Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Source Selection and Evaluation

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Source Selection and Evaluation"— Presentation transcript:

1 Source Selection and Evaluation
Briefer: Raisa Barnes Office: SORDAC-KX Date: 1 May 2013

2 Agenda Types of Source Selections
Source Selection Process/Government’s Responsibility Source Selection Teams Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP) Proposal Submission and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation and Decision Process

3 Exchanges with Industry
Before receipt of proposals Industry conferences Public hearings Market research Pre-solicitation notices Draft RFPs Site visits

4 Source Selection Approaches
Two common types: Lowest price technically acceptable (FAR ) Best value is expected to result from selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price Trade-off Process (FAR ) In the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated Possible Trade-offs: Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost

5 Source Selection Process
Receive procurement request package Develop the acquisition strategy/plan Prepare and issue the solicitation Receive proposals Conduct initial proposal evaluation Establish competitive range Conduct “meaningful” discussions Request final proposal revision Conduct final proposal evaluation Source selection decision Award Debrief unsuccessful offerors Understanding the whole process before you begin is critical. DoD Source Selection Procedures Guide:

6 Acquisition Planning Government’s Responsibility:
Identify the requirement Determine how a successful offeror will be selected Determine the criteria used to measure the merit of the proposal Identify important discriminating factors & sub- factors Identify the level of importance for each factor & sub-factor Determine what information the offerors need to submit 6

7 Typical Source Selection Team
Source Selection Authority (SSA) GOV’T ADVISORS - CONTRACTING - LEGAL - OTHER SOURCE SELECTION ADVISORY COUNCIL SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD CHAIRMAN PAST PERFORMANCE TEAM (PRAG) TECHNICAL TEAM PRICE/ COST

8 Evaluation and Decision Process
Initial Evaluation Discussions Competitive Range Determination (Briefing) Final Proposal Revision Evaluation ENs Final Evaluation Final SSEB Report Findings Ratings Award Best Value Decision (Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Evaluation Factors Strengths Deficiencies Significant Weaknesses Weaknesses Uncertainties Ratings Go/ No-Go E v a l u t I o N Offeror Proposals Award w/o Discussion Initial SSEB Report Debriefs

9 Example Best Value Tradeoff Process
Using a trade-off process, the government will award the contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal in response to the solicitation provides the best value to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the major areas, listed in descending order of importance: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Area is significantly more important than the Past Performance Area. The Past Performance Area is significantly more important than the Price Area. The Technical and Past Performance Areas when combined are significantly more important than the Price Area. In evaluating proposals, the Government will make appropriate trade- offs when required and select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror.

10 Proposal Information Section L Section M Instructions to Offerors
Describes what the Government wants offerors to submit Evaluation Criteria How we’re going to evaluate what offerors submit Section L mirrors the information in Section M. The proposal provides the only information that can be evaluated during the source selection, Government’s knowledge of the offeror cannot be considered or evaluated…so make sure you clearly document the data requested in Section L to be evaluated in accordance with Section M 10

11 Factors & Sub-factors User Test
Spec Compliance QA Know the important discriminating Factors & Sub-factors Test Results KPP’s User Test Know the level of importance for each factor & sub-factor Not all technical requirements are equal. Know what the factors and sub-factors are, and clearly demonstrate how your technical approach will meet the requirement. Specify benefits to Government. 11

12 Proposal Instructions
Section L THINK--What information did the Government request? Make it clear in your proposal, answer the Government’s requirement. TECHNICAL (Area) Product Samples (Factor) Test Results (Sub-factor) User Assessment (Sub-factor) Specifications (Sub-factor) Technical Approach (Factor) Specification Thresholds/Objectives (Sub-factor) Management (Factor) Quality Assurance (Sub-factor) Subcontracting (Sub-factor) Facilities (Sub-factor) PAST PERFORMANCE (Area) PRICE (Area) Section L tells you what you must submit. Section M tells the importance of each area, factor and sub-factor is detailed. The Areas/Factors/ Sub-factors relative order of importance must be included in the RFP.

13 Steps To Take Know the Requirement
Know the criteria and standards stated in the RFP Read through the request for proposal - one time in total Read through again and know what the government is looking for, what are the key elements

14 Proposal Evaluation vs.
Source Selection PROPOSAL EVALUATION Examination of the merits of each proposal against the requirements of the solicitation and rating the factors and sub-factors. Performed by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). SOURCE SELECTION Comparing the evaluated merits of each proposal against those of the other proposals, using the established weights of the factors and sub-factors, and selecting the proposal judged to represent the “best value” to the Government. Performed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). 14

15 General Information for Evaluation
Evaluations are consistent with the RFP criteria Government cannot use what they know about the Offeror, it must be included in the Offeror’s proposal Proposals are not evaluated against one another proposals are evaluated against the criteria outlined in Section M Evaluating the offeror’s unique approach to the requirement Government will issue Evaluation Notices (ENs) as the tool to understand discrepancies or obtain clarifications ENs are not providing or developing a solution for the Offeror, they are to obtain additional information ENs are specific to individual concern within an Offeror’s proposal All source selections are governed by the DoD Source Selection Procedures

16 Evaluation Methodology
TECHNICAL PAST PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE LIMITED CONFIDENCE NO CONFIDENCE UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE PRICE $ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (FFP Contracts) or $ Most Probable Cost (MPC) (CPFF Contracts/Incentive Contracts) Blue OUTSTANDING Purple GOOD Green ACCEPTABLE Technical receives a color/adjectival rating at the subfactor level which rolls up to the factor level. Past Performance receives a confidence rating. Yellow MARGINAL Red UNACCEPTABLE

17 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings
Color Rating Description Blue 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.

18 Evaluating a Technical Proposal
Offeror’s Technical Proposal Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses & Deficiencies Factor Rating Technical Area Rating Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

19 Technical Team Evaluation Process
Tech Team reviews and evaluates, as a whole The technical approach described in the proposal The SOW to ensure that it implements what is described in the proposal The Basis of Estimates (BOEs) to ensure that the hours estimated to implement the approach described in the proposal are adequate to perform the work Review estimating methodology to ensure it’s reasonable The Bill of Materials to ensure that the material types and quantities necessary to execute the approach are included

20 Technical Sub-Factor Rating
Offerors SUBFACTORS A Product Samples Test Results User Assessment Specifications Technical Approach Spec (T/O) Management Quality Assurance Subcontracting Facilities B C D

21 Roll-Up Process TECHNICAL - AREA Product Samples - FACTOR
Technical Approach - FACTOR Management - FACTOR A B C D L L H H L L L L The sub-factor rating are “rolled up” to the Factor ratings. M L H M To derive the Technical Area rating, roll-up the factor ratings

22 Initial Evaluation Results
Offerors TECHNICAL A B C D L L H H

23 Past Performance Evaluation
The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance Provide recent contracts with similar scope/ requirements Ensure current contacts are provided with name and phone numbers Consider relevant subcontracts

24 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
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.

25 Past 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.

26 Initial Evaluation Results
Offerors TECHNICAL PAST PERF A B C D L L H H Sub Sat Sat Limited

27 Cost/Price Per FAR 15.304(c)(1) price or cost must be evaluated.
The level of detail of analysis required will vary among acquisitions depending on the complexity and circumstances of the acquisition, the type of product/services to be acquired, and the contract type. Every solicitation should provide a description of the cost or price evaluation. The main purpose of the price evaluation is to determine a Fair, Reasonable, and Realistic price. Reasonableness: Usually determined through competition; represents the price a prudent person would pay for an item or service under competitive market conditions Realism: Cost type contracts, probable cost adjustments required. Linked to technical/risk rating, other Government costs, etc. FAR Subpart 15.4 and the Contract Pricing Reference Guides (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html) provide additional guidance on cost or price evaluation.

28 What’s The Price? Cost contracts
Govt. creates a Total Evaluated Price based on the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of the Offeror by making adjustments where necessary (i.e., direct and indirect rates, labor hours, material, etc.). This helps to prevent the Gov’t from making a selection based on an unrealistic estimate and insures offeror understands the requirement). For FFP contracts the TEP is the Offeror’s price Government will not adjust the TEP If the price quoted appears unrealistically low, it may influence performance risk rating and reflect a lack of understanding of the requirement Coordination between Technical Team and Cost/Price Team is critical to ensure that the Technical Volume is in line with the Cost/Price Volume (i.e., Price is representative of the technical approach). ADVICE: Show all detailed calculations. Excel spreadsheets should be submitted with all formulas and links included. How did you arrive at your price? Price/Cost Volumes do not have page limits, explain your basis of estimate.

29 Major Elements In Cost Realism Analysis
Inputs Labor Hours Material (Type & Quantities) Travel (# People,# Trips, Duration) ODC (E.G. Computer Time) Rates & Costs Labor Rates Indirect Rates Material Costs Profit/Fee Terms and Conditions Incentive Structure Ceiling Price / Share Ratios RESPONSIBILITY TECH EVALUATOR COST TEAM PCO / BUYER PRICE ANALYST

30 Cost/Price Team Cost Team Responsibilities:
Verifying Rates and Factors Checking the cost proposal for completeness Understanding pricing assumptions that may affect cost/ price Coordination with Technical Team to ensure consistency between Technical Volume and Cost/Price Volume Coordination between Technical Team and Cost/Price Team is critical to ensure that the Technical Volume is in line with the Cost/Price Volume (i.e., Price is representative of the technical approach)

31 Cost/Price Realism Assessment Methodology
Criteria: Cost proposals evaluated for: Consistency with technical proposals Clear understanding of solicitation requirements Sound approach to satisfying these requirements Methodology: Labor and ODC evaluated for realism in relation to RFP and offeror ‘s unique approach Cost impact of Technical/Management risks assessed Costs adjusted to eliminate competitive advantage from proposed use of Gov’t property or facilities Most Probable Cost (MPC) developed for each offeror’s proposal Technique: Comparison to program cost estimate, analogous programs, parametric models (SEER-SEM), historical databases, and SSEB engineering assessments

32 Initial Evaluation Results
Offerors TECHNICAL PAST PERF PRICE A B C D L L H H Sub Sat Sat Limited $10M $9.8M $12M $15M Government will use the initial evaluations to determine if weakness, significant weakness, and/or deficiencies can be corrected. FAR (c)(1) states “…competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals”. Proposals with no chance of winning should not be carried forward.

33 Competitive Range & Discussions
SSA approves competitive range decision or to award without discussions Leave in all offerors that have a reasonable chance to win. Eliminate from the CRD all others If an offeror has no chance of award, the Government is doing them a favor by removing them. They may not like it at first but in the long run it is best for all involved.

34 Competitive Range Decision & Discussions
Evaluation Notices (ENs) are given to each offeror still in the competitive range addressing any identified weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies or exceptions. Discussions allow the offeror to understand issues and potentially resolve them. At the conclusion of discussions, offerors submit a Final Proposal Revision Proposals are evaluated against the evaluation standards in the RFP and not compared to the other vendors until the comparative analysis.

35 Exchanges w/ Offerors FAR 15.306
Source Selection Vocabulary Clarifications – limited exchanges with offerors when award w/o discussions is contemplated. It allows for Q and A on past performance issues or to correct minor clerical errors. Communications – contact with the offerors on matters that may determine if they may or may not be in the competitive range such as adverse past performance or ambiguities. Contractors cannot revise their proposal. Discussions - negotiations that occur after any competitive range decision that cover weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies with the idea that the offerors will revise their proposal.

36 Source Selection Process- End Game
Receive requirement Prepare the acquisition strategy/plan Prepare the source selection plan Prepare and issue the solicitation Receive proposals Conduct (initial) proposal evaluation Establish competitive range Conduct “meaningful” discussions Request final proposal revision Conduct final proposal evaluation Source selection Award Debrief unsuccessful offerors All changes to FPRs are evaluated, new SS briefing and award decision made.

37 Questions ?


Download ppt "Source Selection and Evaluation"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google