The NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducted the procurement
management survey at the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) under the
authority of NASA Procedures and Guidelines 1000.3, The NASA
Organization.
The survey was conducted from August 13 - 17, 2007. The report contains the survey strengths, weaknesses, and considerations.
An exit briefing was held on August 17, 2007, to discuss the survey findings.
This report serves as a basis, in part, for fulfilling internal control
requirements in accordance with the Federal Manager's Financial
Integrity Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-255).
Yolande B. Harden/Ronald Backes
Survey Program Managers
Office of Procurement
Analysis Division
SECTION II ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT
SECTION III PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION
SECTION IV GENERAL FILE REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
SECTION V GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES
SECTION VI SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
The NSSC Procurement Division (NSSC Procurement) is providing meaningful support to their technical and program customers.
The Procurement Management Survey consists of two primary components: 1) interviews with technical, procurement and legal personnel regarding the effectiveness of the procurement division and 2) compliance reviews that consist of a review of contracting actions focused on compliance with procurement statutes, regulations and procedures. The primary emphasis of the compliance portion of the Survey is on systemic procurement processes rather than individual file anomalies. Current procurement innovations, both agency-wide and Center specific are also reviewed.
The NSSC Procurement workload structure is somewhat different from other NASA procurement organizations. The organization primarily handles grants, cooperative agreements and simplified acquisitions. It is also responsible for the award and administration of agency-wide contracts and the prime service provider contract for services in support of the NSSC. As a result, the number of non-commercial contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold awarded and administered by NSSC Procurement is very small compared to other procurement organizations. For purposes of this survey, team members conducted general file reviews encompassing several areas typically reviewed as distinct topical areas in traditional survey reports.
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 turn into a problem or problems that are not necessarily systemic but should be corrected or 2) would result in better business practices if corrected.
To promote the exchange of successful lessons learned and innovative procurement methodologies between Centers, the team sought to identify NSSC 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 NSSC.
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 will focus 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 NSSC 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, |
Survey Team Manager, Interviews (Legal, 1102, & COTR), Organizational Structure and Staffing, Metrics Review, Closeout and Unliquidated Obligations, Purchase Card Program, Contractor Performance Evaluations NF-1680, and Audit Follow-Up |
Ron Backes, |
Survey Team Co-Manager, Interviews, Self-Assessment Program, Award/Incentive Fee Contracts, General File Review (Other) and CMM Issues |
Mary Petkoff |
1102 Career Development and Training, COTR Delegations and Surveillance, COTR Training, Commercial and Simplified Acquisitions and General File Review (Prime) |
Jeff Lupis |
Internal Policies and Procedures, HSPD-12 Compliance, SBIR/STTR Program, Grants and Cooperative Agreements and General File Review (Prime) |
Don Moses |
Inter-Agency Agreements, Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition, Competition under Multiple Award and IDIQ Contracts and General File Review (Other) |
Eleanor Chiogioji |
Small Business Programs |
The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of the following individuals:
Tasha Davis |
NSSC Point of Contact |
Suzanne Honeycutt |
NSSC Point of Contact |
1. Organization Structure and Staffing:
The NSSC became operational as a service organization in March 2006. NSSC Procurement started its operational activities at that time. The organization is comprised of a Chief (Procurement Officer) and three branches: Research Activities, Procurement Operations and Contract Management. There were 23 individuals within the division at the time of the survey. The authorized personnel ceiling is 33.
The Research Activities Branch focuses primarily on the award and administration of grants, cooperative agreements and SBIR/STTRs. It consists of a Chief, two procurement analysts and five contract specialists. The Procurement Operations Branch focuses on simplified acquisitions and the administration of agency-wide contracts. It consists of a Chief, eight contract specialists and one purchasing agent. The Contract Management Branch focuses on the administration of the prime service provider contract, and a variety of policy areas including the Purchase Card Program, IEMP, Contract Management Module, etc. It consists of a Chief, one contracting officer and two procurement analysts. NSSC Procurement workforce is supplemented with a significant service provider staff. Service provider personnel are co-located within the NSSC Procurement office space.
NSSC Procurement is comprised of personnel with largely non-NASA backgrounds. Sixty-one percent of the workforce was hired by the NSSC from outside the agency.
2. Procurement Staff Interviews:
Interviews were conducted with several members of the NSSC procurement workforce to gain a greater insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization. Most individuals have been with the organization for just over a year. A few joined in the early organizational development stages. A few individuals transferred from other NASA Centers; however, the majority transferred from other government agencies (primarily Department of Defense).
The overall perception of procurement personnel is that individuals within the NSSC Procurement organization are working under a lot of stress. The turnover rate among both civil servants and contractor personnel is high. Reasons for the high rate include difficulty adjusting to the area (NSSC is not near a major metropolitan area and the Mississippi and Louisiana Gulf Coast area is still recovering from the impacts of Hurricane Katrina) and the extremely high workload volume. Individuals in some branches feel that management is partial to those groups that produce the high volume metrics. The perception is that the workforce is overworked (10 – 12 hour days aren’t mandated but seem to be the rule rather than the exception). However, there was a general impression that things were improving.
Most people interviewed perceived morale as low but improving. There is a perception that management focuses too much on numbers and metrics. Workload is hectic; the low staffing levels create increased pressure. There seems to be a hesitancy to even take sick leave because of the resulting backlog. Many individuals expressed a desire for more challenging workload actions and/or cross-training opportunities.
There were varying perspectives on the flow of communication within the organization. Some perceived the internal communications as good while others thought this was an area that needs improvement. There appears to be little communication across the functional areas within the NSSC or little communication from senior NSSC management down to the working level of NSSC Procurement. There isn’t a clear understanding of the organization’s “big picture” on the part of procurement personnel.
Customer relationships seem to be good overall with both technical and legal customers. The Office of Human Capital training officer community tends to be more difficult to establish relationships with because of a general resistance to the transition of responsibilities away from their Centers to the NSSC.
NSSC Procurement management is perceived as generally effective in the areas of training, management feedback, accessibility and flexibility. Training opportunities are available and encouraged for Headquarters (HQ) sponsored courses and courses sponsored by the NSSC. It was noted that similar training opportunities are not always available for contractor personnel. Concern was raised regarding the lack of grants specific training. Although management is noted for providing recognition and feedback, it is noted that there is a widespread perception that some groups are favored over others.
The majority of people interviewed expressed their ability to communicate with the HQ Office of Procurement when necessary. Others, however, indicated that the nature of their workload did not require the need to communicate with the Office of Procurement.
There is an overall impression that NSSC Procurement management is attempting to address the issues and concerns of its workforce. However, individuals think that more should be done to ensure that areas with single points of contact have alternates designated. One recommendation suggested for relieving the burden was to share resources with the Stennis Space Center’s procurement organization (i.e., policy areas, systems administration, etc.).
STRENGTH:
The NSSC Procurement management team is commended for establishing an effective and functional organization to support the Shared Services Center within a relatively short time frame in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and other challenges.
WEAKNESS:
The NSSC Procurement management team should work to dispel any notions of favoritism (perceived or real) among branches within the organization.
3. Technical Customer Interviews:
Four Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of NSSC Procurement and their level of satisfaction. COTRs interviewed had delegated responsibilities for either the prime service provider contract or one of the agency-wide contracts administered at NSSC. Similar to the procurement organization personnel all joined the NSSC within the last 18 months. Two had previous NASA experience and two were from other federal agencies. Three were scheduled to take COTR training in October 2007.
The overall perception across individuals interviewed is that the relationship with the procurement organization was excellent. Procurement personnel are viewed as responsive, hard working and willing to listen to suggestions.
Overall, from the viewpoint of the technical organizations, NSSC Procurement is doing an effective job to support their respective organizations and the quality of procurement products is good. There is a concern regarding the staffing levels and potential overload of the procurement personnel.
In general, technical organizations are receiving the appropriate level of support, advice and counseling from procurement. One concern raised is the issue of personal services since contractor and civil servant personnel work so closely together within the NSSC environment. More training in this area is needed, particularly since so many individuals are hired from outside NASA and are not necessarily familiar with policies and procedures for working with co-located contractor personnel.
An interview was conducted with the NSSC legal counsel. He came to the NSSC in January 2006 on temporary detail from Langley Research Center and subsequently converted to a permanent NSSC position. He was heavily involved with senior NSSC procurement management in the development of the legal review policy. Grants are not included in the policy; however, he does review some grants actions.
The relationship between procurement and the legal office is perceived as positive. He is regularly invited to key procurement meetings. The procurement organization is highly effective and the quality of the documentation reviewed is generally perceived as good. During his review of some documents, particularly grants, he noticed a lot of duplicative email correspondence. File documentation should be streamlined for content. He is pleased with the contracting officers’ level of fluency on their contracts.
The review levels are perceived as adequate, particularly since he developed the policy. Two areas of concern were raised, the issue of personal services and adequately training personnel regarding appropriate activities. The other area of potential concern addresses the fact that the current COTR for the prime service provider contract is also in the contracting officer’s direct chain of command. Although not currently a problem, over time and with personnel changes, this could potentially become an issue.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should takes steps to ensure that the appropriate level of training is provided to personnel regarding personal services and civil servant/contractor relationships in a co-located environment.
5. Procurement Career Development and Training:
NSSC Procurement has twenty-two employees at the 1102/GS-7 level and above and one person classified as a GS-1105. Nineteen employees possess either a NASA certification or a Department of Defense certification issued pursuant to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). A Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting (FAC-C) has been issued to twelve NSSC Procurement personnel.
Individual development plans (IDP) are effective tools for career development, because when used properly they encourage communication between individuals and their supervisors. Based on interviews with the individual supervisors, over half of the NSSC Procurement staff have either initiated a draft IDP or currently have an approved IDP. According to the supervisors, each individual is offered the opportunity to develop an IDP when performance plans are initiated, and IDPs are updated a minimum of every six months.
NSSC Procurement developed a useful spreadsheet to track warrant status, certification type and level, academic degree status and whether the individual has met the requirement for completion of 24 semester hours of business course work. A random check of the individual training files verified the accuracy of the spreadsheet. There is no documentation present in the files to demonstrate that the GS 1102 qualification standard is met for several individuals.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement management is commended for encouraging its procurement personnel to attain a FAC-C and supporting them in the FAC-C application process. Over fifty percent of the NSSC Procurement staff received a Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting (FAC-C) designation.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should ensure that personnel education levels are documented and maintained in training or personnel files to verify that the qualification standards are satisfied. Individuals who do not currently meet the GS-1102 qualification standard should be counseled regarding methods to obtain the required education for their current position and any future position to which they aspire.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement management should ensure that all individuals hired into GS-1102 series positions meet the qualification standard established by the Office of Personnel Management. It appears that some staff members do not meet the education requirements of GS-1102 qualification standard for the position that they currently occupy.
6. Internal Policies and Procedures:
NSSC
Procurement internal policy documentation was reviewed during the
survey. Currently, NSSC Procurement manages a total of 17
internal policies and procedures. The majority of these are
procedures establishing the process work flows for core business
functions including acquisitions, grants and cooperative agreements,
the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program, and Purchase
Cards. Internal guidance also includes a Service Delivery Guide
for the NSSC-managed Purchase Card Program, Work Instructions for the
Small Business Program and the Review and Execution of Documents.
Overall, no major issues were found based on a cursory review of these
policies, beyond the consideration addressed below.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should re-evaluate the dollar threshold for its Work Instruction for Review and Execution of Documents policy. The current policy states that review of awards above the level of the contracting officer is only required for actions in excess of $750,000. This recommendation is proposed especially in consideration of the diverse work experience of the contracting officers within NSSC Procurement and the relatively low level of procurement activity outside of the training, grant/agreement, and SBIR programs managed by the organization.
NSSC Procurement implemented a self-assessment process when the organization became operational to evaluate and ensure effective management controls and metrics. One self-assessment was conducted prior to the Survey. The Self-Assessment Guide was used to structure the assessment and an appropriate number and mix of contracts, grants, SBIRs, and other actions were reviewed. There was no baseline of weaknesses or focus topics to review since there was no prior HQ survey.
Contract Management Branch personnel conducted the individual file reviews. The results of the review were provided to the responsible operational managers who coordinated with their team members to respond to the findings and propose corrective action. The disposition in several areas noted the limitation of the self-assessment team in understanding the process under review and finding certain official file documentation, specifically the failure of the review team to consider the electronic file documentation.
The self-assessment team considered the Grants program, recently transitioned to the NSSC, the most critical business area requiring review and focused significant efforts in this area. The team developed a Grants checklist and measured conformance of file documentation to that checklist. The checklist reviewed each grant award by asking targeted questions to assess the quality of each award. The questions were weighted based on criticality and averaged into a score from 0 to 100%. The average of all files was then reported as “Red”, “Yellow” or “Green” based on the weighted average score and reported as part of the Grants Self-Assessment Plan to the NSSC Quality Official. The focus on quantifiable measures resulted in a cycle time for grants of less than 29 days.
Both civil servant and contractor personnel are responsible for NSSC Procurement business processes. The service provider maintains a series of contract performance measures. Their performance is measured separately. The contract performance metrics are integrated with NSSC organizational metrics. The self-assessment represents a holistic look at integrated civil servant-contractor processes and files. Upon completion, the self-assessment is submitted to HQ Office of Procurement.
The prime service provider contract, awarded as a result of an OMB Circular A-76 competition that created the NSSC, was reviewed by the responsible contracting officer during the self-assessment. While it is unusual for a contracting officer to conduct an assessment of their own work, the fact that the contracting officer in this case was new to the contract provided a degree of independence and a clear benefit to the organization. Due to the limited number of personnel available to support the assessment, the back-up Purchase Card Program administrator reviewed Purchase Card transactions.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement management is commended for the integrated metrics and depth of analysis conducted by its organization. The self-assessment portrayed a reflective analysis of issues and disposition by management.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should consider incorporating an executive summary into its self-assessment report. The self-assessment would be more effective if it contained a brief executive summary describing the review process, and the numbers and types of files reviewed, as well as a summary of results.
2. NSSC Procurement should modify the self-assessment to identify specific corrective actions to address weaknesses, with action officers and dates for completion to ensure consistent follow-through on findings.
3. NSSC Procurement management should clarify the source of the official record for all of its documents, whether they are resident in a paper file or in an electronic system. For documents residing solely in an electronic system, ensure that reviewers are aware of the location of such documents and receive sufficient training and access to the documents to facilitate the review.
NSSC Procurement collects, tracks and maintains a wide variety of metrics data. The focus is primarily on transactional services, particularly in the area of grants; SBIRs and training purchases (number of days to process grants/orders; and number of grants/orders processed over a period of time). Data obtained from these metrics are reported to the Centers on a monthly basis.
Service Level Indicators (SLIs) are established for each functional area within the NSSC. The SLIs drive the operational goals of the organization and are used as a quantitative means to ensure that the service level agreement (between the NSSC and the Centers) is achieved. The SLIs for the NSSC Procurement measure performance of grants/cooperative agreements and SBIR/STTRs. The measurement is based upon the completion of a package/process within a certain number of days and percentage of total volume. Metrics data for measuring the volume of training purchases provide rationale for potential reductions in the service provider staff in the next fiscal year.
Individual employee productivity is measured in a variety of ways. Charts and graphs are maintained which reflect individual award actions on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. This data appears to have the potential for usefulness as management tools in workforce planning, distribution, etc. Grants awards are also measured against a yearly goal established by the NSSC based upon Center projections and subsequent charges back to the Centers. The goal reflects the ‘break even’ point for the NSSC in the grants area.
Weekly reports are issued on the age of grants processed within the organization. This report provides insight on potential problems with incomplete packages, etc. A qualitative assessment of grants actions is conducted on a quarterly basis. This includes an objective review of the grants files utilizing a checklist with a variety of questions regarding the grants file content. Information is reviewed and potential trends and other issues are addressed with both the civil servant and contractor workforce.
Milestones and lead times are tracked by the Procurement Operations Branch Chief and the Procurement Officer. This task is relatively simple at this point because of the small number of contracts administered by NSSC Procurement. A local business warehouse contains the vast majority of the data measured at the NSSC. As a result, the inability to obtain reports through the Contract Management Module (CMM) has not had much impact on the organization’s ability measure productivity and performance.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement is commended on its ability to collect a wide variety of metrics data particularly during a time when many Centers have been impeded by problems with the CMM reporting system.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement management should consider placing more emphasis on utilizing the data as a management tool to assist in workforce planning, workload distribution, rotational and cross training opportunities, etc. It appears that currently the primary emphasis is placed on meeting goals and reducing costs.
Noncompetitive contract files were reviewed for compliance with FAR Subpart 6.3 and NFS Subpart 1806.3 regarding other than full and open competition. Training request purchase orders were reviewed for compliance with Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 02-16 and FAR 13.106.
The training requests reviewed generally met the sole source requirements criteria: 1) current employee enrollment at a university; 2) employee selection by a human resources panel for executive training; or 3) conducting software training necessary for the employee to perform assigned duties where the required software training was provided by one known source. Price reasonableness was justified utilizing catalog pricing, prices paid by the general public, and other supporting statements contained in appropriate file documentation. PIC 02-16 provides guidance on best value determinations to include other than price related factors for training between $2,500 and $25,000. Best value determinations were not included in the files reviewed. All of the training orders reviewed ranged in valued from $2,500 to $14,500.
NSSC Procurement currently administers only one sole source contract. The fair and reasonableness determination provided was based on historical NASA prices and contractor charges to industry and other Government agencies for similar services based on a number of criteria including organization size and resources. The requirement was synopsized. The documentation for “only one responsible source” contained good rationale and was executed in accordance with FAR 6.302-1.
NSSC Procurement placed a sole source delivery order for a one-year subscription in the amount of $392,000. A determination of price reasonableness was not found in the contract file. The order was placed directly with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) under the authority of the Library of Congress (LC) Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) program. Under the program, LC negotiates volume discounts with commercial suppliers for library, information support, and other services on behalf of Federal entities. Although LC is part of the Legislative branch of the government and is technically not bound by the FAR, as a matter of LC policy, LC adheres to the FAR as a service to FEDLINK members, most of whom are Executive branch agencies. Section 103 of P.L. 106-481 (2 U.S.C. 182c) authorizes the FEDLINK to provide services to federal agencies entitled to use federal sources of supply. FEDLINK features two options for acquiring services:
1. Transfer pay option via a signed interagency agreement, purchase order or MIPR which provides for funds management flexibility and procurement processes assistance
2. Direct Express option which allows agencies to cite the FEDLINK contract number on the agency purchase order and send the order directly to the vendor.
NSSC Procurement utilized the direct express option to place its order with IEEE. The FEDLINK delivery order established each vendor as the sole source for its individual products and services. Thus, a FAR 6.302-1 JOFOC is not required. The NASA FAR Supplement requires the Assistant Administrator for Procurement approval of interagency acquisitions with agencies not covered by the FAR. However, NSSC Procurement documented in the file that such approval was not required since the order was issued directly to the contractor rather than as an interagency agreement to LC, a non-executive branch agency.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Training Request Purchase Orders
1. NSSC Procurement should include a best value determination in the contract file that considers other available sources as applicable in accordance with the guidance in PIC 02-16. The determination should also include other factors in addition to price that provide the Government with the greatest overall benefit. For sole source and non-sole source actions, other factors may include, but are not limited to, quality, availability, location, timeframe, relevance and past performance.
Contracts
1. NSSC Procurement should perform a price comparison of FEDLINK vendors with similar products or services or use other price analysis techniques to document price reasonableness for future FEDLINK purchases.
2. NSSC Procurement should include the following as part of its rationale for not requesting approvals in accordance with NFS 1817.7002: “Although the Library of Congress is in the Legislative branch of the Federal government and technically not bound by the FAR, as a matter of LC policy, LC adheres to the FAR as a service to FEDLINK members, most of whom are Executive branch agencies.
2. Contractor Performance Evaluation:
Files were reviewed for compliance with FAR 42.15 and NFS 1842.15. Most of the contracts that fall within the dollar thresholds for these requirements were transferred to NSSC Procurement within the last six to nine months, and the evaluation periods have not yet expired. Contractor performance evaluations were reflected in the contracts and the Past Performance Database (PPDB) for the prime service provider contract and a handful of smaller dollar value purchase orders.
There was only one performance evaluation present in the file and PPDB for the prime contract although the period of performance began in 2005. Six month award fee evaluations are conducted on the contract; however, the results of these evaluations are not reflected in PPDB.
A review of performance evaluations
under the ODIN contract (transferred to the NSSC for administration
within the last nine months) revealed that the individual Centers are
responsible for conducting and entering information regarding their
respective orders into the PPDB. Seven of the ten locations
entered performance evaluation information into PPDB; most evaluations
contained a good narrative description of the contractor’s
performance. In two instances only adjective ratings were
present. Three Centers - Ames, Dryden and Glenn - did not have
any performance evaluation information in the PPDB for this
contract.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should ensure that the award fee executive summary information is entered into the PPDB as a means of complying with the requirements for past performance evaluations for all award/incentive fee contracts.
2. NSSC Procurement should monitor and encourage Centers to enter performance evaluation information for the ODIN contract into the PPDB in a timely manner. This information will be particularly useful to the NSSC contracting officer during the re-competition for the follow-on requirement.
The prime service provider contract was awarded on May 17, 2005 for NASA Human Resources, Information technology, Finance, and Procurement Support as a result of a competition pursuant to OMB Circular A-76. The planning, solicitation and award decisions were made at NASA Headquarters. Contract administration was transferred to the NSSC after award. The contract was awarded as a cost reimbursement award fee contract. The award fee is based on the estimated costs at time of award. The contract type was determined to be in the best interests of the government because of the opportunity to provide periodic detailed evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
Contractor performance is assessed based on four strategic objectives: Unparalleled Customer Service; Shared Services Delivery; Freeing Resources for NASA Mission Objectives; and Best Business Processes and Management Systems. These strategic objectives translate into the two award fee factors: Technical Performance (70%) and Cost/Business Management (30%). Contractor performance is also assessed in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), which measures performance against specific Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) derived from the strategic objectives. The QASP was modified in May 2007 to align the service provider reporting feedback with the measures in the Award Fee Plan. QASP results are reported to the Award Fee Determining Official (FDO) for consideration as part of the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB). The contracting officer conducted an audit/floor check in June 2007 to validate day-to-day administrative processes on the contract.
Performance was assessed and award fees determined for the four six-month periods since contract award. The percentage of fee awarded ranged from a low of 89% to a high of 95% of available fee, with overall ratings of “Low Excellent” to Excellent” in accordance with the Award Fee Plan. Contractor performance information is reported to the COTRs from the four functional leads: Human resources; Procurement; Information Technology; and Finance. The functional leads solicit feedback from customer surveys and informal communications from those receiving NSSC services. Distinguishing between feedback targeting contractor performance and feedback targeting NSSC civil servant performance is reported as a challenge. Metrics are a significant source of performance information reported by each functional lead. The individual serving as COTR was appointed due to his extensive experience and thorough knowledge of contract requirements. Due to the size, complexity, and visibility of the contract, the COTR is in a senior leadership position within the NSSC organizational structure. The Procurement Officer is a direct report of the COTR.
PEB reports identified several weaknesses, including: the absence of proactive leadership; reactive and poorly planned procurement support; and inaccurate financial reporting. The PPDB report for the first year of contract performance found that Quality is an area that the service provider “is deemed deficient,” and that there is a “lack of accuracy and reliability regarding performance metrics reports.” Problems with subcontractor invoices and accuracy and reliability of the financial management reporting were only overcome by the “Government’s strong and repeated emphasis of the deficiencies during the period.” PPDB ratings ranged from “Good” for Cost/Price, “Very Good” for Quality and Timeliness, and “Excellent” for “Other”, which included significant Business Process and Management accomplishments and meeting or exceeding NASA small business goals. The FDO determined that Hurricane Katrina was a mitigating factor for early performance issues and that strengths outweighed weaknesses justifying an excellent rating.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement is commended for the high-level of integration between the QASP and Award Fee Plan. Contractor performance is regularly assessed, tracked and reported consistently through metrics and formal reports. Performance metrics are thoroughly ingrained in the business processes and culture of NSSC.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should revisit the metrics to used assess their continued effectiveness at measuring performance and make adjustments for the future. Successful contractor performance against metrics developed at time of contract award was achieved in most areas; however, the current requirements are not necessarily consistent with those performance measures.
2. NSSC Procurement should obtain feedback from NASA HQ and Center “functional owners” for key aspects of contract performance as well as from individual users. Currently contractor performance information is gathered internally at the NSSC and through customer satisfaction surveys transmitted electronically to individual users of services.
3. NSSC Procurement Management is strongly encouraged to review the available award fee pool and percentage of fee available to the contractor to ensure that it accurately reflects the actual costs of contractor performance and make any necessary adjustments. Concern was raised that the award fee pool is based on a significantly larger cost baseline and larger contractor workforce than is currently performing on the contract, resulting in inflated fee award amounts. The reduced contract costs are characterized alternatively as “cost savings” resulting from increased efficiencies, lower labor costs resulting from recruiting and retention weaknesses, and misleading financial reporting due to delinquent processing of cost invoices for subcontractors.
4. NSSC Procurement Management should review the award fee determination process to minimize any potential risk resulting the current NSSC organizational structure and lines of authority of the contracting officer, COTR and FDO. Currently the individuals in the positions of COTR, contracting officer and FDO are doing an outstanding job of maintaining open lines of communication and assessing contractor performance. However, there is a potential risk of undue pressure undermining the independence of the contracting officer’s judgment, and an appearance of an organizational conflict of interest as a result of the placement of these individuals within the NSSC organizational structure.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement Management should ensure that documentation of contractor performance information is consistent, that the performance evaluation narrative captures significant strengths as well as weaknesses, and that the performance evaluation information supports the percentage of fee awarded to the contractor. The documentation of contractor performance reflects weaknesses and deficiencies that do not appear to support the percentage of fee awarded.
4. Contract Close-Out Process:
NSSC Procurement has no contracts ready for close out, as a result there currently is no process in place for conducting closeouts. Contracting officers are expected to process closeouts for their own purchase orders. There are no closeout contract employees dedicated to NSSC closeout activities at this time. A decision will be made at a later date to either obtain someone specifically for NSSC closeout or to utilize the closeout contractor personnel assigned to the Stennis Space Center.
A contract closeout checklist was recently created; however, it was still in the review cycle during the survey and has not been formally issued for use. This checklist is applicable for simplified acquisitions only. Large dollar contracts will utilize the standard closeout forms and procedures outlined in the regulations. The Contract Management Branch is responsible for establishing the formal closeout procedure.
A service delivery guide is being established for the closeout contract. This guide will define an agency-wide process. It is an attempt to standardize closeout processing across the agency.
Closeout of grants is administered within the Research Activities Branch since the process is different than for contracts. Due to the volume of anticipated closeout actions, there may be a need for closeout contractor personnel to assist in this process. Again, none of the grants currently administered by NSSC Procurement are ready for closeout.
5. Competition under Multiple Award Task and Delivery Order Contracts:
The FAR 16.5 establishes a preference for making multiple awards of indefinite quantity contracts. NSSC Procurement has not awarded an indefinite quantity contract resulting in multiple awards since its inception in March 2006. The Outsourcing Desktop Initiative for NASA (ODIN) multiple award indefinite quantity contract was transferred from Goddard to NSSC in November 2006. NSSC Procurement performs contract administration while each Center Mission Directorate (ARMD, SOMD, and HQ) manages its respective delivery order under the contract. The contract term expired June 20, 2007, with five of the original seven vendors no longer providing ODIN services. Delivery orders with the two remaining contractors are ongoing and can not extend beyond June 30, 2010. NSSC Procurement managers indicated that the ODIN follow-on contract should result in awards to multiple vendors.
Several GSA Federal Supply Schedule
(FSS) awards were reviewed. All were compliant with FAR 8.4. NSSC
Procurement did not award any GSA Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)
which resulted in awards to multiple vendors.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to making multiple awards under a single solicitation in accordance with FAR 16.5 and/or under GSA BPAs for future requirements. Previous surveys at other NASA Centers revealed that on-site support services are good candidates for indefinite quantity multiple awards.
6. Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) Training and Delegations:
NSSC Procurement maintains an electronic spreadsheet with the list of COTRs. There are eleven contracts administered by NSSC Procurement with COTR delegations. The files reviewed showed that COTRs have either completed the mandatory COTR training specified in the NFS or were granted temporary COTR delegations by the NSSC Procurement Officer. The temporary delegation does not exceed six months. The electronic spreadsheet contains information regarding the training and refresher completion dates to help track required refresher COTR training.
The contracts with delegated COTRs were reviewed to verify the presence of the requisite NASA Form 1634 “COTR Delegations”. The appropriate delegations were present in the files reviewed. Additionally copies of the COTR’s training certificates are filed with the delegation. This documentation provides further assurance that the required training was completed. NSSC Procurement administers an agency-wide BPA for COTR training. The COTR training topics required by the NFS are listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) for the BPA.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement is commended for its well planned process for issuing COTR and alternate COTR delegations. The process includes a comprehensive flow chart used to ensure that Government employees are trained to perform COTR or alternate COTR functions prior to receipt of a COTR delegation.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should consider increasing the number of individuals with COTR training. This may be particularly helpful since many individuals within the various organizations are required to multi-task and assume many responsibilities.
NSSC Procurement currently has only one contract that is subject to DCAA audits. All other large contracts administered and/or awarded within the organization are commercial in nature. There are currently no open audits on the contract. The contracting officer plans to request an incurred cost audit after the end of the fiscal year. Any open audit actions would be tracked by the contracting officer for the prime contract.
Background
The unique nature of the NSSC mission in comparison to other NASA Centers defines the NSSC Procurement workload structure. As a result, NSSC Procurement awards and administers relatively few non-commercial contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold. For purposes of this survey, team members conducted general file reviews encompassing several areas typically reviewed as distinct topical areas in traditional survey reports. A general review of the prime service provider contract was conducted. The remaining large contracts administered within the organization were reviewed collectively.
Topics considered during the general file review included: acquisition planning, market research, pre/post negotiation memoranda, contractor safety requirements, government furnished property, exercise of options, financial management reporting, cost/price analysis, structured fee approach, technical evaluations, environmental issues, subcontracting plans/consent, etc. Additional topics covered during the review of the prime service provider contract included: service provider oversight/surveillance process, performance metrics and service delivery guide effectiveness.
1. Prime Service Provider Contract Review:
A major component of the work completed by the NSSC is performed through the large cost-plus-award-fee contract for “Service Provider” support in the performance of non-inherently governmental tasks associated with supporting the NSSC mission. Review of the award fee aspects of the contract is addressed separately in this report. Further, pre-award procurement strategy considerations, which were managed prior to the NSSC implementation, are outside the scope of this review.
The review is focused on post-award contract administration issues. An interview was conducted with the cognizant contracting officer concerning salient characteristics of the contract, and a review was conducted of select contract modifications and contract administration files.
The most current Financial Management Report information reviewed reflected a wide variation of projected skill mix from those originally forecast to complete work requirements. An analysis of labor skill usage developed by the contracting officer indicated wide variations in all labor groups from the originally proposed effort.
A QASP was developed for the contract to construct a disciplined approach for monitoring contract performance. The QASP subsequently revised and improved since inception of the contract is comprehensive and detailed. Unfortunately, the QASP is not effectively used for the purpose of monitoring contract performance. Specifically, the QASP includes an Appendix B, “Risk Based Surveillance Performance Areas Requiring Proactive Surveillance.” In accordance with the requirements of the QASP, a comprehensive review of contractor work effort is required to determine high risk performance areas, and those high risk areas incorporated into the Appendix B within six months of implementation of the QASP. These high risk activities were still not identified at the time of this review. The contracting officer is; however, making efforts to use the QASP in order to facilitate performance monitoring. The only areas reviewed by the contracting officer to date are timekeeping records and subcontract consent. While it is commendable that an effort to implement the QASP was initiated, concern is raised regarding the limited scope of review. Additionally the areas under review do not seem to represent the most crucial areas of contractor performance.
Finally, a selection of contract modifications was reviewed. It is noted that two undefinitized contract actions (UCAs) were initiated by NSSC Procurement since contract inception. One UCA modification involved reduction of work regarding relocation requirements and also shifted a portion of work for extended temporary duty assignments to a different portion of the performance work statement. A second UCA modification changed and enhanced information technology enterprise architecture requirements and added task order capabilities. Several problems were noted with these UCAs. Specifically, the first modification was issued without a dollar value; as a result Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) approval was not required. However, subsequent to issuance of the UCA, the action was definitized at a cost and fee of over $800K. Additionally, the scope of the change was not limited to the minimum effort required to satisfy urgent program requirements while a cost proposal was prepared, analyzed, and negotiated for the requirement (reference NFS 1843.7003). The second UCA modification was properly approved by the HCA but, similarly, did not limit work requirements. This fact was more problematic in this instance since the estimated cost of the change was in excess of $4M.
STRENGTHS:
The NSSC Procurement contracting officer responsible for the prime service provider contract is commended for his expertise and organizational skills. He is very knowledgeable of key contract administration considerations and comprehensively addresses contract administration issues. Specific examples include proactive actions in addressing Financial Management Reporting and QASP issues.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should investigate the need to re-evaluate work requirements and determine whether a re-scoping of the original contract is warranted once work requirements stabilize.
2. NSSC Procurement should ensure that the contractor is in compliance with the Organizational Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan. Due to the nature of this contract, organizational conflict of interest and personal services issues need to be closely monitored. One recommended approach is the periodic audit of major aspects of the Plan. The periodic review might verify the completion of annual employee training and execution of the non-disclosure agreement by employees as specified in the Plan regarding the handling of sensitive data.3. NSSC Procurement should review its current procedures to ensure that proper controls are in place to prevent the performance of personal services by contractor personnel based on guidance established in FAR 37.104. It is noted that the NSSC Procurement management is sensitive to this issue and initiated employee training to ensure that personnel are aware of guidance on government and contractor roles and responsibilities.
4. NSSC Procurement should reconcile the small business subcontracting goal performance information currently available in the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The appropriate reports are due to the NASA Office of Small Business Programs.
WEAKNESSES:
1. NSSC Procurement should properly implement the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan developed for the contract through the completion of Risk Based Surveillance Performance Areas Requiring Proactive Surveillance. Performance monitoring should address areas of performance based on this risk assessment.
2. NSSC should ensure that the policies for use and approval of Undefinitized Contract Actions stipulated in NFS 1843.7003 are more closely followed.
File reviews were conducted on several large contracts for requirements development, acquisition planning, market research, solicitation documents, source selection rationale and supporting file documentation. Generally, file documentation was located in the appropriate tab, clearly marked and appropriate for the procurement action. Some files reviewed included numerous and duplicative e-mail messages within the contract file, hindering the ability to readily locate needed information.
The requirements development process involved an appropriate mix of personnel within NSSC Procurement and across affected NASA Centers. The development process included a survey of NASA Centers and other agencies for similar efforts. Market research, including contact with industry representatives, appeared thorough and was used to refine the government’s requirement, statement of work, and data requirements. The research was used for the development of the acquisition and source evaluation plans. The contracting officer, legal advisor and appropriate NSSC management personnel are involved with the development and review process. Several innovative acquisition approaches were identified, including the use of management questionnaires. Answers to the questionnaires become contractually binding, and incident schedules enable the government to withhold contract payments for unsatisfactory performance.
Acquisition planning was conducted and documented in all files reviewed. In one case, Procurement Strategy Meeting slides were located in the file without any additional documentation. The slides did not contain a presentation date, identify the audience or identify the name and position of the approving official. A second file contained an excerpt from the NFS indicating that acquisitions under $10M require acquisition plans in accordance with installation procedures. NSSC Procurement had not developed local procedures for acquisition plans at the time of the survey.
Market research documentation was consistently included in the contract files reviewed. The documentation of market research was good in the files reviewed, included an evaluation of available goods and services; identified and resolved potential competition issues; and was coordinated with the small business representative.
Internal file reviews were appropriate for the dollar threshold of the acquisitions reviewed. They were timely and conducted in accordance with NSSC Procurement review policy. Involvement of the legal advisor in the acquisition process is effective at the NSSC. NSSC Procurement customers expressed satisfaction with the organization stating very good experiences and smooth procurements. Also noted was that a large amount of difficult work was accomplished in a short timeframe. Much of the success was perceived as the result of effective planning. One area of concern involved the inability to provide dedicated Source Evaluation Board (SEB) personnel. The necessity to continue with the day-to-day workload while serving on the SEB presented a challenge.
Evaluation documentation was inconsistent from file to file. One file contained thorough documentation of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The discussion of tradeoffs among non-price factors was clear in the Source Selection Decision document. In a second file, for the acquisition of commercial services, the initial evaluation resulted in one offeror meeting the baseline technical requirements and three offerors not meeting the baseline technical requirements. A competitive range was established including the two lowest price offerors; one met the baseline requirement, and one did not meet the baseline requirement. Discussions were held with the offers. The result of the discussions was a determination that both offerors met the baseline requirements, and award was made to the offer with the lower price who previously did meet the baseline requirements. The documentation supporting the Source Selection Decision included a statement that discussed the ratings but not the substantive findings of the evaluators related to the proposals. A slide presentation was included in the file; several paragraphs that indicated the successful offeror did not meet requirements based on initial evaluations were marked through on the presentation. The file contained no documentation of the discussions held other than the date/time and participants.
Several commercial and professional service contracts included the requirement for submission of a formal Safety Plan. In the acquisitions reviewed, the value of a formal Safety Plan is questionable.
Personal services is a sensitive issue at the NSSC due to the close proximity and working relationship between the service provider personnel and civil servants. The general file review of the non-service provider contracts contained several statements that could be perceived as promoting personal services. In one example, the Schedule of Supplies and Services on a task order for ISO services included the statement: “It is recommended that Alice, Karen, Kevin, and Rick participate in this briefing.”
Two professional service task order files reviewed were awarded as firm fixed price task orders for services. Both orders contained the limitation of costs clause, and one referenced an order for a designated number of “auditor days”. It was not clear from the file documentation that the basic contract authorized the placement of fixed price level of effort orders, and the basis for pricing was not contained in the order files.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should develop procedures for the development, review and approval acquisition plans for acquisitions with an estimated value less than $10M.
2. NSSC Procurement should consider targeted training for individuals involved in the Source Evaluation Board process and ensure a consistent understanding of the documentation requirements.
3. NSSC Procurement should review, with the HQ Office of Procurement, the requirement for Safety Plans in commercial and professional service contracts to ensure proposal submission requirements are kept at a level consistent with mission needs while imposing minimal paperwork burdens on contractors interested in doing business with NASA.
4. NSSC Procurement should include a discussion of how to structure non-personal services contracts to avoid the appearance of personal services in the training. NSSC Procurement should also consider extending this training to service provider personnel responsible for the preparation of contracts and orders for contracting officer signature.
5. NSSC Procurement should review task orders to ensure that orders placed are consistent with the basic contract requirements and that the task order files contain appropriate documentation to support the award.
1. Grants and Cooperative Agreements:
Grants and Cooperative agreements was one of the first major components of procurement activities transferred to NSSC from the various NASA Centers. Currently, NSSC Procurement is responsible for all Agency grants and cooperative agreements. The transfers were completed in two waves, and NSSC Procurement has awarded and administers, over 2000 grants and cooperative agreements. One of the major advantages of a shared services organization is that it lends itself to standardization, a clear focus, and hopefully process improvements that provide a better product than was achieved through the completion of requirements at the separate Centers. This advantage has clearly been achieved by NSSC Procurement.
A sample of grant and cooperative agreement actions were reviewed for compliance with NASA grant and cooperative agreement policy established in the NASA Grant Handbook and compliance with requirements for the acceptance of unsolicited proposals, which are addressed in the Grant Handbook, FAR 15.6 and NFS 1815.6. The majority of files reviewed were awards resulting from Broad Agency Announcements, although some awards were also the result of Congressional Earmarks or the award of unsolicited proposals.
The large majority of files were correct in all aspects, and no major systemic problems were noted. Any issues with documentation were generally the result of variations in the quality of the documentation submitted by the NASA Centers involved in generating grant and cooperative agreement requirements. File folders were generally in a well documented and standardized format. Standardized NSSC Procurement checklists and forms, most notably the “Checklist for Grant Award File Content” and “NSSC Cost/Price Analysis Memorandum”, were present in the files.
It is noted that a metric (29 days for award of grant packages) was established to monitor timely award requirements. A notable outreach tool used by NSSC Procurement is the grant status web page, which ensures that both grant/cooperative agreement recipients and government technical personnel are kept current on transaction status. Overall, the well documented, well constructed and complete packages reviewed provide a positive testament to the advantages gained through the shared services center model.
NSSC Procurement was instrumental in working with NASA HQ to improve the “NASA Research Announcement (NRA) Guidebook for Proposers” to better reflect NASA documentation requirements and cost justifications necessary for submission of complete grant/cooperative agreement proposals. Similarly, the newly revised Grant and Cooperative Agreement Transmittal Form will help to better ensure that NASA Centers forward a complete documentation package to NSSC Procurement for award. NSSC Procurement worked to balance timely award of grants and cooperative agreements with the requirements to properly document awards and review proposed costs for reasonableness.
Most technical evaluations of grant or cooperative agreement proposals reviewed were one sentence general statements and did not include specific comments on individual elements. Although the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook requires the use of a Budget Summary form, including a review of individual cost elements by the technical personnel and the grants officer, this form was not used in most cases or when used the appropriate columns were not completed. In situations where cost questions were raised through the technical evaluations, it is not clear whether these issues were researched and resolved by the support specialist.
Several examples of long term grant or cooperative agreements were noted during the review. Awards were made initially through either the competitive process or unsolicited proposals and were subsequently extended through successive extensions of the grants or cooperative agreements. Specific examples are Glenn Research Center (GRC) for Fuel Dilation Studies, Scholarship Programs, Diffusion Flame Research, and Charged Particle Instrument Investigations.
STRENGTHS:
1. NSSC Procurement is commended for its well documented, well constructed and overall thoroughness of the grant and cooperative agreement files. The files reviewed included the proper clauses and utilized standardized checklists and forms to ensure the completeness and quality of the files.
2. NSSC Procurement is highly commended for its work with NASA HQ and Center offices to improve and standardize the grants processes agency-wide. This includes efforts to improve the quality of documentation provided by Centers for award purposes and by recipients to justify proposed costs and other business considerations.
3. NSSC Procurement is commended for efforts to develop a catalog of market research information used to ensure that proposed costs are within reasonable parameters for areas including labor, travel, conference and other costs where rate information is not independently available through the Department of Health and Human Services or the Office of Naval Research.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should focus on improving file documentation. The team recognized that although improvements were made in this area, there were still many files reviewed that needed improvement. For example, a number of files reviewed did not include the standard Checklist for Grant Award File Content. Several Cost/Price Memoranda were only signed by the support specialist, but not the Grant Officer. Since the support specialist (service provider) can only make recommendations regarding the reasonableness of proposed costs and other aspects of the proposal, the Grant Officer’s signature on all Memorandums is the preferred business approach.
2. NSSC Procurement should undertake special efforts to address long standing Center issues associated with grant and cooperative agreement selection procedures. While these issues did not originate at the NSSC, they should be addressed and corrected in coordination with the NASA HQ Sponsored Research Business Activity (SRBA) office. Issues include:
a) Work to improve the quality of technical evaluations of grant and agreement cost proposals.
b) Ensure that unsolicited proposals research work is vetted through the competitive peer review process via NASA Research Announcements.
c) Ensure that unsolicited proposals are not used to fund attendance at conferences.
2. Simplified Acquisitions/Commercial Item Procurements including Training Procurements:
The review of simplified and commercial acquisitions covered a range of topics, such as file documentation, use of GSA schedules and GSA’s E-Buy system, price reasonableness, best value determination, evaluation factors and past performance. The overall quality of the reviewed files was adequate; however, some files were better organized and had stronger file documentation than others.
Most of the reviewed files were well organized and contained the appropriate forms and documentation, including standardized checklists. Some sole source files contained documentation asserting price reasonableness, but it was difficult to determine how that conclusion was reached. The basis for price reasonableness seemed to be the GSA schedule pricing of the sole source vendor selected for the order.
The review found that the technical evaluation factor for the agency-wide blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for COTR training services did not promote a performance-based contracting approach, because the technical evaluation factor was used to assess only the instructor qualifications and experience of the proposed instructors. The reviewer was unable to find minimum instructor qualifications or experience requirements in the BPA or the SOW. Without minimum instructor qualification requirements, there is no assurance that the vendor will continue to provide the same instructors proposed or instructors with similar qualifications during the 5-year BPA period. Additionally, no course materials were solicited or evaluated prior to issuance of the BPA. As a result, there is no way to verify whether the vendor will address required topics in the area.
The review found that the best value approach for some of its training purchases did not include past performance considerations. During FY 2007, NASA HQ Office of Procurement representatives raised past performance concerns to the NSSC Procurement staff, including the contracting officer about the quality of some training vendors. These issues were surfaced both verbally and in writing. No file documentation was found reflecting the discussion of the past performance issues or their disposition. Furthermore, NSSC Procurement subsequently awarded a training order to a vendor with recent poor performance at NASA. NSSC Procurement did not solicit additional detail from the HQ personnel who raised the past performance concerns.
The files for several GSA schedule purchases contained GSA schedule pricing from more than one vendor. However, there was no indication that discounts from the GSA schedule prices were requested. Additionally, most files did not include E-Buy quotes from the unsuccessful vendors. There is no way to verify that E-Buy quotes were solicited from vendors other than the successful vendor.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement is encouraged to reconsider its minimum SOW requirements and technical approach when instructor qualifications, experience and adequate coverage of training topics are important for successful training.
2. NSSC Procurement should request a discount off the GSA Schedule price and document the file accordingly for GSA Schedule purchases as a good business practice. Soliciting quotes through E-Buy from each vendor considered may generate the overall lowest price for the Government.
WEAKNESSES:
1. NSSC Procurement should ensure that the price reasonableness determination is not based solely on the GSA schedule price list on sole source procurements.
2. NSSC Procurement should consider past performance as part of the overall responsibility determination for all acquisitions, including simplified acquisitions.
Training Procurements
NSSC Procurement has the responsibility to procure both internal and external training for the Agency. Internal training activity transitioned to the NSSC in July 2007. Due to the recent transition of internal training activity to the NSSC and the low number of transactions processed, this review did not include internal training.
External training activity transitioned to the NSSC in July 2006. The NSSC Procurement processed over 11,000 transactions during the 13 month period preceding the survey. The review of the external activity included interviews with the responsible NASA civil servants and a discussion of the process with service provider personnel. The review did not include a sampling of the external training transactions or an in-depth review of the process to procure external training.
The vast majority of the external training requests are below the micro purchase level; however, the volume of requests is extremely high. Well over ninety-percent of the external training purchases are pre-paid using Government Purchase cards. Based on the cursory review, it appears that the NSSC Procurement has established effective processes to procure external training, both non-academic such as conferences and academic such as university courses. NSSC Procurement placed a considerable amount of effort into streamlining the process to procure external training and is working to eliminate paper files for training procurements.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should re-examine the process to certify completion of external training. There is a concern that should an individual enroll in training and the Government pre-pay for the training, that the individual may miss the training but still receive credit for attendance.
The Space Act of 1958 (Space Act) applies to NASA interagency acquisitions. NASA elected to amend its implementation of the Space Act for interagency acquisitions to the requirements of the Economy Act at FAR 17.5. Procurement Notice (PN) 04-10 was issued to clarify the NFS policy for acquiring products or services from or through Military Departments and Civilian Agencies and to ensure consistency in the use of interagency agreement forms across NASA. The review focused on the following documents required by NFS to execute interagency acquisitions: Determination and Findings; NF-523 Interagency Purchase Request and Acceptance; and Acceptance of MIPR DD form 448-2.
Determination and Findings
The file review revealed that some of the FAR and NFS requirements were met but in no instance was there evidence of a legal review of a Determination and Findings (D&F) as required by NFS. A legal review was, however, performed on the NSSC/Government Printing Office (GPO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The absence of D&F legal review along with inconsistencies found in the documentation and pricing support for FAR 17.5 Economy Act statements warrant corrective action. An example of the noted inconsistencies is the acquisition of four CON 353 training courses from Defense Acquisition University (DAU). While the file adequately demonstrates best value, the D&F does not contain the necessary Economy Act statements required by the FAR and NFS. Conversely, other D&Fs reviewed contained some of the necessary Economy Act statements but provided no supporting price reasonableness rationale. The file should contain a statement of price reasonableness based on a number of basic price analysis techniques.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should develop and implement local guidance on performing price analysis and making reasonableness determinations to the degree necessary for interagency acquisitions.
2. NSSC Procurement should use the applicable VPO template or develop and implement a local template that will ensure that interagency acquisition D&Fs contain all of the information required by NFS 1817.7002 and FAR 17.5.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC should ensure that legal reviews are performed on D&Fs in accordance with NFS 1817.7002(g).
NF-523 - Interagency Purchase Request and Acceptance and DD Form 448-2
Form NF-532 is required to acquire products or services from or through military departments and civilian agencies. Three of the four NF-523s met all NFS requirements with the GPO order as the exception. That order did not include a provision and instructions for submission of invoices and payments, nor did it cite the Space Act authority. Further, none of the acquisitions contained language regarding agreement by the parties on procedures for the resolution of disagreements that may arise as required by FAR 17.504 (c).
NSSC Procurement uses “Acceptance of
MIPR DD Form 448-2” for orders issued to civilian agencies. According
to the NFS 1817.7004-3, this form is explicitly for
utilization on agreements between NASA and DOD and should not be used
for acquisitions with civilian agencies. The NFS stipulates that the
NF-523 should be utilized for acceptance by civilian agencies.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement should ensure that NF 523 is utilized for interagency acquisitions with civilian agencies in accordance with the NFS. Further use of the DD Form 448-2 as acceptance of the interagency acquisition by the civilian servicing agency should be discontinued.
One individual is responsible for both Center Purchase Program Coordinator (CAPC) and Agency Purchase Card Coordinator (APC) duties. It is noted that these are collateral assignments for this individual, other duties and functions include Small Business Specialist, Center NAIS administrator, Center Property point of contact and Center Procurement policy point of contact (this duty was recently re-assigned to another individual). Although functioning in the capacity of APC, the official designation has not yet been issued.
The process for nominating and approving card holders includes nomination from the approving official with review and approval by the CAPC and Procurement Officer. Potential card holders and approving officials are required to complete training via SATERN. Delegations are signed by the Procurement Officer upon completion of training. Separate files are maintained with appropriate documentation for all card holders and approving officials. Card holders outside the procurement organizations have single transaction spending limits of $3K. Card holders within the procurement organization have $25K single transaction limits and $500K monthly limits. The Procurement Officer has a $100K single transaction limit for use in emergency situations.
Convenience checks are used for some training purchases. Only four purchase card holders have convenience check writing authority. The Procurement Officer also maintains a convenience check for emergency purchases. There are currently 17 approving officials and card holders at the NSSC. Refresher training is required every three years. However, training is offered more frequently due to the high turn over rate of employees. A spreadsheet is maintained to track training and refresher course completion.
Card utilization is tracked with a report received from Bank of America which reflects frequency of use. Any dormant accounts are terminated. Reviews are conducted utilizing the banks’ electronic access system (EAGLS) that tracks various audit reports. Additionally, the P-Card Solutions software is used to conduct random reviews of purchase card transactions. Purchase card transactions were also reviewed during the self assessment process.
A formal audit was recently conducted for the period October 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Results were shared with the approving officials to emphasize areas of improvement. Purchase card policies and procedures are available on the NSSC shared drive as ready references for approving officials and card holders. The website also includes links to other Centers’ purchase card sites as well as relevant GSA, Office of Management and Budget and Bank of America sites. There is an established procedure for transactions that exceed the prescribed limits; it requires concurrence of the branch chief. The majority of purchase card transactions are made within the Procurement Operations Branch.
Employees are required to return the purchase cards as a part of the checkout process. Cards are then destroyed and the accounts terminated.
APC responsibilities include constant interaction with CAPCs from the various NASA Centers. The APC coordinates discussions regarding agency best practices, handles policy issues and works with the Headquarters Office of Procurement Policy lead for purchase card issues. The APC also serves as the focal point for OIG and GAO audit reports regarding purchase cards. This includes working closely with the HQ Procurement OIG/GAO liaison and NSSC audit and finance team.
STRENGTH:
The CAPC/APC is commended for the thorough effort of monitoring purchase card activities both on a local and agency level in addition to the various duty assignments in other areas.
5. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Awards:
NSSC Procurement is responsible for all of Agency SBIR/STTR procurement actions. The actions are transferring from Center organizations in a phased approach. NSSC Procurement currently awards and administers SBIR and STTR Phase I actions. Responsibility for Phase II and Phase III is scheduled to transfer shortly. The NSSC Procurement also interprets its responsibilities to extend to procurement policy issues associated with the Program. This interpretation is based on past agreements between Center personnel and the HQ Office of Procurement establishing a special role for Center offices involved in the SBIR/STTR program (specifically at the Glenn Research Center). These agreements were not formally documented in the past and clarification of responsibilities is necessary in this area, particularly with regard to delegating agency-wide procurement policy decisions to a Center installation.
Contract award
documents reviewed included the correct SBIR/STTR specific contract
clauses and a progress payment clause incorporating a payment schedule
that is consistent with NFS requirements.
The NSSC Procurement
developed standard forms and checklists to ensure that required
documentation is included in individual files. These forms
include standard checklists for file content, a technical evaluation
form, a budget review memorandum and a negotiation memorandum.
These standard forms, as well as other necessary pre-award
documentation, is consistently present in either the individual
contract files, or in a Master File that is used to retain
documentation that is common to all awards, such as the original
SBIR/STTR program synopsis and the agency-wide solicitation.
All SBIR Phase I contracts reviewed included the clause “Final Scientific & Technical Reports” 52.235-73 (Deviation) in the contract. However, documentation from NASA HQ approving use of the deviation clause in the SBIR Phase I contracts could not be located.
Several inaccuracies and/or discrepancies were found during the review of the Budget Memorandum contained in the SBIR Phase I award files. Examples are listed below:
1. There was no evidence that inquiries were made to address concerns with the offerors regarding proposed costs.
2. Although the Budget Memorandum included a responsibility determination made based on a checklist notation that the offeror performed successfully on prior contracts, no specific examples were provided or referenced.
3. The competition statement of the budget asserts that cost analysis is not necessary when adequate price competition present. However, it further states that a comparison of rates among offerors is a valid method to determine price reasonableness. The two statements contradict themselves.
4. The budget review uses constantly changing “averages” to justify rates. In one case, the average was not consistent with the proposed rate; however, a rationale to accept the rate was still provided. Another file stated that the rate compared was favorable to the average even though the average rate was significantly higher.
5. Numerous cases were found where the budget memorandum was not signed, even though signature blocks were provided for both the specialist and contracting officer.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement is commended for the development and utilization of standard forms and checklists to include with SBIR/STTR documentation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The HQ Office of Procurement and NSSC Procurement need to clarify roles and responsibilities regarding SBIR/STTR procurement policy.
2. NSSC Procurement should ensure that SBIR Phase I contracts include implementing procedures required by FAR 52.204-9 “Personal Identity Verification for Contractors” as appropriate.
3. NSSC Procurement should ensure that SBIR Phase I contracts contain documentation reflecting HQ approval for use of the “Final Scientific & Technical Reports” 52.235-73 (Deviation) clause.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement should ensure that the Budget Memorandum contained in the award file is accurate and contains documentation to support the reasonableness of the proposal submitted.
6. Homeland Security Policy Directive (HSPD) -12 Compliance:
Contract files were reviewed for compliance with the requirements of FAR Subpart 4.13 “Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel,” and Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 06-01 “Personal Identity Verification of Contractors.” These policies implement the contractor credentialing requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) “Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors” and Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPs PUB) Number 301, “Personal Identity Verification (PIC) of Federal Employees and Contractors.” The FAR guidance applies to solicitations and contracts issued or awarded on or after October 27, 2005, and requires contracting officers to include the clause 52.204-9, “Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel”, (and implementing procedures), in solicitations and contracts whenever contract performance requires contractors routine physical access to a federally-controlled facility or access to a federal information system, irrespective of contract value. Guidance in the PIC also requires modification of existing contracts requiring such access to include the clause and implementing procedures, unless the contract is physically complete prior to October 27, 2007.
Review of the files revealed that the clause was added to all SBIR/STTR awards; however, implementing procedures were not incorporated. No evidence of individual analysis of the need for the clause was evident. It appears that the approach utilized was to include the clause in all such awards regardless of applicability. NSSC Procurement representatives stated that a decision was made not to modify the clause to include the implementing procedures due to costs associated with this activity. It is noted that if the clause and implementing procedures are actually required for the SBIR/STTR Phase I contracts, this type of business decision cannot be supported.
STRENGTH:
NSSC Procurement is commended for its timely completion of the modification of contracts requiring implementation of the clause.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. NSSC Procurement should work with the SBIR/STTR program office to establish a procedure to determine the applicability of the clause 52.204-9 for individual contracts. Currently the clause is incorporated into all SBIR/STTR awards processed by NSSC procurement without the associated implementing clause which negates its applicability.
2. NSSC Procurement should work with HQ Office of Procurement to develop a procedure to require proper evaluation of grant and cooperative agreement actions for HSPD-12 requirements, thus ensuring that individual requirements are properly screened.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement should ensure that business decisions regarding operations do not contradict FAR requirements and NASA guidelines. Centers do not have the option to decide not to incorporate the implementing procedures for FAR Clause 52.204-9 into applicable contracts because of cost concerns.
7. Contract Management Module (CMM) Issues:
NSSC Procurement Super-users and the Center Business Process Lead (CBPL) were able to effectively integrate CMM into day-to-day business processes. All contracts reviewed contained corresponding CMM records. Solicitation and contract documents were consistently generated within the CMM system. The majority of contracts administered by the NSSC were transitioned from other NASA Centers. NSSC Procurement management and CMM leadership were effective in synchronizing various formats and processes.
The acting CBPL maintains contact with contracting officers and users through regularly scheduled meetings and informal contact. She creates validation reports within CMM and notifies individual users and managers of required actions. She provides training to civil servants and recommends service provider training needs to the Procurement Officer. The acting CBPL has a direct line of communication to the NSSC Procurement Officer and regularly communicates issues of concern or of interest. There are two Center Functional System Administrators at NSSC, one civil servant and one service provider. There are four Super-users, two civil servants and two service providers. There is appreciation for the solid support provided by Tasha Davis, the acting CBPL. However there appears to be a need for additional Super-users to support operations.
A review of individual records within
CMM revealed several formatting and process issues, including the lack
of page numbers for CMM generated purchase orders; the absence of the
contract/order number on each page of CMM generated contracts; and the
incorporation of extensive Section B narrative in the SF1449 and SF30
continuation sheets for Orders and modifications. The issues were
recognized by the acting CBPL, and remedial training was provided to
the users to address them. Required changes are consistently
reported for correction through the Integrated Enterprise Management
Program Competency Center Remedy system. NSSC Procurement
personnel conducted a review of CMM Usage for Grants awarded at NSSC
and used the results to increase the level of user familiarity with CMM
and acceptance.
From the individual users’ perspective, CMM is generally perceived as
“not too bad”. A significant percentage of NSSC Procurement
employees came to NASA from other agencies, and the NSSC as a new
entity did not have an engrained business system for generating
solicitations and contracts. Most employees adapted to CMM
relatively easily. There was a perception that the learning curve
associated with CMM limited effectiveness, but once familiarity is
gained it is just another tool. The SAP interface is seen as the
major impediment to efficiency.
The
influx of new employees at the NSSC presents numerous challenges,;
including addressing the needs for introductory and continual training
on the system. Work within the NSSC Procurement is highly
specialized; some individuals are only exposed to SAP transactions and
do not have the opportunity to work within the CMM environment.
Diversification of work would provide individual users the opportunity
to see other functions within the system, and enhance their competence
generally within NSSC Procurement operations.
The diverse background of the NSSC Procurement workforce without
previous experience with SAP, combined with the large number of
employees from agencies outside of NASA, made adoption of the system
more transparent. NSSC Procurement did not experience resistance
stemming from loyalties to legacy systems. The challenges
experienced are primarily customer service oriented from the Competency
Center. These challenges are perceived as process-oriented rather than
a service-oriented. The perception of NSSC Procurement personnel
is that CMM produces acceptable documents. The documents are not
necessarily in a recognized or familiar format, but they are legally
sufficient.
The NSSC as an organization has a highly developed and refined system of metrics for assessing individual and organizational performance. CMM and Business Warehouse data is inadequate to support the NSSC data needs. NSSC developed the “Datamart”, an Oracle-based data repository and reporting tool to satisfy their data needs. This tool gathers data primarily from their Remedy system. CMM document formatting challenges occur primarily in the Grants Milestone and SBIR Solicitation Templates. The recommended solicitation template for SBIRs is the research and development template; however, this does not conform to the SBIR Handbook guidance for SBIR Solicitation content. A number of grants and SBIRs are not generated within the CMM, and the ones generated in CMM are modified externally, resulting in an inaccurate version of the solicitation within CMM.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should continue to monitor CMM usage to ensure maximum use of CMM to generate and store accurate solicitation and contract records.
The goal of the NSSC is to provide the Agency “timely, accurate, high quality, cost effective, and customer focused support” in four business areas: Financial Management, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Procurement. The objective is to reduce the amount of resources expended by consolidating the administrative activities hitherto performed independently at each NASA Center and standardizing core business processes. The NSSC, whose operational budget is funded by “fees” received from the Centers for services rendered rather than appropriations from NASA HQ, cited cost containment as a primary focus and estimated agency savings of $12 - $15M over the past year. This section of the report addresses key elements of NSSC Small Business Program as it relates to the Center’s organizational structure, initiatives and the factors associated with its functional role. The inclusive dates of this reporting period are the second half of FY 2006 through FY 2007.
2. Organizational Structure and Staffing:
The recently established NSSC is considered a “Headquarters” organization because it consolidates and manages many of the agency’s overhead functions and administers the agency-wide contracts that support those functions. Its partner in this effort is the prime service provider contractor which was awarded the contract to assist in building a shared services organization that would provide high quality, efficient, and cost-effective output for selected NASA business and technical requirements. The prime contractor team consists of 325 service providers. The NSSC became operational in March 2006, a year after contract was awarded. The delay was largely the result of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Currently housed in the Lockheed Martin building on the Stennis Space Center, the NSSC is scheduled to move into its new facilities, in closer proximity to the Stennis Space Center headquarters building, in January 2008.
The Small Business Program resides in the Contract Management Branch of NSSC Procurement. NSSC Procurement is one of four Divisions within the Service Delivery Directorate that reports to the Center’s Executive Director. None of the three branches within NSSC Procurement is fully staffed and interviews to fill at least five positions were being conducted at the time of this Survey. NSSC Procurement management indicated that staffing, especially after Katrina, is a major challenge. The numerous responsibilities of the Small Business Specialist are a consequence of this problem. The Small Business Specialist is also the Agency’s program coordinator for the Purchase Card Program, the point-of-contact for NAIS system administration as well as for the FPDS-NG system administration, the procurement policy point-of-contact, the Continuity of Operations Implementation Plans (COOP) lead and is a Procurement Analyst in the Contract Management Branch.
The Small Business Specialist’s organizational responsibilities are aligned with those of NSSC Procurement, while the functional responsibilities are aligned with the activities and concerns of the Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP). Approximately an eighth of the time is dedicated to addressing the requirements of the Small Business Program. As a result, the Small Business Specialist is not always available to participate in OSBP initiatives and activities. These activities include: internal training to apprise NSSC Procurement personnel on the Agency’s requirements regarding small business issues and priorities concerning the inclusion of small business in procurements; participation in the formulation of policies and procedures to streamline the implementation of requirements; and participating in outreach activities with other Small Business Specialist that would enable the Centers to utilize the capabilities of companies interested in doing business with NASA and contributing to meeting the agency’s mandated small business goals. These initiatives and activities, which focus on building a strong and viable agency-wide Small Business Program, also strengthen the Small Business Programs at individual Centers.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement should work to realign the responsibilities of the Small Business Specialist to ensure timely support of the OSBP mission and programmatic objectives and establish a Small Business Program that provides effective support to its procurement activities. Further, NSSC Procurement management should provide strong support of the Small Business Program and the Small Business Specialist position.
3. Industry Assistance Priorities:
The NSSC Small Business Specialist is charged with conducting all aspects of the Small Business Program, as directed by regulation and by the Assistant Administrator for NASA’s OSBP. Programmatic priorities include (1) counseling both large and small firms seeking business opportunities with the NSSC and providing advice regarding the importance of teaming relationships; (2) active involvement in acquisition planning, analyzing statements of work, and providing guidance on small business participation on work packages; (3) monitoring periodic progress and annual results concerning the achievement of the negotiated socioeconomic business goals for both NSSC and the prime contractor; (4) providing oversight of prime contractors’ subcontracting programs to ensure compliance; and (5) participating in a broad range of outreach activities.
Implementation of these priorities is limited at the NSSC, due largely to the growing pains of this newly established Center. The NSSC is still building its infrastructure, including its Small Business Program. Organizationally, service provider personnel receive inquiries from small businesses regarding opportunities. As a result they are often directed to the prime contractor personnel responsible for subcontracting activities. Stennis Space Center also receives referrals for contracting or subcontracting opportunities.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should ensure that the Small Business Specialist is available to implement industry assistance priorities and participate in events sponsored by other organizations.
4. Center Prime Contractor Socioeconomic Business Goals:
NSSS Procurement awarded fourteen small business contracts during this reporting period. One contract was a follow-on competition. The other contracts were awarded through GSA Schedules. Of the thirteen GSA Schedule buys, two were full-and-open competitions, five were small business set-asides, and six were sole source awards. The contracts were awarded to seven small businesses (SB), at least one of them a small disadvantaged business (SDB); four woman-owned small businesses (WOSB); and three veteran-owned small businesses (VOSB).
The table below includes data (numbers were rounded to the nearest decimal point) for the second half of FY 2006 (from March 2006) and all of FY 2007. The percentages reflected in the “Actual” columns represent the proportion of eligible business dollars obligated in the various categories of small business. The NSSC is not required to establish and meet Center specific socioeconomic goals because of its mission, organizational structure, and functional responsibilities.
| FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual | FY 2007 Goals | FY 2007 Actual | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obligations (in $M) |
N/A |
33.3M |
N/A |
33.7M |
| SB $ | N/A |
0.3M |
N/A |
3.2M |
| SB % | 0.0 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
9.5 |
| SDB - 8(a) $ | N/A |
0.3M |
N/A |
2.4M |
| SDB - 8(a) % | 0.0 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
7.1 |
| SDB - Non 8(a) $ | N/A |
0.0M |
N/A |
0.0M |
| SDB - Non 8(a) % | 0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| WOSB $ | N/A |
0.3M |
N/A |
0.4M |
| WOSB % | 0.0 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
1.3 |
| SDVOSB $ | N/A |
0.0M |
N/A |
0.0M |
| SDVOSB % | 0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| HUBZone $ | N/A |
0.0M |
N/A |
0.0M |
| HUBZone % | 0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Table 1: NSSC SB Prime Contractor Data
The data suggest that NSSC Procurement is actively obligating funds to procure goods and services, rather than funding its operational budget with Center assessment fees for services provided. According to NSSC representatives, the use of NSSC funds to acquire products and services other than commodities such as paper and office supplies is an unusual occurrence. The Working Capital Fund, which consists of advanced payments from the Centers for estimated services, is administered by the NSSC. The advanced payments include associated costs for overhead expenses.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should consider establishing Center-specific small business goals, based on projections of increased procurements and opportunities for small businesses. NSSC Procurement small business accomplishments could contribute to achievement of the Agency’s overall mandated goals.
5. Center Subcontractor Socioeconomic Business Goals:
As stated above, the NSSC Procurement has no established Center- specific socioeconomic goals--prime or subcontract. Information concerning the prime service provider’s small business subcontractor obligations and expenditures was not available at the time of this survey. Therefore it was impossible to verify the accuracy of the data submitted in the small business subcontracting report. Two contributing factors to the lack of information were cited by the contracting officer: (1) the number of contract change orders requires updating the subcontracting plan, completion of the update was anticipated by end of FY 2007, and (2) the subcontracting actuals data recorded into the eSRS was entered by someone in the prime contractor’s corporate headquarters. Prime contractor representatives indicated that new procedures for entering data into eSRS are being developed and they plan to work closely with the contracting officer to ensure reporting accuracy.
The table below reflects the most recent subcontracting data for the prime contractor. The data was submitted by the contracting officer, with acknowledgement that errors will be rectified at the company level. The contracting officer plans to reject the next eSRS report until those errors can be resolved. Depicted are the prime contractor’s small business subcontracting goals and actuals in dollar amounts and percentages for the first six months of FY 2006 (from March 2006) and all of FY 2007, using as a base, each fiscal year’s total subcontract value. The prime contractor’s two large business subcontractors account for some of the monies expended.
| FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual | FY 2007 Goals | FY 2007 Actual | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sub (in $M) |
13.5M |
13.7M |
13.5M |
11.0M |
| SB $ | 8.4M |
5.1M |
8.4 |
4.4M |
| SB % | 62.2 |
37.2 |
62.2 |
40.0 |
| SDB - 8(a) $ | 5.8M |
4.2M |
5.8M |
3.4M |
| SDB - 8(a) % | 42.9 |
30.6 |
42.9 |
30.9 |
| WOSB $ | 2.4M |
0.9M |
2.4M |
1.2M |
| WOSB % | 17.8 |
6.6 |
17.8 |
10.9 |
| VOSB $ | 1.9M |
2.5M |
1.9M |
2.6M |
| VOSB % | 14.1 |
18.2 |
14.1 |
23.6 |
| SDVOSB $ | 1.9M |
1.3M |
1.9M |
2.6M |
| SDVOSB % | 14.1 |
9.5 |
14.1 |
23.6 |
| HUBZone $ | 0.65M |
0.4M |
0.65M |
0.0M |
| HUBZone % | 4.8 |
2.9 |
4.8 |
0.0 |
Table 2: Prime contractor SB Subcontracting Data, Based on Total Subcontract Value
The next table measures prime contractor achievement of the small business goals required in the contract. Achievement is measured using the total contract value as base divided across each of the five contract years. Prime contractor small business subcontracting goals are depicted in percentages and actuals for the first six months of FY 2006 (from March 2006) and all of FY 2007. The prime contractor did not achieve its goals in any categories except VOSB during the initial the six-month period. The prime contractor did not achieve its SB, SDB, WOSB, and HUBZone goals in FY 2007. The prime contractor exceeded its VOSB goals for both years and its SDVOSB goal for FY 2007. The contracting officer noted that errors may be present in the data and future submissions into eSRS will be monitored closely.
| GOALS | FY 2006 Goals | FY 2006 Actual | FY 2007 Goals | FY 2007 Actual | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Contract Value (in $M) | 112.0M |
22.4M |
22.4M |
22.4M |
22.4M |
| SB $ | N/A |
8.4M |
5.1M |
8.4M |
4.4M |
| SB % | 40.0 |
37.5 |
22.8 |
37.5 |
19.6 |
| SDB - 8(a) $ | N/A |
5.8M |
4.2M |
5.8M |
3.4M |
| SDB - 8(a) % | 18.0 |
25.9 |
18.8 |
25.9 |
15.2 |
| WOSB $ | N/A |
2.4M |
0.9M |
2.4M |
1.2M |
| WOSB % | 5.0 |
10.7 |
4.0 |
10.7 |
5.4 |
| VOSB $ | N/A |
1.9M |
2.5M |
1.9M |
2.6M |
| VOSB % | 1.0 |
8.4 |
11.2 |
8.4 |
11.6 |
| SDVOSB $ | N/A |
1.9M |
1.3M |
1.9M |
2.6M |
| SDVOSB % | 2.0 |
8.4 |
5.8 |
8.4 |
11.6 |
| HUBZone $ | N/A |
0.65M |
0.4M |
0.65M |
0.0M |
| HUBZone % | 3.0 |
2.9 |
1.8 |
2.9 |
0.0 |
Table 3: Prime Contractor SB Subcontracting Data, Based on Total Contract Value
STRENGTH:
The contracting officer for the prime service provider contract is commended for an excellent job identifying the discrepancies in the metrics reported and determining the root causes of the difficulties associated with obtaining timely and accurate subcontracting data. The contracting officer is commended on his diligence.
CONSIDERATION:
NSSC Procurement should determine whether small business subcontracting goal achievements are credited at the overall agency level or at the Center level.
WEAKNESSES:
1. NSSC Procurement should ensure that contractor performance evaluation and subsequent award fee is consistent with the prime contractor’s performance in small business goal achievement. The prime contractor received a substantial portion of the available award fee despite the fact that poor performance is noted in the area of small business goal achievement.
2. NSSC Procurement should ensure that the Small Business Specialist has sufficient time and resources to effectively monitor the prime contractor’s small business subcontracting performance in accordance with NSSC Procurement Work Instruction, dated July 30, 2007.
NSSC Procurement Work Instruction for Small Business Considerations states that the Small Business Specialist should be involved “as early as possible in the planning of acquisitions.” Involvement includes participating in all procurement strategy meetings held at the NSSC; providing assistance in determining the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and size standard; identifying possible set-aside opportunities; documenting the small business consideration process; reviewing the subcontract plan(s) of the offer(s) in the Competitive Range; and monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting its small business goals in award fee contracts. The Small Business Specialist, participated on one Source Evaluation Board during this reporting period, works closely with the contracting officer/specialist to ensure that the tasks are completed expeditiously.
Small Business Specialist’s involvement in procurement planning to date is minimal, largely due to the demands of other work responsibilities. These other organizational responsibilities preclude the Small Business Specialist from conducting the small business-related responsibilities described in the Work Instruction.
Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Goals
NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 5000.2A establishes a uniform method for determining the small business goals for inclusion in large business solicitations of more than $50M. NSSC Procurement has not had occasion to implement the procedures outlined in NPD 5000.2A. The Small Business Specialist reviewed small business subcontracting plans for two procurements conducted by NSSC Procurement. Neither contract exceeded the $50M threshold that requires use of the NPD 5000.2A for determining small disadvantaged business subcontracting goals. NSSC Procurement awarded eight other contracts to large businesses--two sole source, three sole source through the GSA, and three competitive contracts through the GSA.
Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center Representative (PCR):
The NSSC has no SBA Procurement Center Representative (PCR) currently assigned.
Center Small Business Technical Advisor
The Center Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA) plays a critical role in the Small Business Program. This individual is the primary consultant to the SBA PCR and the Small Business Specialist(s) in determining the extent to which a small business can perform the technical requirements of an RFP’s Statement of Work. The NSSC has not yet assigned an SBTA.
Subcontracting plans are required for all contracts exceeding $550,000 in value and for construction contracts exceeding $1M. As stated above, the NSSC Small Business Specialist reviewed two subcontracting plans during this reporting period.
3. Award Fee/Incentive Fee Contracts:
Utilizing performance on socioeconomic subcontracting goals as an evaluation factor for contract award and for award fee and incentive fee determinations is an effective method for keeping prime contractors “committed” to their relationships with their small business and small disadvantaged business subcontractors. Periodic contract reviews are conducted, and the findings are documented in a Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) Report. Achievement of the small business and small disadvantaged business is considered a “strength” on the PEB; failure to meet the goals is considered a “weakness” and generally results in a reduction in award fee.
The prime service provider contract is the only award fee contract administered by NSSC Procurement. Its overall small business subcontracting goal is 40% of the total contract value. The prime contractor did not meet the majority of its overall or individual goals. The VOSB and SDVOSB goals were achieved.
WEAKNESS:
NSSC Procurement should ensure Small Business Specialist involvement in the award fee evaluation process. Active participation in the award fee evaluation process ensures that the prime contractor’s small business subcontracting achievements are appropriately evaluated and reflected in the award fee score.
NSSC Procurement has awarded several set-aside contracts: one competitive 8(a) and four GSA competitive small business set-asides.
Small Business Set-Asides
Procurements are set-aside for small business when there is an expectation that two or more small businesses can perform the work required. In the year-and-a-half of this reporting period, NSSC Procurement awarded a total of seven small business set-aside contracts, one in FY 2006 and six in FY 2007.
NSSC Procurement also awarded a total of 83 Phase I SBIR contracts and a total of 11 STTR contracts this fiscal year, the first year that administration of the SBIR/STTR Program has been housed there. NSSC Procurement awarded all Phase I SBIR contracts as well as the Phase II contracts for four NASA Centers (Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Stennis Space Center) in FY 2008. NSSC Procurement plans to award all Phase I and Phase II SBIR contracts throughout NASA in FY 2009.
| Fiscal Year | SB Set-Asides Awarded | SBIRs Awarded | STTRs Awarded | Total Value of SB Set-Asides |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
N/A |
N/A |
0.27M |
|
6 |
83 |
11 |
9.28M |
*The second six months of FY 2006, NSSC became operational in March 2006.
Table 4: NSSC SB Set-asides
NSSC Procurement awards and administers SBIR and STTR contracts NASA-wide. Contract administration is the responsibility of NSSC Procurement; the respective Center technical organization is responsible for managing the technical requirements. As a result, the Center providing the funding and technical requirements receives small business goal achievement credit.
SBA Section 8(a) Program:
The SBA Section 8(a) contract was awarded as the result of a follow-on competition to a contract originally competed at another NASA Center. This recent award was categorized as a small business set-aside. No additional SBA Section 8(a) Program set-aside procurements were conducted during this reporting period.
Contractor subcontracting data is now reported online, through the government-wide electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The NSSC Small Business Specialist received eSRS training and is involved in providing oversight to ensure that NSSC Procurement has no outstanding issues in this area. Prime contractor subcontracting data is also entered into the FPDS-NG.
Accuracy and timeliness issues regarding the subcontracting data are addressed earlier in this section of the report. The crux of the issue appears to be a workload that keeps the Small Business Specialist from undertaking many of the responsibilities assigned to her position.
The Small Business Specialist has little opportunity to engage in outreach activities as a result of other workload responsibilities and also a shift in focus from the original organizational mission. The NSSC Small Business Office does respond to inquiries about business opportunities. Referrals are provided to other organizations, web links, and helpful sources. In addition, the Small Business Specialist posts company profiles and capability statements on the Center’s shared drive. The prime service provider contractor and other NSSC organizations have access to this information.
The Small Business Specialist interfaces with small businesses by providing information relevant to their inquiries. During this fiscal year, since November 2006, the Small Business Specialist responded to more than 45 small business inquiries, both over the telephone and via email.
The NSSC has been in operation for one-half of FY 2006 (from March 2006) and the entirety of FY 2007. Originally established to administer agency-wide contracts awarded by other Centers, NSSC Procurement now conducts its own procurement activities. The impact on the Center will be twofold: (1) the NSSC, like other NASA Centers, is required to establish and meet small business prime and subcontracting goals, and (2) the level of involvement in activities that both facilitate and support those procurement initiatives as well as afford small businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to obtain NASA business by the Small Business Specialist will increase. The former can only be successful with the establishment of a strong Small Business Program at the Center, one in which the Small Business Specialist is fully engaged in OSBP initiatives and activities. The latter calls for reassessment of an organizational structure that pulls the Small Business specialist in different directions and makes inroads into the time needed to address small business issues and meet programmatic objectives. Both efforts require strong management support.
|
Owner: Yolande Harden |
Technical Support |
NASA Privacy Statement Section 508 Compliant | Last revised: April 18, 2008 |