PREFACE
The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted this Procurement Management Survey at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) under the authority of NASA Policy Directive 1000.3, The NASA Organization. The survey was conducted from August 15 through August 26, 2005.
An exit briefing was held at the GSFC on August 26, 2005 to discuss the survey findings. Mr. Chris Scolese, Deputy Center Director and Ms. Valorie Burr, Procurement Officer represented GSFC. Mr. Tom Luedtke, Associate Administrator, and Mr. John Trahan, GSFC Survey Manager represented Headquarters.
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).
John E. Trahan
GSFC Survey Program Manager
Analysis and Assessment Team
Office of Procurement, NASA Headquarters
SECTION II ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT
SECTION IV PRICING-FINANCIAL-AUDITS
SECTION V POST - AWARD/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION VI GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS
SECTION VIII SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB)
SECTION I
The Procurement Organization at the Goddard Space Flight Center is providing meaningful support to their program customers. The Procurement Management Survey Team interviewed randomly selected technical and program representatives to ascertain any issues or concerns with the current processes. A significant degree of customer satisfaction is apparent from the interviews with the technical community. Additionally, interviews with numerous acquisition professionals, at all levels of the GSFC organization, regarding the effectiveness of the procurement office were conducted.
The interviews of technical and acquisition personnel are given roughly equal survey emphasis as the review of contracting actions which focused on compliance with procurement statutes, regulations, and procedures. The thrust of the compliance portion is directed towards systemic procurement processes, as opposed to focusing on individual file anomalies. Attention was also directed to current procurement innovations, both Agency-wide and Center specific.
The results of the compliance reviews and the interviews are detailed as strengths, weaknesses, and areas of consideration. Also, to promote the exchange of successful lessons learned and innovative procurement methodologies between Centers, the team sought to identify GSFC processes or initiatives that might benefit other Centers and, likewise, looked to other Centers for suggested approaches that might be exported to the GSFC.
The exit conference at the conclusion of the survey consisted 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 will focus on the corrective actions or initiatives
undertaken by the Center. At an appropriate interval (approximately six
months after this report is issued) the GSFC Procurement Officer will
brief the Associate Administrator for Procurement and the survey team
leader on Center achievements in these areas.
Below is a list of team members and the areas reviewed by each individual:
|
JOHN TRAHAN |
GSFC Survey Team Manager (Organizational Management, Interviews- Procurement Professionals and Technical Customers), Self-Assessment Process |
| PAMELA WHITE (MSFC) |
Market Research, Consolidated Contracting Initiative (CCI), Government Furnished Property, Grants and Cooperative Agreements |
|
HAROLD JEFFERSON |
Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), Audit Follow-Up, Contract Safety Requirements,Bankcard Program, Closeouts and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs) |
| TOM RUSSELL (HQ) |
Justification For Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC), Contractor Performance Evaluation (NF-1680), Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts, Interagency Agreements, Deviations and Waivers, Financial Management Reporting (NF 533) |
| ROBERT LISY (GRC) |
Cost/Price Analysis, Technical Evaluations, Pre-Negotiation and Post Negotiation Documentation, Use of Structured Approach in Profit/Fee, Contractor Pension/Insurance Reviews |
|
JERRY EDMOND |
Simplified Acquisition Procedures/ Commercial Acquisition, Performance Based Contracting, IFMP Policies and Procedures, Internal Policies and Procedures/VPO, Metrics, Customer and Legal Office Interviews |
| SHERRY GASAWAY (KSC) |
Exercise of Options, Task Order (Competition under Multiple Award and Delivery Order Contracts), Construction Contracts and A-E Services Contracts, Progress Payments on Construction Contracts, Environmental Clauses |
| MICHELE RICHTER (GRC) |
1102s Career Development Training, COTR Delegations and Training, Synopsis of Contract Award, Subcontract Consents, SBIR Program |
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support from Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Stennis Space Center and the following individuals:
| DONNA SPRINKLE |
Headquarters Procurement Data Support |
|
REBEKAH BREWER |
Headquarters Administrative Support |
| PATRICK LOGAN | Goddard Space Flight Center Center Point of Contact |
1. Organization Structure and Staffing
The organizational structure of GSFC's Procurement Operations Division (POD) has not changed significantly since the 2003 GSFC Procurement Management Survey.
The POD is comprised of five Procurement Offices responsible for planning, awarding, and managing acquisitions and associated activities for customers at GSFC. The five Procurement Offices are the Office for Headquarters, Office for Institutional Programs, Office for Mission Enabling, Office for Space Sciences, and Office for Earth Sciences. Each of these offices is headed by a GS-15 who is a POD Associate Division Chief. At the time of the last survey, there were two supervisory GS-14 Procurement Managers assigned to each Procurement Office. In an attempt to address workload issues, an additional supervisory GS-14 Procurement Manager was placed in the Office for Headquarters and the Office for Mission Enabling bringing the total number of supervisory GS-14 Procurement Managers to twelve within the POD. Since the last survey, more emphasis and resources has been placed on the infrastructure associated with the POD. Some of the notable activities include IFM core finance, IFM Contract Management Module process implementation and coordination, and FPDS-NG.
Personnel turnover is a serious issue within the GSFC POD due to other opportunities available to the procurement workforce within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Over the last couple of years, the turnover rate within the organization has increase dramatically as evidenced by the table below. In order to proactively deal with this situation, the Procurement Officer has established an attrition committee to develop and implement ideas to mitigate the impact of the problem. In order to retain highly skilled procurement professionals, six GS-14 non-supervisory positions have been created within the organization with the approval and financial support of some of the technical organizations at the GSFC. Some of these individuals serve as Contracting Officer's on the larger dollar more complex program contracts which are managed within the POD. (Example: Hubble Space Telescope) The others reside in the Office for Headquarters providing support to a myriad of NASA Headquarters technical customers.
| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Turnover | 9.0% | 4.5% | 5.5% | 11.6% | 11.6% |
The total procurement staffing level has decreased by 3.2% since the last survey, 185 versus 191 in 2003. The organization has seen a fairly steady decline in personnel since the year 2000 without any noticeable decline in the quality of service they provide to their customers.
STRENGTH:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is commended for the steps that have been taken to retain highly skilled and motivated procurement professionals.
2. Customer Interviews
The Survey Team interviewed 18 GSFC Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) to determine their satisfaction as it related to the effectiveness of services provided by Goddard's Procurement Office. Issues emphasized in the interviews included timeliness, quality, responsiveness, cooperation, communication, etc. In addition, the team also utilized this opportunity to discuss training and appointment processes with the COTRs.
Personnel chosen for the interviews included individuals selected from the current COTR database and management personnel representing technical organizations at Headquarters, GSFC and Wallops Flight Facility. In some cases the procurement personnel were immediately co-located with the customer and in other cases they were centrally located.
The majority of COTRs interviewed were satisfied with the level of communication and interface that takes place and the accessibility of their procurement support. The COTRs interviewed expressed that the procurement personnel were responsive to their concerns and questions, involved in the early stages of the acquisition cycle, kept them informed of contract activities, and completed their procurements when the customer required them. The majority of the COTRs believed that the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer are an integral part of their team. In fact one COTR expressed such satisfaction with their Contracting Officer that they said they were nominating that person for a peer award from the Programs and Projects Directorate. One COTR commented "for as complicated as the process is the POD does a good job of making the process transparent and being responsive to their needs". Another COTR expressed that "there has been considerable improvement in the level of service I receive from the POD in the last 1-2 years".
Many COTRs did express concern that the POD employees seemed to be overworked. They believed that procurement professionals get "the job done" in spite of a low staffing level. One of the COTRs expressed that he was carrying Procurement as a major risk in their Project Schedule because they had seen cases where this low level of staffing affected the ability of Procurement Professionals to award contracts and modifications in a timely manner.
Other COTRs expressed concern that there is high turnover among Procurement Professionals. However, they did not feel it affected the office to the extent where actions slipped. They expressed their understanding that Procurement professionals needed the opportunity for growth and that was the main reason why people "moved on" to other jobs.
Most COTRS interviewed appeared to understand the procurement process, all COTRs interviewed received a NASA Form (NF) 1634, "Contracting Officer Technical Representation (COTR) Delegation" for each contract for which they were responsible. In addition they received the mandatory COTR training when assigned as a COTR and COTR refresher training when appropriate. Several COTRs indicated that Goddard has placed an increased emphasis on COTR training in the last few years. Overall, the COTRs interviewed indicated that the training was important to their role as a COTR and helped them understand procurement terminology.
Several COTRs expressed that the training could be split up among major acquisition and acquisition for smaller dollar procurements. Therefore the training would be more appropriate for all of the technical customers involved. Another COTR expressed that the training should more focused on their roles and responsibilities not how to acquiring a product. This COTR felt the action of acquiring a product is appropriately explained in the Foundations of Program and Project Management and other program project management classes offered at NASA. Others expressed that while the training was good their training was too focused on DOD acquisition.
During these interviews COTRs provided the following suggestions for the Procurement Operations Division to consider:
STRENGTH:
The POD is commended for the high level of customer satisfaction among its technical customers.
The Survey Team also interviewed seven (7) Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) who reside at NASA Headquarters to determine their satisfaction as it related to the effectiveness of services provided by Goddard's Procurement Office. Issues emphasized in the interviews included timeliness, quality, responsiveness, cooperation, communication, etc. In addition, the team also utilized this opportunity to discuss training and appointment processes with the COTRs.
The majority of COTRs interviewed expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the knowledge, professionalism, and responsiveness of the procurement workforce when it came to the administration of their larger dollar value contracts. These COTRs felt that procurement personnel were responsive to their concerns and questions, involved in the early stages of the acquisition cycle, kept them informed of contract activities, and completed their procurement actions when the customer required them.
However, there were a couple of areas in which COTRs expressed some concern and frustration with the GSFC office of procurement. Turnover of procurement personnel was cited as a major concern among COTRs. They indicated that the large amount of turnover resulted in procurement personnel assigned to their projects lacking experience with the organization and/or mission being supported. COTR's also expressed a concern that in some instances procurement personnel did not complete competitive procurement actions in what the COTR deemed a timely manner due to the rotation of procurement personnel during the acquisition process. They stated that contract extension had to be executed in several cases due to the fact that the new procurement was not awarded in a timely manner.
In several instances, COTR's expressed a concern with the support that they were receiving from the GSFC procurement organization concerning smaller dollar procurements. They felt that once the requirement was entered into the Integrated Financial Management (IFM) system, it went into a "black hole." They did not know who was assigned to work the procurement, therefore, they did not know who to contact to get the status of the procurement. Some of the COTR's also expressed a concern with the responsiveness of the procurement professionals to e-mail and/or phone inquiries regarding the status of their procurement actions.
All of the COTR's interviewed indicated that they had received the mandatory COTR training when assigned as a COTR and COTR refresher training when appropriate. Overall, the COTRs interviewed indicated that the training was important to their role as a COTR and helped them understand procurement terminology and their responsibilities as a COTR. During the interview process, it appeared that some of the COTR's had not been involved in updating the past performance database as a regular part of their duties as COTR's.
3. Procurement Staff Interviews
Interviews were conducted with 18 procurement professionals within the 1102 workforce to gain insight into their perspectives on the effectiveness of the organization. All of the individuals interviewed were between the GS-7 and the GS-13 grade level. Individuals from all procurement offices were represented in the interview process. This methodology allowed the Survey Team Program Manager to make an assessment utilizing representation of various grade levels and offices within the GSFC Procurement Operations Division.
The procurement workforce responded very favorable in the interview in the areas of training, communications, promotion potential, and rotational opportunities. The individuals interviewed were very satisfied with the training opportunities that were provided by GSFC to aid them in performing their assigned duties. This training included continuing education, CON level certifications, training provided by local professional organizations, and GSFC specific focus training opportunities. Communication within the organization was also rated highly effective by the preponderance of the GSFC procurement workforce interviewed. The respondents also indicated that they felt the promotion potential within the organization was good and promotions for the most part were handled in a fair and equitable manner. The interviewees also responded favorably to the statement that management would be receptive to requests for rotational assignments in order to broaden the experience base of an individual within the organization.
While the vast majority of feedback was positive, constructive feedback was provided in the areas of workload and the increasing attrition rate within the GSFC procurement organization. These two issues are closely linked together, the higher the attrition rate, the more work that is placed on the remaining workforce to accomplish. Even when replacements are found, they do not have the necessary training and/or expertise to take over the entire workload that the departed individual left behind. This situation at times creates a sense of an unfair workload distribution within the organization. This situation also leads to the workload being shuffled quite often by management which creates anxiety and stress for some individuals within the organization and a lack of continuity in the management of GSFC procurements. Some of the individuals also expressed a concern about the loss of "corporate knowledge" if the attrition rate continued at this pace.
As a whole, when asked to assess the overall morale of the procurement workforce at GSFC, about half of the procurement workforce stated that morale is good while the other half stated that morale was bad and needed improvement. The driving factor behind the poor assessment was the increased workload driven by the high attrition rate within the procurement organization.
4. Legal Office Interview
Since the last procurement management survey in June of 2003 considerable changes have taking place in the GSFC Office of Chief Counsel. Both the Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief Counsel have been replaced. During this survey Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief Counsel were interviewed. The Chief Counsel expressed that he was specifically charged with "repairing the relationship between legal and procurement." Chief Counsel expressed that the relationship has been repaired through open communication with the procurement community. The Chief Counsel expressed that they have developed a good working relationship with the POD and have a high regard for the Senior Staff. Chief Counsel feels that procurement has kept them in the loop on pertinent procurement issues. Specifically the quarterly meetings between the POD Senior Staff and the Legal Staff help to keep an open dialog between legal and the POD. Chief Counsel further expressed that the quality of files from the POD depends on the level of seniority of the Contract Specialist. He also expressed that it seems that there is a high amount of turnover in the POD and that a higher grade structure should be instituted for high performers in order to deal with this problem. Specifically, he stated that JOFOCs could be better and that the technical determination for going sole source from the technical community is weak. When asked specifically about the use of the (C ) (2) exception for "Urgent and Compelling" he said that when this exception is used the legal office often "pushes back" therefore its use is not encouraged. Chief Counsel was particularly impressed with how the POD handles its SEBs. He also expressed that some improvement in working with Headquarters' customers has come about since the creation of the liaison position in the Office of Procurement at Headquarters. The Chief Counsel further stated that he had not seen any issues with SOWs as in the previous survey. The Deputy Chief Counsel echoed the sentiments of the Chief Counsel specifically in terms of the good working relationship with POD, the high degree of respect for the senior staff, and the quality of files were dependent upon the level of experience of the employees.
STRENGTH:
The Office of Chief Counsel and the POD are commended for developing and continuing initiatives to improve their relationship.
1. Market Research
Of the files reviewed, four of the files were the result of NRAs.
One file indicated that market research was done at NASA Headquarters
prior to receipt of files for award. The other files contained very well
documented Market Research Analysis; two of the awards were set-aside
for 8(a) companies as a result of the market research conducted.
Contract Specialists are doing an excellent job using various techniques to perform market research. Techniques include: sources sought synopsis, discussions with subject matter experts, reviews of similar buys, review of government and commercial websites, review of GSA schedules and reviews of the CCI website.
STRENGTH:
GSFC is commended for utilizing several different methods of market research which resulted in a very thorough analysis of potential sources.
2. Consolidated Contracting Initiative (CCI)
Random files were reviewed. Four of the files were the result of NRAs. The balance of the files contained documentation that indicated the Consolidated Contracting Initiative (CCI) website was checked prior to a solicitation being issued.
There is a total of 27 contracts listed on the Contract Resource List of the CCI website that were awarded and are being administered by GSFC. The contracts are listed under various classifications including: space vehicles, research and development, education and training, information technology, and professional, administrative and management support services. These contracts include the ODIN and SEWP contracts that are used by other NASA installations. Several of the contracts listed are available for use by all Federal Agencies.
STRENGTH:
GSFC has issued and administers several contracts on the CCI website for use by NASA installations and other Federal Agencies.
3. Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)
Nine noncompetitive contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 6.3 and NFS Subpart 1806.3 regarding other than full and open competition. Dollar values ranged from $2.3M to $70M. Statutory authorities included (c) (1) - only one responsible source, (c) (2) - unusual and compelling urgency, and (c) (3) - maintain an essential engineering, developmental, or research capability. All of the JOFOC's were well-documented and contained sufficient rationale to support the sole source. All cited the appropriate authority and all were reviewed and approved at the appropriate level. It is noted that it is GSFC policy that all JOFOC's with a value of $500K and above require Procurement Officer concurrence and Competition Advocate approval. The Center Deputy Director is the Competition Advocate. JOFOC's greater than $750K require legal office concurrence. This policy ensures that JOFOC's undergo exhaustive reviews prior to approval. GSFC also utilizes an internal Procurement Circular, issued in 1997, as an effective tool for ensuring all of the FAR and NFS requirements are covered. This Circular is periodically updated to include current requirements, and includes a JOFOC template.
All but one of the JOFOC's contained all of the information required
by FAR 6.303-2. The one exception did not include the estimated value
of the acquisition. This JOFOC also did not state that the synopsis requirement
was waived due to the unusual and compelling urgency of the acquisition,
although a synopsis waiver was in the file.
One of the JOFOC's was for a follow-on for specialized services and stated
that a non-competitive acquisition was necessary to avoid substantial
duplication of cost unacceptable delays, but no specific cost or schedule
data was provided to substantiate these statements.
STRENGTH:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is commended for the overall quality of the JOFOC's reviewed.
CONSIDERATION:
Regarding the few exceptions noted above, CO's should ensure that all information required by the FAR and NFS is included in the JOFOC's.
4. Government Furnished Property
The files reviewed contained the proper clauses in accordance with the FAR and NFS. Only one contract file did not include government furnished property and should not have been coded as such. The files were forwarded for SEMO review as required by NFS 1845.102-71(b). The files contained the list of property to be furnished to the contractor when appropriate. NF 1018 reporting is done electronically when required by NFS 1852.245-73.
One file did not go through SEMO review even though it met the requirements: contract value was greater than $50K, required on-site performance, provided existing property and was a follow-on contract. This file did address property maintenance.
CONSIDERATION:
The GSFC Procurement Officer should ensure that files are reviewed by SEMO when required.
1. Cost and Price Analysis
Nineteen contract files were reviewed for adequacy of cost and price
analysis. The scope of the review included competitive, noncompetitive,
fixed price and cost reimbursable contracts ranging in price from $197K
to $297M.
Many times DCAA audits of Billing Rates, Forward Price Rate Proposals
(not be confused with an ACO approved FPRA) and Incurred Cost audits were
cited as justification for accepting proposed rates or factors. Often
DCAA was cited in the PNM as the source for approved or accepted rates,
but rarely was the specific DCAA office identified or was the DCAA Report
number documented in the analysis. This made it impossible to verify information
for conduct follow-up analysis.
It was common for DCAA to be incorrectly identified as the approving agency for a contractor's proposed rates or factors. DCAA audits are advisory only as either ACOs or CACOs are approving authorities for contractors' rates and factors. Several files had copies of DCAA audits on Billing Rate Proposals that were used as justification for accepting the proposed rates. These audits contained the name, phone number and e-mail address of the ACO who is responsible for approving the contractor's FPRA. One DCAA proposal rate audit varied significantly from the FPRA due to the offerors submission of a new rate proposal. Despite this discrepancy and having the ACO information the contract specialist did not contact the ACO to obtain accurate rate or factor information.
Proposed Material Costs and ODC were consistently accepted based on the technical evaluation. The technical evaluation would accept proposed materials on a total cost basis without any indication of an analysis or material list review. Questioned other direct costs (ODC) were primarily the proposed travel costs. Other ODCs proposed were either not addressed in the pricing action or accepted based on the technical evaluation. Labor hours were accepted by the technical evaluator without an analysis of the skill mix or time phase of the labor effort. Technical evaluations in which labor hours were accepted without an analysis of the skill mix or time phase were not returned for further clarification. Proposed escalation was questioned consistently if it did not conform to the NASA escalation recommendation. The more appropriate use of escalation rates tailored to the proposed labor market or material commodity was not utilized unless the offeror insisted. Global Research escalation rates are available to the contract specialist from DCAA.
In all required situations, the requirement for cost and pricing data was appropriately identified in the solicitation document and the accompanying properly executed Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data was contained in the contract file.
WEAKNESSES:
(1) Contract specialists should request rate and factor information from the ACO or CACO. DCAA audits are advisory only.
(2) When reliance is placed on DCAA audit information, justification for that reliance, the DCAA source document, and identification of the DCAA office should be documented in the pricing action.
(3) Pricing actions should be described in sufficient detail for a third party to review and confirm the rationale for the Government's position.
2. Technical Evaluations of Cost Proposals
In the last procurement survey conducted in June of 2003, it was noted that technical evaluations lacked sufficient detail and supporting rationale. A review of nineteen contracts consisting of competitive and non-competitive procurements was preformed to ascertain the acceptability and improvement of technical evaluations and their compliance with the requirements stated in FAR 15.404.
Most of the technical evaluations reviewed accepted the proposed labor skill mix and hours without indication of any critical analysis being preformed. There were no indications in either cost analysis reports or Prenegotiation Position Memorandums that the contract specialists performed any follow-up to obtain more information to support the technical evaluator's recommendation. Evaluations contained indefinite information not relevant to a determination of the acceptability of the proposal in relationship to the statement of work. Technical evaluations occasionally indicated that the proposed labor rates and ODC were too high; the contract specialist accepted the opinion without further analysis such as a rate analysis.
The focus in technical evaluation comments on costs may indicate that evaluators may not fully understand that their key role in the technical evaluation should be analysis of the basis (historical data, standards, etc.) proposed for the types and quantities of proposed hours and /or other direct cost items.
The contracting officer should tailor requests for technical evaluations to reflect the essential information needed to conduct the technical or cost or pricing analysis. Request for technical evaluations were not tailored to request only the information required to preform an evaluation of the proposal.
WEAKNESS:
There has not been noticeable improvement in the quality of technical evaluations nor were there indications that contract specialists followed up for more information on marginal technical evaluations. The Procurement Officer should take action to emphasize the importance and necessity for quality technical evaluations to both the technical community and the acquisition staff. It is recommended that the Procurement Officer consider providing guidance or training in order to acquaint evaluators with estimating techniques used in proposal preparation as well as techniques that could be employed in performing critical analyses of cost proposals. It is also recommended that the Procurement Officer remind the acquisition staff they should follow-up on technical reports that lack necessary critical evaluations and information. (REPEAT FINDING)
CONSIDERATION:
The Procurement Officer should take appropriate action to ensure contract specialists are aware of the requirement for tailoring technical evaluation requests to the specific need.
3. Pre-Negotiation and Post-Negotiation Memorandums (Adequacy of Detail)
The survey team selected fifty five contract files for review; from these
a review of twenty one files was preformed to ascertain the adequacy of
pre-negotiation position memorandums (PPM) and post-negotiation memorandums
(PNM). Utilizing the standard format prescribed in Goddard Space Flight
Center Procurement Circular 02-01, Prenegotiation Position and Price Negotiation
Memorandums all eleven areas specified in FAR 15.406-3 and NFS 1815.406-170
are addressed consistently. However, many files having PPM and "stand-alone"
PNM failed to; comply with the requirement for documenting the extent
to which certified cost or pricing data submitted was relied on; articulate,
document and achieve a standard of traceability of the source information
used to establish the status of contractors systems; and lacked the appropriate
documentation for justifying the use of a "stand-alone" PNM.
A review of Prenegotiation Position Memorandums and "stand alone"
Price Negotiation Memorandums revealed the status of contractors systems
were not adequately documented. Goddard Space Flight Center Procurement
Circular 02-01, Prenegotiation Position and Price Negotiation Memorandums
provide three standardized checklists and memorandums for the use in preparing
PPM and PNM. PPM and PNM preformatted memos are often checked with insufficiently
documented rational or an inadequate explanation as to the system's status
or applicability determination.
One approved request for authorization of a "stand-alone" PNM stated there were no significant cost issues yet the objective and maximum cost position was 25% less than the proposed costs. In many instances when a stand alone document was utilized, no rational was provide to support the box that had been checked. An additional file was missing the PNM. Many files lacked copies of referenced documentation or the documents were untraceable.
CONSIDERATION:
(1) A more comprehensive review of requests for "stand-alone" PNM and the rationale for not preparing a separate PPM as prescribed in Cir 02-01 should be undertaken by the approving authority. Documenting and achieving a consistent state of traceability of source information in the PPM and PNM should be emphasized in order to obtain free standing documentation where in a third party is able to reference the source document without the need to research ancillary information. Files should also contain all documents that are needed to support a PPM when a PPM is not self-sustaining to assure the file is documented properly to show the analyses performed to arrive at a PPM objective through the final negotiated contract value.
(2) The GSFC Procurement Officer is reminded to document the level of reliance on cost or pricing data when completing the corresponding PPM and PNM.
(3) The Procurement Officer should take appropriate action to ensure PNM are reviewed to ensure compliance with FAR 15.406-3(a)(4), which states that the PNM include "The current status of any contractor systems (e.g., purchasing, estimating, accounting, and compensation) to the extent they affected and were considered in the negotiation." System approval documents should be fully noted in the PNM notes column citing the approval authority, date and full document reference number.
4. Use of Structured Approach in Profit/Fee Determinations
Guidance for determining profit or fee objectives and the required use of NF 634 are provided in NFS 1815.404-470 and 1815.404-471. Fourteen contract files were reviewed for the appropriate use of and compliance with the requirements for NF 634. In only one file was there written justification for the selection of the Assigned Weighting, Assigned Value, Weight Range, and Weight Designated percentages. Selection of the percentages often appeared to be based on supporting the proposed fee percentage rather than being based on an analytical evaluation of the procurement risk. Performance risk was not addressed in the majority of the reviewed PNM. One PNM stated fee would be addressed upon the negotiation of each Task Order. A review of the issued Task Orders failed to disclose any documentation supporting fee determination for the specific order.
CONSIDERATION:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is reminded to document the performance risk assessment and rationale for the selection of the Assigned Weighting, Assigned Value, Weight Range, and Weight Designated percentages when completing the NF 634 and the corresponding PPM and PNM.
5. Financial Management Reporting (NF 533)
Ten contract files were reviewed for compliance with NFS Subpart 1842.72 regarding NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting. All of the contracts met the contract type and dollar thresholds requiring financial management reporting. All of the contracts included NFS clause 1852.242-73 requiring NASA Financial Management Reporting. The clause requires that the detailed reporting categories to be used shall be set forth in the contract, as well as the number of copies and time and manner of submission. All of the contracts contained data requirements descriptions that covered the required information.
NFS 1842.7201(a)(1) requires CO's to monitor contractor cost reports on a regular basis to ensure cost data reported is accurate and timely, and to pursue adverse trends and discrepancies discovered in cost reports through discussions with financial and project team members. Most of the files were not documented to show that the CO's did any kind of review and/or analysis. Those that were documented included initials on the NF 533 with a date of the review, or an electronic approval when the NF 533's were submitted electronically. There was no standard process being utilized by the CO's to review the NF 533's. The extent of the review is left up to the discretion of the CO. Discussions with the CO's did disclose that most did review the NF 533's to varying degrees, but most appeared to rely on the resources personnel to perform the detailed review.
WEAKNESS:
CO's should be reminded of the need to document the review of the NF 533's. A standard checklist/form that all CO's can use to document the file may be helpful. The checklist/form could provide NF 533 due dates and received dates, verification that the NF 533's were checked for accuracy, notation of any irregularities or discrepancies found, notation of any follow-up actions that were taken, and a signature block for the CO. A sample checklist/form deemed to be a best practice from KSC is provided for GSFC's consideration. (REPEAT FINDING)
6. Contractor Insurance/Pension Reviews
NASA Procurement Information Circular 00-23 provides guidance for NASA contracting officer involvement in the CIPR process. Although the PIC was cancelled in 2004 by PIC 04-07 the requirement to confirm the acceptability of a contractor's Insurance and Pension costs remains. NASA contracting officers with major contracts, defined as having annual sales of $40M in government contracts, should annually request the administrative contracting officers (ACOs) for those contractors provide them with a copy of existing CIPR reports pertinent to the contractor. The review of major contractors disclosed an absence of any requests or review of CIPR for major contractors.
WEAKNESS:
The Procurement Officer should take appropriate action to ensure contracting officers are aware of the requirement for compliance with Contractor Insurance/Pension Reviews.
7. Audit Follow-up
GSFC currently has two outstanding DCAA audits involving incurred costs and unresolved costs on a final voucher. The review focused on the status of the open audits, the process and procedures in place to track and close-out these audits. The survey team interviewed GSFC's Audit Liaison Representative and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Liaison, and reviewed the process to coordinate and close out DCAA reportable audits over the last two years. The following audits have been open since July 31, 2000 and October 25, 2001 respectively. The July 31, 2000 audit conducted by DCAA is an incurred costs on the GSFC NAS5-31000-AlliedSignal Tech. Service Corp. and October 25, 2001 conducted by DCAA is the unresolved costs on final voucher on Contract NAS5-32996-ITT Industries. The AlliedSignal Tech. Service Corp. was investigated by the Office of Inspector General regarding the billing of questionable costs. The investigation focused on suspected alleged irregularities by AlliedSignal. The results were forwarded to the United States Justice Department. After about three years, the Justice Department decided not to prosecute the company and the open audit has been administratively closed since the start of the survey. GSFC anticipates the ITT Industries audit to be closed within the next month.
GSFC's Audit Liaison Representative(s) for DCAA, GAO and IG has access to track audits and audit recommendations in the agency online Contract Audit Tracking System (CATSII). Each DCAA, GAO and IG audit and audit recommendation is entered into CATSII with target resolution and closure date and is updated at least quarterly. NASA Headquarters lends strong support to audit follow-up activities. NASA's Deputy Administrator is the approval authority for extensions to OIG requests. The Office of Procurement at NASA Headquarters issues quarterly calls for reportable audits. Center liaisons are required to provide an explanation for all audit recommendations that are overage and update the audit data in CATSII. Additionally, NASA HQ appoints analysts that work with the Center liaisons to resolve audit recommendations involving more than one NASA Center. These analysts also support the Center liaisons by: issuing audit policy; maintaining an Audit Liaison Representative web page; informing the Center liaisons of all audit announcements, reports, and closures; and providing support to the Center liaisons in the form of training materials, conferences, and sample audit communication letters.
GSFC also has a number of DCAA system level audits that aren't tracked in the CATSII System. These types of audits normally include a total dollar exception to incurred costs spread over a number government wide contracts which identifies NASA's percentage of the questionable costs. At the present time, GSFC doesn't have a prescribed procedure in place to track and monitor the disposition of these audits.
CONSIDERATION:
The Procurement Officer should implement a process to track and monitor system level audits on a quarterly or semi-annual basis.
1. Task Orders (Competition under Multiple Award and Delivery Order Contracts)
The Procurement Management Survey Team reviewed a sample of contracts involving multiple award and delivery order contracts. Contracts reviewed included multiple award architect and engineering contracts resulting from one solicitation and services awarded under a GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Contract.
On September 28, 2001, GSFC posted a notice on NAIS requesting SF 254s, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire and SF 255s, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project, from architect-engineering firms with a strong background in building automation systems, mechanical engineering, and controls engineering. The posting described the services the Center needed and stated "more than one A&E firm may be selected." Thirty firms responded and awards were made to three of them. FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) states the contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $2,500 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts unless a statutory exception applies. The contract awardees have not been provided a fair opportunity to compete for the task orders issued under the three A&E contracts and the task order files contain no documentation citing an exception to the fair opportunity process.
The order placed against the GSA MAS contract was competed and followed the procedures in FAR 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules. Solicitations for safety and emergency preparedness services were sent to three sources on GSA Schedule Number 874, Management, Organization, and Business Improvement Services (MOBUS) Contract. Proposals were to be evaluated on technical, past performance, and price with technical and past performance, when combined, being significantly more important than price. One proposal was received. An evaluation of the proposal found it technically acceptable and award was made to the contractor submitting the sole proposal.
WEAKNESS:
The GSFC Procurement Office should ensure that all awardees are provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each A&E task order exceeding $2,500 unless an exception applies. The contract files should identify the basis for using an exception to the fair opportunity process.
2. Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) Contracts
Seven contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 16.4 and NFS Subpart 1816.405-2 regarding CPAF contracts. This included files for ten performance evaluation periods. GSFC is following FAR and NFS requirements that apply to CPAF contracts. The files reviewed included comprehensive award fee plans that addressed technical, cost and schedule considerations in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the NFS. All of the award fee evaluations reviewed followed their corresponding award fee plans and were very comprehensive and provided well-documented analyses. Some of the files contained letters identifying areas of emphasis which were provided to the contractors prior to the start of the evaluation periods. It was noted that none of the seven performance evaluation plans were approved prior to contract award, with delays ranging from 2 weeks to 3.5 months, and averaging approximately two months late.
The NFS requires that the Fee Determination Official's (FDO) rating for both interim and final evaluations be provided to the contractor within 45 days of the end of the period being evaluated, and that any fee payments be made no later than 60 calendar days after the end of the period being evaluated. Out of the ten performance evaluation periods reviewed, seven went beyond the 45-day period ranging from several days to several months, and five went beyond the 60-day payment period.
It was also noted that only one of the contracts was listed in the Past
Performance Data Base.
STRENGTH:
GSFC continues to effectively manage their award fee contracts. Files are well-documented and letters with areas of emphasis sent prior to the evaluation period are effective in maintaining contractor focus.
WEAKNESS:
GSFC should emphasize the need for timely approval of award fee plans (prior to timely contract modification execution for award fee payments. GSFC should also emphasize the need to include the award fee evaluation results in the PPDB in a timely manner.
3. Exercise of Options
The Procurement Management Survey Team reviewed five option exercise packages prepared by five different contract specialists. The team focused on whether the contract modifications extending the terms of the contract were supported with the documentation required by FAR 17.207 and NFS 1817.207.
Of the option packages reviewed, all contained a determination document that stated funds were available, the requirement covered by the option fulfilled an existing need, and stated the need for continuity of operations. All of the determinations also stated the exercise of the options were in accordance with the terms of the option, the requirements of FAR 17.207 and Part 6.
While determinations to exercise the options were included in each file, four of the five documents either did not include or inadequately addressed all of the requirements for exercising options found in FAR 17.207 Exercise of Options, or NASA FAR Supplement 1817.207 Exercise of Options. Specifically, two of the determinations stated the exercise of the options were the most advantageous method of fulfilling the government's needs but didn't cite any of the three justifications provided in FAR 17.207(d). The other two determinations stated the exercise of the options were the most advantageous method of fulfilling the government's needs and compared one program manager labor rate (under the options) with program manager labor rates on contracts for similar efforts. The determinations did not elaborate on why price analysis were limited to comparisons of a single program management rate when the total requirements involved scientific programming and analysis, performance of computer facility operations, systems programming, technical library operations, and logistical support. All of the determinations stated the options fulfilled an existing need but did not address whether there had been any changes in the scope of the option requirement or that market research had been performed to see if performance improvements or technical, engineering, or scientific advances existed in the current market that were beyond those available under the option to be exercised. None of the determinations discussed the contractor's performance in satisfying the contract requirements or addressed the potential costs of disruption if the options were not exercised. One contract modification notifying the contractor of the exercise of the option cited the Award Fee for Service Contract Clause as the authority.
NFS 1817.207-70(a) requires the contracting officer and the requiring organization ensure that analysis sufficient to support the determination that option exercise is the most advantageous method is completed in advance of providing the notice to the contractor required by FAR 17.207(a). None of the five packages reviewed contained documentation that any kind of analysis supporting a determination to exercise the option was performed prior to the CO's Notice of Intent to Exercise the Option was sent to the contractor.
WEAKNESS:
The Procurement Officer should ensure that Contracting Officers address all of the requirements found in FAR 17.207 and NFS 1817.207 in their determination documents in support of the exercise of options. Additionally, the analysis supporting the determinations to exercise the option, should be performed in advance of providing notice to the contractor.
4. Performance Based Contracting
The survey team reviewed several contracts to determine compliance with PBC guidelines. Most of the contract files were considered to the PBC. The one contract reviewed that was not considered performance based was for high level university research. All the contracts that were considered performance based included a Quality Assurance Plan or a Mission Assurance Plan which is an improvement from the previous survey. GSFC is doing a good job of determining when a contract is performance based. In fact one contract that was reviewed was 90% performance based and 10% level of effort. The level of effort was for a task order clause under the contract which was the proper designation.
5. Subcontract Consent
All contracts reviewed contained FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts, which establishes the Government's right to consent to subcontracts, if applicable. FAR 44.202-12 has 13 specific considerations that the contracting officer must address prior to granting subcontract consent.
None of the contractors for the files reviewed had an approved purchasing system. Therefore, all requests required the contracting officer's review and consent.
It was clear in some of the files that GFSC contracting personnel had took into consideration all of the items cited under FAR 44.202-2. In others it was difficult to ascertain whether they had done so. Also, some files contained better documentation than others. Most files contained a memo addressing the cost elements to some degree but did not address other items in FAR 44.202-2 such as ensuring that the subcontractor was not on the Excluded Parties List. Contractors provided information in their request letters regarding some of the items in FAR 44.202-2 but there was not evidence that the Government had verified this information.
Not all files included Consent Limitation language similar to that in FAR 44.203(a), which although not required is beneficial.
Some contracting personnel used a checklist to document their findings. However, one checklist was not designed to specifically address all the items in FAR 44.202-2 but addressed the cost elements. In all cases, GFSC personnel reviewed the contractor's request to varying degrees. One contracting officer had an excellent checklist that could be used by other procurement personnel needing to perform consent to subcontract reviews. They also include a negotiation memorandum to elaborate on the findings cited in the checklist. Usage of a checklist that clearly cites all of the items in FAR 44.202-2 should help to ensure proper contract file documentation.
WEAKNESS:
Ensure that all of the requirements in FAR 44.202-2 are addressed when subcontract consent is requested.
CONSIDERATIONS:
(1) The GFSC Procurement Officer should consider developing a standard checklist to ensure that all of the FAR requirements are addressed.
(2) When granting consent to subcontract, Contracting Officers should consider the addition of consent limitation language similar to that found at FAR 44.203(a), i.e., "The contracting officer's consent to this subcontract does not constitute a determination of the acceptability of the subcontract terms or price, or of the allowability of costs."
6. Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs)
The team review of closeouts and unliquidated obligations consisted of
trend analysis (i.e. schedule time frame by contract type, use of quick
closeout procedures, open actions, and overage ULOs) for the closeout
of completed contracts, purchase orders, grants, inter-agency agreements
and the status of unliquidated obligations.
The GSFC closeout function is predominantly decentralized at the Center.
The Agency closeout contractor, BRACE Management Inc., provides support
to the acquisition division. BRACE is responsible for preparing mostly
grant closeout documentation for the Contracting Officer's review and
approval. The contractor also provides support for a small amount of less
complicated contracts, purchase orders and interagency agreements from
the procurement offices.
Each procurement management office within the division is responsible for its closeout activities. The decentralization approach made it difficult for the team to determine the accuracy of number of closeout actions, ULO dollars and consistent closeout procedures across the procurement management offices.
The team did not find any consolidated metrics that are used to track monthly closed and deobligated dollars by action type of category, open, closed, and overage cumulative summary reports.
CONSIDERATIONS:
(1) The Procurement Officer should ensure that an implemented consolidated metrics summary is reflected of all Center-wide closeout and ULO actions that are open, closed, and overage either on a monthly or quarterly basis.
(2) The Procurement Officer should consider consolidating all closeout functions under the agency-wide contractor BRACE Management Inc.
7. Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCA's)
The team randomly reviewed the twenty (20) GSFC UCA's identified in the most recent quarterly report submitted to the Headquarters Office of Procurement. The file review focused on age, dollar value, appropriate approval level, justification and file documentation in accordance with NFS 1843.70. GSFC is to be commended for prudent justification and file documentation prior to the issuance of undefinitized contract actions. It appears that the number of UCA's and age has fluctuated over the FY04 and FY05 timeframe. This seems to be attributed to program change designs, equipment changes, programmatic redirection from Headquarters and technical evaluation delays. Of the nine (9) UCA's exceeding 180 days, at least 44% are migrating to closure while the others are attempting to overcome technical issues.
STRENGTH:
GSFC is commended for its prudent analysis and sound file documentation prior to issuance of UCA's.
WEAKNESS:
The Procurement Officer should ensure to the project offices' the importance of
definitizing UCA's within the Agency goal of 180 days. Definitizing these actions in a timely fashion allows NASA to minimize its costs risk to the Government.
8. Contractor Performance Evaluation (NASA Form (NF) 1680)
Nine contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 42.15 and NFS Subpart 1842.15 regarding contractor performance information. Twelve evaluation periods were reviewed. All but one file contained the required NF 1680 forms. The one exception should have had a completed form in the file, but the CO stated that the evaluation had not yet started. The majority of the NF 1680 forms contained sufficient narrative to justify the ratings, verified that the ratings were discussed with the contractors, included contractor feedback if received, and were signed and dated by the CO's. Three contracts were for Phase A studies which were in competition during a phased down-selection process. The CO included a statement on the NF 1680 that due to the competition, an annual evaluation could not be provided. This was to protect the integrity of the source selection process for this specific acquisition.
With the exception of the three contracts for the Phase A studies where no data was provided, none of the other contracts were found in the NASA Past Performance Data Base (PPDB). In fact, the PPDB only contains ten contracts under the new contract numbering system which started in FY04. Based on this small number, it seems apparent there are omissions. Additionally, of the six CPAF contracts reviewed during this survey, only one had the award fee results in the PPDB. It was noted that although several of the CPAF contracts were less than a year old, at least one award fee evaluation had been completed. In these cases, the CO's stated that they planned to submit the information into the database on an annual basis, in accordance with the FAR.
NFS 1842.1502 requires that within sixty days of every anniversary of the award date of a contract having a term exceeding one year, contracting officers must conduct interim evaluations of performance on contracts subject to FAR 42.15. Of the files that contained completed NF1680 forms, although most may have started on time, the majority were not completed on time, mostly due to untimely responses from the COTR's and resources personnel.
WEAKNESS:
CO's should be required to comply with the FAR and NFS requirements regarding contractor performance evaluations, including meeting the 60-day lead time for completion of the evaluation and entering the data into the PPDB.
CONSIDERATIONS:
It is recommended that award fee evaluation results be included in the PPDB upon completion of the evaluation, even if the evaluation is prior to the anniversary date of the contract. This will ensure that PPDB data is current and available for others to use.
9. Synopsis of Contract Awards
FAR Part 5.301 requires contracting officers to synopsize awards exceeding $25,000 unless certain conditions apply.
All but one of the files reviewed did not either require a synopsis or contained a properly submitted synopsis in the contract file. Some of the exceptions utilized for not performing a synopsis of contract award included awards made under the small business 8(a) program and contract awards issued under the SBIR program. While these exceptions are certainly valid, a memo to the file under the appropriate NF 1098 tab citing the exception utilized would improve the quality of file documentation.
CONSIDERATION:
If a synopsis is not required, procurement personnel should document the file stating the exception utilized.
1. Grants and Cooperative Agreements
All files were reviewed in accordance with the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook and the documentation requirements listed on the GSFC Grants Homepage.
STRENGHT:
All files were completed in a timely manner and contained the required documentation. The files were documented in accordance with the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook and the requirements listed on the GSFC Grants Information Homepage.
CONSIDERATIONS:
(1) The Procurement Officer should ensure that the grantees have an active registration in the CCR as required by 1260.10 (b) (3) of the Grant Handbook and document it in the files.
(2) The Procurement Officer should ensure that all files include documentation verifying that notification has been provided to the NASA Office of Legislative Affairs regarding the selection of NASA research proposals, whether done at NASA Headquarters or GSFC.(3) The Procurement Officer should ensure that ONR accepts delegations and that the files are documented.
2. SBIR Program
The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program provides an opportunity for small, high-technology companies and research institutions to participate in Government sponsored research and development efforts in key technology areas.
The SBIR Handbook sets dollar and period of performance limitations for SBIR awards. SBIR Phase I awards are for periods of up to six months with dollar amounts up to $70,000. SBIR Phase II awards are for periods of up to two years with dollar amounts up to $600,000. All awards reviewed were in compliance with these requirements.
The Handbook also sets limitations on subcontracting. For SBIR Phase
I awards, the proposing firm must perform a minimum of two-thirds of the
research/analytical work and for Phase II, a minimum of one-half of the
work must be performed by the proposing firm. All SBIR awards reviewed
complied with these requirements.
All SBIR awards reviewed contained a detailed technical evaluation and
the appropriate Representations and Certifications. Also, the files were
very well-organized.
The negotiation memorandum for each contract file was reviewed. The NFS waives the requirement for the submission of cost or pricing data when contracting for SBIR Phase II contracts. SBIR Phase I contracts do not meet the dollar threshold for certified cost or pricing data. However, the NFS does require contracting officers to ensure that the appropriate level of information other than cost or pricing data is submitted to determine price reasonableness and cost realism. It appeared as if the GFSC contracting personnel had the proper amount of supporting documentation in order to substantiate the contractor's proposal and render it acceptable.
All files included a detailed price negotiation memorandum. It appears that areas including labor, material, indirect rates, travel and other direct costs were reviewed. The technical evaluations provided adequate rationale for the findings.
In accordance with NFS 1815.404-4, the NASA structured approach for determining profit or fee objectives, shall be used to determine profit or fee in the negotiation of contracts greater than or equal to $100,000 that use cost analysis and are awarded under the SBIR program. Some SBIR awards included a NF 634, "Structured Approach Profit/Fee Objective". Other contract files only referenced that the NF 634 was used and what the resulting profit was but did not include a copy of the form in the file. Only one file provided justification for the weights used on the NF 634.
STRENGTH
GFSC is commended for their overall excellent SBIR contract files, both content and physical organization.
WEAKNESS
Many of the files did not include the NF634 in the file, only referenced in the price negotiation memorandum that it had been done and that the NF634 supported the profit amount.
3. Contract Safety Requirements
Contract files (non-construction) were reviewed to verify compliance with NASA FAR Supplement Subpart 1823.70 entitled Safety and Health. For clarification purposes, it should be noted that all contracts reviewed in this area had estimated values of $500,000 or more. In accordance with NFS 1823.7001(d), the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security, in all solicitations and contracts with estimated values of $500,000 or more. All of the files that were reviewed contained the GSFC Initiator's Safety Checklist for Procurements Form and the required 1852.223-75 clause. All of the contracts reviewed should have contained either clause 1852.223-70 Safety and Health or 1852.223-72 Safety and Health (Short Form) depending upon the input received from the technical organization and the safety organization. All of the reviewed files contained the required safety and health clauses.
NFS 1823.7001(c) states that if clause 1852.223-70 Safety and Health is incorporated into the contract, the contracting officer shall include the contractor's safety and health plan into the contract after receiving the concurrence of the center safety and occupational health official(s). However, in one instance the safety and health plan did not contain the safety office approval in the contract file.
4. Simplified Acquisition Procedures/Commercial Acquisitions
The survey team focused its attention on the price analysis performed on these types of procurements. In some cases a price analysis was not performed and in other cases it was insufficient to justify that a fair and reasonable price was being obtained for the government. The price analysis when done, would often reference a price list or historical data but that data would not be placed in the file. Many of the Simplified Acquisition files were awarded sole source, based upon this occurrence, price analysis is paramount to ensure that the government is receiving items at a "fair and reasonable" price.
Numerous simplified and commercial acquisition files were reviewed. Many of the Simplified Acquisition files were not well organized with miscellaneous correspondence filed various location in the file. Consistently, tab 1 was lacking the source list, government estimate and statement of work. Most of the files did not contain follow up documentation with the customers to make sure the customer knew the item had been acquired which would only require a simple email.
The quality of the documents for sole source acquisitions was often poor. Given the nature of simplified acquisition sole source justifications should only be based on only one source available with sufficient technical information to allow that determination to stand. In one case there was a sole source justification based on (C) (2) which is reserved for acquisitions above SAP threshold. This particular sole source document was not signed. Furthermore there were cases where the sole source justification was only signed by the technical officer and with poor rationale for sole source. From discussions with one of the Procurement Managers in charge of simplified acquisition an online web tool has been developed to track simplified acquisition milestone and to allow technical customers access to documents needed to write proper sole source justifications and to perform market research.
The survey team also reviewed several BPAs. All were awarded on a sole source basis; however, only one contained a justification in the file. FAR 13.303-2 gives reasons when a BPA is appropriate. While there is no policy directing the Contract Specialist to do so, in the future a Memorandum to the File should be developed to document why the award of a BPA is in the best interest of the government based on the reasons given at FAR 13.303-2.
All of the awards over 100K reviewed were awarded on the Federal Supply Schedule. Of these files reviewed they were well documented. All of the awards were based on competition. Therefore, the requirement to solicit 3 bidders was met. A fair amount of market research took place to determine who best to solicit on the schedule based upon the customers requirements.
STRENGTH:
GSFC should be commended for the creation of the website for simplified acquisition it should increase the quality of SAP files in the future particularly in the areas of market research and sole source justifications.
WEAKNESS:
The Procurement Officer needs to improve the overall quality of the simplified acquisition files; specifically in the areas of sole source justifications and price analysis.
CONSIDERATION:
A Policy should be developed requiring a memorandum to the file to detail why the award of a BPA is in the best interest of the government based on FAR 13.303-2.
5. Interagency Agreements
Six interagency agreement files were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 17.5 regarding Interagency Acquisitions Under the Economy Act; NFS Subpart 1817.70 regarding Acquisitions with Military Departments; and NFS Subpart 1817.72 regarding Interagency Transactions.
Four of the six files contained the Determinations and Findings (D&F) required to support the acquisition. The two that did not contain D&F's resulted from broad agency announcements, and no D&F's were required (see NFS 1817.7202(d)). All but one of the D&F's contained all of the information required by the FAR and the NFS. Several of the D&F's were based on the Virtual Procurement Office (VPO) template. The exception did not identify the period of performance or contain a statement regarding whether the acquisition was a non-competitive follow-on for the same services from the same servicing Agency.
All of the files used the NDPR form and all correctly cited the Space Act as the authority. All of the agreements contained a payment provision requiring the servicing agency or department to submit a final voucher, invoice, or other appropriate payment document within six months after the completion date of the order. When property was involved, the agreements included the Property Administration and Reporting clause. One of the files used an outdated version of the NFS Center for Aerospace Information clause.
GSFC utilizes an internal Procurement Circular, issued in 1999, as an effective tool for ensuring all of the FAR and NFS requirements are covered. This Circular is periodically updated to include current requirements, and includes an interagency agreement template. It was noted that the Circular does not include guidance specific to FAR 17.504 - Ordering Procedures, Section (c), which states that the requesting and servicing agencies should agree to procedures for the resolution of disagreements that may arise under interagency acquisitions, including, in appropriate circumstances, the use of a third-party forum. Consequently, none of the files reviewed complied with this FAR requirement.
Two of the NDPR's stated that efforts were to be performed based on prescribed statements of work (SOW), but no SOW's were attached to the agreements or in the file backup documentation. Only the proposals were found as backup documentation for the work to be performed. One NDPR stated that the work was to be performed in accordance with an attached Task Work Plan. No such plan was attached to the agreement, but one was found in the file backup documentation.
WEAKNESS:
CO's should ensure that interagency agreements contain work statements or task plans that sufficiently describe the work or services being acquired. Regarding compliance with FAR 17.504(c), CO's should ensure that interagency agreements include a provision regarding procedures for resolution of disagreements that may arise. This is a repeat finding addressed in the previous two surveys.
CONSIDERATION:
Regarding the exceptions noted above, CO's should ensure that D&F's contain all required information (use of the VPO template will facilitate this), and that agreements contain current clauses.
6. Bankcard Program
The team focused on the internal controls, training, number of card holders, automated tracking system, monthly reconciliation, violations, delegations exceeding $2,500, and monthly limits placed on card holders pursuant to the government bank card regulations.
Each card holder is required to complete and pass Solar on-line based agency-wide P-Card training prior to receiving certification (printed certificate) and issuance of a bank card. The training includes rules and regulations and how to navigate the P-Card System. Approving officials must also complete the required training certification before approving any transactions. The printed completed training certificate is maintained along with the procurement office delegation of authority letter in the individual's file documentation. All card holders must take refresher training every three years. Since IFMP implementation, at least 75% of the cardholders have taken refreshed training. The Bank Card Manager indicated that the remaining 25% should be completed shortly after the beginning of FY06. However, based on the team's review of card holder data, it is suggested that the acquisition division monitor the remaining 25% that needs to complete the refresher training.
GSFC currently has 645 card holders that are authorized to use the credit card to purchase goods and services not exceeding established dollar limits. The Bank Card Manager is in the process of reducing the number of card holders by approximately 10 percent.
Each card holder with the exception of two acquisition individuals ($5K) and one safety office individual ($100K) has a $2,500 limit per transaction and a cumulative monthly limit ranging from $25,000 to $80,000.
The GSFC automated tracking system allows the Bank Card Manager to see who has been certified or needs recertification, number of card holders, depicts violation(s) by individual, and reconcile any monthly billing differences between GSFC and the bank records.
Since the GSFC 2003 Survey, GSFC has increased the bank card support staff from one individual to three. The staff increase has allowed GSFC an opportunity to perform an initial 100% internal audit of card holder personnel file for compliance with the purchase card regulations. In the event violations are found, that individual will be held accountable for the action. The approving official will also be notified of the violation(s). If deemed appropriate, the individual must be recertified to receive card holder privileges.
STRENGTHS:
(1) GSFC is commended for continuously assessing ways to reduce the number of card holders. This approach further limits the potential liability for violations.
(2) GSFC is commended for increasing the bank card program staff in support of the Program Manager since the 2003 Survey. This allows GSFC more time to ensure over 600 cardholders are in compliant with the rules and regulations.
CONSIDERATION:
The Procurement Officer should take the necessary steps to ensure that the remaining 25% of card holders complete the refreshed training in a timely manner.
1. Self-Assessment
The GSFC Procurement Operations Division has performed semi-annual self-assessments under the authority of, and using the procedures outlined in, the current NASA Self-Assessment Guide. GSFC Procurement Circular 03-01 dated July 23, 2003, also provides additional guidance on performing self-assessments. The NASA Self-Assessment Guide states that "at a minimum, random compliance reviews will be accomplished semi-annually." The last self-assessment performed by the GSFC covered the last six months of fiscal year 2003 (April 2003 through September 2003). It was also noted that this report was not published until May of 2004, nine months after the evaluation period had concluded. Three subsequent evaluation periods have elapsed without a self-assessment being performed by the GSFC Procurement Operations Division.
An evaluation of the last self-assessment was performed by the survey team since the report was published in May of 2004 which is in the review period of the survey. Review topics for the self-assessment mirrored the topics from the previous self-assessment and did not appear to be focused in specific areas where problems had been identified in the past. The self-assessment report reviewed was thorough and well organized. The report included an introduction; findings and recommendations for each section of the review; a listing of the files reviewed; a comparison of previous findings to current findings; and an overall assessment and recommendation. It should be noted that there was evidence in the file that GSFC reviewed eight percent of new simplified acquisitions and five percent of all other actions, as required by the Self Assessment Guide. There was documentation in the report which suggested courses of action that would be taken to remedy the problems identified in the self-assessment, however, there was no mention of who was responsible for the various tasks and when they were to be completed.
WEAKNESS:
The GSFC Procurement Officer should ensure that semi-annual self-assessments are performed within the procurement organization to ensure that the procurement function throughout GSFC is operating at a low level of vulnerability.
CONSIDERATION:
The GSFC Procurement Officer should consider performing a more focused self-assessment concentrating on specific areas of weakness and implementing a more regimented corrective action process.
2. Deviations and Waivers
Deviation requests were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 1.4 and NFS Subpart 1801.4. According to the assigned procurement analyst in the HQ Procurement Operations Division, all submittals from GSFC have met the requirements of the FAR and NFS and were well-documented. Rarely was additional data or clarification needed. I personally evaluated two requests submitted to Headquarters associated with my assigned programs and found that all of the requirements were met and the requests were fully justified. All were reviewed and approved at HQ with no issues. Several files were checked to ensure the resultant HQ approval was included in the file. All files included the appropriate approval documentation.
3. Construction Contracts
The survey team reviewed active construction contracts awarded since the previous GSFC Procurement Management Survey. The review focused on the pre-award and post-award phases and included the review of seven contract modifications.
The contract files initially provided for review were incomplete and loosely assembled.. Important contract documents were missing from the files while documentation from other contracts were found in the files. Copies of the solicitation, basic award, contract modifications, and award notification letters to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs were among the missing documents. The contracting officer, physically located at Wallops Island, submitted electronic copies of several of these documents to the reviewer during the survey period and responded quickly to clarification requests.
The solicitations advertised scheduled site visits. The supporting documentation for an amendment to one of the solicitations included response questions from prospective bidders arising from the site visit. This was the only documentation in the three construction files showing a scheduled site visit had occurred. The contracting officer, however, confirmed that the site visits were held during the pre-award phases.
The Safety Officer reviewed all construction project packages during the acquisition phases and recommended the FAR and NFS safety and health clauses to be inserted into the solicitations and contracts. The contracting officer forwarded all contractor submitted safety and health plans to the safety officer for review and coordinated all required changes with the contractor. Contracting officer notices to proceed were not provided to the contractor until the safety and health plans were approved. The approved plans were included as attachments to the contract.
FAR 28.102-1 requires performance and payment bonds for construction efforts exceeding $100K. The amount of the performance and payment bonds must equal 100 percent of the original contract price; and, if the contract price increases, an additional amount equal to 100 percent of the increase is required. All of the construction contracts contained payment and performance bonds equaling 100 percent of the original contract price. One of the reviewed contracts had been modified five times and the original contract value had increased from $555,740 to $2,273,995. Another contract had been modified twice and the original contract value had increased from $399,000 to $560,459. Additional payment and performance bonds equalling 100 percent of the increase were not included in the contract file.
The contract modifications cited in the previous paragraph not only increased the contract values but extended the contract performance periods as well. Consequently, the completion dates cited on the certificates of insurance included in the two contract files need to be revised. One of the insurance certificates expired on April 01, 2005 and the contract performance period, as adjusted, runs through October 15, 2005. The other certificate will expire before the adjusted performance period end date.
One modification reviewed increased the contract value by $1,283,420. This action required a justification for other than full and open competition which was diligently pursued and obtained. Since the change exceeded $550,000, a certificte of current cost or pricing data was also required and since the construction contract value increased to over $1M, a subcontracing plan was also required. The contract files did not include these two additional documents. Another construction contract was awarded to a large business, was in excess of $1M, and included the requirement for the contractor to submit a small business/small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan per FAR 19.702. The contract was awarded on April 06, 2005 and the contractor has yet to submit its plan for review and approval.)
The Center appears to use the same liquidated damages justification letter for construction contracts which only addresses labor costs. The legal review in one of the reviewed contract files noticed this and questioned if there were any non-labor related costs to be considered. The response "Although there may be additional damages to the Government resulting from program or project delays, these are considered subjective and are not included in order to avoid any possibility of disputes." The GSFC procurement office may want to consider reviewing the liquidated damages letter to see if it needs to be updated to include non-labor related costs.
FAR 22.406-6, "Payrolls and Statements," requires construction contractors and their subcontractors to submit weekly payroll statements. The Contracting Officer is required to examine these documents, paying particular attention to (i) the correctness of classifications; (ii) fringe benefits payments; (iii) hours worked; (iv) deductions; and (v) disproportionate employment ratios of laborers, apprentices or trainees to journeymen. Only one certified payroll was included in the contract files and there was no way of telling whether it had or hadn't been reviewed. The contracting officer stated the review of the payrolls had been delegated to the COTR which was consistent with was documented in the June 16 - June 27, 2003 Goddard Space Flight Center Procurement Management Survey Report. The 2003 report recommended the procurement organization at Wallops consider requiring COTRs on construction contracts to periodically document their on-going oversight of weekly payroll statements and submit their findings to the Contracting Officer. There was no documentation in the current contract files indicating that the COTR was performing the reviews required by the FAR. The NASA Forms 1634, Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Delegations, included in all of the contract files, were reviewed to see if the payroll reviews had been formally delegated to the COTR. A specific reference to payrolls could not be found but all of the delegations included the words "See attached form 24-17, "Duties of Technical Representative on Construction Contracts" dated January 7, 1987." Upon further investigation, it was determined that the form had been rescinded.
The two previous GSFC Procurement Management Survey Reports identified a weakness with contracting officers accepting construction invoices not including the data required by FAR 52.232-5. This review found invoices in one of the files that listed the amount included for work performed by each subcontractor under the contract but didn't list the total amount of each subcontract under the contract or list the amounts previously paid to each subcontractor. Other invoices didn't reference subcontractor payments at all.
WEAKNESSES:
(1) The GSFC procurement office should, when negotiating contract modifications increasing contract value and/or extending contract performance periods, review the contract documents to see if the changes affect bonding, insurance, subcontracting or other contractual requirements and take action to update the files, as needed.
(2) The GSFC Procurement Officer should ensure that construction invoices that do not include the data required by FAR 52.232-5, specifically in relation to subcontractor data, are not processed. (REPEAT FINDING)
CONSIDERATIONS:
(1) The GSFC procurement office should consider reviewing the liquidated damages letter to see if it needs to be updated to include non-labor related costs.
(2) The GSFC contracting office should consider reviewing NASA Form 1634, Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Delegations, to ensure it adequately identifies those responsibilities delegated to the construction COTRs.
4. A-E Contracts
The Procurement Management Survey Team reviewed three architect and engineering service IDIQ contracts and ten delivery orders. All the files reviewed were well organized and contained detailed government estimates, technical evaluations, and price negotiation memorandums.
Though the Goddard Space Flight Center does not have a permanently established A&E evaluation board to receive and maintain data on firms wanting to be considered for A/E contracts (FAR 36.603), the contract files contained documentation showing that temporary evaluation boards consisting of professional engineers and procurement officials were established for each A&E acquisition. Board memberships were restricted to government employees. None of the files included SF 330s for the instant project, but, it was evident that the evaluation boards reviewed qualification statements submitted from numerous offerors. The Boards' rankings of offerors, evaluations, and recommendations of offerors to continue to have discussions with were well documented and all files contained written selection reports. All of the A&E contracts contained the appropriate FAR Part 36 clauses. None of the contract or delivery order files contained final payment, release from claims, or SF 1421s, Performance Evaluation (Architect-Engineer) documents. The contracting officers stated these documents would be obtained upon completion of the overall contracts.
FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(I) states the negotiated price for producing and delivering the designs, drawings, and specifications shall be within six percent of the estimated cost of construction. Of the ten delivery orders reviewed, five of them exceeded the six percent limitation. Most of the task order files included a Request for A-E Services form signed by the project manager and COTR that identified the estimated construction cost and the calculated six percent final design limitation. The Request for A-E Services form in four of the five task orders that exceeded the six percent limitation included government estimates that exceeded the calculated six percent final design limitation. The government should have known, prior to entering negotiations, that there was an issue with the six percent limitation that needed to be reconciled. The files contained no evidence, other than the Request for A-E Services, that serious consideration was given to the six percent final design limitation.
FAR 52.232-10, Payments under Fixed-Price Architect-Engineer Contracts, states payments shall be made to the contractor upon the contracting officer's approval of the contractor's monthly payment requests for work and services performed by the contractor. Half of the delivery order files contained no copies of payment requests and the other half contained copies of paid invoices that had been approved by the contracting officer's technical representative but not by the contracting officer. NASA Forms 1634, Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Delegations, included in all of the contract files, do not delegate payment approvals to the COTR. The delegations limit the COTR's responsibilities to "review contractor invoices and recommend approval/disapproval for payment as appropriate".
STRENGTH:
All the architect-engineer acquisition and contract administration files reviewed were well organized and contained detailed government estimates, technical evaluations, and price negotiation memorandums.
WEAKNESSES:
(1) Contracting Officers should ensure the negotiated price for producing and delivering the designs, drawings, and specifications are within six percent of the estimated cost of construction per FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(I).
(2) Contracting Officers should approve the architect-engineer contract payment requests as required by FAR 52.232-10. Involvement in the payment process will allow the contracting officer to monitor contract payments, ensure withholding of contract payments are justified, and that final payments are not made prior to receipt of release of claims from the contractor.
CONSIDERATION:
If the Goddard Space Flight Center anticipates acquiring additional architect and engineering services in the near future, it should consider establishing an office or a permanent evaluation board to receive and maintain data on firms wishing to be considered for Government architect-engineer contracts in accordance with FAR 36.603.
5. Environmental Clauses
The survey team reviewed a number of contracts for the inclusion of required environmental clauses. NASA Form 1707, Certification and Special Approvals for IFM Purchase Requisitions, were completed and located in all of the contract files. None of the files involved acquisitions of EPA-designated products not meeting applicable minimum recovered material content recommended by EPA guidelines. In general, all of the contract files included the appropriate environmental clauses.
6. 1102s Acquisition Career Development Program
The GFSC acquisition training manager (ATM) provides outstanding support to the Acquisition Career Development Program. An examination of the training files and database was conducted along with an interview with the training manager.
The ATM maintains a database which tracks personnel by branch, grade, degree status/number of business course hours; all required courses by certification level and the year of the person's latest individual development plan (IDP).
This database is well-maintained and provides valuable information regarding a person's required course training needs. A random review of the backup documentation to support the database was performed by the survey team.
GFSC's management team is commended for their team approach used to conduct evaluations every six months of their acquisition personnel's developmental progress against their IDPs. This enables a procurement professional at GFSC to obtain a variety of experience in both procurement and non-procurement areas. There is a constant need for on-the-job training due to the large number and high turnover of acquisition personnel at the GFSC. Examples of recent focused training seminars include purchase order closeouts, intellectual property, award fee plans and property on Government contracts.
GFSC has a formal and informal mentoring program and a center-wide program
that encourages employees to pursue higher education courses and degree
programs. Opportunities to obtain continuing education credits are made
available through workshops conducted by procurement division personnel
and GFSC course offerings. The local NCMA chapter also offers training
sessions.
STRENGTH:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is commended for the overall quality of the training database and backup documentation.
7. COTR Delegations and Training
GFSC is meeting the requirements of NFS 1842.270 which stipulates that a cognizant contracting officer may appoint a qualified Government employee to act as their representative in managing the technical aspects of a contract. Contracting officer technical representatives (COTRs) are appointed via NASA form 1634, COTR delegation.
They complete initial training prior to the performance of their technical duties (unless receiving a temporary waiver extension). Refresher training is required at least every five years. GFSC offers 3-4 initial and refresher classes annually. GFSC maintains a current COTR database which is posted on their procurement operations web site. It is noted that since the last survey, the database is updated annually to ensure that inactive COTRs are removed.
A survey of COTRs taken by the COTR training manager indicated dissatisfaction with the current training. As a result, this training is currently undergoing reinvention by a GFSC team and is expected to address issues cited by the COTRs. This reinvention will consist of changes to the course content and the delivery method.
A review of contract files indicates that COTR delegations are made via NASA form 1634 which were found in the contract files. The COTR's then acknowledge these 1634s. Delegations are made to individuals not positions and these delegations cannot be redelegated. There is no appearance of the contracting officer relinquishing their duties to the COTR.
STRENGTHS:
(1) GFSC is commended on their efforts to partner with COTRs towards providing timely, customer-orientated and relevant training. This upcoming, revamped COTR training could potentially be implemented on a NASA-wide basis.
(2) GFSC is commended for COTR delegations being properly documented in the contract file and for the maintenance of a current database.
CONSIDERATIONS:
(1) The Procurement Officer should consider requiring COTR's to participate
in refresher training more often than once every five years.(2) A review of NFS 1842.270(f)(2) should be conducted by NASA Headquarters to determine if a policy change is warranted.
8. Internal Policies and Procedures
A procurement analyst who is apart of the Senior Staff manages GFSC's system of procurement policies, regulations, information circulars, and work instructions. All of these regulatory issuances are available electronically through the GSFC Procurement Library, making the policies, procedures, information, and instruction immediately available and useful to the procurement work force at the Center. The procurement analyst performing this function does an excellent job of tracing policies and procedures based on the importance of the documents that institutes those polices (e.g. Federal Acquisition Regulation NASA/FAR Supplement, NASA Procurement Information Circulars, etc) to ensure GSFC policies are consistent with both Federal and NASA procurement policies and procedures.
In the previous survey in 2003 a consideration was given to GSFC that states, "GSFC should clarify Procurement Circular 02-01 to ensure, irrespective of any "waivers," that contracting officers continue to establish pre-negotiation objectives before engaging the contractor in active negotiation." GSFC implemented this consideration to the circular in January of 2005. The circular now states that, "a Contracting Officer can use a Stand-Alone document only on a limited basis and when a cost analysis has been performed that reveals no or only minor differences between the Contractor proposed and Government objective cost and fee profit positions and other negotiation issues."
STRENGTH:
GSFC is commended for the overall quality of the Center's procurement policies and procedures.
9. Virtual Procurement Office (VPO)
GSFC continues to maintain it's Procurement Master Documents and Guidelines with current regulations, policies, procedures, procurement tools and templates to assist the procurement professionals with accomplishing task. In discussing the VPO with the Senior Staff Procurement Analyst responsible he gave the survey team data regarding the use of the VPO tool. The data indicates that GSFC's usage of the VPO tool over the past 2 years has been as high as 31% and as low as 3% of usage for all NASA Centers. Additionally, the GSFC Training Initiative Committee (TIC) {a committee in Procurement of Specialist and Managers charged with improving GSFC procurement training} has begun the process of populating the VPO with samples that will be of use to the GSFC Procurement Community. From talking with the TIC member in charge of this effort, they believe the use of the VPO will increase if the mechanism is populated with samples. However, the VPO does not allow sample population in certain areas within the tool. In order for this to change NASA HQ Office of Procurement, Analysis Division will have to allow it.
STRENGTH:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is commended for developing strategies to increase the use of the VPO.
CONSIDERATION:
The Analysis Division in the Office of Procurement at Headquarters should discuss the issue of populating of samples in blocked out fields in VPO with the GSFC POD.
10. IFMP/SAP Issues
In general GSFC has dealt with the issues that have arisen because of the implementation of SAP/IFMP in a reasonable manner. GSFC has created a team called the Procurement Systems Support Team (PSST). Their full time duty is to deal with issues that arise because of IFMP/SAP. Also, this group is charged with training employees on the SAP system. This group has dealt with the deobligation issues that have arisen because of SAP while they have not instituted any formal policy they have created a worksheet to aid the procurement workforce which follow the process within SAP. The PSST works closely with the Resources community by attending their Resources Forum, at this meeting they represent the Procurement Community and discuss SAP issues that are important to both communities. The PSST team member interviewed indicated that Procurement Senior management has been very supportive of them when the Resources community has tried to "off load" work from SAP that it should be completing in the SAP system. Also there is a Integrated Process Team meeting that PSST attends, this meeting includes all stakeholders affected by the implementation of SAP. SAP has affected the Simplified Acquisition workforce greater than other members of the POD; therefore, these SAP issues are discussed at the monthly Small Purchases Action Team (SPAT) Meetings.
There are several ways for new employees to be trained on using SAP. They include the Focused Training Seminars, one on one training from a member of PSST and training from a super user within each division. The procurement organization is in the process of working with the Office of Human Resources to develop sustainment training for electronic systems. This training will train new employees on systems like SAP and the Contracts Management Module (CMM). It will also provide existing employees with refresher training on the aforementioned systems.
STRENGTH:
The GSFC Procurement Officer is commended for its overall handling of issues arising from SAP especially for the creation of the Procurement Systems Support Team which deals with all issues related to IFMP/SAP.
11. Metrics
GSFC collects an array of management reports to ensure that the organization as a whole is functioning at a low level of risk. The organization grades themselves on the reported data using red, yellow and green as an adjective way to define how the organization is performing. The organization also collects metrics on workload for major acquisitions and other actions to ensure schedules are met. The Metrics that are collected are reported to the Management Operations Board of Directors (MODBOD) and to the GSFC Management Council in the form of a power point presentation. The following metrics are collected procurement schedules for major acquisitions, UCAs, workforce stability numbers, and other actions (which includes modifications on major programs).
GSFC POD is in the process of developing a ULO tracking mechanism. This
tracking mechanism is web based and it will allow GSFC to have real time
ULO information. The advent of IFMP and FPDS-NG has made tracking this
metric more difficult than ever before. Therefore, its commendable that
GSFC has started to develop this tool.
The purpose for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) participation in the Procurement Management Survey is to conduct a detailed review of a NASA field center small business program to ensure that it is appropriately implemented, and to raise to Management's attention any issues that may prevent a Center Small Business Program from being fully implemented in accordance to Public Law 95-507. To accomplish this task, there were several objectives established: follow up on the considerations from the 2001 procurement survey; review the organization and staffing of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Small Business Program; analyze Center's compliance with Agency's Uniform Methodology in Determining Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Subcontracting Goals on individual contracts; review outreach programs and the SBIR/STTR program, and understand the relationship and coordination between the GSFC Industry Assistance Office (IAO) and the Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative (SBA PCR).
Organization and Staffing
The GSFC Small Business Office organization is an integral part of the Centers business activities. This office consists of five people. It is headed by the Small Business Specialist who is aligned to the Procurement Manager's Office. This position is assisted by four people: The Headquarters Small Business Specialist, the GSFC Small Business Specialist, and two Program Support Assistants. All four positions make up the Industry Assistance Office. Additionally, the Small Business Specialist has been assigned to work IFMP initiatives (contract management module) and to work on the Strategic Plan. The goal is to bring focus on Small Business issues in the Strategic Plan. Another employee has been assigned to the office to oversee the Industry Assistance Office day-to-day operations and serve as liaison to the Small Business Administration's Procurement Center Representative (SBA PCR).
The IAO indicates that since the Headquarters Small Business Specialist has been on extended detail, it has allowed the IAO staff to become more knowledgeable about Headquarters matters. The IAO also stated that the elimination of the boundary has allowed the work in the office to be spread more evenly among the staff. They reported, for example, that NASA Headquarters, which procurements the office is also responsible, has only 15 subcontracting plans while GSFC has 170 subcontracting plans. The IAO states that this vacancy presents the IAO with the opportunity to utilize the vacancy as a developmental position.
Socioeconomic Goals
A consideration in the 2001 Procurement Management Survey was that the Procurement Office was not implementing NPD 5000.2, Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Goals on individual contracts.
STRENGTH:
NPD 5000.2 is now being fully implemented at the Center. Additionally, GSFC has implemented a review which mimics the NPD for all other procurements. The IAO states they are made aware all procurements planned or initiated, and participates in the process when the procurement is in the planning stage. Every Purchase Request (PR) is routed through the IAO, and every PR over $100K is routed to the SBA PCR for review.
GSA Schedule
The IAO states that the Center gets zero credit for small business goals on procurements under the GSA schedule. That is unless the procurement is already a small business. Example, Wallops wants to renew with a large business on the GSA schedule. There are small businesses performing on this contract, however, GSFC will not be able to report this and apply such figures against its goals. Subcontracting percentages on these contracts can be very high.
CONSIDERATION:
Besides it being a requirement in the FAR to utilize the Schedule, the Procurement Office prefers using the schedule because it's timely; therefore, the IAO staff should be made aware that GSA agreed to allow agencies to count small business subcontracting goals toward their contracts, if they negotiated the goals. This is true even if small business subcontracting goals were already on the GSA contract, and they did not meet agency standards. Additionally, the GSA issued a policy letter in June 2005 allowing agencies to prefer small businesses and consider socioeconomic status when filling a requirement from the GSA schedule.
Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative (SBA PCR)
The position of the SBA PCR is statutorily mandated and the individual exists to assist the agency in creating opportunities for small businesses. An important function of the SBA PCR is to serve as advisor to the Procurement Office on small business matters. One of the requirements necessary for the SBA PCR to carry out the advisory function is open communication with the procurement staff. There also has to be a level of respect and trust. The SBA PCR serving at GSFC is resident on Center. The SBA PCR is a former GSFC procurement employee, and therefore, is very familiar with the GSFC procurement practices and policies. In discussions with the IAO staff, it became obvious that communication between the SBA PCR and the IAO staff was very strained. The SBA PCR concurred with this observation. The problem has escalated to the point where it is believed it negatively impacted the recent SBA Review of the Center. It has also resulted in two Form 70s being filed with the threat of a third Form 70 being filed. A threat of a Form 70 being filed can result in work on the procurement being halted while staff prepares to respond to the Form 70. In comparison to other centers, this is a rather high number of 70s being filed at one center
All parties indicated their desire to have an effective working relationship.
CONSIDERATION:
It is imperative that the relationship between the SBA PCR and the Procurement Office operate on a professional level. The IAO should seek immediate mediation from the Regional SBA Office to resolve the issue. The OSDBU is willing to participate in the matter as a supportive party.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization conducts a course entitled, "Supplier Diversity as a Business Imperative". This course targets NASA technical, procurement, and administrative personnel. It emphasizes the value added benefit of utilizing small, disadvantaged businesses. Consideration should be given to making this course, or one comparable, a mandatory requirement for all newly hired procurement personnel. It should become part of their Individual Development Plan (IDP). Additionally, refresher training every 3 to 5 years may be another consideration. As suggested by the Procurement Officer, the COTR training could be amended to include a session on small and small disadvantaged businesses.
Outreach
Support to small businesses:
Three small businesses currently performing contracts for GSFC were interviewed.
There were four objectives: 1) understand the work being performed; 2)
relationship with the IAO; 3) comments on outreach programs; and 4) issues
or concerns. All were contractors who got their start at GSFC. All have
a prime contract with GSFC, as well as subcontractor on other GSFC contracts.
STRENGTH:
The consensus was overwhelmingly positive about the support received from the IAO, and from Headquarters. Each spoke very highly of the programs put on by the OSDBU community and the commitment of the IAO staff to providing good support. Each small business interviewed shared their experiences about their start at GSFC and their growth, and delighted in sharing their plans for continued growth with the Center and possibly other NASA centers.
CONSIDERATION:
Information should be readily available to small businesses and easily accessible. Small Businesses new to doing business with NASA or are new at being a Prime contractor should be encouraged to take the Small Business Training Program (formerly TADSBAT).
The GFSC small business staff is located on different floors in the building.. It may be helpful if they were located in contiguous spaces. This way, contractors will know exactly where to go when they need their small business issues addressed. It will provide an area that is designated for small business and will give both staff and contractors a level of comfort in discussing small business related issues. It will also allow the IAO staff to utilize corridor space to display information material.
Events/Conferences:
A Science Symposium was held on Center during the first week of the Procurement Management Survey, August 18. When asked if the GSFC Small Business Office is supporting this event, they were not aware of the planned event. The event was not being sponsored by the GSFC Small Business Office/IAO. It was explained that the IAO may be invited to participate if the end user(s) believe there is a reason for their participation. As was later realized, the event was not small business related; however, further discussions revealed that the IAO have not had any involvement in the Semi-Annual Science Forum for Small Business that is advertised in the NASA Small Business Programs and Initiatives. The IAO reports that they have not been invited to participate or have sponsored any event in the past couple of years. There also is the sense that the OSDBU Program Manager is not as visible at the Center as desired by the IAO staff. The same concern was relayed by the SBA PCR.
CONSIDERATION:
The IAO participates in the annual Agency-wide small business events, such as, the NASA JPL High Tech Small Business Conference, the NASA Small Business Solutions Conference, and the Mentor-Protégé Conference. They also participate in the annual Federal-wide OSDBU Director's Procurement Conference. The IAO should be included in all Center sponsored events involving small businesses. Regarding forums such as the Semi-Annual Science Forum and the Small Business Aeronautics Forums, it should be clear that while these programs are under the auspices of the OSDBU, the Center Small Business Offices are responsible for initiating, coordinating and implementing the forums. Additionally, they determine the participation of the OSDBU Program Manager in the forum.
Although there are monthly telecons between the Small Business Specialists and the OSDBU the first Tuesday of each month, and a frequent, sometimes daily, exchange of information between the Centers SBS and the OSDBU, each OSDBU Program Manager may consider contacting the Center Small Business Specialists to determine the best support for that particular Center.
Funding:
There are costs associated with implementing programs and participating in OSDBU sponsored programs. Currently, the IAO travel costs are included in the travel planning with Procurement, however, as the year progress and the funding is depleted, the IAO has to be factored into the priority of travel for the organization. One way Procurement has tried to resolve this issue is by charging the requesting customer for travel costs. The IAO states that the problem of obtaining funds is further exacerbated by the fact that there is little advance notification from the OSDBU of planned events that the Small Business Specialist is required to support. They reference conferences, meetings, congressional supported small business events that the Center SBS may be required to support or take the lead for the Headquarters OSDBU on short notice. They concur that the larger events such as the JPL Conference, The Federal Government OSDBU/Procurement Conference, the Small Business Solutions Conference, and the Mentor Protégé Conference are all recurring annual events that are included in their budgets. The OSDBU AA explains that at times information is received in the OSDBU on short notice.
CONSIDERATION:
Current communication between the centers and the Headquarters OSDBU is both written and verbal. There is a Program Manager for each Mission Directorate who has oversight for Centers' small business activities. There is a monthly telecon between the Headquarters OSDBU and the Centers' SBS, there is an Upcoming Events bulletin that is provided to the SBS at the start of the year, and is updated as required. To supplement existing communication, the OSDBU website is a tool that could be used to further communicate to the SBS, current and planned events. In addition to ensuring that core events, i.e., annual conferences, automatically appear on the calendar at the start of each New Year, the OSDBU should make sure the website is updated frequently with current and planned events.
Consideration should be given to establishing a line item at each Center for the implementation and management of their Small Business Program. This line item could be located in either the Procurement Office or the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. A separate budget for the Small Business Program will provide an accurate accounting of the Agency's support to small business initiatives.
|
Owner: Jerry Edmond |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: December 2005 |