be america’s best…war-winning capabilities on time, on cost i n t e g r i t y - s e r v i c e -...
TRANSCRIPT
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
Headquarters U.S. Air Force
1
SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING (ACQUISITION PLANNING)
<acquisition title>
<Trainer’s name><Trainer’s
Organization>
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Facilities Orientation
Ground Rules Start/Stop Times
Blackberry’s/PDA’s – turned off
Encourage Interaction
2
Introductions
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Overview
Market Research Acquisition Planning 4 W’s
Requirements Documents
Risk Assessment
Acquisition Considerations
Contract Type Selection
Performance-Based Acquisition
Source Selection Planning SS Plan and Content
SS Evaluation Approaches Tradeoff
LPTA
Evaluation Criteria SS Technique Team Members R&R SS Tools Pre-Solicitation & RFP release Governance/Oversight and
Clearance MIRT and PEER Reviews Ethics Summary
3
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Objectives
Ensure Market Research is conducted throughout acquisition process
Recognize importance of Acquisition Planning for a successful Source Selection
Understand Key Elements of Source Selection Process
Know consequences of behaviors and actions as they relate to Ethics and Procurement Integrity
4
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Objectives (cont.)
Prepare team to successfully develop and support Acquisition Strategy/Plan and Source Selection Plan
Recognize how Contracting Process relates to Acquisition Strategy and Planning Process
5
Output: Evaluation criteria for inclusion in Source Selection Plan and RFP Section M (or equivalent commercial provision)Output: Evaluation criteria for inclusion in Source Selection
Plan and RFP Section M (or equivalent commercial provision)
Start
END
Source Selection Process Roadmap
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
Source Selection ProcessPre-RFP Release
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
8
MARKET RESEARCH
Market Research Training Module
Useful Market Research Sources
GAO/COFC Protest Decisions: Lack of Competition and Market Research
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
9
Engaging with Industry… Article from “The Source”
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Identify commercial sources for gov’t requirements Obtain business intelligence for informed decisions
impacting: Acquisition Strategy & Planning
Source Selection Planning
Contract Type Selection
Reduce business risks Identify opportunities, industry trends, technological
developments
10
Why Conduct Market Research?
Improves Chances for SuccessImproves Chances for Success
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Identifies:
Sellers & Buyers
Our leverage in the market
Industry trends
Technology changes/advancements
New commercial items
Business/financial arrangements
Factors influencing doing business with Government
11
Benefits of Market Research
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Reveals key information about sources:
Capability
Technological improvements
Alliances and joint ventures (relationships and type of agreements with their suppliers)
Business/contract type preferences (cost type, fixed price, etc.)
Financial strength and growth potential
Contractor incentives
12
Benefits of Market Research (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Activities include:
Industry Days
Requests for Information
Survey of market-sector - Sources Sought Synopsis
Internet Search of commercial marketplace
Networking with trade associations in specific market sectors
One-on-one meetings with potential offerors
Draft Request For Proposals
13
Market Research Activities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Market Research Toolkit
Synopsis
Internet Search
Virtual Networks
Report Template
Market Research Report Database
Market Research Product/Service
Training and References
GSA Schedules, Yellow Pages, Catalogs, etc.
14
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
If you have not documented it - you have not done it!
Determine your documentation methodology during the planning phase
Document contemporaneously – after the fact documentation is seldom accurate
GAO and COFC place great emphasis on documentation at all phases of acquisition including
15
Document Your Actions
GAO/COFC Decision Summaries Importance of Documentation in Source Selections
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
16
ACQUISITION PLANNING
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Acquisition Planning – 4 W’s
17
Who Acquisition team, led by program / requirements manager
What Acquisition of commercial items or non-developmental items Full and Open Competition Formalize Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)
Why Satisfy government needs in most effective, efficient, economical, and timely
manner
When As soon as requirement is identified
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Contents of Acquisition Plans
18
(a) Acquisition Background and Objectives (b) Plan of Action (cont.)
(1) Statement of Need (2) Applicable conditions (3) Cost (4) Capability or Performance (5) Delivery or Performance-Period
Requirements (6) Trade-offs (7) Risks (8) Acquisition Streamlining
(b) Plan of Action
(1) Sources (2) Competition (3) Contract Type Selection (4) Source-Selection Procedures (5) Acquisition Considerations (6) Budgeting and Funding (7) Product or Service Descriptions
(8) Priorities, Allocations, and Allotments (9) Contractor Versus Government
Performance (10) Inherently Governmental Functions (11) Management Information Requirements (12) Make or Buy (13) Test and Evaluation (14) Logistics Considerations (15) Government-Furnished Property (16) Government-Furnished Information (17) Environmental and Energy
Conservation Objectives (18) Security Considerations (19) Contract Administration (20) Other Considerations (21) Milestones for the Acquisition Cycle (22) Identification of Participants in
Acquisition Plan Preparation
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
(a) Acquisition Background and Objectives (b) Plan of Action (cont.)
(1) Statement of Need (2) Applicable conditions (3) Cost (4) Capability or Performance (5) Delivery or Performance-Period
Requirements (6) Trade-offs (7) Risks (8) Acquisition Streamlining
(b) Plan of Action
(1) Sources (2) Competition (3) Contract Type Selection (4) Source-Selection Procedures (5) Acquisition Considerations (6) Budgeting and Funding (7) Product or Service Descriptions
(8) Priorities, Allocations, and Allotments (9) Contractor Versus Government
Performance (10) Inherently Governmental Functions (11) Management Information Requirements (12) Make or Buy (13) Test and Evaluation (14) Logistics Considerations (15) Government-Furnished Property (16) Government-Furnished Information (17) Environmental and Energy
Conservation Objectives (18) Security Considerations (19) Contract Administration (20) Other Considerations (21) Milestones for the Acquisition Cycle (22) Identification of Participants in
Acquisition Plan Preparation
Acquisition Planning Key Activities
19
Statement of Need - Requirements Documents
Tradeoffs
Risks
Acquisition Considerations
Source Selection ‘Procedures’ Planning
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
20
Requirements Documents
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
SpecificationsWork
Specification
(WS)
21
Requirements DocumentsDescribe
Agency Needs
Statement of
Objectives (SOO)
Statement of Work (SOW)
Purchase Descriptions
Performance Work Statement (PWS)
Capability
Development
Document (CDD)
Systems Requirements
Document (SRD)
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)
Technical Requirements Document (TRD)
Capability Production
Document (CPD)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Descriptions, specifications, and criteria that define minimum needs of agency for supplies or services
Requirements may be expressed as:
Minimum value or level of performance (threshold performance requirement)
Desired goal (objective performance requirement)
22
Requirements Documents Typical Content
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Based on Market Research, describe Government needs in terms of:
Functions to be performed
Performance level required
Essential physical characteristics
These documents are basis for:
Risk assessment
Development of evaluation criteria
Preparation of solicitation and proposal
Contract type selection, formation and execution
23
Requirements Documents Commonalities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Basis for Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
Establish connection from Requirement Document to IGE, Schedule, Prices/Costs, Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Preparation Instructions
24
Requirements Documents “Connecting the Links”
Requirements Document
Independent Government Estimate
Schedule of Prices or Costs
Proposal Preparation Instructions
Evaluation Criteria
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
25
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Briefing
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Identifies:
High-risk areas for both Government and contractors
Impact and probability
Discriminators for Source Selections
Incentive areas
Foundation for evaluation criteria
26
Purpose of Risk Assessment
Risk Management Process
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Link risks to requirements clearly
If high risk, ensure: RFP requires offerors to address risk and provide mitigation
strategies in proposal Evaluation criteria includes evaluation of risks and
mitigation strategies Oversight of mitigation strategies in post award/incentives
Obtain Industry input on Risk Assessment
28
Conducting Risk Assessment
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
29
Contract Type Selection
Acquisition Considerations
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
30
Spectrum - Contract Type and Risk
Cost Risk
Requirements Definition
Acquisition Phase
Contract Type
CR CPFFCPIF or
FPIF
CPIF, FPIF, or
FFP
FFP, FPIF, or FPEPA
FFP, FPIF, or FPEPA
HIGHLOW
WELLDEFINED
POORLYDEFINED
RESEARCH SUSTAINMENT
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Consider what Market Research indicates
Understand your potential offerors
Technical capability
Financial responsibility
Adequacy of accounting/business systems
Extent and nature of anticipated subcontracting
Discuss your Program
Type, complexity, urgency
Acquisition history – competitive/sole source
Period of performance/length of production run
31
Selecting the “Right” Contract Type
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Consider political and fiscal environment in which you operate
May effect current program requirements, acquisition plan/strategy and overall business deal
Be aware of key stakeholders and possible impact(s)
SECDEF, AT&L, DPAP, AQ, PEO, CC, PM, etc.
Be cognizant of leadership’s current guidance & preferences
Policy & info memos/guidance issued by Agency or DoD
32
Selecting “Right” Contract Type (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
33
Performance-Based Acquisitions
Acquisition Considerations (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Performance-Based Acquisitions
34
Use performance-based strategies & contractual language to: Maximize competition, innovation, & interoperability
Enable flexibility
Reduce cost
Improve life-cycle support
Task contractor in clear and concise language
DoD Directive 5000.01, para E.1.1.16
Performance-Based Acquisition
DoD Directive 5000.01, para E.1.1.16
Performance-Based Acquisition
Resource: Performance Based Payments – Guide Book and Analysis Tool
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
All service acquisitions > Simplified Acquisition Threshold (few exceptions) should be performance-based Include identifiable and measurable cost, schedule, and
performance outcomes
Consider customer requirements (ensure consistency)
Ensure adequate planning and management to achieve desired outcome
Performance Work Statement (PWS)
Conveys “what” we want -- not “how” to do it!
Cite required directives and standards by specific process/procedure ( paragraph or chapter vs. wholesale inclusion of AFI)
35
Performance-Based Services Acquisition
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
36
Source Selection Planning
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Required for all best-value, negotiated competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15 (exceeding SAT - $150K)
Name all individuals involved in source selection, and clearly define their roles in SSP
Ensure SSP is approved by SSA prior to solicitation release
Cover all required areas/topics
37
Source Selection Plan (SSP)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
As a minimum include:
Background and Objectives
Acquisition Strategy
Source Selection Team (names and roles)
Communications
Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
Documentation
Schedule of Events
Non-governmental personnel (by name)
Source Selection materials management
38
Source Selection Plan Contents
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Tradeoff
and
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
GAO & COFC Summaries on Best Value Tradeoff Decision
39
SS Evaluation Approaches
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Tradeoff is normally used for more complex acquisitions
Evaluation process requires more in-depth review of proposals than LPTA
Level of detail depends on: Complexity of acquisition Degree of competition Contract type
40
Tradeoff
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Used when in best interest of Gov’t to Award to:
Other than lowest-priced proposal
Other than highest technically rated proposal
Process is more flexible - permits:
Tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost factors
Best combination of technically superior, low risk proposals that also have a history of favorable past performance
Best value decision is based on comparative assessment of proposals
41
Tradeoff (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
What are expected consequences of tradeoffs among following elements?
Cost/Price
Capability
Performance and Schedule
Does your Requirements Document reflect user’s expectations?
42
Tradeoff Considerations
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
LPTA process is used when: “Best Value” is expected from lowest-priced, technically
acceptable proposal
Procuring commercial, non-complex supplies or services
Requirements are firm, clear and definitive
No benefit is expected from proposals exceeding minimum technical or performance requirements
Excellent Article on LPTA
43
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
LPTA Article
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
When using LPTA:
Evaluate proposals against minimum technical requirements (Acceptable/Unacceptable)
Past Performance may be an evaluation factor (Acceptable/Unacceptable)
Tradeoffs are not permitted
Proposals cannot be ranked on non-cost/price factors
Exchanges may occur
Comparative Analysis is not required
44
LPTA (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Technical Critical to define what constitutes “Acceptable”
Clearly state minimum requirements
Past Performance May be waived by PCO If evaluated, ‘Unknown’ rating is considered acceptable
“Acceptable” rating required in all non-price factors/subfactors
45
LPTA (cont.)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Methodical process incorporates knowledge from: Market Research
Acquisition planning activities
Evaluation factors: Must be critical areas of importance and emphasis
Identify “key discriminators”
Provide meaningful comparison and discrimination between competing proposals
Factors must address: Price/Cost
Quality of Product or Service
Non-cost factors
46
Evaluation Criteria Factors & Subfactors
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
BRAINSTORM ideas to develop your evaluation criteria
Assumptions: Knowledge of market and requirements
Potential offerors
Discuss: KEY discriminators
Your confidence in offerors’ ability to meet requirement
Uniqueness or clarity of specifications
Identify high or moderate risks
Small Business Participation
47
Developing Evaluation Criteria Factors & Subfactors
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Determine factor rating methodology and relative importance based on brainstorming
Factor: Cost/Price
Factor: Past Performance (unless PCO waives) Acceptable/Unacceptable Performance Confidence Assessment
Factor: Technical Subfactors Acceptable/Unacceptable (no “tradeoff”) Combined technical/risk or separate ratings (range of
colors/adjectival ratings) Combination (can vary by subfactor)
48
Determining Source Selection Approach/Technique
Ratings
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
49
Source Selection Team
Source Selection Team – Example
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
51
SSA Roles and Responsibilities
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS
PCO Roles and Responsibilities
52
- Establishes plan/procedures to protect Source Selection information, and manages SS documents
- Releases the RFP
- Single point of control for all Source Selection information
- Obtains all required approvals for Non-government advisors
- Ensures SSEB evaluation is consistent with RFP
- Controls exchanges with offerors
- Establishes competitive range after SSA approval
- Awards Contract
- Submits SS participants worksheet to SAF/AQC
PRIMARY BUSINESS ADVISOR AND PRINCIPAL GUIDANCE SOURCE FOR ENTIRE SOURCE SELECTION
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
53
SSAC Roles and Responsibilities
PROVIDES FUNCTIONAL EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT TO SSA
- Oversees SSEB
- Reviews SSEB evaluation results to ensure consistency with RFP
- Provides written comparative analysis & recommendation to SSA
SSEB Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities
54
MANAGES EVALUATION TEAM
- Appoints SSEB members
- Establishes functional evaluation teams
- Ensures SSEB members know HOW to evaluate proposals BEFORE they review
- Staffs Source Selection Team with proper skill and experience
- Schedules adequate time to successfully complete Source Selection
- Ensures adequate resources are available
- Provides consolidated results
- Documents SSEB evaluation results (PAR, briefing slides, etc)
- Does not perform comparative analysis of proposals or make Source Selection recommendation unless requested by SSA
- Supports post Source Selection activities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
55
SSEB Evaluators - Roles and Responsibilities
NORMALLY ORGANIZED INTO FUNCTIONAL AREAS
- Source Selection responsibilities take priority over other work i.e. primary duty responsibility
- Conduct comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against solicitation evaluation criteria
- Document contemporaneously evaluation results
- Support post-award activities
Advisors Roles and Responsibilities
56
TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF ADVISORS: GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT
Government advisors:- Assist SSA if no SSAC used
- Assist the SSEB as subject matter experts
Non-Government advisors:- Used on a limited basis – only advisory
- Must be approved in writing (except FFRDC, FAR 37.203/37.204)
- Sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), COI statement, AND provide documentation regarding stocks owned
- May not rate or rank any offeror’s proposal
- May not see or evaluate past performance information
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
57
Source Selection Tools
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Mandatory Use for Competitive Acquisitions Value $50M or greater Hi-Vis Programs
Consolidation of individual contractsRe-competition as a result of sustained protest (corrective
action)Political sensitivityPEO or CC deems high-risk program regardless of $ value or
ACAT level
EZ Source Deployment - two spirals over 18 months (Jun 2013 - Oct 2014)
Spiral I locations meeting mandatory criteria use EZ Source if solicitation is issued on/after location’s effective date
Spiral II - all remaining locations
Policy Memo 13-C-02
58
EZ Source Tool
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
EZ Source tool (AFMC) POC: Kerry Estes, DSN 785-5471, [email protected]
EZ Source Templates
Electronic Source Selection (ESS) tool (SMC) POC: Mr. Ted Nguyen, DSN 633-5072, [email protected]
Decision Point See www.acqcenter.com for more information
Fed Select See www.caci.com
POC: Steve Ford, (703) 486-3266 ext 1031, [email protected]
59
Source Selection Tools POCs
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
60
Pre-Solicitation and
RFP Release Activities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Start
END
Source Selection Process Roadmap
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Section L - Proposal Instructions to Offerors
Section M - Evaluation Factors and Criteria
Must be developed by entire team! All stakeholders must be involved
L & M are tailored to each source selection Consider program risks Leverage L & M templates and language when appropriate
Link L & M and requirements Cross Reference Matrix helps
Developing Sections L & M
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Cross Reference MatrixSample 1
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
64
Cross Reference MatrixSample 2
Cross Reference PWS Para RFP Section L&M CLIN CDRL Proposal (Vol & Para)
Transition Phase-in SF1 0001 A00F
Element 1a – GFE Usage Plan 1.2.2 L: 4.1aM: 2.2.1a
0001 N/A
Element 1b – Repair Process Demonstrations
1.2.1 L: 4.1bM: 2.2.1b
0001 N/A
Element 1c – Hire/Retain Qualified Personnel
1.2.3 L: 4.1cM: 2.2.1c
0001 N/A
Element 1d – Facilities Plan 1.2.4 L: 4.1dM: 2.2.1d
0001 N/A
Element 1e – Data Reporting 1.11 L: 4.1eM: 2.2.1e
0003 A00A-A0AD
Supply Chain / Material Management
SF2Imbedded in overhaul /
repair pricesA00C-A00E,
A00G-H, A00N
Element 2a – Parts Forecasting and documentation of approved sources
1.9, 1.5.4 L: 4.2aM: 2.2.2a
Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices
N/A
Element 2b – Material Storage, Packaging / Transportation
1.3, 1.8, and 1.9 L: 4.2bM: 2.2.2b
Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices
A00D, A00E, A00G, A00H
Program Management
SF3Imbedded in overhaul /
repair pricesA00C, A00E,
A00R
Element 3a – Schedule / Produce Requirements, Surge Responsiveness, and O&A
1.4.1.a, 1.15, and 1.16
L: 4.3aM: 2.2.3a
Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices, 0005
A00C, A00E
Element 3b – Transition Phase-Out 1.17 L: 4.3bM: 2.2.3b
0002 N/A
Element 3c – Small Business Requirements
PWS: N/AClause H002
L: 4.3cM: 2.2.3c
Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices
A00R
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
65
Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP)
Highly recommended for ALL acquisitions
Must be consistent with acquisition strategy and SSP Specific content determined by PCO – consider:
Detailed description of Government’s requirements, e.g. Requirements Document, PWS, SOO, etc.
Price/Cost ScheduleEvaluation Criteria, Proposal Contents e.g. Sections L&M
Benefits - Input from Industry on: Realism and clarity of government requirements Contract type contemplated Schedule realism
Note: Maintain record of comments and adjudication
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
SSEB and SSAC (if used) review requirements as a standard for evaluation
SOO or SOW must clearly describe work objectives or work to be performed
Is SOO/SOW performance-based?
Specification must clearly delineate key technical characteristics of product or service
Schedule B CLIN structure must be complete and clear
Requirements must be achievable and not overly restrictive
Review Acquisition Strategy, unique special clauses and critical technical requirements
Gov’t estimate must be consistent with requirements and available funding
66
Review Draft RFP Requirements
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Government’s formal tool to: Communicate technical and contractual rqm’ts to industry
Solicit proposals from industry to satisfy its requirements
Must be consistent w/ requirement docs, AP and SSP Final solicitation cannot be released until:
AP or LCMP is approved
SSP is approved
Business Clearance has been obtained
Notification required concurrent w/ issuance of RFP
67
Request for Proposal
RFP becomes the Binding ContractRFP becomes the Binding Contract
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
68
Clearanceand
Governance Oversight
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Clearance
Objectives: Implement approved acquisition strategies
Ensure fair and reasonable business arrangements
Follow laws, regulations, and policies
Perform independent review and assessment of action
Clearance Approval Authority:ACAT I: > $500M DAS(C) & ADAS(C) for Business Clearance Only
> $50M Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO)
$25M-$50M One Level Below SCCO
$5M-<$25M Two Levels Below SCCO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OPERATIONAL: > $2M SCCO
$1M - $2M Squadron Commander
$500K - $1M At Least One Level Above PCO
69
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Contract
Award w/o discussor FPR & SSA Decision
Competitive ContractClearance
70
Business & Contract Clearance
Business
Issue Solicitation Competitive BusinessClearance
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Multi-Functional Independent Review Team (MIRT)
Required for competitive actions >$50M Provides independent assessment to CAA on acquisition,
source selection or procurement
Five Critical Decision Points (CDP) Pre-Business Clearance CDPs (simultaneously w/Clearance)
CDP #1 – ASP/Acq Plan
CDP #2 – Sections L&M of RFP
Pre-Contract Clearance CDPs (simultaneously w/Clearance)
CDP #3 – Competitive Range Briefing or Award w/o Discussions
CDP #4 – Final Proposal Revision Request
CDP #5 – Source Selection Decision Briefing
71
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
OSD Peer Reviews
OSD Peer Reviews (DFARS 201.170) Competitive solicitations > $1B (including options)
Sole Source and IT solicitations > $500M Comprised of senior contracting officials and attorneys from DoD,
(civilian or military) external to the department, agency, or component
Pre-award Peer Reviews - conducted in 3 phases: Prior to issuance of solicitation Prior to request for final proposal revisions (if applicable) Prior to contract award
Post-award Peer Reviews may be conducted for all contracts for services valued > $1B (including options)
7272
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Inconsistent language in acquisition documents between Sections L&M and requirements
Develop matrix showing crosswalk between performance specification, SOW and Sections L&M of RFP
Evaluation criteria in RFP did not address key areas of importance and emphasis
Focus must be on “key discriminators” Define “discriminators” as evaluation factors/subfactors
Assess feedback during pre-solicitation exchanges
Keep factors/subfactors to a minimum (3-5) to simplify RFP If too many, then importance of each is diluted
Consider using an "acceptable/not acceptable" approach to some evaluation criteria
73
Common Findings in MIRTs and Peer Reviews
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Common Findings in MIRTs and Peer Reviews (cont.)
ENs not written in a clear, concise and consistent way Be clear, complete, and direct when you write your EN Ensure SSEB Chair, PCO and Legal review all ENs
LPTA approach did not make clear in Sections L&M what constituted “technical acceptability”
Describe technical factors/subfactors in RFP in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated on A/U basis and
Satisfy Government minimum requirements when assessing offeror’s proposal
Pressure on SS teams to meet unrealistic schedules “Need dates” drive teams to meet deadlines w/o regard to team
experience, complexity of acquisition, or limited resources SSA should validate “need dates” and advise SST on ways to ease
schedule risks
74
Uniform Contract Format
Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors orRespondents
Evaluation Factors for Award
Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents
Commercial Contract Format
76
Use the following format to the maximum extent possible:
(a) Standard Form (SF) 1449; (b) Continuation of any block from SF 1449, such as--
(1) Block 10 if a price evaluation adjustment for small disadvantaged business concerns is applicable (the contracting officer shall indicate the percentage(s) and applicable line item(s)), or if set aside for emerging small businesses;
(2) Block 18B for remittance address; (3) Block 19 for contract line item numbers; (4) Block 20 for schedule of supplies/services; or (5) Block 25 for accounting data;
(c) Contract clauses– (1) 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-- Commercial Items, by reference (see SF
1449 block 27a); (2) Any addendum to 52.212-4; and (3) 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive orders;
(d) Any contract documents, exhibits or attachments; and (e) Solicitation provisions-
(1) 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, by reference (see SF 1449, Block 27a); (2) Any addendum to 52.212-1; (3) 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Items, or other description of evaluation factors for award, if used; and (4) 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications--Commercial Items.
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
DoD Source Selection Procedures Effective 1 Jul 2011 and mandatory for all competitive
acquisitions utilizing FAR Part 15 procedures
Source Selection Trainer’s Reference/Resource Material Assists trainers in presenting SS Phase I & II training modules
Types of Contracts - FAR Part 16.103 & 104, DFARS 216.1
Contracting by Negotiation - FAR Part 15, DFARS 215
Acquisition of Commercial Items - FAR Part 12.303
Describing Agency Needs (Rqmts) - FAR Part 11.101, DFARS 211.1
Market Research - FAR Part 10, DFARS 210
Acquisition Planning - FAR Part 7.1, DFARSS 207.1
Conflicts of Interest - FAR Part 3.104, DFARSS 203.104
77
References
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Summary
78
Each Acquisition or Source Selection is unique
Source Selection process is both objective and subjective
Professional judgment, and critical thinking is required at every step
Goal: Ensure quality, timely products and services are delivered to the war-fighter and the nation. Obtain best value for the taxpayer
Goal: Ensure quality, timely products and services are delivered to the war-fighter and the nation. Obtain best value for the taxpayer
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
For acquisitions $10M and above: Attendees names will be provided to designated Source
Selection TrainersCertificates (Phase I or Phase II) will be provided to attendees by
SS Trainers
Continuous Learning (CL) points 6 CL points for each full day of instruction; 3 CL points for any half day of instruction, and 1 CL point for 2 hours or less of instruction
79
Feedback and Certificate
Your Feedback is Very Important . . . Please Take The Time To Complete The Survey
Your Feedback is Very Important . . . Please Take The Time To Complete The Survey
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
80
ETHICS AND PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY
SS Ethics Training
GAO/COFC Summaries-Organizational Conflicts of Interest
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Summary of Changesfor
Phase I Acquisition Planning
81
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
82
LINKED CHARTS
Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 1)
83
Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk RatingsColor Rating DescriptionBlue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach
and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 2)
84
Table 2. Technical Ratings
Color Rating Description
Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.
Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.
Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.
Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)
85
Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings
Rating Description
Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.
High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Technical Ratings
86
Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings
Rating Description
Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Past Performance Evaluation
87
Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating Definition
Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
May use, as a minimum, “Relevant” & “Not Relevant” ratings for source selections requiring less discrimination in past performance evaluation.
Past Performance Evaluation
88
Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating Description
Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral)
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
Past Performance Evaluation
89
Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Rating Description
Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)
Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort
Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past
performance rating can be reasonably assigned , the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the
offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
90
Trade-Off Source Selection
Processdescribed in DoD Source
Selection Procedures
Low PriceLow Price
Non-Cost Non-Cost FactorsFactors
The Best-Value Continuum Source Selection Techniques
Greater Relative Importance of Cost or Price Lesser
Lesser Importance of Non-Cost Factors Greater
FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented
Tradeoff Source Selection Processdescribed in DoD Source Selection Procedures
Oh! The possibilities!
Mix-n-match tradeoffs:
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
(LPTA) Source Selection Processdescribed in DoD Source Selection Procedures,
Appendix A
Cost or PriceCost or Price Non–Cost FactorsNon–Cost Factors
TechnicalTechnical RiskPast PerformanceCost or Price