June 3, 2010
Lead: Delene Sedillo (BD) Co-Lead: Mary Kincaid (BB) Andrea Browne (BV) Craig Burridge (BB) Monica Ceruti (AL) Laurie Declaire (BT) Diana Denardo (BJ) Rod Etchberger (BB) Lauren Johnson (BG) Julie Karr (BH) Advisors: Roberta Beckman (BD) Joe Campbell (BB) Robert Tepfer (AL)
Streamlined Process Applicability Any competitive negotiated acquisition for which it is unnecessary to distinguish all levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision Firm fixed price and cost-type contracts Not appropriate for sole source buys, sealed bidding, and technically complex acquisitions The designated approving official will approve the recommended source selection strategy (PPT, LTO, or FTO) at the procurement strategy meeting
4 JSC Best Value Continuum FAR Part 8 and 12 FAR Part 15 Full Trade-Off PPT Performance/ Price Trade-Off LPTA Low-Price/ Tech Acceptable Simplified & Sealed Bid FAR Part 13 & 14 Low Price Non-Cost Cost PricePerf Trade-off Tech Acceptable GreaterImportance of PriceLesser LesserTechnical ComplexityGreater *Option to evaluate past perf but no comparative assessment or ranking. FAR (b) Limited Tradeoff (LTO) ( old midrange v/c) SEB Process
Price/Past Performance Trade-Off (PPT) ◦ May or may not request technical proposal ◦ If requested, technical proposal is rated as acceptable, unacceptable, or potentially acceptable ◦ Trade-off performed on all proposals that passed Limited Trade-Off ◦ Same as PPT, but adds value characteristics to the trade-off ◦ VCs are above the minimum requirement and act as a clear and concise discriminators Ratings of Significant Value Added, Value Added, or No Value Added
6 PPT/LTO Evaluation Process Evaluation Factor EvaluatIonEvaluatIon EvaluatIonEvaluatIon Ratings: Technical Past Perf. VCs (LTO) Cost Initial Evaluation Debrief Offeror Proposals Award w/o Discussion Award w/o Discussion Initial Evaluation Discussions Competitive Range Determination Competitive Range Determination Discussions Final Proposal Final Proposal ESs Final Evaluation Revise Ratings Award Final Evaluation Briefing Best Value Decision Evaluation Statements (ESs)
SEB PROCESS USING MSSLPT - BOTH PPT & LTO Factor – Mission Suitability ◦ Subfactor: Management S&W ◦ Subfactor: Technical S&W ◦ Subfactor: Small Business S&W ◦ Subfactor: Safety & Health S&W Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Riddle: Yes Factor – Technical Acceptability ◦ Pass/Fail Factor – Value Characteristics (LTO only) ◦ V/C #1 Significant Value ◦ V/C #2 Value ◦ V/C #3 No Value Factor – Past Performance Factor – Price/Cost Riddle: Yes
8 PPT/LTO Pros and Cons Pros Uses smaller teams & less resources Reduction in schedule ◦ SSA under $50M may be delegated to the Procurement Office Mgr ◦ Allows for simpler technically acceptability criteria Recognizes good performers by eliminating marginal and unsatisfactory performers Potentially greater opportunity to award without discussions For LTO: Adds Value Characteristics (VCs) Cons Technical superiority not basis for award Initial learning curve must be factored into the new process
Streamlined Acquisition Process Flow Chart Streamlined Acquisition Guide with Process Documentation Virtual Procurement Website ◦ Templates ◦ Samples Training Material ◦ Road Show for Stakeholders ◦ Acquisition Team Training (Procurement Forum pitch) Feedback Process
DescriptionCriteria 1 Technically Acceptable?Criteria 2 Technically Acceptable?Criteria 3 Technically Acceptable? All Weather Raincoat Coat must be rainproof Coat must have removable liner; with liner coat provides protection against cold to 30° Coat must be machine washable Offeror 1Rainproof vinyl YesSnap in liner, 25° cold rating YesExterior not addressed, interior machine washable Potentially acceptable Offeror 2Cotton duck with waterproofing treatment YesZip in liner, 20° cold rating YesMachine WashableYes Offeror 3Rainproof vinyl YesSnap in liner, Tundra cold rating Potentially acceptable Dry clean exterior, interior machine washable No