The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted the Procurement
Management Survey at the Kennedy Space Center under the authority of
NASA Procedures and Guidelines 1000.3, The NASA Organization. The
survey was conducted from November 26 through December 7, 2007.
The report contains the strengths, weaknesses, and considerations
identified during the survey.
An exit briefing was held on December 7, 2007, to discuss the survey findings.
This report serves as a basis, in part, for fulfilling internal control requirements in accordance with the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-255).
Ronald W. Backes, Manager
Procurement Management Survey Program
Office of Procurement
Analysis Division
SECTION II – ORGANIZATION/MANAGEMENT
1. Organization Structure and Staffing
2. Personnel Interviews (1102, COTR, Legal, & Executive)
3. Metrics Review and Documentation
4. Contracting Officer Technical Representative Training
5. 1102 Career Development and Training
6. Self-Assessment Program
7. Internal Policies and Procedures
SECTION III – PRE-AWARD PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION
1. Master Buy Plan Actions and Acquisition Forecast
2. Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition
3. Deviations and Waivers
4. Acquisition Planning
5. Market Research
6. Pre/Post Negotiation Memoranda
7. HSPD-12 Compliance
8. Contractor Safety Requirements
9. Synopsis of Contract Award
SECTION IV – POST-AWARD PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION
1. Contractor Performance Evaluations - NF 1680
2. Undefinitized Contract Actions
3. Competition under Multiple Award and IDIQ contracts
4. Government Furnished Property
5. Contract Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations
6. Award and Incentive Fee Administration
7. Contracting Officer Technical Representative Delegation
8. Contract Administration and Surveillance
9. Exercise of Options
10. Interagency Agreements
11. Contracts for Administrative and Clerical Support
12. Subcontract Consent
SECTION V – PRICING/FINANCIAL/AUDITS
1. DCAA Audit Follow-Up
2. Financial Management Reporting - NF 533s
3. Cost/Price Analysis and NF 634 Structured Fee Approach
4. Technical Evaluations
SECTION VI – SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND OTHER AREAS
1. Simplified Acquisitions/Commercial Acquisitions
2. SBIR/STTR Program
3. Bankcard Program
4. Construction and Architect and Engineering Service Contracts
5. Environmental Issues
6. Contract Management Module
SECTION VII – SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
1. Scope of Review
2. Organizational Structure and Staffing
3. Industry Assistance Priorities
4. Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals
5. Center Subcontractor Socioeconomic Business Goals
1. Procurement Planning
2. Subcontracting
3. Award Fee/Incentive Fee Contracts
4. Set-Asides
5. Reporting
1. Programs
2. Counseling
The Kennedy Procurement Office is providing meaningful support to its technical and program customers. The Procurement Management Survey team interviewed a randomly selected group of representatives from the technical community to obtain feedback and identify issues or concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Procurement Office. The individuals interviewed generally expressed satisfaction with the procurement process. Additionally, interviews were conducted with various members of the Procurement Office to determine the internal perception of the effectiveness of the organization. Individuals interviewed represented all grade levels with a wide range of tenure. The general perception from members of the Procurement Office was mixed. The impression from the Office of the Chief Counsel was that the Procurement Office is staffed with competent professionals, committed to doing a good job. The attorneys interviewed expressed a high degree of confidence in the quality of the work and the effectiveness of management within the Procurement Office.
The Procurement Management Survey consists of two primary components 1) interviews with technical, procurement, and legal personnel regarding the effectiveness of the Procurement Office and 2) compliance reviews that consist of a review of contracting actions with a focus on adherence to procurement statutes, regulations, and procedures. The primary emphasis of the compliance portion of the survey is on systemic procurement processes rather than individual file anomalies. Current procurement innovations, both Agency-wide and Center specific, are also reviewed.
The results of both the interviews and the compliance reviews are compiled into narrative summaries with strengths, weaknesses, and areas of consideration identified. Strengths are defined as best practices utilized in support of the procurement system. Weaknesses are defined as problems, usually systemic, that require actions to improve processes and/or procedures. Considerations are defined as issues that 1) if not addressed could turn into a problem or problems that are not necessarily systemic but should be addressed, or 2) would result in better business practices if addressed.
To promote the exchange of successful lessons learned and innovative procurement methodologies between Centers, the team sought to identify Kennedy processes or initiatives that may be beneficial to other Centers. They also sought to identify suggested approaches utilized by other Centers that may be beneficial to Kennedy.
The exit conference at the conclusion of the survey consisted of a direct exchange of observations and ideas between the survey team members and the Procurement Office leadership. To emphasize Center ownership of the resolution of any identified weaknesses or considerations, the survey follow-up process focuses on actions or initiatives undertaken by the Center to address survey findings. At an appropriate interval (approximately six months after this report is issued) the Kennedy Procurement Officer will brief the Assistant Administrator for Procurement and the survey manager on Center achievements in these areas.
1. Survey Team Membership
Below is a list of team members and the areas they reviewed:
Ron Backes, Manager
Organizational Structure and Staffing, Personnel Interviews, Self-Assessment Program, CMM Issues
Maikeyza Brown, DFRC
Deviations and Waivers, Synopsis of Contract Award, Exercise of Options, SBIR/STTR Program
Irene Cierchacki, GRC
Contracting Officer Technical Representative Training and Delegation,
Contract Administration and Surveillance, Contracts for Administrative
and Clerical Support, Bankcard Program
Diane Frazier, HQ
Master Buy Plan Actions, Pre/Post Negotiation Memoranda, Cost/Price
Analysis and NF 634 Structured Fee Approach, Technical Evaluations
Yolande Harden, HQ
Organizational Structure and Staffing, Personnel Interviews, 1102 Career Development and Training, Metrics
Mike Kaszyca, LaRC
Market Research, Contractor Safety Requirements, Subcontract Consent, Simplified and Commercial Acquisitions
Don Moses, HQ
Government Furnished Property, HSPD-12 Compliance, Interagency Agreements, DCAA Audit Follow-Up
Cheryl Robertson, HQ
Internal Policies and Procedures, Acquisition Planning, Undefinitized
Contract Actions, Contract Closeout, Unliquidated Obligations
Tom Russell, GSFC
Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition, Contractor
Performance Evaluations - NF 1680, Award Fee and Incentive Fee
Administration, Financial Management Reporting - NF 533
Mike Stubbs, LaRC
Competition under Multiple Award and Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
Quantity contracts, Simplified and Commercial Acquisitions,
Construction and Architect and Engineering Service Contracts,
Environmental Issues
Eli Chiogioji, OSBP
Small Business Programs
2. Survey Support
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of Linda Adams, Mary Kiss, Lisa Morales, and Cicely Simmons.
1. Organization Structure and Staffing
The Kennedy Procurement Office is comprised of five project support offices and a policy and review office. The Procurement Office has experienced a significant increase in staffing levels since the previous survey in January 2005. A total of 44 new employees have been hired in that time which increased the size of the organization from 75 to 103 personnel. The increase in personnel is largely attributed to Constellation projects assigned to Kennedy and to the requirement to support major Source Evaluation Boards (SEBs).
The Procurement Office is supporting a high volume of Source Evaluation Board activity. There are currently four major SEBs underway for new contract awards (Information Management Services, Medical Environmental Support, Institutional Support, and Mobile Launcher). A fifth SEB is in progress for the potential “on-ramp” of new contractors to the NASA Launch Services Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract. Two planned SEB activities are close to the solicitation release phase (Constellation Ground Operations Support and Ground Support Equipment). Additionally, Kennedy is hosting the Agency-wide Protective Services SEB.
Support of these activities requires experienced and senior contracting officers and specialists. The procurement organization also has a number of lower dollar value source selection activities underway within the respective subordinate procurement offices. These support the follow-on efforts for the Joint Base Operations Support Contract. The Procurement Office currently has two GS-14s, six GS-13s, two GS-12s, and one GS-9 assigned to SEB activities. Although necessary for the proper support of these activities, dedicated SEB assets create a significant drain on resources within the procurement offices. Addressing the needs of SEBs and the day-to-day operations of the procurement offices simultaneously is a challenge for any procurement organization.
To meet these challenges, the Kennedy Procurement Office has actively engaged in recruiting efforts to bring experienced personnel on board and to develop and implement the processes to bring new employees up to speed quickly. In-processing, training, and on-the-job coaching and mentoring programs have been implemented to accomplish this while minimizing the turbulence experienced in day-to-day operations. Also evident are increased levels of review by first-line and senior management and by the policy office. The current management team has common experience and a high degree of synergy to carry the Procurement Office through this challenging period. The office chiefs appear to be a close-knit group – most are at similar stages in their careers and developed at the Center together. Many were mentored by the most senior of the chiefs. This level of camaraderie at the management level can be an effective tool to strengthen and bond the entire organization.
Several customers and Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) commented on the frequency of changes in procurement personnel responsible for their contracts. One reported having three contracting officers/contract specialists assigned in a three-year period. Another reported having had five or six in a similar timeframe. While the customers acknowledge that each individual is good, they are frustrated with the process of continuously familiarizing new contracting personnel with the nuances of their projects’ contract requirements. There is a perception of inconsistent guidance and of actions getting lost in the transition.
Procurement Staff Interviews
Interviews were conducted with several members of the Kennedy procurement workforce to gain a greater insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization. Interviewees varied from the most junior levels to senior personnel with more than 30 years of procurement experience. They included contract specialists, contracting officers, policy analysts, team leaders, and office chiefs responsible for project support offices.
Many employees express respect for, and confidence in, the Procurement Officer. They characterize him as open to new ideas and committed to organizational growth. There is a perception of struggle stemming from changes in Center leadership, and that communications among Center leadership could be improved. There is also a degree of frustration with business systems, associated response times, and delays in getting access. The Procurement Office senior leadership is perceived by some as micro-managing work.
Most employees express satisfaction with their work. Within teams and offices, things are perceived as good to very good. There is a perception that morale across the organization is less positive outside of the employees immediate work areas. The influx of new personnel has injected a degree of anxiety into the Procurement Office. Some express frustration at missed promotion opportunities or the lack of opportunity to work on major programs. Others perceive turbulence within the organization with seasoned personnel being assigned to Source Evaluation Boards and remaining personnel having to pick up their workload and train new employees simultaneously. Overall, there is a sense of frustration among the procurement workforce at not being able to meet their customers’ expectations as fully or as quickly as they would like.
Workload is perceived as heavy, but manageable, and increasing in the immediate future. Junior employees are assigned more complex workloads than in times past. Some feel they must work evenings and weekends to keep pace. Generally, work is seen as equitably distributed across the organization.
There is a highly effective informal network for communication at the team level. Employees generally express trust in their immediate management. There is a perception of a lack of communication from the Procurement Officer to the working level employee. Several expressed the sentiment that the Procurement Officer is approachable and maintains an open door policy but that there is a reluctance to take advantage of this avenue because of peer pressure. There is limited communication or knowledge sharing across offices within the organization, and a few employees reported that managers do not seem to communicate effectively. Broad discussion of metrics, office procedures and reviews, and workload information may facilitate better communications across the organization.
Relationships with customers are reported as strong and effective. Most interviewees feel part of an integrated team with their technical counterparts. Procurement personnel generally expressed the need to engage in more customer outreach and training because of a perception that the quality of requirements documents is in decline. The relationship with legal is reported as good; however, some reported that legal is overly involved in the acquisition process and that legal reviews impede their ability to respond to customer expectations in a timely manner.
Formal training opportunities are readily available and supported by Procurement Office leadership. The high volume workload is the major impediment to formal training. On-the-job and informal training is effective at the team and office level. Training conducted by the Policy and Review Office is reported as good, when available. Several expressed the need for more in-house training opportunities to increase cohesion across the organization. Individual Development Plans (IDPs) are not used widely to develop employees. Feedback on employee performance varies from office to office and is reported from “pretty good” to “outstanding.”
Technical and Customer Interviews
Representatives from a variety of technical organizations were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of the Procurement Office and their level of satisfaction. Individuals interviewed represented various programs and projects at Kennedy. The vast number of technical representatives interviewed reported having more than 20 years of service at Kennedy.
The technical community representatives that were interviewed report that working relationships with the Procurement Office range from “good” to “excellent.” The level of interaction with the procurement personnel varies depending on the size, complexity, number of contracts, and years of Contracting Officer Technical Representative experience. Many indicate that Procurement Office personnel provide timely advice and assistance with COTR roles and responsibilities within the procurement process. The overall perception of the technical customers interviewed is that the Procurement Office is effective.
Legal Office Interviews
The survey team interviewed several attorneys from the Kennedy Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC). The individuals interviewed have from seven years to more than 20 years of service with Kennedy. All attorneys at Kennedy are responsible for and available to support procurement in varying degrees. Several are assigned to specific projects and programs, but most are generalists. Attorneys will generally support SEBs and conduct routine procurement reviews. The OCC has one patent attorney on staff.
Relations with the Procurement Office are reported as positive, excellent, and very strong. A collaborative working relationship is evident. One attorney interviewed expressed appreciation for the file reviews conducted by the Procurement policy office, because they allow the attorneys to focus on complex legal issues rather than administrative compliance. Attorney confidence in the Procurement Office varies by contracting officer. Contracting officers that involve their attorneys early in the process, and work through tough issues, earn the OCC’s confidence. The line management of the Procurement Office is perceived as responsive and effective.
The single greatest challenge expressed by the OCC is defining requirements. Over-reliance on cost contracts is perceived as having diminished the experience level with writing firm requirements. The development of requirements for Constellation is a challenge because of the involvement of individuals and activities across the Agency. Legal and procurement involvement is crucial to guide the technical community to a successful product. As a team, the legal and procurement communities are seen as having good leadership skills to work with customers but are generally perceived as slow.
There is a perception that documentation may be thin on analysis. Determinations and Findings, contracting officer statements, and analyses are seen as “boilerplate” or “template-driven.” Improved training may help. Academic and on-the-job training, particularly continuous training, are needed. The attorneys interviewed expressed that the current career development regime delivers “big picture” training in the first and second year. Later in the procurement career, when “real-world problems” are on their desks, the training is no longer available. Starting new employees in a simplified acquisition environment may not be the most effective model, as early experience flavors employees’ career development and knowledge. The overall quality of file documentation is reported as good but appears to be trending slightly downward.
In the past three or four years, a number of branch and division personnel have left the office. There is a perception of significant personnel change within the Procurement Office. The considerable influx of new employees to support Constellation has made it difficult to maintain corporate knowledge on other projects and contract efforts. The change in Center leadership is seen as positive, as bringing more energy and strong Center advocacy.
Executive Interviews
The survey team interviewed several executives at Kennedy. The Procurement Officer is perceived as available and responsive when called upon, as having an open door. The Procurement Office provides outstanding support to both on-going and planned SEBs. The personal involvement of the Procurement Officer in strategic and long-range planning is effective, enabling the projects to accomplish their missions. There is recognition of the challenges facing the Procurement Office in absorbing the increased workload associated with Constellation and other major contract efforts. There is an appreciation for the minimal turbulence experienced at the project level. Several executives expressed the need to build the confidence level of less seasoned procurement personnel and to foster a culture of innovation and empowerment and a willingness to take risks. Overall relations with the Procurement Office are close-knit and effective.
3. Metrics Review and Documentation
The Procurement Office compiles a variety of data that are utilized as performance indicators. This data is maintained on the procurement web site as well as in the NASA Management Information System (NMIS). Data is collected in the following categories: Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), Purchase Requests, New Awards, Socioeconomic Goals, Customer Satisfaction, and Bankcard Transactions. Metrics are no longer maintained for Unliquidated Obligations and Performance-Based Contracts.
Most data is collected and measured on a monthly basis with the exception of customer satisfaction data which is collected on a semi-annual basis. Performance measures are maintained in the NMIS in the form of stop light indicators (red, yellow, or green arrows) that reflect progress from period to period. The arrows reflect improved, static, or decreased performance.
UCA and customer satisfaction data is discussed with the procurement managers on a periodic basis. Other data is available for managers and procurement staff to review through either the procurement web site or NMIS. There do not appear to be regular discussions among managers regarding the information provided by the performance indicators. The Procurement Office does not appear to take proactive steps to address areas of concern. Although collecting such data can be useful, organizations must take the necessary steps to capitalize on the strengths and address the weaknesses.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should periodically review data results and develop action plans to address areas needing improvement and exploit strengths within the organization.
4. Contracting Officer Technical Representative Training
The NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1852.270 requires all COTRs and alternate COTRs to attend mandatory training prior to appointment. Further, active COTRs must attend refresher training once every five years. Kennedy provides two basic and two refresher COTR training courses annually through a contract with Management Concepts, Inc.
The Center Procurement Training Coordinator (CPTC) is responsible for maintaining records on all COTR training, including a detailed database tracking all of the individuals who have completed COTR training, the dates of the basic and refresher training taken, and the dates when the training expires. The CPTC reviews COTR training on a monthly basis and notifies COTRs who will require training at the time of the next scheduled refresher course. If active COTRs do not attend, their delegations are rescinded. Then new COTRs are delegated by their contracting officers. Since the last survey, five COTR delegations were rescinded because of the COTRs failure to attend refresher training. The Procurement Officer granted two requests for COTR waivers within the last two years for individuals who required refresher training. Neither waiver exceeded a period of six months.
The Procurement Office rescinded Kennedy Document Process KDP-P-2086 during the period covered by this survey. KDP-P-2086 required contract specialists and contracting officers to submit copies of delegations and letters rescinding COTR delegation to the Procurement Office’s Policy and Review Office (OP-AM). This was implemented as a corrective action resulting from a recent Procurement Office self-assessment. The self-assessment found that only 36 percent of the documents were provided to OP-AM pursuant to the policy. The Procurement Office implemented a revised process for monitoring COTR delegation and training. Pursuant to the new process, the Training Coordinator sends quarterly call letters to the chiefs and leads of each procurement branch verifying COTRs on active files. Though recently implemented, the process appears to result in improved monitoring of COTR delegation and training.
The review of 21 contract files indicated that 15 files contained the required NASA Form 1634 for COTR and alternate COTR delegation (as required). Six of the remaining files did not delegate a COTR. Of those six contracts, one contract for on-site administrative services noted the contracting officer as the COTR on the active contract listing.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for maintaining a comprehensive and detailed database that records the COTR basic and refresher training as well as the expiration date of the training. (REPEAT FINDING)
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. A review of NFS 1842.270(f)(2) should be conducted by NASA Headquarters to determine if a policy change is warranted requiring COTRs to participate in refresher training more often than once every five years. (REPEAT FINDING)
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider requiring COTRs to participate in refresher training more often than once every five years. (REPEAT FINDING)
5. 1102 Career Development and Training
The Center Personnel Training Coordinator provides information to procurement personnel regarding various training opportunities. The CPTC interacts with the policy office on the issuance of contracting officer warrants to ensure that individuals meet the Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting criteria for contracting officer warrant levels.
Individual Development Plans are not tracked or maintained by the CPTC. Development of IDPs is not a standard practice across the Kennedy Procurement organization. The Procurement Office does not have a policy requiring all employees to have IDPs. Only the employees under the Federal Career Intern Program are required to have IDPs, otherwise it is optional. Many employees choose not to have IDPs. Some offices utilize IDPs while others do not. Not much emphasis seems to be placed on the utilization of IDPs as a tool to monitor career development goals.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy CPTC is commended for the excellent organization and detail utilized in the maintenance and monitoring of the procurement personnel training files. The back-up documentation and databases provide an excellent tool to keep abreast of the training needs and development status of personnel.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider utilizing Individual Development Plans or similar tools on a consistent basis to assist procurement personnel in developing near-term and long-term career plans. Additionally, the Agency Career Development and Training Policy requires that the CPTC retain a copy of each individual’s IDP as part of the training records.
The OP-AM office conducts periodic self-assessments to address weaknesses identified through the Procurement Management Survey process and to provide management insight into procurement risks for selected topics. Three self-assessments had been submitted since the completion of the last Procurement Management Survey, corresponding to six-month reporting periods, in compliance with the guidance provided in the Self-Assessment Guide. Topics were selected in response to weaknesses identified in the 2005 Procurement Management Survey based upon the Procurement Information Circulars (PICs) covering new or changed policies and procedures. Topics were also selected because of Center-specific issues such as a review of safety requirements in response to an increase in the number of accidents reported on Center. All weaknesses identified in the 2005 Procurement Management Surveys were assessed with the exception of contractor compensation on service contracts. This was not assessed because the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) reviewed this area as part of its internal audit review cycle or as part of each contractor’s annual incurred cost proposal audit for all contracts valued at greater than $15 million.
The OP-AM adopted two different approaches during this self-assessment cycle. The first approach involved individuals from various offices across the procurement organization. Each chief within the Procurement Office nominated a journeyman and junior specialist to be members of the self-assessment team. This approach facilitated cross training and knowledge sharing throughout the Procurement Office. Individual reviewers conducted comprehensive assessments of all topics associated with each file. The second approach involved the performance of the assessment “in-house” within OP-AM. Individual reviewers were assigned specific topics and reviewed all files associated with the assigned topic. The second approach proved more focused and timely and was less resource intensive. The second approach lacked the benefits of knowledge sharing and cross training inherent in the first approach. Both approaches utilized a checklist to guide the reviewers in addressing their topical areas. The topical areas were discussed during a kick-off meeting and checklists were furnished to the chiefs and the assessment team members for reviews and updates as appropriate. The checklists were effective at identifying the quantitative aspects of file documentation, such as whether a particular document was included in the file. The checklist-based approach was not seen by OP-AM as effective at assessing the quality of the documents and files under review.
Upon completion of an assessment, the results are reported by office. The chief is given an opportunity to review and comment on the findings. Consolidated reports are submitted to the Headquarters Office of Procurement and office chiefs for dissemination within their divisions. The OP-AM tracks which topics have been assessed from calendar year 2000 to the present, identifies all of the topics in the Self-Assessment Guide, and shows which topics were assessed during each cycle. The tracking sheet captures the current status of proposed resolutions, which does not include the tracking of corrective actions to completion. One particularly effective review involved the assessment of procurement reviews in OP-AM. The team assessed legal reviews that had occurred after OP-AM reviews. The team provided feedback to OP-AM regarding items overlooked by its policy reviews.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office conducts a sound self-assessment program that consistently reviews issues identified by the Procurement Management Surveys as well as issues considered important to the Center. The assessment of the effectiveness of OP-AM policy reviews by considering legal comments received following a policy review is an innovation in the process. (AGENCY BEST PRACTICE)
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider identifying all weaknesses from the preceding Procurement Management Survey and provide the rationale within the self-assessments for omitting identified weaknesses.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider supplementing the checklist-based review with a qualitative review of contract file documentation and processes.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should track the effectiveness of corrective action plans for identified weaknesses over time.
4. The Kennedy Procurement Office should encourage the involvement in the self-assessment process of personnel new to the organization to enhance their training in processes, procedures, and best practices across the organization.
7. Internal Policies and Procedures
The OP-AM office maintains internal policies and guidelines, Kennedy Documented Procedures, and Kennedy-unique contract clauses. All are easily accessible to procurement personnel for review and guidance. The unique clauses are available on the Kennedy external procurement web page for contractor access. The internal and external web pages offer a wealth of information and helpful links to other web pages of interest.
OP-AM continuously reviews these areas for updates to reflect current regulatory guidance and streamlining when appropriate. For example, during the last survey in 2005, Kennedy had 144 unique clauses. Following the implementation of the Contract Management Module (CMM), an extensive review of these clauses was conducted which reduced this number to eight. KDPs have been reduced from 40 to 38. Documented policies had been reduced from 31 to 17 prior to the last Kennedy survey but have remained constant for this review at 17.
1. Master Buy Plan Actions and Acquisition Forecast
Master Buy Plan Records
The Agency’s Master Buy Plan (MBP) requirements are stated in NFS 1807.71. Section NFS 1807.7100 states, “The Master Buy Plan provides information on planned acquisitions to enable management to focus its attention on a representative selection of high-dollar-value and otherwise sensitive acquisitions.” In recent months, NASA senior management’s focus on information contained in the MBP database has expanded tremendously. Annual updates to the MBP are required to be entered into the system by July 15 for the next fiscal year. In addition, as a result of increased Headquarters senior management review, MBP data are updated half way through the year for submission to senior management.
The Office of the Administrator now requires the Headquarters Office of Procurement to provide an annual MBP report of all MBP records submitted by the Centers. The Procurement Office is advised to be more diligent regarding the quality level and detail of data entered into the MBP database. The survey team noted that the following data fields lack sufficient detail 1) Description; 2) Status Schedule; and 3) Remarks. In addition, initial inputs for the upcoming fiscal year should be submitted to Headquarters by the July 15 deadline in the future. When unexpected MBP items arise during the fiscal year, they should be input as soon as practical for Headquarters review.
Descriptions: In past master buy submissions, the MBP description field has been reflected as a one-line description of the planned acquisition, which provides no more information about the acquisition than the title. The MBP description should be sufficiently detailed to provide NASA senior management with a clear understanding of the acquisition requirements; e.g., the level of detail that would normally be provided in the description section of an Administrator’s Notice of Significant Contract Action.
Status Schedule: Planned and actual dates for critical milestones such as Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) approval (if applicable), RFP release, source selection, and contract award should be supplied within the status schedule field and updated periodically.
Remarks: Details regarding progress or problems associated with each MBP record should be recorded under the Remarks section.
Acquisition Forecast
In accordance with the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 (reference NFS 1807.7200), NASA Centers are required to prepare annual acquisition forecasts on or before October 1 (and update them semi-annually) for anticipated contract opportunities or classes of contract opportunities. Where appropriate, the information reflected in the Acquisition Forecast should correlate with the MBP database. The descriptions of these planned procurements must be sufficiently detailed to allow readers to determine whether the opportunity would be of interest to them.
The most recent Acquisition Forecast for Kennedy posted on the NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) was for FY 2006. Responsibility for the Kennedy Acquisition Forecast previously resided with the Center Industry Assistance Office. The Procurement Office is now responsible for developing the Acquisition Forecast. The Kennedy Procurement Office has not updated the Acquisition Forecast for FY 2008.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that MBP record submissions are sufficiently detailed and that particular attention is given to the Description, Status Schedule, and Remarks data fields.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that forecast data is input into the NAIS Acquisition Forecast system by October 1 and updated semi-annually pursuant to NFS 1807.7200.
2. Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition
The survey team reviewed six noncompetitive contract files for compliance with FAR Parts 5.2, 6.3, and 8.4, and with NFS Part 1806.3. Dollar values ranged from $499,000 to $15 million. Statutory authorities included (c)(1) - only one responsible source, including brand name source, and limited source under a Federal Supply Schedule.
Four JOFOCs had estimated values greater than $550,000. At this level, in accordance with Kennedy Procurement Office policy, the JOFOCs require review/concurrence by the office chief, the Legal Office, and the Procurement Office and approval by the Deputy Center Director (up to $11.5 million) or Center Director (over $11.5 million). The four JOFOCs contained all of the information required by FAR 6.303-2. They specifically followed the FAR content listing from FAR 6.303-2(a)(1) through (a)(12) and provided sufficient rationale. All were reviewed and approved at the appropriate level. One of the contracts awarded cited 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(5) as the authority, but this was simply a typographical error.
Justifications with estimated values of $550,000 or less are approved by the contracting officer with no further review required. One JOFOC reviewed for a follow-on contract for highly specialized services cited avoidance of duplication of cost as the basis for the sole source justification. When this rationale is cited, FAR 6.303-2(a)(9)(ii) requires an estimate of the duplicate cost to the Government and how the estimate was derived. The JOFOC simply stated that it would be “significantly more costly,” with no estimated cost specified. This JOFOC also failed to address the actions the Agency could take to remove barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition was required for the same services in accordance with FAR 6.303-2(a)(11).
The second file with a value less than $550,000 contained a limited source justification for additional scope under a task order issued under the company’s Federal Supply Schedule contract. The original order was for independent assessments and the additional effort was for range safety services, which appeared to be different from what was contemplated under the original order. The justification cited urgency as the basis, because the previous source (another Government agency), through which the range safety services were acquired from the specified company, no longer allows Kennedy to use its contract. The contracting officer decided to add the work to an existing contract with the specified company. Although the file stated that this was an increase in scope and was supported by the limited source justification, the order cited the changes clause as the authority.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider randomly monitoring sole source justifications valued at $550,000 or less, or including such in its self-assessments in order to avoid any systemic problems because of lack of review beyond the contracting officer level. If problems persist, an alternative would be to lower the threshold for legal and office head reviews of these documents in order to provide more scrutiny.
Deviation requests were reviewed for compliance with FAR 1.4 and NFS 1801.4. All submittals have met the requirements of the FAR and NFS and were well documented. Rarely was additional data or clarification needed. Most were reviewed and approved at Headquarters with no issues. However, the Procurement Office has submitted several deviations over the past year with very little lead time for Headquarters approval. The Procurement Office should plan to submit deviation packages at least two weeks prior to the needed approval.
Several files were checked to ensure the resultant Headquarters approval was routed through the proper approval process, signed, and dated, and that a copy was maintained in the file. All files reviewed included the appropriate approval documentation.
The survey team reviewed service contracts, commercial contracts, basic ordering agreements, and best value solicitations to assess the adequacy of acquisition planning, file documentation, organization, and regulatory compliance. Acquisition planning was adequate and appropriate for the complexity of the requirement for the majority of files reviewed. Contract files were well organized, documented, and evidenced compliance with applicable regulations.
The most recent contract for professional support services for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Procurement, and General Counsel was awarded as a Time and Materials (T&M) type contract after two previous companies performed the effort under a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) arrangement. The Determination and Findings for contract type justification did not adequately address why it was not possible to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work, or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence, as required by the FAR when the use of a T&M contract is planned (FAR 16.601(c)). Sufficient data/metrics to adequately estimate the cost of the follow-on contract and use an FFP contract vehicle should have been available based on prior contract performance.
One of the performance-based award fee contract files reviewed did not contain the required cost benefit analysis for the use of award fee contracts. A cost benefit analysis is required to demonstrate that the additional administrative effort and cost required to monitor and evaluate performance are justified by the expected benefits. Additionally, as a recurring effort, the Government should look to shift the cost risk to the contractor and pursue a Firm-Fixed Price arrangement when appropriate. The contract file contained no documentation other than the performance work statement that evidenced performance-based acquisition (PBA) methods; i.e., Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.
One best value contract file reviewed by the survey team lacked evidence of acquisition planning activities or of the conduct of cost or price analysis.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider acquisition history and the feasibility of shifting risk onto the contractor for historically stable requirements.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should conduct more comprehensive acquisition planning to award longer-term contracts where requirements can be reasonably anticipated over time, such as in the professional services arena.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should screen proposed acquisitions to identify whether planned acquisitions are appropriate candidates for PBA methods and that all PBA requirements are met and evidenced in the file when use of PBA is deemed appropriate.
The survey team reviewed ten contracts, blanket purchase agreements, and outline agreements for documentation of market research. FAR Part 10 requires agencies to conduct and document market research prior to solicitation in a manner appropriate to the size and complexity of the acquisition. While not mandatory, a Market Research Analysis report template is available on the NASA Virtual Procurement Office (VPO) for documenting research results. All of the files reviewed for market research were over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and ranged in value from $120,000 to $35 million. Nine of the ten files utilized the Market Research Analysis report template contained within the NASA VPO.
The review of the ten files indicated that market research activities are being accomplished. Several market research methods are used, including Requests for Information, use of in-house knowledge on previous contractual efforts, inquiries with the Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding the utilization of 8(a) small businesses, and reviews of the Consolidated Contract Initiative (CCI) database.
The majority of the files contained inadequate documentation of the market research activities that had been performed. It appeared in most cases that the contract specialist checked the boxes on the VPO Market Research Analysis report template without elaborating on the actual research conducted. The types of market research conducted and supporting documentation varied depending on the dollar value of the procurement. A significant increase in documentation detail was observed on the higher dollar value efforts.
One specific area of concern is the support and rationale in determining whether an acquisition is commercially available or not. In several reports, there was a discrepancy between the determination of whether an acquisition was commercial or non-commercial and whether the FAR Part 12 clauses were applicable or not. Furthermore, the market research reports did not document consideration for the use of the FAR 13.5 (Test Program for Certain Commercial Items) procedures on the efforts that were just over the SAT. It appears that several of the contracts reviewed could have been completed utilizing these procedures reducing the time and cost of the acquisition. In addition, commercial item requirements did not include an assessment of commercial business practices for the item/service being acquired as required by FAR 10.001(a)(3)(iv).
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure sufficient detail is included within market research reports to describe the activities performed. Particular attention should be placed on the determination of whether an acquisition is for commercial or non-commercial items or services and whether or not FAR Part 13.5 procedures can be utilized to streamline the procurement process.
6. Pre/Post Negotiation Memoranda
The survey team reviewed files to determine whether the files addressed the requirements of NFS 1815.406-170 for a pre-negotiation objective memorandum as well as FAR 15.406-3 and NFS 1815.406-3 for a post-negotiation memorandum. Generally, the pre-negotiation position memoranda reviewed thoroughly documented the Government’s position and addressed the requirements of NFS 1815.406-170. The price negotiation memoranda reviewed contained concise summaries of the contract actions and clearly indicated the results of negotiation. The memoranda included all of the elements required in accordance with NFS 1815.406. They addressed technical, business, contractual, pricing, and price reasonableness. In one file reviewed, both the pre-negotiation objective and price negotiation memoranda were missing from the file. This is noted as an anomaly.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office is again commended for thorough documentation of both pre-negotiation and price negotiation memoranda in accordance with the FAR and NFS.
The survey team reviewed contracts for compliance with PIC 06-01 dated January 18, 2006. The PIC requires the inclusion of FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of contractor personnel, and inclusion of PIV card issuance procedures in solicitations and contracts which require contractors to have physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or access to a Federal information system.
Twenty-one contracts were selected for review. All of the files contained FAR clause 52.204-9. However, more than half of the contracts reviewed did not contain the PIV card issuance instructions in the contract file. FAR 52.204-9 (a) states that “the Contractor shall comply with Agency personal identity verification procedures identified in the contract that implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12).” The PIV card issuance instructions are vital to the implementation of HSPD-12 PIV.
The survey team noted the proactive efforts of the policy office by providing guidance to the contracting staff in complying with HSPD-12 requirements.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that the PIV card issuance instructions are included in all solicitations and contracts that require FAR 52.204-9. This will ensure that contractors comply with the PIV card instructions. In addition, the Kennedy Procurement Office must review all existing contracts that qualify for HSPD-12 implementation and modify them as necessary to include FAR 52.204-9 and PIV card instructions.
8. Contractor Safety Requirements
The survey team reviewed construction, research and development, and support service contracts to verify compliance with the NFS requirements relating to safety and health policies and procedures. The review was conducted to ensure that 1) the appropriate Safety and Health clause and the Major Breach of Safety and Security clause were incorporated into the solicitations and contracts; 2) the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office reviewed the contract requirements; and 3) the required Safety and Health Plans were submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office and were incorporated into the contract. All of the contracts reviewed had values exceeding $500,000.
Five of the seven solicitations reviewed contained the required Safety and Health provisions and clauses. Six of the seven contracts that were reviewed contained the required Safety and Health clauses and evidenced review of the requirements by the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office. The NFS requires contractors to submit a Safety and Health Plan for incorporation into the resulting contract after receiving the concurrence of the Center safety and occupational health official(s). Six of the seven files reviewed required submission of a Safety and Health Plan. Two of these six files did not include the documented review and approval of the Safety and Health Plan by the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office. The other four files that were reviewed contained the documented review and approval of the plan by the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office. All six of the files incorporated the Safety and Health Plan into the contract.
The survey team noted improvement in the incorporation of the approved safety and health plans in the contracts since the last survey.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that all NFS Safety and Health provisions and clauses are properly incorporated in all applicable solicitations and contracts, and that approval of the Safety and Health Plan by the Center Safety and Mission Assurance Office is documented in all files prior to incorporation into the contract.
The survey team reviewed contract files for compliance with contract award synopsis requirements. Slightly more than half of the files reviewed required a synopsis of contract award. Of those that required synopsis, slightly more than half were properly posted on the Government-wide Point of Entry (GPE) and/or NAIS in a timely manner and contained copies of the posted synopses of contract award in the contract file. Two files contained the proper documentation in the file and were posted on GPE; however, the contract award amount posted on GPE did not include the value of option years. One file did not contain a copy of the posting.
Several files were reviewed where synopsis of contract award was not required. Most files reviewed did not contain supporting documentation identifying the appropriate exception utilized under FAR 5.301(b). The survey team reviewed several awards that required Administrator and NASA Headquarters notification prior to public announcement. All the files reviewed evidenced compliance with notification procedures prior to posting the synopsis of contract award on NAIS and contained copies of all supporting documentation.
The Procurement Office complied with the FAR 5.301 and NFS 1805.3 requirements to post awards on the NAIS web site in a timely manner and to notify NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement prior to posting awards valued at greater than $5 million.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that contract files are documented to cite the exception utilized when award synopsis is not required.
1. Contractor Performance Evaluations - NF 1680
The survey team reviewed contract files and Past Performance Data Base (PPDB) records for compliance with FAR 42.15 and NFS 1842.15. All files contained the required NF 1680 forms, and most of the NF 1680s had been transmitted to the PPDB.
FAR 42.15 and NFS 1842.1502 require that within 60 days of the annual anniversary of the award date of a contract having a term exceeding one year, contracting officers must conduct interim evaluations of contractor performance. Although the automatic reminder notice generated by the PPDB appears to facilitate timely commencement of the annual action by the contracting officers, many of the evaluations fail to be completed within the sixty-day period. In many instances, the delays resulted from delayed or inadequate responses from the Contracting Officer Technical Representatives or from the contractors. It was noted that only four out of six award fee contracts reviewed had current evaluation data posted in the PPDB. A random sampling of the PPDB showed that more than half of the evaluations were submitted after the sixty-day period. Delays ranged from a few days to several months.
In some instances, the evaluation forms lacked or provided minimal narrative justification for the ratings. For the most part, the evaluation forms in the files were signed and dated by the contracting officers and provided evidence of transmission of the data to the PPDB.
The Procurement Office semi-annual self-assessments covering calendar year 2006 noted the evaluation of contractor performance as an area needing improvement. It was also noted that the Procurement Policy and Review Office has implemented a corrective action plan to address deficiencies in this area.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that contracting officers complete evaluations within 60 days, enter data into the PPDB, and provide substantive narratives to justify the ratings. (REPEAT FINDING)
2. Undefinitized Contract Actions
The survey team reviewed Undefinitized Contract Actions for age, appropriate approval levels, justification for issuance, and file documentation as required by NFS 1843-70. Since January 2007, the Procurement Office has reported UCA totals ranging from a low of six to a high of 13. In July 2007, the number of overage UCAs (over 180 days) increased to five which prompted the Headquarters Office of Procurement analyst for Kennedy to institute weekly status telecons to monitor the progress of definitization on these older actions. The majority were de-scope actions which may not entail the same level of risk but still fall under the regulatory requirements for UCAs. The number of overage actions has decreased with this increased level of attention. The most recent monthly report submitted to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (October 2007) includes nine UCAs with two overage.
The survey team reviewed one definitized action and two actions in process. All files contained the required justification and approvals. They contained explanations if the 180-day goal for definitization would not be met. The Procurement Office’s most recent self-assessment findings noted the pursuit of approvals for de-scopes and decreases in contract value even though this is not required by the NFS. The three efforts reviewed were de-scopes, and it appears that this has been corrected.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that all UCAs (regardless of purpose) are definitized within the 180-day timeframe established in the regulation so that Headquarters intervention in managing UCAs is not required.
3. Competition under Multiple Award IDIQ contracts
The survey team reviewed multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, including contracts for launch services and construction. The IDIQ multiple-award contracts that were reviewed detailed the ordering procedures and identified the delivery/task order minimum guarantee and maximum limitations. Individual delivery and task orders placed against reviewed contracts were competed using Best Value Selection procedures among the awardees. These task orders met the requirements of FAR Part 16.5 and NFS 1816.5. The task order award files reviewed adequately documented the best value determination. The requirements of FAR 16.504 and 6.302 were met and properly documented for non-competed delivery orders.
The NASA Launch Services (NLS) contract utilizes a multiple award IDIQ vehicle to acquire launch services through a contract. The IDIQ is an “open solicitation” that allows interested contractors to be considered for awards of basic contracts during an “on ramp” period. There are two on ramp periods annually, in February and August. Currently three contractors are eligible to receive task orders under the launch services contract. They are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. Orbital Sciences was added to the contract via the on ramp procedure after award of the initial contracts. The NLS contract will continue to offer two on-ramps per year to allow other aerospace competitors to submit their proposals for award consideration, providing an opportunity to increase competition among the selected multiple awardees.
Competition among the three contractors on the contract is moderately effective. Requirements are sent to all three contractors. Each contractor is required to submit a proposal within 30 days or to request a waiver. Significant differences between launch vehicle capability and price are a challenge to effective competition. The Launch Services Program Office has undertaken efforts to better incentivize competition. Lead time for competitive orders under the NLS program is running from six to nine months from requirements identification to task order award.
The NLS program personnel have stated that the timeframe is good to facilitate competition, negotiation, and award for this work.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for implementing highly effective multiple award IDIQ contracting programs in the construction and launch services areas, including the adoption of innovative practices that serve as a model for NASA Procurement. (AGENCY BEST PRACTICE)
4. Government Furnished Property
The survey team reviewed eight files for administration of Government Furnished Property
(GFP). All files reviewed contained the required GFP
clauses. Some files contained GFP property lists that included
item numbers, item descriptions, locations, dates, and item
costs. Property administration was retained at Kennedy in one
case while in other cases, no evidence of delegation could be found in
the contract file. Several files indicated they were reviewed by
the Supply and Equipment Management Officer (SEMO), utilizing Kennedy
Form 8-61V2. In other cases, SEMO review and approval was
indicated by e-mail. None of the files reviewed adequately
documented the contracting officer’s decision to provide a NASA-owned
facility. Additionally, the files did not contain a prospective
contractor’s written statement asserting inability to obtain facilities
pursuant to NFS 1845.302-1.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that property delegations are filed under the “Delegations” tab on the NASA Form 1098.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Officer must ensure that the contracting officer’s decision to provide NASA-owned facilities to a contractor is documented per NFS 1845.302-1. (REPEAT FINDING)
5. Contract Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations
The survey team reviewed closeout procedures at the Procurement Office. Standard closeout procedures are in place and used on contracts valued at greater than $100,000. Contracts valued at less than $100,000 have not been closed out but have been placed in a hold status pending resolution of system interface issues.
NASA has an Agency-wide support contract for contract closeout for Centers that elect to be included. The Procurement Office is not currently utilizing the support contract but has taken steps to obtain support. Contract specialists are responsible for closeout activity. Interface issues with Agency systems integral to contract closeout have occurred since the deployment of NASA’s contract writing system – the Contract Management Module. This has delayed closeout processing for actions over $100,000 at Kennedy. Procurement personnel have deobligated unused funds when it was appropriate to do so, prepared the necessary documentation, and staged these actions for closeout as soon as the interface issues have been corrected. These issues are expected to be resolved with the next CMM version release in December 2007. The Procurement Office plans to resume closeout activities for the 25 construction and 122 non-construction staged actions at that time.
The 2005 Procurement Management Survey included a consideration suggesting that Kennedy management create a plan to develop a metric for the closeout process. Kennedy did not create a plan; contract closeout activity is not formally tracked. This presents a degree of organizational risk based upon three factors 1) there is increased emphasis on contract closeout delays prompted by the 2007 Ernst and Young Financial Statements Audit; 2) the backlog caused by the CMM interface issues will require a significant effort to correct once the issues are resolved; and 3) the Procurement Office’s pending inclusion in the Agency-wide contract closeout support contract will require a means of ensuring quality and of assessing contractor performance. A formal metric would reduce this risk by providing a means of assessing and managing the contract closeout function.
CONSIDERATION:
Kennedy Procurement Office should develop and monitor measures to manage the closeout process.
6. Award and Incentive Fee Administration
The survey team reviewed contract files for compliance with FAR 16.4 and NFS 1816.405-2 regarding Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts. All contracts were for services, including life sciences support, payload-processing services, expendable launch vehicle integrated support, communications support, and base operations support.
The Procurement Office follows FAR and NFS requirements that apply to CPAF contracts. The files reviewed included comprehensive award fee plans that addressed technical, cost, schedule, and appropriate risk management considerations in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the NFS. All of the reviewed award fee evaluations followed their corresponding award fee plans, were comprehensive, and provided a substantive analysis of the evaluation for each award fee period. Most of the files contained letters identifying areas of emphasis or performance elements which were provided to the contractors prior to the start of the evaluation periods. All plans provided for a mid-point assessment (or more often if deemed necessary) of the contractors’ performance to maintain effective communication on contract performance issues.
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. It requires that any fee payments be made no later than 60 days after the end of the period being evaluated. Half of the performance evaluation periods reviewed went beyond the 45-day period ranging from several days to several weeks. Regarding the late FDO ratings, the contracting officers interviewed stated they strived to provide the FDO letter for signature in a timely manner, but that the officials were not always timely in signing the letters. The delays appear to be a function of the review process for FDO letters.
As a result, Kennedy has implemented a new Award Fee Evaluation policy which appears to have had a beneficial effect on the timeliness of the FDO ratings; the FDO letters for the most recent evaluation periods met the 45-day time period. The policy includes a presentation template to be used as a general guide for presenting evaluation results to the Award Fee Board (AFB). The FDO also attends the presentation, which is followed by an executive session with the FDO and AFB wherein further discussions and deliberations are conducted. The FDO makes a final determination and completes a document recording the fee determination. The policy also includes an FDO award fee determination letter template which can be filled out at the completion of the executive session and signed by the FDO. This process eliminates the need for extensive reviews of the FDO letters subsequent to the AFB meeting.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office continues to effectively manage its award fee contracts. Files are well documented and letters with areas of emphasis sent prior to the evaluation period, as well as interim assessments of performance, are effective in maintaining contractor focus. A new Award Fee Evaluation policy was issued on October 16, 2007, and appears to be facilitating efficiency of the evaluations and timely issuance of the award fee determination letters to the contractors addressing the issue of untimely issuance (beyond the 45-day period cited in the NFS) identified on previous surveys. (AGENCY BEST PRACTICE)
7. Contracting Officer Technical Representative Delegation
The survey team reviewed contract files for compliance with the COTR delegation requirements identified in NFS 1842.270 and PIC 06-05. The NFS authorizes the appointment of a qualified Government employee to act as the representative for the contracting officer in managing the technical aspects of a contract. NASA Form 1634, “Contracting Officer Technical Representative COTR/Alternate COTR Delegation,” is used to appoint COTRs. COTRs are required to obtain comprehensive training and subsequent refresher training once every five years at Kennedy. Kennedy provides two comprehensive training courses and two refresher courses annually.
The survey team reviewed 21 contracts, of which 15 contained fully executed NASA Forms 1634. PIC 06-05, issued on March 7, 2006, requires COTRs to document and maintain information necessary to support contract oversight activities. The COTR is required to forward contract records to the contracting officer at the conclusion of the contract. The survey team interviewed five COTRs. The COTRs addressed and provided examples of documentation included within their contract file. The Kennedy COTRs are doing a good job of keeping appropriate file documentation in both paper and electronic format within their files.
The NFS 18-52.242-70 allows the COTR authority to issue technical direction if incorporated in the contract and authorized on the COTR delegation. The majority of files reviewed did not contain the Technical Direction clause in the contract or in the COTR delegation. COTRs without adequate technical background or expertise may assign technical representatives to monitor contractor performance. The technical direction clause is not incorporated into the contract or the COTR delegation under this scenario. In at least one case a delegated COTR reported that he possessed the authority to issue technical direction; however, his COTR delegation did not authorize this nor was the clause included in the contract. The contracting officer was informed and will address the issue with the COTR.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that a COTR is delegated when contract performance is to be overseen and/or managed by other than the contracting officer or when the contract requires unusual or extensive monitoring beyond the capabilities of the contracting officer.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that delegated COTRs are aware of record retention policies identified in NASA PIC 06-05.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should revise the “Guidance for Preparation of Contract Records/Files for Temporary Storage or Final Disposition after Closeout,” dated April 29, 1999, to include the requirement of COTR files being sent to the contracting officer for closeout.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must review contracts and COTR delegations for consistency and the inclusion of NFS clause1852.242-70 “Technical Direction” and ensure that COTRs are not issuing technical direction without authorization.
8. Contract Administration and Surveillance
The survey team reviewed on-site service contracts for compliance with FAR 46.4 and NFS 1846.4 quality surveillance processes. Half of the contracts reviewed, specifically contracts for administrative and clerical support performed on-site, did not include a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). During a NASA Agency review by the Performance Base Contracting Assessment team it was noted that a lack of contract surveillance plans were prevalent at many NASA Centers. It pointed out that this may be because of insufficient guidance on surveillance and the development of meaningful surveillance plans.
A surveillance plan should address the Government’s need for information and define the overall approach NASA intends to use to monitor contract performance. Surveillance plans are not specific to performance based contracts. They should be used to balance the level of Government surveillance with the perceived impacts and risks. Two of the three contracts that contained QASPs delegated surveillance functions to the COTR and alternate COTR.
The survey team conducted interviews with the cognizant COs and/or COTRs for the contracts containing surveillance plans. The QASPs address and outline the roles and responsibilities for individuals responsible for contractor surveillance. The results from the quality surveillance plans reviewed are tied into the award fee process. The QASPs reflect various levels of risk associated with the statement of work and work breakdown structures. They relate to the performance metrics and standards contained within the contracts. During the interviews, the COTRs discussed the use of the contractor Data Requirements Documents, which provide status, cost, and performance information. The contract surveillance team relies on these submissions along with contractor submitted self-assessments to validate the information and confirm or note findings as appropriate. The team discusses any issues and disposition them, provides the contractor the ability to review and dispute issues, and develops a corrective action plans as needed.
The communication and IT services and administrative and clerical services contracts reviewed lacked detailed QASPs, and did not contain evidence of adequate contractor oversight.
The survey team reviewed 28 files to ensure proper coding in the Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for performance based acquisition. Almost half were coded as being 100 percent performance based, although the requirements/Statements of Work did not evidence measurable performance standards. The base contract for one file was reported as not PBA, while the tasks were reported as 100 percent performance based.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. A surveillance plan is a fundamental cornerstone in developing the architecture and operation of the program/project office that will be responsible for surveillance. As a reference point for guidance, the Kennedy policy office and contracting officers should share the NASA Performance Based Acquisition Management Plan 2007, Appendix G, web link on Surveillance Plan Guidance with the Kennedy Program and Project Offices: http://www.acquisition.gov/bestpractices/bestppbsc.html#chapter5.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure proper coding of FPDS-NG and ensure that requirements are written in clear, specific, and objective terms for contract completion.
The survey team reviewed files containing exercised contract options for 1) the presence of an executed option exercise determination; 2) timely notification of intent to exercise an option to the contractor to allow proper issuance of the modification to exercise the option; and 3) modification or other written document citing the option clause as the authority. The Procurement Office option files were generally complete. They demonstrated consistent notification to contractors within the time specified in the contract. In most files reviewed, however, the determination analysis was not completed in advance of providing the notice to the contractor.
While a determination is included in each file, the documents did not always include and/or address all the requirements for exercising options. Two files included a detailed analysis addressing the individual determination factor, as provided on the Virtual Procurement Office (VPO), and provided additional supporting documentation. In approximately two-thirds of the files reviewed, the file did not contain adequate price analysis or market research for the exercise of options. The lack of information provided in the subsequent topical areas did not sufficiently support the determination to exercise the option. In most cases, the determination failed to cite any of the three justifications provided in FAR 17.207(d).
The majority of the files reviewed adequately addressed the availability of funds, synopsis of option, change in scope, the effect on small businesses, continuity of operations, and contractor performance. Most files included a statement within the determination memo verifying the contractor’s performance per NASA Form 1680.
One file reviewed, NAS 10-03006, provided a good model for documentation supporting the exercise of an option, particularly the market research surveillance, the basis of determination, and the utilization of the VPO memorandum template. This file documentation would be a good example for others to use when exercising an option.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that determination memoranda are properly executed and contain sufficient rationale for the exercise of options prior to providing the notice of intent to the contractor. The VPO is an excellent reference tool, which provides the contracting officer with the resources and guides to execute the proper documentation in accordance with FAR 17.207, NFS 1817.207, and NFS 1817.207-70.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that determination memoranda address all regulatory requirements in support of the exercise of options. (REPEAT FINDING)
The survey team reviewed Interagency Agreements (IAs) for compliance with regulation and policy guidance, including Procurement Notice (PN) 04-10 “Interagency Acquisition with Civilian Agencies” dated December 15, 2005. The team reviewed NF 523, NASA Interagency Purchase Requests (NIPR), and Determination and Findings (D&F) for compliance with the FAR and NFS and examined the processes Kennedy used to write and execute the orders.
A large majority of the NIPRs and D&Fs did not contain all of the elements required by the FAR and NFS. There were instances where the NIPR period of performance (PoP) was not consistent with the PoP in the D&F. The PoPs were consistently stated in indefinite terms. For example, the PoP for some IAs was stated “through” a certain date unless mutually extended between the parties, or the PoP was “to be determined.” Based on interviews with Kennedy contracting personnel, this may be attributable to program office incremental release of funds and identification of requirements during the course of contract performance. NFS 1817.7002(c) states that the D&F must identify the period of performance. The intent of this language is to have the PoP stated in definite terms as is done in other types of Federal contract instruments.
Elements missing from the NF 523 but required by the FAR and NFS include:
i. Procedures for the resolution of disagreements that may arise under interagency acquisitions. For at least two of the IAs, the NF 523 should have referenced the resolution for disputes clause contained its attached Memorandum of Understanding;
ii. The predecessor form was used after December 15, 2005, when the newer NIPR was authorized for use;
iii. Payment provision requiring the servicing agency to submit a final invoice within six months after order completion or mutual agreement to a different period if six months is not sufficient; and
iv. For civilian agency IAs, Kennedy use of DD-448-2 (used for Military only) instead of an acceptance provision in the NIPR for Civilian Agencies as specified at NFS 1817.7005-2(c).
Elements missing from the D&F but required by the FAR and NFS include:
i. Current market prices, recent acquisition prices, or prices obtained from informal submissions to ascertain whether acquisition can be accomplished more economically from commercial sources. In some instances, Kennedy provided discussion on anticipated cost savings. In most cases, there was no analysis which demonstrated that acquiring from the servicing agency would be more economical than contracting directly from a commercial source.
ii. Statement that the acquisition was a non-competitive follow-on for the same services from the same servicing agency. For follow-on IAs which fell under this category, there was no way to ascertain whether successive IAs or individual orders where placed for five years or more. There was one case where the contracting officer verified that a predecessor IA was awarded in 2002 and the current IA period of performance had been extended through Sept. 2008. Further, three IAs that exceeded five years (some of which are ongoing) did not contain the five-year deviation approval. The NFS requires the approval from the Center Director for IAs that are less than $5 million or from the AA for Procurement if the successive orders or successive agreements exceeded $5 million.
iii. There were two instances where the file did not contain a legal review. There were instances where legal advice was not followed by Procurement. In one instance, a retroactive amendment was issued to an expired IA against the advice of legal counsel based upon “administrative ease.” This may have been done in part because of a program official placing an order against the IA after the IA had expired. A second amendment had no legal review. A third amendment was reviewed and approved by legal for $4.2 million. In another instance, legal advised that the D&F should include all NFS 1817.7002 D&F requirements, but the specialist did not include this information in the D&F. Contrarily, legal deemed some D&Fs to be legally sufficient that did not contain the FAR and NFS elements outlined in this section. The Kennedy policy office review also did not identify some of the findings.
The IAs reviewed indicated a tendency to define requirements over short periods of time rather than to include long-term anticipated requirements. Some IAs awarded for three-month to one-year increments have been extended up to and beyond five years. Most, if not all, of the requirement purchased through IAs are recurring requirements for which there is a wealth of history. The acquisition history should allow Kennedy to anticipate long-term requirements accurately. More effective planning for long-term requirements will allow Kennedy to eliminate the need for writing a D&F for every incremental funding mod or for any other action that falls within the scope of the original D&F. More effective planning should also provide the Procurement Office with a management tool to better ensure that the five-year limit is not exceeded without proper Center Director or Procurement AA approval.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider creating a common checklist(s) containing all required FAR and NFS IA requirements as supplemented by PIC 04-10, for the formulation and execution of NF 523s and D&Fs for mandatory use by the procurement community for processing and/or reviewing IAs. The checklist should distinguish the differences in formulating and executing orders for military departments from those orders placed with civilian agencies as shown in NFS 1817.70.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider implementing procurement planning policy and/or procedures for defining IA requirements to mirror procedures used for contracts. Requirements should be defined, described, and projected accurately at the estimated total dollar value over the entire duration identified in the original D&F. Further, the PoP should be definite and identical in the D&F and NF 523.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should include the name, telephone number, e-mail address, and other pertinent information for persons authorized to place orders in the NF 523 ordering provision to ensure that orders are only placed by authorized individuals that are privy to the IA PoP and remaining funds.
WEAKNESSES:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that IAs comply with all FAR and NFS requirements, as supplemented by PIC 04-10, including the formulation and execution of NF 523s and supporting D&Fs. For IAs extending beyond five years, the Kennedy Procurement Office must obtain deviation approval from the Center Director or AA for Procurement as applicable. (REPEAT FINDING).
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office must implement internal controls to ensure items or services are ordered on active (non-expired) orders that have adequate funding.
11. Contracts for Administrative and Clerical Support
The Procurement Office has four contracts for administrative or office support. The survey team reviewed contracts for administrative or office support for compliance with FAR Part 37, regarding personal/non-personal services, and FAR 7.503, regarding inherently Governmental functions. In addition, the team conducted interviews with the contracting officer, COTR, and randomly selected contractor personnel.
Of the files under review, only one contained the required determination of non-personal services. None of the files contained evidence of legal review. Interviews demonstrated that all parties were aware of and followed appropriate lines for reporting and authority. During one interview, the survey team observed a contractor employee answering the phone but not identify himself as a NASA contractor. The employee is located in an area that receives outside visitors, other contractors, and proposal submissions. A contracting officer shared an example of a document sent to technical representatives and contractors at award which outlines and provides guidance for the treatment, assignment of duties and access to information for contractor support service personnel (CSSP). The document discusses personal services issues, proper identification of CSSPs, inherently Governmental functions, access to information, and ordering supplies or services. This document is not mandatory or standard amongst all Kennedy Procurement Branches.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider adopting the letter developed in the Institutional Support Office as standard guidance to the COTRs, technical representatives, and contractors for all on-site support contracts.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider requiring on-site contractor employees to identify themselves as such on the phone, in a signature line on e-mail, and on documentation so that personnel are aware they are engaging conversation with a non-civil servant.
The survey team reviewed contracts to ensure compliance with subcontract consent requirements, including the use of the correct contract clauses identifying consent requirements and the status of the prime contractor’s purchasing system approval. One of the contracts did not contain subcontract consent requirements per FAR 44.204. The remaining contract files utilized a subcontract consent review form for each of the reviews. The form utilized is similar to the form contained on the NASA VPO, but includes significant additional detail, including a statement concerning the FAR applicability, and lists basic information regarding the subcontract such as the subcontract number, the subcontractor, the value, and type of subcontract; e.g., Firm-Fixed Price. Additionally, each form contained a checklist that documented the review and analysis completed for each of the thirteen specific considerations that the contracting officer must address prior to granting subcontract consent, as required by FAR 44.202-2. This continues to be a very effective and efficient method of performing subcontract reviews, as previously documented in the 2005 Kennedy survey report.
Subcontract consent review forms effectively document the analysis completed for the 13 specific considerations under FAR 44.202-2. Furthermore, the consent to subcontract authorization letters sent to contractors contained wording similar to that contained in FAR 44.203(a). Some of the letters granting consent contained consent limitation language similar to that found at FAR 44.203(a). While the FAR does not require inclusion of this language, it would be prudent for the contract specialist to incorporate this wording into the consent authorization letters.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for utilizing detailed checklists that contain a thoroughly documented review and analysis of requests for subcontract consent in accordance with FAR 44.202-2. (AGENCY BEST PRACTICE)
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Headquarters Office of Procurement should review the Kennedy Subcontract Consent Checklist and consider supplementing the checklist currently posted to the VPO.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should remind contracting officers to 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.” (REPEAT FINDING)
The survey team reviewed the Procurement Office processes, procedures, and data supporting the DCAA audit follow-up program. The survey team interviewed contracting officers and reviewed audit follow-up files for compliance with NFS 1842.7301(d)(3). Follow-up on DCAA reportable audits is being effectively managed by the Procurement Office.
DCAA audits are tracked through the online Contract Audit Tracking System II (CATS II). Each DCAA audit is entered into CATS II with a target resolution and target disposition date. The system is updated quarterly. The Kennedy Procurement Office quarterly audit follow-up process is documented in an easy-to-read flow-chart under Kennedy Documented Procedure KDP-P-2079, Revision C-1 dated September 25, 2007. The system is set up to capture all reportable DCAA audit reports including questioned cost greater than $100,000, equitable adjustment claims, inadequate systems, and Cost Accounting Standards non-compliance. The Kennedy Procurement Office continues to submit the reports on a quarterly basis to the Headquarters Office of Procurement Analysis Division. However, in accordance with PN 04-24 dated June 13, 2007, submission of the quarterly report by the Centers to Headquarters is no longer required. The Headquarters analyst can now access the information in the CATS II system and generate a report at any time. Therefore, Kennedy should discontinue sending the report to Headquarters. With the change to NFS 1842.7301 resulting from the PN, the current requirement is that only OMB Circular A-133 audit reports for significant management control issues or questioned costs of $10,000 or more be submitted to the Headquarters Office of Procurement Analysis Division.
The survey team reviewed the most recent Kennedy Quarterly Contract Audit Status report for fourth quarter FY 2007 dated September 26, 2007. The report showed nine reportable contract audit follow-up actions, all delegated to DCAA. Only one of the nine actions was resolved. The action was resolved on August 31, 2006, approximately 21 months after the date of the audit report and approximately four months after its target resolution date. This was attributable to the exhaustive list of action items taken before completion of negotiations and execution of settlement agreement. For example in one instance, it took four months for DCAA to complete the contractor’s incurred cost audit; approximately three months to get contractor’s response to audit; one year and eight months to complete the pre-negotiation memorandum; and delays caused by subcontract negotiation issues. Some of the other eight audit actions show similar action items and timelines for questioned costs, targeted for resolution years beyond the date of the audit report. Several contracting officers interviewed felt that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and NFS objective of resolving audit recommendations within six months from time of receiving the report is unattainable for many DCAA audits with numerous action items that are lengthy and beyond the contracting officers’ control.
The 2005 Kennedy survey included a consideration that the “Procurement Officer should consider emphasizing with DCMA the NFS requirement that contracting officers obtain insight into DCMA reportable audits affecting NASA contracts, and request that they provide us this support.” The survey team interviewed contracting officers and reviewed audit follow-up files for compliance with NFS 1842.7301(d)(3). Except for one isolated case, the contracting officers maintained good dialog with DCAA, and DCAA has been responsive and timely in responding to contracting officers’ requests. The contracting officers have, for the most part, been able to gain the insight and support needed to resolve audit issues. On the other hand, the contracting officers stated that they do not conduct semi-annual audit report reviews with DCAA nor do they document the files with status of recommendations and findings. The contracting officers rely on CATS II for status of recommendations and action items after they provide the input data to the CATS II lead.
The survey team discussed follow-up on Office of Inspector General (OIG) and General Accounting Office (GAO) audits with the designated Procurement Office representative and with the Kennedy Audit Liaison Representative (ALR). These discussions revealed that there are no outstanding OIG or GAO audit reports or unresolved actions resulting from such reports. The ALR confirmed that all recommendations were resolved within six months and that all unresolved issues have been closed. The ALR stated that her relationship with the Procurement Office is good and that procurement personnel have been responsive to OIG requests.
2. Financial Management Reporting - NF 533s
The survey team reviewed contract files for compliance with NFS 1842.72, 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.
Although all of the contracts reviewed included NF 533 monthly reports, several did not include NF 533 quarterly reports, even though the contracts met the period of performance and dollar value thresholds cited in the NFS. Only one of the files contained a waiver in accordance with NFS 1842.7201(b)(3).
NFS 1842.7201(a)(1) requires contracting officers to monitor contractor cost reports on a regular basis to ensure cost data reported is accurate and timely. These reports are also monitored to identify adverse trends and discrepancies discovered in cost reports through discussions with financial and project team members. There was major reliance on resource analysts to analyze NF 533 data. The contracting officers interviewed disclosed that they were aware of the NFS requirements to monitor the NF 533s and were diligent about complying with the requirements. Most met monthly or more often with their resources person and the COTR, and in some cases the contractor, to discuss the contract financial management reports and financial status. Most files included copies of the NF 533 analyses, which included variance analysis and any follow-up actions taken to resolve issues. Some files did not include the analysis or evidence that an analysis had been completed, but the contracting officers did have electronic copies. Some files simply included the contracting officer’s initials on the NF 533 cover sheet to provide evidence that the NF 533 was reviewed. There was no standard practice or format being used as evidence that reports were being monitored.
The Procurement Office prepared a presentation after the previous survey regarding NF 533 analysis to remind contracting officers of their responsibilities. This included a helpful hint to create a standard checklist/form that all contracting officers could use to document their files (in accordance with the recommendation in the previous Procurement Management Survey), but it does not appear that one has been created yet.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should remind contracting officers to document the review of the 533s. This documentation could include 533 due dates and received dates, verification that the 533 was 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 contracting officer. A standard checklist/form that all contracting officers can use to document the file may be helpful. The VPO contains a Work Instruction from the Glenn Research Center (GRC) Procurement Office regarding NF 533 report analysis, including a 533 report review form created to facilitate and document NF 533 reviews. It may be beneficial for the Kennedy Procurement Office to develop a similar instruction/form for its use.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that waivers to submission of the NF 533Q are signed by the contracting officer with concurrence by the Chief Financial Officer and the program/project manager. These waivers should be included in the contract file.
3. Cost/Price Analysis and NF 634 Structured Fee Approach
The survey team reviewed eleven actions for adequacy of cost and price analysis. The files reviewed were a mix of competitive and non-competitive awards, including fixed price, cost reimbursement, and Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts. The review identified a need for improvement in the analyses being done to support determinations of fair and reasonable costs and prices.
In all but one of the cost-type files reviewed, the required pre/post negotiation memoranda were in the file. In most cases, where cost elements were available for analysis, DCAA was consulted and provided appropriate input. In addition, the technical inputs received were regularly used to develop negotiation positions. Most of the recommendations from these reviews were properly incorporated into the development of the pre/post negotiation memoranda. However, the majority of files did not contain evidence of using other forms of cost benchmarking techniques.
For example, only one file used industry labor rate information to justify proposed hourly rates. This form of “market-based data” would be especially helpful in developing analyses for non-competitive awards to incumbent contractors. In three of the files reviewed, incumbent contractor rates went unquestioned despite apparently high hourly rates. In one case, fully loaded hourly rates included in the base contract increased by an average of 11.3 percent over a two-year period. This increase included an unexplained increase in the fee, from 8 percent to 11 percent, with no apparent change to the type of effort being performed. No written explanation was provided for this increase.
Two of the files reviewed employed a Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) evaluation approach. (See the discussion in the Technical Evaluations section.) In reviewing one of the files for the general construction contracts, minimal weight was given to the price evaluation. The price evaluation was performed in accordance with the evaluation plan laid out in the RFP, but several aspects of the price evaluation did not add much value to the determination of fair and reasonable pricing. For example, the Government Cost Estimate (GCE) used to evaluate a sample task did not offer a valid comparison to the proposed prices submitted (17 of the 19 proposed prices exceeded the GCE). Also, of the 12 offerors receiving awards under this procurement, five were deemed to have submitted either ceiling rates or a model task order price that was determined to be “unreasonable and unrealistic.” Kennedy anticipates that once actual orders are competed under these IDIQ contracts, the price competition among the 12 vendors will determine the fairness and reasonableness of the prices received.
Several files were reviewed for the appropriate usage and implementation of the Structured Approach Profit/Fee Objective - NF 634, in accordance with NFS 1815.404-4 and 1815.404-470. The form was included in half of the files for which a form was required. In one case, it was obvious that the specialist did not understand how to use the form, as it was filled out incorrectly.
Of the profit/fee objectives and price negotiation memos reviewed, all but two contained justifications or assumptions supporting use of a 10 percent profit/fee. Regardless of the type of work being performed, a 10 percent profit/fee objective was used for evaluation of fixed price construction, time and materials technical support, Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase II efforts, accounting/procurement/general support services, payload processing, and probabilistic risk assessment. This gives the appearance that the Procurement Office has established a standard fee rate of 10 percent, regardless of the work being performed.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that sufficiently detailed cost and pricing data is relied upon to establish fair and reasonable contract prices, paying special attention to requirements not subject to SEB/SEC procedures or those not subject to competition.
2. Contract specialists should be trained to provide a full analysis of costs including, but not limited to, DCAA and technical evaluation input.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that the NASA Form 634 is used to determine profit/fee objectives in accordance with the NFS.
The survey team reviewed a wide variety of technical evaluations, including new awards and contract modifications of various values, to ensure that the documentation complied with the requirements of FAR 15.404 (e). The findings were consistent with the 2005 and 2002 surveys at Kennedy. For smaller and/or non-competitive requirements, improvements to technical evaluations are still needed.
Technical evaluations for lower dollar value and/or non-competitive actions generally lacked sufficient detail, while the documentation for larger dollar value and/or competitive actions was found to be thoroughly detailed. Some of the technical evaluations were based almost exclusively on the capabilities of individuals instead of on overall capability of the offeror to perform the requirement as identified in the statement of work. Several other smaller requirements that did not benefit from competition also lacked detailed support for their technical capability findings. Approximately half of the technical evaluations reviewed, of varying values and representing both new awards and modifications, were very well documented.
Several of the files reviewed were in the construction area. One file reviewed was considered to be a major procurement (exceeding the Master Buy Plan threshold). The Procurement Office has begun to employ an evaluation technique known as PPTO on their construction procurements. This evaluation procedure does not employ a standard technical evaluation of the mission suitability factor, but instead relies solely on past performance to determine the technical qualification of a potential offeror. NASA Headquarters has not issued any guidance on this procurement approach. However, use of this technique does require a deviation from the NFS 1815.300-70 for all procurements exceeding the Master Buy Threshold of $50 million to recognize that the evaluation will not contain the mission suitability sub-factor. Deviations were not submitted to NASA Headquarters prior to late FY 2007; however, a recent deviation for the Mobile Launcher acquisition was submitted per Headquarters direction.
The supporting documentation for these PPTO past performance evaluations was thorough regarding technical capability. The survey team found one instance of rating definitions used to categorize the past performance evaluations for one of their PPTO-based acquisitions. In this case, Kennedy categorized offerors lacking a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available as “Acceptable.” FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv) states that such “offerors may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably….” Use of a separate “Neutral” category is recommended for such circumstances. The reviewer also noted that the Kennedy past performance rating categories vary from one evaluation to another. The establishment of consistent definitions for PPTO evaluations is recommended in order to establish uniformity from procurement to procurement. Kennedy should review the recommended definitions for past performance ratings that are contained in the Source Evaluation Guide at http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/sourceselection/ssguide.htm.
With the exception of technical evaluations employing SEB procedures, no standard format or instructions were provided to technical evaluators at Kennedy. As expected, a clear correlation exists between the detail of evaluations and the complexity and value of the procurement. However, given the findings identified above, it is recommended that Kennedy implement a standard technical evaluation format and instruction set for dissemination to technical evaluators when requesting this documentation. A similar recommendation was made in both the 2002 and 2005 surveys. However, there is no evidence any such template has been employed consistently. The Institutional Support Office has developed an excellent template for a standard technical evaluation. This template would be a good starting point for establishing a consistent, complete evaluation form. In addition, the Procurement Office may want to contact the Glenn Research Center for additional guidance in this area, because they were recently commended for developing a Technical Analysis manual that has been recognized for the value it adds to Glenn’s technical evaluation process. The Kennedy Procurement Office reported that a technical evaluation checklist is available on the Procurement Office homepage. Reference the Technical Evaluation Checklist (for technical evaluators) at: http://op.ksc.nasa.gov/samples.htm. The Procurement Office should make efforts to ensure procurement personnel and technical evaluators are aware of this resource.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that future PPTO procurements obtain a deviation to NFS 1815.300-70 to correct the lack of the mission suitability factor in the evaluation process.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider providing a standard technical evaluation format and instruction set to ensure better input from technical reviewers.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must emphasize adequate technical evaluation documentation in lower dollar value and/or non-competitive procurement actions.
1. Simplified Acquisitions/Commercial Acquisitions
The survey team reviewed purchase orders and delivery orders valued between $8,000 and $550,000 for compliance with the simplified acquisition and commercial procedures including awards utilizing FAR 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules; FAR 12, Commercial Acquisitions; and FAR 13, Simplified Acquisitions. The review focused on a broad range of topics including pre-award planning and research, sole source justifications, file documentation, price reasonableness, and use of the correct clauses and regulations in the resultant awards.
Overall, files were clearly tabbed and well organized. This is an improvement from a 2005 survey finding. The vast majority of the files contained a market research report including acquisitions under $100,000. However, the level of detail in the reports was often insufficient to provide a clear understanding of the requirement for market research conducted. Delivery orders reviewed were predominantly sole source. They generally contained weak or inadequate justifications. In some cases, supporting documentation brought doubt as to whether a sole source award was justified. In general, the requirement to review CCI postings is being documented in the file for acquisitions over $100,000. However, the requirements are not being posted on the CCI web page as required. In the few cases where orders were not set-aside for small businesses, a waiver signed by both the contracting officer and the small business specialist was properly documented. All files over $25,000 were synopsized as required.
Inadequate file documentation is a systemic issue with most files reviewed. Issues include files with no Requests for Quotation, missing debarment verification, missing representations and certifications (a finding noted in the most recent Kennedy self-assessment), weak or non-existent technical evaluations, and weak or unsubstantiated price reasonableness determinations. This was also noted in the most recent Kennedy self-assessment and is a repeat finding from previous self-assessments. In most cases, files reviewed with FAR clause 52.212-5 had improper additive clauses.
Non-systemic issues include orders with NFS clause 1852.237-72, “Access to Sensitive Information,” that did not document potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues or discuss an OCI plan as specified by the clause and orders solicited and awarded as rated under DPAS, but lacking the documentation specified by FAR 11.6 and NFS 1811.6. In one case an order with the IT security clause at NFS 1852.204-76, “Security Requirements for Unclassified Automated Information Resources,” did not contain a required approved IT security plan or waiver for exclusion of the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that efforts are made to increase the level of competition for simplified acquisitions, critically examine requirements, and thoroughly document the results of the market research conducted.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that efforts are made to increase the level of documentation contained within the simplified acquisition files.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should develop, or utilize from another Center, a streamlined checklist for use under FAR Part 13.5 procedures in lieu of using the NF 1098.
WEAKNESSES:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that the correct clauses are being utilized in all simplified acquisitions.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office must improve the price reasonableness determinations and sole source justifications for simplified acquisitions.
The survey team reviewed five Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer contracts. These included examples from every category of the programs – one Phase I STTR, one Phase II STTR, and three Phase II SBIRs. The files were reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.227-20, NFS 1819.73, and the NASA SBIR/STTR Handbook. Overall, Procurement Office SBIR/STTR awards were well documented and well managed.
All SBIR/STTR contracts were awarded utilizing the SBIR/STTR Electronic Handbook, met the SBIR/STTR eligibility criteria, and complied with the SBIR/STTR program requirements and limitations: award value, contract length, and subcontracting. All SBIR/STTR awards included the clause at FAR 52.227-20, “Rights in Data - SBIR Program.” The files contained evidence of entry into the FPDS-NG. Most files contained copies of the appropriate Representations and Certifications, Excluded Parties verification and confirmation of the contractor’s (current year) Veteran Employment reporting (VETS-100). In cases where a hard copy was not evident in the file, the contracting officer provided subsequent documentation referencing the Phase I award and any significant changes.
The negotiation memorandum for each contract file was reviewed to ensure that the appropriate level of cost or pricing information was used to determine price reasonableness and cost realism. The Procurement Office does an outstanding job with providing DCAA audit information for cost analysis purposes. The files did not contain any additional rationale or cost analysis regarding the acceptance of cost items such as high dollar materials, travel, and/or other miscellaneous support. A copy of NASA 634 was maintained in each file. The Procurement Office is highly efficient in providing detailed background information in price analysis. The Procurement Office is taking the necessary steps to provide adequate supporting documentation in order to substantiate the contractor’s proposal and make a determination of price reasonableness.
All SBIR/STTR awards reviewed contained technical evaluations, which in some instances were not adequately detailed. Many of the items on the required checklist provided by the SBIR/STTR handbook are only available in the handbook and are not available hard copy in the file. Therefore, the checklist should indicate which tabbed items are available in the file (which are indicated by a checkmark) and which items are available only in the handbook (which are indicated by EH for electronic handbook). Some of the files reviewed did not have any checkmark indicators. Several files did not indicate the electronic handbook items.
Only one file included the required NFS 1819.7302, NASA contract clauses for SBIR/STTR contracts. Several files did not contain the updated clauses, cite the clause number, or include the required clause 1852.219-85. However, the survey team noted that the model SBIR/STTR contract located on the Headquarters Office of Small Business Programs web site also failed to include updated SBIR/STTR clauses.
STRENGTHS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for the efforts made in obtaining DCAA rates and cost breakdowns for SBIR/STTR contracts.
2. A payment summary sheet, developed by Kennedy, was very useful in tracking progress payments. (AGENCY BEST PRACTICE)
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider working closely with COTRs to perform more detailed cost analyses to include travel, equipment, high value materials, and other line items of cost other than rates. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider requesting that COTRs provide more detailed technical evaluations.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should require contracting officers to verify that the clauses provided in the model contract are the current FAR/NFS clauses.
The survey team reviewed the Procurement Office bankcard program for adequacy of internal controls, training, number of card holders, monthly reconciliations, delegations, violations, and limits (individual/monthly) placed on individual card holders. The team reviewed bankcard purchases at the micro-purchase and simplified level and corrective actions in response to a recent IG investigation. In general, the micro-purchase procedures at the Procurement Office are sound. However, some improvements are needed in the procedures for using bankcards for acquisitions above the micro-purchase threshold.
During the 2005 Procurement Management Survey, Kennedy had approximately 12 card holders in the Procurement Office and 11 outside of the Procurement Office. There were 65 approving officials. Currently, Kennedy has five card holders in the Procurement Office, 103 outside of procurement, seven of which are co-located with customers outside of Kennedy. There are 70 approving officials. In FY 2006 and FY 2007, approximately 35 card holders were removed from the program because of lack of use.
Since the previous survey, the OIG performed an audit entitled, “Internal Controls to Detect and Prevent Unauthorized and Potentially Fraudulent Purchase Card Transactions at Four Centers Needed Improvement” (Report No. IG-07-012). Kennedy was one of the four Centers audited with a major finding of fraudulent use by a Kennedy bankcard holder. The IG submitted a number of findings and recommendation to each Center’s Procurement Officer. The Procurement Officers concurred with the recommendations or the intent of the recommendations and submitted responses to each. In fact, at Kennedy the Procurement Officer acted prior to the issuance of the final report and required mandatory refresher training for all card holders and approving officials in November 2006. The mandatory refresher training required all card holders and approving officials to complete training courses and attend a three-hour newly-developed in-house training course. The course included a presentation from the Legal Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Center Agency Program Coordinator (CAPC), Associate Director, and the Deputy Director. Upon the completion of the training, the attendees were required to resubmit an Avoid Verbal Orders certificate affirming that the card holder, approving official, and their respective alternates successfully completed the courses.
The Procurement Office, in response to the IG findings, has segregated the duties of the bankcard holder from the funds manager. This process is not yet formally documented but adds an additional level of checks and balances within the program to reduce the chance of fraudulent or unallowable actions on bankcard buys.
The CAPC maintains an excellent Kennedy web site for the bankcard program located at http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/bcard/bankCard.htm. It provides general as well as Kennedy-specific guidance, training material and information as it relates to the program. The web site incorporates documentation from the GAO and the NASA Office of the General Counsel regarding guidelines for purchasing questionable items with appropriated funds; i.e., clothing, food, and gifts. The CAPC performs monthly audits as well as mandatory annual audits. The audits are performed by a team consisting of the CAPC and members from the Offices of Property and Information Technology. If a card holder has been identified as purchasing unallowable or inappropriate items upon these reviews, the Kennedy CAPC issues a letter to the card holders approving official stating the findings and describing the disciplinary or monetary action that will be taken. Monthly audits trigger the CAPC to spot check these bankcard holders more often to ensure compliance. The Kennedy Bankcard web site cites the document describing the level of disciplinary action per occurrence.
Since the last survey, the Kennedy CAPC has enforced the use of notes within the P-Card Log. This process requires the requester to input the date the items were received, the tag number of the property, and any applicable comments that apply to the purchase. This has been beneficial to the approving official during reconciliation, as well as to procurement division bankcard holders who initiate purchases.
The survey team reviewed files valued under the micro-purchases threshold and files for bankcard purchases above the micro-purchase threshold using simplified procedures. The team interviewed card holders, outside requesters, and legal counsel. For micro-purchase buys, the files contained appropriate documentation and the card holders made purchases within their transaction levels.
Bankcard buys made under simplified procedures were performed by contracting officers holding bank cards. The majority of the files reviewed lacked required documentation, demonstrated a failure to follow the procedures required under Simplified Acquisitions, and did not include terms and conditions for purchases made from other than Government-wide Agency Contracts (GWACs). Files reviewed did not contain evidence that FPDS-NG Records were submitted. The use of a checklist would be beneficial to ensure the appropriate documentation and procedures are followed for these simplified acquisitions. The survey team interviewed card holders in procurement.
The use of bankcards above the micro-purchase threshold does not follow the requirements for Simplified Acquisitions. Contracting officers with bankcard authority within the Procurement Office utilize a standard cover document when placing an order on the bankcard. The data included varies, but for the most part the credit card number, expiration date, social security number, and card holder name are provided either through e-mail or through a fax.
STRENGTHS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for proactively implementing mandatory refresher training for all card holders and approving officials, and for identifying and segregating potential organizational conflicts between the duties of a funds manager and of a bankcard holder.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office CAPC is commended for enforcing the use of notes within the P-Card Log to require input of key inspection and acceptance information applicable to individual purchases, that assist the bankcard holders and approving officials with reconciliation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should consider appointing an alternate Center Agency Program Coordinator (CAPC) to support the bankcard program in case of absence or unavailability of the CAPC.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office and the Headquarters Office of Procurement should consider implementing a formal policy of systemic segregation of duties prohibiting funds managers from holding bank cards. This would add an additional level of checks and balances within the program to reduce the chance of fraudulent or unallowable actions on bankcard buys.
3. The Kennedy Procurement Office should develop a checklist to assist contracting officers in identifying the procedures and documentation requirements for Simplified Acquisitions.
4. The Kennedy Procurement Office should review the data required on the standard bankcard cover document to ensure sensitive information is not disclosed.
WEAKNESS:
The Kennedy Procurement Office must ensure that all acquisitions above the micro-purchase threshold including purchase card transactions adhere to the requirements for Simplified Acquisitions.
4. Construction and Architect and Engineering Service Contracts
The survey team reviewed contract files for construction and architect and engineering (A&E) services in all phases of the acquisition cycle. Kennedy procures construction services primarily through general construction multiple-award IDIQ contracts as well as through individual contracts for discreet projects. The Procurement Office implements a highly-effective program. Its sound planning results in effective competition and minimal contract changes.
Construction
Files reviewed generally contained all documentation required by FAR Part 36, including bonds, clauses, and provisions applicable to construction contracts, to required environmental provisions, and to payroll reviews. Progress payment requests contained the appropriate certifications and met the requirements of PIC 00-10. The files were found, for the most part, to be well organized, labeled, and neat. IDIQ multiple-award contracts stated minimum award guarantees in accordance with the requirements of FAR 16.503, 52.216- 22, and delivery order limitations are stated in each contract in accordance with FAR 16.504 and 52.216-19.
Modification files reviewed were adequately documented to support the changes specified, including a cost analysis, a technical evaluation, and a detailed negotiation memorandum supporting a fair and reasonable price. They also cited the proper change authority and appropriate justifications to support any time extensions.
It was noted in the previous Kennedy survey that some files lacked a copy of NASA Form 1707, and modification files were not tabbed well enough to quickly locate specific documentation. For this survey, all files reviewed were documented with the NASA Form 1707. Organization of modification files has improved. However, there is still some disorganization in the supporting documentation of the basic and modification files.
General construction multiple-award contract delivery orders were awarded among the multiple award contractors using Best Value Selection Criteria, with some orders being evaluated using PPTO. Delivery order awards are being continuously reviewed with specific emphasis on “no bid” and consistent high bid responses to ensure that all of the multiple award contractors have a fair opportunity to compete.
The IDIQ multiple-award contracts list minimum award guarantees in accordance with the requirements of FAR 16.503, 52.216- 22, and delivery order limitations are stated in each contract in accordance with FAR 16.504 and 52.216-19.
STRENGTH:
Kennedy is commended once again for maintaining an overall high quality in their construction project contracts.
Architect and Engineering Services
Reviews of contracts and supporting file documentation for A&E services were conduced to determine if the requirements of FAR Part 36.6 and NFS 18-36 were being met. All of the reviewed files contained the required provisions and clauses. They were well organized and documented. The decisions were clear and detailed. Each file contained a copy of the A&E selection statement with the board recommendations.
For contracts to design public works or utilities projects, the contract price and estimated fee for producing and delivering the designs drawings and specifications were within the 6 percent limitation of the estimated cost of construction. This is in accordance with FAR clause 52.232-22, “Design Within Funding Limitations.” The IDIQ A&E contracts meet the requirements of FAR 16.503, 52.216-21 and 22. Per FAR 16.504 and 52.216-19, the delivery order minimum and maximum limitations are stated in the contracts.
Kennedy has an established A&E evaluation board to receive and maintain data on all interested A&E firms per FAR 36.603. There are current files of the SF 254s and 255s qualification data files that are maintained and updated annually per FAR 36.603(d). These files are located in a secured area in the Facilities Engineering Directorate. A procurement official is a member of the board per NFS 1836.602-2. Contractor performance evaluation reports are prepared on the SF 1421 and are filed with the company’s SF 254 for each contract/delivery order in accordance with FAR 36.604.
STRENGTH:
The Kennedy Procurement Office is once again commended for the overall quality of its A&E contracts.
The survey team reviewed contract files for compliance with FAR Part 36, 23.4, and NPR 8530.1A. Overall, the Procurement Office files were well documented. Files reviewed contained the proper provisions and clauses specified by FAR Part 36 and a NASA Form 1707. Files reviewed contained FAR clauses 52.223-9 and 52.223-10, pursuant to the recommendation of the last survey team that Kennedy consider including FAR clause 52.223-10 in its general construction multiple-award IDIQ contracts. Several of the files reviewed lacked the provision at FAR 52.223-4, which is required for all solicitations and contracts that contain FAR clause 52.223-9 in accordance with FAR 23.406(a) and PIC 01-27. The previous survey findings noted that the “blanket” NASA Form 1707 being used would be reviewed annually. File reviews confirm that the form is being updated as necessary to ensure that it does not become dated.
File documentation, with the exception regarding provision 52.223-4 noted above, supports adequate consideration of the requirements outlined in PIC 01-27, “Applicability of Affirmative Procurement,” NPR 8530.1A, “Affirmative Procurement Program and Plan for Environmentally Preferable Products,” and FAR 23.4, “Use of Recovered Materials.” The Procurement Office has experienced a large turnover in personnel and has not held any recent training in the area of Affirmative Procurement. Formal training will provide familiarity with the requirements of PIC 01-27, NPR 8530.1A, and FAR 23.4. The Procurement Office plans to conduct formal Affirmative Procurement training for all contract specialists and COTRs in calendar year 2008.
CONSIDERATION:
The Kennedy Procurement Office should ensure that FAR 52.223-4 is included in all contracts that specify the use of EPA-designated products containing recovered materials.
The survey team reviewed the implementation program for CMM at the Procurement Office, including usage, training and support, and impacts to the workforce and work products. The survey team reviewed contract awards for inclusion in CMM, for usage of the CMM templates to generate solicitations and contracts, and for document format. The survey team interviewed individuals responsible for the CMM system, members of the procurement workforce, and customers to assess the effectiveness of communications, training, and user support associated with CMM. The general perception of CMM is that it is getting better and the level of acceptance is improving. The Procurement Officer strongly supports CMM and speaks publicly about CMM and its mandatory use.
Initial training occurred in September 2006. A team of expert users staffed a war room for two months following go-live, operating the telephone lines and working closely with walk-ins. Early issues with obligations interfacing with the Core Financial application and large contracts “locking” were worked closely with the Integrated Enterprise Management Program competency center, from which excellent support was received. Initial training was reported as effective.
There is a tendency at the Procurement Office to use CMM to record obligations only, bypassing the template and contract generation processes. In addition, some personnel use CMM to generate solicitations but perform extensive formatting outside of the system. Formatting documents within CMM is reported as cumbersome. Some personnel report dissatisfaction with the process for loading lengthy statements of work into multiple CMM text-boxes. One office expressed the opinion that CMM does not work for construction contracts. Another office reported that purchase orders and task and delivery orders could only be recorded as fixed price in CMM. Orders on other than a Firm-Fixed Price basis are built outside of the system. Additionally, re-loading documents into CMM after formatting is generally not done. The limited use of CMM and the extensive formatting of contract documents outside of the system hinder NASA’s ability to accomplish the objective of the CMM program: to develop an end-to-end procurement system. These practices result in the continuing need to mail paper copies of contract documents and to maintain extensive file space for manual storage and retrieval. These practices also inhibit knowledge sharing and efficient operations. They severely limit access to information that should otherwise be available in electronic form.
CMM is perceived as time consuming, especially because of the slow response times. Some personnel reported waiting 75-80 seconds per screen refresh and that more intricate and heavy processing, such as multiple funding actions, require additional time. The sum of these delays adds up on actions with numerous line items resulting in hours of processing time. Duplication or unnecessary work is a recurring theme. The slow processing time is perceived as “dragging the procurement process down.”
The availability of data and information from the CMM and Business Warehouse (BW) applications is an additional source of frustration. The limited reporting capabilities within CMM as well as the questionable reliability of certain data fields have undermined confidence in the system as a whole. Data extraction and manipulation outside of the CMM-BW architecture presents a drain on limited resources and leads to frustration as managers are unable to obtain workload data that was previously available. There is a clear need for better reports at the management and at the user level. There is a perception that CMM does not produce reports or information without expertise and proficiency in reporting software used by BW. Users expressed the need to track Purchase Request activities and contract milestones to manage workload. The Procurement Office recently revised their internal Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) input sheets to add additional fields for information that cannot be obtained through the system. This additional data requirement increases the time to complete procurements, requires additional resources, and increases frustration with the system.
Several personnel expressed frustration at not being able to view other Centers’ solicitations and contracts. Viewing these is seen as a potential benefit for knowledge transfer and management and for training new employees. Broader access to contracts across the Agency would support the portability of work and increase standardization. Procurement Office personnel report the inability to search for similar items purchased within NASA to review prices, volume, and other information to support market research.
Several managers reported that the staffing requirements have had to increase to support CMM. Employees spend hours doing procurements that used to be done in 20-30 minutes. They do not see corresponding requirements for data going down. Processes are reported as more difficult, impacting productivity. They see a need for the system to be more intuitive to the procurement community. Examples of issues include the lack of a capability for fill-ins to carry from one solicitation to another, inaccurate generation of solicitation and contract documents, insufficient templates (e.g., no commercial over $100,000), and the absence of required forms (e.g., 252 to solicit under a Basic Ordering Agreement). Several employees commented on the need for CMM to allow for concurrent modifications. Self-approval of a modification prevents additional changes. As a result, modifications are not input into CMM until they are signed by the contractor to ensure the numbering sequence is accurate. CMM is perceived as ineffective for construction contracts and of limited value for A&E. The SF 252 is not loaded in the system for correct application. It is unclear how to use CMM for construction IDIQ solicitations and contracts.
The vendor selection process is seen as inefficient and results in frustration. The current process requires submission of a Service Request (SR) through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for approval to add vendors not yet contained within the system. This is also necessary to update information on vendors within the system. This process does not add value and is seen as inefficient. In addition, the current process for awarding to a contractor associated with another NASA Center requires the submission of an SR. The user community expressed a need for a NASA-wide vendor table to extend access to all vendors across NASA.
STRENGTHS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended for its hands-on training initiatives to assist the workforce through this difficult transition. These initiatives are a clear strength in Kennedy’s transition to CMM.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office is commended on its ability to implement CMM with minimal impact on the technical community. The stress felt by the procurement workforce was not reflected in interviews with customers. Most customers noticed little change resulting from implementation of the new system.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Kennedy Procurement Office should continue to encourage the use of CMM and provide employees opportunities to obtain hands-on training and a forum for providing feedback to the competency center and the Headquarters Office of Procurement.
2. The Kennedy Procurement Office should issue guidance requiring procurement personnel to use milestone and solicitation templates; to discourage changes to these documents outside of the system; and where changes are made to these documents, to ensure that any changes are reflected within CMM.
NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center, considered the nation’s “gateway to the universe,” has purview over the Agency’s launch and payload processing systems. These systems, which make the launching of space flight missions a reality, rely on the programmatic knowledge and vision of the Center’s personnel as well as the expertise of industry – both large and small businesses, the latter serving as prime contractor and subcontractor. Over the three years – FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007 – of this reporting period, Kennedy has consistently increased its inclusion of small businesses in all aspects of its outsourcing. The Center’s small business specialists (SBS) and its prime contractor community are committed to providing small businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for and participate in the Agency’s business initiatives. This section discusses key elements of Kennedy’s Small Business Program and the factors associated with its assigned socioeconomic goals.
2. Organizational Structure and Staffing
The Small Business Program is an integral part of the Agency’s business activities. At Kennedy, operation of the program resides in the Central Industry Assistance Office (CIAO), which is located outside of the Center’s main gate. This facilitates visitor access. The CIAO, which is organizationally a part of Kennedy’s Procurement Office, is the purview of the Center’s two small business specialists. The lead small business specialist, who reports directly to the Procurement Officer, commutes between her primary office in the Procurement Office front office and the CIAO. The second small business specialist (a procurement analyst) works out of the CIAO on a full-time basis. This specialist reports to the Chief, Procurement Policy and Review Office, who in turn reports to the Procurement Officer.
The small business specialists are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Small Business Program. They share and coordinate the office’s workload, which includes reviewing purchase requirements for placement into the small business program, participating in procurement planning, implementing NPD 5000.2A procedures to determine small business goals on full-and-open procurements, evaluating subcontracting plans and performance, overseeing Center goal achievements, resolving compliance issues, providing counseling and outreach, and enhancing the program to make it more responsive to constituent needs. The SBSs are assisted by a NASA employee serving a one-year detail from the Kennedy Public Affairs Office and a contractor. All are required to commit 100 percent of their time to small business programs and initiatives.
CONSIDERATION:
The small business specialists’ organizational responsibilities are aligned with those of the Center’s Procurement Office, while their functional responsibilities are aligned with the activities and concerns of NASA’s Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP). That arrangement, which requires clear boundaries in job performance, is, at Kennedy, complicated by a fragmented reporting structure. The fact that the two small business specialists report to different managers in the Procurement Office is problematic, because the absence of supervisory authority within the Small Business Program makes timely program implementation more difficult. Also problematic is the fact that within the CIAO the resident small business specialist, who reports to the Procurement Policy and Review Office, is from time to time assigned procurement policy work, taking him away from the small business-related responsibilities stipulated in his position description. This concern was iterated in the 2005 Kennedy Procurement Management Survey report. While the two small business specialists incumbent at that time are no longer in those positions, the issue has apparently not been addressed. At the time of this Procurement Management Survey, the Procurement Officer indicated that the problem described above is being given serious consideration by upper management.
3. Industry Assistance Priorities
The Kennedy small business specialists are charged with conducting all aspects of the socioeconomic program, as directed by regulation and the Assistant Administrator for NASA’s Office of Small Business Programs. Programmatic priorities include 1) counseling both large and small firms wanting to do business with Kennedy and advising them on the importance of teaming relationships; 2) engaging in acquisition planning, analyzing statements of work, and providing guidance on small business participation on work packages; 3) monitoring periodic progress and annual results of NASA and prime contractors’ meeting negotiated socioeconomic business goals; 4) providing oversight of prime contractors’ subcontracting programs to ensure compliance; and 5) participating in a broad range of outreach activities.
In 1995, in its effort to promote closer relationships and better communication among NASA-Kennedy, the Kennedy prime contractors, and the small business community, the CIAO established biweekly joint counseling sessions. The sessions are forums for exchanging ideas, discussing issues and concerns, and disseminating general information relative to the mandated socioeconomic programs. The sessions also provide counseling and support to small businesses seeking to market to NASA by introducing new vendors to Kennedy’s prime contractors. Four small businesses are individually scheduled to present their capabilities to the prime contractors’ Small Business Liaison Officers (SBLO) and Kennedy’s small business specialists at each session. Each small business receives advice and information specific to the product/service it offers.
The Boeing Company and Space Gateway Support (SGS) are regular participants in the joint counseling sessions, as is United Space Alliance (USA), which, although a Johnson Space Center prime contractor, has a large presence at Kennedy. Efforts are under way to include a small business representative from neighboring Patrick Air Force Base, since the joint counseling team has, on occasion, referred companies to that organization. In addition, the CIAO is in the process of developing a tracking system to assess the return-on-investment (ROI) associated with the overall joint counseling effort – in particular, to determine whether the counseling provided has helped the small business to compete successfully for contracts or subcontracts.
Another initiative credited to the CIAO is the formation, in FY 2007, of the NASA/Kennedy Prime Contractor Board. The board, an outgrowth of the Kennedy Small Business Council, which was chartered in September 1990, includes both large and small prime contractors. Charter members of the board include The Boeing Company, SGS, USA, ASRC Aerospace Corporation, C&C International, Dynamac Corporation, Delaware North, Inc., and Chickasaw Nation Industries. The Executive Committee and Working Committee meet on separate schedules throughout the year in support of the board’s purpose to “foster the development, operation, clarification, implementation, and improvement” of the Center’s Small Business Program.
The CIAO’s working relationship with the SBLOs of its large prime contractors focuses on building a strong supplier diversity program. The small business specialists participate in and support the meetings and procurement expos sponsored by these large companies as well as those sponsored by local and regional organizations. In addition, the CIAO, jointly with the 45th Space Wing of Patrick Air Force Base and the Canaveral Port Authority, sponsors a Business Opportunities Expo every October. Attendance at the October 2007 event exceeded 900 participants. The 2007 Kennedy contractor awards were announced during the opening ceremony, and the awardees were again recognized during the Center’s Annual Awards Ceremony the following month. The Boeing Company was named Large Prime Contractor of the Year; SGT, Inc. was named Small Prime Contractor of the Year; and The Bionetics Corporation was declared Subcontractor of the Year.
STRENGTHS:
1. Kennedy’s Central Industry Assistance Office is to be commended on its innovative Joint Counseling Program, which promotes closer Government-contractor relationships at the same time that it assists small businesses to increase their competitiveness and provides possible teaming opportunities. Of particular note is the CIAO’s effort to utilize metrics to assess the degree to which the Joint Counseling Program contributes to the small businesses’ marketing success.
2. The CIAO is also to be commended on its establishment of the NASA/Kennedy Prime Contractor Board, which will provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information that will enable the Center, its prime contractors, and the small business community to establish a closer relationship and better communications. Such interaction among the three groups should prove mutually beneficial and, by extension, should benefit Kennedy’s Small Business Program.
4. Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals
| FY 2005 Goals | FY 2005 Actual | FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual | FY 2007 Goals | FY 2007 Actual | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obligations (in $M) |
840.0M |
1,363.0M |
948.0M |
1,056.0M |
1,035.0M |
1,045.0M |
| SB $ | 150.0M |
294.4M |
171.0M |
202.1M |
191.0M |
230.0M |
| SB % | 17.85 |
21.60 |
18.00 |
19.14 |
18.45 |
22.01 |
| SDB - Non 8(a) $ | 33.5M |
47.6M |
2.8M |
52.8M |
41.0M |
65.6M |
| SDB - Non 8(a) % | 4.23 |
3.49 |
3.24 |
5.00 |
3.96 |
6.44 |
| SDB - 8(a) $ | 30.0M |
41.8M |
28.0M |
48.1M |
38.0M |
65.0M |
| SDB - 8(a) % | 3.57 |
3.07 |
3.20 |
4.55 |
3.67 |
6.25 |
| WOSB $ | 21.0M |
40.5M |
21.0M |
25.6M |
26.0M |
21.9M |
| WOSB % | 2.60 |
2.97 |
2.20 |
2.43 |
2.51 |
2.10 |
| SDVOSB $ | 0.1M |
3.6M |
1.9M |
0.8M |
1.0M |
1.2M |
| SDVOSB % | 0.00 |
0.28 |
0.20 |
0.08 |
0.10 |
0.11 |
| HUBZone $ | 0.6M |
4.1M |
4.7M |
3.2M |
3.0M |
2.6M |
| HUBZone % | 0.07 |
0.30 |
0.50 |
0.31 |
0.29 |
0.25 |
Kennedy exceeded its small business prime contractor socioeconomic goals for FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007, but has had mixed success in meeting the goals in the individual categories of small business for those years. The table above notes the following shortfalls in achievement 1) Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) and 8(a) in FY 2005; 2) Service-Disabled/Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) and HUBZone in FY 2006, and HUBZone in FY 2007; and 3) Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) in FY 2007. For reporting purposes, SDB and 8(a) are presented as discrete categories in the table above because 8(a) is a set-aside category.
The SDVOSB shortfall in FY 2006 is attributed to an SDVOSB’s being sold to another company. The WOSB shortfall in FY 2007 is attributed to drops in funding levels. Performance issues were the primary reasons given for the HUBZone shortfalls in FY 2006 and FY 2007.
Of note is Kennedy’s implementation of SBA’s Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, which requires unrestricted competition in four industry groups, two of which are construction and architectural & engineering services. Procurements over $3 million are designated full-and-open, and procurements under $3 million set-asides, generally for 8(a) companies. Kennedy has no small business set-asides in construction or A&E. However, since most of the Center’s construction projects are with local firms, many of the full-and-open solicitations are prime contracts awarded to local small businesses. Illustrative of this point is the fact that in FY 2007, Kennedy awarded 12 full-and-open IDIQ construction contracts, eight of which went to small businesses.
Kennedy reports no bundling of contracts in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007. Rather, in early FY 2007, the Center and the U.S. Air Force’s 45th Space Wing split apart their Joint Base Operations Support Contract (JBOSC). Kennedy made multiple awards for its portion of the contract. This resulted in one requirement’s being competed as full-and-open, five as various small business set-asides, and one offered to NISH. Portions of the current Kennedy Space Center Integrated Communications Services (KICS) contract and Life Sciences Support Contract (LSSC) were integrated into the applicable NASA portion of the JBOSC contract.
STRENGTH:
Kennedy is to be commended on its award of multiple competitive small business set-asides on the JBOSC and on setting the small business subcontracting goal for the full-and-open contract at 25 percent.
5. Center Subcontractor Socioeconomic Business Goals
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISR | Goals Required | Goals Achieved | Percent | Goals Required | Goals Achieved | Percent | Goals Required | Goals Achieved | Percent |
| SB | 14 |
11 |
79 |
17 |
12 |
71 |
15 |
11 |
73 |
| SDB | 13 |
8 |
62 |
15 |
5 |
33 |
13 |
8 |
62 |
WOSB |
12 |
9 |
75 |
15 |
11 |
73 |
13 |
9 |
69 |
VOSB |
4 |
1 |
25 |
5 |
1 |
20 |
4 |
1 |
25 |
SDVOSB |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
HUBZone |
5 |
4 |
80 |
7 |
4 |
57 |
7 |
2 |
29 |
Subcontracting goals are required for procurements exceeding $550,000 in value and for construction procurements exceeding $1 million in value. The CIAO team reviews all procurement requests, conducts a review of the proposed RFP, and recommends goals for SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and HUBZone businesses. Goals for HBCU and other Minority Institutions (MI) are also recommended but are not tracked in this report. Determining appropriate goals is not always easy, as it involves comprehensive market research, consultations with the technical staff, review of small business databases, review by the SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR), and coordination with the Center’s Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA). The single most daunting task is breaking down the technical aspects of the work requirements to ascertain what the small business market can provide.
The achievement of small business subcontracting goals is tracked through the Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) submitted by the prime contractor every six months throughout the life of a contract. As can be seen in the table above, Kennedy’s prime contractors have not all succeeded in meeting the subcontracting goals in their respective contracts; i.e., in each of the fiscal years the number of primes that met the small business subcontracting goals required in their contracts fall short of the number of contracts that require those goals. In FY 2005, three contractors did not meet their SB subcontracting goals; in FY 2006, that number rose to five; and in FY 2007, four contractors failed to meet their goals. The data for the individual categories of small business indicate the specifics of the shortfalls; e.g., of the 15 contracts that required subcontracting goals in FY 2007, 13 stipulated SDB goals, but only eight contractors met those goals. Contractors have occasionally reported awarding subcontract dollars to categories of small business for which there are no goals, but the ISR excludes such data.
CONSIDERATION:
1. Procurement PlanningWhile the contracting officer is responsible for every aspect of contract compliance, the ISR data for the three years in this reporting period suggest that closer monitoring of prime contractors’ implementation of their proposed subcontract plans may be in order.
Kennedy’s small business specialists are actively involved in reviewing solicitations before they are released. They are working closely with contracting representatives to determine the status; e.g., small business set-aside or full-and-open of upcoming procurements. If the decision is to set-aside the procurement for small business, the contracting officer will initiate a coordination form that details the particulars of the set-aside and forward it to the SBA PCR. The PCR and small business specialist(s) resolve any concerns they have before the PCR signs the concurrence and the solicitation is released.
Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Business Goals
NASA Policy Directive 5000.2A, Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Business Goals, is used to establish the small business goals in large business solicitations exceeding $50 million in value. The methodology used entails reviewing the solicitation’s statement of work to identify areas that could be subcontracted; reviewing the subcontracting history of the contract if the solicitation is a follow-on and/or reviewing the subcontracting history of similar contracts; conducting market research to assess the availability of small businesses that have the capability to execute the work; and determining the percentage of work that can be subcontracted to small businesses. The goals established are negotiated as part of the Request for Proposals and incorporated into the contract. Small business subcontracting goals are tracked every six months as well as cumulatively during contract performance.
The CIAO reports that NPD 5000.2A was used once in FY 2007 to establish the small business goals for the Institutional Services Contract, the full-and-open portion of the JBOSC discussed above. No contracts required application of NPD 5000.2A in the prior two fiscal years.
SBA Procurement Center Representative
The SBA Procurement Center Representative for Kennedy oversees the small business programs of a number of military as well as civilian organizations located throughout the Southeastern United States. The PCR office is located in Orlando. Although he visits the CIAO whenever requested, he conducts most communication with Kennedy’s small business specialists by email or telephone. At the time of this survey, the PCR indicated that the SBA’s plan to hire six additional PCRs will allow him to concentrate on a smaller geographical area, as one of those PCRs will be based in Jacksonville, FL.
The PCR’s primary function is to obtain more business opportunities for small businesses, to which end he serves as the commercial marketing representative. In this capacity, he works directly with Kennedy’s prime contractors to provide assistance with respect to their subcontracting plans and the subcontracting data they must submit in compliance with contractual requirements. He also works closely with the Kennedy small business specialists, providing them support and assistance on small business-related issues. When large solicitations (value over $50 million) are being developed, the PCR reviews the NPD 5000.2A methodology that the specialists use to determine small business goals, prior to concurring on the recommended goals. All small business subcontracting goal requirements must be approved by the Center’s Small Business Office, the contracting officer, and the PCR before release of the Request for Proposals. If the PCR objects to the final decision of the Center’s procurement strategy, he can register that objection by submitting a Form 70, which is an appeal from the SBA Administrator to the NASA Administrator. No Form 70 has been issued at Kennedy during this three-fiscal-year reporting period.
The PCR speaks highly of the Kennedy small business specialists and of their efforts to re-shape and tighten the Center’s Small Business Program. He states that the two specialists have made great strides in coordinating processes and expediting procedures that will become a methodology for “getting things through the system” in a timelier manner and appreciates their keeping him “in the loop” on small business-related issues. The PCR deems the location of the CIAO outside the Center gates a “plus,” despite the CIAO’s isolation from Center Headquarters. Issues cited as needing improvement include 1) an organizational structure that requires the specialists to report to different managers and 2) organizational priorities that require the specialists to perform duties not directly related to their CIAO responsibilities. The PCR’s concerns reflect the concerns discussed under “Organizational Structure and Staffing” within this section.
Center Small Business Technical Advisor
The Small Business Technical Advisor plays a critical role in the Small Business Program. He/she is the primary consultant to the SBA PCR and small business specialists in determining the extent to which a small business can perform the technical requirements of an RFP.
At Kennedy, the SBTA plays a critical role in implementing the Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Business Goals (NPD 5000.2A) process. The SBTA provides the small business specialists invaluable support by assisting in the review of work breakdown structures in statements of work for upcoming procurements to identify subcontracting opportunities in technical areas. The SBTA also participates in Procurement Strategy Meeting reviews and serves as a mediator when differences arise between the Small Business Office and program offices. In addition, the SBTA evaluates the technical aspects of small business capability statements and reports and, by participating in NASA-wide small business specialist meetings, provides the Agency’s specialists much-needed insight into technical issues relative to small business procurement.
The SBTA’s other small business-related activities include participating in the CIAO’s joint counseling sessions to advise high-tech companies, participating in small business conferences and expos, and recently, sitting on the committee to help select the Kennedy 2007 Large and Small Business Prime Contractor and Small Business Subcontractor of the Year awardees. The Kennedy SBTA is also the Program Manager of the Center’s SBIR/STTR programs.
Kennedy will acquire a new SBTA in the very near future, pending the concurrence of the Assistant Administrator of the OSBP at Headquarters. At the time of this Procurement Management Survey, the incumbent SBTA, who was recently assigned to a new position, was in the process of familiarizing the new SBTA with the requirements of the job. The incoming SBTA will also assume responsibility for the Center’s SBIR/STTR initiatives.
STRENGTH:
Kennedy’s Small Business Technical Advisor has always been accessible to the Center’s small business specialists. He leverages his knowledge about research and technology transfer and his experience in managing the SBIR/STTR program to broaden the specialists’ understanding of the interfaces and interconnections between the Agency’s small business programs. Such an understanding may result in shared undertakings, as illustrated by his willing support of the small business specialist meetings.
WEAKNESS:
In a highly technical agency such as NASA, where the Office of Small Business Programs seeks to increase the participation of qualified and capable small businesses, the involvement of the SBTA is crucial to the success of the Center’s Small Business program. However, because the SBTA and the small business specialists are affiliated with different internal organizations, monies to underwrite the SBTA’s participation are generally not available. No line item or charge code exists for this purpose in NASA’s full cost accounting practices. This is a NASA-wide issue and was a topic of concern in the 2005 Kennedy Procurement Management Survey report. Corrective action needs to be implemented.
As discussed under “Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Business Goals,” NASA requires that NPD 5000.2A be used to determine the percentage of work to be subcontracted to small businesses for all contracts expected to exceed $50 million in value. For acquisitions of lesser value, use of NPD 5000.2A is recommended. Although subcontracting plans are required for all contracts exceeding $550,000 in value and for construction contracts exceeding $1 million, use of NPD 5000.2A to determine small business subcontracting goals is recommended but not required. The tracking of these socioeconomic goals in subcontracting plans is discussed above, under “Center Subcontractor Socioeconomic Business Goals.”
The CIAO is meticulous about applying NPD 5000.2A to large solicitations in order to establish goals that provide small businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the procurement. However, only one contract requiring a subcontracting plan was awarded during the three years of this reporting period.
Kennedy had utilized, prior to calendar year 2007, such value-added programs as the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program to encourage prime contractors to include small businesses as subcontractors in the execution of large contracts. The benefit to the protégé small business is the guidance and experience that the mentor company provides. The benefit to the mentor company, besides a more favorable evaluation of its proposal, is the opportunity to “grow” the expertise that its protégé possesses for future outsourcing possibilities. The Mentor-Protégé Program was suspended at the end of calendar year 2006; pending restructuring, it will be operational in calendar year 2008.
3. Award Fee/Incentive Fee Contracts
Using a strong subcontracting plan and using performance on meeting socioeconomic subcontracting goals as evaluation factors for award fee/incentive fee determinations have proven to be effective measures for keeping prime contractors “committed” to their teaming relationships with their small business subcontractors. Kennedy conducts semi-annual contract reviews, the findings of which are documented in the Kennedy Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) report. A prime contractor that meets its small business goals is given a “strength” by the PEB; failure to meet the small business goals, a “weakness,” and generally results in a reduction in award fee.
The Kennedy small business specialists’ involvement in award fee determinations currently consists of providing written inputs to the contracting officer, which are taken in consideration for that particular award fee period. Their physical presence is not required on the PEB. However, it is anticipated that their involvement will increase as the allocation of up to 10 points (of the total 100 award fee points) for contractor performance on small business subcontracting becomes standard in NASA’s evaluation procedures.
4. Set-Asides
Kennedy considers setting aside contracts as small business set-asides or 8(a) set-asides whenever possible. A major determinant for that decision is the competing companies’ capabilities to execute the requirements of the contract. The sizes of these set-aside contracts vary with some being of significant contract value. As noted above, the small business specialists work closely with the SBA PCR on all potential set-asides.
Small Business Set-Asides
Small business set-asides are used when there are two or more small businesses that can perform the work required in a contract. In the three years of this reporting period, Kennedy awarded 151 small business set-aside contracts. The Center also, through the NASA Shared Services Center in Stennis, MS, “awarded” 40 SBIR contracts and 12 STTR contracts.
| Fiscal Year | Competitive SB Set-Asides Awarded | Non-competitive |
SBIRs Awarded | STTRs Awarded | Total Value of SB Set-Asides* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 |
61 |
13 |
20 |
3 |
$ 25.8M |
2006 |
19 |
9 |
12 |
4 |
$ 17.6M |
2007 |
26 |
23 |
8 |
5 |
$ 18.9M |
* “Total Value” in this and the following table excludes unexercised option year amounts for the
respective contracts.
The value is the new award value for the applicable FY.
The NSSC serves as the contracting officer for SBIR and STTR contracts NASA-wide, conducting the competitions, making the awards, and administering the resulting contracts – all on behalf of the individual NASA Centers. The NSSC’s purview is confined to contractual matters, while technical matters are handled at the Center that “owns” the contract; i.e., the Center that funds the award and uses that award toward meeting its small business goals.
SBA Section 8(a) Program Set-Asides
Kennedy makes awards to 8(a) firms whenever possible. The number and total contract value of 8(a) awards for each of the last three fiscal years are provided in the following table:
| Fiscal Year | Competitive 8(a) Set-Asides Awarded | Non-competitive |
Total Value of 8(a) Set-Asides* |
|---|---|---|---|
2005 |
2 |
13 |
$ 7.7M |
2006 |
0 |
9 |
$ 7.2M |
2007 |
0 |
23 |
$ 5.4M |
In the past, prime contractors were required to use SF 294 and SF 295 to submit to the contracting officer semi-annual reports of subcontracting achievements. The reports were originally submitted in hard copy to the Center’s contracting officer, who passed the data to the small business specialists. They in turn keyed the data into the Center’s electronic system to create a spreadsheet that allowed comparisons between years. The data were reviewed at the Center and put into a database, and an annual summarization report was then forwarded to Headquarters.
This reporting process was simplified with the emergence of the Government-wide electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). In FY 2006, NASA, along with other Government agencies, were mandated to use this system. Contractors are required to enter their subcontracting data into the system on a semi-annual basis. The SF 294 and SF 295 were replaced by the Individual Subcontract Report and the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), respectively, with ISRs reviewed and processed at the Center level and SSRs reviewed and processed at Headquarters. Prime contracting data is entered into the FPDS-NG.
The NASA small business specialists, who have been trained to use this reporting system, serve as their respective Center’s resource persons and points of contact. Each POC manages contractor registrations going into the system; reviews and is able to accept or reject contractor reports; and runs consolidated reports. At Kennedy, the contracting officer and the CIAO are notified via email whenever a report is submitted into the eSRS. The small business specialists provide the contracting officer guidance to ensure that the reports are accurate and are processed accordingly.
1. Programs
The CIAO engages in numerous outreach activities throughout each year, supporting conferences and business expos sponsored by other agencies and organizations as well as holding its own outreach events. Over the three fiscal years in this reporting period, the Kennedy small business specialists have supported outreach activities that include the Annual NASA/JPL High Tech Small Business Conference in Los Angeles, CA; the annual Veterans Conference, hosted by the regional Small Business Development Center, in Melbourne, FL; SBA Matchmaking Conferences in Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale, FL; the Women’s Small Business Forum, sponsored by the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, in Melbourne, FL; the OSDBU Procurement Conference and Matchmaking, sponsored by the OSDBU Directors’ Council, in Upper Marlboro, MD; the Florida Minority Supplier Development Council’s Annual Conference and Trade Fair in Orlando, FL; the 2007 Procurement and Contracting Expo in Jacksonville, FL; and the 4th Annual National Veteran Small Business Conference & Expo in Las Vegas, NV, which was sponsored by NASA and other Federal agencies. In addition, the CIAO hosted the following events in the past fiscal year: MSFC’s Prime Contractors Supplier Council meeting in March; the Constellation Small Business Forum in August (jointly with the Florida Space Coast Economic Development Commission); the Leadership Orlando Conference in May and again in September; and a Community Leaders’ Breakfast in May.
The Kennedy small business specialists also provide outreach by participating on panels (such as the panel for the Veterans Conference noted above); giving presentations on the Center’s socioeconomic program to special groups; e.g., at the Constellation Small Business Forum noted above and the local Chamber of Commerce; and counseling small businesses at these events. In addition, one of the specialists serves as an advisor on the monthly Economic Commission’s Space Advisory Committee.
Kennedy’s annual Business Opportunities Expo, which is supported by the Center’s Procurement Office and which provides a forum for small businesses to network with other small businesses as well as with large businesses, is among the larger of NASA’s procurement conferences. Jointly sponsored by the Kennedy Prime Contractor Board, the 45th Space Wing of Patrick Air Force Base, and the Canaveral Port Authority, the 2007 expo boasted more than 900 attendees and 175 exhibitors. The OSBP as well as small business specialists from GSFC, JSC, LaRC, MSFC, ARC, GRC, and NSSC and 17 Kennedy volunteers supported the event. The CIAO has compiled metrics that track the ROI associated with the FY 2006 and FY 2007 expos; i.e., the extent to which the expo has helped participating vendors to win contracts from any of the other participating companies or organizations. The table below presents the data.
| Expo | Participants Surveyed | Number Responded | Number Received Business | Percent Received Business |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2006 |
170 |
123 |
79 |
64% |
2007 |
152 |
67 |
41 |
61% |
The creation of the NASA/Kennedy Prime Contractor Board in FY 2007 (see “Industry Assistance Priorities”) is another instance of Kennedy’s outreach activities. The board, which is comprised of both large and small contractors, will focus on strengthening the Center’s socioeconomic program as well as strengthening Government-contractor relations by sharing information and best practices and by supporting the CIAO’s initiatives and programs. Interviews with four members of the board during this survey indicate that the Kennedy small business specialists are doing an excellent job of assisting the wide variety of companies interested in doing business with the Center.
STRENGTH:
Kennedy’s Central Industry Assistance Office is to be commended on the amount of support it provides to procurement conferences and expos targeted at providing business opportunities to small businesses. The CIAO is to be especially commended on its highly successful Business Opportunities Expo and on its efforts to assess the impact the expo has on participating vendors.
2. Counseling
Kennedy’s counseling sessions for small businesses are comprehensive in topics covered and responsive to the concerns articulated by the companies that request the meetings. In addition to providing an overview of Kennedy’s organizational structure, the small business specialists discuss the procurement process, marketable areas, and the Center’s business development programs and provide information about upcoming procurement opportunities and procurement points of contacts. Counseling is provided individually or jointly, as described under “Industry Assistance Priorities” above. Individual counseling or one-on-one counseling, sometimes called “Meet and Greet,” is provided in person or by telephone, as the occasion requires, and generally focuses on doing business with NASA. The CIAO also counsels large businesses. In these cases, the discussion generally centers on involving small businesses in Kennedy initiatives.
Kennedy’s small business specialists, who are relatively new to the Center’s Small Business program, have made significant progress in ensuring that small businesses play a significant part in helping the Center to carry out its programs and initiatives. The specialists’ pro-active outreach activities and working relationship with the Center’s prime contractors are important elements of their effort to increase the utilization of small businesses in the Center’s procurement actions. Particularly innovative and effective is the CIAO’s Joint Counseling Program. The program provides small businesses the opportunity to interface with the SBLOs of Kennedy’s major primes, to receive counseling from the Center’s small business specialists, and, pending successful negotiations with Patrick Air Force Base, to market the Air Force’s small business representative. The Center has been less than successful in ensuring that prime contractors meet their subcontracting goals. Closer monitoring of subcontracting plans and corrective action measures may be in order. The Kennedy Procurement Office’s organizational structure, in which the two specialists report to different managers, needs to be re-examined to enable the CIAO to meet its programmatic objectives more efficiently and in a more timely manner. Finally, the allocation of funds to support the SBTA’s involvement in small business-related activities and issues would benefit the Center’s Small Business Program as well as facilitate related program and procurement initiatives.
|
Owner: Ronald Backes |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: July 24, 2008 |