The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted the procurement management survey at the Marshall Space Flight Center ( Marshall) under the authority of NASA Procedures and Guidelines 1000.3, The NASA Organization. The survey was conducted from January 22 through February 2, 2007. The report contains the survey strengths, weaknesses, and considerations.
An exit briefing was held on February 2, 2007 to with the Marshall Procurement Organization management team to discuss the survey findings. The Assistant Administrator for Procurement and the Survey Program Manger also briefed the Deputy Center Director on the overall survey findings. Also in attendance at this meeting were the Marshall Procurement Officer and the Deputy Procurement Officer.
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 Manager
Office of Procurement
Analysis Division
SECTION II ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT
SECTION V GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES
SECTION VI SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) UTILIZATION
The Marshall Space Flight Center ( Marshall) 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 Marshall 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 Marshall 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 General Counsel was that the procurement organization was doing a good job.
The Procurement Management Survey consists of two primary components: 1) interviews with technical, procurement and legal personnel regarding the effectiveness of the procurement organization and 2) compliance reviews that consist of a review of contracting actions focused on adherence to 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 into narrative summaries with strengths, weaknesses and areas of consideration identified as appropriate. Strengths are generally defined as best practices utilized in support of the procurement system. Weaknesses are defined as problems, typically systemic, that require corrective actions. Considerations are defined as issues that; 1) if not corrected could evolve into a problem or problems, 2) are not necessarily systemic but should be corrected or 3) 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 Marshall unique 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 Marshall.
The exit conference at the conclusion of the survey typically consists of a direct exchange of observations and ideas between the participants. To emphasize Center ownership of the resolution of any identified weaknesses or considerations, the survey follow-up process focuses on actions or initiatives undertaken by the Center to address survey findings. At an appropriate interval (approximately six months after this report is issued) the Marshall 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 |
CELESTE DALTON |
Self-Assessment Program, Contractor Insurance and Pension Reviews (CIPRs), Closeout/Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs) and Construction and A/E Service Contracts |
MARIA MCNAMEE |
Commercial Acquisitions, Simplified Acquisitions, Financial Management Reporting, SBIR/STTR Program, Purchase Card Program, UCAs, COTR Training and 1102 Training |
LEE PAGEL |
Exercise of Options, Contractor Performance Evaluations NF-1680, Property, and Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOCs) |
DON MOSES |
Pre/Post Negotiation Memorandums, Cost/Price Analysis, NF-634 Use of Structure Fee Approach, Technical Evaluations, Multiple Award Contracts and Contract Safety Requirements |
KARIN HUTH |
Adequacy of documentation resulting from Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), and Inter-Agency Agreements, Grants and Cooperative Agreements, Environmental Issues, Internal Policies and Procedures and Award/Incentive Fee Contracts |
ELEANOR CHIOGIOJI |
Small and disadvantaged business utilization |
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of the following individuals:
| T. JERRY WILLIAMS |
Marshall Point of Contact |
| PAMELA WHITE | Marshall Point of Contact |
| DEBORAH TROUPE | Marshall Administrative Support |
1. Organization Structure and Staffing:
The overall structure of the Marshall Procurement Organization remains basically unchanged since the last survey. Some reorganization and shifting of workload has occurred within the various offices to accommodate personnel adjustments and alignment with technical customer organizations. The procurement organization consists of the Director’s Office with support staff and five key functional offices: Policy and Information Management, Engineering Support, Institutional Support, Space Transportation Support (including Shuttle and Exploration) and Science and Space Systems Support. Many of the employees in the procurement organization are co-located with their customers across the Center. The office managers are located together with the senior procurement management in a central location.
The Marshall Procurement Organization experienced a significant reduction in staffing levels since the last survey. The current civil servant workforce compliment is 103; there were 132 civil servants in the procurement organization during the last survey. This figure includes management, procurement professionals and support staff. The organization lost a combined total of 23 employees during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Eleven employees were lost through retirement and five employees left NASA for positions with the adjacent Army facility, Redstone Arsenal. An additional six employees transferred to other NASA locations ( NASA Shared Services Center, NASA Headquarters and IEMP Competency Center) and one individual resigned. The procurement organization was able to boost its numbers after receiving authority to hire new employees. Five individuals were hired from outside the agency as permanent employees in fiscal year 2006. One person was hired as a ‘term’ employee, and four employees transferred from other NASA organizations. Three of the NASA transfer employees came from Headquarters organizations, one converted from the NASA Contracting Intern Program and the other two were former Marshall Procurement employees that moved to Headquarters the previous fiscal year. A total of ten employees joined the Marshall Procurement Organization in fiscal year 2006.
The Marshall Procurement Organization utilizes contractor personnel to conduct contract administration functions in certain areas. The contractor support is provided by Digital Fusion Solutions, Inc. Primary support is provided for simplified acquisitions where the contractor personnel supplement the civil servant workforce and performs all procurement functions after receipt of the purchase request package up to the point of award. In other areas, contractor personnel assist the contracting officers on large contracts, performing rudimentary ‘arms and legs’ functions.
The procurement organization continues to provide focused training sessions to its personnel on a monthly basis to enhance and reinforce knowledge of procurement processes and procedures. A structured coaching program is designed to provide training and leadership to less experienced personnel.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization is commended for its continuing efforts to mentor and coach less experienced personnel and provide training opportunities for all levels of procurement personnel.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should take steps to ensure that procurement support provided by contractor personnel receives the appropriate levels of review by civil servant personnel and that the review process is well documented in the file. This process will ensure a clear line of traceability and minimize potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of contractor personnel for procurement functions.
2. Procurement Staff Interviews:
Interviews were conducted with several members of the procurement workforce to gain a greater insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization. Interviews were conducted with a wide range of individuals varying from the most junior levels to senior personnel with more than 30 years procurement experience.
The majority of the individuals interviewed felt that the procurement organization was doing an ‘okay’ job. Generally, managers seemed to think that things were in better shape than non-managers; however, no one expressed that the organization was doing poorly.
The subject of employee morale sparked a variety of comments; however, the underlying theme is that morale in the organization is fair to low. Some felt that morale although low, is better now than it was in the past and others had just the opposite perception. Again, most managers seem to have a more optimistic view of morale than non-managers. Many attributed the morale issues to stress levels associated with high workload, reduced staff levels and Contract Management Module (CMM) issues. There was also the general perception among non-managers in particular that employees were not always provided a fair opportunity with regard to promotions, training and job assignments. Many expressed a desire for more rotational opportunities and clear cut guidance regarding promotion and warrant requirements. (It is noted that a review of documents for another portion of this survey revealed that Office Managers and Chiefs place emphasis on employee morale and discuss activities with the Procurement Officer during monthly meetings.)
Although there was a general perception that workload levels are high, when questioned about individual workloads, everyone responded that their particular workload assignments are manageable with occasional peaks and valleys.
All indicated that communication flow between management and staff was good. Feedback was provided in a timely and useful manner. Management is perceived as accessible, supportive and flexible regarding family concerns, flexible work schedules, etc. Training opportunities are available and most felt that management was supportive of training. Co-located employees felt that managers made concerted efforts to include them in office activities; none felt isolated.
Customer relationships were perceived as good and most employees interviewed felt included as a part of the team for the programs/projects that they supported. Only one person felt that the technical representatives were not making an effort to include them in key meetings.
The majority of individuals interviewed acknowledge some degree of impact from the implementation of the CMM. Some described the impact as a nuisance that would diminish as the ‘kinks’ were worked out of the system. Others were experiencing more severe workload impacts. Many indicated that processes that required two – three hours to complete in the past, now required multiple days to complete successfully. Again, the majority perceived the impacts as short term rather than long term.
CONSIDERATION:
Although managers in the Marshall Procurement Organization place emphasis on boosting employee morale, a more concerted effort should be made to identify and rectify key areas of employee concern to the greatest extent possible. Clear identification of promotion and warrant criteria may be useful.
3. Technical Customer Interviews:
Representatives from a variety of technical organizations were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of the procurement organization and their level of satisfaction. Individuals interviewed represented various programs and projects at Marshall.
All technical representatives interviewed indicated that there was a very good relationship with their procurement counterparts. The majority expressed that there were routine communications with the contracting officers and contract specialists on either a daily or weekly basis as circumstances dictated. Many were very pleased to have procurement personnel co-located in their organizations. Most described the procurement organization as very effective and indicated that the quality of the work products was good to excellent. Some indicated that their contracting officers/contract specialists seemed to be overtaxed with heavy workloads and short staffed.
All technical representatives interviewed received either the basic or refresher training within the required time frames, most within the last two years. They were pleased with the quality of the courses. All received the appropriate delegations and were satisfied that they were receiving the support needed to conduct their responsibilities.
One contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) expressed particular frustration with the problems experienced since the implementation of the CMM. She manages several large cooperative agreements and grants and indicates that productivity has been gridlocked due to system problems since September 2006. She wanted to emphasize that the procurement organization has done everything possible to mitigate the problems, and a system fix is probably required.
Another program manager expressed some frustration with the recent contract restructure activities for his contract. He felt that many key decisions were made prior to including the program managers in the discussions. Overall all the COTRs interviewed were pleased with the procurement organization in general and their immediate procurement counterparts in particular.
An interview was conducted with one representative from the Marshall Office of General Counsel who reviews a significant portion of procurement files supporting the engineering organization. The typical workload includes review of solicitations, award documents and modifications within the appropriate thresholds. He also reviews dispute documentation and a few protests both to the contracting officer and the General Accountability Office. He is currently assigned as legal advisor to a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) and usually works about two a year.
The overall impression is that procurement is doing a good job and that the workforce contains some of the best and brightest in the area. His perception is that the majority of the people are giving 150% effort, however he acknowledges that there is a small pocket of individuals who are either not performing at their full potential or are unwilling to contribute fully.
He expressed some concern with the use of contractor procurement support staff. However, he acknowledged that the use of contractor personnel filled the void caused by reductions in civil servant staffing and the appropriate measures were taken with non-disclosure agreements, etc. to prevent potential conflicts of interest.
e suggested that exposing junior level procurement personnel to key SEB activities would provide an avenue for training and raising the level of experience in that area. In general, files are receiving the appropriate levels of review. The policy office does a thorough job reviewing files prior to submission to the legal office for review.
5. Procurement Career Development Training:
The Office of Human Resources (OHR) maintains the official records for procurement personnel. Information is recorded in the System for Administration, Training and Educational Resources for NASA (SATERN) training system. In addition, the 1102 employees are required to ensure the SATERN system and OHR records accurately reflect training obtained. Employee interviews reflected that individuals are aware of their responsibility to maintain records. The majority interviewed have not been active in ensuring that records are up to date. The employees were aware of the 1102 policy training requirements. Few actually had a system for tracking their training outside of paper files. The opposite is the case for the Acquisition Training Coordinator (ATC). The ATC maintains a database of the mandated contracting certification (CON) courses, certification levels, warranted employees, education levels, and academic business credits. Since the ISO certification and move towards a paperless system, paper records are not maintained.
The Marshall Procurement Organization has a current total of 95 contracting professionals. All but three of the employees have achieved the proper certification level for their grade. This equates to a 97 percent certification rate. Training profiles for new employees are developed which depict class criteria and tracks progress toward achieving certification levels. The individual employee is responsible for tracking all training, including electives and continuous training requirements. The ATC maintains an unofficial database for certification levels. Currently with the SATERN training system, the ATC does not have the ability to monitor the employees training activities to assist them in meeting the NASA Career Development Policy requirements. The responsibility is truly that of the employee.
The Marshall Procurement Organization continues to provide focused training to assist employees in meeting their 80 hour requirement for continuous education training every two years. Employee feedback of the focused training sessions is very positive. Any changes to the NASA training program are quickly conveyed to employees through email notification sent out by the ATC.
he Marshall 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.
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. Training attendance and scheduling is tracked through a local COTR database. A thorough review of the database revealed that Marshall 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.
An unofficial COTR listing is maintained within the procurement organization. The official data is maintained in the OHR. The listing contains the names of all COTRs and includes the date for the last training received The refresher courses are conducted and taken in a timely manner by the COTRs to meet the five year refresher requirement. The survey revealed that COTR list does not provide contract number, contract completion date, or information that the COTR is still serving as a COTR on any contract. While this is not a regulatory requirement, it would make the database more user-friendly and add overall value to the information contained therein.
The basic classes are held every four months and refresher classes are held twice a year which seems adequate to keep the COTR community properly trained without becoming overly delinquent. The program and project representatives were extremely positive about the value of the COTR training. The substantial praise for the in-house presentation is noteworthy.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s in-house COTR training proves to be an asset to the technical community. The updated presentation is accessible through the Procurement METRO website as a current resource for COTRs to always have access to the latest information.
7. Internal Policies and Procedures:
The Policy and Information Management Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal policies and procedures. The METRO website is the procurement organization’s portal for both internal users and technical personnel. A link to METRO is prominently displayed on the Center’s internal website’s list of organizations.
The METRO website is organized in a simple but effective manner. Documents and links are organized under just a few major headings: Applications; Programs; Procedures and Procurement Tools; Who, What, Where and When; and Other Information. Local and agency sites are organized as sub-categories under each of these headings. Links are provided to formal Center level ISO documents as well as local work instructions. In addition, a large number of links are provided to informal sites that provide data and tools for users.
The Policy and Information Management Office has developed a number of tools for contract specialists and reviewers. These include standard checklists for a variety of types of procurements. These checklists are designed to be included in the file and used as a tool for both contract specialists and reviewers to ensure all documentation requirements are satisfied. It appears that these checklists are frequently updated to remain accurate.
Two other tools used by contract specialists are the clause matrices and contract mats which are developed and maintained by the Policy Office. The matrices provide a list of clauses and provisions that may be applicable for each type of contract. The contract mats provide actual sample contract formats. The Policy Office plans to discontinue maintenance of the contract mats since CMM templates will replace them. The office will continue to maintain the clause matrices.
Several employees expressed concern regarding the discontinuance of the contract mats. These are apparently popular tools for procurement personnel, especially when working on unfamiliar actions.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s METRO website is an excellent tool that is utilized regularly by many employees. The tools provided via METRO are well-liked and user friendly.
CONSIDERATION:
The plan to discontinue the maintenance of the contract mats might be delayed until CMM has stabilized. The mats provide a good tool for the procurement personnel to compare with their CMM generated documents.
The last procurement survey noted that the responsibility for validating the accuracy and completeness of the data in the Master Buy Plan Database resulting in duplicative entries was not assigned to a specific individual. The process has been modified since the last survey to preclude the problems identified. All submissions are now entered into the system by a single individual; the entries are validated by the appropriate Office Manager, with final approval by the Procurement Officer. Entries are reviewed quarterly with a call for updates in addition to any self-initiated updates. Procurement Notice 04-16 dated August 15, 2006 amended the Master Buy Plan Procedures to include identification of programs funded by Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and/or Space Operations Mission Directorate including a recommendation for the Head of Contracting Activity. This new requirement has not been consistently applied to new Master Buy Items.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Officer should amend current instructions for entering information into the Master Buy Plan Database to incorporate the information required by NFS 1807.7103.
2. JOFOC’s/Competition Advocacy:
Noncompetitive contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR 6.3 and NFS 1806.3. The dollar values of the files reviewed ranged from $15K to a maximum of $50M. All files reviewed utilized 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 was reviewed and approved at the appropriate levels to include legal review and the Competition Advocate, when applicable.
All of the JOFOCs 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. Synopses were issued, and responses addressed, where appropriate.
3. Pre-Negotiation Documentation:
Contract files were reviewed for Pre-Negotiation documentation and compliance with FAR 15.406 and NFS 1815.406. The Pre-Negotiation Positions (PPMs) in the files reviewed were very detailed and thorough. The PPMs generally contained all of the content specified at NFS 1815.406, including a parallel tabulation, by element of cost and profit/fee, of the contractor’s proposal and the Government’s negotiation objective. Each PPM included a discussion of technical evaluations, pricing and probable cost reports, DCAA review and verification of rates along with the status of contractor business systems.
The last survey identified a weakness for the absence of pre-negotiation position documentation prior to negotiations. The Marshall Procurement Organization demonstrated vast improvement in the timely documentation of high quality PPMs since the last survey.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization is commended on the vast improvement in preparation of pre-negotiation position memorandums prior to negotiations as well as the quality and thoroughness of the documentation.
4. Price Negotiation Documentation:
Files were reviewed for price negotiation documentation and compliance with FAR 15.406 and NFS 1815.406. The Price Negotiation Memorandums (PNMs) reviewed were very detailed and thorough. The PNMs reviewed met the requirements of NFS 1815.406-3 and FAR 15.406-3. The PNMs contained narratives that explained any variance in the Government objective and final negotiated amount of elements of cost and profit or fee.
The preparation of combined PPMs and PNMs was identified as a weakness in the previous survey report. In the past, no discussion or explanation of variances between the contractor’s proposal and NASA’s position on major elements was present in the documentation. The Marshall Procurement Organization demonstrated vast improvement in the documentation of PNMs since the last survey.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization is commended on the vast improvement in the quality and thoroughness of the price negotiation memorandums.
5. Documentation for Awards Resulting from Broad Agency Announcements:
Very few awards resulting from Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) other than Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards which are addressed separately in this report are processed by the procurement organization. Marshall has not issued a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for several years. Grants or cooperative agreements comprise the majority of awards resulting from Headquarters-issued BAAs. These awards are now administered by the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC).
One cooperative agreement which resulted from a Headquarters-issued NRA was identified and reviewed. The file included the Marshall checklist for grants/cooperative agreements which lists the documentation requirements for awards resulting from BAAs. The file was well documented for the most part; however, there was some confusion regarding the nature of the award. The award was repeatedly referred to as an unsolicited proposal in the negotiation memorandum despite the fact that it resulted from a Headquarters issued competitive solicitation.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization management should provide appropriate training and ensure that contract checklists which address awards resulting from BAAs are made available to procurement personnel. This type of tool is particularly useful since relatively few actions resulting from BAAs are processed at the Center.
Contract files were reviewed to verify that technical evaluations complied with FAR 15.404 and NFS 1815.404 requirements. The contract files reviewed included basic contract awards and orders placed under task order/delivery order indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts. A review of technical evaluations conducted on large competitive procurements revealed that the technical organizations consistently provided an assessment of proposal strengths and weaknesses, and rationale for the scoring of technical proposals that were consistent with the solicitation technical evaluation criteria. Further, the technical organizations provided a technical evaluation of cost proposals which included an assessment of proposed labor hours, skill mix, materials, and other proposed costs to the extent necessary to support a fair and reasonableness determination.
Several technical reviews for orders issued under IDIQ contracts only contained an e-mail stating that the proposal was reviewed and found to be technically acceptable. Orders placed under a large value IDIQ ordering agreement contained a generic statement in the Memorandum for Record (MFR) indicating that the basic agreement was always written in a manner that would not require the technical evaluation and cost and price analysis of each order. While IDIQ contracts are a streamlined way to acquire products and services and require minimal ordering documentation, FAR 16.505 requires Contracting Officers to provide the rationale for placement and price of each order, including the basis for award and the rationale for any tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost considerations in making the award decision. Technical evaluations for task/delivery orders reviewed did not contain the required rationale or supporting documentation to address a technical analysis of any labor hours, labor mix, materials, etc. necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price and support the placement of the order.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that technical evaluations are performed when appropriate to support the contracting officer’s rationale for placement and pricing of orders in accordance with FAR 16.505. It may be helpful to incorporate the use of a checklist to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken, particularly for orders placed under IDIQ contracts.
Contract files were reviewed to determine if cost or price analysis was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404 and NFS 1815.404. The contract files reviewed included basic contract awards and orders placed under task order/delivery order indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts. A review of cost analysis performed by the contract specialist on large competitive procurements revealed that the analysis was very comprehensive and thorough. The contract specialists consistently received DCAA review and verification of proposed rates and approval of contractor business systems, provided excellent analysis of all proposed cost elements, and provided rationale to support the reasonableness of the total estimated price. When required, Certificates of Current Cost or Pricing Data were properly executed and placed in the contract file.
Again, orders placed under a large value IDIQ ordering agreement contained a generic statement in the Memorandum for Record (MFR) indicating that the basic agreement was always written in a manner that would not require the technical evaluation and cost or price analysis of each order. While IDIQ contracts are a streamlined way to acquire products and services and require minimal ordering documentation, sufficient file documentation was not consistently present to support the rationale for placement and price of each order. Cost or price analysis to the extent necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price and support the placement orders was not consistently conducted in cases when the contract or basic agreement did not establish the price for the supply or service.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should be commended for the quality and thoroughness of cost analyses performed on large value contracts. (REPEAT FINDING)
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that that orders placed under IDIQ contracts meet FAR 16.505 and FAR 15.4 documentation requirements and that cost or price analysis is conducted to the extent necessary to support the contracting officer’s rationale for placement and pricing of orders. It may be helpful to incorporate the use of a cost and price evaluation checklist to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken particularly for orders placed under IDIQ contracts
Contract files were reviewed for compliance with NFS 1815.404-470, NASA Form (NF) 634 and NFS 1815.404-471 ‘NASA Structured Approach for Profit or Fee Objective’. In general, the structured fee approach documentation contained in the contract files complied with the NFS and supported the Price Negotiation Memorandum fee percentage. In many instances, the narrative descriptions surpassed the normal requirements for supporting justification. One file contained a very detailed narrative which supported every percentage and weight assigned on the NF 634. A couple of isolated files contained examples of assigned weights that did not include supporting justification. The NF 634 for one contract revealed that a higher than normal value for “technical” was assigned with no supporting justification as required by NFS 1815.404-471-1 (b). For another contract, a past performance weight of 5% was assigned on a low dollar contract which was well above NF 634 designated -1% - 1% range. Again, no supporting documentation or rationale for the decision was provided.
1. Contractor Performance Evaluation:
FAR 42.15 and NFS 1842.1502 require 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 interim evaluations covering the current period of performance and a final evaluation summarizing all performance must be conducted. Evaluations are performed through completion of NF 1680, "Evaluation of Performance" in the Past Performance Database (PPDB).
Contract files were reviewed 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" requires that the information on the NF 1680 be entered into NASA's PPDB. A report of PPDB evaluation delinquencies across the agency was reviewed and a total of 176 contracts and purchase orders with past due evaluations was found. After further investigation, it was determined that many of these delinquencies are in fact task orders that are not evaluated separately from the basic contract. Based on this information, an improvement over the previous survey consideration is recognized. The Marshall Procurement Organization has clearly focused attention on improving the timeliness of PPDB entries.
NFS 1842.1501 emphasizes the importance of communications with the contractor. The evaluation narratives provide companies with critical feedback, necessary to improve their performance. In general, the amount of detail in the NF 1680 should increase commensurate with the dollar value of the contract. Narrative details are also necessary to support the ratings received. Most of the NF 1680s reviewed followed this general rule (increasing detail for increasing size and complexity of the contract). Out of regard to industry initiatives to measure and improve quality, consideration should be given to always providing some narrative comments, regardless of dollar value or complexity. Several award fee contracts were queried in the PPDB for recent evaluations (subsequent to the last Procurement Management Survey). Inconsistency still remains in meeting the requirement of PIC 01-12, which asks for inclusion of a summary of the award fee evaluation findings in the NF 1680. While many PPDB entries contained sufficient information, there were also entries for large dollar value contracts that contained numerical ratings only. Contractor comments were consistently included.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that past performance evaluations contain appropriate narrative discussions to support the adjective ratings.
2. Award Fee/ Incentive Fee Evaluation:
The Marshall Procurement Organization utilizes a unique approach to the administration of Award Fee contracts. An individual within the Policy and Information Management Office serves in the position of “Performance Evaluation Board Executive Secretary”. This individual serves as the Executive Secretary for all award fee contracts at the Center. The Executive Secretary provides guidance and assistance to the performance evaluation board (PEB); coordinates the fee determination process; conducts training; issues guidelines and instructions to those involved in the process; and recommends procedures and changes to enhance effectiveness. The individual also monitors timeliness of performance ratings; schedules fee determination board meetings; maintains the minutes of the fee determination meetings; drafts the determination and findings for the fee; maintains the official award fee files; and forwards copies of completed documentation to the contracting officer for issuance of a contract modification. The Center ensures consistency in its award fee board procedures by designating a single individual with responsibility for all these tasks. The quality of the documentation maintained by this office is excellent.
The PEB Executive Secretary noted that once the fee documentation is submitted to the contracting officer, the actual issuance of the modification or payment of the fee is not tracked in the Policy and Information Management Office. Although the Headquarters Office of Procurement no longer requires a report on award fee payment metrics, it may be useful for the Marshall Procurement Organization to begin tracking this data to ensure that an otherwise excellent process does not become impacted once the documentation is forwarded to the contracting officer.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s utilization of a single position with responsibility for coordinating the award fee determination process across all contracts produces standardized processes and excellent documentation of the award fee process.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should consider establishing a system of tracking the issuance of award fee and incentive fee modifications and payment metrics to ensure all contract requirements are met.
3. Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs):
The contract closeout function is accomplished through the Legacy Contract (previously Brace). Marshall Work Instruction, PS-OWI-13, details the process for transfer of files to the contractor. While the task monitor receives monthly reports on the number of contracts closed and the inventory of contracts in closeout including unliquidated obligations, it does not appear that an analysis of the information is conducted or that information is routinely reported to the Procurement Officer. The task monitor relies on the individual Office Managers to identify performance concerns relating to whether files are completed properly and in accordance with established standards. This is an area that will benefit from increased analysis.
WEAKNESS:
While performance of the closeout function may be perceived as functioning well, there is no evidence of performance measurement. A focused review and analysis of contractor performance and monitoring of the status of unliquidated obligations should occur on a routine basis. The results of this type of review should be provided to the Procurement Officer.
4. Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs):
Marshall had six (6) open UCAs during the last procurement survey. 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 Headquarters report indicated that the Marshall Procurement Organization is actively reporting and tracking their UCAs.
The most recent Headquarters UCA listing of open UCAs was reviewed to identify open actions. Currently, Marshall has seven (7) open UCAs. Three are beyond 180 days but less than 360 days. The remaining four UCAs are less than 180 days. The largest “Not to Exceed” value is $111.76 Million and expected definitized value is $1.6 Billion. The oldest action with 241 days is currently awaiting HQ approval of an extension request. From the review, it appears that all are processed within proper guidelines. Three of the UCAs are tied to the Space Shuttle Main Engine contract reformation/extension; a proposal was received from the contractor on 09/6/06.
CONSIDERATION:
The total number of UCAs at Marshall remains at a constant volume. It is recognized that about half of the UCAs are shuttle related procurements. It is recommended that the Marshall Procurement Organization maintain the focus on minimizing the number of UCAs.
5. Financial Management Reporting:
Contract files were reviewed for compliance with NFS Subpart 1842.72 regarding NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting (NF 533). All of the contracts reviewed met the contract type and dollar thresholds requiring financial management reporting. All of the contracts reviewed included NFS clause 1852.242-73 requiring NF533 reporting. The clause requires the establishment of detailed reporting categories in the contract, as well as the number of copies and time and manner of submission. The contracts reviewed 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 that 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/contract specialist for most contracts were reviewing and analyzing the NF533 reports as required, however the reviews were not documented in the contract files. Most contracting officers/contract specialists interviewed were not aware of the requirement to document their analysis. Although there is no FAR/NFS requirement for such documentation, some evidence of the review/analysis should be present in the file.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that contract files are documented to contain the results of the NF 533 review and analysis. This documentation may occur in varying forms from the most basic contracting officer’s initials on the NF533 report to a 533 review checklist. The process chosen should be clearly defined for all in the procurement organization to ensure consistency.
6. Competition under Multiple Award Task and Delivery Order Contracts:
Several task order contracts were reviewed for compliance with FAR 16.5. The FAR establishes a preference for making multiple awards under Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The contracting officer is required to determine whether multiple awards are appropriate as part of the acquisition planning. Several files reviewed provided an adequate justification for non-use of multiple awards in the Acquisition Strategy Meeting charts. The justification included rationale that multiple awards were not in the best interest of the Government as well as rationale for other factors listed in FAR Part 16.5 which supported the award of a single contract. The Marshall Procurement Organization has historically awarded single award IDIQ contracts for on-site support services and continues this practice in their follow-on efforts. One requirement for a construction effort resulted in IDIQ multiple awards. A weakness was identified during the last survey regarding the lack of acquisition planning for IDIQ multiple awards as well as lack of a detailed description of the work to be performed for each task as required by FAR 16.5. Based on the contract files reviewed, the Marshall Procurement Organization has demonstrated improvement in this area. Subsequent to our briefing of survey findings to Marshall Procurement managers, documentation was provided for several categories of multiple awards made under FAR 8.4 General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) was provided.
CONSIDERATION:
7. Options to Extend Performance:
The review of options focused on the presence of an executed Determinations and Findings and the documentation required by FAR 17.207 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 time frame specified 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 the option exercise is in the best interest of the Government.
The Marshall files reviewed for options were in excellent condition, in the proper format, very thorough and included all required information in accordance with FAR 17.207. The team found that the procurement organization is consistent in providing timely written notification to the contractor within the time specified in the contract. The use of a checklist by the contract specialist seems to be of particular utility in this situation, and appears to have contributed to the consistent performance in this area.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization makes excellent use of an option exercise checklist, and is commended for the consistently excellent condition of the option exercise files.
8. Contractor Insurance Pension Reviews:
The Marshall Procurement Organization received a strength on the last Procurement Survey for ensuring that contracting officers are aware of and comply with the guidance in PIC 00-23 (cancelled since last survey). Review of the files for two of the largest contractors at Marshall, ATK Thiokol and Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne verified that contracting officers continue to consistently demonstrate consideration of CIPR as part of contractor business systems during the development of pre-negotiation positions.
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 the 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. Additionally, reviews were conducted concerning the NASA Property in Custody of Contractors (NF 1018) reporting, both timeliness and quality of the reports to Logistics and Finance. Finally, files were examined for appropriate delegations of property management to field offices, such as DCMA.
All files reviewed contained the appropriate clauses and SEMO review, when applicable. The Industrial Property Office is not consistently receiving copies of property delegations, or their acceptance by DCMA. Several files reviewed did not contain the required D&F. It also appears that there is some confusion concerning whether or not Government Furnished Property (GFP) was provided under specific contracts. A list of contracts generated prior to the team’s arrival appeared to contain contracts with GFP; however, this was not consistently the case. Many of the listed contracts did not contain GFP, according to the contracting officers responsible for administering the listed files. Contracts were identified by the Logistics Office as containing GFP, which were not on the list, or the contracting officer clarified that they did not contain GFP. In one case, the file indicated that GFP was not provided, and a modification was issued to remove the Property clause, yet the contractor reported on a NF 1018 that there was property in its possession.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Officer should provide additional attention to aspects of property management: D&Fs and delegations. Given the agency’s material weakness in this area, some management focus may be required to identify GFP in contractors’ possession, issue delegations and coordinate as necessary with other organizations to ensure consistency between clauses, contract files, and physical possession of the GFP.
10. Safety and Health Requirements:
Contracts were reviewed to verify compliance with NFS clause 1852.223-73 Safety and Health Plan, the proper evaluation of Safety and Health Plans in the source evaluation and performance evaluation processes, and the review ad approval of the plan by Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) personnel. The Safety and Health (Short Form) was included as required in all applicable contracts that did not require a formal Safety and Health Plan. However, the review revealed inconsistencies in the incorporation of other Safety and Health provisions and clauses. For example, several files reviewed omitted 1852.223-73 Safety and Health Plan from the solicitation but incorporated the required clauses in the contract. One contract file contained no evidence that a plan was submitted or considered during the source evaluation. All files reviewed, except one, incorporated an On-Site Safety and Health Plan Data Requirements Description (DRD) in section J of the contract. However, in some instances there was no actual plan contained in the contract file, and in no instance was there documented evidence of S&MA involvement or approval of the plan (except for demonstrated participation of S&MA officials on source evaluation boards). Interviews with S&MA officials revealed that their organization generates a cover letter addressed to the Marshall Procurement Organization. The cover letter is forwarded with a Safety and Health Plan Evaluation Checklist. The checklist contains the Safety and Health Plan DRD requirements and the status of S&MA plan approval. For source evaluation board (SEB) and performance evaluation board (PEB) procurements, the contract files in general contain documentation which showed that Safety and Health was properly evaluated and that S&MA officials were involved in the process.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that all NFS Safety and Health provisions and clauses are consistently incorporated in all applicable solicitations and contracts. Further, Marshal Procurement Organization should ensure that the S&MA Safety and Health cover letter along with the enclosed Safety and Health Plan Evaluation Checklist are included in the contract file and that S&MA reviews and approves all plans in accordance with the regulations.
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). The NFS Part 1842.73 Audit Tracking and Resolution requirement 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 Policy and Review Team Office Chief maintains a record of all reportable DCAA and DCMA audits. The audit reports are forwarded to the appropriate procurement personnel for resolution of any open audit issues. There are currently no open post award audits in the Marshall Procurement Organization.The 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. At Marshall, a request is sent by the contract specialist/contracting officer to the procurement policy office for verification that the proposed COTR has been properly trained. Prior to COTR delegation, the COTR is required to complete MSFC Form 4419 certifying that there are no conflicts of interest and file a current OGE 450, Confidential Financial Disclosure Report with the Office of Chief Counsel. Each COTR must acknowledge receipt of the NF 1634 and accept the delegation by signing the original documents which are then maintained in the contract file. There is no written local procedure to outline the process.
Several contract files were reviewed for appropriate file documentation in accordance with NFS 1842.270. In less than half of the cases the appropriate delegation forms were properly executed, signed and maintained in the contract files. However, the remainder of the files reviewed did not contain the COTR delegation forms. Some files failed to have the local COTR request memo with approval from the policy office for appointment of the COTR. Files were also lacking the Marshall Form 4419 certifying no conflicts of interest.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization has a thorough process for authorizing COTRs for delegation. A request is sent by the contract specialist/contracting officer to the procurement policy office for verification that the proposed COTR has been properly trained. Prior to COTR delegation, the COTR is required to complete MSFC Form 4419 certifying no conflicts of interest and file a current OGE 450, Confidential Financial Disclosure Report with the Office of Chief Counsel.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should provide guidance to ensure that COTR delegations and associated documentation are properly maintained and placed in the contract file to provide consistency among all files. The lack of the appropriate file documentation tends to negate the effectiveness of the thorough process utilized to ensure that COTRs are properly trained, aware of responsibilities, etc. prior to issuance of the delegations.
1. Grants and Cooperative Agreements:
The majority of Marshall’s new grants and cooperative agreements transitioned to the NSSC effective October 1, 2006. All existing grants and cooperative agreements will continue to be administered by the Marshall Procurement Organization until expiration. Cooperative agreements that support institutes, such as the National Space Science Technology Center, will continue to be processed by procurement personnel at Marshall.
Transition of the grant processing to the NSSC appears to have been well managed at Marshall. Prior to the transition, many of the grants were consolidated into a single office for administration purposes. The technical monitors and resources personnel impacted by the transition were identified and invited to attend a transition meeting. A link to the NSSC website was placed in a prominent position on the Inside Marshall web page. The Marshall Procurement Organization’s Assistant Director for Agency Initiatives serves as the focal point for coordination with the NSSC. A summary of the transition of grants and cooperative agreements to the NSSC was developed and is provided to anyone with inquiries about the process.
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s METRO website does not have a clear link to the NSSC website however; the link is present on the Inside Marshall page. The METRO link for “Grants and Cooperative Agreements” is connected directly to the Grants Handbook but does not include any mention of the NSSC. It may be useful to place the Center’s Transition Summary document under the “Grants” link.
Twelve of the existing grants and cooperative agreements were reviewed. The files included the procurement organization’s checklist for grants and cooperative agreements with universities. The checklist is detailed and accurately reflects current regulations and procedures.
No issues were found with the reviewed grants; however, several areas for potential improvement were identified for cooperative agreements. All cooperative agreements reviewed included the required provision from §1260.51 of the Grants & Cooperative Agreements Handbook; however, most of the descriptions of the nature of the Government’s collaboration efforts were perfunctory at best. In one file, both the proposal and the technical evaluation indicated intent to use a NASA facility for testing, but the corresponding description of the Government’s expected participation failed to mention the facility use. Another file utilized section headings from the proposal as a list of the Government’s potential contributions and included “a Master’s degree thesis” and “a Doctoral degree thesis” as examples of the Government’s contributions. Most of the files reviewed did not clearly indicate that the Government’s proposed participation was discussed with and accepted by the research institution. The only evidence of agreement contained in many files was the signed transmittal letter indicating acceptance of the final document.
Both technical evaluations and negotiation memorandums lacked any detailed analysis of proposed costs. Many used similar language repeatedly – for example, several technical evaluations stated that “the majority of the proposed costs were labor costs, so the proposed amount was reasonable”. In one case, this language was included in the negotiation memorandum; however it was not, in fact a valid statement. Proposed direct costs for equipment in excess of $5000 were not always addressed in the negotiation memorandums.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization was proactive in coordinating the transfer of work to the NSSC.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should consider including additional links for the NSSC website and transition information on the METRO website.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should devote more attention to developing an accurate description of the Government’s likely involvement in cooperative agreements. The summary included in the required provision from §1260.51 should be developed by the COTR/technical monitor and reviewed more carefully by the Contracting Officer. More detailed analysis of cost proposals should be included in both the technical evaluations and the negotiation memorandum.
2. Simplified /Commercial Item Acquisitions:
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.
All files contained the appropriate center unique file documentation forms in accordance with Center procedures (MSFC Form 67 and 3143, and acquisition checklists). Most forms were filled out completely and accurately, with the exception of the acquisition checklists. The internal checklists were not accurately completed in most files. Most files were organized in a manor consistent with the NF 1098 “Checklist for Contract Award File Content”. All reviewed files contained tabs for easy reference. Miscellaneous documentation including FPDS entry, EPLS, CCR, and SAP display screens were consistently present and placed in the files. The acquisitions were publicized where required. There was no evidence of post award synopsis in any of the files reviewed.
In all cases a determination of price reasonableness was indicated on the appropriate form (MSFC Form 3143). Where competition was present, the form was appropriately marked to indicate that the price reasonableness determination was unnecessary. Although files contained documentation stating price reasonableness, it was difficult to determine how the conclusion was reached. There appeared to be no review of additional schedule contractor catalogs or price lists or other analysis conducted. Although documentation of in depth analysis is not required for actions with values below the simplified acquisition threshold, evidence of some type of analysis should be considered. In the one sole source file reviewed, the sole source justification was insufficient to justify that a fair and reasonable price was obtained for the government. There was no evidence that market research was conducted in any of the files reviewed. It should be noted that source lists are utilized more frequently than in past surveys; however, they are still not used on a consistent basis.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Officer should ensure that market research is conducted and documented for commercial acquisitions in accordance with FAR 10.001. (REPEAT FINDING)
Twelve interagency agreements were reviewed. All files contained a Determination and Finding (D&F) as required, and all D&Fs were reviewed by legal counsel. All the orders were prepared on the required NASA Form 523, “NASA Inter-Agency Purchase Request” and contained the appropriate acceptance documentation in the file from the receiving agency.
Many of the orders did not include any type of a statement of work. There was no indication of a price analysis of any sort in most files reviewed. Additionally, there was no file documentation that provided a basis for the order dollar value in many of the files outside of the underlying purchase request. There was often no indication of any communication with the receiving organization regarding the effort with the exception of correspondence to obtain administrative information such as a CAGE code.
The files reviewed included no mention of the manner in which disputes between the agencies would be resolved as required by FAR 17.504. Many of the D&Fs did not provide sufficient rationale that the requirements could not be satisfied through a private source. Several orders did not include payment requirements as required by NFS 1817.7003.
A number of the files reviewed did include the Marshall checklist for commercial items between $25,000 and $5,000,000 (noncompetitive). This checklist, however, does not include any specific mention of Interagency Agreements and does not address the unique requirements for interagency agreements. Discussions with several individuals involved in processing and reviewing interagency orders indicated that a checklist or a work instruction that specifically addresses procedures for processing interagency orders would be a valuable tool.
CONSIDERATION:
The development of a file checklist for Interagency Agreements would provide a useful tool for contract specialists and would help to improve both file documentation and content of the interagency agreements.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization should ensure that Interagency Agreements are properly documented and include an appropriate description of the effort.
There are currently 275 listed NASA Purchase card (P-card) holders and 250 approving officials at Marshall. The Center Purchase Card Program Coordinator (CAPC) and a contractor employee (CCPAC) monitor the P-card process. The CCPAC has only been assisting with the process for about seven (7) months. The CAPC and the CCPAC appear to both be well informed about inherently governmental activities and the appropriate duties of each concerning the monitoring and administration of the P-card system. This is especially important since the CAPC has had significant duties as a CMM Lead that occupied much of her time.
Potential cardholders and approving officials receive training prior to receiving the Procurement Officer authorization letters. The authorization letter at Marshall continues to include the single purchase limit and the monthly purchase limit, in accordance with Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 03-20. The cardholders and approving officials are required to be recertified every three (3) years. The two required training courses are both offered on-line through the SATERN training system. The SATERN course, NASA P-Card Program, includes a test requirement. The CAPC and CCAPC are developing an in-house training plan. This training plan will consist of meetings with the cardholders to review the work instructions, discussions regarding allowable and prohibited purchases, as well as training on utilizing the P-Card system. This will be beneficial as the main feedback from the cardholders interviewed was the need for assistance with their reconciliations in the P-Card system. Each of the P-card holders has an approving official and an alternate approving official in the event one of them is unavailable.
Approving officials and cardholders receive refresher training based on PIC 03-20 issued 10/31/2003. A training record does not currently exist for cardholders. The CAPC and CCAPC are in the process of developing a database for tracking and monitoring training records. This database will also assist the CAPC and CCAPC in reviewing the active cardholders. Several cardholders interviewed indicated they had not used their cards in several years. As provided in PIC 03-20 and the MWI 5113.1, this raises a concern for vulnerability to the system. The guidance also states that on an annual basis, infrequently used cards should be reviewed and confirmed for continued need.
The Marshall CAPC audits the system monthly for the use of P-Cards to determine the appropriateness of purchases being made. If a purchase seems to be improper, the CAPC contacts the cardholder to determine its appropriateness. An annual desk audit is conducted, randomly selecting about one-third of the cardholders, typically those that process a larger number of orders.
STRENGTH:
The CAPC and CCPAC should be commended for the training and assistance efforts provided to the cardholders. Their continuous help and training was well noted among the cardholders interviewed.
CONSIDERATIONS:
WEAKNESS:
The PIC 03-20 and the MWI 5113.1 provide guidance on the CAPC’s requirement to identify accounts that are infrequently used and confirm the continued need on an annual basis. Cards no longer required must be cancelled. This is required to decrease vulnerability in the system. Based upon interviews with cardholders, the survey team determined that inactive P-Cards are not purged from the system in a timely manner.
The Marshall Procurement Organization conducted semi-annual self-assessments during the last two calendar years, correcting the weaknesses identified in the last procurement survey. A review of the two most recent self-assessments reveal that at least six percent of the actions executed during the period covered by the assessments were randomly reviewed. It is not clear whether a review of the recommended percent of simplified acquisitions over $25,000 was achieved. The self-assessments excluded actions that met the dollar thresholds identified in PS-OWI-05 “Review and Execution of Procurement Documents” and required formal review by the Policy and Review Office during the normal course of operations (this exclusion is permitted under Section I, Paragraph C of the NASA Self-Assessment Guide). However, the summary of findings includes recurring findings identified by the Policy and Review Office during the periods covered by the self-assessments. The Marshall Procurement Organization utilizes focused training sessions to address some of the recurring findings. Focused training conducted during an assessment period is identified in the report. The last three self-assessments all identified a concern with Price Negotiation Memorandums ( PNM’s) not adequately describing the changes taking place in the action.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Officer should consider additional focused training in the adequately describing changes under the Price Negotiation Memorandum. (It is noted that a focused training session addressing Negotiation Memorandums was already scheduled and conducted during the Survey Team’s Review.) The Marshall Procurement Managers may want to place additional emphasis at the Office level regarding adequate documentation of change actions.
6. Construction and Architect and Engineer (A&E) Contracts:
Construction
Contract files reviewed included construction efforts under IDIQ contracts and single discrete construction projects. Awards were made as a result of both sealed bids and negotiated procurements. Files reviewed were well documented, contained the appropriate clauses, complied with bonding requirements, payment requests contained the required certifications and support documentation, and payroll reviews were evident. Files contained preconstruction conference information including extensive checklists and sample forms for contractor use. Supplemental information regarding labor standards were consistently provided to construction contractors at the time of award. All of these are positive steps to aid in informed performance.
STRENGTH:
The use of extensive checklists to support preconstruction conferences and as information given to the contractor; sample request forms needed during performance; and the supplemental labor compliance standards provided are positive steps to aid in informed performance.
Architect and Engineer (A&E) Contracting
Contract files reviewed were generally complete. Contracts contained the appropriate clauses. Each file reviewed contained copies of the A&E Selection Statement and the recommendation of the A&E Board. The procurement organization notified vendors of the decision of the A&E Board. In one instance, the A&E Selection was made several years prior to the award of the contract with no explanation in the file addressing the delay or whether the A&E qualifications were reassessed prior to the award.
Review of the qualification files maintained by the Secretary to the A&E Board and discussions indicate that vendor qualification statements are not maintained in strict compliance with the FAR. While material from unsuccessful vendors that has not been updated in three years is discarded, an annual review and update of qualifications is not routinely accomplished. Past performance evaluations from completed contracts are not in the files maintained by the A&E Board. The Facilities Group recently initiated a post construction project summary review which does assess whether construction cost increases for a particular project may be attributable to design errors. This information can be used as part of a past performance assessment but is not a substitute for the performance evaluation required by FAR 36.604.
WEAKNESS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s contract files and procurement support documentation show a good awareness of required environmental clauses. The purchase requests contained in the files were virtually all accompanied by a NASA Form 1707 which indicated whether or not products being procured are listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) comprehensive procurement guideline list. Contract files reviewed generally all included FAR 52.223-10 – Waste Reduction Program and 52.223-9 - Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products as a minimum. The clause listings and contract mats maintained by the procurement organization contain the appropriate environmental clause listings where appropriate.
The METRO website includes a link to an Affirmative Procurement web page maintained by the procurement organization. However, this web page does not contain the contact information for the Center’s Affirmative Procurement Program Manager, nor does it have a link to the Environmental Engineering and Occupational Health Office’s Affirmative Procurement web site. It would be helpful to include Affirmative Procurement links on the purchase card web site and to add the Program Manager’s name to the contact list at that site, since purchase cards are often used to acquire products on the EPA’s list.
The Marshall Affirmative Procurement Program Manager stated that he receives waiver requests, so it appears that purchase request initiators have some awareness of the requirements. However, he indicated that the number of waiver requests is decreasing. He suggests that procurement personnel who have not already done so complete the SATERN training course on Affirmative Procurement. He suggested that the procurement organization encourage on-site contractors and purchase card holders to also complete the training.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization’s METRO Affirmative Procurement website should be updated to correct the name and organization code for the Program Manager. The procurement organization should also consider adding additional Affirmative Procurement links to the Purchase Card website and encourage procurement personnel and contractors to complete the available Affirmative Procurement training course.
8. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Awards:
The review of the SBIR/STTR files included examples from each category of the programs, one Phase-I and the remaining Phase-II. The files were reviewed to determine their compliance with FAR/NFS and the NASA SBIR/STTR Handbook. The review indicated that overall, the Marshall SBIR/STTR awards were well managed and documented.
All SBIR/STTR contracts were awarded on or before the date specified in the SBIR/STTR Handbook. All files reviewed were in compliance with the requirements for contract length and value. All awards reviewed appeared to comply with the limitation on subcontracting requirements. All 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).
The files 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".
STRENGTHS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Marshall Procurement Organization established several metrics tools to monitor procurement activities at the Center since the last procurement survey. Three recent tools that are currently in use include the Procurement Scorecard, independent Customer Surveys and the Acquisition Planning Tool
Procurement Scorecard
The Marshall Center Director established a Center-wide scorecard system in 2006 to assist senior managers in monitoring activities within the various organizations. Objectives with targeted outcomes, implementation plans and performance and/or progress measures were established on a Center-wide basis as well as within each Center organization. The Procurement Officer meets monthly with the Associate Center Director to discuss the procurement organization’s progress against the scorecard objectives.
Each office within the procurement organization identifies the manner in which procurement’s objectives are achieved within their respective groups. The data collected from the offices is maintained by a central point of contact on the Procurement Officer’s staff. The Procurement Officer also meets monthly with the Office Managers and Chiefs to discuss progress prior to meeting with the Associate Center Director. The primary procurement objectives include: 1) Procure high quality products and services consistent with customer requirements in a timely manner; 2) Maintain compliance with all laws; 3) Reduce acquisition cycle time; and 4) Increase innovative procurement products and services.
During the monthly meetings between the Office Managers and the Procurement Officer, highlighted activities, open purchase requests, closeout activities, past performance database actions and scorecard metrics are discussed in detail. Prior to rollout of the CMM, the progress of CMM variance cleanup activities was discussed as well as personnel and special activities (training, morale boosters, employee health concerns, etc.).
Independent Customer Surveys
The Marshall Procurement Organization began conducting various independent customer surveys in July 2006 utilizing a software program developed under the UNITeS contract. Customers are randomly selected for participation in electronic surveys. A Procurement Customer Survey is conducted from the list of active purchase request initiators and a Survey of the Policy Office is conducted from procurement personnel, purchase card holders and purchase request initiators. Various categories are addressed in these surveys. Standard questions were developed and information can be sorted by procurement office, question category, etc. The surveys provide opportunities for written comments and allow survey participants to include contact information if follow-up conversations are desired. The surveys are conducted anonymously. Any category that receives less than 90% positive response ratings is further investigated to determine the major concerns.
A telephone survey of the major contractors is also conducted. Participants are selected randomly with the same software used in the electronic surveys. Some of the information is incorporated into the Procurement Scorecard.
Acquisition Planning Tool
The Acquisition Planning Tool (APT) was launched in late 2006. This tool is an on-going project to provide online information regarding upcoming acquisitions. It is a menu driven, web based system that provides information both internally and externally. Summary information on all planned procurements with associated schedules (milestones, revisions, etc.), supporting documentation (synopses, draft request for proposals, etc.), source evaluation board membership (including contact information – email addresses and phone numbers) is available. An overall snapshot of all planned actions with lead times and projected award dates is also available for external viewing.
A variety of acquisition planning data from this tool flows into the Executive Information System. Information such as upcoming awards with forecasted schedules, number of awards by instrument type, number of awards by business types, competition advocacy information and undefinitized contract actions is provided. The Executive Information System data is provided to Center senior management, all Center organizations provide input into the system. The Procurement organization falls under the Business and Financial category in the system. *Note: Concern was expressed regarding the accuracy of the current procurement data since the implementation of the CMM. They have been unable to verify data from CMM.
STRENGTH:
The Marshall Procurement Organization is commended for its efforts towards monitoring procurement activities and utilizing the information for effective organizational planning.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Organization may want to reconsider its practice of providing voting source evaluation board member contact information to the general public. The presence of the contact information may send mixed and unintended signals to the contractor community.
A discussion with the Policy and Review Office indicates that while deviation requests are maintained as part of the log of all actions reviewed by the office, deviations are not separately tracked by that office after approval by the Procurement Officer. The Procurement Officer maintains a file of all deviation requests submitted to Headquarters for approval. The Office requesting the deviation generally monitors its progress and is knowledgeable of its status. A review was conducted of the files for several deviation requests approved by Headquarters. The deviation approval, request, and evidence of Center review were contained in files reviewed.
One Interagency Agreement file reviewed included a deviation request that was not properly processed. The agreement with the U.S. Army Garrison Redstone Arsenal was for the continuation of funding for utilities and other ongoing support services. A deviation to NFS 1817.7001(b) should have been requested from the Assistant Administrator for Procurement because this effort involved more than five years of successive non-competitive orders for the same requirement.
The Marshall Procurement Organization planned to submit a class deviation request to the Headquarters Office of Procurement that covered not only the requirements under this particular Interagency Agreement but also other requirements for services only available through Redstone Arsenal. As a result, the deviation request for the utilities funding was never submitted for approval. The plan for the class deviation was to eliminate the need to request deviations for every action of this type in the future. However, the class deviation request was never prepared and no action was taken to obtain a deviation for the immediate requirement.
CONSIDERATION:
The Marshall Procurement Officer should consider establishing a log of all deviations requested and their subsequent disposition within the Policy and Review Office. This tool could be a useful resource when answering the NASA FAR Supplement question of whether the deviation was previously requested, particularly since individual contracting officers may not be aware of deviations requested by other Marshall Procurement offices.
WEAKNESS:
Deviations to NFS 1817.7001(b) are required for all actions with the same servicing agency and a period of performance that exceeds five years. The Marshall Procurement Organization should submit a class deviation request in accordance with the NASA FAR Supplement requirements to allow the placement of orders with Redstone Arsenal for more than five consecutive years. It may be appropriate to broaden the request to include other Centers with similar circumstances. If the class deviation is not approved, individual deviation requests should be processed as required.
Marshall’s contribution to NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration encompasses oversight of science and hardware development for the International Space Station, management of the propulsion hardware and technologies of the space shuttle, and development of applied materials and manufacturing processes for large complex systems, including the next generation of space transportation and propulsion systems. In the past fiscal year, approximately 92% of the Center’s $2.1 billion procurement budget was awarded to large businesses, which subcontracted 12% of that amount to small businesses. Approximately 8% of the Center’s procurement budget was awarded to small businesses in direct awards. The Marshall Small Business Specialist (SBS) ensures that small businesses are provided the maximum opportunity to compete for and participate in the Agency’s business initiatives. This section discusses key elements of Marshall’s Small Business Program and the factors associated with its assigned socioeconomic goals.
2. Organizational Structure and Staffing:
The Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Program is an integral part of the Agency’s business activities. At Marshall, operation of the program resides in the Small Business/Industry Assistance Office (hereinafter, Small Business Office), within the Marshall Procurement Organization. The SBS is a member of the Information Technology Systems Team, which is part of the Policy and Information Management Office. Additionally, the SBS reports functionally to the Procurement Officer with bi-weekly status meetings. These meetings are sometimes expanded to include the procurement organization’s senior management staff. Annual presentations on the status of the Small Business Program are made to the Center’s Strategic Planning Council, which is comprised of the Center Director, Deputy Director, Associate Director, and Center organization heads.
The SBS is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Small Business Program and manages the Small Business Office’s workload. Responsibilities include providing counseling and outreach to small and large businesses, reviewing procurement requirements for placement into the Small Business Program, participating in procurement planning, implementing NASA Policy Directive, “Uniform Methodology for Determination of Small Disadvantaged Subcontracting Goals” (NPD 5000.2A) procedures to determine small business goals on competitive procurements, evaluating subcontracting plans and performance, overseeing Center goal achievements, resolving compliance issues, and enhancing the program to make it more responsive to constituent needs. He is assisted by a Management Support Assistant and a support service contractor. All commit 100% of their time to small business programs and initiatives.3. Industry Assistance Priorities:
The SBS is charged with implementing and managing all aspects of the Small Business Program, in accordance with the FAR and as directed by the Assistant Administrator for NASA’s Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP). Programmatic priorities include (1) counseling both large and small firms wanting to do business with Marshall and providing advice regarding the importance of teaming relationships; (2) engaging in acquisition planning, analyzing statements of work, and providing guidance on small business participation; (3) monitoring periodic progress and annual results of NASA and prime contractors’ achievement of 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.
The Small Business Office has been creative in developing programs oriented towards increasing small business subcontracting opportunities as well as ensuring that small businesses seeking opportunities to provide quality products to NASA follow accepted procedures. The SBS is actively involved with the Marshall Prime Contractors Supplier Council (MPCSC), a 60-member independent council representing 23 Marshall large business prime contractors. The MPCSC meets at least biannually and its objectives include partnering with small and small disadvantaged businesses. As Advisor to the MPCSC, the SBS confers regularly with MPCSC officers and senior managers within the membership, representing firms such as SAIC, ATK Thiokol, Northrop Grumman, Pratt Whitney-Rocketdyne, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, in an effort to encourage them to involve more small businesses in their procurement strategic planning. The SBS works closely with the Marshall Outsourcing Team, who conducts ISO 9000 inspections of small manufacturing companies that supply the Center with products critical to space flight operations. This initiative is discussed below, under “Programs.”
The SBS is currently establishing a Marshall Small Business Council, a counterpart to the MPCSC. The Small Business Council will initially be open only to small businesses with prime contracts at the Center, but membership will eventually be expanded to include all small businesses that are in the Marshall Small Business Office vendor database. The objectives for establishing the Small Business Council are twofold: (1) to inform the companies about upcoming initiatives at the Center and (2) to educate them in skills needed for success. The SBS plans to work with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to accomplish these objectives. The inaugural planning conference will be held in FY 2007.
The Small Business Office revised its website, “Doing Business with the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center” to enable small businesses to seek opportunities at Marshall more efficiently. Improvements include the establishment of four electronic directories: (1) a Small Business Directory that provides information on professional services companies; (2) a small business Hardware Fabrication, Machining, and Assembly Services Directory; (3) a small business Product Offerings Directory; and (4) a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Vendor Directory. A new search engine, scheduled for release in the spring of FY 2007, will enable users to search for companies on the website by business classification, company name, geographical location, core competency, etc. Companies will be notified electronically to update their profiles annually, and those not updated will be placed in an inactive file.
Another initiative credited to the Small Business Office involves the re-appointment of Small Business Coordinators. Small businesses that desire to interface with Marshall technical personnel may do so through these Coordinators, who serve as points-of-contact and can introduce the companies to the pertinent Marshall organization. Coordinators are aligned with the groups they represent, which include the various offices within the Engineering Directorate, the Shuttle Propulsion Office, and the Science Mission Systems Office. Coordinators’ names, contact information, and affiliated offices are listed on the “Doing Business with the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center” website.
4. Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals:
| FY 2004 Goals | FY 2004 Actual |
FY 2005 Goals | FY 2005 Actual |
FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obligations (in $M) |
2,000.0M |
1,819.3M |
2,000.0M |
1,975.0M |
1950.0M |
2,099.7M |
| SB $ | 130.0M |
181.1M |
130.0M |
154.5M |
132.0M |
156.2M |
| SB % | 6.5 |
10.0 |
6.5 |
7.8 |
6.8 |
7.5 |
| SDB - 8(a) $ | 39.0M |
52.3M |
35.0M |
44.2M |
33.0M |
44.7M |
| SDB - 8(a) % | 2.0 |
2.9 |
1.7 |
2.2 |
1.7 |
2.1 |
| SDB - Non 8(a) $ | 11.0M |
29.4M |
10.6M |
12.0M |
11.0M |
11.5M |
| SDB - Non 8(a) % | 0.6 |
1.6 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
| WOSB $ | 34.0M |
50.2M |
34.0M |
34.9M |
26.0M |
30.5M |
| WOSB % | 1.7 |
2.8 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.3 |
1.5 |
| SDVOSB $ | 15.0M |
22.1M |
19.0M |
25.3M |
18.0M |
22.4M |
| SDVOSB % | 0.7 |
1.2 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
| HUBZone $ | 0.0M |
16.9M |
1.0M |
6.3M |
1.2M |
9.1M |
| HUBZone % | 0.0 |
0.9 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
Marshall has met or exceeded its goals for direct awards to small businesses in all categories for the three years in this reporting period. These goals were achieved or exceeded continuously since FY 1998.
Marshall is ineligible to participate in the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program because of the Center’s excellent track record achieving its goals in the targeted areas. This program targets four industry groups, two of which include construction and architectural & engineering (A&E) services; procurements over $3M are designated full-and-open and procurements under $3M are set-aside for small business. As a result, construction projects are typically awarded based on full-and-open competitions, and interested small businesses are required to compete on those terms. However, noteworthy is the fact that a $26 million A&E contract, which involves building an office complex to house 500 people, was recently awarded to a HUBZone-certified small business in full-and-open competition.
Marshall reports no contract bundling activities in FY 2004 through FY 2006. Small businesses have a proven track record for successfully competing for contracts that were historically awarded to large businesses at Marshall. An example is the A&E contract mentioned above.
5. Center Subcontractor Socioeconomic Business Goals:
| FY 2004 Goals | FY 2004 Actual |
FY 2005 Goals | FY 2005 Actual |
FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sub. (in $M) |
550.0M |
606.3M |
550.0M |
509.3M |
540.0M |
*M |
| SB $ | 240.0M |
281.1M |
240.0M |
232.7M |
235.0M |
*M |
| SB % | 43.6 |
46.3 |
43.6 |
45.7 |
43.5 |
* |
| SDB $ | 78.0M |
105.3M |
78.0M |
137.2M |
88.0M |
*M |
| SDB % | 14.2 |
17.4 |
14.2 |
26.9 |
16.3 |
* |
| WOSB $ | 50.0M |
99.5M |
50.0M |
47.9M |
48.0M |
*M |
| WOSB % | 9.1 |
16.4 |
9.1 |
9.4 |
8.9 |
* |
| VOSB** $ | 0.0M |
0.0M |
0.0M |
0.0M |
0.0M |
*M |
| VOSB** % | 0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
* |
| SDVOSB $ | 0.0M |
2.7M |
4.0M |
4.5M |
6.0M |
*M |
| SDVOSB % | 0.0 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
* |
| HUBZone $ | 5.1M |
11.6M |
12.0M |
7.5M |
14.0M |
*M |
| HUBZone % | 0.9 |
1.9 |
2.2 |
1.5 |
2.6 |
* |
* No data is currently available from the government-wide electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS).
** VOSB subcontracting goals and actuals were not tracked in FY 2004 and FY 2005 but will be tracked in the subsequent fiscal years.
With the exception of the HUBZone goal for FY 2005, Marshall exceeded--in some cases substantially so--its subcontracting goals in each small business category during FY 2004 and FY 2005. It should be noted that while the Center has been exemplary in its socioeconomic goal achievements, the decrease in the space shuttle and space station program activities and the award of design and development contracts that typify the early stages of the new programs in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, unfortunately, create few opportunities for small business participation. These factors will likely affect Marshall’s subcontracting statistics over the coming several years. The outlook for small business subcontracting opportunities will begin to brighten as the new design and development contracts progress into the hardware and production phases.
Subcontracting goals are required on all procurements over $500K and over $1M for construction procurements. The Small Business Office reviews all procurement requests, conducts a review of the proposed solicitation, and implements NPD 5000.2A procedures to recommend goals for Small Businesses (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service-Disabled/Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SD/VOSB), HUBZone businesses, and HBCU/MIs. Determining appropriate goals involves comprehensive market research, consultations with the technical staff, review of SB databases, review by the SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR), and coordination with the Center’s Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA). The single most daunting task involves the identification the technical aspects of the work requirements to ascertain the products and services that can be provided by the small business markets. The SBTA is an invaluable resource in this assessment.
The Marshall Small Business Office is actively involved in reviewing solicitations prior to issuance, representatives work closely with procurement personnel to determine the status--e.g., small business set-aside or full-and-open competition--of upcoming procurements. If the decision is made to conduct a small business set-aside, the SBS initiates a package that includes a Form 450, “MSFC Small Business, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business Coordination Form and Memo for the File” and the rationale for the set-aside decision. The package is then forwarded to the SBA PCR. The SBS and PCR resolve any outstanding concerns prior to the PCR’s concurrence and the issuance of the solicitation. The negotiations between the SBS and the PCR are conducted electronically; a special email account is available expressly for this purpose.
Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Goals:
NPD 5000.2A – is used to establish a uniform method for determining the small business goals incorporated into solicitations for full and open competition valued at $50M or more. The methodology entails review of the solicitation’s statement of work to identify areas with subcontracting opportunities; review of the subcontracting history of the contract if the solicitation is for a follow-on requirement and/or review of the subcontracting history of similar contracts; market research to assess the availability of small businesses with the capability to perform the effort in the statement of work requirements; and a determination of the percentage of the effort that can be subcontracted to small businesses. The goals established are incorporated into the solicitation and the awarded contract and are tracked both on a six month and cumulative basis.
At Marshall, the socioeconomic goals for all solicitations targeting large businesses are developed by the SBS, working in coordination with the SBTA and the SBA PCR. Marshall’s use of the NPD 5000.2A methodology over the past three fiscal years includes the following solicitations:
2005 Engineering, Scientific, and Technical Services (ESTS)
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, Phase I
Environmental Engineering Services
Payload Operations Integration2006 Ares Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) First Stage Engine Development
Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor
Space Shuttle Main Engine
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program
Ares CLV Upper Stage J-2X Engine Development
Space Shuttle Main Engine2007 (to present) Ares Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage Production
Ares Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage Instrument Unit
Ares V RS-68B Engine DDT&E
SBA Procurement Center Representative:
The PCR for Marshall oversees the small business programs for a number of military as well as civilian organizations located throughout northern Alabama, most of Tennessee, and most of Mississippi. Such organizations include the Redstone Arsenal, on whose grounds Marshall is located, Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, the Army Corp of Engineers in both Mississippi and Tennessee, and the Space and Missile Defense Command. The PCR, whose office is located on the Marshall facility, conducts the majority of work via electronic communication, with site visits conducted as occasion requires.
The PCR’s primary function is to maximize opportunities for small businesses, work closely with the Marshall SBS, and provide support and assistance on all small business-related issues. The PCR reviews draft solicitations, prior to providing concurrence on the final decision regarding the use of full and open competition or small business set-asides. The PCR may recommend small business firms that are qualified to perform an effort based on information received about their capabilities through technical presentations at various forums. The PCR reviews the NPD 5000.2A methodology utilized by the SBS to determine small business goals, prior to concurring on the recommended goals. Socioeconomic goal requirements must be approved by the Small Business Office, the PCR, and the Contracting Officer prior to issuance of all solicitations. If the PCR disagrees with the final Center procurement strategy, a Form 70 Appeal may be initiated from the SBA Administrator to the NASA Administrator regarding the decision. No Form 70 Appeal actions were issued at Marshall during this three-fiscal-year reporting period.
The PCR highly commends the Marshall SBS, particularly the individual’s knowledge of procurement practices and small business issues and commitment to work. The SBS includes the PCR in all procurement activities and provides advance notice of upcoming as well as potentially problematic small business issues.
Center Small Business Technical Advisor:
The Marshall SBTA plays a critical role in the Small Business Program. The SBTA is the primary consultant to the PCR and the SBS in determining the extent to which a small business is able to perform the technical requirements of a statement of work.
At Marshall, the SBTA is vital to the implementation of the NPD 5000.2A process and provides the SBS with invaluable support by assisting in the review of statements of work for proposed procurements including Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) components and by identifying potential subcontracting opportunities in technical areas. The SBTA also participates in Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) reviews and serves as a mediator when differences arise between the Small Business Office and Program Offices. In addition, the SBTA evaluates the technical aspects of small business capability statements and reports, participates in agency-wide SBS meetings and also provides insight into technical issues relative to small business procurement opportunities.
The individual designated as the SBTA at Marshall, serves in that capacity on a part-time basis. Other responsibilities include work in the SBIR Program and the Innovative Partnership Program’s (IPP) partnership development initiative. Duties and responsibilities within the SBIR Program provide opportunities to work directly with small businesses conducting cutting-edge research and development for the Agency. The SBTA has worked with the Marshall SBS to encourage SBIR Phase II contractors to post their data onto the “Doing Business with the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center” website. This increases visibility for those firms as potential teaming partners on upcoming solicitations.
Subcontracting plans are required for all contracts exceeding $500,000 in value and for construction contracts exceeding $1M in value. Additionally, NASA requires the use of the NPD 5000.2A methodology for proposed acquisitions exceeding $50M in value, to determine the percentage of work designated for subcontracting opportunities to small disadvantaged businesses, when the contract is awarded to a large business. The Small Business Office has been meticulous in its application of the NPD 5000.2A methodology to large solicitations, in order to establish goals that provide small businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the procurement. The UNites contract and the Engineering Scientific, and Technical Services (ESTS) contracts are examples. The former, awarded in 2004, contains a 34.6% small business subcontracting goal, and the latter, awarded in 2005, contains a 41% small business subcontracting goal. Although substantial, the prime contractors on the respective contracts have exceeded their goals.
Marshall has, until recently, utilized 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 provided by the mentor. The benefit to the mentor company, besides a more favorable evaluation of its proposal, is the opportunity to enhance the expertise that its protégé possesses, for future outsourcing possibilities. The Mentor-Protégé Program was suspended at the end of CY 2006; pending restructuring, it will become operational sometime during the next fiscal year.
3. Award Fee/Incentive Fee Contracts:
The incorporation of a strong subcontracting plan to satisfy requirements of a solicitation is a factor considered during the proposal evaluation process. A contractor’s performance in achieving socioeconomic subcontracting goals is an evaluation factor for award fee/incentive fee determinations. Both are effective measures that ensure prime contractor commitment to teaming relationships with their small business subcontractors. Marshall conducts semi-annual performance evaluations, the findings are documented in the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) report. Achieving the designated small business goals is a “strength” for performance evaluation purposes; failure to meet the small business goals, a “weakness,” generally results in a reduction in award fee/incentive fee.
The amount of available award fee/incentive fee is specified in the contract. Marshall’s PEB Secretariat consists of the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Contracting Officer for the contract. The Procurement Officer serves as chairman for all PEBs. The PEB determines the amount of fee awarded during a given performance evaluation period. The SBS provides an assessment of the contractor’s performance in achieving socioeconomic subcontracting goals in all performance evaluations. These assessments are provided on a form developed by the SBS to ensure consistency across contracts at Marshall.
The contract type is often a determining factor for the subcontracting opportunities in acquisitions. The Marshall SBS advocates a time-phased approach for all research and development contracts and, as needed, for other multi-year contracts, to determine the contractor’s progress in achieving its small business goals. The SBS recommends the establishment of a standardized approach for time-phased activities. The OSBP emphasizes that SBS involvement in post-award activities such as contractor performance evaluations, as a methodology for conducting time-phased socioeconomic goal achievements would ensure uniformity in those assessments.
Small business set asides and 8(a) program awards are considered by Marshall whenever practicable. The ability of small businesses and 8(a) firms to satisfy the requirements of a proposed contract is a major determinant. The sizes of these set-aside contracts vary some are of significant contract value. The SBS works closely with the PCR to determine whether a proposed acquisition should be set-aside for small business consideration for all actions with a value in excess of $2500. The SBS submits a determination to the PCR for concurrence prior to forwarding the documentation to the contract specialist.
Marshall acquires certain products and services through a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the General Services Administration (GSA). The issuance of orders under this BPA is an excellent opportunity to utilize small businesses to obtain the products and services. Recently, Marshall issued a Request for Information to 90 companies from the GSA Schedule to determine their capabilities to provide required products and services. Subsequently, 20 companies were selected for issuance of the BPA. Large businesses selected from the GSA Schedule are required to submit small business goals and a subcontracting plan.
Marshall’s ineligibility to use the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, which has historically been a source of set-aside awards, is discussed above in the “Overview” section of this report (see “ Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals”).
Small business set-asides are used when two or more small businesses possess the capabilities to perform the work required on a contract. During the three years of this reporting period, Marshall awarded a total of 20 contracts as small business set-asides. Marshall also awarded a 233 SBIR contracts and 26 STTR contracts during that period.
Fiscal Year SB Set-Asides Awarded SBIRs Awarded STTRs Awarded Total Value of
SB Set-Asides *2004 2005 2006 * “Total Value” excludes the unexercised option year values for the respective contracts.
Thus far in FY 2007, Marshall has awarded two small business set-aside contracts, for a total value of $402.5M.
All contracts between $100K and $2M are automatically set aside for small businesses if a determination is made that at least two small businesses are capable of satisfying the contract work requirements.
Marshall awards contracts to 8(a) firms whenever possible. The number and total contract value of 8(a) awards for each of the last three fiscal years are provided in the following table:
| Fiscal Year | SBA 8(a) Set-Asides Awarded | Total Value of SBA 8(a) Set-Asides |
|---|---|---|
2 |
$ 12.2 M |
|
In the past, prime contractors were required to submit the “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts”, SF 294 to Contracting Officers to report semi-annual subcontracting achievements. The SF 294s were originally submitted in hard copy to the Contracting Officer, who forwarded the data to the SBS. The SBS entered the data into an electronic system to create a spreadsheet that allowed comparisons between years. The data were reviewed at the Center entered into a database, and an annual summarization report was then forwarded to Headquarters OSBP. This reporting process was recently streamlined: the subcontracting data is now submitted directly into the government-wide electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) by the prime contractors. The SBSs are trained to use this reporting system and are responsible for ensuring that large business prime contractors enter their subcontracting data into the eSRS by the designated due date, as required.
The Marshall SBS engages in numerous outreach activities throughout each year, supporting conferences and business expos sponsored by other agencies and organizations as well as conducting the Center’s own outreach events. Over the three fiscal years in this reporting period, the SBS supported more than 40 outreach activities that include SBA Matchmaking events in Birmingham, Decatur, and Huntsville, AL; the 14th Annual Supplier Diversity Marketplace in Carson, CA; Huntsville Association of Small Business in Advanced Technologies luncheons in Huntsville, AL; the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce Business Expo in Huntsville, AL; the Veterans Conference in Pelham, AL; the Southwest Alabama Business Forum in Thomasville, AL; the Boeing Native American Supplier Conference in Huntsville, AL; University of Alabama’s Matchmaking event; and the SBIR-STTR-HBCU/MI Technology Expo at Alabama A&M University. He also supported NASA events such as the Annual NASA/JPL High Tech Small Business Conference in Los Angeles, CA; the NASA Business Solutions Conference in New York, NY; and the NASA KSC Expo 2004, 2005, and 2006 Small Business Conference at Cape Canaveral, FL.
Marshall-sponsored outreach events include the Northeast Alabama NASA/MSFC Business Forum in Scottsboro, AL; the North Alabama NASA/MSFC Business Forum in Huntsville, AL; the Kansas City/NASA Business Forum in Kansas City, MO; the Missoula-NASA Business Forum in Missoula, MT; the New Orleans-NASA Business forum in New Orleans, LA; the Mobile-MSFC Business Forum in Mobile, AL; and the Southeast NASA Regional Small Business Forum in Vance, AL, Pensacola, FL, and Tucson, AZ. The SBS participated on panels or made presentations about the Center’s socioeconomic program at these events as well as at events listed above.
The Marshall SBS also made a number of off-site visits to large and small businesses during the past three fiscal years, to discuss the Center’s small business program in relation to contracting and subcontracting opportunities. Large business prime contractors include ATK Thiokol, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Teledyne Brown, Pratt Whitney-Rocketdyne, Jacobs Engineering, and the Applied Physics Lab of Johns Hopkins University; small businesses include Summa Technologies (SDB) and Paragon Space (WOSB). Interviews conducted with two large business prime contractors during this survey indicate that they are very appreciative of the effort the SBS takes to speak to their senior management about NASA’s emphasis on small business goals and that the presentations made support their efforts to develop subcontracting plans that meet NASA solicitation requirements.
The creation of the MPCSC is another instance of Marshall sponsored outreach activities. The MPCSC, which provides its membership a productive environment for networking, focuses on strengthening diversity within Marshall’s subcontracting program and on developing a forum for exchange of information and sharing best practices and lessons learned. The “Small Business Marketing Guide to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)”, was created as a result, it includes the training presentation, “Marketing a Prime Contractor,” offered at a number of expos and conferences for small businesses. Member companies alternate in hosting MPCSC meetings, which in FY 2004, were sponsored by Pratt Whitney - Rocketdyne, in Duck Key, FL, and Aerojet General, in Sacramento, CA; in FY 2005 were sponsored by Jacobs Engineering, in Destin, FL; SAIC, in San Diego, CA; and Lockheed Martin, in New Orleans, LA; in FY 2006 were sponsored by Accenture, in Washington, D.C.; Raytheon, in Tucson, AZ; and Northrop Grumman, in Santa Clara, CA. Interviews conducted with two members of the MPCSC during this survey indicate that the SBS does an excellent job of providing guidance to the council and that the Council is very supportive of suggested initiatives, such as ways to involve HBCU/MI organizations in the procurement arena.
The establishment of the Marshall Small Business Council and the “Doing Business with the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center” website are initiatives that promise to benefit small businesses by providing tools that will enable them to be more competitive in obtaining work with NASA. The Marshall Outsourcing Team, which conducts audits of machining companies, 95% of which are small businesses, assists them in achieving ISO 9000 compliance. Businesses interested in participating in this program are included on the limited vendor list (LVL) for non-flight hardware development requirements and the audited vendor list (AVL) for fight-critical hardware development requirements. Marshall Center management utilizes both the LVL and AVL for outsourcing activities. Unfortunately, funding for this program was discontinued, and audits conducted are now being underwritten by the requesting project. The program, which at its peak had more than 50 companies on the approved lists, currently has 32 companies. A consequence of this decrease is a smaller base of participating contractors--i.e., fewer small businesses will be able to compete as primes, opening the field to already-certified large businesses.
Finally, an internal activity with direct impact on the Small Business Office’s outreach efforts is the training provided by the SBS to center personnel and to the Procurement Small Business Action Team (PSBAT), created in October 2005. The former consists of an in-house training module that introduces the Marshall technical and procurement communities to the Center’s Small Business Program. The latter consists of training that focuses on instilling in the participants an appreciation of what the Small Business Program is about, providing hands-on experience in outreach activities, and encouraging them to exchange ideas regarding the manner in which small business priorities can be implemented within their own programs. The participants on the PSBAT are nominated by the managers from each procurement office, meet monthly and serve on the team for six months.
The Marshall Small Business Office conducts comprehensive counseling sessions that address questions and concerns raised by both small and large businesses. Topics discussed include the procurement process, marketable areas, the Center’s business development programs, upcoming procurement opportunities, and procurement points-of-contacts. Individual counseling or one-on-one counseling is provided in person, over the telephone, or via email, as the occasion requires, and a file is maintained on each firm counseled. Over the three years in this reporting period, the Marshall SBS provided in-person counseling to approximately 383 companies per year, telephone counseling on approximately 1,787 calls per year, and email counseling to approximately 2,425 persons per year. Interviews conducted with both small and large businesses during this survey indicate that the SBS is current on Center procurement information, readily able to answer questions, and very willing to provide print-outs of data requested.
The location of the Small Business Office makes in-person counseling sessions somewhat complicated since firms must gain access to both the Army’s Redstone Arsenal and the NASA facility. Interested firms must request a meeting at least 24 hours in advance to gain access. As a consequence, companies that request counseling sessions are more serious about their marketing efforts and focused on their purpose.The Marshall Small Business Office has proven extremely effective as an advocate for small business in meeting or exceeding its socioeconomic goals, in its pro-active internal and outreach programs, and in its implementation of initiatives that provide visibility for companies interested in NASA procurement opportunities. The MPCSC, the Marshall Small Business Council are other initiatives that benefit the Center, ensure the involvement of small businesses whose capabilities will further the Agency’s goals and objectives. Clearly, the strong working relationships established between the SBS and the SBTA, SBA PCR, and Center management are integral to the success of the Marshall Small Business Program. The Marshall Small Business Office is to be congratulated on its accomplishments during this period.
STRENGTHS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
- The Small Business Office previously consisted of two full time SBS it is currently headed by one SBS who is responsible for implementing the many facets of the Center’s Small Business Program. The ramifications of this situation, at a time when Exploration Systems Mission Directorate initiatives are increasing and generating more requirements, are, at present, mitigated by the excellent support provided by the Small Business Office’s staff and by the programmatic efficiencies instituted by the SBS. However, the need for additional assistance, if deemed necessary by the SBS, should be given serious consideration, it would enable the office to implement the program’s objectives and goals in a timely manner.
- NASA Small Business Offices may experience a reduction in the level of support and an increase in the amount of time required to resolve issues with the SBA PCRs as a result of anticipated reductions in the number of SBA personnel qualified to perform PCR activities. The number of individuals eligible for retirement (more than 60% of the current PCR workforce by the end of 2007), SBA funding cuts and the SBA’s difficulty in recruiting qualified procurement personnel are cited as reasons for the anticipated reductions.
|
Owner: Yolande Harden |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: July 2007 |