The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted the procurement management survey at the Langley Research Center (LaRC) under the authority of NASA Procedures and Guidelines 1000.3, The NASA Organization. The survey was conducted from August 14 through August 25, 2006. The report contains the survey strengths, weaknesses, and considerations.
An exit briefing was held on August 25, 2006 to discuss the survey findings. The Center Director, the Procurement Officer and an Office of Procurement Assistant Branch Head represented LaRC at the briefing. The Assistant Administrator for Procurement and the survey team co-managers represented NASA Headquarters.
This report serves as a basis, in part, for
fulfilling internal control requirements in accordance with the Federal
Manager's Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-255).
Yolande B. Harden
Survey Program Co-Manager
Office of Procurement
Analysis Division
NASA Headquarters
SECTION II ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT
SECTION V GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES
SECTION VI SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) UTILIZATION
The Langley Research Center Procurement organization is providing meaningful support to their technical and program customers. A randomly selected group of representatives from the technical community were interviewed by the Procurement Management Survey Team to ascertain issues or concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Langley Procurement organization. Based on the results of these interviews, a significant degree of customer satisfaction is apparent. Additionally, interviews were conducted with various members of the Langley Procurement organization to determine the internal perception of the effectiveness of the organization. Individuals interviewed represented all grade levels and a wide range of tenure. The general consensus from members of the Procurement organization was positive. The impression from the Office of Chief Counsel was that the procurement organization was generally doing a good job.
The Procurement Management Survey consists of two primary components: 1) interviews with technical, procurement and legal personnel regarding the effectiveness of the procurement organization and 2) compliance reviews that consist of a review of contracting actions focused on compliance with procurement statutes, regulations and procedures. The primary emphasis of the compliance portion of the Survey is on systemic procurement processes rather than individual file anomalies. Current procurement innovations, both Agency-wide and Center specific are also reviewed.
The results of both the interviews and compliance reviews are compiled in narrative summaries and strengths, weaknesses and areas of consideration are identified as appropriate. Strengths are generally defined as best practices utilized in support of the procurement system. Weaknesses are defined as problems, typically systemic, that require corrective actions. Considerations are defined as issues that; 1) if not corrected may evolve into a problem or problems that are not necessarily systemic but should be corrected or 2) would result in better business practices if corrected.
To promote the exchange of successful lessons learned and innovative procurement methodologies between Centers, the team sought to identify LaRC processes or initiatives that may be beneficial to other Centers and conversely sought to identify suggested approaches utilized by other Centers that may be beneficial to LaRC.
The exit conference at the conclusion of the survey consisted of a direct exchange of observations and ideas between the participants. To emphasize Center ownership of the resolution of any identified weaknesses or considerations, the survey follow-up process will focus on the corrective actions or initiatives undertaken by the Center. At an appropriate interval (approximately six months after this report is issued) the LaRC Procurement Officer will brief the Assistant Administrator for Procurement and the survey team leader on Center achievements in these areas.
Below is a list of team members and the areas they reviewed:
YOLANDE HARDEN (HQ) |
Survey Team Manager, Interviews (Legal, 1102, & COTR), and Metrics |
EUGENE JOHNSON |
Self-Assessment Program, Internal Policies and Procedures, Contractor Insurance and Pension Reviews (CIPRs), Adequacy of documentation resulting from Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), and Inter-Agency Agreements |
JEFFREY BROWN |
Commercial Acquisitions, Simplified Acquisitions, NF-533 and SBIR/STTR Program |
KAREN SMITH |
Pre/Post Negotiation Memorandums, Cost/Price Analysis, NF-634 Use of Structure Fee Approach, Closeout/Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs), and Clauses |
HENRY MOLNAR |
Bankcard Program, Convenience Checks, UCAs, COTR Training and 1102 Training |
SUZANNE HONEYCUTT |
Exercise of Options, Contractor Performance Evaluations NF-1680, Property, and Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOCs) |
MICHELLÉ HULL (HQ) |
Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Environmental Issues |
BRADLEY O’TOOLE (KSC) |
Construction and A/E Service Contracts, Technical Evaluations, Audit Follow-Up, Multiple Award Contracts, and Contractor Safety Requirements |
LARRY KENYON
|
Small and disadvantaged business utilization and CPAF/IF Contracts |
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of the following individuals:
| BEVERLY SMITH |
Procurement Data Support |
| DONNA SPRINKLE | Procurement Data Support |
| REBEKAH BREWER | Headquarters Administrative Support |
|
SUSIE MARUCCI |
Headquarters Administrative Support |
| C. TOM WEIH | LaRC Point of Contact |
| CONNIE BUFFIN | LaRC Administrative Support |
1. Organization Structure and Staffing:
The Langley procurement organization has experienced a significant reduction in staff since the last Procurement Management Survey. Since the last survey, a total of 16 employees retired, 17 transferred to other organizations, Centers or agencies and 9 new employees were hired. The current staff is comprised of 50 employees including the Procurement Officer and Deputy as well as one detailee assigned to the office through the end of calendar year 2006. The detailee is part of the transition workforce from the unfunded full time equivalent (FTE) pools within the LaRC science community. One employee is scheduled to retire by the end of fiscal year 2006 and 7 additional employees will be retirement eligible in the next fiscal year.
During the summer of 2005, the Langley procurement organization re-organized as a result of the reduced workforce and instituted a program rotating the Deputy Procurement Officer and branch heads as part of succession planning. The organization is now comprised of three branches; Business Management, Center Operations and Research and Projects. Each branch has a Branch Head and Assistant. The Branch Head for Business Management also serves in the capacity of Deputy Procurement Officer. The Deputy Procurement Officer position rotates among the Branch Heads every year. The employees are distributed approximately equally across the three branches.
In an effort to manage procurement functions with a significantly smaller staff, many functions were outsourced to support contractors. They include support for grants, cooperative agreements and SBIRs; processing of simplified acquisitions under $50K; purchase order expediting; data entry functions for FPDS-NG; Contract Management Module (CMM) support; and increased contract closeout support.
2. Procurement Staff Interviews:
Interviews were conducted with several members of the LaRC procurement workforce to gain a greater insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization. Interviews were conducted with a wide range of individuals varying from the most junior levels and people with less than one year LaRC procurement experience to senior personnel with more than 30 years procurement experience.
The overall perception was that the procurement staff was handling the stresses of limited resources and heavy workload extremely well. Management at every level was viewed as very supportive in every aspect of the work environment. In general, employees felt that the workload was fairly distributed among employees, although everyone voiced concerns at the high volume of work for the size of the office. The entire procurement organization, including managers, is currently assisting in processing the over 700 open purchase requests that must be closed by the end of the fiscal year. Some employees expressed concerns about the Branch Head and Deputy Procurement Officer rotations. The feeling was that as soon as people became accustomed to certain management styles, the managers rotated to different offices. Other employees interviewed felt that the manager rotations provided an opportunity to get to know the managers better by working with all of them.
All employees interviewed agreed that managers were accessible and that they received feedback on their work products throughout the year and not just during formal performance appraisal periods. The working relationships with both technical customers and the legal office were perceived as good. Employees felt that the technical customers included them in procurement planning and relied upon them for procurement advice.
The employees agreed that training opportunities were available and employees were encouraged to attend. The Langley procurement organization offers several in-house training sessions to address real time issues in addition to the HQ sponsored courses. Individual Development Plans (IDPs) are encouraged but not required for the employees. About half of the employees interviewed indicated that they chose not to prepare IDPs. There were some concerns about the limited number of training opportunities for individuals who completed the required contracting courses, both at the Level II (mid-level employees not eligible for Level III courses) and Level III (mid-level managers and senior procurement personnel not eligible for executive courses). Managers are trying to develop a training plan for those individuals in this situation.
STRENGTH:
The Procurement Officer and managers should be commended for their efforts to create a positive working environment for the staff, particularly during stressful times.
3. Technical Customer Interviews:
A variety of representatives from the technical organizations were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of the procurement organization and their level of satisfaction. Individuals interviewed represented various programs and projects at LaRC. Most of the individuals interviewed had a wealth of experience at LaRC and served in the capacity of Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) for several years.
Overall, the technical customers were satisfied with the level of performance and support provided by the procurement organization. Many expressed understanding of the constraints place upon the procurement organization by the recent reductions in staff. Most were sympathetic with the reduced turn around time caused by the decreased resources. Although sympathetic, some customers expressed a feeling of frustration at the procurement organization’s inability to process actions in a timelier manner. However, they agreed that the procurement managers were doing everything possible to mitigate the problems.
Some individuals also noted that many valuable and more experienced procurement people were lost due to the recent staff reductions and acknowledged that the remaining work force consists of individuals who were nearing the retirement age or were younger and less experienced. Despite these facts, the customers were confident that procurement as a whole continues to work diligently to meet the customers’ needs in as timely a manner as possible. It was noted that the ‘road shows’ conducted by the Procurement Officer to various technical organizations apprising them of various procurement issues, staffing constraints, timelines to follow for procurement processes, etc. helped to ease the level of frustration on the part of the technical community and explain why processes were not implemented as in the past when the procurement organization was larger.
All individuals interviewed attended the appropriate training sessions; all were current in their training. Some indicated that although the formal COTR training was helpful, procurement advice provided by the procurement staff was even more useful.
The LaRC Office of Chief Counsel has a Business Management Team comprised of three attorneys who review procurement related documents as part of their responsibilities. The lead counsel on this team is currently serving a temporary duty assignment at the NASA Shared Services Center. One team member was not available for interview during the survey period. The remaining attorney was interviewed to gain insight into the relationship between the Office of Chief Counsel and the Office of Procurement as well as determine the quality of documents reviewed by their office.
In general the relationship between the two organizations is good. Legal counsel commended the Procurement Officer and managers for the excellent job in dealing with the significant staff reductions and high workload volume. In particular, three key individuals were mentioned by name for their extraordinary efforts in the operations of the procurement organization. Panice Clark, Rosemary Froehlich and Mary Jane Yeager were described as “the glue that keeps OP running”.
Legal counsel acknowledged that the loss of some of the more experienced individuals as a result of the recent staff reductions impacted the quality of documents submitted to their office for review. Although he stated that there are still experienced and knowledgeable individuals within the organization, there are a greater number of less experienced individuals that need more guidance and attention. At times the necessary file reviews within the procurement organization did not occur prior to submission of documentation for legal review. As a result the quality of the documentation tends to diminish, particularly when less experienced contract specialists are involved. Legal counsel requested that contracting officers review the files prior to submission for legal review.
Another concern raised involved actions taken by contracting officers in a few circumstances when the legal office provided an opinion disagreeing with a planned course of action. The legal office acknowledged the contracting officer’s right to disagree with the advice of legal counsel however, the regulations require the contracting officer to address the issues raised by legal or as a minimum provide documented rationale for not following the advice of legal counsel. Examples of three situations where the contracting officer’s decision not to follow advice provided by the legal office and failed to provide rationale for the decision in the contract file were discussed during the interview.
Although mindful of the constraints faced by the procurement organization as a result of the reduced staff, the legal office is concerned that adequacy and completeness of file documentation may suffer. A suggestion was made that the Legal Office Business Team members share with the procurement managers a list of ‘Top Ten’ comments/concerns expressed by legal counsel during documentation reviews to use as training tool. Legal counsel also suggested that the regular meetings between the Legal Office Business Team and the procurement managers be re-instituted to facilitate a more open line of communications and to address key concerns.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Procurement organization should ensure that the appropriate file reviews are conducted prior to submission of documentation to the legal office for reviews.
2. The Procurement organization should ensure that contract files are documented appropriately when the contracting officer exercises their right to disagree with the advice of legal counsel regarding a planned action.
5. Procurement Career Development Training:
The LaRC Acquisition Training Coordinator (ATC) continues to provide outstanding support to the procurement workforce at LaRC. An examination of the training record files and database for LaRC employees was included in this review. The ATC was interviewed and a review of training files was performed. The official employee procurement training record files reviewed were well documented and contained copies of the employee’s certifications, training profiles, any waivers and other necessary documentation to support the certification level attained by each employee.
LaRC has a current total of 50 contracting professionals. All but one of the employees has achieved the proper certification level for their grade. This equates to a 98 percent certification rate. The LaRC ATC has established a training profile for each employee which depicts class criteria and tracks progress toward achieving certification levels. The training profile is included in the individual’s training file. New employees are required to complete a profile which is reviewed by the ATC to determine the current level of certification and future training needs.
The ATC maintains an electronic alphabetized database which tracks personnel by education, certification, grade, warrant level and mandatory educational requirements. The database includes specific class details and lists the course attendance date or when the employee was grandfathered or given an equivalent to meet the class attendance requirement. The database also tracks the 24 hours of college business coursework requirement and the level of education and degree(s) received. The database is well-maintained and provides valuable information regarding a person's required course training needs and current certification level.
LaRC has implemented a number of initiatives to assure that their employees meet the required continuing education training every two years. The ATC has established a tool that tracks all courses attended for individuals within Procurement as a reference tool to reflect miscellaneous continuing education training completed. In addition LaRC offers in-house training for interns, as well as other training to assist employees in meeting their continuing education requirements. Any changes to the NASA training program are quickly conveyed to employees through email notification sent out by the ATC.
The LaRC Procurement Officer and ATC continue to openly encourage employees to take advantage of available NASA training required for contracting certification and work with supervisors to ensure that those individuals needing training are identified and given the opportunity to attend the required classes. LaRC communicates training requirements, delinquencies and concerns to employees through mid-term and annual performance reviews. The ATC prepares a master listing of class requirements for each supervisor identifying employees who need certification training and the available scheduled course. As a result of an aggressive approach and monitoring certification training, LaRC has one of the highest rates of employees certified at the appropriate professional level within the Agency.
STRENGTHS:
1. LaRC is commended for having a detailed tracking database to manage training, education, certifications and warrants. LaRC is commended for the overall quality of the training database and support provided by the ATC.
2. The ATC, Randy Manning, should be commended for tracking procurement personnel continuing educational requirements and keeping the LaRC workforce updated on training regulatory changes, changes in certification requirements, as well as current and future class schedules.
6. Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) Training:
The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) requires all COTRs and alternate COTRs to attend mandatory training prior to appointment. Further, COTRs must attend a refresher training every five years. LaRC tracks training attendance and scheduling through the local COTR database. A thorough review of the database revealed that LaRC has an adequate instrument in place to monitor training and ensure that COTRs are properly trained and provided refresher training in a timely manner. All COTRs are properly trained prior to assuming their duties as a COTR.
The LaRC COTR master listing is maintained within the Procurement Office. The listing contains the names of all COTRs and includes information for all individuals receiving COTR training during the course of their career at LaRC. The database can be filtered for whatever type of information is needed (i.e. only current COTRs, date of training, etc…). The vast majority of individuals listed in the database are current with their training, or subsequent refresher training. However, there were seven individuals that were not current. All seven individuals are currently scheduled for refresher training during the month of September and overall this would bring the COTR training back to 100 percent. There are approximately 300 COTRs on the list.
The survey revealed that no fields on the master listing were utilized to indicate the contract number, contract completion date, or whether the COTR was still serving as a COTR on any LaRC contract. While this is not a regulatory requirement, it would make the database more user friendly and add value overall to the information contained therein.
LaRC employs the Agency-wide support services contractor who ensures that the minimum NFS requirements for COTR training are met. The training covers the following core topics: 1) contracting authority and contract modifications; 2) inspection and surveillance; 3) changes and performance-based contracting; 4) contract financial and property management and 5) disputes. Additionally, the COTR training monitor ensures that any relevant new regulations are forwarded to the contractor providing the Agency-wide training to ensure that the topics of interest are included in the next scheduled class. Classes are held at LaRC every 6 months which seems adequate to keep the COTR community properly trained without becoming overly delinquent.
7. Internal Policies and Procedures:
The Langley Management System (LMS) is the host site for the Center’s Policy Directives and Procedures, which provides uniform operating instructions that serve as the Center’s equivalent to ISO Standards. The procurement organization’s site is one of links listed on the LMS. This site is well organized and provides easy identification of recent updated/additional instructions and/or policies. In addition to procurement policies and procedures (e.g., FAR and NFS policies and regulations including PICs, PNs, and Templates), the site provides an extensive amount of very valuable procurement and procurement related information like COTR information, Acquisition Forecast, Purchase Card Program information, as well as Government and NASA wide policies and guidelines. A few of the LMS Procurement organization’s policies and procedures were selected for review LMS-OP-4520 “Preparing Contractual Documents, LMS-OP-4511 “Prepare and Issue Solicitation Documents”, and “LMS-OP-4553 “Contracting Officer Procurement Authority. The selected samples proved to be quality instructional documents that were current, accurate, concise and informative. Also worthy of note is the LaRC Procurement Outreach site, which basically acts as the procurement organization’s electronic bulletin board geared to the serving the Center’s requirements community.
It was noted that LaRC has a number of Center clauses on the Interim Document Generation System (IDGS). However, with the advent of Contract Management Module (CMM), these Center-unique clauses will become obsolete. Following discussions with HQ Office of Procurement, it was determined that considering the October 30, 2006 “Go live” date for CMM, there is probably no need to address LaRC’s Center unique clauses as an area of concern is this survey report.
STRENGTH:
The LaRC Procurement Office Websites provide a tremendous amount of very useful procurement and procurement related information to its customers. The sites are kept current with useful guidance, best practices and lessons learned. The LMS/OP and Procurement Outreach Websites clearly reflect the LaRC Procurement organization’s commitment to providing quality procurement support to its customers. The LaRC Procurement organization is to be commended for their efforts.
Guidance for preparing pre-negotiation position memorandums (PPMs) is provided in FAR 15.406 and NFS 1815.406. The PPMs reviewed were very thorough and followed the VPO template guidelines. Each memo included a discussion of the technical evaluations, cost/price reports, and DCAA guidance. According to LaRC procedures, all memos over $5M require review by the Pre-negotiation Procurement Review Committee (PPRC). Members of the PPRC include the Procurement Officer, Branch Head, Contracting Officer, Office of Chief Counsel, Pricing, and the Technical Representative. The PPRC reviews the PPM, the proposed contract or modification, technical evaluation, price analysis, and the contract pricing proposal. The PPRC meeting allows for real time discussions of issues between all the key reviewers. The PPRC meeting is summarized in a PPRC Report and included in the contract file.
All files reviewed included a status of the contractor’s systems, if applicable. This was an improvement from the last survey.
2. Post-Negotiation Documentation:
Guidance for documenting the results of the negotiation is provided in FAR 15.406 and NFS 1815.406. The files reviewed contained well-documented post-negotiation Memorandums that were in compliance with the regulations and the VPO template guidelines. Timely certificates of current cost or pricing data were included in the file, if required. It was noted that files contained a statement regarding the contracting officer's reliance on cost or pricing data when such data is obtained for a procurement action. This is an improvement from the last survey.
3. JOFOC’s/Competition Advocacy:
Five noncompetitive contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR 6.3 and NFS 1806.3. Dollar values ranged from $495K to a maximum of $45M. All files reviewed used the statutory authority (c) (1) - only one responsible source as the basis for the sole source action. The contract files contained all of the information required by FAR 6.303-2 and specifically followed the FAR content listing from FAR 6.303-2(a)(1) through (a)(12). Each determination provided sufficient rationale and were reviewed and approved at the appropriate levels to include legal review and the Competition Advocate, when applicable.
All of the JOFOC's were well-documented and contained sufficient rationale to support the sole source and cited the appropriate authority. The JOFOCs reviewed also adequately addressed market research. One file in particular provided a very detailed rationale for the contractor’s unique capabilities. The associated market research was extensively descriptive.
STRENGTH:
The LaRC Procurement organization is commended for the overall excellent quality of the JOFOCs reviewed.
4. Documentation for Awards Resulting from Broad Agency Announcements:
In conducting the Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) review, files were selected that covered the award processes for recent Exploration System BAA’s as well as a slightly older Aeronautics Mission BAA.
Both the solicitation and award files for the BAA’s were reviewed. The files were very well documented and included all necessary supporting documentation. Based on the review it was evident that LaRC’s Procurement staff devotes the same level of attention and thoroughness to executing awards from BAAs (NASA Research Announcements and Announcements of Opportunity) as it does with awards resulting from Requests for Proposals
As required by FAR and NFS 15.404 contract files were reviewed for adequacy of technical evaluation of cost proposals. These files included contracts and contract changes. A review of a technical evaluation for a large competitive procurement indicated that the technical organization has well documented strengths and weaknesses associated with an offeror's technical proposal. The previous 2004 Procurement Survey noted a strength in the improvement of technical evaluations. Conversely, the findings also noted as a consideration that the Procurement Officer should provide more guidance on the use of historical data, price lists or other estimating tools. As a result of this consideration, the survey team found that the Procurement organization did provide additional guidance on the various tools utilized to determine reasonableness of material costs to its workforce. This was accomplished by implementing training for both the technical community and the contracting officers. This focused training resulted in an increase in acceptable technical evaluations and an overall increase in the production within the procurement organization.
STRENGTH:
The Langley procurement organization should be commended for maintaining a proven and effective commitment in the overall quality of technical evaluations. Improvement in communications and training has resulted in the submission of quality technical evaluations, thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the entire procurement organization.
Guidance for preparing a cost/price analysis is provided in FAR 15.4 and NFS 1815.4. At LaRC, cost/price analysis is conducted by price analysts and contract specialists. A review of the cost/price analyses revealed that the reports prepared by the price analysts continue to be very comprehensive, covering all major cost elements, and are very well documented. Cost/Price analysis performed by the contract specialists appears to have improved from the last survey. The files included detailed discussions of Other Direct Costs (ODCs). If additional information was required to fully analyze the ODCs, this information was documented in the file.
Guidance for determining profit or fee objectives and the required use of NF 634 are provided in NFS 1815.404-470 and 1815.404-471. Contract files were reviewed for the appropriate use of and compliance with the requirements for NF 634. One file reviewed included a detailed justification for the selection of the Assigned Weighting, Assigned Value, Weight Range, and Weight Designated percentages. In other files reviewed, the contractor’s proposed fee was lower than the NF 634 recommended fee. In each instance, the lower fee was accepted as fair and reasonable without any discussion regarding the rationale for acceptance of the lower fee rate.
WEAKNESS:
The LaRC Procurement Office is reminded to document the performance risk assessment and rationale for the selection of the Assigned Weighting, Assigned Value, Weight Range, and Weight designated percentages when completing the NF 634 and the corresponding PPM and PNM. [Repeat finding - This was a repeat finding on the 2004 Survey.]
As a follow up to the 2004 LaRC Survey, several contracts and solicitations were reviewed for the use of NFS clause 1852.242-72 Observance of Legal Holidays and LaRC clause 52.227-92 LaRC Advance Review of Technical Information.
a. Observance of Legal Holidays 1852.242-72
The previous survey recommended “that LaRC contracts with onsite contractor personnel be reviewed to ensure that the use of the Observance of Legal Holidays clause conforms to NFS 1842.7002 and PIC 00-07.” Two contracts were reviewed that contained 1852.242-72 Alternate I and Alternate II. In both cases the contracts require the performance of on-site work however the contractors are not allowed work without the presence of a government employee.
b. Advance Review of Technical Information
The previous survey noted a potential conflict between NFS 1852.235-73 Final Scientific and Technical Reports (Feb. 2003) as used with Alternate I or with Alternate II, and LaRC clause 52.227-92 LaRC Advance Review of Technical Information. The survey recommended either revising the LaRC clause or discontinued use. The 2006 survey team found that the LARC clause was revised to Advance Approval for Release of Technical Information (without a clause number). Only one contract reviewed contained the NFS clause with Alternate II and the LaRC clause. In this case, there was not a conflict between the two. The NFS requires the review of data by NASA before it can be released. The LaRC clause defines who reviews the data before its release.
1. Contractor Performance Evaluation:
NFS 1842.1502 requires contracting officers to conduct interim evaluations of performance on contracts within 60 days of every anniversary of the award of a contract having a period of performance exceeding one year. On such contracts, both an interim evaluation covering the current period of performance and a final evaluation summarizing all performance must be conducted. This evaluation is performed through completion of NF 1680, "Evaluation of Performance" in the Past Performance Database.
The survey team reviewed contract files meeting the criteria of FAR 42.15 to determine compliance with the above requirements. In addition to including the NF 1680 in the contract file, Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 01-12, "Contractor Performance Information and Past Performance Data Base (PPDB)" requires that the information on the NF 1680 be entered into NASA's PPDB.
NFS 1842.1501 emphasizes the importance of communications with the contractor. The narratives of the NF 1680 provide specifics and solid evidence of the contractor performance evaluations. These narratives also provide contractors with feedback about their performance. Therefore, it is important that the narratives be detailed and support the ratings received. Most of the NF 1680s reviewed did not include a good narrative to support to the ratings given nor were the narratives entered into the PPDB. Several of the 1680’s had little or no narrative at all to support the ratings given and few actually contained contractor comments. Therefore, these evaluations would not be useful for adequately evaluating past performance. Additionally, there were several evaluations in the PPDB where data was entered, however they were not complete and still lacked signatures. One paper copy of the NF 1680 indicated that the evaluation was a “final” report however, the PPDB incorrectly had that the report was an “interim” evaluation.
The team ran a delinquency report from the PPDB and found a total of 61 contracts that have past due evaluations or incomplete reports in the system.
WEAKNESS:
The Langley procurement organization should ensure that past performance evaluations contain substantive narrative discussions to support the adjective ratings. Further contractor comments should be annotated in the PPDB. [REPEAT FINDING]
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. It is also suggested that Contracting Officers be aggressive and persistent in obtaining past performance information from their COTRs. This will greatly enhance not only the quality of the overall evaluation but also provide the COs rationale for the ratings.
2. COs should comply with the FAR and NFS requirements regarding contractor performance evaluations, including meeting the 60-day lead time for completion of the evaluation and entering the data into the PPDB. Further, COs should enter a summary of award fee evaluation results in the PPDB in a timely manner. To ensure the PPDB contains the most useful qualitative contractor performance information, the LaRC Procurement Officer should emphasize that personnel input at least the executive summary performance narrative information in the PPDB for Award Fee and Incentive Fee contracts.
3. The LaRC Procurement Officer should remind Contracting Officers to routinely review the delinquency report with PPDB as well as perform evaluations in a timely manner in accordance with NFS 1842.1502.
2. Award Fee/ Incentive Fee Evaluation:
The Survey Team reviewed several contract files to ensure that award fee evaluations: (1) were compliant with applicable clauses and regulations, (2) followed the applicable award fee plans, (3) payment metrics were achieved, (4) contained an FDO Determination in file and (4) used metrics in the evaluation whenever possible.
Additionally, a review of Award Term contract files indicated that all evaluations were conducted in compliance with the contract terms and conditions. With the exception of one evaluation period, Award Fee payments for all the periods reviewed were made well within the 60-day time frame required by the NFS. All the files reviewed contained evidence of paid invoices.
All Award Fee files reviewed included the Fee Determination Official (FDO) determinations, Contractor self-evaluations, and appropriate technical, business and Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) reports. The contract files also included an analysis of the monthly financial management reports for the evaluation period, and debriefing charts to the contractor, including the adjective rating score, summary of the provisional payments and available fee for the period.
All PEB reports supported the final fee determination given to the contractor. As a result of a finding from the last procurement survey, the Procurement Officer inserted herself into the review process at an early stage to ensure that final scores and adjectives are consistent with findings. In one of the reports reviewed, the naming of individual contractor personnel was prevalent. In this instance, the report was released to the Contractor.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. In the future, it is recommended that Award Fee Reports refrain from the naming of individual contractor employees. It is not considered value added and in some instances can be detrimental to contractor employee morale.
2. As an overall comment, in the event that funding uncertainties continue, it is recommended that continued emphasis be placed on ensuring that any significantly out of sync contract baselines be updated at appropriate intervals. The cost narratives, in general, contained acknowledgment of funding constraint impacts in the baseline evaluations. A renegotiated baseline can eliminate or limit this type of activity, which can be somewhat imprecise and subjective. While it is acknowledged that this process may be administratively burdensome, an up to date baseline potentially leads to a more accurate cost evaluation during the Award Fee process.
3. Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs):
Contract closeout is conducted in accordance with Center procedure, LMS-OP-4531, Closeout of Procurement Files. Cost reimbursement and fixed price contracts that were transferred to closeout were reviewed. Contracts were processed in accordance with this guidance, and included all of the required forms, NF1612, LF P230 and LF P239. In addition the final past performance evaluation was included in the file. In general, the contracts appeared to be transferred to closeout within the required 60 days. The contract specialists should be commended on providing complete files to close out. Out of 889 contracts sent to closeout in 2006, only 5 were returned to the contract specialist for additional action.
Monthly reports are provided by Brace Management, the closeout contractor, to the cognizant Contracting Officer for closeout. Copies of the monthly reports are provided to the Procurement Officer. The reports and a self assessment are discussed at the quarterly metrics meeting with the Procurement Officer.
From January to July 2006 an average of 152 contracts per month were closed out, which is approximately 13% of the average total number of contracts,1,140.
Contract Management Module (CMM) is scheduled for implementation at Langley in October 2006. The Agency CMM Project established the Center goal requiring resolution of 50% of all outstanding actions before CMM implementation at Langley. To achieve this goal, Langley is forwarding a contract modification that reconciles the award value and funding to match the final amount invoiced to contractors with a request for signature. If the signed modifications are not received within 15 days, they are unilaterally executed, the residual funding is liquidated, and the file is administratively closed. As of late June, Langley had achieved 28% of the goal. To facilitate this push, Brace Management hired two temporary employees to supplement the four permanent employees.
Unliquidated Obligations are no longer tracked at LaRC. As a data point for the survey, the following information was provided:
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| POs/TOs/DOs | $15,346,985* |
| Contracts | $10,971,592 |
| Grants/Coops | $ 2,670,029 |
| Intragovernment | $ 8,879,617 |
| Total ULOs | $37,868,223 |
*3.9M have a period of performance ending in August and may have not yet been invoiced.
The push to close out 50% of the contracts prior to CMM implementation will help to decrease the outstanding ULOs.
4. Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs):
LaRC had no open UCAs during the last Procurement Management Survey. Therefore, no follow-up from the previous survey was required. The current review was limited to validating that recently issued UCAs were definitized in less than 180 days and reviewing current open actions for regulatory compliance.
The bulk of the review was performed by inspecting and validating the monthly NASA Headquarters UCA report. The reports indicated that over the last year, LaRC had a very limited number of UCAs. All were finalized, or expected to be finalized within the 180 day threshold. The Headquarters report indicated that LaRC is reporting and tracking their UCAs.
The Survey Team representative reviewed the most current Headquarters UCA listing of open UCAs to identify open actions. Currently, LaRC has one open UCA that is quickly approaching 180 days. The “Not to Exceed” value for the open action is $4.7M. The Contracting Officer was interviewed and it was determined that LaRC has initiated an aggressive plan and anticipates definitizing the outstanding action no later than August 31, 2006. The file was very well documented, contained a funding profile and all actions required to issue the UCA were compliant with the NASA FAR Supplement.
STRENGTH:
The total number of UCAs at LaRC remains very low, which is commendable given the high volume of activities and contracts at LaRC. The LaRC Procurement Office is commended for aggressively maintaining the low number of UCAs at the Center.
5. Financial Management Reporting:
Contract files were reviewed for compliance with NFS Subpart 1842.72 regarding NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting. All of the contracts met the contract type and dollar thresholds requiring financial management reporting. All of the contracts included NFS clause 1852.242-73 requiring NASA Financial Management Reporting. The clause requires that the detailed reporting categories be set forth in the contract, as well as the number of copies and time and manner of submission. All of the contracts contained data requirements descriptions that covered the required information.
NFS 1842.7201(a)(1) requires contracting officers to monitor contractor cost reports on a regular basis to ensure cost data reported is accurate and timely, and to pursue adverse trends and discrepancies discovered in cost reports through discussions with financial and project team members. The contracting officers for all contracts were reviewing and analyzing the NF533 reports as required, and all were documenting their review in the files to some extent. This documentation appeared in varying forms from the most basic contracting officer’s initials on the NF533 report, to a 533 review checklist. All reviewed files contained follow-up documentation pertaining to the resolution of reporting issues, generally in the form of e-mail and written notes. The documentation in the files provides evidence of a concerted effort between the contracting officers and the cost/financial analyst, as well as the contractor, to resolve issues effectively, in a timely manner.
STRENGTH:
The Langley procurement organization is commended for the good working relationship between the cost/financial analysts and the COs. This appears to benefit both parties, as well as the contractor.
6. Competition under Multiple Award Task and Delivery Order Contracts:
The survey team reviewed a sample of contracts where multiple awards were made in accordance with FAR Part 16.505. Task Order/Delivery Order contracts were reviewed to verify that the contracting officers ensured that each awardee was given a fair opportunity for consideration on multiple award procedures. In addition, Task Orders were reviewed for compliance with PIC 00-24 - Performance Based Task and Delivery Order Contracts. The PIC discusses task/delivery order placement and compliance with contract requirements. Some of the files reviewed utilized a Justification for Exception to the Fair Opportunity Process for delivery orders. The justifications were well documented and showed reasonable cause for the exception. In cases were the justification was not utilized; there was evidence of attempted solicitations. In all cases the survey team found the files well documented and determinations made in the best interest of the Government.
7. Options to Extend Performance:
The review of options focused on the presence of an executed Determination and the required documentation required by FAR 17.207 (Exercise of Options) and NFS 1817.207 (Exercise of Options). The review team also checked for written notification of intent to exercise an option to the Contractor within the specified time in the contract. Additionally, time lines were reviewed to ensure that the Determinations were made well in advance to ensure that adequate time is allowed to properly exercise the option and that doing so really is in the best interest of the Government.
One file in particular contained all the required information in the Determination and was in the proper format. There was a Memorandum for Record that stated a requirement to waive written notification to the contractor was obtained however, the memo was not dated nor was there any evidence of the Contractor agreeing to this issue. Additionally, the resulting modification to exercise the option did not identify or spell out the period of performance/extending the performance period for the exercised option. This same contract file contained two other Memos for Record that justified use of options in the solicitation but again these memos were not dated.
The remaining Determinations reviewed were in the proper format, were very thorough and included all required information in accordance with FAR 17.207. Further, a good number of the determinations were executed in sufficient time to conduct a competition if the determination had resulted in a finding that the exercise of the option was not the most advantageous means of meeting the Government’s requirement.
The team found that LaRC is consistent in providing timely written notification to the contractor within the specified time in the contract. One file reviewed indicated that an option was exercised earlier via a bi-lateral modification in order to facilitate incremental funding of the balance of the FY06 appropriated funds. This shows responsible planning and good stewardship of government funds. All remaining files reviewed indicated that adequate funding was available.
One Determination in a file reviewed was not signed by the Contracting Officer or any other official. Written notification to the contractor of the intent to exercise all remaining options was sent (along with a request to acknowledge receipt of such notice) however, the contractor has yet to respond. Within four days, the CO issued a unilateral modification to exercise all remaining options and extend the period of performance into March 2008. Although the CO has the authority to take this action, in the reviewer’s opinion the Determination should have included a statement from the CO of the intention to press forward with the action of issuing a unilateral modification. Additionally, the Determination stated that the COTR provided justification to exercise the option since the scope of the contract remained unchanged however, the file did not contain any type of written justification from the COTR.
The majority of files included statements within the Determinations that verified contractor past performance was taken into consideration when exercising the options however they did not specifically mention checking the Past Performance Database (PPDB).
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. It is suggested that Contracting Officers make sure Memoranda for Files are properly dated and signed. Additionally, contracting staff should ensure that modifications to exercise options and extend the terms of the contract clearly identify which option is being exercised and state the new period of performance.
2. With reference to contractor past performance, Contracting Officers should state in the Determination (or in the file) that the past performance evaluations were reviewed and obtained written confirmation from their COTRs that validates acceptable past performance in order to justify exercising the contract option.
3.It is suggested that LaRC consider implementing a Center Procedure for Option Exercises as a means of: 1) assisting LaRC’s Procurement Staff to ensure compliance with NFS 1817.207-70 and the VPO Option Exercise Determination Template and 2) provide LaRC Center Management leverage that should help the Procurement Office receive the necessary level of attention and input from the program offices and technical representatives.
8. Contractor Insurance Pension Reviews:
The lack of an adequate CIPR process is an area where LaRC received a “weakness” during the last Procurement Management Survey. It is noted that not much more than one month after the LaRC survey was completed, PIC 00-23 (which was the only CIPR agency guidance at the time) was cancelled.
Since the last survey, the LaRC procurement organization has implemented the new Headquarters guidance that incorporates CIPR’s into the PNM Template (currently on the VPO Website). The LaRC Procurement Officer has reminded the staff of the requirement and stressed use of the template during “All Hands” meetings and in email messages.
The issue of CIPRs is sure to gain added attention with the President’s recent execution of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. In consideration of this new development (and the emphasis the Assistant Administrator of Procurement has continually placed on this issue since the first IG Report in 2000), action at the Headquarters Office of Procurement appears necessary.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. T he HQ Office of Procurement should consider establishing a more thorough and detailed CIPR process than is currently provided by the PNM Template. For example, another PIC or Procurement Notice leading to a permanent NFS change may be more effective and help ensure proper standards established and maintained throughout the agency.
2. It is noted that the key point of contact in determining the need for and tracking the CIPRs is the Administrative Contracting Officer. Contract administration functions are typically conducted in-house within NASA. In these instances LaRC (and all other Centers in the same situation) should remind contracting officers of their responsibilities to perform the ACO CIPR duties including initiating and coordinating any assistance required from the Defense Logistics Agency or DCAA.
3. LaRC’s Procurement organization should establish a method to track the performance of CIPRs and the proper file documentation. The issue of ensuring that these duties are performed adequately may be particularly important where the ACO responsibilities are retained in-house.
9. Government Furnished Property:
A number of contract files were reviewed for compliance with regulations and procedures applicable to providing Government property to contractors. The review focused specifically upon use of appropriate property clauses, reviews (as applicable) by the Supply and Equipment Management Officer (SEMO), and execution (as applicable) of a Determination and Findings (D&F) required under FAR 45.302-1(a)(4) and NFS 1845.302-71(a) for providing use of Government Facilities.
All files reviewed contained the appropriate clauses and SEMO review, when applicable. In cases where property clauses were not included in the basic contract, the files were appropriately documented and modifications were executed when property was subsequently added.
Other files reviewed included modifications that added the GFP clauses and associated list of Government Furnished Property. One file included full details on the purpose, requirement and reasoning for adding the GFP in the Pre-negotiation Position Memorandum. This resulted in a modification to the contract. The appropriate delegations were clearly detailed and included special instructions for Property Administration when required. All forms possessed appropriate signatures by NASA contracting officers and DCMA points of contact.
10. Safety and Health Requirements:
Contracts were reviewed to verify compliance with NASA FAR Supplement 1852.223-73, items relating to Safety and Health plans, and the proper evaluation of Safety and Health in source evaluation and performance evaluation processes. All of the contracts reviewed shall contain either NFS 1852.223-70 Safety and Health or NFS 1852.223-72 Safety and Health (Short Form) depending upon the input received from the technical organization and the safety organization. NFS 1852.223-75 Major Breach of Safety or Security shall be included in solicitations valued in excess of $500,000
All of the files reviewed contained one of the required safety and health clauses. Evidence that the safety plans were reviewed by Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) personnel was not documented in the files. Information in the files indicated that each Safety & Health plan is specific to the requirements of the contract.
Interviews were conducted with the S&MA personnel to verify that existing procedures and processes were followed and that S&MA personnel were involved in the source evaluation process and safety plan approval. This included ensuring that the safety plans are appropriately reviewed and meet any unique requirements applicable to a specific contract. In both the source evaluation process and the performance evaluation processes, historical safety indicators such as Experience Modifier Rates, OSHA recordable metrics and industry safety indicators are considered. Additionally, an S&MA representative has been established as a point of contact to ensure a consistent means of communication between procurement and S&MA personnel.
CONSIDERATION:
In all cases the files reviewed did not contain evidence of S&MA approval. The LaRC Procurement organization should ensure that S&MA approval documentation is maintained in files that require Safety Plans.
NASA Procurement Information Circular 00-06 provides guidance on contract administration and audit support services provided by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). NFS Part 1842.73 Audit Tracking and Resolution implements OMB Circulars A-50 and A-133 that requires NASA contracting officers to resolve reportable audit issues in a timely manner. The criteria for reportable audits includes: (1) management control issues and/or (2) $10,000 or more in questioned costs. The 2004 Langley Procurement Survey found that contract files reviewed included no evidence that the contracting officer had supplied DCAA with either a copy of the negotiation memorandum or the contract. Upon review by the survey team, only two reportable audits had been generated. Both were closed in 2005. One of the reports resulted in a net return to the government of $95,000. There were no new reportable audits requiring action to date. Langley has created a single point of contact for the DCAA and DCMA reportable audits. The point of contact is responsible for tracking and inputting reports into the NASA Contract Audit Tracking System II (CATSII).
STRENGTH:
The Procurement Office should be commended for not only addressing a prior finding but additionally developing a point of contact to ensure the requirements of the FAR are addressed in a timely manner.
The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) authorizes contracting officers to appoint qualified Government employees to act as their representative in managing the technical aspects of particular service contracts. The NASA Form 1634, “Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Delegation”, is used to appoint COTRs. Each COTR must acknowledge receipt of the 1634 and accept the delegation by signing the original documents which are then maintained in the contract file. There is no local procedure to outline the process.
Several contract files were reviewed for appropriate file documentation in accordance with NFS 1842.270. In most cases the appropriate delegations forms were properly executed, signed and maintained in the contract files. However, several files contained less than adequate documentation. For instance, several files had the delegation letter signed by only the Contracting Officer, while some files failed to have the 1634 forms signed at all. Two files had the COTR and Alternate COTR appointed on the same form. NFS requires a separate delegation for each COTR and Alternate COTR performing on the contract. Some files failed to have the LaRC local nomination form from the technical community to identify and request appointment of the COTR. Other files had copies of unsigned delegations. NFS states that the COTR “accept” the delegation by signing the official delegation letter.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. LaRC Procurement Office should ensure that all COTR delegations be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Only the NFS required signed documentation should be included in the official contract file. All draft or unsigned material should be removed from the file and discarded.
2. All COTR and alternate COTR delegations should be separately executed and included in the file.
3. LaRC has implemented the use of a local form for the technical community to nominate COTRs and Alternate COTR. This form should be used for all delegations to promote consistency.
1. Grants and Cooperative Agreements:
The Langley procurement organization – Research & Projects Contracting Branch has approximately 259 grants and cooperative agreements listed as “active” with approximately 73 awards in FY05 and approximately 63 awards in FY06. These awards ranged in dollar value from $5,000 to $69 million, and include awards to universities, non-profits, and commercial firms. Approximately 60 of the 259 active grants and cooperative agreements expired during FY04 and FY05 however they have not yet been closed out. The Survey Team reviewed several files to determine compliance with the provisions of the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook.
The Grants/Cooperative Agreements support, which includes award documentation preparation, administration and close-out preparation, is outsourced to Tessada & Associates under a firm-fixed price task order. There are 1 full-time and 2 part-time contractor employees working under this task order. The files reviewed contained very thorough proposal cost analysis and related documentation. The Langley procurement organization tracks grant lead-time among its customer satisfaction procurement metrics. The established grant lead-time in the Tessada task order contains a 60 day goal from purchase request receipt to award. Both the Grants Officer and the Tessada contractor continue to meet their established lead-times well in advance of the 60-day goal.
A Cooperative Agreement with a commercial firm was reviewed. There is good monitoring of the Annual Performance Plan and each individual technical requirement to determine the appropriateness of whether to use a cooperative agreement or the existing IDIQ contract for similar work. The cooperative agreement includes cost sharing, which is tracked and verified by the Contracting Officer.
CONSIDERATION:
The Procurement Officer should consider placing emphasis on closing out the approximately 60 expired grants and cooperative agreements from previous fiscal years (FY04 and FY05).
The review of simplified/commercial item acquisitions covered a broad range of topics to include file documentation, adherence to publication requirements, price reasonableness, and sole source justification and approvals. The overall quality of the reviewed files was adequate and appears to have improved over previous surveys and internal self assessments.
All files contained the appropriate center unique file documentation forms in accordance with Center procedures (LF P323/334, and LF P333). Most forms were filled out completely and accurately. Most files were organized in a manor consistent with the checklist (P323/334). Only one reviewed file contained tabs for easy reference. Miscellaneous documentation including FPDS entry, EPLS, CCR, and SAP display screens were consistently present, though not consistently placed in the file.
The review of invoices revealed a significant departure from current Office of Procurement Organizational Procedures document LMS-OP-4529, Revision D-2. In only one instance was the invoice approved by the contracting officer per the requirements at LMS-OP-4529, Revision D-2. In this single instance of a contracting officer approved invoice for progress payments there is no evidence of COTR concurrence. In less than half of the reviewed files was the invoice(s) approved by the Technical point of contact, the End User, or COTR.
The acquisitions were publicized where required and a post award synopsis was posted in all but one instance.
In all cases a determination of price reasonableness was indicated on the appropriate form (LF P333). Where competition is present this determination is unnecessary as indicated on the form. In some cases price reasonableness was based on prior purchase of the same or similar items. In at least one file the prior purchase determination was insufficient to justify that a fair and reasonable price was being obtained for the government. Where applicable the sole source justification was present in the file and approved by the contracting officer or higher authority per the organizational procedures document LMS-OP-4537, Revision M.
WEAKNESS:
The Langley procurement organization should take immediate action to ensure the proper routing and approval of invoices.
CONSIDERATION:
While price reasonableness determinations are generally acceptable, Contract Specialists should take additional steps, where necessary, to document that the government is receiving items at a "fair and reasonable" price.
The team reviewed nine Interagency Agreements (IA’s) during this survey. It was discovered that four of the nine IA’s were incorrectly titled on the list of active contracts. In each case the misidentified IA’s were listed as awarded to the Navy Research Lab. The applicable IA’s should be correctly identified on the open contracts list. (NNL05AA22I should be Air Force Research Lab, NNL05AA24I should be Air Force Research Lab, NNL05AA25I should be FAA/DOT, and NNL05AA37I should be FAA/DOT.
In general the files were well maintained and provided detailed documentation. However, a couple of the files were missing Tabs. Each of the files reviewed included the required Determination and Findings document supporting the rationale determining that the IA was the best business decision and was awarded in the Government’s best interests. Appropriate Determinations and Findings were present when the unique role of the Servicing Agency and the agency’s inherent responsibilities was a major factor in awarding the IA rather than awarding a NASA contract (e.g., FAA IA’s). Each IA file cited the Economy Act, and provided the proper statement that the IA was entered into under the authority of National Aeronautics and Space Act.
Two IA’s were awarded after the implementation of Procurement Notice (PN) 04-10, “Interagency Acquisitions with Civilian Agencies” dated December 15, 2005. The PN was incorporated into the NASA FAR Supplement under 1817.70. The IA’s entered into after the applicable date appeared to be in compliance with the revised guidelines except the D&F of one of the IA’s did not reflect review by Legal Counsel. (The D&F had a space provided for Legal Counsel’s signature but it was not signed, the other applicable D&F included Legal Counsel’s signature in the space provided).
In two instances, it appeared that the LaRC Procurement organization was seeking a creative means to award an Earmark (non-competitively) to a private company. Understanding the nature of Earmarks, it is likely that applying competitive award methods was not an option. In this case, it appeared that the servicing agency awarded the procurement document based on NASA’s award of the IA (even though the D&F indicated that the servicing agency had a “contract” in place prior to award of the IA.) File documentation contained a copy of the Congressional language directing the use of the funds, but not the recipient of the funding. Given this situation, LaRC’s utilization of an Air Force IA seems a reasonable approach.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Several IA’s were awarded based upon the directions of Earmarked funding language. As a means of protecting the Center and the integrity of the procurement process it is suggested that the Congressional Language be included in the file verbatim. There are cases where the Congressional Language may only state the intended use of the Earmarked funds but not the anticipated recipient. In these instances the Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) provides direction to the Contract Specialist (usually by email) to award to a specific recipient, this direction (e.g., email) should be included in the file.
2. One of the points stressed in the revised NFS language at 1817.7005-2(g) on IA’s is that Data Rights must be addressed. There are occasions where LaRC, awards IA’s to agencies that do not use the FAR. The D&F’s for these IA’s must be submitted to HQ Office of Procurement for approval. With the focus on Data Rights, it is suggested that LaRC (as well as other Centers when applicable), ensure that the contract used by the Servicing Agency has the necessary level of Data Rights prior to committing to award of the IA. The D&F forwarded for HQ signature should include a statement that this action has been taken.
3. It is suggested that IA’s include language encouraged by FAR 17.504(c) for agencies to specify the procedures for resolution of disagreements. This language is particularly necessary where the user agency is relying upon an existing service agency contract. For example, a dispute between the service agency and its contractor, or performance issues that arise with the service agency’s contractor creates a dispute between the user agency and service agency. Issues such as; 1) the level of review to settle the dispute or 2) the limits of any remedies for the user agency should be addressed in advance.
Several changes have occurred since the last survey in both the LaRC Purchase Card (P-Card) Program and the Agency Lead Program Coordinator role. LaRC personnel were performing the Agency Lead Program Coordinator function, as well as the Contracting Officer role on the GSA SmartPay Task Order. However, as of March 1, 2006 the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) assumed responsibility for these duties. Additionally, the Primary Center/Organization Program Coordinator (CAPC) for LaRC, who also served as Alternate Agency Lead Program Coordinator, retired in March 2006. Currently, there are 402 active cardholders in the LaRC Purchase Card Program and 126 Approving Officials; this equates to a 1:3 ratio of Approving Officials to Cardholders.
As a result of the recent changes, LaRC recruited and successfully promoted the prior LaRC Alternate CAPC to Primary CAPC. LaRC has also appointed a new Alternate CAPC. The new Alternate CAPC has only been in the position for a few months and has very limited exposure to the program due to other priorities. However, she was assured that her level of participation will increase significantly after fiscal year end 2006. The CAPC conducts training, obtains cards, issues cards, audits transactions, performs monthly reconciliation for the center and is readily available to program users to discuss problems, provide guidance and provide clarification on a variety of issues.
Each card holder is required to complete and pass two SATERN on-line based agency-wide P-Card training courses and provide certificates as proof of completion prior to issuance of a purchase card. The training includes P-Card purchasing rules and regulations and how to navigate the P-Card Electronic System used to capture ordering information. Additionally, approving officials must also complete the required on-line training and provide printed certificates before approving any transactions.
Once the mandatory training is completed, a delegation of authority letter is issued from the Procurement Officer which includes the single purchase limit and the monthly purchase limit for cardholders, as well as depicts the specific roles of an approving official.
Training certificates are maintained with the Procurement Officer delegation of authority letter in the individual's P-Card file, along with other pertinent information related to the program. The CAPC maintains a master database style spreadsheet to track current cardholders and approving officials. LaRC ensures that employees complete refresher training every three years. The CAPC is able to monitor the database to determine when refresher training is due.
LaRC continues to monitor purchases on a monthly basis. Additionally desk audits are performed on a semi-annual basis which includes a full desk audit of at least 10 cardholders to ensure compliance with procedures and regulations. A checklist of potentially improper practices is maintained and the CAPC audits the cardholder to determine the nature of any non-compliance issues. LaRC policy for purchase cards LMS-CP-4540 is continually updated to remain current and reflect policy shifts that affect the program.
The purchase card manager maintains a record of each cardholder’s designation, credit and purchase limitations, purchase card training, and any changes to the cardholder’s limitations. Over the past three years 6 purchase cards were confiscated. Corrective actions were taken to resolve the issues. Three of these incidents were referred to the NASA Office of Inspector General, and three cards were cancelled as soon as the misuse was detected.
Purchase cards from individuals who retire, move to another job, etc. are identified via LaRC clearance sheets, their cards or duties are rescinded and the cards are destroyed. Also, when an individual moves to another Center organization, the CAPC along with that individual’s new management, makes a determination regarding the need for the cardholder to possess a purchase card in that new organization. If the card is not needed in the new organization, then it is surrendered to the CAPC, deactivated and the individual is relieved of P-Card duties. If it is determined that the new organization requires the individual to remain a cardholder, a new delegation letter is prepared and signed by the Procurement Officer indicating any changes in spending limits, as well as identifying the new approving official.
The CAPC maintains an active “Offense List” for quick reference of individuals that misuse their card for whatever reason. The CAPC also maintains a “Closed List” to indicate cardholders who no longer have cards and accounts have been closed. Both of these controls minimize the risk of repeated misuse within the purchase card program. Misuse is dealt with immediately by deactivating the cardholders account and/or possibly having the cardholder repay the Government depending on the misuse. If there is a need for the cardholder to continue making purchases, they must receive new training. Otherwise, the account is cancelled. Misuse infractions are immediately referred to the Approving Official for support in remedying the problem, determining if there is a continued need for the cardholder to possess a card and to ensure repeated misuse does not occur.
STRENGTH:
LaRC continues to provide excellent support to the program. The survey team reviewed all of the current policies, procedures, and numerous records regarding the LaRC purchase card program and found it to be extremely well managed, well documented, and well reported by the CAPC. LaRC provides an outstanding website providing extensive information such as the user’s guide, online refresher presentation, and instructions on specific bankcard issues, responsibilities and other areas. Interviews with cardholders and approving officials all expressed great satisfaction with the level of service provided by the CAPC.
Convenience check users are limited to warranted Contracting Officers within the procurement organization and those individuals act within the scope of their warrant. LaRC utilizes convenience checks for specific purchases as authorized only when in a sole source scenario and the vendor does not accept a purchase card. Bank of America charges a straight fee to LaRC which equates 1.9% of the purchase price for maintenance of the convenience check account. The convenience check owners must maintain a convenience check log which contains the convenience check number, date issued, and payee, description of purchase, amount and account fee (1.9%). The checks are used to pay for requirements up to $25,000. An interview with one of the three cardholders authorized to utilize convenience checks revealed that all policies and procedures are being followed in an appropriate manner.
Review of the LaRC Self Assessment process revealed the implementation of a very methodical and thorough process. LaRC performs Quarterly Self Assessments (while the Self Assessment Guide sets the minimum at semi-annual reviews). The LaRC topic selection and assessment process was examined. The two assessments covering the period of October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006 included topic areas identified in the Assistant Administrator for Procurement’s letter dated March 2, 2006. In that letter Headquarters identified those areas that required continued emphasis in the Center Self Assessments.
LaRC has a very active Internal Assessment process that serves to identify areas that may need improvement and/or special attention. In addition to addressing topic areas identified by the HQ Office of Procurement, t he LaRC Procurement organization identifies topics based on results from its internal Quarterly Metrics Reviews. During the Quarterly Review the Self Assessment is just one of the areas that are reported and progress is assessed (i.e., items reviewed on the Internal Report Card). After each review is complete a Self-Assessment Action Items chart is created. The chart is distributed at each Quarterly Metrics meeting and updated accordingly.
The LaRC Internal Self Assessment process can be summarized by the following steps:
STRENGTH:
LaRC’s Procurement Staff is commended for their efforts in developing and maintaining an effective Self Assessment program geared to identifying areas that need improvement, and maintaining an effective process to reach resolution of problem areas.
A very limited number of construction contracts were available for review. This was primarily a result of the utilization of the Research, Operations, Maintenance and Engineering (ROME) contract for the vast majority of the construction effort at the Center. The review basically focused on the pre-award and post award phases. The team ensured that the contracts contained the correct FAR and NASA FAR Supplement clauses. All of the contracts reviewed contained the appropriate clauses. As prescribed in FAR 32.111(a) (5), the contracts were also reviewed to ensure compliance with FAR 52.232-5 and PIC 00-10. This clause lists specific information that must be submitted as part of a contractor’s request for progress payments, including supporting data listed in paragraph (b)(1). All of the construction progress payment invoices reviewed included supporting documentation. The information contained on the vouchers for payments was sufficient for analysis of the reasonableness and accuracy of requested payments. Contracting Officers did ensure that the work was completed prior to approving invoices for payment.
All contracts reviewed except one contained one or more of the following environmental clauses: 52.223-3 Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data, 52.223-5 Pollution Prevention and Right to Know Information, 52.223-9 Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products, 52.223-10 Waste Reduction Program, and 52.223-11 Ozone Depleting Substances, and 52.223-12 Refrigeration Equipment and Air Conditioners.
PIC 01-27 Applicability of Affirmative Procurement, requires that FAR 52.223-4 Recovered Material Certification and FAR 52.223-9 should be included in the contract when FAR 52.223-10 Waste Reduction Program is present in support services contracts for the operation of Government owned or leased facilities or for support services at Government owned or leased facilities. The files reviewed contained the appropriate clauses.
In the files reviewed requiring the submission of DD250 Forms Material Inspection and Receiving Reports, the reports were submitted with each delivery as required by the contract. In the facility grants reviewed, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Checklist and NEPA requirements were included in the file. The Langley Form (LF) P336 Environmental & Affirmative Procurement Considerations document and the NEPA Checklist and Environmental Evaluations were included in some of the files reviewed and not included in others where they appeared to be required.
LaRC appears to be keeping current with their Center NASA Environmental Tracking System (NETS) entries and reporting requirements.
The LaRC Environmental Management Team has a website that assists the purchase requestors in satisfying environmental requirements. Topics include Environmental Program Information such as Recycling and Affirmative Procurement Programs, Pollution Prevention Information, Air Pollution Management Program, Waste Management Program, Environmental Program Metrics, and Water Management Program. The website also includes Chemical Material Tracking On-Line System, LaRC Form 44 Hazardous Material Purchase Approval.
STRENGTH:
The LaRC Environmental Management Team website is a very useful tool for disseminating information on environmental information, metrics, and resource material.
CONSIDERATION:
The Procurement Officer should ensure that the Langley Form (LF) P336 Environmental & Affirmative Procurement Considerations, the NEPA Environmental Checklists and the Environmental Evaluations are included in all applicable files.
9. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Awards:
The review of the SBIR/STTR files included examples from each category of the programs, both Phase-I and II. The Master Files for the SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II awards were also reviewed. The files were reviewed to determine their compliance with FAR/NFS, the NASA SBIR/STTR Handbook. The review indicated that overall, the Langley SBIR/STTR awards were well managed.
All SBIR/STTR purchase orders/contracts were awarded on or before the date specified in the electronic SBIR/STTR Handbook. All SBIR/STTR Phase I and II files reviewed referenced the Master Files for further documentation and the Master File documentation was complete. All Phase-II files reviewed included a NASA Langley Form P115, "Determination of Responsibility" signed by the contracting officer. The Phase-I Purchase Orders included the Langley Form P333, “Award Decision Determination” which included a determination of responsibility, Section D, and an attachment thereto. All files reviewed were in compliance with the requirements for contract length and value. All SBIR/STTR awards reviewed appeared to comply with the limitation on subcontracting requirements. All SBIR/STTR awards reviewed contained an adequate technical evaluation and the appropriate Representations and Certifications. SBIR/STTR awards included the clause at FAR 52.227-20 "Rights in Data - SBIR Program. All reviewed files contained evidence of entry into the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).
Phase-I files (SBIR/STTR) contained adequate documentation of price reasonableness and budget justifications. All other documentation typically required for purchases of this magnitude was present. Note: In light of the significant documentation, inclusion of all required clauses and instructions to SBIR Phase-I contractors, and detailed analysis of costs, it is unclear that the use of a simplified acquisition (purchase/delivery order) approach resulted in a more streamlined process for Phase-I SBIR awards.
Phase-II files (SBIR/STTR) included a detailed pre-negotiation memorandum documenting all aspects of the pre-award evaluation of the contractor’s proposal. Separate pricing reports for validation of rates and other cost factors were evident in the files where available. Where pricing reports were not available the file contained evidence of research and comparison of available current and historical information to adequately justify the different elements of cost. Awards meeting the criteria of NFS 1815.404-4, (Profit) included a signed NF 634, "Structured Approach Profit/Fee Objective".
The Langley Procurement organization’s Organizational Unit Plan contains certain objectives that require the collection of a variety of data to help ensure that the organization delivers the best value product or service to customers on a timely basis. Data is collected, reviewed and reported to the Procurement Officer and managers for action or resolution. The office maintains a Procurement Metrics Report Card that lists the primary data requirements collected with a stop light chart reflecting the level of progress.
The procurement managers meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the status of the metrics and any necessary actions. Actions are assigned to the responsible managers and progress is tracked for completion status. The data discussed during these meetings are divided into four main categories, Employees, Customer Satisfaction, Socio-Economic Goals and Quality. Metrics are collected in other areas and provided to the Procurement Officer and/or displayed in chart format in the organization’s primary conference room. A comprehensive folder is maintained with copies of all current metrics collected by the office, a separate folder is maintained for all discontinued metrics reports.
The following categories of data are included in the Office Metrics folder: Workload; Personnel Data; Lead Times; Competition; Socio-Economic Goals; Award Fee Data; Contract Close-out Data; and Economic Impact Data. This information is provided in the form of spreadsheets and/or graph charts to highlight status. A brief description of the data collected in the various categories follows:
Workload Data – New procurement awards by fiscal year; contract status; grant/cooperative agreement status; purchase order status; intra-governmental order status; overdue deliveries; total obligations; quarterly incremental funding actions; purchase request status.
Personnel Data - Number of employees by fiscal year; grades over time by series; Agency high grades.
Lead Time Data – Simplified acquisitions; Federal Supply Schedule and delivery order actions; grants and cooperative agreements; competitive and non-competitive commercial items; commercial items.
Competition Data – competition summary report; obligations; actions.
Socio-Economic Goals – Center goals; goals versus actuals; goal accomplishment trends.
Award Fee Data – contracts and timelines; fee payment timeliness.
Contract close-out Data – Monthly summary
Economic impact Data – Distribution of procurements by type of business; distribution of small business awards; awards to educational and non-profit institutions; awards to Virginia firms; geographical distribution summary; total obligations by state; top 25 contractors; top 10 Langley contractors.
The Office maintains a complete listing of all data requirements collected that includes a brief description of the information collected, schedules and/or report due dates, primary points of contact and distribution instructions.
STRENGTH:
The Langley Procurement organization is to be commended on the commitment to the collection of data to use as a tool to ensure that the organization is functioning effectively and meeting customer’s needs in a timely and efficient manner. Not only is the data being collected but procurement managers meet regularly to discuss the information gathered and actively work to resolve open issues as they arise.
The Langley Research Center (LaRC) has the following Mission Statement:
“Langley Research Center Pioneers the Future in Space Exploration, Scientific Discovery, and Aeronautics Through Research and Development of Technology, Scientific Instruments, and Exploration Systems.”
LaRC’s cutting-edge research activities are supported by high-tech small and small disadvantaged businesses, whose contributions have often made possible major advancements in the field. Approximately $478M of the Center’s FY 2005 procurement budget was awarded to small and small disadvantaged businesses. The LaRC Small Business Specialist (SBS) ensures that small businesses are provided maximum opportunity to compete for and participate in the Agency’s business initiatives. This section discusses key elements of LaRC’s Small Business Program and the factors associated with its assigned socioeconomic goals.
LaRC’s Procurement organization was reorganized in July, 2005. The major factor leading to the restructure was an erosion in the LaRC business base resulting from budgetary constraints. The restructured organization is now comprised of three separate branches: Business Management Branch, Center Operations Contracting Branch, and Research and Projects Contracting Branch. At LaRC, the Small Business program resides in the Small Business Office, which is organizationally part of the Business Management Branch. The Small Business Specialist and his backup (for purposes of ease, the singular use of the term Small Business Specialist refers to the primary and backup personnel) report directly to the Head of the Business Management Branch and their primary responsibilities center on the day-to-day operation of the small and small disadvantaged business program. As such, he is responsible for reviewing purchase requirements for placement into the Small Business Program, evaluating subcontracting plans, providing counseling and outreach, implementing NPD 5000.2A procedures, ensuring timely subcontract reporting, resolving compliance issues, participating in procurement planning, and enhancing the program to make it more responsive to constituent needs. The LaRC Procurement organization has also instituted a process ”Small Business Involvement in Procurement – LMS-OP-4507, Rev. D” that fully details the acquisition strategy process as it relates to involvement of small, small disadvantaged, small women owned, small veteran-owned and HUBZone small business or minority institutions. This process document is updated on an as needed basis. In addition to his Small Business Specialist duties, the Small Business Specialist also provides some minor oversight of the Center Contract Closeout function. The backup Small Business Specialist also oversees the Labor Relations activities for the Center.
2. Industry Assistance Priorities:
The LaRC Small Business Specialist is charged with conducting all aspects of the Socioeconomic Program, as directed by regulation and the Assistant Administrator for NASA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. Programmatic priorities include (1) counseling both large and small firms wanting to do business with LaRC 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 1990, in its effort to facilitate closer relationships and better communication among LaRC prime contractors and provide a forum for exchanging ideas and discussing issues and concerns, the LaRC Contractor Steering Council was established. This Steering Council is co-chaired by one NASA and one Contractor representative and consists of LaRC Small/Large Businesses that meet on a monthly basis to discuss and resolve problems that arise in the execution of their contracts and to share Best Practices and Lessons Learned. The Council is also kept apprised of Agency priorities, that it may be more responsive to Agency needs and also, to disseminate that information to its own constituent base. In particular, the LaRC Small Business Specialist is an extremely active member in the Small Business SDB, a Subgroup to the council in which small business specific issues are discussed.
The strong working relationship between the Small Business Specialist and the Program Managers of the Center’s large prime contractors goes a long way towards ensuring that LaRC socioeconomic goals are achieved. The Program Manager for SAIC, for example, who actively participates on the LaRC Contractor Steering Council and who also functions as the company’s Small Business Liaison Officer at the Center, has historically been an active participant in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program. In fact, SAIC’s Mentor- Protégé relationship with their protégé Analytical Services and Materials (AS&M) is so outstanding that the two companies are currently teamed in a Small Business set-aside competition with an estimated value of $120M.
3. Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals:
| FY 2003 Goals | FY 2003 Actual |
FY 2004 Goals | FY 2004 Actual |
FY 2005 Goals | FY 2005 Actual |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obligations (in $M) |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
| SB | 120.0.M |
136.9M |
130.0M |
137.0M |
90.0M |
117.3M |
| SDB - 8(a) | 28.0M |
30.1M |
30.0M |
34.9M |
20.0M |
29.1M |
| SDB - Non 8(a) | 7.0M |
8.5M |
8.0M |
9.3M |
5.0M |
13.8M |
| WOSB | 12.0M |
14.2M |
8.0M |
13.1M |
5.0M |
7.9M |
| HUBZone | 1.5M |
1.59M |
3.0M |
4.09M |
3.0M |
0.58M |
| SDVSB | 11.0M |
21.0M |
11.0M |
15.2M |
7.0M |
17.0M |
LaRC exceeded most of its small business prime contractor socioeconomic goals for FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005, in most instances substantially so. The shortfall noted above was due, in large part, to the difficulty of finding HUBZone businesses that possessed the qualifications necessary to accomplish the required work.
LaRC reports one instance of bundling that occurred in Fiscal Year 2003. The Research, Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering (ROME) contract received all required approvals prior to award.
The LaRC Small Business Office’s objective is to be actively involved in reviewing solicitations prior to release, working closely with contracting representatives to determine the status--e.g., Small Business Set-Aside or Full and Open--of upcoming procurements. Interviews with the Small Business Specialist, the SBA Procurement Center Representative, Contracting Officers, and Procurement Management indicate that involvement by the Small Business office is proactive, positive, and well planned.
2. Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Goals:
NASA Policy Directive 5000.2A is used to establish a uniform method for determining the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goals to be included in large business solicitations of more than $50M. The goals established are locked in and when the contract is awarded, tracked every six months as well as cumulatively. In addition, reports that contain information pertaining to the NPD 5000.2A activity, such as the number of times the NPD was used in each reporting period, are submitted to the OSDBU twice yearly.
The LaRC Small Business Office reports that the NPD was used five times over the three years in this reporting period--FY2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005. Goals were developed and are currently being monitored.
3. SBA Procurement Center Representative:
The SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR) for LaRC has purview over multiple organizations in addition to NASA, including Naval Facilities, The Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Eustis, and Langley Air Force Base. The PCR resides at the NASA Langley facility while providing oversight to the other customers.
The PCR’s primary function is to obtain more business opportunities for small businesses, she provides LaRC’s Small Business Specialist the support and assistance necessary to establish a cooperative working relationship between the Center and its small business partners. She also reviews the Small Business Specialist’s market research prior to concurring on the final decision regarding contract type--Full-and-Open competition or Small Business Set-Aside--and upon request will suggest a number of small companies that are qualified to do the work, having learned about those companies’ capabilities through their technical presentations at various forums. In addition the PCR is, from time to time, invited to attend various Acquisition Strategy Meetings. LaRC was informed that they received a Satisfactory rating as a result of the SBA review of their Small Business Program.
LaRC’s Small Business Specialist and the PCR work closely on other initiatives as well, such as determining the use of small businesses for purchases under $100K. The Small Business Specialist and the PCR work jointly to apply NPD 5000.2A procedures to assist the Procurement Office in establishing subcontracting goals in large solicitations (valued over $50M) are being developed. The PCR speaks highly of the LaRC Small Business Specialist, of his knowledge of procurement practices and small business issues, and of his commitment to his work. No Form 70 (an appeal from the SBA Administrator to the NASA Administrator) was filed during this three-fiscal-year reporting period, to register the PCR’s objection to any of the Center’s procurement strategies.
4. Center Small Business Technical Advisor:
The LaRC Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA) plays a critical role in the SB/SDB program. He is the primary consultant to the SBA PCR and the Center Small Business Specialist in determining the extent to which a small or small disadvantaged business can perform the technical requirements of an RFP’s Statement of Work. The SBTA also plays a critical role in implementing the Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Goals (NPD 5000.2A) process.
The LaRC SBTA also serves as the Program Manager for the Center’s SBIR/STTR Program. He provides the LaRC Small Business Specialist invaluable support in helping to evaluate the technical aspects of small business Capability Statements and reports and, by participating in the semi-annual SBS meetings, also provides the Agency’s Small Business Specialists much-needed insight into technical issues relative to small business procurement. The LaRC SBTA has developed an outstanding working relationship with the Small Business Specialist over the past few years as evidenced by his inviting the Small Business Specialist to attend multiple technical based symposiums to better inform the public on how to contract with the Government.
Subcontracting Plans are required for all contracts exceeding $500,000 in value and for construction contracts exceeding $1Million. In addition, for contracts exceeding $50M in value, NASA requires that the Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Goals (NPD 5000.2A) be used to determine the percentage of work to be subcontracted to small disadvantaged businesses. As stated above, the LaRC Small Business Specialist is meticulous about applying NPD 5000.2A to large solicitations. The Small Business Specialist reviews the Subcontracting Plans for adequacy and completion for all competitive procurements.
LaRC utilizes such value-added programs as the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program to encourage prime contractors to include small businesses in the execution of large contracts. The benefit to the protégé small business is the guidance and experience that the mentor company provides. Currently, LaRC does not have any contractors participating in the Mentor-Protégé Program. As mentioned previously, SAIC teamed with their former protégé to bid on a current Small Business Set Aside procurement.
6. Award Fee / Incentive Fee Contracts:
Utilizing performance on socioeconomic subcontracting goals as an evaluation factor for contract award and for award fee and incentive fee determinations is an effective method for keeping prime contractors “committed” to their relationships with their SB and SDB subcontractors. LaRC conducts semi-annual contract reviews, the findings of which are documented in the Center’s Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) Report. A prime contractor’s meeting its SB and SDB goals is considered a “strength” on the PEB; failure to meet the SB and SDB goals, a “weakness,” generally resulting in a reduction in the amount of award fee earned. The LaRC Small Business Specialist is not involved in the process of withholding award fee, since the actual function of assessing contract performance on meeting socioeconomic goals resides with the Contracting Officer.
In the past, prime contractors were required to use the SF 294 form to submit to the Contracting Officer semi-annual reports of subcontracting achievements. The SF 294s were originally submitted in hard copy to the Center’s Contracting Officer, who forwarded the data to the Small Business Specialists, for entry into the Center’s electronic system to create a spreadsheet that allowed comparisons between years. The data were reviewed at the Center and entered into a database, and an annual summarization report was then forwarded to Headquarters. This reporting process was recently simplified: contractors may now enter subcontracting data online for direct submission into the government-wide electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The NASA Small Business Specialists, are currently being trained to use this reporting system and will serve as their respective Center’s resource persons and points-of-contact., They will be responsible for ensuring that large business prime contractors enter their subcontracting data into the eSRS by the designated due date, as required.
LaRC considers designating contracts as Small Business Set-Asides or 8(a) Set-Asides whenever possible, a major determinant for decisions are the competing companies’ capabilities to execute the requirements of the contract. The sizes of these Set-Aside contracts can vary.
Small business Set-Asides are used when there are two or more small businesses capable of performing the work required in a contract. The following obligations for FY03-FY05 include SBIR contracts and purchase orders, a number of which were for less than $100,000:
| Fiscal Year | SBA 8(a) Set-Asides Awarded | FY Obligations |
|---|---|---|
NA |
136.9M |
|
2. SBA Section 8(a) Program Set-Asides:
LaRC makes awards to 8(a) firms whenever possible. The total contract value of 8(a) awards for each of the last three fiscal years are provided in the following table:
| Fiscal Year | SBA 8(a) Set-Asides Awarded | FY Obligations |
|---|---|---|
NA |
$ 30.1M |
|
The LaRC Small Business Specialist engages in numerous outreach activities throughout each year, supporting conferences and business expos sponsored by other agencies and organizations as well as holding the Center’s own outreach events. Over the three fiscal years in this reporting period, he has supported the following outreach activities:
He also supports many Government/NASA sponsored conferences:
LaRC’s counseling sessions for small businesses are comprehensive, covering pertinent information and addressing the major items that comprise the OSDBU Uniform Counseling Form. In addition to providing an overview of LaRC’s organizational structure, the Small Business Specialist discusses the procurement process, marketable areas, and the Center’s small business initiatives and programs, and he provides information about upcoming procurement opportunities and procurement points-of-contacts. Individual counseling or one-on-one counseling is conducted in person, by telephone, or via email, as the occasion requires, and generally focuses on doing business with NASA. The Small Business Specialist also counsels large businesses, though in these cases, the discussion centers on the advantages of involving small businesses in the LaRC initiatives they support.
The LaRC Small Business Office’s pro-active outreach activities and the Small Business Specialist’s strong working relationship with the SBTA, the SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR), and the Site Managers of the Center’s large prime contractors are important factors in the Center’s effort to increase the participation of small and small disadvantaged businesses in its procurement initiatives. Additionally, the Procurement Officer is to be commended for her unfailing support for the success of the NASA LaRC Small Business Program. This is especially important in light of the budget uncertainties the Center has had to overcome in the past few years. Of particular note is the role that the LaRC Contractor Steering Council plays in support of the Center’s Small Business Program.
Overall, the dedication and perseverance of the LaRC Small Business Office is to be commended.
STRENGTH:
LaRC’s Small Business Office is to be commended for its work with the LaRC Contractor Steering Council, promoting closer government-contractor as well as large-small business relationships. The Small Business Office is also to be commended for promoting recognition of the contributions small businesses make to Center operations and to Agency initiatives. Just recently, Tessada & Associates was selected as the NASA Small Business Contractor of the Year.
STRENGTH:
LaRC is to be commended for exceeding the vast majority of their Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals.
STRENGTH:
The strong working relationship between the LaRC Small Business Specialist and the SBA PCR benefits the Center, immediately, and the Agency, ultimately. Together, both ensure that business opportunities are available to all categories of small businesses and that information about these opportunities is disseminated widely. Together also, both ensure that the Center is in compliance with the regulations governing the small business arena.
STRENGTH:
LaRC’s Technical Advisor, who is always accessible to the Center’s Small Business Specialist, leverages his knowledge about research and technology transfer and his experience in managing the SBIR/STTR Program to broaden the Specialist’s understanding of the interfaces and interconnections between the Agency’s small business programs. Such an understanding may result in shared undertakings, which his support of the SBS illustrates.
STRENGTH:
LaRC’s Small Business Office is to be commended for the support it provides to procurement conferences and expos targeted at providing information and assistance to small and small disadvantaged companies interested in doing business with NASA.
|
Owner: Yolande Harden |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: February 2007 |