The selected SRG performs the technical evaluation of all proposals in response to an RFP, guided by the SRA. Program staff or designees should attend review meetings within their respective responsibilities and provide technical, administrative, and/or program information essential for adequate review and evaluation. However, they may not be a member of the SRG nor join the technical discussions or recommendations concerning the proposals. All staff must avoid evaluative comments or indications of bias toward individual proposals. However, staff should privately alert the SRA when it appears that the reviewers have overlooked information contained in a proposal. Other program staff may attend review meetings with SRA concurrence.
- Roles and Responsibilities
-
Contracting Officer
The CO or Contract Specialist (CS) must be present at all SRG meetings. They should address the SRG, as necessary, and serve as a resource on applicable regulations and policies. The CO should assist in ensuring a fair and objective review.
-
Scientific Review Administrator
The SRA must ensure that SRG members address all proposals and factors impartially and completely, basing their evaluations on proposals as submitted, and clarified by the CO as appropriate. SRG questions on scientific review should be addressed to the SRA, and questions on contract policy are addressed to the CO or CS. The SRA ensures that recommendations and scores reflect the content and emphasis of the discussion.
-
Project Officer
Prior to the review of any proposals, the PO or representative summarizes the program background and purposes for the RFP and results desired from the contract. The PO also serves as a resource to explain programmatic points that SRG members may raise during the evaluation on the solicitation or contract. The PO cannot be a member of a peer review group (SRG) for the concept approval of a project or the technical evaluation of proposals.
-
Scientific Review Group Members
Before the meeting, all SRG members individually examine and evaluate all proposals and determine strengths and weaknesses relevant to the RFP evaluation criteria. These criteria serve as the standard against which all proposals responding to the RFP are evaluated. For each proposal, the SRG member may assign a preliminary score for each evaluation criterion guided by the acquisition objectives and the SOW/SOO. Comparisons between proposals are not permitted.
Topics for special consideration include, but are not limited to: concept reviews if not obtained previously, human subjects protections and inclusion of women, minorities and children in research, care and use of animals, biohazard protection. See section E.1.d., Special Considerations, (above) for additional topics for evaluation.
-
Contracting Officer
-
Technical Evaluation Process
At the SRG meeting, preliminary assessments serve as bases for discussing technical merit of the proposals. Assigned reviewers present narrative descriptions and critiques for each proposal assigned them, assessing strengths and weaknesses with each evaluation criterion, as well as identifying ambiguities, inconsistencies, deficiencies, and errors in the proposals. Other reviewers comment on and discuss their evaluations.
Peer reviewers may provide recommendations about offerors' direct costs in certain judgmental areas, for example, hours in specific staffing categories or needs for specific supplies or equipment. When reviewers express concerns about direct cost estimates, such concerns should be identified and discussed in the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) to alert the CO to potential issues in the cost realism evaluation.
If sudden exigencies prevent any SRG members from participating, those members may not contribute final votes for acceptability or scoring. However, they should be encouraged to submit written comments, using available physical or electronic means to provide their opinions to the meeting. These comments should be shared with the SRG members present and incorporated into the TER.
After general discussion, all participating SRG members individually score each proposal on all evaluation criteria, based on corresponding weights published in the RFP. They should refine their comments on specific strengths and weaknesses for all evaluation criteria, reflecting their written judgments of strengths or weaknesses derived from the discussion.
When reviewers participate by teleconference, they will be permitted to vote and score proposals and will submit their individual evaluations, recommendations, votes and scores by mail, electronic means, or fax. The SRA records the results of their vote in the TER.
The final SRG meeting tasks are to determine the technical acceptability/unacceptability and rankings of proposals. If an offeror's proposal indicates sufficient technical understanding and capabilities, the members should recommend that it is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the proposal demonstrates a significant lack of understanding or ability to perform required tasks, it should be considered unacceptable. The SRG should consider the potential for correcting minor weaknesses or deficiencies. However, proposals rated as acceptable should not require major revisions. Use of predetermined cut-off scores is not permitted.
An SRG votes on the acceptability of a proposal, and must provide the individual members' written comments and determination on acceptability/unacceptability as described above. For SRGs, the SRA includes the ranking in the TER. The SRGs' tasks are complete following the acceptability determinations.
The SRA and/or CO check each rating sheet for completeness and total the scores for each proposal. The SRA or CO develops a composite technical ranking. Ranking is accomplished by totaling the numerical scores from all SRG members for the evaluation criteria and calculating average ratings for each offeror.
In the event of a tie vote on a proposal's acceptability/unacceptability, the SRA will ask for reconsideration. After reasonable further discussion, if the tie remains, the proposal shall be considered acceptable.
-
Technical Evaluation Report
The SRA is responsible for the TER and shall prepare technical evaluation summaries for all proposals, documenting strengths and weaknesses, on a criterion-by-criterion and overall basis. The documented strengths, weaknesses and recommendations serve as the basis for later discussions with those offerors in the competitive range. The report reflects rankings and scores of each proposal and identifies each as acceptable or unacceptable.
Careful preparation of the TER is important as program and contracting staffs use the information as the basis to develop negotiation strategies and to debrief unsuccessful offerors.
The original report and any appendices shall be delivered to the CO, with a copy to the PO.
The business evaluation of proposals, at a minimum, involves both the CO and PO.
FAR Subpart 15.304 (c)(1), requires that the Government evaluate cost or price in every source selection. In addition, FAR requires the Government to evaluate and address in every source selection the quality of an offeror's proposal through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as technical excellence, past performance, compliance with the solicitation requirements, personnel qualifications, management capability and prior experience. Evaluation of the above factors is required in all source selection decisions, and depending on the nature of the requirement itself, these could be combined with other non-cost award factors such as past performance and the extent of participation of small disadvantaged business concerns.
Prospective offerors' must be apprised of the relative significance or importance of cost or price as related to all other non-cost evaluation factors.
COs are to evaluate business proposals adhering to the requirements for cost or price analysis as addressed in FAR 15.404-1. The objective of cost or price analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. The CO is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered price.
Various analytical techniques and procedures can be used to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The predominant analysis techniques used in the award of R&D type contracts include: cost analysis, cost realism analysis and price analysis, usually combined with some form of technical analysis. These techniques may be used singularly or in combination with one another. The complexity and circumstances of each acquisition will determine the type and level of detail of the analysis required.
Cost analysis is the process of evaluating the reasonableness of the separate and individual cost elements and profit of an offeror's proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. There are various cost analysis techniques and procedures that can be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price and these are discussed at FAR 15.404-1(c).
Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed estimated cost to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect the offeror's clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal (FAR 15-404-1(d)). Cost realism analysis must be performed whenever a cost-reimbursement type contract is contemplated. Cost realism analysis is used to determine the "probable cost of performance." The probable cost of performance may differ from the offeror's proposed cost and reflects the Government's best estimate of the cost of the contract that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal. The probable cost of performance is determined by adjusting each offeror's proposed cost, and fee when applicable, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.
Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and profit. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm fixed-price basis, comparison of proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis. Examples of price analysis techniques can be found at FAR 15.404-1(b).
FAR 15.404-1(e) refers to technical analysis as a process where the CO seeks input of persons having specialized knowledge, skills, and experience (typically POs and SRG members) to assist in determining the need and reasonableness of the offeror's proposed types and quantities of labor hours and labor mix, materials, equipment, supplies, consultants, travel, subcontracts, etc. Opinions are sought as to whether these elements, in terms of their type and quantity, are necessary and reasonable for efficient contract performance. This analysis is usually implemented, in part, by completion of the Project Officer Technical Questionnaire (POTQ), Form NIH - 2497. NIH Policy Manual Chapter 6015-1, entitled: Financial Analysis of Contract Proposals and Modifications, requires that a POTQ be completed "in all instances where the acquisition is expected to result in an award of $550,000 or more and a cost realism/cost analysis is performed." Responsibility for completion of the POTQ rests jointly with the PO and CO.
In conjunction with evaluating cost or price reasonableness, the CO must determine the responsibility of a prospective contractor under FAR 9.104-1.
The CO may determine that it is in the Government's best interest to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). This action is authorized if the solicitation included the appropriate notification to offerors found in FAR 52.215-1.
-
Source Evaluation
Following receipt of the TER from review staff, the CO and PO confirm proposal strengths and weaknesses and identify ambiguities, inconsistencies, deficiencies, errors, and additional program-based issues, which should be addressed in discussions with specific offerors in the competitive range.
The CO or PO may seek relevant technical expertise not directly connected with the acquisition if support is needed; however the CO must ensure adherence to conflict of interest and confidentiality concerns.
Only proposals judged acceptable by the SRG may be considered further for discussions and award.
If the CO or PO identifies significant actual or apparent oversights, inaccuracies, or errors in the SRG evaluation, he or she must document those concerns and, after appropriate consultation, obtain further peer evaluation of the proposals. A new SRG may be necessary.
Depending on the nature of items to be discussed, the CO may decide to conduct site visits at the offerors' facilities (see below).
-
Establishing Competitive Range
Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the CO shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).
The CO prepares a written Competitive Range document based on review findings and provides a complete rationale for decisions to include or exclude specific proposals from the range. The CO then notifies offerors excluded from the range, advises them that no discussions or negotiations will be undertaken and revisions to their proposals will not be accepted.
Offerors excluded from the competitive range may seek a debriefing before award under FAR 15.505.
-
Technical and Business Discussions
When negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and are called discussions. If discussions are held with any offeror in the competitive range, they must be held with all in the range. Site visits may be considered as included within the technical and business discussions and generally involve oral discussions.
Discussions are tailored to each offeror's proposal, and conducted by the CO or CS with each offeror within the competitive range. Program officials, cost analysts, attorneys and others as necessary, may assist them. To provide continuity, SRG members may assist in competitive range discussions and subsequent evaluations, as appropriate.
The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.
The CO shall:
- - control all discussions;
- - advise offerors of significant deficiencies, ambiguities, inconsistencies, adverse past performance (FAR 15.306(d)(3)), errors and other uncertainties of the proposals;
- - provide opportunity for offerors to submit technical, cost/price, or other corrections to fully satisfy the RFP requirements; and
- - address compliance with all applicable Human Subject and Animal Welfare issues and policies as needed.
FAR 15.306 places limits on exchanges by prohibiting Government personnel from conduct that:
- Favors one offeror over another;
- Reveals an offeror's technical solution, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise an offeror's intellectual property to another offeror;
- Reveals an offeror's price without that offeror's permission. However, the CO may inform an offeror that its price is considered by the Government to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion. It also is permissible, at the Government's discretion, to indicate to all offerors the cost or price that the Government's price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable (41 U.S.C.423(h)(1)(2));
- Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror's past performance; or
- Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of FAR 3.104 and 41 U.S.C.423(h)(1)(2).
Some acquisitions may require more than one round of discussions with offerors in the competitive range depending on the size, complexity and significance of the acquisition, available time, expense and administrative limitations.
When oral discussions are held, staff must document essential points in the conversations and provide each offeror the opportunity to submit a written response addressing issues from the discussions.
The CO may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The CO is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of FPRs. Requests for FPRs shall advise offerors that the FPRs shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.
-
Preaward Site Visits
Preaward site visits may be necessary to: assess information regarding certain offerors' capabilities, resources, organization, and facilities; verify the offeror's proposal in the areas deemed necessary; and clarify necessary proposal details unfamiliar to evaluators. Not all offerors must be site visited.
The CO/CS should conduct preaward site visits together with appropriate program staff. The CO/CS is responsible for conducting and documenting site visits and oral discussions. However, program staffs take the lead in conducting and documenting technical aspects of the proceedings, including selecting appropriate reviewers to participate in the site visits. These may include SRG members. Reports from individual reviewers should be provided to the CO/CS or program staff for preparation of site visit reports.
-
Final Evaluation/Recommendations
After receipt of FPRs, the CO and PO conduct a final evaluation of technical, cost/price, and other salient factors, assisted by a Source Selection Panel (SSP), as the IC deems necessary. The CO appoints the SSP, using recommendations from the PO.
The SSP's final evaluations must apply the same criteria for the final evaluations of the FPRs as those used in the initial technical evaluation of proposals, and any other factors announced in the RFP. New information obtained during discussions may provide sufficient justification to rescore proposals.
-
Contractor Selection
The SSP recommends in writing to the CO which source(s) it judges can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered as described in the RFP. The CO has statutory authority for award selection.
Special program constraints may be considered in selection, e.g., need for geographical distribution, different population mixes in clinical studies, or different technical approaches to a problem, provided the RFP made those factors known.
In all cases, contract files must document the rationale for award decisions. The CO conducts postaward debriefings after receipt of timely, written requests by successful or unsuccessful offerors. See FAR 15.506.
-
Finalization of Details
After selection of the successful proposal, finalization of details with the selected offeror may be conducted if deemed necessary. However, no factor that could have any effect on the selection process may be introduced after the common cutoff date for receipt of FPRs. The finalization process shall not in any way prejudice the competitive interest or rights of the unsuccessful offerors. Finalization of details with the selected offeror shall be restricted to definitizing the final agreement on terms and conditions, assuming none of these factors were involved in the selection process. The CO must exercise caution to ensure that the finalization process is not used to change the requirements contained in the solicitation, or to make any other changes that would impact on the source selection decision. See HHSAR 315.370.
-
Contract Preparation and Award
After finalization of details, the Contracting Officer must prepare the negotiation memorandum and contract document. The contract must contain all agreed to terms and conditions and clauses required by law or regulation. After receiving the required approvals, the contract should be transmitted to the prospective contractor for signature. The contract is not effective until accepted by the CO. See HHSAR 315.371 and 315.372 for additional details.
The CO must follow agency procedures regarding Departmental and Congressional notification of awards in addition to the FedBizOpps synopsis requirements included in FAR Part 5.
F. Procedures: Acquisitions by Other than Full and Open Competition
While this Manual Chapter emphasizes competitive solicitations, review and evaluation principles above generally apply to both solicited and unsolicited proposals obtained by other than full and open competition. Some differences exist in the handling of these proposals as protecting the integrity of the competitive process is not an issue. However, the CO and PO still must maintain the confidential nature of the information, Procurement Integrity prohibitions, and prohibition against disclosing proprietary information. Guidance for processing a Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) is contained in the JOFOC Desk Guide for NIH Contracts at the following Web site: http://www3.od.nih.gov/ocm/contracts/PDF/JDG2_99.pdf
-
Solicited Proposals
-
New Contracts
When the NIH solicits a contract proposal directly from a source without competition, it first must establish that the source is the only one that can realistically perform the specific requirement, and that the solicitation is otherwise justified within the FAR and HHSAR. Peer reviews for R&D project concepts and proposals are required as for competitive proposals (see 42 CFR 52h.10). Given that competitive selection of sources based on uniform evaluation criteria does not apply, the RFP need not include formal criteria. However, these are useful both to offerors in preparing proposals to meet NIH requirements, and reviewers in assessing capabilities. Absent formal evaluation criteria, reviewers will concentrate on technical methodology, organizational and staff qualifications, proposed resources, and other factors relevant to the source's ability to meet the contract requirements.
-
Existing Contracts
With certain exceptions, extensions of existing contracts also must be approved within HHS acquisition guidelines before proposals are solicited without competition. Extensions may aim to continue or complete work on the same project, or may introduce expanded or changed approaches or subject matter.
Extensions to continue work under cost-reimbursement completion contracts do not require JOFOCs, provided that previous concept reviews defined those efforts. Extensions to allow additional effort on level-of-effort term contracts do require JOFOCs. In addition, extensions for expansions or changes in work may require prior concept reviews, depending on the circumstances. See section F.1.a., above. The requirement for peer review shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis pursuant to 42 CFR 52h.
-
New Contracts
-
Unsolicited Proposals
Unsolicited proposals allow unique and innovative ideas or approaches that have been developed outside the Government to be made available to Government agencies for use in accomplishing their missions. Unsolicited proposals are offered with the intent that the Government will enter into a contract with the offeror for research and development or other efforts supporting the Government mission, and often represent a substantial investment of time and effort by the offeror.
Under FAR Subpart 15.6, a valid unsolicited proposal must-
- Be innovative and unique;
- Be independently originated and developed by the offeror;
- Be prepared without Government supervision, endorsement, direction or direct Government involvement;
- Include sufficient detail to permit a determination that Government support could be worthwhile and the proposed work could benefit the agency's research and development or other mission responsibilities; and
- Not be an advance proposal for a known agency requirement that can be acquired by competitive methods.
The IC Chief Contracting Officer is the designated point of contact for unsolicited proposals. See FAR 15.606. Unsolicited proposals determined to be invalid shall be returned to the offerors.
If it is determined that an unsolicited proposal is valid, both the project concept and approach must be peer reviewed by three or more experts.
The CO may commence negotiations on a sole source basis only when-
- an unsolicited proposal has received a favorable comprehensive evaluation;
- a justification and approval has been obtained (see FAR Subpart 6.3);
- the agency technical office sponsoring the contract furnished the necessary funds; and
- the CO has complied with the synopsis requirements of FAR Subpart 5.2.
Only the cognizant CO may bind the Government regarding unsolicited proposals. See FAR 15.604(b).
Numerous references provide background for this issuance:
- Public Health Service Act as amended, December 31, 1987, Sections 405 and 492;
- Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (48 CFR), Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, FAR Part 35, Research and Development Contracting http://www.acqnet.gov/far/current/html/FARTOCP01.html ;
- FAR 15.204-1, Uniform Contract Format;
- HHS Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR), 48 CFR 315, Contracting by Negotiation http://www.knownet.hhs.gov/acquisition/hhsar/;
- HHS Regulations, 45 CFR, Part 11, Committee Management;
- Public Health Service Regulations, 42 CFR Part 52h, Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Projects;
- NIH Manual Chapter 1805, Use of Advisors in Program and Project Review and Management; ;
- NIH Manual Chapter 1810-1, Procedures for Avoiding Conflict of Interest for NIH Special Government Employee (SGE) Advisory Committee Members;
- NIH Manual Chapter 1825, Information Collection from the Public;
- NIH Manual Chapter 26307-1/6307-1 , Organization of Contracting Responsibilities;
- NIH Manual Chapter 6015-1, Financial Analysis of Contract Proposals and Modifications;
- NIH Program Administrators' Handbook, 1995. DHHS Project Officers' Contracting Handbook; http://www.knownet.hhs.gov/acquisition/POHandbookSTD.doc
- Inclusion of Children in Clinical Research.
- Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Participants in Clinical Research.
- OER Policy Announcement on Peer Review
- NIH Manual Chapter 6380-1, Human Subject Policies for R&D Contracts;
- NIH Manual Chapter 6380-2/54206, Responsibility for Care and Use of Animals;
- NIH Manual Chapter 6035, Broad Agency Announcements;
- NIH Manual Chapter 6315-3, Technical Evaluation of Proposals Submitted in Response to SBIR Contract Solicitations;
- Past Performance Information Retrieval System - http://www.ppirs.gov/;
- NIH Form 1688-1, Project Objectives, available at: http://forms.nih.gov/adobe/contracts/NH1688_1.PDF. Also see http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/; and
- Responsible Conduct of Research - http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/rcr_requirements.asp.
H. Definitions (listed alphabetically)
-
Acceptable Proposal
A proposal judged to be complete in itself, to contain no major deficiencies, and to present sufficient evidence to indicate that the offeror is capable of satisfying the minimum requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and thus is eligible for consideration for (a) inclusion in a competitive range for a competitive acquisition or (b) award in the case of a noncompetitive acquisition.
-
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
A general announcement of the organization's research interest including criteria for selecting proposals and soliciting the participation of all offerors capable of satisfying the Government's needs (see FAR 2.101 and FAR 6.102(d)(2)).
-
Clinical Trial
For purposes of proposal review, NIH defines a clinical trial as a prospective biomedical or behavioral research study of human subjects that is designed to answer specific questions about biomedical or behavioral interventions (drugs, treatments, devices, or new ways of using known drugs, treatments or devices).
-
Competitive Range
The most highly rated technically acceptable proposals unless the range is further reduced for efficiency (see FAR 15.306(c)).
-
Evaluators
Any individuals, including Government employees, who participate in scientific or technical reviews of contract and subcontract proposals, or active projects under NIH awards, and who assign scores or ratings, or make funding recommendations. This includes members of SRGs and SSPs or any participants performing these evaluation functions. During their involvement in the evaluation process, evaluators are considered critical participants in the acquisition. As such, the applicable Standards of Conduct, Procurement Integrity, and Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure of Information bind them.
-
Interagency Agreement
A written arrangement between one or more NIH components and one or more government entities outside the NIH, all of which must have the statutory authority to engage in the arrangement. Such agreements may include, but are not limited to, arrangements to receive and/or provide services, supplies, advice and counsel, involving the exchange of funds.
-
Intra-agency Agreement
A written arrangement between/among NIH components, all of which must have the statutory authority to engage in the arrangement.
-
Performance-based contracting
All aspects of an acquisition are structured around the purpose of the work to be performed with the contract requirements set forth in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes as opposed to either the manner by which the work is to be performed or broad and imprecise statements of work (see FAR 2.101).
-
Program Advisory Group (PAG)
A peer review group which reviews and approves or disapproves concepts for R&D contract projects.
-
Proposal Deficiency
A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
-
Proposal Weakness
A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
-
Research and Development (R&D)
Research, development, and demonstration activities typically involve procedures to acquire and apply new scientific knowledge and to:
- develop approaches and methods;
- perform experimental procedures;
- record observations and data;
- analyze and interpret findings; and
- publish results, interpretations, and conclusions.
The spectrum of biomedical and behavioral research, development, demonstration, and R&D support activities are defined as follows:
-
Research
Systematic search or intensive study directed towards achieving new or fuller scientific knowledge or understanding beyond the state of the art, and/or towards the practical application of knowledge/understanding to advance specific program objectives.
-
Development
Systematic use of knowledge gained from research to create useful materials, devices, systems, or methods.
-
Demonstration
Systematic studies of the feasibility of disseminating or applying R&D findings to community or other group situations, e.g., establish effectiveness of health diagnosis, treatment, or prevention approaches to improve public health.
-
R&D Support
Procedures, techniques, and activities directly supporting the conduct of R&D, involving innovative or standard methodologies to prepare or provide special materials, resources, or services integral to performing R&D projects, e.g., screen or test components for biological activity; collect, provide, analyze, or interpret experimental research data or information, or provide significant enhancements to existing equipment or systems.
-
Research
-
R&D Contract Project
An identified, circumscribed activity, involving a single contract or two or more similar, related, or interdependent contracts intended and designed to acquire new or fuller knowledge and understanding in the areas of biomedical or behavioral research and/or to use such knowledge and understanding to develop useful materials, devices, systems or methods.
-
R&D Contract Proposal
A written offer to enter into a contract that is submitted to the appropriate agency official by an individual or nonfederal organization which includes, at a minimum, a description of the nature, purpose, duration, and cost of the project, and the methods, personnel and facilities to be utilized in carrying it out. A contract proposal may be unsolicited by the federal government or submitted in response to a Request for Proposals. It consists of a technical proposal and a business proposal.
-
R&D Project Concept
The basic purpose, scope, and objectives of a project. The scope may include estimates of the total costs and time needed for completion of the project.
-
Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)
The NIH official who has the responsibility to ensure that contract proposals receive a competent, thorough and fair review by an SRG, consistent with all relevant NIH review policies. The SRA organizes and provides scientific/technical support to the SRGs, and is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the TER, including votes on acceptability, scoring of proposals, and other recommendations to the PO and CO.
-
Scientific Review Group (SRG)
A group of primarily nongovernmental experts qualified by training and experience in particular scientific or technical fields, or as authorities knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields related to the scientific areas under review, to give expert advice on the scientific and technical merits of contract proposals, or the concept of contract projects when serving as a PAG. A minimum of three reviewers is required. Not more than one-fourth of the SRG may be officers or employees of the United States. Membership on such groups does not make an individual an officer, agent, or employee of the United States.
IC staffs are ineligible to participate as members or SRAs of SRGs evaluating and recommending on specific contract proposals or projects, for which they have had or may have other selection, award, or administrative responsibilities. IC staff may serve as policy or technical resources to the SRG.
-
Source Selection Panel (SSP)
A generic term for an IC panel that evaluates the Final Proposal Revisions and recommends to the CO who should receive an award. The SSP may comprise, at a minimum, the project and contracting officers, and may be supplemented by other persons with appropriate technical expertise.
-
Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs)
A type of Scientific Review Group established under FACA in response to review needs. SEPs normally consist of a minimum of five members; the exact number depends on the size, complexity, and number of proposals under review.
-
Technical Evaluation Report (TER)
A report prepared and furnished to the CO by the SRA and maintained as a permanent record in the contract file. The report must reflect the ranking of the proposals and identify each proposal as acceptable or unacceptable. The report also must include a narrative evaluation specifying the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, a copy of each signed rating sheet, and any reservations, qualifications, or areas to be addressed that might bear upon the selection of sources for negotiation and award. Concrete technical reasons supporting a determination of unacceptability with regard to any proposal must be included. The report also must include specific points and questions, which are to be raised in discussions or negotiations.
-
Unacceptable Proposal
A proposal judged to contain deficiencies, which are so material as to preclude any possibility of upgrading it to a competitive level except through major revisions and additions, which would be tantamount to the submission of another proposal.
I. Records Retention and Disposal:
All records pertaining to this Chapter should be retained as described in FAR 4.805 at a minimum.
All records (e-mail and non-e-mail) pertaining to this Chapter must be retained and disposed of under the authority of NIH Manual 1743, "Keeping and Destroying Records, Appendix 1, "NIH Records Control Schedule," Item 2600-A-4, Routine Procurement Files.
NIH e-mail messages. NIH e-mail messages (messages, including attachments, that are created on NIH computer systems or transmitted over NIH networks) that are evidence of the activities of the agency or have informational value are considered Federal records. These records must be maintained in accordance with current NIH Records Management guidelines. Contact your IC Records Officer for additional information.
All e-mail messages are considered Government property, and, if requested for a legitimate Government purpose, must be provided to the requester. Employees supervisors, NIH staff conducting official reviews or investigations, and the Office of Inspector General may request access to or copies of the e-mail messages. E-mail messages must also be provided to Congressional oversight committees if requested and are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Since most e-mail systems have back-up files that are retained for significant periods of time, e-mail messages and attachments are likely to be retrievable from a back-up file after they have been deleted from an individual's computer. The back-up files are subject to the same requests as the original messages.
The purpose of this manual issuance is to identify issues to be considered by the NIH contracting activities in awarding R&D contracts.
-
Offices Responsible for Reviewing Management Controls Relative to this Chapter:
The Division of Acquisition Policy and Evaluation, Office of Acquisition Management and Policy, OA and the Office of Extramural Programs, Office of Extramural Research, OD. - Frequency of Review: On-going review.
-
Method of Review:
The Division of Acquisition Policy and Evaluation, Office of Acquisition Management and Policy, will maintain appropriate oversight through reviews of the IC contract files conducted by the NIH Board of Contract Awards (Board). The NIH Board reviews a percentage of contract actions from each IC. Issues identified by the NIH Board are provided to the IC for corrective action. The Office of Extramural Programs, OER, will be consulted as necessary. When repetitive issues are identified, these are brought to the attention of the Acquisition Management Committee, which is responsible for addressing and resolving common acquisition issues. In addition, the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) is routinely apprised of any difficulties in the IC implementation of policy. Depending on the nature and extent of the problem, the HCA may recommend additional review, policy guidance and/or training of the contract staff. - The Year-End Summary Report of Repetitive Issues will be sent to the NIH Chief Contracting Officers, the Deputy Director for Management, and the Deputy Director for Extramural Research.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS AND AWARD OF NEW
COMPETITIVE R&D CONTRACTS
Project Concept Development
Concept Peer Review
Acquisition Plan/Request for Contract
Request for Proposals
Receipt of Proposals
Scientific Review Group Meeting
Business Evaluation
Technical Evaluation Reports
Cost/Price Realism and Analysis*
Competitive Range Determination*
Competitive Range Discussions
Site Visits*
Negotiation Plan
Final Negotiations*
Final Proposal Revisions
Source Selection Panel
Source Selection
Finalization of Special Considerations*
Finalization of Details*
Contract Award
- *As Applicable
