National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Innovation Research & Technology Transfer 2002 Program Solicitations
[ back to Solicitation ] [ back to table of contents ]
4.1 Phase I Proposals4. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria
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 technical abstract included in the Proposal Summary (Form B), 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 plans to select for award those proposals offering the best value to the Government and the Nation. NASA will give primary consideration to the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposal and its benefit to NASA. Non-cost factors are substantially more important than cost factors for Phase I proposals. 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 cur-rent 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 PI 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 re-liance on external sources, such as Government Furnished Equipment or Facilities, addressed (Section 5.17).
Factor 3. Effectiveness of the Proposed Work Plan
The work plan will be reviewed for its comprehensiveness, effective use of available resources, cost manage-ment and proposed schedule for meeting the Phase I objectives. The methods planned to achieve each objective or task should be discussed in detail.
| STTR: The clear delineation of the responsibilities of the SBC and RI for the success of the proposed cooperative R/R&D effort will be evaluated. The offeror must demonstrate the ability to organize for effective conversion of intellectual property into products or services of value to NASA and the commercial marketplace. |
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: Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be scored numerically with Factor 1 worth 50 percent and Factors 2 and 3 each worth 25 percent. The sum of the scores for Factors 1, 2, and 3 will comprise the Technical Merit score. The score for Commercial Merit will be in the form of an adjectival rating (Excellent, Very Good, Average, Below Average, Poor). For Phase 1 proposals, Technical Merit carries more weight than Commercial Merit.
4.1.3 Selection. After a proposal is reviewed based on the stated evaluation criteria, 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. The Source Selection Official has the final authority for choosing the specific proposals for contract negotiation.
The list of selections will be posted on the NASA SBIR/STTR web site (http://sbir.nasa.gov). All firms will receive a formal notification letter. A Contracting Officer will negotiate an appropriate contract to be signed by both parties before work begins.
| 4.1.4 Allocation of Rights Agreement (Applicable for STTR awards only). After being selected for Phase I contract negotiations, but before the contract starts, the offeror shall, if requested, provide to the Contracting Officer, a completed Allocation of Rights Agreement (ARA), which has been signed by authorized representatives of the SBC, RI and subcontractors and consultants, as applicable. The ARA shall state the allocation of intellectual property rights with respect to the proposed STTR activity and planned follow-on research, development and/or commercialization. |
4.2.1 Evaluation Process. The Phase II evaluation process is similar to the Phase I process. NASA plans to select for award those proposals offering the best value to the Government and the Nation. 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 expert in business development and technology commercialization.
As in Phase I, non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost factors. However, the reasonableness of the proposed costs of the effort to be performed will be examined to determine those proposals that offer the best value to the Government. Where technical evaluations are essentially equal in merit, cost to the government will be considered in determining successful offerors.
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/ Pro-ject 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
NASA will assess the proposed commercialization plan in terms of its credibility, objectivity, reasonableness of key assumptions and awareness of key risk areas and critical business vulnerabilities, as applicable to the following factors:
(1) Commercial potential of the technology: This includes assessment of: (a) a well-defined commercial product or service; (b) a realistic target market niche; (c) a commercial product or service that has strong potential for uniquely meeting a well-defined need within the target market; and (d) a commitment of necessary financial, physical, and/or personnel resources.
(2) Commercial intent of the offeror: This includes assessing the commercial venture for: (a) importance to the offeror’s current business and strategic planning; (b) reliance on (or lack thereof) government markets; and (c) adequacy of funding sources necessary to bring technology to identified market.
(3) Capability of the offeror to realize commercialization: This includes assessment of (a) the offeror’s past success in bringing SBIR/STTR or other innovative technology to commercial application; (b) the offeror’s business planning; (c) the likelihood that the offeror will be able to obtain the remaining necessary financial, technical and personnel related resources to bear; and (d) the current strength 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 with Factor 1 worth 50 percent and Factors 2 and 3 each worth 25 percent. 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. 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.
|
Note: Companies with Prior NASA SBIR Awards NASA has instituted a comprehensive commercialization survey/data gathering process for companies with prior NASA SBIR awards. Information received from SBIR companies completing the survey is kept confidential, and will not be made public except in broad aggregate, with no company specific attribution. Responding to the survey is strictly voluntary. However, the SBIR Source Selection Official does see the information contained within the survey as adding to the program's ability to use past performance in decision making. If you have not completed a survey, or if you would like to update a previously submitted response, please go on-line at http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/survey.html. |
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, debriefings will be automatically e-mailed to the designated business official within 60 days. If you have not received your debriefing by this time, contact the SBIR/STTR Program Support Office at sbir@reisys.com.
4.3.2 Phase II Debriefings. To request debriefings on Phase II proposals, offerors must request via e-mail to the Contracting Officer at the appropriate NASA Center (not the SBIR/STTR Program Manager) within 60 days after selection announcement. Late requests will not be honored.
[ back to Solicitation ] [ back to table of contents ]