NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
 
 

Tom Baugh
Survey Program Manager
Office of Procurement
Program Operations Division

CONTENTS

SECTION I        OVERVIEW

SECTION II       ORGANIZATION — MANAGEMENT

SECTION III      PRE - AWARD

SECTION IV      POST - AWARD

SECTION V      GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES

SECTION VI     SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) UTILIZATION 

Tom Baugh of the Program Operations Division (HS) led the survey team. Below is a list of team members and the areas reviewed by each:

The survey could not have been accomplished successfully without the support of the following individuals:

SECTION II

ORGANIZATION - MANAGEMENT

1. Organization Structure and Staffing:

There are a number of significant differences in organizational structure in contrast to three years ago when the previous survey was performed. A recent Center-wide reorganization resulted in the AMO becoming part of the Business Management Directorate with the SSC Procurement Officer reporting directly to the Director of Business Management. Prior to the reorganization, the Procurement Officer reported directly to the Center Director. At this point in time it is unclear what impact if any this will have on how the AMO functions within the Center. The structure of the AMO itself has changed, as there are now two functional areas, the Operations Contracting Division and the Support Services Contracting Division, responsible for providing acquisition support directly to SSC customers, rather than the single Procurement Operations Office previously in place. Each of these teams is lead by a GS-14 contracting officer who reports to the Procurement Officer. There is also a Policy & Pricing group, similar to the previous Procurement Support Office, responsible for a wide array of functions including procurement policy, the bankcard program, pricing, and small business utilization.

There have also been notable staffing changes since the previous survey. One of these changes is the hiring of a Deputy Procurement Officer to fill the vacancy in that position. Another notable change in staffing is found in the large portion of the total AMO staff hired into the organization since the last survey. Total procurement staffing at this time stands at nineteen individuals consisting of the Procurement Officer and Deputy, two team leads, ten contract specialists, a price analyst, a small business specialist, a procurement analyst, a procurement technician, and the AMO's secretary. Almost one-half of the staff (Deputy Procurement Officer, seven contract specialists, and the procurement analyst) have joined SSC since the prior survey.

2. Procurement Staff Interviews:

Interviews were conducted with twelve members of the SSC procurement workforce ranging from the most junior individuals to senior personnel in the SSC AMO to gain insight into the effectiveness of the procurement organization.

Overall, personnel interviewed indicated they believe the SSC procurement organization is comprised of professionals dedicated to their work and the organization and that the AMO functions well as a team. Although individual perceptions varied somewhat, morale within the AMO was generally described as good.

Numerous individuals commented favorably regarding the Procurement Officer, Deputy Procurement Officer, and the team leads. A significant number of the individuals interviewed indicated that they would like to have more frequent informal interactions with the Procurement Officer. It was suggested that the Procurement Officer might accomplish this through managing by walking around.

Employees who joined the AMO since the November 1999 survey generally indicated that they are glad to be part of the organization. Many of these individuals compared SSC favorably with their former place of employment. Specifically, a number of individuals who previously held procurement jobs with military departments offered comments about SSC work processes being less rigid and allowing them more latitude to utilize their abilities and skills. The newer employees also mentioned frequently that veteran SSC employees were very accessible and provided assistance readily to newcomers.

Many of the AMO employees interviewed commented on the recent Center reorganization that resulted in the AMO becoming part of the Business Management Directorate (BMD) and the Procurement Officer not reporting directly to the Center Director. Varying degrees of concern were expressed about potential consequences of the reorganization. Notably some individuals seemed to feel that it signified a downgrade of the procurement organization. However, there appeared to be close to a consensus that the reorganization will not necessarily result in a major impact on the way that the AMO functions within SSC so long as the BMD does not micro manage AMO's handling of SSC procurement matters.

A small potion of the AMO staff interviewed expressed concerns regarding technical organizations utilizing AMO belatedly or not at all. A specific example provided was of negotiations being complete by the time AMO got involved and contracting personnel being expected to take care of the formal paperwork. It was suggested that there might be some benefit in conducting a focused effort to educate technical organizations and their employees about the procurement function and the support available from the AMO. Recent procurement "road shows" provided for some SSC technical organizations were mentioned as a specific example of AMO out reach.

STRENGTH:

The Procurement Officer, Deputy Procurement Officer, and team leads are commended for maintaining a work environment that is rated as good by most employees.

CONSIDERATIONS:

(1) It is recommended that the Procurement Officer consider the feasibility of increased informal contact with members of the AMO staff.

(2) It is recommended that the AMO continue performing outreach activities to help SSC technical organizations understand the procurement function and ensure that they are aware of the support available from the AMO.

3. Customer Interviews:

A total of seven AMO customers representing a cross-section of the Center were interviewed regarding their perceptions of and levels of satisfaction with the procurement support at SSC. The customers selected for an interview were chosen randomly and included both managers and contracting officer's technical representatives (COTRs).

In general, the results of the interviews indicated that AMO is doing a very good job and that the quality of support provided has improved over the past several years. AMO was described as a proactive organization that is professional and well managed. Personnel in the AMO are perceived as knowing their business, being knowledgeable, approachable, and helpful. Many individual members of the AMO were specifically commended for their efforts on behalf of customers.

• AMO personnel provide timely support
• AMO staff are helpful and hard working
  
• Close proximity of AMO personnel to customers is beneficial
  
• Camaraderie and morale within the procurement staff appears to be good as seen from outside the AMO
  
• Communication flow between procurement and customer organizations is very good
  
• Procurement provides a good check and balance
  
• The Bankcard Program is beneficial
  

Comments that reflected concerns or provided suggestions included the following:

• There could be less emphasis on what can not be done and more emphasis on what can be done
  
• Procurement at times manifests a defensive posture, risk averse and not willing to consider or suggest alternative approaches to meeting customers' requirements
  
• 8(a) program goals are very high, very aggressive
  
• Customers could benefit from being better educated about the procurement process and the limitations of procurement
  

STRENGTH:

The SSC AMO and its personnel are commended for performing effectively and successfully meeting customer's requirements during the period since the previous survey was conducted.

CONSIDERATION:

See Consideration 2 under Procurement Staff Interviews (page 6).

4. Acquisition Training:

A review of SSC acquisition training was conducted December 18-19, 2002. An examination of the training files as well as interviews with procurement personnel, the Center training coordinator, and the Procurement Officer were included in this review. Overall, the SSC procurement workforce has received the appropriate amount of training and the vast majority of employees have achieved the appropriate certification levels for their grade and length of service at the Center. Those who lack the necessary courses are scheduled to attend the appropriate courses in FY 2003. (Those who lack the necessary training are new employees who previously worked within the Department of Defense [DOD]. These employees were appropriately certified under DoD provisions by either taking the required courses or being grandfathered.) Additionally, the training records were well documented and most files contained extensive information including copies of previous course certificates, notes to the Headquarters Training Coordinator requesting review of specific training requirements, etc. A few files contained only the Level III certificate with no additional documentation. The procurement training coordinator was apprised of this situation. He indicated that copies of supplemental documentation would be obtained from the individual employees and retained in the official files.

CONSIDERATION:

It is recommended that SSC's training coordinator ensure that complete training documentation is retained in each employee's official training file.

5. COTR Training:

COTR training classes are administered through the Center Training Office. Courses are obtained through the COTR training contract awarded at the Glenn Research Center. Full and refresher courses are conducted in classroom settings and are available on-line with interactive video and self-certification capabilities. Most COTRs have attended training within recent years. However, there were a few COTRs who had not attended a training session in more than 5 years - training for some dated back to the early 1990s and late 1980s. Many COTRs who fell into this category attended a refresher course held in June 2002. However, there were a few remaining individuals with outdated training. (Note: The COTR list provided to the survey team member who reviewed this area was a list of all individuals who had ever served as COTRs at SSC over a period of numerous years - it was not a list of currently active COTRs.)

CONSIDERATION:

The AMO should identify any active COTRs with significantly outdated training and ensure that they attend a refresher course.

SECTION III

PRE - AWARD

1. Pre-Negotiation and Post-Negotiation Memorandums (Adequacy of Detail):

The guidance for pre-negotiation position memorandum (PPM) and post-negotiation memorandum (PNM) content is found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.406, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.406. Seven sole source new awards and six new work modifications from two contracts were reviewed.

About half of the actions reviewed were supported by PPMs and PNMs whose contents contained the information generally required by the FAR and NFS. Of particular note, the PPM and PNM documentation for NAS 13-02014, and NAS 13-614 modifications 111 and 126 was excellent.

For those documents lacking content, the item missing most often from the PPM was an integrated price/cost analysis that incorporated the technical evaluation, audit reports, and any other pertinent price/cost data into a single document providing the basis of the Government's PPM price/cost objective.

The PPM documents for three modifications issued under one of the contracts reviewed contained the statement that, "There will be no negotiations conducted in the course of this procurement. The Government and the contractor conducted multiple fact-finding sessions with respect to the contractors initial proposal submission…." According to a cognizant SSC contracting officer, there is an elaborate electronic proposal process used by the contractor and Government personnel whereby they are able to view and review documentation prior to a proposal being submitted by the contractor. The purpose is to have all parties work as an Integrated Process Team (IPT) in order to be able to review the contractor's data before a proposal is submitted so that multiple revisions are not necessary. In effect, the meetings defined as "fact-finding sessions" in the PPM appear to be in reality the Government's evaluation of the contractor's proposal especially as it relates to price/cost analysis. If this is the case, the file documentation particularly related to the Government pricing aspect is not being tied to the PPM. (Note: The three modifications in which this concern was observed were among the earliest modifications to the contract. Files for later modifications reflected some improvement over the files reviewed from the earlier actions.)

WEAKNESS:

SSC should encourage preparation of PPMs for all sole source new awards and new work modifications, as required and in the format similar to that outlined by the FAR and NFS. Files should also contain all documents that are needed to support a PPM when a PPM is not self-containing to assure all files are documented properly to show the analyses performed to arrive at a pre-negotiation position objective through the final negotiated contract value.

CONSIDERATION (Headquarters):

Utilizing an IPT process as described above would appear to compromise the "arms length" nature of proposal evaluations and negotiations between the Government and contractors. SSC is not the sole NASA Center where utilization of IPTs in this or a similar fashion has been observed. It may be useful for the Office of Procurement to assess the degree to which IPTs are being utilized in lieu of a more traditional process and if necessary provide guidance on the appropriate usage of IPTs.

2. Market Research:

FAR Part 10 describes the policies and procedures for conducting market research in order to arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting supplies and services. These rules are instructional in nature and permit an agency to perform Market Research in a manner that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the instant acquisition. The survey team reviewed a sample of SSC procurements to determine the adequacy of market research activities. The team found that SSC is accomplishing market survey activities in a manner consistent with the regulations. SSC uses a variety of market survey tools in order to accomplish its work. The following is a partial list of the market survey techniques observed in the files reviewed:

• SSC created its own checklist form for Market Research activities. This form was observed in most contracts and all simplified actions involving supplies and services.
• Issued Request for Information (RFI)
• Used Pro-net data base search (most often observed in construction contracts)
• Identified contacts with industry and Government personnel regarding the required goods/services
• Used market survey findings for similar buys
• Held pre-solicitation conferences (construction contracts)
• Requesting information from other Government agencies (SBA)
• Use of past performance records to better ensure acceptable levels of contract performance
• Use of consolidated contract initiative CCI data base
• Use of internet for identifying sources

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for thoroughness in performing market research.

 

3. JOFOC's/Competition Advocacy:

Four noncompetitive award files were selected for review. Dollar values ranged from $170K to $210M. FAR 6.303-2 requires that each justification contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited, and lists the minimum amount of information to be included in the justification. Three of the contracts were based on exception (c)(1) - only one responsible source. All three files contained market research analysis reports that supported the sole source actions, as well as sole source synopses and data regarding any responses received. The JOFOC's in these files contained all of the information required by FAR 6.303-2, and specifically followed the FAR content listing from 6.303-2(a)(1) through (a)(12). The fourth file contained a JOFOC based on 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) - maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). The file was documented to justify a lack of a market survey due to the necessity to maintain an FFRDC. The procurement was synopsized, but neither the JOFOC nor the file indicates whether any responses were received in response to the synopsis, nor if any actions were taken in response to synopsis inquiries. The synopsis did not specifically mention the cited authority or the need to maintain an essential engineering or R&D capability. It did state that the Government believed "only one responsible source" could provide the services, which would indicate that use of the authority provided by 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) rather than 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) was appropriate. Additionally, the JOFOC did not follow the FAR format. Specifically, the JOFOC did not include information regarding the estimated value required by FAR 6.303-2 (a)(3), nor any of the information required by 6.303-2(a)(6) through (a)(11).

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for generally doing an excellent job in documenting files to support noncompetitive determinations.

CONSIDERATION:

It appeared that the lack of information in the 2304(c)(3) JOFOC might have been an anomaly based on the nature of that particular sole-source procurement, but nevertheless, the JOFOC should have contained all of the information required by the FAR. Additionally, it should be noted that it is also possible to acquire services from an FFRDC through the Agency that administers the FFRDC contract. In this case, the Air Force has the contract that maintains the Aerospace Corp. as an FFRDC. It is possible to have work performed by the Aerospace Corp. via an interagency transfer of funds (NASA Defense Purchase Request) to the Air Force if the work is within the scope of work of the contract, as appears to be the case here. Using this method would streamline the procurement process by eliminating the need to award a separate contract to the FFRDC when one is already in place. This is noted here for information purposes only in case it had not been previously considered.

4. Adequacy of Documentation for Awards Resulting from Broad Agency Announcements:

Five contract files were selected for review. Each contract award resulted from a selection under a NASA Research Announcement (NRA). Four of the NRA's were released by SSC, and one was released by NASA Headquarters (HQ). All files contained copies of the NRA, the selected proposal, a technical evaluation, pricing memo, and record of negotiation. The files for the SSC-issued NRAs contained copies of the memo from the selection official to the contracting officer listing the proposals that were selected. The file for the NASA HQ-issued NRA contained a copy of the selection letter from the HQ selection official to the selected offeror, a copy of the technical evaluation results from the HQ panel review, and a technical evaluation memo from the SSC technical monitor.

Although all the files appeared to contain sufficient evaluation, pricing, pre-negotiation position and negotiation documentation to sufficiently support the negotiation results and contract award, some initial documentation could not be found in the files. NFS 1835.016-71(b)(1) requires that each field-generated NRA be approved by the installation director or designee, with the concurrence of the Procurement Officer, and each HQ-generated NRA be approved by the cognizant Program Associate Administrator or designee, with the concurrence of the HQ Office of General Counsel (Code GK) and Procurement (Code HS). No NRA approvals were found in the files.

NFS 1835.016-71(b)(2) requires that the selection official assure the NRA is synopsized prior to issuance in accordance with FAR 5.201. All files contained a record of negotiation (with 4 out of 5 being undated) with a general statement that the procurement was synopsized pursuant to FAR 5.201. However, there were no details regarding when it was synopsized, nor was a copy of the synopsis in the file.

NFS 1835.016-71(d)(3) requires that a selection decision be made following peer or scientific review/evaluation of a proposal. Section (d)(6) requires the basis for selection of a proposal be documented in a selection statement applying the evaluation factors in the NRA. Section (d)(8) requires that the selection official provide the contracting officer with the results of the technical evaluation, the selection statement, and, if a contract will be used to fund the proposal, a description of the deliverables, including technical reports and delivery dates, consistent with the requirements of the NRA. None of the files for the SSC-issued NRA's contained these documents. Although technical evaluations from the SSC technical monitors were in the file, these evaluations were performed after the selection had been made, and were primarily for evaluation of the cost elements to aid in the pricing and negotiation effort. The results of the peer or scientific evaluation that led to the selection were not in the files. As stated above, the file for the HQ-issued NRA contained a copy of the technical evaluation results from the HQ panel review.

CONSIDERATION:

SSC contracting officers should ensure that the files contain the necessary NRA approvals, copies of the synopsis, technical evaluation results from the peer or scientific review which led to the selection, the selection statement, and, if a contract will be used to fund the proposal, a description of the deliverables, including technical reports and delivery dates, consistent with the requirements of the NRA. The SSC Procurement Office may want to consider developing a list of documentation required to support the award of contracts after selection, and forward this to the requiring office upon review and concurrence with the NRA.

CONSIDERATION (Headquarters):

Similar problems regarding file documentation for awards resulting from BAAs have been observed in other recent surveys. It is suggested that the Office of Procurement consider if it would be useful to issue guidance in this area, particularly with respect to the responsibility of the offices that perform pre-award actions and source selection to provide documentation to offices performing award and administration.

5. Technical Evaluations:

Seven sole source new awards and six new work modifications covering two contracts were reviewed. In reviewing the new award contracts, the technical evaluation request letters from the Procurement Office were found to be generally very well written including detailed instructions to the technical evaluators on what was to be analyzed by the evaluator.

In reviewing the technical evaluations, several instances were found where the input received was more than compliant with the FAR requirement. A particularly strong technical evaluation was received under contract NAS 13-02014 in which not only did the technical organization respond, the evaluation also included inputs from other interested parties to the contract such as the environmental and information technology offices.

There were three instances noted where no technical evaluation was in the file folder and two instances in which the technical evaluator responded with a simple "everything ok."

STRENGTHS:

(1) AMO personnel are commended for providing well-crafted technical evaluation request letters that should aid technical personnel evaluators in preparing their evaluations.

(2) SSC is commended for the particularly strong technical evaluation for contract NAS 13-02014. It is recommended that the Procurement Officer encourage the practice of obtaining evaluations that exceed minimum FAR requirements and when circumstances warrant include input from other interested parties/customers to the acquisition. It is also suggested that the technical evaluation for contract NASA 13-02014 be shared with other NASA contracting activities via the Virtual Procurement Office.

CONSDERATION:

The AMO should continue efforts to ensure that an adequate technical evaluation that complies with the intent of FAR 15.404-1(e) is always obtained when required and in the contract file.

SECTION IV

POST - AWARD

1. Contractor Performance Evaluation - NASA Form (NF) 1680:

Five contracts greater then $100,000 were reviewed. Two files contained Evaluation of Performance NASA Form 1680. The two evaluations had good narratives explaining the reason for the numerical rating. Both evaluations were found in the contract file (hard copy) and in the NASA Past Performance Data Base (NAIS). The process of initiating the performance evaluation (within the 60 day time period) has commenced on two other contracts. The remaining file did not contain the required Evaluation of Performance NASA Form 1680.

STRENGTH:

The majority of the staff seems to be well informed of the NFS 1842.1503(b) requirement. It appears a conscious effort is being made to fulfill the requirement.

2. Cost Plus Award Fee/Cost Plus Incentive Fee Administration:

Seven files were selected for review, four for award fee and three for incentive fee. Award fee evaluations followed the applicable award fee evaluation plans, were well documented, and thoroughly supported the fee determination in each contract file that was reviewed. The files contained extensive minutes of the Performance Evaluation Board meeting to explain the decisions that were made. Award fee payments were made well within the 60-day time frame required by the NFS. Incentive fee evaluations followed the applicable incentive fee plans and were also well documented.

STRENGTH:

The award fee files contain excellent documentation fully supporting the fee determinations, and payments were made well ahead of schedule.

 

3. Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs):

As documented in Agency statistics for the quarter that ended September 30, 2002, SSC has an overage ULO rate of 24.49%, which is within the goal established by the Office of Procurement. SSC has a total dollar amount of $2.62M in ULOs broken down by the following categories:

The cost contract category includes a contract with Sverdrup, NAS 13-290 that accounts for $1,225,613 of the $1,664,000. Information provided by SSC indicates that the NAS 13-290 contract has been misreported. This misreporting has been discussed with the appropriate procurement analyst at NASA Headquarters who concurs. If the NAS 13-290 contract were deleted from the overage ULO amount, the revised overage ULO rate for SSC would be approximately 13% which is excellent.

STRENGTH:

SSC maintains an aggressive approach towards reducing ULOs and in particular overage ULOs.

4. Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs):

Eight UCA files were selected for review. The UCAs ranged from $90K to $2.3M. All files contained government not-to-exceed (NTE) estimates prior to release (with the exception of one which was a reduction-in-scope where the NTE was not applicable). All files with an estimate greater than $100K contained the approval of the Center Director prior to issuance in accordance with NFS 1843.7003(a)(1). The one file with an estimate below $100K contained Procurement Officer approval prior to issuance in accordance with NFS 1843.7003(a)(2). All UCAs with estimates greater than $100K were issued as bilateral agreements with NTE cost estimates for the changed requirements in accordance with NFS 1843.7003(b)(1). With one exception, all UCAs were definitized within the NASA goal of 180 days as specified in NFS 1843.7005, with the majority well under the 180-day goal.

NFS 1843.7003(d) requires that a 180-day funding profile be obtained from the contractor prior to execution of a UCA with a government estimate greater than $1M. Two UCAs met this criterion, change order modifications 117 and 133 under contract NAS13-614. Although the file for mod 117 contained the required 180-day funding profile, it was dated two days after execution of the UCA. The file for mod 133 did not contain the required funding profile.

NFS 1843.7003(e) requires UCAs with a government estimate greater than $1M include a requirement that the change be separately accounted for by the contractor to the degree necessary to provide the contracting officer visibility into actual costs incurred pending definitization. The contracting officer may waive the requirement if there is a documented finding that such accounting procedures would not be cost effective. Neither of the two UCA's meeting the criteria contained the requirement for separate accounting, nor did the files contain a waiver by the contracting officer.

STRENGTH:

SSC does an excellent job in meeting the 180-day goal for definitizing UCA's.

CONSIDERATION:

Contracting officers should comply with the NFS requirements for obtaining funding profiles and requiring separate cost accounting for UCA's greater than $1M.

5. Subcontract Consent:

Files for subcontracts issued under two prime contracts were reviewed. A list of subcontract consent files for each contract is kept in addition to the individual file for each subcontract. The subcontract consent files are very well documented. Each file contains a checklist form that is utilized to ensure appropriate documentation and approvals are obtained.

All files contained copies of a technical evaluation memo, price analysis, representations and certifications, procurement analysis and a copy of the subcontract consent signed by the contracting officer. All sole source subcontracts contained a signed sole source justification.

STRENGTH:

SSC contracting officers appear be well informed of the subcontract consent requirements and all files are very well documented.

6. Financial Management Reporting - NASA Form (NF) 533:

Three contract files were reviewed for compliance with NFS 1842.7201, NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting. All contracts met the contract type and dollar thresholds requiring financial management reporting. All contracts included NFS clause 1852.242-73 requiring NASA Contractor Financial Management Reporting. This clause requires that the detailed reporting categories to be used shall be set forth in the contract, as well as the number of copies and time and manner of submission. Two contract files contained all of the required information, while one did not appear to contain specific reporting categories. Specifically, contracts NAS13-650 and NAS13-99030 contained a detailed breakout of the reporting categories to be used in the DRDs attached to the contracts. Although contract NAS13-02014 did not appear to specify specific reporting categories in the contract, the NF 533 reports in the file appear to have a breakout of the individual cost elements necessary to provide visibility to the level necessary for adequate financial management.

NFS 1842.7201(a)(1) requires contracting officers to monitor contractor cost reports on a regular basis to ensure cost data reported is accurate and timely, and to pursue adverse trends and discrepancies discovered in cost reports through discussions with financial and project team members. All files contained memos from the contracting officers stating that the cost reports were reviewed on a monthly basis with the contractors and the cognizant NASA technical and financial personnel regarding cost, budget, and performance. There was no record of any findings of untimely or inaccurate reports, any issues found, or any actions required or taken in this area.

STRENGTH:

SSC should be commended on their approach to reviewing financial management reports on a monthly basis via reviews with the contractors and SSC technical and financial personnel.

CONSIDERATION:

Contracting officers should ensure that financial management reporting categories are specified in applicable contracts in accordance with NFS 1852.243-73.

7. Competition under Multiple Award Task and Delivery Order Contracts:

SSC has not awarded any multiple contracts where the subsequent delivery or task orders are competed among the awardees. All task order files reviewed were for specific contracts authorizing issuance of tasks, and therefore no competition for the individual tasks took place, only for the contracts themselves. However, the possibility exists that follow-ons to two contracts ending in calendar year 2003 could afford the opportunity for multiple awards, and SSC plans to consider this approach. Specifically, contracts NAS13-98033 with the Mississippi Research Consortium (MRC) and NAS13-98053 with Louisiana Research Consortium (LRC) currently have the capability to operate as multiple award type contracts at a level below the prime. Under each of these contracts, tasks are issued to the prime contractor, which in turn assigns the tasks to universities that are members of the consortium. While mainly assigned based on the expertise of the member, the possibility exists that, if expertise lies with more than one member, competition for the task could take place. With this in mind, SSC may be able restructure the follow-on contracts to allow for multiple awards at the prime level, thus enabling task competition at that level instead of at the subcontractor level.

CONSIDERATION:

SSC should consider the benefits of multiple award contracts and utilize them when technically and programmatically feasible in the future.

8. Progress Payments:

Construction contracts were reviewed for proper documentation required under FAR 52.232-5, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. For the most part the progress payments examined were being accomplished correctly.

Payment certification by the contractor is required on all construction progress payments. One contract did not have a current copy for the latest payment in the invoice/payment file but it was produced upon request. The contracting officer indicated that some contracts were large enough to warrant a separate file for invoices. The contracting officer stated it was mistakenly left out of the contract file reviewed.

Evidence that payment requests were sent to the COTR for percentage verification prior to payment was observed throughout all contracts. This is standard practice, however, it is performed at the discretion of the contracting officer.

The two contracting officers responsible for the preponderance of the construction contracts at SSC indicated that they have never had a late payment or had the Government pay a late interest fee for not meeting the 14 day prompt payment act requirement.

FAR 232-5(b)(1) specifies that a request for progress payment progress payment shall include:

(ii) A listing of the amount included for work performed by each subcontractor under the contract".
(iii) A listing of the total amount of each subcontract under the contract.
(iv) A listing of the amount previously paid to each such subcontractor under the contract.

The specified documentation information was not specifically observed on the payment requests reviewed. The supplied schedule of values accompanying each payment was in sufficient detail however to not put the Government at risk of over payment or other payment error for an identified portion of work. It is however impossible to absolutely attribute a submitted milestone payment request (as received) to an identified subcontractor.

9. Closeout:

SSC has a process for completing contract closeouts that consists of two parts. One closeout process is accomplished in-house by SSC civil servant personnel. SSC is directly responsible for the closeout of purchase orders placed by SSC including all interdepartmental documents, and documents with contractors that have not given their consent to have Brace Management Group (BMG) perform the closeout function. Currently, Johnson Controls is the only company at SSC that has not given permission to Brace Management to closeout their contracts.

In a letter dated October 24, 2002, the Deputy Procurement Officer assigned the responsibility for ensuring the effective and timely closeout of all purchase orders awarded by the SSC Acquisition Management Office with a value less than $500,000 and all interdepartmental orders regardless of dollar value to a specific individual (procurement technician) within the Acquisition Management Office. The procurement technician receives a weekly listing of all purchase orders to determine current status and what appropriate action needs to be taken (i.e. confirms delivery, need an extension mod, document ready to close, etc.).

STRENGTH:

SSC should be commended for having effective approach for the closeout of purchase and interdepartmental orders in a timely manner.

The second closeout process is accomplished by a contractor, BMG, under the Agency-wide contract awarded by Ames Research Center. BMG is responsible for the closeout of all other contractual documents at SSC including fixed price contracts, cost type contracts, grants (all types), cooperative agreements, and space act agreements.

CONSIDERATION:

SSC should consider having the entire closeout function performed under the consolidated Agency-wide contract.

10. Option to Extend Performance:

The team reviewed two contracts for which options were exercised to extend performance. In both cases exercise of the option to extend was supported by a contracting officer's determination and findings (D&F), in accordance with FAR 17.207, that the action was in the best interest of the Government.

One D&F (13-99030, Mod #79) stated that the government's need for continuity of operations and the potential costs of disrupting operations was in part the basis for determining that exercise of the option was in the best interest of the government. However, there was nothing in the file to substantiate or document this statement. Also neither the D&F or associated back-up material in the file indicated that the CO met the requirements of FAR 17.207 (d) that provides that the CO shall make the determination based on one of the following rationales:

1. A new solicitation fails to produce a better price or a more advantageous offer than that offered by the option. If it is anticipated that the best price available is the option price or that this is the more advantageous offer, the contracting officer should not use this method of testing the market.
   
2. An informal analysis of prices or an examination of the market indicates that the option price is better than prices available in the market or that the option is the more advantageous offer.
   
3. The time between the award of the contract containing the option and the exercise of the option is so short that it indicates the option price is the lowest price obtainable or the more advantageous offer. The contracting officer shall take into consideration such factors as market stability and comparison of the time since award with the usual duration of contracts for such supplies or services.

Regarding the other D&F reviewed, there is noting in the file that documents the basis for the contracting officer's assertion that, "There is no evidence to indicate that a new solicitation would produce better prices or services than that offered by the priced option or serve any other useful purpose, especially since prices are linked to current market conditions." Based on FAR 17.207(d)(2), it would appear that the basis for this determination should be an informal analysis of prices or an examination of the market.

CONSIDERATION:

Contracting officers should ensure that file documentation for D&Fs regarding the exercise of an option to extend performance is sufficient to demonstrate full compliance with the requirements for option exercise described in FAR 17.207.

SECTION V

GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS, AND OTHER ISSUES

1. Grants and Cooperative Agreement:

Four grants and one cooperative agreement were reviewed to assess compliance with applicable regulations and guidance in the awarding of these documents. All of the documents reviewed were organized in accordance with the checklist found at the front of the file folder. No excess documentation was noticed in the files and in general the files included the provisions and special conditions required by the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook. It was also noted that SSC is complying with guidance provided in Grants Information Circular 99-1 as there were no instances found of management fees being allowed on grants or cooperative agreements with non-profit firms.

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for maintaining well documented and organized grant and cooperative agreement files.

In reviewing the four grant files, it was observed that the price/cost analysis usually consisted of a few simple statements such as the technical evaluation took no exception to the proposed budget, the indirect rates were verified with Health and Humans Services (HHS) and/or Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the price/cost analyst found no reason to question any of the proposed prices/costs. There was no supporting documentation from either the contracting officer or HHS/ONR regarding the indirect rates, thus the basis to form an opinion that these rates were fair and reasonable was not documented.

In some instances, there was little or no explanation found to explain why seemingly questionable proposed costs were accepted and included in the award. In one case, a contingency amount for an item titled, "Implementation/Operations" was included in the awarded value of $159,074. This amount was subsequently reduced by $6,600 but only because SSC did not have enough funds to award to the grantee the full amount submitted in the proposal. For another grant, the price/cost analysis did not take any exception to proposed salaries for the Principal Investigator(s) at $18,413.00/month ($220,956/year) which appeared to be excessive. In a third instance there was a proposed budget for one of four separate budgets totaling $220,567 with no supporting price/cost data from the grantee, and no documentation from the Government requesting supporting documentation.

Documentation for one of the grants reflected that the grantee agreed to "waive" the indirect charges normally allowed in connection with the incurrence of direct costs of the type being proposed. As recorded in the file, the grantee agreed to "waive" these costs, however, the file does not show how the Government could accept this waiver that was an exception to the grantee's normal way of accumulating and recording costs. In addition, if the grantee "waived" this normal charge, it may have been prudent to include a special provision outlining what was waived and the circumstances under which the special provision applies. Also, the offer to waive cost probably should have been coordinated through HHS/ ONR prior to it being accepted.

WEAKNESSES:

(1) SSC should document the price/cost analysis to include records of telephone conversations or rate verification rate sheets from HHS and ONR.

(2) SSC should perform a more thorough price/cost analysis that includes rationale as to why prices/costs that appear to be unsupported are ultimately negotiated into a grant and are considered to be fair and reasonable.

All the grants were missing ONR's acceptance regarding the items delegated to that organization for administration. The file for the one cooperative agreement contained an ONR acceptance, however it was misfiled.

Three of the four grants were missing the NF 507G form.

CONSIDERATION:

SSC grants officers should ensure that files contain the requisite delegation acceptance letters and NF 507 forms.

Two of the four grants were awarded with an effective date that was significantly earlier than the award date and in both cases even before the negotiation completion date. In one the effective date was 30 days prior to the Grants Officer signature on the award document and 20 days prior to the signature of the negotiation summary document by the grants negotiator. In the other grant, supplement 1 changed the effective date of the grant from July 25, 2002 to May 1, 2002 at the request of the grantee. The file does not contain any rationale as to why this was agreed to by the Government. The only record in the file as to why this was done is because the grantee requested it.

CONSIDERATION:

It is recommend that the rationale behind the need to have effective dates prior to the award date should be documented in the file.

2. Simplified Acquisitions:

Twelve files were reviewed to ensure compliance with FAR and NFS. Purchase order file documentation was found to be inconsistent among the various buyers. Some buyers use the bid abstract to document quotes and others use the Simplified Acquisition/Delivery Order Documentation Sheet. In several cases tabs did not contain referenced documents. In most cases minimal documentation appears in files. Although file requirements are met, it makes process flow difficult to track (hard to ascertain rationale for selection).

Several simplified acquisitions were issued to large businesses yet the files did not address the reasons why. FAR 13.003(b)(1), and Subpart 19.5 require that simplified acquisitions be set aside for participation by small business unless it is determined that there was no reasonable expectation of obtaining two or more quotations from responsible small business concerns that would be competitive in terms of market price, quality, and delivery.

Sole source justifications seem to be inconsistent. Some were done with emails (no CO signature) and others were done using the justification for other than full and open competition (JOFOC) format required for procurements over $100,000. It does not appear that the "Sole Source Guide for Supplies - Simplified Acquisitions" template in the NASA Virtual Procurement Office was used.

In files of GSA schedule orders reviewed, SSC Simplified Acquisition/Delivery Order Documentation Sheet or the Bid Abstract sheet documents the name of the three GSA Contracts considered, however there is no supporting documentation showing what was used as a basis to compare the GSA contracts to determine what is the best value to the Government. FAR 8.404(b)(2) states "Before placing an order, consider reasonably available information about the supply or service offered under MAS contracts by using the GSA Advantage! on-line shopping service, or by reviewing the catalogs or pricelists of at least three schedule contractors (see 8.404(b)(6)). Although the FAR does not state a requirement to document the file with the reviewed information, the file would be more complete if the rationale for the decision is documented rather than just putting a statement in the file indicating that company information was reviewed via a web site.

Several of the files reviewed did not contain representations and certifications.

All files contain both the NPG 7120.5 Compliance Certification and a CCI memo that documents the action taken after reviewing the CCI web page. All files that are closed out contain the NASA Form 1612, Contract Closeout Checklist.

CONSIDERATIONS:

(1) It is recommended that the Procurement Officer consider standardizing purchase order files. File organization and documentation should be stressed.

(2) It is recommended that the Procurement Officer consider encouraging use of the VPO template for Simplified Acquisitions - "Sole Source Guide for Supplies - Simplified Acquisitions." Using the template document would allow for all sole source procurements under $100K to be uniformly documented and would alleviate the need to use the JOFOC template designed for procurements over $100K and would provide the initiator of the procurement a standard tool for creating sole source requests.

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for complying with NPG 7120.5 and checking the CCI web page when accomplishing simplified acquisitions.

3. Interagency Awards:

Six interagency awards were reviewed to ensure compliance with NFS1817.70, Acquisitions with Military Departments, and FAR Subpart 17.5, Interagency Acquisitions Under the Economy Act.

Overall, it is apparent that the regulations are being followed and the files are well documented. Each file contained a D&F explaining why for the interagency acquisition was appropriate. All six D&Fs fully met the requirements of FAR 17.503. In addition all files contained a NPG 7120.5 Compliance Certification and also all files contained a form that documented acceptance of the interagency agreement by the servicing organization.

NFS 1817.503(a) (2) states, "Current market prices, recent acquisition prices, or prices obtained by informational submissions as provided in FAR 15.201 may be used to ascertain whether the acquisition can be accomplished more economically from commercial sources." Although all files reviewed contained the verbiage, "the services cannot be obtained as conveniently or economically by contracting directly with a private source," there was no documentation to show why the procurements could not be accomplished more economically from commercial sources.

STRENGTH:

SSC has done an excellent job handling interagency awards. All files are well documented and contain the required documents.

CONSIDERATION:

The assertion that services cannot be accomplished more economically by the private sector should be supported by a brief description of how that fact was ascertained.

4. Bankcard Program:

AMO's program administrator possesses excellent knowledge and understanding of program requirements and guidelines. SSC currently has 44 active cardholders. All have a delegation of authority from the Procurement Officer for acquisitions up to $2,500 per transaction with an aggregate limit of $25,000 per month. AMO accounts are monitored to verify continued need for a card. During FY2002 nine accounts were closed and four were deactivated due to inactivity. In the case of closed accounts, those individuals would have to go through training again and get a new delegation in order to be an active cardholder in the future. New training and a new delegation are not required to reactivate an account.

Prior to activation and use of the bankcard, each new cardholder must complete GSA online training and meet face to face with SSC program administrator to discuss guidelines, operating instructions, and statutory requirements. Cardholder logs are submitted to the administrator monthly. It is anticipated that cardholder logs will soon be maintained online. The program administrator audits each cardholder annually. Cardholder accounts are also audited by finance, safety, security, information technology, and property.

Recent audits disclosed an instance where a card was used improperly for paying for a membership in a technical society or organization. SSC cardholders have been advised that this type of acquisition is not an appropriate use of the bankcard.

STRENGTHS:

(1) SSC is commended for quality of the bankcard program and the program administrator is specifically commended for ensuring that it is well run and in compliance with statutory, regulatory, and agency requirements.

(2) SSC is commended for monitoring each bankcard account to determine whether it is active and whether the card continues to be needed to satisfy requirements of the cardholder's organization. This is considered a best practice and it is recommended that other NASA Centers consider utilizing a similar approach.

5. Self-Assessment Program:

SSC has completed two self-assessments within the last year in accordance with the requirement outlined in the NASA Self-Assessment Guide. The SSC self-assessment is conducted semi-annually covering the periods from April-September and October-March. The SSC Deputy Procurement Officer is responsible for this activity. The self-assessments are conducted using a team of personnel from within the SSC Acquisition Office (usually 3-5 people). In addition to the requirements of the NASA Self-Assessment Guide, SSC Work Instruction DA00-WI-06, paragraph 5c states, "Additional Legal Counsel and Procurement Officer reviews of a representative sample of contractual documents shall also take place during the annual Procurement Office Self-Assessment…." The self-assessment reports reviewed do not reflect that the Legal Office has participated in the self-assessment process as currently provided in Work Instruction DA00-WI-06.

The self-assessment for each succeeding period included evidence that corrective actions had been accomplished for resolving issues or concerns identified in the previous report.

The self-assessment reports reviewed are very thorough and well documented.

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for self-assessment reports that were found to be extensive and thorough.

CONSIDERATIONS:

(1) Work Instruction DA00-WI-06 should be updated to reflect the semi-annual self-assessment requirement versus an annual requirement as stated in the current version of the instruction.

(2) It is recommended that the Procurement Office ensure that the SSC Legal Office participates in the self-assessment process as contemplated in the SSC work instruction or alternatively the work instruction should be revised by removing the language pertaining to participation of the Legal Office.

6. Construction Contracts:

The following FAR parts and NASA guidance directives were used as references in preparing this report. FAR part 36 describes the policies and procedures for procuring construction and architect-engineering contracts. FAR 52.232 instructs an agency in the use of various payment provisions and clauses used in contracts. FAR part 23 instructions are designed around the use of Environment, Energy, and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug Free Work Place rules. Procurement Information Circular 01-27 provides Agency guidance on Applicability of Affirmative Procurement.

A total of nine construction contracts were reviewed along with seven other contracts (predominately for service and supplies less than $250K) to determine the level of compliance with the aforementioned regulations and policy guidance directives. The survey team found that SSC is accomplishing these activities in a manner consistent with the regulations. The team found SSC used these rules correctly and consistently and for the most part very well. In particular the construction contracts observed were found to be well documented and complete, organized, very thorough and professional, compliant with NASA policy, and following the guidance and rules prescribed by the FAR. The following is a partial list of the items reviewed and observed in the files. The norm for the Center appears to be approximately fifteen active construction contracts at any given point in time.

• Pre-construction meeting form, created by SSC, was very thorough and complete. (Instructions given to contractors prior to commencement of work. Observed in all construction contract files.
  
• Pre-solicitation activities include but were not limited to: market research, certified PRs, 7120.5 certifications, SBA correspondence, past performance checks, synopsis, pro-net searches, some evidence of specification/solicitation reviews by inference, telephone call and email records, RFI's, mailing lists, walk-thru attendance sheets, mailing lists.
  
• Government estimates were present but often skimpy and brief. The team observed some notes back to the creators of the estimates that requested further breakdown detail or substantiation of price when the estimate did not correlate well with a price received.
  
• COTR delegations were found in all contracts. Evidence of COTR receipt and acknowledgment of delegations was also present.
  
• Use of best value selection criteria in recent construction contracts, past 2-3 years, with good results. SSC's first HUBZone contract was awarded recently after an SBA 8(a) contractor was determined to have an excessive price. The requirement was converted to a HUBZone set-aside, best value competition resulting in an award at a price almost half of the previous proposal. HUBZone contractor (Green-Simmons) is performing well to date. (E-1 Test Complex Bottle Foundation Project)
  
• Where required, safety plans were observed to be included in recent contracts at time of award. Good practice- very timely and contained SSC's safety assurance office sign-off/ concurrence.
  
• Bid confirmation letters were found in many contracts and proposal requests.
  
• Good use of past performance data in selecting contractors. Evidence of many references being contacted, including financial institutions, bonding companies, private owners, equipment suppliers and other governmental agencies.
  
• Determination of Responsibility per FAR 9.104-1 evidenced in all construction files. All files also included a debarred list check.
  
• Abstract of Offers present in all construction files.
  
• Evidence of Performance and Payment Bonds review not present in files but contract specialists indicated solid knowledge of the purpose of the bonds, even to the extent that a recent contractor was rejected for award due to a faulty bid bond.
  
• Evidence of advance letter to the successful offeror requesting timely delivery of performance and payment bonds speeds up notification of required "Notice to Proceed".
  
• Evidence of current proof of insurance found in all construction contracts as required.
  
• Contract specialists were asked about a special "3.5% tax" added to most change order work proposals received from contractors. This practice is unique to Mississippi construction contracting and is in compliance with current state law.

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for the overall high quality observed in the construction contract files reviewed.

7. Environmental Issues:

The survey team made the following observations regarding compliance environmental requirements set forth in FAR Part 23 and PIC 01-27, Applicability of Affirmative Procurement.

• The team checked the contracts for the applicable clauses contained in PIC 01-27. The provision set forth in FAR 52.223-4 was observed in a special notice letter to offerors and 52.223-9 was included in full text in all the resultant contracts reviewed. The clause at 52.223-10 was found to be missing in all construction contracts.
  
• The PIC suggests that construction contracts include 52.223-10, Waste Reduction Program. The FAR prescription at 23.705 instructs that this clause be included in all solicitations and contracts for contractor operation of Government-owned or leased facilities and all solicitations and contracts for support services at government-owned or operated facilities.
  
• All other environmental clauses as required under part 23 were found in the reviewed contracts as well as applicable safety clauses found in the above-noted construction contracts.

CONSIDERATION:

It is suggested that FAR clause 52.223-10, "Waste Reduction Program," be included in SSC construction contracts.

Through discussions with the acquisition team leads it was found that support contractor Mississippi Space Services conducts acquisitions for SSC that are subject to the affirmative procurement requirements of NPG 8830.1, Affirmative Procurement Plan for Environmentally Preferable Products. Mississippi Space Services has implemented an automated PR system that has incorporated a "Recycled Content Item" field. The field is mandatory and has a link to the Affirmative Procurement Request for Waiver form in the event the initiator requests a waiver from the requirement.

The Mississippi Space Services contract contains the FAR clause 52.223-4, Recovered Material Certification, and the contracting officer plans to add FAR 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products, when the next contract modification is issued.

In addition, SSC has implemented a policy of including FAR clauses 52.223-4, Recovered Material Certification and 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products in all NASA POs and construction contracts.

STRENGTH:

SSC is commended for efforts to implement environmental contracting requirements.

8. Internal Policies and Procedures:

SSC work instruction DA00-WI-06, Review and Approval of Procurement Documents, is the main document that outlines the policy and review requirements the SSC Acquisition Management Office personnel are required to follow. There were no conflicts noted between this work instruction and the FAR/NFS.

SECTION VI

SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (SDB) UTILIZATION  

1. Organization and staffing:

Responsibility for the Small Business Program is assigned to a Contract Specialist who is the part-time Small Business Specialist (SBS) responsible for implementing the day-to-day activities of the program. About 90 percent of her time is spent on small business matters, whereas eight years ago, the SBS was spending 40 percent. Yearly contract awards have grown from about $100 million in FY 1993 to $160 million in FY 2002, a 60 percent increase. This increase in time spent on small business activities should help the overall procurement program since one-third of all contract dollars go to small business. It is noted that recently the SBS has been occupied with the IFMP program with only 10% of her time on small business. However, the IFMP effort is expected to cease in early 2003.

CONSIDERATION:

The Procurement Officer should periodically review the workload required to properly carry out the duties of the SBS and, if necessary, allocate additional resources.

2. Past Small Business Goal Performance:

NASA places great emphasis in exceeding the congressionally mandated 8 percent goal for small disadvantaged and women-owned businesses. In FY 1993, which was the first year that NASA exceeded 8 percent, Stennis led all other Centers with 17 %. Since the last survey in FY 1999, SSC's performance has stood still. It appears that: (1) goal setting has not been aggressive; and, (2) goal forecasting capability has deteriorated.

WEAKNESS:

The SBS should become involved early in the development of new programs to ensure that small businesses have the maximum opportunity to be selected for prime and subcontracts. Also, improvement is needed in estimating the goals of future programs using historical data and forecasts of business from the technical project offices.

 

3. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) Programs:

Over the last three years, 33 Phase I SBIR contracts were awarded, which included six to WOSBs and only one SDB award. Phase II SBIRs numbered 15 with two awarded to WOSBs and one to an SDB. Phases I & II STTRs awarded during this same period amounted to nine contracts with none to WOSBs or SDBs. Of the 57 total awards, 14 percent of the contracts were awarded to WOSBs and 4 percent to SDBs.

CONSIDERATION:

Even though this program is race-and gender-neutral, an effort to reach out to a wider spectrum of companies should be made in order to increase diversity through greater participation of businesses owned by women and minorities.

4. Small Business Technical Advisor:

Public Law 95-507 requires that each procuring activity appoint a Small Business Technical Advisor to assist the Center SBS by providing an unbiased technical assessment of requirements suitable for contracting with small businesses. The review disclosed that there is no one assigned to do this job at present. As required by statute, the Center Director is requested to nominate an individual with the required technical qualifications and forward the name to the Headquarters Assistant Administrator for Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization for approval of the appointment.

5. Assistance from the Small Business Administration:

According to FAR Part 19.402(a), the SBA may assign a Procurement Center Representative (PCR) to any contracting activity to carry out SBA policies and programs. The formal assignment of a liaison PCR will assure the support of the SBA on a continuing basis. The PCR can assist SSC by: (1) suggesting small business sources; (2) recommending set-asides; (3) proposing alternate contracting methods; (4) conducting periodic reviews to ascertain whether the Center is complying with SBA regulations; and (5) sponsoring and participating in conferences and training designed to increase small business participation. NASA SSC and its tenants (Naval Oceanographic Office and United States Geological Survey) are together currently awarding over a quarter of a billion dollars each year, more than enough to gain the SBA's attention.

RECOMMENDATION:

IT is recommended that SSC work with the Headquarters OSDBU to formally request from SBA the assignment of a PCR to the Stennis Space Center to assist NASA and its tenants.

6. Subcontracting:

There are two major contractors that report their subcontract awards to small businesses on Standard Form (SF) 294. Mississippi Space Services (MSS) is a joint venture of the CSC Company and The Shaw Group. MSS won the competition for the Facility Operating Services Contract (FOSC). The small business goals placed on this contract were SB-35%; SDB-15%; and, WOSB-5%. The company is not meeting its SDB and its WOSB goals; however it is exceeding its small business goal. Discrepancies were found on its Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts (SF 294) in that the development of the original goals was not accomplished in accordance with required guidelines. The other company is the Lockheed Martin Space Operations - Stennis Programs (LMSO), which is the contractor for Testing and Technical Services at SSC. This contract will be split in August 2003 with 40% included in the Test Operations Contract to be awarded in 2003. The balance of the LMSO contract will be extended to August 2004 and then re-competed. About 91% of the subcontracted effort was planned for small businesses, but this goal is not being met. The contractor is exceeding its women-owned small business goal. Recently the Cimarron subcontract under the LMSO contract was novated to a new contractor, Oogalah Technologies, Inc. Oogalah is a Native American owned company.

WEAKNESS:

The Procurement Officer should instruct contracting officers to review the goal accomplishments on the SF 294 report as submitted bi-annually and ensure that goals are being met. In those instances where goals are not met, steps should be taken to get the prime contractor to remedy the deficiency.

7. Research Consortia:

SSC currently has contracts with two consortia, one in Mississippi and one in Louisiana. The purpose of these groups is to perform studies and give research support to SSC and resident agencies. They are composed of universities with no other non-profit entities involved. The respective contract files state that the contracting officer made a determination that a subcontracting plan is not required because no opportunities exist for subcontracting. No additional substantiation was given. Similar support contracts in existence at other NASA Centers have subcontracting opportunities and thus require subcontracting plans and the submission of SF 294/295s to document accomplishments.

RECOMMENDATION:

The contracting officers for these contracts should review the effort performed and the deliverables to determine whether, in fact, no opportunities exist for subcontracting.

8. Consolidated Test Operations Contract:

The test operations contract was recently re-competed. NPD 5000.2A requires that a Uniform Methodology for Determining Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Goals be conducted. The SSC group set up a pre-ASM meeting with the Headquarters OSDBU office well before the Acquisition Strategy Meeting and early agreement was reached on aggressive goals for this contract.

STRENGTH:

The Procurement Development Team is commended for doing an outstanding job in integrating small businesses in the subcontracting plan.

9. DigitalGlobe, Inc. (NAS13-02013):

This acquisition is for the sole source procurement of satellite imagery using the QuickBird satellite. This acquisition is a firm fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract with an estimated value of $5 million. There was a determination made by the AMO that no subcontracting opportunities existed because, apparently, this is a commercial buy. Commercial buys do not require the submittal of SF 294 reports. However, SF 295 should be requested from the contractor.

RECOMMENDATION:

The contracting officer should request the company to submit SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report, to NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement (Code HC), Washington, DC 20546.