source selection processes aeronautical systems center dominant air power: design for...

Source Selection ProcessesSource Selection Processes

Aeronautical Systems CenterAeronautical Systems CenterDominant Air Power: Design For Tomorrow…Deliver Today

ASC ACE

Dan Fulmer

Chris Telepak

Bob Wonderly

2

Dominant Air Power: Design For Tomorrow…Deliver Today

This ISN’T how we do it!and

It’s not always low price!

What Is Source Selection?

3


Training Objective

Provide introduction to source selection methods for lower dollar acquisitions of varying complexity

Show the relationship between acquisition planning and choosing the right source selection process

Emphasis is on FAR Part 15 source selection processes

Training covers the Air Force source selection processes under AFFARS 5315.5 and Mandatory Procedure MP5315.5

Also applicable to higher dollar, non-complex acquisitions

4


If you compete a buy, what tools are available to you?

5


FAR Part 8 and 12FAR Part 8 and 12

FAR Part 15 and AFFARS

Full Trade-Off

PPTPerformance/

Price Trade-Off

LPTALow-Price/Technically Acceptable

Simplified & Sealed Bid

FAR Part 13 & 14

Non-CostNon-Cost

Low Low PricePrice

CostCostPricePrice Perf

Trade-offTrade-off

Tech Acceptable

The Best Value Continuum

Greater Importance of Price Lesser

Lesser Technical Complexity Greater

6


FAR Part 12 Commercial Items

Use competition methods in FAR Parts 13, 14, or 15

Choose method appropriate for your buy

Emphasizes market research before solicitation

Maximize sources available for competition

Allows less complex solicitation

Less detail in solicitation format and content

Simpler Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

Encourages clear, performance-based item descriptions

12.603 permits combination of synopsis and solicitation

FFP or FFP with Economic Price Adjustment contracts

7


FAR Part 13 Solicitations

Buys under Simplified Acquisition Threshold

Under $100K

Supplies or services supporting contingency operations or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack

$250,000 for contract awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States;

$1 million for contract awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States.

Exempt from FAR Part 6 Competition requirements

Solicitations can be oral or written

Solicitation must state basis for evaluation

Price or price and other factors (e.g. past performance)

Formal evaluation plans, discussions, competitive range determinations not required

8


FAR Part 14 Sealed Bidding

Adequate re-procurement data or buy part number

FFP or FFP with Economic Price Adjustment contracts

Solicitation sections A-K similar to FAR Part 15 RFP

Section L

Instructions specific to submission of sealed bids

Section M

Specify price related factors if used

Criteria for technical evaluation in two-step sealed bid

Evaluate price or price-related factors

No Discussions

9


FAR Part 15 Source Selection

Competitive negotiated acquisitions

Source Selection Procedures are addressed in

FAR Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation

AFFARS Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3

FAR Part 15.002(b) - Competitive procedures are intended to:

Minimize complexity of the solicitation, evaluation and the source selection decision

Foster an impartial and comprehensive proposal evaluation

Lead to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government

10


Source Selection Processes And Techniques

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process

Tradeoffs are not permitted

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors

Price/Performance Trade-off (PPT) Process

Permits tradeoff between price and past performance risk after ranking of technically acceptable offers based on price

Full Tradeoff Process

Permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer

Non-cost factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance

11


How do you choose the right process?Planning is the key!

12


Source Selection Activities

Acquisition StrategyContract Type/LengthMilestonesSource Selection ProcessBudget Considerations

Acquisition StrategyContract Type/LengthMilestonesSource Selection ProcessBudget ConsiderationsRequirements

DocumentRequirements

Document

External InputsUser requirementsFunding


RFPRFP

ITOITO

RFP Development

SSPSSP

RequirementsDocument


EvalFactors

EvalFactors

ProposalProposal

Source SelectionSource

Selection

ContractAward &

Execution

ProposalProposal

ProposalProposal

MarketResearch

MarketResearch

RiskAssessment

RiskAssessment

13


External Inputs

Consist of two principal components

User Requirements – documented pursuant to local procedures

Funding commensurate with requirement

These inputs must be firm in order to proceed with the next steps in the process

Baseline established herein used for market research, risk assessment, requirements document development

14


Requirements Document

Defined: A performance based document that defines the government need without dictating the specific design solution.

Exceptions include commodities, construction, . . .

Benefits

A well written requirements document can reduce government costs by allowing commercial practices and contractor innovation to drive the solution

Process

It is almost always better to start with a clean sheet, as opposed to working backwards from an existing document

Focus on what is absolutely essential to the user/customer

Less is generally more

15


Market Research

Defined: An analysis of the market to determine

The extent to which non-developmental or commercial products or services may be used to fulfill government requirements

The potential offerors

Benefits

Increases your knowledge so you can design the most appropriate acquisition strategy

Process

Many options e.g. industry days, web searches, industry associations, Subject Matter Experts….

16


Risk Assessment

Defined: An analysis of the pre-mitigated risks associated with the successful completion of required tasks. These should include cost, schedule, and performance requirements, and their interrelationships.

Benefits

Those risks considered “high” should be considered as viable discriminators when developing evaluation factors, and in determining the appropriate acquisition strategy.

Helps focus the RFP and the resultant contract on what’s important

Reduces resources necessary to conduct the source selection and in contract administration

17


Risk “Thought Process”

1. Understand Requirements2. Identify Risks to Meeting Requirements3. Develop Mitigations for High Risk Areas

Understanding Risks, Knowing Market, and User Requirements help you to establish appropriate acquisition strategy

Source Selection MethodEvaluation criteriaContract TypeIncentive arrangementsDelivery/performance schedules

18


Risk Assessment – Discriminators

Those areas, topics, or requirements that will enable the source selection evaluation team to distinguish among offerors

These may include something as broad as past performance or price – or

Something as narrowly focused as a particular desired capability expressed in the requirements document

The identification of discriminators is arguably the most important determinant in establishing contract objectives, incentives, and evaluation factors.

At this stage, draft the evaluation factors

Use those factors to determine best source selection process

19


Industry/User Involvement

Industry is the customer of the RFP

The user is the customer of the eventual product or service produced by industry in order to meet government requirements

Leaving either out of the early phases of the competitive process is short sighted, and will likely lead to surprises during source selection or contract execution

Involve all stakeholders in

Market research

Risk Assessment

Development of requirements document

20






Document



RFPRFP

ITOITO

RFP Development

SSPSSP



EvalFactors

EvalFactors

ProposalProposal


Selection

ContractAward &

Execution

ProposalProposal

ProposalProposal

MarketResearch

MarketResearch

RiskAssessment

RiskAssessment

21


Acquisition Strategy

For the purposes of this training, the acquisition strategy consists of five parts:

Determination of contract type/length

Performance incentives

Milestones of the pre-award process

Selection of the source selection process

Budget considerations

The results of market research, the risk assessment, and user requirements are important considerations in making all of the required decisions

22


Acquisition Strategy -Contract Type/Length

Contract type should be determined based on the schedule, cost and performance risks identified during the risk assessment

Should high performance risk be identified, precluding accurate cost estimation within a reasonable degree, a Cost-Reimbursement contract vehicle may be appropriateShould there be little performance risk, a Fixed Price contract may be the better choice

Contract length for product acquisitions should be influenced by the contractors’ feedback regarding how long it will actually take to complete contract requirements

Contract length for all acquisitions is influenced by stability of requirements, statutes, funding, and ability to price

23


Performance Incentives

Target specific aspects of performance

Reward technical performance

Reward exceptional service performance

Reward schedule performance

Emphasize cost control

Product Quality

Choose incentives based on

What is important to your customer

What motivates your contractor

Make sure incentives are realistic and attainable

Use both positive and negative incentives

24


Acquisition Strategy –Milestones

The milestones to contract award are a required component of most acquisition planning documents and Source Selection Plans

The results of the acquisition team’s market research and risk assessment should contribute to the scheduling of these events

For example, should a significant number of proposals be anticipated, the time allotted for the source selection should be longer

Set realistic expectations on the acquisition schedule

Communicate with your customer

25


Acquisition Strategy –Source Selection Process

As mentioned earlier, there are three source selection processes applicable to negotiated acquisitions

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Performance Price Tradeoff

Full Tradeoff

Based upon the discriminators identified through the risk assessment process, one of the processes should be chosen, and documented in the acquisition strategy and source selection plan

26


Acquisition Strategy –Budget Considerations

There are three principal budget considerations that are tied to the acquisition strategy

Type(s) of money (i.e. 3400 for O&M)

Amount (do you have enough to cover the requirement?)

If not, what requirement can you live without?

Are there alternative ways to meet the requirement?

Annual distribution

Is the funding available at the right time and in the right increments?

The risk assessment should be able to help the team make all required acquisition strategy decisions pertaining to funding

27


Your Request for Proposal (RFP) is the next step!

28






Document



RFPRFP

ITOITO

RFP Development

SSPSSP



EvalFactors

EvalFactors

ProposalProposal


Selection

ContractAward &

Execution

ProposalProposal

ProposalProposal

MarketResearch

MarketResearch

RiskAssessment

RiskAssessment

29


Request for Proposals

Requirements

Evaluation Factors (Section M)

Instructions to Offerors (Section L)

Other contract information (e.g. special clauses, representations and certifications)

30


Section A Solicitation / Contract FormSection B Supplies or Services / Prices / CostsSection C Description / Specs / Work StatementSection D Packaging and MarkingSection E Inspection and AcceptanceSection F Deliveries or PerformanceSection G Contract Administration DataSection H Special Contract RequirementsSection I Contract ClausesSection J List of AttachmentsSection K Contractor Representations & CertificationsSection L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or QuotersSection M Evaluation Factors for Award

Parts of an RFP

31


Sections L and M of the RFP

Section L – “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Quoters”

Establishes baseline proposal contentSpecifies proposal format and page limitationsTeams should familiarize themselves with this section to ensure that scope of evaluation is not broadened during exchanges

Section M – Evaluation Factors for AwardGeneral Basis for Contract Award

Defines “best value” to the GovernmentIntegrated Assessment of offersSubjective judgment is implicit in the evaluation processEverything is being evaluated– Most items are pass/fail– Sub-Factors represent focus areas

For PPT and FTO, state relative order of importance of factors Two components

FactorSub factor

32


Evaluation Factors

Specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision

Expected to be discriminators between the proposals

Uniform baseline against which an offeror’s solution is evaluated to determine its value to the Government

Used to measure how well each offeror meets RFP requirements

Established specifically for each source selection

Written by evaluation team

Derived from requirements, market research and risk assessment

Approved by Source Selection Authority

Used to determine which source selection process is appropriate for the acquisition

33


Evaluation Factors

Possible evaluation factors

Mission Capability/Technical

Use sub-factors if necessary

Proposal Risk

Past Performance

Cost/Price

Selecting Evaluation Factors

Factors are selected based on results of Market Research, Risk Assessment and Requirements Document

The choice of the evaluation factors determines which source selection process is appropriate

LPTA, PPT, or FTO

34


Evaluation Factors – Mission Capability/Technical

The evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to technically satisfy the Government’s requirements

For LPTA and PPT, technical acceptability is evaluated on pass/fail basis

For FTO, mission capability/technical capability is evaluated

Evaluation is expressed by color ratings: blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable

Narrative assessment is expressed in terms of strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies

All technical requirements are not evaluated; only those characteristics, or discriminators, that truly differentiate one proposal from another

Subjective judgment implicit in the evaluation

35


Evaluation Factors – Proposal Risk

Optional for FTO acquisitions at or below $10 million; not normally used for LPTA or PPT

Assesses the likelihood or risk that the proposed approach will cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degraded performance

Evaluation is expressed by High, Medium, Low risk ratings

Narrative assessment is expressed in terms of weaknesses

36


Evaluation Factors – Performance Confidence Assessment

Assesses the degree of confidence the AF has in an offeror’s ability to provide products/services based on his demonstrated record of contract compliance

Evaluation is expressed by Confidence Ratings: High, Significant, Satisfactory, Unknown, Little, or No Confidence

Applies to FTO and PPT and could apply to LPTA

If used in LPTA, past performance would be a part of the evaluation to decide if an offer is technically acceptable

37


Evaluation Factors – Cost/Price

Evaluated for reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR 15.4, as supplemented

Mandatory for all source selection processes

38


Instructions to Offerors

What are ITOs?

Proposal preparation instructions for offerors

Format and content

Section L in RFPs

Steps to develop ITOs

Look at your evaluation factors

Only ask for what is necessary to evaluate those factors

You have to evaluate everything you ask for

You have to determine that offeror meets all RFP requirements

39


You wrote the RFPYou have proposals

How do you evaluate the offers?

40






Document



RFPRFP

ITOITO

RFP Development

SSPSSP



EvalFactors

EvalFactors

ProposalProposal


Selection

ContractAward &

Execution

ProposalProposal

ProposalProposal

MarketResearch

MarketResearch

RiskAssessment

RiskAssessment

41


Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process

When to use LPTA?

Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price

Past Performance does not have to be an evaluation factor

When not to use LPTA?

If you want to trade off past performance, price, or technical parameters

Tradeoffs are not permitted in LPTA source selections

Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors

Exchanges may occur

Team members are the Contracting Officer and technical lead

42


RFP SECTION M LPTA Factors & Ratings

Mission Capability/Technical Capability

Acceptable

Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable

Unacceptable

Cost/Price

Reasonableness

Realism

RFP requirements (Ts & Cs, Certs & Reps, etc.)

43


Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. The proposal does not meet all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Mission Capability Evaluation Standards, however, there is reason to believe that through minor revisions an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable.”

Mission/Technical Capability Ratings

Acceptable: The proposal meets all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Mission Capability Evaluation Standards. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all mission capability proposals are considered to be equal.

Unacceptable: Fails to meet all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Mission Capability Evaluation Standards. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

44


LPTA Evaluation Steps

Establish evaluation factors and sub factors before solicitation release, i.e., technical acceptability

Tech eval shall document evaluations in sufficient detail to explain each pass/fail decision

Discussions are possible for offers initially rated as “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable”

For award without discussions, these offers are “unacceptable”

Award made to lowest evaluated cost (price) offer that meets all minimum mandatory criteria

PCO makes award decision and ensures award decision is documented

45


PPT – When To Use It

Allows the government to award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated price and award to an offeror with a better performance confidence rating

Appropriate to broad spectrum of requirements, e.g.,

Replenishment spares

Operational contracting acquisitions

Non-developmental, noncomplex service or supplies

Service contracts with only pass/fail technical requirements

Low technical complexity “build to print” contracts

46


Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) Process

Permits tradeoff between price and past performance confidence

Technically acceptable proposals are determined then tradeoffs are made between price and past performance evaluation to determine successful offeror

Technical factors may be evaluated on pass/fail basis only but cannot be traded off for price

Only factor being traded off with price is past performance

Need to determine relative importance of past performance and price factors (equal, more significant, less significant)

47


PPT Factors & Ratings

Mission Capability/Technical CapabilityAcceptableReasonably susceptible of being made acceptableUnacceptable

Past Performance EvaluationHigh ConfidenceSignificance ConfidenceSatisfactory ConfidenceUnknown ConfidenceLittle Confidence No Confidence

Cost/PriceReasonablenessRealism

RFP requirements (Ts & Cs, Reps & Certs, etc.)

Tradeoff

zone

48


Source Selection OrganizationPerformance Price Tradeoff

Source Selection Authority(SSA)/PCO*


Past PerformanceFactor

Cost/Price Factor

Technical Acceptability Factor

*SSA level depends on dollar value, local policy and regulation

49


PPT Evaluation Steps

When technical proposals are required, determine technical acceptability of each offeror

Based on pass/fail evaluation criteria in the solicitation

Offeror must pass all criteria to be considered acceptable

If contractor is determined technically unacceptable, do not go further with price, performance evaluations

Price for each technically acceptable proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness, then ranked by total evaluated price to determine the low offeror

Assess performance confidence for each offeror

50


PPT Evaluation Steps (cont’d)

Past Performance Evaluation

Past Performance Information on relevant contracts submitted with proposal

Government obtains performance feedback through questionnaires, telephone surveys and automated systems

e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System; Past Performance Information Retrieval System

Performance Confidence assigned using the performance ratings established in MP5315.3, Table 3

High Confidence---Significant Confidence---Satisfactory ConfidenceUnknown Confidence---Little Confidence---No Confidence

51


PPT Evaluation Steps (cont’d)

May award without discussionsIssues dealing with Past Performance don’t qualify as discussions (relevancy of data, adverse performance reports)

Discussions may be necessaryOffers initially rated “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable”Technical IssuesCost/Price

Request Final Proposal Revisions

Evaluate Final Proposal Revisions

Award may be made to the technically acceptable, low price offeror with “acceptable” performance confidence

52


PPT Tradeoff Considerations

Consider potential performance-price benefit of all offerors with more highly rated past performance than lowest priced offeror in accordance with RFP

Determine benefit to Air Force of awarding to offeror with better past performance at higher cost

The government has the right to make a trade-off decision and award to other than the low offeror based on better performance confidence

Basis for decision must be thoroughly documented

53


Full Tradeoff Process

Permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer if you can justify paying more money for better performance.

Use this method when you want, or need, the maximum flexibility to trade off all aspects of your requirement (technical, management, past performance, cost/price) to select the best overall offer.

This method offers the maximum flexibility in making a “best value” decision.

If you don’t need this flexibility, LPTA, PPT, or perhaps sealed bidding are better alternatives.

Permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer if you can justify paying more money for better performance.

Use this method when you want, or need, the maximum flexibility to trade off all aspects of your requirement (technical, management, past performance, cost/price) to select the best overall offer.

This method offers the maximum flexibility in making a “best value” decision.

If you don’t need this flexibility, LPTA, PPT, or perhaps sealed bidding are better alternatives.

54


Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factors

EvaluatIon

EvaluatIon

Strengths

Deficiencies

Weaknesses

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

FTO Evaluation Process

OfferorProposals

Award w/oDiscussion

Award w/oDiscussion

Initial Evaluation

Briefing

Discussions

CompetitiveRange

Determination

CompetitiveRange

Determination

DiscussionsDiscussions

FinalProposal

FinalProposal

ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise

Strengths

Deficiencies

Weaknesses

Ratings

AwardAward

Final Evaluation

Briefing

Best Value Decision

ENs

55


FTO Factors & Ratings

Mission Capability

Blue - Exceptional

Green - Acceptable

Yellow - Marginal

Red - Unacceptable

Past Performance Evaluation

High Confidence

Significant Confidence

Satisfactory Confidence

Unknown Confidence

Little Confidence

No Confidence

Proposal Risk

High

Moderate

Low

Cost/Price

Reasonableness

RealismCost/Price Risk

– Same ratings as Proposal Risk

RFP Requirements (Ts & Cs, Certs & Reps, etc.)

56


Source Selection OrganizationFull Tradeoff



Mission CapabilityFactor

Mission CapabilityFactor

Proposal RiskFactor

Proposal RiskFactor

SubFactorSubFactor

SubFactorSubFactor

Cost/PriceFactor

Cost/PriceFactor



Other RFP Requirements

Other RFP Requirements

*SSA level depends dollar value, local policy and regulation

57


FTO Evaluation - Mission Capability

Mission Capability/Technical Capability Factor

The Mission Capability assessment focuses on how the proposal exceeds, meets, or fails to meet the Mission Capability subfactor requirements.

Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one color rating.

58


Mission Capability Evaluation

Can be done at the factor level, if you don’t use sub-factors

If you use sub-factors, evaluation is at the sub-factor level (shall not roll up the ratings)

Focus on strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies

Written assessment shall include:

Strength: a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement

Uncertainties: You can’t tell if they meet all requirements

59


Mission Capability Subfactors Color Ratings

BLUE-EXCEPTIONAL: Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

BLUE-EXCEPTIONAL: Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

GREEN-ACCEPTABLE: Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal; proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.

GREEN-ACCEPTABLE: Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal; proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.

YELLOW-MARGINAL: Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

YELLOW-MARGINAL: Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

RED-UNACCEPTABLE: Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements; proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

RED-UNACCEPTABLE: Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements; proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

60


FTO Evaluation - Proposal Risk

Proposal Risk Factor

• Focus on the Mission Capability sub factors

• The Proposal Risk assessment focuses on:

- The weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and

- Includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and

- The need for increased Government oversight,

- Likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

- For each offeror identified risk, the assessment also addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating the risk and why that approach is or is not manageable

• Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one Proposal Risk rating.

61


Proposal Risk Ratings

High

Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

ModerateCan 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.

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.

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.

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.

Low

62


FTO Evaluation – Past Performance

• Perform Past Performance Evaluation -•Focuses on, not limited to, mission capability sub-factors •Reviews recent and relevant past performance as predictor for success

• Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, current, and relevant contract performance

• Emphasis is on demonstrated performance• Measures the level of confidence the government has in the

offeror’s ability to perform• Assigns a confidence assessment rating based on

assessment of offeror’s past performance

High Confidence---Significant Confidence---Satisfactory ConfidenceUnknown Confidence---Little Confidence---No Confidence

63


After Receipt of ProposalsRating Methodology

AssignRelevancy Rating

to each subfactor for each contract

Assign

Performance Rating to each relevant

subfactor for each contract

Assign Confidence rating to each

subfactor for each offeror

Assign FactorConfidence Rating

to each offeror

64


Offeror A Evaluation Summary

Factor Rating – High Confidence

PCAG EVALUATION SUMMARY

Contract F

Relev.Relev. Rating Relev. Relev.Rating Rating Rating

E

VG

VGM

S

E

E

PE

HRHR

HRRR

E

EN/A

S

E

VG

VGVG

Sub factorRatings:

HRHRR

HRNRNR

N/A

N/A

RR

SRR

R

HRHRHRRRR

N/A E

Program

SIGNIFICANTCONFIDENCE

HIGHCONFIDENCE

HIGHCONFIDENCE

HIGHCONFIDENCE

VG

VG

VG

E

Sub factor 2Sub factor 1 Sub factor 3 Cost/Price

NR

NR

Contract E

Contract D

Contract C

Contract B

Contract A

65


FTO Evaluation – Cost/Price

Team evaluates cost proposals to determine:

Is the cost or price reasonable?

Price a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market

Is the cost or price realistic

What is the risk the offeror can perform at the cost or price proposed?

Degree of analysis varies with

Contract complexity

Degree of competition

Type of product/service being acquired

Contract type

Entire source selection team should have access to cost/price data

Part of integrated assessment of offers

66


FTO Evaluation – Cost/Price

Cost Reimbursement ContractsCost Realism Analysis

Costs realistic for the work to be performed;Costs reflect understanding of the requirements; andCosts are consistent with the performance and materials described in the offeror’s proposal

Possible methods you can useTechnical evaluationsCost modelsComparison to similar efforts or market history

Firm Fixed Price ContractsPrice Analysis required

Price competitionComparison to similar itemsPublished prices

No cost/price data beyond CLIN prices

67


Sample Source Selection Factor Evaluation Matrix – Full Tradeoff

Integrated assessment of above factors and sub factors will be made in order to determine “best value” to the Government.

ProposalRisk 1

ProposalRisk 2

ProposalRisk 3

ProposalRisk 4

Mission CapabilityS

ub

fac

tor

1 W

arfi

gh

ter

Su

pp

ort

Su

b f

acto

r 2

Res

po

nsi

ven

ess

Su

b f

acto

r 3

Tea

m S

tru

ctu

re

Su

b f

acto

r 4

SB

/SD

BB

usi

nes

s S

trat

egy

Price/Cost

Past Performance**assessed at subfactor, rated at factor level

68


Source Selection Types

Mission Capability / Past ProposalPrice Tech Acceptability Performance Risk

Low price LPTA +/-PPT +/- FTO

69



No matter what process you use, some activities are common to all …

No matter what process you use, some activities are common to all …

70


Preparing to Evaluate Proposals

Read key RFP documents

Government Executive Summary

RFP Sections A-K, especially:

Requirements document (SOO, SOW, PWS, Spec)

Delivery schedule (Section F)

Special Contract Requirements (Section H)

CDRL (DIDs)

Section L (Instructions to Offerors)

Section M (Evaluation Criteria)

71


Source Selection - Key Participants and Responsibilities

Source Selection Authority (SSA)Makes the SS decisionEnsures Source Selection Inbriefing certificates signedSigns Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)Establishes the competitive range

Contracting Officer (CO)May be the SSA for smaller dollar actionsControls access to and release of source selection information (SSI) after RFP release, including evaluation notices (ENs)Ensures protection of SSIEvaluates cost (price) proposals and negotiates contractsConducts discussions with offerors

Mission Capability (MC)/Technical leadEvaluates and rates MC/technical factors and sub factorsPrepares evaluation noticesProvides input on recommendations for the competitive range

72


Initial Evaluation

Evaluators analyze proposals against evaluation factors from solicitation

Focus on strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, performance confidence and cost/price

Proposals generally reviewed in their entirety prior to moving to second offer

Facilitates evaluation against RFP, not other offer

Evaluation Notices (ENs) should be written concurrent with review

Results documented to support SSA decision

73


Atch 3

74


Initial Evaluation DocumentationCompetitive Range Determination

Documentation of initial evaluation results

Strengths, uncertainties, deficiencies, weaknesses

Past performance

Cost/Price

Summarizes evaluation findings, ratings, narrative, ENs, significant issues

SSA makes Competitive Range Determination when one or more offerors recommended for elimination

Offerors who can effectively compete-most highly rated

Approval to enter discussions

Release ENs

Award without discussions if possible

75


Evaluation Notices (ENs)

After proposal receipt, communication with offerors via Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Used to better understand offeror proposals or notify offerors about problems, questions, or issues with proposals

Adverse past performance, uncertainties, deficiencies

Write clearly and concisely with specific references to the RFP and proposal documents

Contracting Officer and technical lead screen ENs, legal reviews them, and the Contracting Officer issues them

Always identify the type of EN

Clarification, Communication, Discussion

EN must clearly identify deficiencies

76


Clarifications*as needed with AWOD

Communications*to determine competitive range

before discussions

Negotiations / Discussions

*Neither clarifications nor communications allow for an opportunity for proposal revision.

Adverse past performance

PPI relevance

Minor or clerical errors

Shall

Adverse PPI is determining factor in exclusion

May -

Inclusion or exclusion uncertain

Enhance gov’t understanding

Reasonable interpretation

Facilitate gov’t evaluation process

Ambiguities, perceived weaknesses, omissions, mistakes, etc . . .

PPI relevance

Conducted with offerors in the competitive range

Goal is to get best value

Discuss uncertainties, weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of the proposal to enhance award

Discuss efforts above mandatory minimums

Types Of ENs

77


Atch 2

78


Discussions

Negotiations with offerors in the competitive range

Resolve Evaluation Notices

Must discuss

Significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies

Adverse past performance information not previously known to offeror

Other aspects to enhance award potential

Government may provide actual interim ratings

As reviewed by the SSA

At beginning and end of discussions, if possible

Telephonic and/or face to face discussions if necessary

Proposal revisions form baseline for final evaluation

79


Release of Interim Ratings

You may release an offeror’s interim ratingsConcurrent with ENs, andImmediately prior to request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR)

Provides description of offeror’sStrengthsWeaknessesDeficiencies

Actual color codes and risk rating charts

Ensure complete understanding of evaluation

80


Don’t favor one offeror over another

Don’t reveal technical solution or other information that compromises an offeror’s intellectual property

Don’t reveal an offeror’s price without that offeror’s permission

Don’t reveal the names of individuals who provided reference information about past performance

Don’t furnish source selection information in violation of FAR 3.104

Limits on ENs and Discussions

81


Final Proposal Revision

After discussions offerors are requested to submit final proposal revision

Request for FPR includes the model contractTechnical baselineTerms and conditionsBusiness arrangement

Offeror will price final negotiated agreement

Contracting Officer establishes a common cutoff date for discussions

No further discussions after cutoff date

Recommend leaving time for questions about FPR request

Evaluators review the final proposal revisions

Focus on changes to original proposal

All changes should be traceable to original proposalAll changes should be traceable to original proposal

82


Final Evaluation & SSA Decision

Final Evaluation Documentation

Contains final evaluation results

Evaluation team makes an award recommendation to SSA

Documentation must include the integrated assessment of

Cost/Price

Performance Confidence

Color ratings for mission capability/technical sub factors

Proposal risk ratings for each subfactor

SSA makes decision based on analysis

SSA writes and signs Source Selection Decision Document

Evaluation team may assist in drafting the SSDD

83


Documentation is a key to avoid protests

How do you document your evaluation and decision?

84


Source Selection Documentation

Evaluation

ENs Price

WeaknessesUncertaintiesDeficiencies

PCAG

Evaluation

ENs Price

WeaknessesUncertaintiesDeficiencies

PCAG

Evaluation Summary

Decision Briefing Charts

Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) or

Simplified Source Selection Report

SourceSelectionDecision

Document(SSDD)

Source

SelectionPlan(SSP)

Source

SelectionPlan(SSP)

85


• Information the disclosure of which would jeopardize the integrity or successful completion of the acquisition

• Sensitive government information pertaining to the source selection

- Examples: Source Selection Plan

Analysis Worksheets

Proposal Analysis Report

What is in Contractor Proposals

Proposals from competing contractors

Number and identity of offerors

Who is serving as evaluators

Anything about the evaluation

Past Performance Information (PPI)

Source Selection Information (SSI)

86


(continued)

• Requirement to protect SSI extends into the post-award period

• Includes talking about what happened during the source selection

• FAR 3.104 covers protection of SSI

• Use Cover sheet

- Mark as:

“SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”

&

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY”

Source Selection Information

87


(continued)

• Do not discuss information on source selection proceedings with non-members (during and after)

• Each member is personally responsible for security of data

• Don’t remove data from evaluation area

• Use Cover sheet if you must remove SSI

• Source selection information briefing certificate required

• PCO serves as the sole point of contact between the offerors and the government after RFP release

Source Selection Information

88


Source Selection Plan (SSP)

Contents:

Brief description of the requirement

Evaluation factors and relative importance

Evaluation process

Techniques to be used in evaluating proposals

Signed by the SSA prior to RFP release

The SSP is Part I of the Simplified Source Selection Report

Does not have to be a formal plan

Can be documented in briefing charts

89


PPT Source Selection Documentation

Source Selection Plan

Not required, but recommended if SSA is other than the CO

Draft Request for Proposal (if used)/Request for Proposal

Proposals

Evaluation Worksheets and Summaries

Competitive Range Determination, if applicable

Evaluation Notices, if applicable

Decision Briefing, if SSA is other than the CO

Source Selection Decision Document

Include comparative assessment

90


Simplified Source Selection Report

Used for smaller dollar and less complex source selections

Section I – Source Selection Plan and Acquisition Description

Streamlined Source Selection Plan

Section II – Evaluation

Rating Team Worksheets

Price Competition Memorandum

Section III – Comparative Analysis

Concise comparative analysis of offerors

Supports the source selection decision

Section IV – Source Selection Decision Document

Signed by SSA

Debriefing documentation can be attached to this section

91


Requirement for the PAR

Used to document evaluations for more complex, higher dollar value source selections

Objectives of the PAR

Document the results of the evaluation

Provide comparative analysis of offerors in competitive range

Integrated assessment of all factors and sub factors

FAR 15.308, AFFARS 5315.308, Mandatory Procedure MP5315.308

SSA decision based on comparative assessment

Against all evaluation criteria

Documentation

Rationale for business judgments

Tradeoffs, including benefits associated with additional costs

92


Content of the PAR

Introduction

Description of Proposals

Evaluation Results

Comparative Analysis of Offers

Contract Considerations

93


Content of the PAR Introduction

State the authority for the acquisition

PMD or other reference

Source Selection Procedure Used

Part 15 (FTO, PPT, LPTA), Part 12 etc.

Process overview and describe significant events

Evaluation Criteria

Offerors

All Offerors who responded to RFP

Offerors in competitive range

94


Content of the PAR Description of Proposals

Key Technical features for each offeror

Unique technical features

Other unique attributes of the proposal

Key contract features for each offeror

Type of contract

Unique terms or conditions

No judgments, comparisons or ranking in this section of the PAR

95


Content of the PAREvaluation Results

Present results by factor and subfactor

Mission capability

Strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks

Performance Confidence Assessment

Results of PCAG evaluation

Data gathered

Results for evaluation criteria

Confidence Assessment

Summary

Cost/Price evaluation

Summarize evaluation for each offeror

96


Content of the PAR Comparative Analysis

Compare each offeror in competitive range

Compare by factor and subfactor

Mission capability

Color and risk rating for each offeror

State differences between each offeror

Overall comparison

Comparison of cost/price for each offeror

Scope and method of evaluation

Proposals

OGCs

97


Content of the PAR Contract Considerations

Summarize questions and answers for each offeror

Results of ENs

Clarifications, communications and discussions

Compare differences in contracts

Key or unique contract features

Unique terms and conditions

98


Source Selection Decision Document(SSDD)

SSA memorandum documenting, justifying and explaining the award decision

Includes SSA’s rationale for the decision, including tradeoffs

SSDD represents the SSA’s independent judgment and comparative analysis of offeror's proposals

SSDD is required for all competitive negotiated acquisitions, including LPTA, PPT, and FTO

SSA writes the SSDD

Legal review recommended

99


SSDD Content

LPTA

No comparative analysis of technical proposals

Decision based on low price

SSDD can address responsibility of offerors

PPT

No comparative analysis of technical proposals

Address comparative analysis and tradeoffs of past performance and price

Address responsibility of offerors if necessary

FTO

Address comparative analysis and tradeoffs of all evaluation factors

Address responsibility of offerors if necessary

100


SSDD Content

Referencing phrase (“Pursuant to AFFARS 5315, the SSP, and etc.”)

Award decision rationale statement

Mission, scope, contract approach, offerors

Evaluation method (list the factors consistent with RFP Section M and include their importance compared to cost; explain rating method(s) used - colors, adjectival, weights, and/or ordinal rankings)

The Mission Capability factor and its sub factors (sub factors listed in descending order of importance)

The Mission Capability factor’s subfactor comparative analysis (the analysis is not comparative for LPTA and PPT acquisitions because the technical evaluation is not part of the tradeoff)

101


SSDD Content

Proposal Risk factor’s subfactor comparative analysis (the analysis is not comparative for LPTA and PPT acquisitions because the technical evaluation is not part of the tradeoff)

Comparative analysis of the performance confidence assessment at the factor level (the analysis is not comparative, if used, for LPTA acquisitions because the past performance evaluation is not part of the tradeoff)

Cost/Price factor (except that this is usually just termed “Price” on LPTA and PPT acquisitions)

Recommendation(s) from the SSET or SSAC. Include rationale for any disagreement with the recommendation(s).

Summary determination.

SSA signature block

102


Summary Documentation Matrix

Activities/Documents

Source Selection Plan

Non-complex requirement (P/N, NSN, Drawings, Spec)

Mission Capability Evaluated

Proposal Risk Evaluated

Past Performance Evaluated

Price Evaluated

LPTA PPT FTO

Formal plan not required

Formal plan not required

Yes, as Part 1 of the SSSR

Yes Yes No

Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Yes

No No Optional

Optional* Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

*Past Performance need not be evaluated if the CO documents why past performance is not appropriate (i.e. not a discriminator)

*Past Performance need not be evaluated if the CO documents why past performance is not appropriate (i.e. not a discriminator)

103


Summary Documentation Matrix

Tradeoffs

Notify offerors that they have been excluded from competitive range

Price Competition Memo required

Source Selection Authority

Source Selection Decision Document

LPTA PPT FTO

NoYes,

between Past Performance and

Price

Yes,

between all factors

N/A Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

PCO* PCO* PCO*

Yes Yes Yes

*SSA level will depend on dollar value of acquisition and local review and approval threshold requirements

104


Summary

Each Source Selection is unique

Source Selection is a subjective process

The purpose of Source Selection is to provide best value products and services to your customer