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.

Communications during non-competitive awards. For cooperative agreements awarded non-competitively (see § 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.

Communications during competitive awards. As discussed in § 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 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.

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).

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.).

As part of the evaluation process, the factors, subfactors, or other criteria should be tailored to properly address the requirements of the cooperative agreement.

Prior to making a Federal award, agreement officers are required by 31 U.S.C. 3321 and 41 U.S.C. 2313 note, to review information available through any OMB-designated repositories of governmentwide eligibility qualification, currently the System of Award Management (SAM), or financial integrity information (currently Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), as appropriate. See also suspension and debarment requirements at 2 CFR part 180 as well as individual Federal agency suspension and debarment regulations in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 2313, agreement officers are required to review the non-public segment of FAPIIS prior to making a Federal award where the Federal share is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, defined in 41 U.S.C. 134, over the period of performance. At a minimum, the information in the system for a prior Federal award recipient must demonstrate a satisfactory record of executing programs or activities under Federal grants, cooperative agreements, or procurement awards; and integrity and business ethics. NASA may make a Federal award to a recipient who does not fully meet these standards, if it is determined that the information is not relevant to the current Federal award under consideration or there are specific conditions that can appropriately mitigate the effects of the non-Federal entity's risk in accordance with 2 CFR 200.207, Specific conditions.

Other factors and subfactors. Other factors and subfactors may include—

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).

Other considerations may include enhancing U.S. competitiveness, developing a capability among U.S. firms, identification of potential markets, appropriateness of business risks.

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.

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.

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.

During evaluation of the cost proposal, the agreement officer, along with other NASA evaluation team 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.

If the recipient's proposed contributions include application of IR&D costs, see § 1274.204(g).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The improper disclosure of sensitive information could result in criminal prosecution or an adverse action.

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:

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.

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 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.