perceived as supportive and good to work with. Only one individual stated that the relationship was strained due to an incident in the past, but that the situation was resolved and an alternative process for initiating document reviews by the legal office was implemented.
There was unanimous consent that the implementation of CMM has impacted productivity within the division. Most indicated that it takes significantly longer to complete functions than in the past. Those individuals who utilize the system on a regular basis acknowledge that the system becomes easier to utilize with frequency. The overall perception is that the CMM learning curve is much higher than SAP. Many acknowledged the efforts of Kurt Straub and Lori Conroy during the development, testing and implementation stages. These individuals were commended by their peers for taking the brunt of the negative comments about the system ‘in stride’ and providing invaluable support to the division addressing daily utilization problems. The individual CMM training sessions conducted at designated times in the computer training room is viewed as beneficial to the workforce.
Another common comment was that people are forced to focus more on working the systems and devote less attention to true procurement activity. Some individuals expressed concern that senior managers were out of touch with the issues and concerns of the workforce and that there isn’t a full appreciation of what people are experiencing.
An overall undertone became evident over the course of the interviews with the non-supervisory workforce regarding people’s perceptions and a possible division within the workforce. Although no single individual made any overt statement regarding such a division, many references were made to ‘front hall’ versus ‘back hall’ activities. It appears that individuals with offices on the ‘front hall’ (the hallway shared by the Procurement Officer and Deputy) generally have what are perceived as the better or more challenging workload assignments as well as more opportunities to advance or take advantage of choice assignments. Those with offices on the ‘back hall’ are generally perceived as non-producers, have less workload due to programmatic funding cuts or have stagnant careers.
Additionally, concern was expressed regarding a general lack of respect for management. There is a perception that some individuals within the division refuse to accept workload assignments and other direction from either branch or division level managers. This causes those within the division who follow directions to become overburdened at times. Further, it is the perception of some that there are no repercussions for refusing to accept work assignments, etc.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should take steps to ensure that equitable opportunities (training and complex workload) are provided to personnel throughout the division. The implementation of cross training and/or rotations among the various branches may prove beneficial. The perceived inequities on the part of procurement personnel could potentially cause dissention within the ranks.
3. Technical Customer Interviews:
Representatives from a variety of technical organizations were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of the procurement division and their level of satisfaction. Individuals interviewed represented various programs and projects at Glenn. Similar to individuals within the procurement division, the vast number of technical representatives interviewed had over 20 year’s service at Glenn. No one interviewed had less than 17 years tenure with the Center. The trend of the aging workforce appears to be pervasive throughout the Center.
The technical community representatives all expressed that working relationships with the procurement division are good to excellent. The level of interaction with the procurement personnel varied depending on the size, complexity, number of contracts and years of Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) responsibility. Many indicated that procurement division personnel provided timely advice and assistance with COTR roles and responsibilities within the procurement process. The perception of the technical customers interviewed is that overall the procurement division is doing an effective job.
Some concerns were expressed regarding particular circumstances. One COTR on a large task order contract experienced significant difficulty and delays with the award of a task order under the contract for use of a wind tunnel located outside of the United States. The purchase request was issued in July 2006 and the order was not placed until March 2007. It was acknowledged that several factors contributed to the delays, including the end of the fiscal year shut down of SAP systems and the subsequent problems associated with the launch of the CMM. However, concern was expressed that many of the delays and road blocks were attributed to a lack of experience and knowledge by the procurement personnel in handling foreign procurements. It was recommended that training and guidance be made available to procurement personnel on procedures for handling unique situations.
One of the COTRs mentioned that excellent support is provided on his large task order contract. However, he expressed concern regarding the lack of support and responsiveness in the area of purchase order processing. Several examples were provided of lengthy experiences in the processing of orders, individuals not returning telephone calls, etc. One example cited involved an order that took almost 5 months to place. Again issues regarding CMM implementation were a contributing but not the only factor. According to the feedback, the problem appears to be an on-going concern in this area for several years. The COTR indicated that the concerns would be shared with the Glenn Procurement Officer.
All COTRs indicated that the basic or refresher training was completed within the last two years. Regular notifications are received when new training is required. Most felt that the length and quality of the training was sufficient. Some expressed a desire to have emphasis placed on specific areas such as SBIRs. Another recommendation was to have contracting officers and COTRs attend a combined training to help strengthen relationships. All mentioned a reliance on the contracting officers for additional guidance and instructions.
Overall, support was viewed as positive. Two separate COTRs specifically highlighted the efforts of the individuals within the services branch for their excellent support on various contracts: Ron Sepesi and Tim Pierce. The level of stress and frustration of the procurement division personnel appeared to be relatively transparent to the technical community.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for establishing good working relationships with its technical customers and providing timely advice regarding procurement processes.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that training and guidance is available to procurement personnel in areas that are not covered on a routine basis (i.e., foreign procurements).
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that the correct amount of attention is devoted to customer service and responsiveness in the processing of purchase orders and that alternates are identified to handle orders if the individuals assigned are away from the office.
An interview was conducted with the representative from the Glenn Office of General Counsel primarily responsible for conducting reviews of procurement documents. The recurring theme of long tenure with the Center is also present within the Office of Chief Counsel. The attorney interviewed has over 20 years experience at the Center.
The relationship between the legal office and the procurement division is viewed as one of mutual respect. Many of the individuals involved have worked together for several years. The quality of the documents reviewed is generally perceived as good. There is always room for improvement in certain areas however counsel does not recall reviewing any documents with blatant errors.
He remarked that the new employees within the procurement division show promise in their work and output. From his perspective, the Glenn Procurement Division is providing excellent training through the Center cooperative education programs and the NASA Contracting Intern Program (NCIP). He notices an excellent group of individuals that began their careers in those programs. He specifically mentioned Lori Conroy by name, as a young contracting officer/contract specialist with excellent potential in the organization. (Ms. Conroy is a product of the NCIP.)
The Procurement Officer and his team are well respected. As legal counsel, he attempts to provide feedback to the best extent possible. He feels that the current Center review threshold of $1M is adequate. This threshold has been in place for about ten years. He noted that the Headquarters Office of General Counsel is contemplating the establishment of standardized review thresholds across the agency. This action may lower the Glenn review threshold. His reviews focus on engaging the procurement personnel in good discussions regarding the decisions made, rationale utilized, etc. on various actions rather than encouraging them to blindly rely on the advice of legal counsel.
5. Procurement Career Development and Training:
A Glenn Public Affairs Specialist serves as the Center Procurement Training Coordinator (CPTC) and continues to provide support to the Career Development and Training Program for Glenn’s procurement workforce. An examination of the training files, training databases, attendance sheets, as well as interviews with procurement personnel was conducted. The CPTC and the Deputy Procurement Officer were included in this review.
The CPTC maintains multiple databases which track the records of individual procurement personnel regarding grade levels, mandatory contracting courses completed, certification levels and warrant status for all of the GS-1102 personnel at Glenn. These databases indicate that all employees are receiving the appropriate amount of formal training and that the employees are achieving the appropriate certification levels for their grade and length of service at the Center. In addition, all of the records are reviewed to assure that the warrant levels are commensurate with the certifications. The current certifications are consistent with the revised policy. The procurement workforce completes Individual Development Plans, which are reviewed by management on an annual basis.
Interviews with procurement personnel and a review of the educational records indicate that there is some lack of interest in completing the mandatory contracting courses. Interviews with employees further suggests that on-the-job training is often self taught, a more structured environment (one-on-one) would be beneficial.
Glenn utilizes a number of activities to ensure that the employees in the procurement division meet the minimum 80 hours of continuing learning points every two years. Some of the training opportunities include classes and seminars sponsored by relevant professional organizations, procurement related training sponsored by the Center utilizing outside training professionals, and internal workshops utilized to address areas of interest or concern within the procurement division.
STRENGTHS:
1. The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for establishing and maintaining a detailed tracking database to manage required and completed training, certifications and warrants.
2. The Glenn Procurement Division is commended on the implementation of initiatives to continually train the organization, particularly the rotating sponsorship of workshops on topical subjects between branches.
3. The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for providing multiple acquisition web pages to orient new and existing employees to the vision, structure, contacts information, as well as providing a search engine on how to do specific procurement related activities. Among the topics covered are:
- Basic orientation to the procurement organization
- Small Purchases/GSA Schedule/Bankcard Training
- Overview of the FAR/NFS and GRC work instructions
- Computer Training (NAIS, EPS, PPDB, IDGS, CMM)
- Commercial Item Acquisition
- Small Business Program
- SBIR Program & Electronic Handbook
- Protests
- Cost, Pricing, and Technical Evaluations
- Work Instructions
- Topical Presentations
- Certification Requirements
- Work Policies
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Glenn Procurement Officer should encourage all procurement personnel to attend the required training at every opportunity. It is strongly recommended that senior procurement personnel (GS-13 and above) attend CON 353, “Advanced Business Solutions for Mission Support”, to maintain proficiency and certification at the appropriate levels.
2. The Glenn Procurement Officer should consider implementing a formal mentoring and coaching program aimed at new and mid-level employees.
3. The Glenn Procurement Officer should consider delegating responsibility for maintenance of the acquisition training records to someone within the procurement division. Review of some databases indicated that not all information was current, nor was a process in place to ensure the information was kept accurate. (Although the current CPTC has offices located within the procurement division that individual is no longer a member of the procurement organization.)
6. Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) Training:
The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) requires all COTRs and alternate COTRs to attend mandatory training prior to appointment. Further, continuously active COTRs must attend a refresher training every five years. Glenn provides two comprehensive training courses and two refresher training courses each year. In addition to the topics required by the FAR and NFS, the basic training includes a discussion on property and logistics requirements.
The Center Procurement Training Coordinator is responsible for maintaining records on COTR training at Glenn. A detailed database tracking all individuals trained for COTR responsibilities, the date of last training, refresher training, and future training opportunities is maintained. The database also includes information regarding inactive, active and reactivated COTRs. Completed comprehensive and refresher COTR training information is also accessible through the System for Administration, Training and Educational Resources for NASA (SATERN). Of the files reviewed, approximately ten percent of COTRs with delegations in the contract files were not included on the list of active COTRs.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for maintaining detailed records of COTR training and COTR refresher training.
CONSIDERATIONS:
7. Internal Policies and Procedures:
In this survey area, contract files were reviewed to assess the creation and implementation of Glenn Work Instructions (GLWI) for Procurement, compliance with GLWIs for procurement practices, higher level reviews, documentation for negotiation memoranda, and changes, improvements or corrective actions to previous survey findings. Currently, the procurement division’s Documentation Administrator (DA) is responsible for updating all procurement GLWIs, and notifying the staff of the change(s) via e-mail.
The Glenn Procurement Division simplified their work instructions by eliminating the majority of the Center Unique Clauses as of November 8, 2006. The remaining unique clauses are linked to CMM/PRISM. Center Level Procedures were cancelled, and if applicable, reassigned as GLWIs. The elimination of Center Procedures also reduced the redundancy found during the previous survey.
The GLWI for negotiation memorandum requirements provides detailed guidance (including a flow diagram) for documentation preparation at various approval levels as well as a Pre-Negotiation Issue Checklist. Efforts are made to encourage the contract specialists/contracting officers to follow the procedures identified in the guidance. The DA plans to update and re-issue the flow diagram to the procurement staff in the near future.
There are several cancelled Center Procedures identified during the review that were not updated and converted into GLWIs. The DA was aware of the issue and indicated that change requests were submitted to the Center level DA for approval. Approval to update and convert the nine (9) remaining Center Procedures to GLWIs and post them to the Business Management System (BMS) Library was received on April 30, 2007. The division DA plans to convert and post the new procedures to the BMS beginning the week of May 7, 2007.
The remaining Center Procedures are linked to CMM/ PRISM. As a result, there is no longer a need to access these procedures through the Interim Document Generation System (IDGS). Maintenance of the link to IDGS appears to be a redundant activity. This redundancy was also cited during the previous survey. Although a handy tool, it is noted that Speedy Document Generation System (SDGS) has not been updated recently, and may not be cost effective to maintain. The division DA stated that GLWIs were not created for CMM or FPDS and there are no current plans to do so.
Glenn continues to be successful in maintaining its ISO 9001 Certification. The division DA recently participated in an ISO audit for the procurement portions of AS 9100, Aerospace Management System, April 24 and 27, 2007. The final ISO audit report is in progress.
The GLWI for Document Review and Distribution was last updated in September 2006, review requirements are taken directly from the FAR and NFS for various actions (JOFOCs, D&Fs, etc.). Contracting officers and contract specialists are encouraged to use the appropriate internal review form for higher level reviews, concurrences, and approvals of all procurement actions.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for eliminating the redundancy of Center Procedures, and creating applicable GLWI for procurement actions.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Glenn Procurement Division’s self-assessment process is effective at tracking weaknesses, and identifying and implementing corrective measures. Glenn performs self-assessments twice within a twelve-month period. The assessments contain a good description of historic and current deficiencies. The follow-up action taken is specific, and in the vast majority of cases effective at overcoming identified deficiencies. The Procurement Officer's reminder memorandum appears to be a good mechanism for communicating management concerns, focus and initiatives to the workforce.
The Procurement Policy Analyst is responsible for coordinating the reviews, establishing the areas of emphasis, retaining a central file of back-up documentation, and maintaining a database of problem areas discovered during the reviews. The areas emphasized during the self-assessment reviews are chosen from the collected data as well as issues that surface during the procurement management surveys.
Award fee metrics and JOFOC files were referenced but not submitted electronically to the Headquarters (HQ) Office of Procurement along with the results of the self assessments. Glenn initiated corrective actions are effectively tracked to completion, however, there is no indication that recommendations for HQ actions were adopted or implemented, such as the recommendation to “Update the Determination and Findings Template on Virtual Procurement Office (VPO).”
In two areas entitled "Order Content Deficiencies" and "Lack of Proper Documentation," the self-assessments consistently report approximately 50% deficiency rate. This weakness was identified during the previous survey. The self-assessment identified the issue, implemented corrective measures, and accurately reported an inability to overcome the weakness through the corrective action procedures. While the inability to overcome the weakness is not positive, the candor of the report and the consistent effort at monitoring and improving the procurement process is positive.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for the scope and breadth of its self-assessments, for completing them in a timely manner, and for effective follow-through. The Glenn self-assessment process is an agency model.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Agency’s Master Buy Plan requirements are stated in NFS 1807.71. In accordance with NFS 1807.7100, “The Master Buy Plan provides information on planned acquisitions to enable management to focus its attention on a representative selection of high-dollar-value and otherwise sensitive acquisitions”. In recent months, NASA senior management’s focus information contained in the Master Buy Plan (MBP) Database has expanded tremendously.
The Office of the Administrator now requires the HQ Office of Procurement to provide an annual MBP report of all MBP records submitted by the Centers. Glenn (as well as other Centers) is advised to be more diligent regarding the quality level and detail of data entered into the MBP database as a result of this expanded focus. The HQ Office of Procurement (Program Operations Division) noted that in most cases, the data fields that often lack sufficient detail are; (1) Description and (2) Status Schedule.
Descriptions
In many cases the MBP description field reflects a one-line description of the planned acquisition, this basically provides no more information about the acquisition than the title. The MBP description should be sufficiently detailed to provide NASA senior management with a clear understanding of the acquisition requirements (e.g., the level of detail that would normally be provided in the description section of an Administrator’s Notice of Significant Contract Action (ANOSCA)).
Status Schedule
Planned dates for critical milestones such as JOFOC approval (if applicable), RFP release, source selection, and contract award must be supplied within the Status Schedule Field.
It is also worthy to note that the same level of scrutiny is now levied on information regarding planned procurements contained in the Acquisition Forecasts (for all Centers). For the same reasons stated above, the descriptions of these planned procurements must be sufficiently detailed. This is particularly applicable to Acquisition Forecasts in the “White” or “Yellow” categories.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division must ensure that MBP Record submissions are sufficiently detailed and that particular attention is given to the Description and Status Schedule data fields.
Copies of any waivers and deviations processed since the last survey were requested as part of the review for this area. Inquiries were made regarding Glenn’s implementation of a tracking system for waivers and deviations (this was suggested as a consideration during the previous survey in 2004). The two most recent self assessments (dated July 2005 and June 2006) did not show any indication that a process to track waivers and deviations was implemented.
Copies of the deviations processed since the 2004 survey were provided. However, review of the waiver and deviation files verified that no process exists to track these activities. There is evidence that initial steps were taken to implement such a procedure, however, it was never completed.
As the Glenn Procurement Division reorganizes its resources and business plans to place more emphasis on Exploration Systems and less on Aeronautics, there will be an increased necessity for a system to track these types of actions. Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) contract actions typically require more flexibility and creativity. This environment will more likely than not, facilitate the need for a process to track waiver and deviation actions as they move through the review/concurrence/approval processes. Additionally, since ESMD has Head of Contracting Activity authority, there is an increased likelihood that these types of actions will be reviewed outside of the Center and again highlights the necessity for a tracking mechanism.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should take the necessary steps to implement a system to track waivers and deviations from initiation to final approval to ensure that they are processed efficiently and to prepare for a potential increase in the volume of activities that require review outside of the Center’s organizational structure. (REPEAT)
3. Justification for Other than Full and Open Competitions(JOFOCs)/Competition Advocacy:
The purpose of this JOFOC review is to verify compliance with FAR Parts 5.2 and 6.3 and NFS Part 1806.3. A review was conducted of randomly selected files from a listing of recent Glenn contracts awarded on a noncompetitive basis. The dollar values ranged from $124,000 to $47 million. The sole source justifications in the majority of contracts reviewed were based on statutory authority (c) (1) – only one responsible source or a limited number of responsible sources, two were based on authority (c) (2) – unusual and compelling urgency and one on authority (c) (5) – authorized or required by statute.
All were reviewed and approved by the appropriate levels. With one exception, documented rationale for the sole source justification was appropriate and adequate, and addressed all regulatory requirements. Also with one exception, documentation of market research and required synopsis of the requirement were appropriate and ranged in quality from adequate to excellent. The above mentioned exceptions are discussed below.
One JOFOC that cited authority (c) (1), only one responsible source, did not adequately address the unique qualifications of the proposed source, whether the source satisfied the requirements of the contract and relied upon unsubstantiated estimated cost savings. Further, no market research was conducted and the requirement was not synopsized based upon the estimated cost savings. Review of the contract file revealed that the supplies which were the basis of the cost savings estimate were actually Government furnished property, at least one other source was capable of performing the work, and there were no geographic restrictions for the contractor location. Based on this information, it appears that this requirement should have been advertised, solicited, and awarded on a full-and-open competitive basis. Discussions with the contracting officer indicated that the contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) did not clearly understand procurement regulations and the contracting officer did not question the documentation provided prior to taking action.
The Glenn Procurement Division’s internal procedures for JOFOCs stipulate that a copy of each sole source justification with values greater than $25,000 must be provided to the individual within the Glenn Procurement Division designated as the JOFOC Reviewer. It appears that there has been an annual decrease in the number of JOFOCs provided to the JOFOC Reviewer since the previous survey in 2004.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for the overall quality of the sole source justifications reviewed during this survey. The one example mentioned is clearly the exception to the rule.
CONSIDERATIONS:
All of the files reviewed for market research were over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). One of files was a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) initiated at NASA Headquarters (HQ). The contracting officer noted in the file that market research was conducted by HQ. Another file contained information in their JOFOC that market research was not applicable, since the drawings were proprietary to the vendor and that this vendor built similar items. All of the larger procurements used the NASA Virtual Procurement Office (VPO) market research template.
FAR Part 10 and a Glenn internal procedure require market research for all acquisitions over the SAT. The Glenn internal procedure also states that the market research results shall be filed under the Market Research Analysis tab in the contract file, along with any notes, product literature or other documentation generated during market research and it recommends using the VPO market research template. Some of the files did not contain any documentation under the designated tab nor was there any documentation besides the market research template.
One method of conducting market research is the utilization of the Consolidated Contracting Initiative (CCI) database. The Glenn Procurement Division is fully utilizing the CCI website. Besides documenting that the CCI database is searched the solicitations are also posted on CCI concurrent with synopsis of the requirement on NAIS. The exception to this practice involved requirements already listed on the Center’s Acquisition Forecast or requirements in the following categories: Announcements of Opportunity, NASA Research Announcements, Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) actions or Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) actions.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its extensive utilization of the CCI database as a tool to conduct market research.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should provide additional documentation and rationale with the VPO market research template, particularly in situations where only one source can satisfy the requirement.
Files reviewed were selected from the Glenn list of solicitations with anticipated values of $100K and above. Based on the results of the review, the larger award files were well organized and documented, some included funding purchase request documentation. However, it was noted that one solicitation valued at $100K was posted for quotes, but did not include a funding purchase request.
The Glenn Procurement Division uses a unique form NASA C-8095, ‘Statement of Work requirements Review and Concurrence’ to the conduct its solicitation review and approval process. The COTR completes this form and submits it to the contracting officer prior to issuance of the solicitation. The form contains recommendations for safety, property, financial management reports, and environmental issues. This is a helpful tool that allows the contracting officer to ensure that the proper clauses are included in the solicitation.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that requests for quotations or solicitations are not issued prior to receipt of evidence of availability of funds, except in unusual circumstances as documented in NFS 1804.73.
6. Pre-Negotiation/Price Negotiation Documentation:
In this survey area, contract files were reviewed to assess completion of Pre-negotiation Position Memorandums (PPM) and Price Negotiation Memorandums (PNM) and compliance with FAR Part 15.406 and NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.406, and GLWI-CH-5115.3, PPM and PNM Requirements. A number of contract files were reviewed in to determine compliance with the referenced regulations and guidelines. All contracts reviewed had estimated values in excess of $1 million. The majority of the files reviewed were competitive procurements.
Many PPMs reviewed contained limited information. There was no summary of the basic content and items discussed in the PNM as required by the NFS and GLWI. Higher level document reviews contained corrective action instructions for the contracting officers and contract specialists.
Interviews with contracting officers/contract specialists revealed that many were under the impression that PPMs/PNMs were not required for competitive procurements. This practice does not comply with prescribed policy and guidance. An interview was conducted with the procurement division’s Document Administrator (DA) to verify procedures and inquire about missing or insufficient documentation. A GLWI regarding the preparation of PPM/PNM documentation was issued in 2002 and most recently updated in March 2007. The GLWI contains a detailed description of the necessary steps for preparation of required documentation.
The GLWI allows contracting officers to obtain verbal approval of PPM actions in urgent situations when the value of the action exceeds the contracting officer’s procurement authority. Informal file documentation is accepted and contracting officers are encouraged to finalize the documentation ‘as soon as feasible’. Concern regarding this policy was cited in the previous survey and continues to remain a valid issue. Informal PPM file documentation could potentially result in the failure to adequately address pertinent issues during the establishment of pre-negotiation objectives and subsequent negotiations.
Several files reviewed contained the memoranda under the correct file tab however, the documentation lacked sufficient detail to support the establishment of the government’s objective position or did not contain rationale for non-compliance with the NFS requirements. In other cases, the PPM was not filed appropriately. The DA acknowledged that improvement was needed in these areas and that the Glenn Procurement Division worked continually to remedy the problem. Some improvement was noted in some of the more recent files reviewed.
A number of source selection contract files were reviewed. The Source Evaluation Board reports contained detailed information that satisfied the requirements of the FAR and NFS. However, PPM/PNM information was not placed under the corresponding file tabs nor was there a notation regarding the location of such information in the contract files.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Division should ensure that all required elements are addressed in the PPM/PNM documentation in accordance with the regulations. (REPEAT)
The previous survey report reflected a distinction in quality between technical evaluations on competitive and non-competitive actions. Consequently, a wide variety of competitive and non-competitive actions was selected for review.
In general, the files indicated that adequate technical reviews were performed. The quality of the technical reviews and the degree of documentation continues to vary, but the variance does not correlate with competition. Rather, the quality differences are attributed to technical offices’ practices and individual reviewer’s diligence.
Competitive awards, which were generally best value selections, were supported by technical evaluations that were consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and the relative importance of factors. The documentation was comprehensive and the adjectival ratings were supported by specific and detailed narratives.
The technical evaluations for non-competitive actions were also documented in the files, and the depth of the reviews was consistent with the contracting officer’s request. The evaluations were generally well documented, although a few appeared cursory and did not provide enough supporting rationale to ensure technical capability or that the proposed costs were fair and reasonable. In the instances where technical detail was lacking, the files revealed contracting officer communication with the technical reviewer to ensure a thorough understanding of the evaluator’s position.
The Glenn Price Analyst developed an excellent Technical Analysis Manual for use by technical evaluators, which is available on the Glenn intranet. Presented in an easy to follow format, the manual provides detailed instructions to project engineers and scientists charged with performing technical evaluations. It includes advice for review of Glenn unique requirements. It also serves as an excellent resource for contracting officers in requesting technical evaluations and in interpreting the results.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended on the development of its Technical Analysis Manual for utilization by the technical community in conducting technical evaluations.
8. Contractor Safety Requirements:
A broad cross-section of contracts was reviewed, including construction, research and development and service contracts, to ensure that the safety provisions and clauses required by the FAR and the NFS were included.
In all cases, the files indicated that a pre-solicitation review of the requirements was completed by the Center safety representative. NASA Form 1707 “Certification and Special Approvals for IFM Purchase Requests”, was included as required. The contracts were found to contain the appropriate safety clauses. Furthermore, Safety and Health Plans, submitted as part of contractors’ proposals, were included in the file and the technical evaluation documentation supported review and consideration of offerors’ safety plans in the source selection process.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division consistently fulfills the requirements for safety in procurement actions, supporting NASA’s risk management goal and commitment to safety.
1. Contractor Performance Evaluation:
Contract files were reviewed to assess completion of Past Performance Evaluations (NF 1680) and entry into the Past Performance Database (PPDB). This review was conducted by surveying the following items: a) copies of the NF 1680 form in contract files; b) well documented/evaluated criteria, complete, signed, and dated; c) entry into the database within the 60-day time-frame; and, d) compliance with FAR, NFS, Procurement Information Circular and GLWI regulations and guidance on contractor past performance evaluation.
The majority of the contract files reviewed did not contain copies of the NF 1680 form. Only two of the files contained all copies in the contract files. Other files contained some interim evaluations, but were not consistent with an annual submission. For example, one file contained copies of interim evaluations for periods 12/1999 to 12/2000; 12/2002 to 12/2003; and, 01/2005 to 12/2005 but did not have copies of forms for the intervening or subsequent periods. Additionally, some files had interim evaluations, but no final evaluation in cases where the contract period of performance was completed. These were consistent findings throughout the review. The award fee contracts were inconsistent as well. Most did not maintain copies of the NF 1680 forms in the file.
Three files reviewed contained well documented evaluations of contractor performance. Others lacked written evaluations, and it was unclear if the contracting officers were the only evaluators, or if the technical evaluators or others were consulted and provided comments that were combined with the contracting officer’s. Most files were dated, but not signed. During an interview, it was noted that the NF 1680 information is entered into the PPDB by contractor personnel, who provide a printed copy of the NF1680, once entered, to the contracting officer/contracting specialist for inclusion in the contract file. Some of the award fee contracts had complete performance evaluation periods in accordance with the award fee plans; however, few NF1680 forms were completed, signed and dated and located in the contract file.
Two contracts reviewed were in compliance with the 60-day completion time-frame and entry into the PPDB. The majority were inconsistent for both interim and final evaluations. Most of the award fee files were prepared within the 45-day time period for Performance Evaluations but were not entered into the PPDB within the 60-day time-frame.
Compliance was not consistent throughout the review of past performance data, NF 1680, and interviews. The award fee contracts reviewed identified that Glenn does not consistently follow the guidance outlined in PIC 01-12 which states “…award fee evaluations must be summarized on NF 1680 and entered into the NASA PPDB. Additionally, the Glenn internal policy for summarization of award fee contracts on an annual and final basis via NF 1680/PPDB entry was not consistently followed.
An interview was conducted with a contracting officer regarding the lack of the NF 1680 form in the contract file and the information in the PPDB for one particular contract. The discussion revealed that some of the NF 1680 forms were prepared for various task orders issued under the contract on an annual basis but not for the entire contract. This was a suggested practice and not mandatory. The contracting officer eventually reverted back to preparing NF 1680 forms on an annual basis for the entire contract.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that contractor performance evaluations are 1) performed in a timely fashion, 2) well documented narrative explanations are provided and are consistent with the adjectival ratings, 3) appropriately entered and completed in the PPDB and 4) placed in the contract files.
2. Award/Incentive Fee Evaluation:
The FAR stipulates that award fee contracts should only be used when the contract amount, performance period, and expected benefits are sufficient to warrant the additional administrative effort and cost involved. Additionally, the NFS requires the Procurement Officer’s approval for the use of an award fee incentive.
A review of several pre-award files demonstrated that the rationale reached during the acquisition strategy meetings regarding the use of an award/incentive fee type contract vehicle are not documented in the contract file. During interviews with procurement personnel and managers, it was apparent that a discussion of the additional effort and cost of entering into an incentive contract arrangement is embedded in the acquisition strategy process. Acquisition Strategy Meeting documentation reviewed contained information about the type of contract contemplated without additional detail or rationale. Acquisition Plans generally include the contract type selected with a generic supporting statement such as: “the contract type will effectively motivate the contractor towards exceptional performance”. In addition, determinations for contract type are documented on the checklist Memoranda for Record signed by the contracting officer. The Memoranda state generally the contract type selected and reference NFS regulations and GLWI for additional guidance. No further documentation justifying the selection of incentive contract types was found in the files reviewed.
One contract reviewed did not contain the Procurement Officer’s approval for use of an award fee contract as required by the NFS. None of the files reviewed contained the cost benefit analysis required by the FAR and NFS. Discussions with procurement personnel (including managers) indicate a lack of awareness of the cost benefit analysis matrix or other guidance contained in the NASA Award Fee Guide. The need to conduct a cost benefit analysis to support the use of an incentive type contract was recently highlighted in a General Accountability Office (GAO) report on Award Fee contracts at NASA.
Files were reviewed for compliance with NFS 1816.405-274 in terms of evaluation weights and categories. The number and complexity of sub-factors incorporated in the award fee plans reviewed appears reasonable in relation to the complexity of the programs.
One major award fee contract uses a software tool ‘Contract Management System (CMS)’, to assist in the management and reporting of performance ratings on numerous task orders and the consolidation of ratings at the contract level. The CMS is an on-line application that allows technical representative inputs and reviews of task order execution plans, funding requests, and performance data; contractor submission of task proposals; and performance assessment at the task level and consolidation to the contract level. The CMS facilitates the administration of a high value, high volume task order contract efficiently and effectively, maximizing the use of available resources.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its thorough administration of award/incentive fee contracts. The administration process includes the tracking and analysis of performance data and effective internal controls for the measurement, reporting and fee recommendation processes.
CONSIDERATIONS:
3. Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs):
Closeout Activities
Contract closeout activities at Glenn are performed by support contractors. The current support contractor, LeGacy replaced the previous contractor, Brace, on January 1, 2007, in the performance of closeout functions on simplified acquisitions greater than or equal to $100K, grants and cooperative agreements, contracts, and interagency agreements.
Files that were physically complete, in closeout, but not currently closed includes 202 contracts, 211 grants, 30 cooperative agreements, 35 interagency agreements and 8 purchase orders. The staff level appears adequate to manage current and projected inventories.
The contract files reviewed were properly closed in accordance with FAR 4.804. Funds due the Government after final audit and were generally processed expeditiously for collection. Patent and data rights information were obtained prior to final payment and executed copies of NF1611 “Contract Completion Statement” and NF 1612 “Contract Closeout Checklist” were included as part of the file as required by NFS 1804.804-5. Closeout for fixed-price contracts, generally was accomplished within 6 months; contracts requiring settlement of indirect cost rates were often closed within 36 months, and, all others, including interagency agreements, were targeted for closure within 20 months per FAR 4.804-1(a). When appropriate, a release of liability was obtained as a condition precedent to final payment, discharging the Government from all liabilities, obligations and claims under or arising from the contract.
There were few closeout actions completed during the first quarter of 2007. The primary reason for the low number of actions was the implementation of CMM. Interface problems with CMM/SAP/I-View impeded ongoing closeout processing. A Glenn team is working to resolve the problems. Review of FY 2006 closeout activities indicated that the previous support contractor closed more than twice the number files than the volume of new inventory received during three different months over the course of the year. The current support contractor has not performed at the same level; however, valid rationale for factors impacting contract closeout lag were provided.
Unliquidated Obligations
HQ Office of Procurement no longer tracks monthly unliquidated obligations. Generally, the Glenn Procurement Division is monitoring unliquidated obligations to ensure decreased lead-time for closing out actions. The closeout contractor provides a detailed list of issues that contain explanations for the over-age contract closeout actions. The GLWI for Closeout Initiation (GLWI-CH-5104.1) was modified to reflect current processes.
STRENGTHS:
4. Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCA’s):
The file review focused on age, dollar value, appropriate approval level, justification and file documentation in accordance with NFS 1843-70. The UCAs identified in Glenn’s monthly report for the period ending 2/28/2007, submitted to the HQ Office of Procurement prior to the survey were reviewed. Glenn historically has issued a low number of UCAs. The two UCAs identified in the recent Headquarters monthly report were issued via two task orders against a blanket purchase agreement. Both files contained the required documentation, approving signatures and appropriate definitizing modification actions for UCAs of these values to comply with NFS 1843-70.
It is noted that both UCA task orders were definitized several months earlier, both within 45 days of issuance, and that the period of performance was completed prior to the survey for both; neither file was active at the time of the review. Glenn’s UCA reporting official advised that database used for obtaining information regarding current UCAs is no longer available. Current UCA information is obtained through input received from procurement personnel. Glenn has no active UCAs at the time of this review.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should develop a more reliable method of tracking and maintaining UCA information.
5. Administrative and Clerical Support Contracts:
Federal procurement regulations restrict the performance of inherently governmental functions to federal employees. Likewise, procurement, appropriations, and civil service regulations generally prohibit personal services contracts. Contracts for on-site support services, such as those for administrative and clerical support, are particularly susceptible to violations of inherently governmental functions and personal services issues, because they foster a close working relationship between federal and contractor employees. For this reason, the survey team reviewed the day-to-day operation of the contract for administrative and clerical support, as well as the statement of work and the terms of the contract.
The Glenn Procurement Division issued the Technical Information, Administrative, and Logistical Services (TIALS) contract in 2005 to provide, among other services, clerical and administrative support to the entire facility. Glenn has a long history of on-site contractor support in the administrative and clerical areas. The clerical and administrative support services provided by SGT under the TIALS contract are a continuation of support services that have been provided under various, predecessor contracts since the late 1980s.
Many individual contractor employees have been performing clerical and administrative work to support Glenn for many years, moving to employment with the successful offeror when an incumbent contractor was unseated. Turnover is low, and throughout their years of work at Glenn, most SGT employees have had numerous briefings on the distinctions between their positions and civil service positions and on the limitations and prohibitions of their activities. Contractor employees advise that they always identify themselves as contractors. Their workspaces and security badges clearly distinguish them from civil servant employees.
The contractor, SGT, has on-site management which provides advice and instruction. Contractor employees do not take direction from Glenn civil servant personnel. The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), in accordance with the terms of the contract and his delegation, is responsible for coordinating with the user offices to determine the administrative and clerical support needs, and for formally assigning new or changed tasks to SGT managers. All those involved in contract performance and management understand the reasons for the clear delineation between contractor and civil servant personnel and demonstrate diligent contract management.
The administrative and clerical support statement of work is performance based and clearly sets forth the responsibilities of NASA and the contractor. Because it is results rather than process oriented, the Government’s involvement in the contractor’s daily operations is lessened, serving as another safeguard against personal services. Potential problems were anticipated and addressed in contract terms and conditions and through structured contract management practices.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended on its execution and administration of the administrative and clerical support contract. The TIALS contract reflects a proactive approach to contract management of sensitive services which have the potential for inherently governmental functions and/or the inadvertent performance of personal services by contractor personnel.
6. Competition under Multiple Award Task and Delivery Order Contracts:
A sample of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts were reviewed for task order competition in accordance with FAR Part 16.5, and NFS 1816.5. The FAR stipulates that contracting officers utilize award of IDIQ contracts to multiple sources for services and supplies issued under the same solicitation to the maximum extent practicable.
Of the IDIQ contracts reviewed, the majority of files reviewed contemplated a single award IDIQ contract. One contract file contained the required justification in the contract file. The justification stated that a multiple award would be cost prohibitive due to multiple management staffing, administrative burden on the contracting officer and COTR, and increased lease costs to contractors for maintaining facilities in the area. The majority of pre-award files reviewed contained a statement in the Acquisition Plan or Acquisition Strategy Meeting documentation that a single award was contemplated without the required supporting rationale.
Two multiple award IDIQ contracts were identified and reviewed. One of the files included a JOFOC for award to two contractors under the National Security exception. Two awards were made to “sole sources” for the support of a classified program. The file contained a statement that addressed competition of future task orders. The contracts did not contain a clause or provision for task order competition. Four task orders were placed under each of the two contracts. The task order files did not contain any documentation indicating that they were issued on a competitive basis, nor did they contain a justification for issuance on a sole source basis.
The second multiple award contract reviewed, for construction services, consists of four contracts. The contract file and award documents included an ordering provision for competition among task orders valued at greater than $25,000. The FAR 16.505 requires that all awardees under a multiple award contract receive fair opportunity for all orders valued at greater than $3,000. Glenn’s authority to increase the fair opportunity threshold from $3,000 to $25,000 could not be identified. The contract file contained numerous task orders for each contractor. The files contained no evidence of competition among contractors for the orders. Discussion with procurement personnel indicated that the task order competition was conducted and maintained by the COTRs, and that procurement personnel received a Purchase Request for award to the selected contractor. The personnel interviewed also indicated that the file documentation for task order competition was maintained in the COTR files, and reviewed periodically by procurement personnel. The procurement file contained no evidence of the task order competition, reviews, or justifications for orders placed on a non-competitive basis.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESSES:
7. Options to Extend Performance:
The review focused on the presence of required option exercise determinations and evidence of Glenn’s implementation of option exercise improvements which became effective in March 2004. Many of the files reviewed contained no options, or option provisions that had not yet been exercised. While the files reflect Glenn’s implementation of the option exercise improvements to an extent, two files reviewed contained options exercised that did not reflect other aspects of the improvements, for example, evidence of early planning or technical evaluations to determine whether the option continues to fulfill programmatic needs, and assurances that analyses will be performed early enough to pursue alternative sources. In addition, there were no annotations to the files regarding contractor performance or the presence of market research activity to support upcoming options as the best programmatic direction, as opposed to alternative technical or scientific solutions that may have surfaced during market research activities or indications of unsatisfactory contractor performance.
STRENGTH:
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should ensure that the appropriate review and analysis to determine whether the exercise of an option is in the best interests of the Government is conducted and documented consistently in the contract files.
8. Government Furnished Property:
A review was conducted of Glenn’s Government-furnished, contractor-acquired, and installation furnished (contractor accountable) property (GFP). The majority of the awarding contracts contained the appropriate clauses. All of the basic contracts or modifications to the contracts delegated the property administration functions to Defense Contract Management Administration (DCMA). Some of the contracting officers were informed by the Industrial Property Officer (IPO) that modifications were necessary to add the GFP clause and/or to add the clause NFS 1852.245-73, delegation of property to DCMA. All of the acquisitions greater than $1M are reviewed by the center Supply and Equipment Management Officer (SEMO) in accordance with NFS 1845.102-71.
STRENGTH:
Glenn’s IPO is doing a great job of communicating to the contracting officers when clauses are missing from the awarding contract and making sure the property is accounted and documented.
9. COTR Delegations and Contractor Surveillance:
NFS 1842.270 authorizes the appointment of a qualified Government employee to act as the representative for the contracting officer in managing the technical aspects of a particular contract. The NASA Form 1634, Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Delegation, shall be used to appoint COTRs. These COTRs are required to obtain comprehensive training and subsequent refresher training once every five years at the Glenn. Glenn provides two comprehensive training courses and two refresher training courses per year.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently completed an audit of NASA’s Integrated Enterprise Management Program with one of the findings focused on developing and implementing a standard policy to identify the type of documentation to be maintained by COTRs and the length of time the documentation is expected to be maintained. Paragraph 4 of the NASA Form 1634 requires the COTR to establish and maintain a file of letters sent to/from the contractor and contracting officer and memoranda for record of any such non-written actions and/or decisions which become part of the contract formal record. This survey included a random sampling review of those records maintained by the COTRs.
The review of contract file documentation indicates that COTR delegations are made on the required NASA Form 1634 and that these individuals received the necessary training to perform their delegated duties. However, thirty-nine percent of the files reviewed contained unsigned or undated COTR delegations, one contained a blank NASA Form 1634, one delegation was for an inactive COTR, one COTR was mentioned with no delegation in the file, one COTR change request was made with no rescision of the existing delegation and issuance of a new COTR delegation, and one was misfiled.
Interviews with the COTRs at Glenn indicate that they are doing a good job of keeping appropriate file documentation. Many of the COTRs keep excellent electronic records and minimal hard copy records. Discussion with both COTRs and contracting officers indicate that the COTRs files, for the most part, are duplicative of files already contained in the procurement offices. For those COTRs keeping electronic records, each appears to be able to electronically back up their records for archival and contract closeout as necessary. Although responsibility for submittal of contract permanent records is identified to COTRs on the NASA Form 1634, guidance has not been provided to the COTRs regarding the level of documentation to maintain and process electronic and hard copy contract documents to be forwarded to the contracting officer at contract closeout.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for the issuance of COTR delegations in a timely manner with the appropriate file documentation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Division personnel should ensure that COTR delegations are signed and appropriately documented in the contract files.
10. Synopsis of Contract Award:
FAR Part 5.301 requires contracting officers to synopsize awards exceeding $25,000 unless certain conditions apply. GLWI-CH-5105.2, Rev. H, paragraph 6.3.2 states that a support contractor is responsible for synopsizing contract awards utilizing the information obtained from the NASA Form 507, printing a copy and placing it in the appropriate contracting officer’s mailbox for inclusion in the contract file. Twenty two percent of the files reviewed did not include documentation in the file that a synopsis of contract award was performed when required; however, review of NAIS records indicated that all synopses were completed for each contract reviewed.
As part of the files identified above, all of the contracts awarded from one multiple award acquisition were reviewed for consistency. Two of the resulting contract files did not contain a copy of the synopsis, although they were found to exist in a separate file maintained by the contracting officer.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division personnel should ensure that synopses of contract award are documented in the contract files with exceptions documented accordingly in accordance with the FAR requirements.
11. Subcontract Consent Documentation:
A number of contracts were reviewed to ensure compliance with subcontract consent requirements, including use of correct contract clauses identifying consent requirements, status of the prime contractor’s purchasing system approval, and documentation of any subcontracts that may require special surveillance for awards over $1 million per NFS requirements. Contract administration files were reviewed to determine whether procedures for prior notification and for consent were followed.
All contracts reviewed contained applicable subcontract clauses. Reviews revealed that most of the award files are not properly documented. Most did not include a pre-negotiation memorandum or other backup information. There were no checklists based on the requirements of FAR 44.202-2 and NFS 1844.201-1, these are useful tools employed at other Centers to assist contract specialists.
None of the contracts reviewed provided for consent to contract, whether by letter or by listing under paragraph (k) of Subcontract FAR clause 52.244-2. Most files reviewed lacked backup award documentation, and it was the responsibility of the reviewer to research the file to determine whether the consent requirement applied. Due to lack of information in the file, further research still did not reveal whether consent is required in one particular firm-fixed price contract with a total value of $2.6M and subcontractor costs totaling $1.9M.
Only one of the larger dollar value contracts contained the required and sufficient backup award documentation to be able to determine whether consent to subcontract was needed. This particular file provided the required information, specifically stating that the prime contractor has an approved purchasing system, and addressed the areas required by NSF 1844.201-1 special surveillance requirements for contracts over $1 million.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Financial Management Reporting:
All of the reviewed files contained the necessary NFS clause 1852.242-73 and included thorough instructions for preparation of the NASA Form 533 reports. All of the files contained documentation that the contracting officer conducts a review of the monthly data reports for these contracts. One file contained documentation that the contracting officer noticed a mistake in the report and required the contractor to submit a revised report. One file did not contain any Monthly Contractor Financial Management Reports (533M); however the contracting officer included a memo explaining that the 533Ms are reviewed monthly on an electronic basis and are not printed and maintained in the file because the information is classified. Not all of the contracts contained the Quarterly Contractor Financial Management Report (NF 533Q) or had a waiver to omit the report, when the award was $1M and greater and the period of performance was greater than one year as required by the regulations (NFS 1842.7201).
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its use of the NASA C-Form 500, 533 Report Review and the requirement for the COTRs to verify that the reports are accurate and timely.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should ensure that waivers signed by the contracting officer are contained in the file, with concurrence of the Chief Financial Officer and Program/Project Manager, when the NF 533Q is not included in the terms and conditions or when it is listed and determined after contract award that the report is unnecessary.
Glenn’s Audit Liaison Representative tracks DCAA audits and audit recommendations in the online Contract Audit Tracking System (CATSII). Each DCAA audit and audit recommendation is entered into CATSII with target resolution and closure dates.
Glenn has two open DCAA audits which were also active during the previous survey in 2004. These audits remain open due to litigation and disputes regarding the allowability of costs. The audit liaison is aware of these two outstanding audit reports. On one of the audits, the contracting officer is actively seeking an audit resolution, which is noted in the system. The other audit has not yet been resolved. Glenn has no open OIG or GAO audits.
STRENGTHS:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its GLWI-CH-1200.1 Reportable Audit Tracking and Resolution, which contains detailed instructions for the contracting officer that lists the necessary actions required upon receipt of a reportable audit report from the DCAA.
A review was conducted of cost/price analyses on competitive and non-competitive fixed price, cost reimbursement and IDIQ contracts. The review revealed a lack of adequate documentation to determine reasonableness, allocability and allowability of proposed costs in the majority of the files.
One file contained an analysis that relied solely on the DCAA findings without an independent discussion of the elements of cost. Another analysis established the government’s position upon the basis of the technical evaluation. However the technical evaluation merely accepted the costs as proposed without a discussion of the appropriateness of the skill mix, hours, etc. Neither of these files contained a separate cost memo.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should ensure that contracting officers do not rely solely on DCAA findings but include an independent assessment of the proposed costs/price.
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that the files contain adequate documentation to determine the reasonableness, allocability and allowability of proposed costs. (REPEAT FINDING)
4. Structured Fee Approach (NF 634):
Files were reviewed to determine the application of NASA Structured Approach in Profit/Fee Determination in accordance with NFS 1815.404-4 and 1815.404-470. Contract files were reviewed for the appropriate usage and implementation of the Structured Approach Profit/Fee Objective (NF 634). In all but one file reviewed, the NF 634 was included in the file, profit/fee factors were appropriately applied for the selected contract type, and the contracting officer performed independent profit/fee analysis. In the one exception, no cost or pricing information was requested for two sole source IDIQ contract awards with ceilings of $4.9 million each. Due to the absence of cost data, the NF 634 could not be generated. A fixed fee was negotiated based upon the fees established under the previous contracts and on the basis of the “contracting officer’s 20 years of experience negotiating research and development contracts.”
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for its appropriate and consistent application of the Structured Fee Approach in determining a profit/fee objective.
1. Grants and Cooperative Agreements:
The Glenn Procurement Division was responsible for the award and administration of grants and cooperative agreements for Glenn, Kennedy Space Center, Stennis Space Center and Dryden Flight Research Center prior to the transition of award activities to the NSSC. Glenn still has responsibility for the administration of grants and cooperative agreements awarded prior to the NSSC transition. As a result of the reduction in award responsibilities, the four designated grant officers within the Glenn Procurement Division are transitioning to assume more responsibilities for the award and administration of contracts.
A review of grants files indicated that proper delegations were issued to the Office of Naval Research (or other appropriate office). The delegations were executed via electronic forms for expedited processing. The files reviewed were in compliance with the provision that requires completion of the “Committee on Academic Science and Engineering” report (C.A.S.E. Report) (NF1356) for grants and cooperative agreement awarded to educational institutions.
A number of grants and cooperative agreements reviewed were awarded as the result of NASA Research Announcements (NRAs) and each contained individual technical evaluations and selection statements. Some files failed to include a copy of the NRA, solicitation cover page, or documentation of waiver from the grant officer. These omissions were also noted during the previous survey in 2004. Many of the grants awarded during this survey period lacked adequate documentation of cost/price analysis. Many of the files reviewed did not include adequate supporting file documentation.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for is consistent incorporation of a thorough statement for the basis of selection of a grant or cooperative agreement award instrument and its excellent statement documenting equipment usage for research only.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should include a copy of the NRA, solicitation cover page or waiver documentation in the grant files for traceability purposes.
WEAKNESSES:
Files reviewed for compliance with the simplified acquisition procedures included awards utilizing FAR 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules), FAR 12, (Commercial Acquisitions), or FAR 13, (Simplified Acquisitions.) Micro-purchases made via purchase cards were also included in the review sample. Particular attention focused on ensuring that the solicitation and the award process clearly conformed to the applicable requirements.
Purchase cards are utilized appropriately for micro-purchases. In addition, simplified acquisitions are overwhelmingly awarded to small businesses, although there is no clear indication that awards a specifically set aside for small business in all files. Checklists are consistently and effectively used to identify and support the minimal documentation required for simplified acquisitions.
The Glenn Procurement Division includes a large contingent of GS-1105 purchasing agents. The files indicate that every effort is made to utilize streamlined acquisition procedures whenever possible, and the organization places an emphasis on the quality of its simplified acquisition program. Internal training is provided and the purchasing agents participate in regularly scheduled simplified acquisition meetings which have management support and participation.
Inconsistent with the otherwise outstanding simplified acquisition program is the high rate of simplified acquisitions that are awarded on a non-competitive basis. Although the files are documented with sole source justifications, generally citing only one responsible source, the rationale, in many cases, is quite weak. There is no evidence of any effort on the part of the requestor or the procurement official to locate competitive sources for supplies and services that appear, on the surface, to be readily available. This is a recurring finding from the previous survey, and while Glenn’s self assessment recognizes the weakness, corrective action focuses on improving the justification rather than seeking competition.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended on its extremely well utilized and staffed simplified acquisition process. There is a high level of support for this area of the procurement division. The increased utilization of simplified acquisition procedures for large, complex requirements necessitate a quality program and well-trained personnel ensure the protection of the NASA’s interests.
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Officer should ensure that efforts are made to increase the level of competition for simplified acquisitions, critically examine requirements and perform market research. The Small Business Specialist, along with other resources, should be consulted for potential sources. Efforts to increase competition will result in lower cost and better products and services. (REPEAT FINDING)
3. Commercial Item Procurements:
The review included numerous commercial acquisitions valued under $5.5 million that met the threshold for use of simplified acquisition procedures. In addition, several commercial contacts with individual total values greater than $5.5M were reviewed. In all cases, the files indicated that commercial, streamlined procedures were utilized to maximum advantage. Every effort appears to have been made to qualify products and services as commercial and to procure accordingly. The files reviewed indicated solicitation and award in accordance with FAR Part 12 procedures. The contracts and purchase orders contain appropriate commercial clauses.
Two of the large commercial contracts were awarded on a sole source basis to the incumbent for follow-on efforts. Generally, commercial products and services are available from more than one source, and in these two specific instances, the rationale that alternate sources could not perform was not convincing. No effort to locate competitive sources was documented in the files.
The Glenn Procurement Division developed a good reference/training document on commercial acquisitions which is available on the internal Glenn website.
CONSIDERATION:
Federal procurement policy promotes competition as the means to obtaining the best value for the government. Accordingly, efforts should be made by the Glenn Procurement Division to increase the level of competition for follow-on work.
The review of Glenn’s Interagency Agreements (IA’s) focused on those IA’s awarded since the previous survey in 2004. Overall, the IA files were well maintained. Each IA correctly cited the National Aeronautics and Space Act as the authority to enter into the agreement. Each file included the required Determination and Findings (D&F) document which is an improvement over the prior survey. However the D&F’s in the files still lacked sufficient supporting pricing data.
Several D&F’s referenced the Consolidated Contacting Initiative (CCI) as supporting rationale to enter into the IA. The CCI is NASA’s commitment to progress towards the cooperative creation and utilization of contracts, whenever practicable, to meet common needs. CCI focuses on identifying and logically grouping together similar requirements so they may be procured efficiently. However, CCI is not a rationale basis to support the award of an IA or substitute for the analysis portion of the D&F.
The Economy Act (in NASA’s case, the Economy Act as Implemented by the National Aeronautics and Space Act) is the authority for a government agency to acquire supplies or services from another government agency instead of contracting directly with a private contractor (this includes situations where the servicing agency already has a contractor on board). The CCI essentially provides a method to combine requirements that would potentially be awarded under several individual contracts into fewer contracts for the same or similar supplies or services.
The period of performance on one IA reviewed was extended past five years. The D&F stated that the IA was a non-competitive follow-on action. However a deviation request to extend the period of performance as required by 1817.7001 was never issued.
Of the IA files reviewed only one addressed the language encouraged by FAR 17.504(c) for agencies to state the manner in which disputes or disagreements will be resolved. The dispute language was included as a memo to the file but not included in the executed IA. In addition, the dispute language in the memo was silent on key issues (e.g., alternatives for stalemates in disputes/disagreements or senior agency level dispute resolution authority). The Glenn Office of General Counsel should provide the procurement staff with standard language or text suitable for this purpose.
Cases were also observed where D&F’s were executed but were not needed because the IA was awarded as a result of a competitive NRA.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The survey review focused on the internal controls, training, number of card holders, SAP purchase card module automated system, monthly reconciliation, delegations exceeding $3,000, violations, and limits (individual/ monthly) placed on individual card holders pursuant to the government bankcard regulations. Glenn’s purchase card program continues to be managed by the same Center Agency Program Coordinator (CAPC) and Alternate assigned during the previous survey. These two individuals work closely together and appear to seamlessly support each other in all aspects of the purchase card program.
All cardholders and approving officials complete all required training, including refresher training where appropriate, in SATERN prior to making purchases or approving any transactions. The number of purchase card holders remains at 483, the same as the last survey performed in 2004, and the number of approving officials decreased from 124 to 110. All approving officials are current with their required training and all have active accounts within the SAP Bankcard System. Required purchase card training resides within and is monitored through SATERN.
Nine purchase agents in the procurement division and five contracting officers outside the procurement division are authorized to place individual transaction card purchases above the micro purchase limit. All received the appropriate training, and the CAPC holds quarterly simplified acquisition training meetings with everyone with purchase card procurement authority exceeding the micro purchase limit.
Audit reviews of all new purchase card actions are performed on a weekly basis. The SAP Bankcard module has made this a practical activity as the Alternate CAPC is able to remotely retrieve each card holder’s account and view each activity and associated backup documentation.
A spot check of several purchase card holders was performed in the SAP Bankcard module, and a thorough review was conducted of charges placed against their cards. It was readily apparent that each individual is efficient and knowledgeable regarding use the system. During the review, several reports of various types were quickly accessed directly from the system.
The CAPC conducts periodic reviews of each cardholder’s actual transactions in order to maintain an effective level of users and approvals. Depending on individual requirements for accounts with minimal or no use, accounts are either suspended or closed in their entirety.
All current policies, procedures and records regarding the Glenn purchase card program were reviewed and found to be extremely well managed, well documented and well reported. Glenn maintains an outstanding website, which provides extensive information such as the user’s guide, instructions on specific purchase card issues, responsibilities and many other areas.
The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of Glenn’s purchase card program in late 2006. The OIG’s final report was issued March 26, 2007, only one (1) month prior to this procurement management survey. It wasn’t anticipated that Glenn had time to begin addressing the OIG findings. During the survey, the OIG findings and recommendations and the Glenn Procurement Officer’s documented responses for each area were discussed with the CAPC and Alternate. In each case it was apparent that Glenn implemented a proactive and positive approach. In fact, Glenn actively began corrective actions immediately following receipt of the OIG’s draft report in late November 2006. In one area of special interest the OIG recommended that NASA establish a means to control, identify and track purchase card transactions approved by individuals other than the designated Approving official. The CAPC stated that the internal Bankcard Audit Plan was already revised to comply with this recommendation, the changes were publicized to all purchase card holders and approving officials, and the number of infraction instances dropped from several thousand a year in CY 2005 to “None.”
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is again commended for their excellent overall efforts associated with the management of its purchase card program. The CAPC and the Alternate CAPC continue to do an excellent job providing exemplary assistance to their cardholders and approving officials, overseeing the program, training, and auditing the program. Glenn is effective in maintaining an appropriate level of purchase card holders and approving officials. REPEAT STRENGTH
6. Construction and Architect and Engineer (A&E) Contracts:
Construction
Glenn obtains construction services through a set of four IDIQ construction contracts with local firms, as well as through stand-alone construction contracts for specific projects; both types of contracts were reviewed. Reviews of contracts and supporting file documentation were conducted to determine whether applicable regulations and good business practices were followed in the award and administration of construction contracts. Contracts included all required FAR and NFS clauses and files contained most required file documentation, with purchase requests and VETS-100 compliance documentation being notable exceptions. Required construction bonds were found in most but not all files; there was no evidence that the bonds were reviewed for sufficiency.
The single-project construction contracts reviewed were primarily competed using solicitations (RFPs) (only one Invitation for Bid (IFB) was reviewed). The IDIQ construction contracts were also competed using an RFP. The quality of evaluation documentation in the construction RFP files varied some evaluation findings lacked detail, and in one particular case the source selection decision document did not adequately explain the trade-offs that led the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to select the successful offeror.
The IFB file reviewed contained sufficient documentation, with the exception of missing performance and payment bonds. In the area of contract administration, the tasks placed under the IDIQ construction contracts appeared to be within the scope of the SOW. Back-up file documentation on these tasks was not reviewed, so no opinion is offered on the adequacy of the competitive task process. In several instances contract modifications to add work to construction contracts were issued with a price increase but no description of the work was included. These modifications are not legally sufficient and could cause a great deal of harm in the event of a contractor claim or default. Contractor performance evaluations for construction valued at $550K or more (using SF-1420) are on file. Glenn aggressively pursues small business set-asides for construction and has a great record of success in placing contracts with local small business construction firms.
Architect and Engineer (A&E) Contracting
Reviews of contracts and supporting file documentation were conducted to determine whether applicable regulations and good business practices were followed in the award and administration of Architect-Engineer (A&E) Services contracts. Services were acquired using FAR 36.6 A&E selection procedures and, in one case, a sole source 8(a) award. Contracts included all required FAR and NFS clauses and files contained most required file documentation except VETS-100 compliance documentation. A&E Selection Board findings were well documented. Files all contained a single “Negotiation Memo” instead of a Pre-negotiation Position Memorandum (PPM) and a separate Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), and typically these documents did not effectively explain the rationale for the Government’s negotiation position, the content of the negotiations, or the ultimate outcome of the negotiations. In the area of contract administration, several contract modifications to add work to A&E contracts were issued with a price increase but no description of the work added. Contractor performance evaluations for A&E Services valued at $30K or more (using SF-1421) are on file.
STRENGTH:
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for an outstanding job of successfully placing contracts with small business construction firms.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The Glenn Procurement Division should ensure that all contract modifications for the addition of work (for both construction and A&E contracts) contain a full description of the work within the modification document. It is not sufficient to merely have the work description in a request for change or other file document that is not an actual part of the contract modification.
Purchase orders, contracts and purchase card actions were reviewed to verify compliance with the environmental requirements of FAR 23 and the NASA Affirmative Procurement Program (APP), NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8530.1. The review focused on three mandatory federal programs: The Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG), the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program (FB4P) and the EnergyStar Program. The first two programs impose affirmative procurement requirements when procuring specified supplies or services which require the use of those supplies. The EnergyStar Program requires the purchase of energy efficient products.
Since many of the products covered by the programs are low dollar value items (e.g. office supplies, transportation products, signage, awards and plaques, office electronics, and office furniture), purchase cards are frequently used to acquire them. Purchase card holders are responsible for compliance with affirmative procurement regulations. Environmental requirements are covered in the mandatory purchase card training for both cardholders and approving officials. Glenn requires purchases of office supplies to be made from the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) which supports affirmative procurement. By controlling the source, and prohibiting open market procurement of office supplies, Glenn ensures compliance with environmental requirements related to office supplies. In addition, the procurement division monitors purchase card activities made by offices throughout the organization, and looks for prohibited items and other irregularities.
For acquisitions above the micro-purchase threshold, the procurement division relies on the procurement request review process to identify applicable procurements and also to ensure that responsible offices verify environmental compliance. For example, the environmental office is required to review statements of work for all construction and facility support contracts. Similarly, the transportation office reviews the procurement packages for requirements involving vehicles.
Discussions with representatives from technical offices revealed that environmental requirements are considered much earlier in the acquisition planning process than the point of solicitation review. They actively participate in defining requirements and reviewing specifications, statements of works, and proposed solicitation terms. They make or suggest changes based on general environmental considerations and include NASA-specific requirements to implement federal affirmative procurement requirements. The environmental requirements were not generally evident during contract file reviews, as most are incorporated by reference to voluminous technical standards and specifications. Sample documents were made available electronically during the survey and served to confirm that environmental aspects, particularly in construction work, are considered in the acquisition process.
None of the contracts reviewed included the FAR clauses 52.223-4 and 52.223-9, both of which should be included when specifications, standards or statements of work require the acquisition of products on the CPG list. (See Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 01-27.) Construction, janitorial, transportation and facilities support contracts generally require the use of CPG products and should routinely include the relevant FAR clauses.
It is often challenging, even for the best-intentioned contracting or technical official, to navigate the various federal environmental programs and ensure that NASA contracts reflect all environmental requirements. FAR 23 is confusing as are various guidance documents. Nonetheless, the Glenn Procurement Division, in partnership with various technical offices, successfully implements affirmative procurement.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division personnel should become better acquainted with affirmative procurement requirements particularly, since there is a heavy reliance on technical offices to ensure that procurement requirements are included in contracts. Rather than relying on outside offices, contracting officers should play a leadership role in advising their customers on environmental contract requirements and be accountable for compliance.
8. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Awards:
Reviews of contracts and supporting file documentation were conducted to determine whether applicable regulations and good business practices were followed in the award and administration of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) purchase orders (Phase I) and contracts (Phase II). In all cases the contractor’s proposal was incorporated by reference as the statement of work, with notations identifying contractor proprietary data. While this is an expedient way to process these relatively low risk awards, proposals sometimes contain conflicting information that may potentially make the contract difficult to enforce. Additionally, in one case the proposal was incorporated “as is” even though the COTR requested that one entire task description section be deleted.
Purchase orders and contracts included all required FAR and NFS clauses and files contained most required file documentation; exceptions include one file with no PNM and some missing COTR delegations. Other missing documents were undoubtedly in the SBIR and STTR master files, but this was not noted on the NF-1098. The SBIR/STTR Proposal Fact Sheet is a good tool to help ensure that critical issues are addressed. Some PPMs and PNMs lacked adequate details on pricing and other issues, and in some cases contractor systems were not addressed. The review revealed that the SBIR contracts are incrementally funded in very small amounts that cause a significant increase in the funding modification workload. It is noted that the Glenn Procurement Division has no control over this issue.
The SBIR files reviewed contain well-reasoned and supported technical evaluations, documented in the standardized format. Technical evaluations on SBIRs stood out as high-quality, thorough reviews. The technical reviewers demonstrate a high level of support for the SBIR program.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Implementation of CMM has had a significant impact on the ability of the Glenn Procurement Division to collect and analyze metrics data. Prior to CMM implementation a variety of metrics were tracked through the predecessor systems. Currently data retrieved from the Business Warehouse is tracked at the accounting line item level which is not useful for reporting purposes.
Some standard monthly reports are retrieved from the ‘CMM/PRISM’ system. However, the data is only about 80% accurate. Some reports are retrieved from FPDS NG. As a result of the limitations with the current CMM software, the Glenn Procurement Division is unable to track lead time data, etc. There are no resources available within the organization to try to resolve problems within the system.
The NASA Procurement Data View (NPDV) database is currently utilized to respond to data requests. NPDV is accessed through NAIS, a database managed by the HQ Office of Procurement. Workload status is tracked by individuals, however, information is limited to purchase request status and ‘buyer’ information. The information is tracked on approximately a monthly basis. The lack of consistency is attributed to problems with the new CMM software. Another CMM related problem is the lack of accuracy of the data retrieved. There is no regular flow of information to the management team regarding division metrics and/or process flows. The branch chiefs have access to the ‘canned’ CMM/PRISM reports, however, accuracy and consistency in obtaining the reports are continuing problems.
The Glenn Procurement Division has a representative actively participating on an agency-wide working group to address the problems with the CMM systems. However, there does not appear to be any attempts made to develop temporary solutions to track process flows within the procurement division during the interim.
Previously three tools were utilized to track metrics data: 1) NPDV for general data requests; 2) recurring reports to provide information to procurement division managers such as monthly workload, lead time data, UCAs, etc.; and 3) various ad hoc reports. The Procurement Officer and Deputy continue to provide periodic updates to senior Center Management. This information was previously submitted on a monthly basis. There is no regular metrics data flowing to the Branch Chiefs outside of the limited standard reports generated through the CMM/PRISM software.
The problem of retrieving accurate and consistent data from the CMM system is a recognized problem. However it does not appear that the Glenn Procurement Division has attempted to develop an alternative method for tracking process flows until the problems with CMM are corrected. It is noted that conversations with representatives from other Centers experiencing similar problems revealed that manual alternatives have been established to fill the void.
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division should take a more pro-active stance to address problems encountered in acquiring metrics data due to limitations with the current CMM software.
10. Homeland Security Policy Directive (HSPD) -12 Compliance:
(Note: This is the first review performed by the Procurement Management Survey Team of the Implementation of HSPD-12/Personal Identity Verification (PIV). It is expected that several of the findings and observations will not be specific to Glenn and may provide helpful hints to other procurement offices on implementation of HSPD-12 requirements).
In preparation for the HSPD-12/PIV review an extensive list of contracts was selected from Glenn’s Active Contracts List. Particular care was taken to ensure actions fit the parameters of the HSPD-12/PIV implementation applicability (i.e., solicitations released or contracts awarded on or after October 27, 2005, exempting procurement actions that will be completed by October 27, 2007). The Glenn Procurement Division indicated that policies and procedures to guide the process for contracts already modified to include the PIV clause (FAR 52.204-9) were still in the developmental stages.
The proper implementation of HSPD-12/PIV will greatly depend upon the input of Program/Project Managers, and other technical personnel. This input is particularly important where procurements (Solicitations, Contracts, BPA’s, BOA’s, PO’s, etc.,) or Financial Assistance-based (Grants and Cooperative Agreements), and BAA solicitations (NRA’s, AO’s etc.) allow access to government systems. It is incumbent upon the subject matter experts to perform the necessary reviews of solicitation and contract requirements (i.e., Statements of Work or Performance Work Statements, Work Plans etc.) needed to accurately identify candidate procurement actions.
The input of the Program/Project Managers and other technical office representatives is particularly important in circumstances where procurements (contracts, BPA’s, BOA’s, PO’s, etc., or grants and cooperative agreements) allow access to government systems. These types of performance requirements are likely to be harder to identify than actions that allow access to property. The Glenn Procurement Division should work closely with the Center’s HSPD-12 Implementation Manager to develop and implement Work Instructions that address the steps necessary based on the type of access (i.e., property and systems access). In addition, Work Instructions should include definition or clarifications on “Intermittent” vs “Routine” Access to the Center’s facilities, and may need to be tailored to the type of facility involved. For example, certain facilities such as nuclear facilities may necessitate a different time period for defining routine and intermittent access than a facility where administrative or routine IT services are conducted.
CONSIDERATION:
11. Documentation for Awards Resulting from Broad Agency Announcements:
Reviews of contracts and supporting file documentation were conducted to determine whether applicable regulations and good business practices were followed in the award and administration of contracts resulting from Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). The review included contracts awarded from two separate NASA Headquarters BAAs (ESMD and ARMD) as well as from a Glenn NASA Research Announcement (NRA); a Glenn-issued NRA entitled “Low Emissions Alternative Power (LEAP)” was also reviewed.
Contracts:
Contracts reviewed included all required FAR and NFS clauses and files contained most required file documentation; exceptions include two files with no PNMs and one with no Option Justification Memorandum (even though the contract did include an option). Other missing documents were undoubtedly in the BAA master files, but this was not noted on the NF-1098. Some PPMs and PNMs lacked adequate details on pricing and other issues, and in some cases Contractor systems were not addressed. This was not universal, however, one particular Contract Specialist included outstanding documentation in these pricing memos. The form “Information for the C.O. for Award of Contracts in Support of Aero NRA”, which was found in at least one file, is a good tool. Certified cost or pricing data was not typically required for these contracts, and in some cases the NRA actually stated that adequate price competition was expected. It does not seem appropriate to use this exception in cases where substantial de-scopes of initial proposals are required by the Government after selection. This requires the submission of entirely new cost proposals that are not subject to price competition. In the area of contract administration, one contract was de-scoped by modification after award; the value of the price reduction exceeded the certified cost or pricing data threshold, but certified data was not obtained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
LEAP NRA:
The NRA document is very well organized and is in full compliance with NPR 5810.1. The NRA master file included all required documentation and is of high quality. The only concern related to this NRA is a selection that is inconsistent with evaluation results. Proposals were solicited in numerous technical areas, and within each area the proposals were ranked as 1 st tier, 2 nd tier and 3 rd tier, with first tier being the most highly rated. Three of the four selected proposals were ranked as 1 st tier, but the fourth was ranked as 2 nd tier and was selected ahead of the 1 st tier proposals in the same technical area (Fuel Cells). Further, the selection statement provided no rationale for the selections – in this document the evaluation process (not results) was discussed at some length, followed simply by a list of the four selected proposals. This selection creates an area of great concern and could potentially prove embarrassing to the agency if these details became widely known.
STRENGTH
The Glenn Procurement Division is commended for the excellent documentation of the LEAP NRA it is very well written and in accordance with NPR 5810.1.
WEAKNESS
The Glenn Procurement Division should investigate the circumstances involving the selection of proposals for award under the LEAP NRA to ensure that no improper activities occurred. Further, the Glenn Procurement Officer should take steps to ensure that selection officials receive proper guidance and oversight to improve future selections.
12. Contract Management Module (CMM) Issues:
Stress and frustration with CMM was a consistent theme during the interviews at Glenn. One employee provided a particularly colorful remark that CMM was akin to a “Fisher Price” contract tool. There is a persistent perception that work takes longer with the implementation of CMM than previously. While there is a recognition that some of this is related to the learning curve for the new system, and that individuals in high-volume areas are able to work more quickly than those who do not use the system on a daily basis; there is also a good deal of frustration stemming from the added number of steps required to generate contract documents. Specific challenges appear to be addressed through submission of service requests (SRs), however, the SR process itself appears to give rise to additional frustration. A number of positive recommendations for the improvement of the CMM system were provided and will be forwarded to NASA HQ and the Competency Center for consideration.
The availability of data and information from the CMM and Business Warehouse (BW) applications is an additional source of frustration. The limited reporting capabilities within CMM as well as the questionable reliability of certain data fields have undermined confidence in the system as a whole. Data extraction and manipulation outside of the CMM-BW architecture presents a drain on limited resources and leads to frustration as managers are unable to obtain workload data that was previously available.
Several examples of "work around processes" to the use of CMM are necessitated by a perception of slow system response and/or lack of confidence in system integrity, particularly as relates to the clause templates. The Speedy Document Generation System (SDGS) was used at Glenn to generate solicitation and contract documents prior to the implementation of CMM. The SDGS provided a logic-based question and answer application that produced a list of recommended clauses in a solicitation or contract document. The SDGS was no longer available for use after November 2006 (to coincide with CMM ‘rollout’), however a combination of unfamiliarity with CMM templates and a lack of confidence in the reliability of the CMM templates to produce solicitations and contracts has resulted in individual procurement personnel using the SDGS to produce lists of recommended clauses. In other cases, Glenn procurement personnel relied on previous solicitations and contracts and imported them into CMM in lieu of using the CMM templates.
While pressure to accomplish the day-to-day mission is primary in the minds of procurement personnel, there is risk that bypassing CMM processes and procedures in favor of locally developed solutions may have a detrimental impact across NASA. Glenn procurement and technical personnel agreed to provide functional requirements for extra-curricular systems for potential incorporation into the CMM system or for agency-wide adoption of alternative solutions.
There is a consensus that the initial training provided for CMM was inadequate and that additional hands-on training is necessary to enable procurement personnel to adapt effective business processes for CMM. Glenn personnel provide a series of workshops, training sessions and tutorials to assist procurement personnel in working with the CMM system.
STRENGTHS:
CONSIDERATION:
The Glenn Procurement Division was reviewed for its management of the Center’s socioeconomic program for small businesses. Specifically, the following areas were addressed: Organization and Structure; Utilization of the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System; Socioeconomic Goal Achievement; Industry Assistance and Outreach programs; Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, Small Business Technical Advisor; and Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative.
2. Organizational and Structure:
Overall, the Glenn Small Business Office (SBO) is working well. The Small Business Specialist (SBS) and the Procurement Officer are committed to the effective implementation of the small business program at the Center. This commitment is evident in the organizational structure of the Glenn Procurement Division. The SBS reports directly to the Procurement Officer. Additionally, the Procurement Officer is directly involved in the operations of the SBO.
The SBO consists of one SBS who dedicates fulltime effort to working the Center’s small business program. During the previous survey in 2004, additional support was provided to the office on a part time basis to assist with the review of Individual Subcontracting Reports (formerly SF-294). The individual providing the review support subsequently retired. Since that time, several individuals received brief collateral assignments to the office, however, none of the assignments were permanent and the benefits of the assignments were limited. The current SBS plans to retire by end of the third quarter of FY 2007.
A reorganization effort has been underway at Glenn since 2003. The primary focus of this effort is the Agency’s Vision for Exploration and the Center’s desire to align itself with the Headquarters missions. Although the Glenn Procurement Division has struggled somewhat to properly align with the changing technical organizations, the reorganization at the Center has had little impact on the small business program.
3. Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS):
The SBS at each Center serves as primary point of contact for the eSRS. The eSRS system was implemented on a government-wide basis in October 2005. The SBS has access to Individual Subcontract Reports (formerly SF-294, “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts”) for the Center. The Agency Coordinator for electronic subcontract reporting has access to all records in the system.
The SBS is responsible for the establishment of a procedure for accepting and rejecting reports within the system. This process should, however, mirror the previous process for receiving the SF-294 reports. There appears to be some disagreement between the SBS and the contracting officers within the Glenn Procurement Division regarding responsibility for accepting or rejecting the reports. Placement of responsibility is at the discretion of the Center, however, it is important that the reports are reviewed for discrepancies and corrected prior to acceptance. The data once accepted, is entered into the Small Business Administration (SBA) database and forwarded in their reports to Congress.
A variety of reports reflecting subcontracting goal achievements are accessible in the system. They include pre-determined reports developed by the SBA for government-wide utilization and ad hoc reports developed by the individuals.
Direct Awards - $ Amounts in Thousands
| FY 2004 Goals | FY 2004 Actual |
FY 2005 Goals | FY 2005 Actual |
FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Business | 392,000 |
351,775 |
291,000 |
397,449 |
270,000 |
441,336 |
| Small Business | 224,600 |
213,748 |
177,000 |
214,960 |
158,000 |
273,687 |
| HUB Zone | 8,000 |
2,364 |
5,000 |
8,632 |
17,000 |
29,157 |
| SDVOB | 300 |
49 |
5,000 |
7,253 |
1,000 |
87 |
| 8(a) | 99,000 |
101,579 |
90,000 |
97,518 |
79,000 |
134,701 |
| SDB | 43,000 |
48,370 |
18,000 |
18,873 |
34,000 |
41,538 |
| WOSB | 11,000 |
8,714 |
7,000 |
11,186 |
7,000 |
11,428 |
| HBCU/MI | n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
100 |
0 |
NOTE: In FY05, the contract for security services at the Center was awarded to a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB). In FY06, the company discontinued its SDVOB certification.
Three small businesses were interviewed to assess the level of support and information provided to small businesses by the SBO. A secondary purpose of the interviews was to ensure that they understand the mission and goals of the Agency’s small business program.
The center SBO has a positive relationship with each of the small businesses interviewed. All indicated that they receive sufficient information to assist in identifying opportunities both at Glenn and other NASA centers. It is important that the SBS share information on outreach events to provide the small businesses its widest audience, since the number of events feasibly attended is limited.
Small Business Councils are another tool utilized to assist small businesses in their growth with successful results. The Councils are typically comprised of prime contractors at the respective Centers. Membership varies from prime contractors only to a combination of both prime and subcontractors. The Small Business Councils share experience and information. They also provide information to the Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) regarding various issues. In difficult financial times, they serve as a resource to small businesses. Some councils meet monthly and others meet quarterly. Most SBSs are active members of these groups.
The Cleveland Aerospace Partnership & Regional Alliance is the only Small Business Council at Glenn. It is comprised of a group of small and large businesses with a vested interest in Glenn. The council has been in existence for some time but in recent years has been less active as a result of downsizing at Glenn. One unique aspect of this council is the membership fee requirement.
6. Small Business Technical Advisor:
Federal regulations require the assignment of a Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA) to all locations with an assigned SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR). The regulations require a full time effort from a qualified individual.
Discussions with the SBTA, SBS and PCR revealed that a minimum amount of time is devoted to the performance of SBTA functions at Glenn. Additionally, the SBA PCR, as is noted below, has very limited involvement in the Center’s procurement matters. The SBA PCR is only engaged if contacted by a small business on a specific matter or support is sought by the SBS; neither are frequent occurrences.
7. Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative (SBA PCR):
The Glenn SBA PCR is not resident but serves as a liaison. As a result the SBA PCR is only involved in proposed acquisitions or contracts with a value greater than or equal to $500K and subcontracting requirements. Discussions held during this survey revealed no changes from the 2004 survey findings. Although the interaction between the SBA PCR and the Glenn SBS is very limited, the rapport between them is excellent. Current workload as the resident PCR for the Defense Supplier Center and informal liaison activities to other agencies in the area, do not permit more routine involvement with the Glenn SBO. The SBA PCR’s involvement is primarily initiated upon request either by small businesses or the SBS. The SBA PCR is also involved in circumstances where agreement cannot be reached in the establishment of small business goals. These occurrences are infrequent.
The Glenn SBS participates in OSBP sponsored events that bring together NASA technical personnel, prime and subcontractors, and small businesses. Travel funds to support these activities are typically provided by the Glenn Procurement Division. There are certain circumstances where the funding is provided by specific Program Offices at the Center. It is necessary to have an accurate accounting of the costs associated with maintaining an effective Center Small Business Program, particularly when funding is initiated from different organizations.
9. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program:
The Glenn SBIR Program Manager has an innovative approach and provided an excellent overview of the program. A discussion of combining the SBIR and Mentor Protégé programs was conducted. The Program Manager was receptive to the idea, and indicated an awareness of the problem that has traditionally plagued the SBIR Phase III Program portion. When queried about the possibility of addressing small business goal achievement during the technical proposal evaluation stages of the SBIR process, the response received was that there was no feasible opportunity to address this area at the proposal evaluation stage.
STRENGTH:
The SBS works full time on the small business program. The SBS reports directly to the Procurement Officer and is fully supported by the Glenn Procurement Division. The Procurement Officer is fully knowledgeable of and experienced in working small business related issues. The SBS is responsible for developing the Master Plan and Acquisition Forecast for the Center as a result the SBS is well informed of planned procurements. Despite the limited staff and limited funding the Small Business Office ensures that the Center’s socioeconomic goals are achieved and exceeded in some categories.
CONSIDERATIONS:
|
Owner: Yolande Harden |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: October 30, 2007 |