FARSmarterBids
Bid Smarter. Far Smarter.

(a) The selection decisions by the Program AA constitute management judgments balancing individual and aggregate scientific or technological merit, the contribution of the recommended investigations to the AO's objectives, and their consonance with budget constraints to make the following decisions:
(1) Determination of the adequacy of scientific/technical analysis supporting the recommended selections. This supporting rationale should involve considerations including:
(i) Assurance that the expected return contributes substantially to program objectives and is likely to be realized.
(ii) Assurance that the evaluation criteria were applied consistently to all proposed investigations.
(iii) Assurance that the set of recommended investigations constitutes the optimum program or payload considering potential value and constraints.
(iv) Assurance that only one investigator is assigned as the Principal Investigator to each investigation and that the Principal Investigator will assume the associated responsibilities and be the single point of contact and leader of any other investigators selected for the same investigation.
(2) Determination as to whether available returned space hardware or support equipment, with or without modification, would be adequate to meet or support investigation objectives.
(3) Determination, with regard to a non-Government principal investigator, as to whether the proposed instrument fabricator qualifies and should be accepted as a sole source or whether the requirement should be competitively procured. The following guidelines apply:
(i) The hardware required should be subjected to competitive solicitation where it is clear that the capability is not sufficiently unique to justify sole source acquisition.
(ii)The hardware requirement should be purchased from the fabricator proposed by the investigator, which may be the investigator's own institution, (A) when the fabricator's proposal contains technical data that are not available from another source, and it is not feasible or practicable to define the fabrication requirement in such a way as to avoid the necessity of using the technical data contained in the proposal; (B) when the fabricator offers unique capabilities that are not available from another source; (C) when the selection official determines that the proposed hardware contributes so significantly to the value of the investigator's proposal as to be an integral part of it.
(iii) While it is NASA policy that acquisition of the necessary hardware be the responsibility of the principal investigator, NASA may buy the hardware and furnish it to the investigator only if a producer other than the one proposed by the investigator offers unique capabilities. The NASA acquisition must be justified as prescribed in FAR Subpart 6.3.
(4) If a NASA Center submits a proposal, any requirement for hardware necessary to perform the investigation must be acquired under existing Government contracts, be competed by the installation acquisition office, or a justification must be written, synopsized, and approved in accordance with the requirements of the FAR and the NASA FAR Supplement (see 1872.308). In the event that a proposal submitted by a NASA Center includes non-Government team members that will have substantial responsibilities for performing the investigation (co-investigator organizations), and one or more of these organizations will be responsible for the acquisition of hardware, the determination described in subparagraph (a)(3) of this section must be made.
(5) Determination of the desirability for tentative selection of investigations. This determination involves considerations including:
(i) Assessment of the state of development of the investigative hardware, the cost and schedule for development in relation to the gain in potential benefits at the time of final selection.
(ii) Assurance that there is adequate definition of investigation hardware to allow parallel design of other project hardware.
(iii) Assurance that appropriate management procedures are contained in the project plan for reevaluation and final selection (or rejection) on an appropriate time scale.
(6) Determination of the acceptability of the proposer's management plan, including the proposed hardware development plan, and the necessity, if any, of negotiating modifications to that plan.
(b) In the process of making the determinations described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Program AA may request additional information or evaluations. In most instances, this information can be provided by the Program Office responsible for the mission, project, or program. However, the Program AA may reconvene the subcommittee or poll the members individually or provide for additional analysis or require additional data from evaluators or proposers as considered necessary to facilitate the Program AA's decision.