NASA SBIR/STTR Program Solicitation Details | 4. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria

Only Offerors selected for Phase I awards will be eligible to submit Phase II proposals.  Phase II proposals will be evaluated and selected in accordance with the evaluation and selection criteria identified in this Section 4.2.

NASA will conduct a multi-stage review process of all complete Phase II proposal packages. 

4.2.1 Administrative Review

All proposal packages received by the published deadline will undergo an administrative review to determine if the proposal package meets the requirements found in Section 3 (Proposal Preparation Instructions and Requirements), and Section 6 (Submission of Proposals). A proposal package that is found to be noncompliant with any requirements in Sections 3 and 6 may be rejected and no further evaluations will occur. The offeror will be notified of NASA’s decision to eliminate the proposal package from consideration and the reason(s) for the decision. Incomplete proposal packages will be automatically rejected, and no further evaluations will occur.    

4.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

The following four evaluation factors will be used in the review of the proposals that have met the administrative and responsiveness requirements of this solicitation.  

Factor 1: Commercial Potential 
The assessment of the commercial potential of the Phase II proposal will be evaluated to determine its effectiveness in achieving the following:

• Description of the commercial potential through a quantitative market analysis to include the market segmentation and the commercial Total Addressable Market (TAM), the proposed innovation in terms of target customers, and the competitive landscape, by identifying potential competitors.
• Description of commercial intent to include the development timeline required to bring the innovation to market, the applicable business model (spin-out, license, OEM, etc.) the offeror would use, and the risks to the commercial development plan and what mitigations, if any, can be taken over a reasonable period of time to lessen the risks.  
• Description of commercial capability to include the current and future company capitalization efforts.
• Description of the Offerors approach to protecting any Intellectual Property that results from the innovation.
• Description of any assistance or mentoring the company intends to pursue.
• Evidence of follow-on funding support. 

Factor 2: Scientific/Technical Merit and Feasibility  
The Phase II proposal will be evaluated to determine its effectiveness in achieving the following criteria:

• The technical approach and the anticipated agency and commercial benefits that may be derived from the research.
• The adequacy of the proposed effort, and its relationship to the fulfillment of requirements of the research topic.
• The soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic solution.
• The proposal should describe an innovative and feasible technical approach to the identified NASA problem area/topic. 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 3: Experience, Qualifications, and Facilities
The qualifications of the proposed Principal Investigators/Project Managers, supporting staff and consultants and subcontractors, if any, will be evaluated for consistency with the research effort and their degree of commitment and availability. The proposed necessary instrumentation or facilities required to accomplish the proposed technical approach will be evaluated to determine if they are adequate. In addition, any proposed reliance on external sources, such as Government-furnished equipment or facilities (section 3.6.3.4 and part 8 of the technical proposal), will be evaluated for reasonableness. 

Factor 4: Effectiveness of the Proposed Work Plan
The proposed work plan should describe the methods planned to achieve each objective or task in detail. The work plan will be evaluated for comprehensiveness, including its proposed effective use of available resources and approach to labor distribution. In addition, the work plan’s proposed schedule for meeting the Phase I objectives will be evaluated to make sure they are reasonable and consistent with the proposed technical approach.  

4.2.3 Scoring of Factors and Weighting to Determine the Most Highly Rated Proposals

• Factor 1: Commercialization Potential is worth a potential 30 points.
• Factor 2: Scientific/Technical Merit and Feasibility is worth a potential 30 points.
• Factor 3: Experience, Qualifications, and Facilities is worth a potential 20 points.
• Factor 4: Effectiveness of the Proposed Work Plan is worth a potential 20 points. 

The sum of the scores for Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 will constitute the proposal’s total score. 

4.2.4 Price Evaluation   

Utilizing the procedures set forth in FAR 15.404-1, the offeror’s budget proposal form will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s proposed pricing is fair and reasonable. NASA will only make an award when the price is fair and reasonable and approved by the NASA Contracting Officer. If a proposal is selected for award, the Contracting Officer will review all the evaluations for the proposal and will address any pricing issues identified during negotiation of the final award. 

4.2.5 Panel Review 

A panel made up of NASA subject matter experts and 3rd party reviewers will review the proposals in each topic area and assign adjectival ratings using the evaluation criteria outlined in 4.2.2 and programmatic investment considerations (e.g., first-time awardee, portfolio balance across technologies, other strategic considerations, etc.).

The possible adjectival ratings for the Panel Review are:

• Excellent: A thorough and compelling proposal of exceptional merit that fully responds to the objectives of the solicitation.
• Good: A competent proposal of high merit that fully responds to the objectives of the solicitation. 
• Fair: A competent proposal of moderate merit that represents a credible response to the solicitation.
• Poor: A proposal of low merit that does not represent a credible response to the solicitation.

The panel's final rankings and rationale for the rankings will be presented to the SSO.

4.2.6 Selection   

The SSO has the final authority for choosing the specific proposals for contract negotiation. In making such a determination, the SSO, in their discretion, may consider additional programmatic balance factors such as portfolio balance across NASA Programs, Centers and Mission Directorates, available funding, first-time awardees / participants, historically underrepresented communities, and geographic distribution. The SSO may only select from among those proposals ranked and rated by the Panel; the SSO will not consider the underlying point scores initially assigned in 4.1.4 when selecting proposals for contract negotiation. The list of proposals selected for negotiation will be posted on the NASA SBIR/STTR website (https://sbir.nasa.gov). All firms will receive a formal notification letter.

Each proposal package selected for negotiation by the SSO will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to determine eligibility for an award. The terms and conditions of the contract will be negotiated based on the SBIR Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), FAR and NASA FAR requirements, and a responsibility determination will be made. The Contracting Officer will advise the SSO on matters pertaining to price analysis and responsibility determinations. A Contracting Officer will negotiate an appropriate contract to be signed by both parties before work begins.

Note: Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 below apply to both the Phase I and Phase II evaluation process.  

4.4.1 Non-NASA Reviewers  

In addition to utilizing Government personnel in the review process, NASA, at its discretion and in accordance with 1815.207-71 of the NASA FAR Supplement, may utilize individuals from outside the Government with highly specialized expertise not found in the Government.  Qualified experts outside of NASA (including industry, academia, and other Government agencies) may assist in performing evaluations as required to determine or verify the merit of a complete proposal package. Any decision to obtain an outside evaluation shall take into consideration requirements for the avoidance of organizational or personal conflicts of interest and any competitive relationship between the prospective contractor or subcontractor(s) and the prospective outside evaluator. Any such evaluation will be under agreement with the evaluator that the information (data) contained in the complete proposal package will be used only for evaluation purposes and will not be further disclosed.  

4.4.2 Non-NASA Access to Confidential Business Information 

In the conduct of processing proposal packages and potential contract administration, the Agency may find it necessary to provide access to the complete proposal package to other NASA contractor and subcontractor personnel. NASA will provide access to such data only under contracts that contain an appropriate NFS 1852.237-72 Access to Sensitive Information clause that requires the contractors to fully protect the information from unauthorized use or disclosure and where the contractor has implemented the appropriate processes and procedures to protect the information.