National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Innovation Research 1999 Program Solicitation
4.1 Phase-I Proposals
4.2 Phase-II Proposals
4.3 Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors
4. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria
4.1 Phase-I Proposals
Proposals judged to be responsive to the administrative requirements of this Solicitation and having a reasonable potential of meeting a NASA need, as evidenced by the abstract, will be evaluated on a competitive basis.
4.1.1 Evaluation Process. Proposals should provide all information needed for complete evaluation and evaluators are not expected to seek additional information. Evaluations will be performed by NASA scientists and engineers and by qualified experts outside of NASA (including industry, academia, and other Government agencies) as required to determine or verify the merit of a proposal. Offerors should not assume that evaluators are acquainted with the firm, key individuals, or with any experiments or other information. Any pertinent references or publications should be noted in Part 5 of the technical proposal.
4.1.2 Phase-I Evaluation Criteria. NASA will give primary consideration to the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposal and its benefit to NASA. Each proposal will be judged and scored on its own merits using the factors described below:
Factor 1. Scientific/Technical Merit and Feasibility
The proposed R/R&D effort will be evaluated on whether it offers a clearly innovative and feasible technical approach to the NASA problem area described in the subtopic. Specific objectives, approaches and plans for developing and verifying the innovation must demonstrate a clear understanding of the problem and the current state-of-the-art. The degree of understanding and significance of the risks involved in the proposed innovation must be presented.
Factor 2. Experience, Qualifications and Facilities
The technical capabilities and experience of the principal investigator or project manager, key personnel, staff, consultants and subcontractors, if any, are evaluated for consistency with the research effort and their degree of commitment and availability. The necessary instrumentation or facilities required must be shown to be adequate and any reliance on external sources, such as Government Furnished Equipment or Facilities, addressed (Section 5.14).
Factor 3. Effectiveness of the Proposed Work Plan
The work plan will be reviewed for its comprehensiveness, effective use of available resources, cost management and proposed schedule for meeting the Phase-I objectives. The methods planned to achieve each objective or task should be discussed in detail.
Factor 4. Commercial Merit and Feasibility
The proposal will be evaluated for any potential commercial applications in the private sector or for use by the Federal Government.
Scoring of Factors and Weighting: The sum of the scores for Factors 1, 2 and 3 constitutes the numerical value for the Technical Merit of a proposal. Factor 1 is about twice the weight of Factors 2 and 3. The score for Commercial Merit will be in the form of an adjectival rating (Excellent, Very Good, Average, Below Average, Poor, Insufficient Data). Technical Merit score is most significant in Phase-I. In proposals of equal Technical Merit, Commercial Merit can be a deciding factor. Commercial Merit rises in significance for Phase-II consideration.
4.1.3 Selection. After a proposal is evaluated, it will be ranked relative to all other proposals. Selection decisions will consider the recommendations from all Centers, Strategic Enterprises, overall NASA priorities, and program balance. An offeror's past performance evaluations under prior NASA contracts may be reviewed by the Source Selection Official and considered in making the final selection decision. The SBIR Source Selection Official has the final authority for choosing the specific proposals for contract negotiation.
Firms selected for negotiations that may lead to an award will be notified by e-mail. The list of selections will be announced in a NASA press release and will also be posted on the NASA SBIR web site (http://sbir.nasa.gov). Selected firms will receive a formal notification letter that identifies the Contracting Officer at the NASA Center responsible for negotiating the Phase-I contract.
4.2.1 Evaluation Process. The Phase-II evaluation process is similar to the Phase-I process. Each proposal will be reviewed by NASA scientists and engineers and by qualified experts outside of NASA as needed. In addition, those proposals with high technical merit will be reviewed for commercial merit. NASA uses a peer review panel to evaluate commercial merit. Panel membership will include non-NASA personnel experts in business development and technology commercialization.
4.2.2 Evaluation Factors. The evaluation of Phase-II proposals under this Solicitation will apply the following factors:
Factor 1. Scientific/Technical Merit and Feasibility
The proposed R/R&D effort will be evaluated on its innovativeness, originality, and technical payoff potential if successful, including the degree to which Phase-I objectives were met, the feasibility of the innovation, and whether the Phase-I results indicate a Phase-II project is appropriate.
Factor 2. Future Importance and Value to NASA
The eventual value of the product, process, or technology results to the NASA mission will be assessed.
Factor 3. Capability of the Small Business Concern
NASA will assess the capability of the SBC to conduct Phase-II based on (a) the validity of the project plans for achieving the stated goals; (b) the qualifications and ability of the project team (Principal Investigator/Project Manager, company staff, consultants and subcontractors) relative to the proposed research; and (c) the availability of any required equipment and facilities.
Factor 4. Commercial Potential. Consideration will be given to the following:
(1) Commercial potential of the technology: This includes an assessment of the offeror's ability to demonstrate: (a) a specific, well-defined commercial product or service based on the technology to be developed; (b) a realistic target market niche of sufficient size; (c) that the targeted commercial product or service has strong potential for uniquely meeting a well-defined need within the target market niche; and (d) a commitment of significant private financial, physical, and technical personnel resources.
(2) Demonstrated commercial intent of the offeror: This includes an assessment of: (a) the importance of the targeted commercial venture to the offeror's current business and strategic planning; (b) a targeted commercial venture that does not rely on continued U.S. Government markets; and (c) the adequacy of all resource commitments for Phase-III development of the technology to a state of readiness for commercial application.
(3) Capability of the offeror to bring successfully developed technology to commercial application: This includes assessment of the offeror's ability to demonstrate: (a) the offeror's past success in bringing SBIR and other innovative technologies to commercial application; (b) well-thought-out business planning; (c) strong likelihood of the offeror's bringing the remaining necessary private financial, physical, personnel and other resources to bear in a timely way to achieve commercial application of the technology in the not too distant term subsequent to Phase-II; and (d) the strength of the current and continued financial viability of the offeror.
In applying these commercial criteria, NASA will assess proposal information in terms of credibility, objectivity, reasonableness of key assumptions, independent corroborating evidence, internal consistency, demonstrated awareness of key risk areas and critical business vulnerabilities, and other indicators of sound business analysis and judgment.
4.2.3 Evaluation and Selection. Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be scored numerically. Factors 2 and 3 are of equal importance, being equivalent in total to Factor 1. The sum of the scores for Factors 1, 2, and 3 will comprise the Technical Merit score. Proposals receiving high numerical scores will be evaluated and rated for their commercial potential using the criteria listed in Factor 4 and by applying the same adjectival ratings as set forth for Phase-I proposals.
Each NASA Installation managing Phase-I projects will use these factors to evaluate the Phase-II proposals it receives that are responsive to the Phase-II RFP. Final selections will be based on recommendations from all Installations and Strategic Enterprises; assessments of project value to NASA's overall programs and plans; and any other evaluations or assessments (particularly of commercial potential) that may become available to the Source Selection Official. An offeror's past performance evaluations under prior NASA contracts may be reviewed by the Source Selection Official and considered in making the final selection decision.
4.3 Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors
After Phase-I and Phase-II selection decisions have been announced, debriefings for unsuccessful proposals will be available to the offeror's corporate official or designee via e-mail. Telephone requests for debriefings will not be accepted. Debriefings are not opportunities to reopen selection decisions. They are intended to acquaint the offeror with perceived strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and perhaps identify constructive future action by the offeror.
Debriefings will not disclose the identity of the proposal evaluators nor provide proposal scores, rankings in the competition, or the content of, or comparisons with other proposals.
4.3.1 Phase-I Debriefings. For Phase-I proposals, any request for a debriefing must be made via e-mail to sbir@reisys.com, within 60 days after the selection announcement. Late requests will not be honored.
4.3.2 Phase-II Debriefings. To request debriefings on Phase-II proposals, offerors must request via e-mail to the Procurement Point of Contact at the appropriate NASA Center (not the SBIR Program Manager) within 60 days after selection announcement. Late requests will not be honored.