Presentation on theme: "Source Selection and Contract Award"— Presentation transcript:
1Source Selection and Contract Award Competency Area 2.5
2Overview Simplified or small purchase acquisition Sealed Bidding Negotiated Source SelectionTypical Evaluation FactorsProposal Evaluation TechniquesEvaluation Rating ScalesContract Award
3Simplified or Small Purchases Usually at or below Simplified Acquisition Threshold (150k)Competition tends to ensure fair and reasonable priceTechnical requirements are typically straight forward as for commercial or commodity itemsUsually a matter of low price or low price technically acceptable.Best value may also be used
4Sealed BidGenerally awarded on low price based on cost factor(s) in IFBBid must be “Timely”Bid must be “Responsive”Bidder must be “Responsible”
5TimelinessBid must be received at the stated location on or before the time stated in the IFBLate bids may be accepted ifReceived prior to awardDoing so is advantageous to the governmentEvidence shows it was received and under government control
6ResponsivenessBids that fail to conform to the essential requirements of the IFB SHALL be rejectedBid GuaranteesBids that do not conform to the specifications SHALL be rejectedBids that fails to conform to the delivery schedule SHALL be rejectedBids that are “conditioned” shall be rejectedBids that are unreasonably priced MAY be rejectedMaterially unbalanced prices for line items MAY be rejected.
7Responsible Bidder Adequate financial resources Satisfactory performance recordNot debarred or otherwise sanctionedManagerial capabilityHas necessary facilities, equipment, and workforce
8Negotiated Source Selection All FAR solicitations NOT accomplished by sealed bids are “Negotiated”Competitive proposals are the normal solicitation methodProposals may be oral or written or both.Source selection is accomplished by evaluation and ranking proposalsEvaluation must be in accordance with the SolicitationTypical solicitation lists evaluation factors in section MEvaluation factors also should be documented and explained in detail in the Source Selection plan
9Price Price is ALWAYS a factor in the evaluation process It may not be the ONLY factor but cost should always be considered.The weight assigned to price varies with the selection criteriaLow Cost Technically AcceptableTradeoff (i.e., “Best Value)
10Technical Considerations Requirements usually stated in SOW or other section of proposalEvaluation goes to how well offeror understands the requirements and is able to meet them
11Management How the offeror intends to manage the proposed effort Organizational structureSelf performed vs. SubcontractorsManagement controlsCost controlsRisk may be a considerable factor in the evaluationSchedule RiskCost Risk
12Past Performance Usually a strong indicator of future performance Lack of past performance may be weighted neutrallyPerformance references usually requested and vettedPerformance database (CPARS etc.)
13Weighting of FactorsSolicitation (and Source Selection plan) must identify relative weights of the various factorsA is more important than B; C is more important than D; B and C are equally important etc.
14Basis of Award Low Price, Technically Acceptable Tradeoff Proposals are deemed technically “acceptable or unacceptable” with respect to technical requirementsLowest price “acceptable” proposal wins.TradeoffProposals are rank ordered or categorized based on technical meritPrice is consideredSource Selection team able to trade off price if it results in a better, more valuable (to the government) solutionRelative weight of cost to non-cost factors must be clearly stated in solicitation.
15Proposal Evaluation Techniques All proposals must be treated equally and evaluated using the same criteria and methods.Independent evaluation by each member of the evaluation teamTechnical volumes usually evaluated separately from costDid proposal adequately address all evaluation factors and subfactorsCompliance matrix commonly used
16Rating Scales Numeric (1 to 10 points etc.) Color Scales (Green, Red, Yellow, etc.)Adjectival (Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory etc.)Regardless of method used the solicitation (and especially the source selection plan) must identify how these rating will be awardedFailure to follow this guidance is a significant cause of protests.
17Adjectival Evaluation Rating System Rating ScaleAdjectival Evaluation Rating SystemOutstandingA proposal that satisfies all of the government’s requirements, with extensive detail indicating the feasibility of the approach and a thorough understanding of the problems. The proposal has numerous significant strengths that are not offset by weaknesses. The proposal has an overall low degree of risk.GoodA proposal that satisfies all of the government’s requirements, with adequate detail indicating a feasible approach and an understanding of the problems. The proposal has some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths that are not offset by weaknesses. The proposal has an overall moderate degree of risk.AcceptableA proposal that satisfies all of the government’s requirements, with minimal detail indicating a feasible approach and an understanding of the problems. The proposal has an overall moderate to high degree of risk.MarginalA proposal that satisfies all of the government’s requirements, with minimal detail indicating a feasible approach and a minimal understanding of the problems. The proposal has an overall high degree of risk.UnacceptableA proposal that contains at least one major error, omission, or deficiency that indicates a lack of understanding of the problems. The approach can not be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk. None of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or proposal revision.
18Compare Results and Reach Consensus Compare individual evaluations and discuss areas of agreement/disagreementIdeally team comes to a consensus opinion of rating for each proposalRecommendations are summarized in memo to Source Selection Authority (SSA)SSA is final authority but usually accepts recommendations of evaluation team.
19Discussions Award may be made with or without discussions Discussions, if accomplished, must be conducted with all offerorsMay be a down select into a competitive range prior to discussions to limit number of offerors.Discussions may include direction to revise proposal so as to include or exclude certain requirementsDiscussions may be held to resolve uncertainties or doubtsRevised proposal usually submitted following discussions – sometimes called Best and Final Offer (BAFO) although that terminology is not officially recognized.
20Contract Award Prepare the contract (Federal) Federal contracts remove sections L&MSection J (Reps and Certs removed and filed)Section A (the Schedule) and B (Items and Prices) are populated with award value, contractor’s name etc.Prepare the Contract (Commercial)Form ContractsSpecial contracts/languageTerms and conditions reached through negotiation/discussion must be documented in the resulting contract to be enforceableDraft contract (including all appendices) is sent to offeror for review and signature.Edits may be requested to make resulting contract acceptableCertain language or provisions (clauses) may not be edited or changed due to underlying law
21NotificationSuccessful offeror usually notified by receipt of model contractUnsuccessful offerors notified whenEliminated from competitive range orWhen award is made to successful offeror
22Notification (FAR) Notification provides Number of offerors solicitedNumber of proposalsName & address of successful offerorList of items and prices or total dollar value of the awardReason(s) why offeror’s proposal was not accepted unless it was solely on price.CO must take care so as to not divulge proprietary information during this process
23Debriefing (FAR) Unsuccessful offeror may request a debriefing. May either receive debriefing whenEliminated from competitive rangeFollowing awardDebriefing is to inform offeror:Why their proposal was not selectedWhat they can do in the future to make their proposal more competitive