[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 14, Volume 5]
[Revised as of January 1, 2007]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 14CFR1274.209]

[Page 476-479]
 
                     TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
 
                   CHAPTER V--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
                          SPACE ADMINISTRATION
 
PART 1274_COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL FIRMS--Table of Contents
 
                  Subpart 1274.2_Pre-Award Requirements
 
Sec.  1274.209  Evaluation and selection.

    (a) Factor development. The agreement officer, along with the NASA 
evaluation team has discretion to determine the relevant evaluation 
criteria based upon the project requirements, and the goals and 
objectives of the cooperative agreement.
    (b) Communications during non-competitive awards. For cooperative 
agreements awarded non-competitively (see Sec.  1274.202(b)), there are 
no restrictions on communications between NASA and the recipient. In 
addition, there is no requirement for the development and publication of 
formal evaluation or source selection criteria.
    (c) Communications during competitive awards. As discussed in Sec.  
1274.203(c), when a competitive source selection process will be 
followed to select the recipient, an appropriate level of care shall be 
taken by NASA personnel in order to protect the integrity of the source 
selection process. Therefore, upon release of the formal cooperative

[[Page 477]]

agreement notice (CAN), the agreement officer shall direct all 
procurement personnel associated with the source selection to refrain 
from communicating with prospective recipients and that all inquiries be 
referred to the agreement officer, or other authorized representative.
    (d) Selection factors and subfactors. (1) At a minimum, the 
selection process for the competitive award of cooperative agreements to 
commercial entities shall include evaluation of potential recipients' 
proposals for merit and relevance to NASA's mission requirements through 
their responses to the publication of NASA evaluation factors. The 
evaluation factors should include technical and management capabilities 
(mission suitability), past performance, and proposed costs (including 
proposed cost share).
    (2) For programs that may involve potentially hazardous operations 
related to flight, and/or mission critical ground systems, NASA's 
selection factors and subfactors shall provide for evaluation of the 
recipient's proposed approach to managing risk (e.g., technology being 
applied or developed, technical complexity, performance specifications 
and tolerances, delivery schedule, etc.).
    (3) As part of the evaluation process, the factors, subfactors, or 
other criteria should be tailored to properly address the requirements 
of the cooperative agreement.
    (e) Other factors and subfactors. Other factors and subfactors may 
include--
    (1) The composition or appropriateness of the business relationship 
of proposed team members or consortium, articles of collaboration, 
participation of an appropriate mix of small business, veteran-owned 
small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, 
historically underutilized small business, small disadvantaged business, 
and women-owned business concerns, as well as non-profits and 
educational institutions, including historically black colleges and 
universities and minority institutions).
    (2) Other considerations may include enhancing U.S. competitiveness, 
developing a capability among U.S. firms, identification of potential 
markets, appropriateness of business risks.
    (f) Proposal evaluation. The proposals shall be evaluated in 
accordance with the criteria published in the CAN. Proposals selected 
for award will be supported by documentation as described in 
1274.211(b). When evaluation results in a proposal not being selected, 
the proposer will be notified in accordance with the CAN.
    (g) Technical evaluation. The technical evaluation of proposals may 
include peer reviews. Because the business sense of a cooperative 
agreement proposal is critical to its success, NASA may reserve the 
right to utilize appropriate outside evaluators to assist in the 
evaluation of such proposal elements as the business base projections, 
the market for proposed products, and/or the impact of anticipated 
product price reductions.
    (h) Cost/price evaluation. (1) Prior to award of a cooperative 
agreement, agreement officers shall ensure that proposed costs are 
accurate and reasonable. In order to do so, cost and pricing data may be 
required. The level of cost and pricing data to be requested shall be 
commensurate with the analysis necessary to reach agreement on overall 
proposed project costs. The evaluation of costs shall lead to the 
determination and verification of total project costs to be shared by 
NASA and the recipient, as well as establishment of NASA's milestone 
payment schedule based on its 50 percent cost share. The guidance at FAR 
15.4 and NFS 1815.4 can assist in determining whether cost and pricing 
data are necessary and the level of analysis required. While competition 
may be present (i.e., more than one proposal is received), in most cases 
companies are proposing competing technologies and varying approaches 
that reflect very different methods (and accompanying costs) to satisfy 
NASA's project objectives. Consequently, this type of competitive 
environment is very different from an environment where competitive 
proposals are submitted in response to a request for proposals leading 
to award of a contract for relatively well-defined program or project 
requirements.
    (2) During evaluation of the cost proposal, the agreement officer, 
along with other NASA evaluation team

[[Page 478]]

members and/or pricing support personnel, shall determine the 
reasonableness of the overall proposed project costs, including 
verifying the value of the recipient's proposed non-cash and in-kind 
contributions. Commitments should be obtained and verified to the extent 
practicable from the recipient or any associated team members, from 
which proposed contributions will be made.
    (3) If the recipient's proposed contributions include application of 
IR&D costs, see Sec.  1274.204(g).
    (i) Awards to foreign governments and firms. (1) An award may not be 
made to a foreign government. However, if selected as the best available 
source, an award may be made to a foreign firm. If a proposal is 
selected from a foreign firm sponsored by their respective government 
agency, or from entities considered quasi-governmental, approval must be 
obtained from Headquarters, Program Operations Division (Code HS). Such 
requests must include detailed rationale for the selection, to include 
the funding source of the foreign participant. The approval of the 
Assistant Administrator for Procurement is required to exclude foreign 
firms from submitting proposals. Award to a foreign firm shall be on a 
no-exchange-of-funds basis (see NPD 1360.2).
    (2) The Office of External Affairs (Code I), shall be notified prior 
to any announcement of intent to award to a foreign firm. Additionally, 
pursuant to section 126 of Pub. L. 106-391, as part of the evaluation of 
costs and benefits of entering into an obligation to conduct a space 
mission in which a foreign entity will participate as a supplier of the 
spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch system, NASA shall solicit 
comment on the potential impact of such participation, through notice 
published in the FedBizOpps or NAIS.
    (j) Safe-guarding proposals. Competitive proposal information shall 
be protected in accordance with FAR 15.207, Handling proposals and 
information. Unsolicited proposals shall be protected in accordance with 
FAR 15.608, Prohibitions, and FAR 15.609, Limited use of data.
    (1) Evaluation team members, the source selection authority, and 
agreement officers are responsible for protecting sensitive information 
on the award of a grant or cooperative agreement and for determining who 
is authorized to receive such information. Sensitive information 
includes: information contained in proposals; information prepared for 
NASA's evaluation of proposals; the rankings of proposals for an award; 
reports and evaluations of source selection panels, boards, or advisory 
councils; and other information deemed sensitive by the source selection 
authority or by the agreement officer.
    (2) No sensitive information shall be disclosed to persons not on 
the evaluation team or evaluation panel, unless the Selecting Official 
or the agreement officer has approved disclosure based upon an 
unequivocal ``need-to-know'' and the individual receiving the 
information has signed a Non-Disclosure Certificate. All attendees at 
formal source selection presentations and briefings shall be required to 
sign an Attendance Roster and a Disclosure Certificate. The attendance 
rosters and certificates shall be maintained in official files for a 
minimum of six months after award.
    (3) The improper disclosure of sensitive information could result in 
criminal prosecution or an adverse action.
    (k) Controls on the use of outside evaluators. The use of outside 
evaluators shall be approved in accordance with NFS 1815.207-70(b). A 
cover sheet with the following legend shall be affixed to data provided 
to outside evaluators:

                Government Notice for Handling Proposals

    This proposal shall be used and disclosed for evaluation purposes 
only, and a copy of this Government notice shall be applied to any 
reproduction or abstract thereof. Any authorized restrictive notices 
which the submitter places on this proposal shall also be strictly 
complied with.
    (l) Printing, binding, and duplicating. Proposals for efforts that 
involve printing, binding, and duplicating in excess of 25,000 pages are 
subject to the regulations of the Congressional Joint Committee on 
Printing. The technical office will refer such proposals to the

[[Page 479]]

Installation Central Printing Management Officer (ICPMO) to ensure 
compliance with NPD 1490.1. The Agreement Officer will be advised in 
writing of the results of the ICPMO review.