Source Selection and Contract Award Competency Area 2.5

Overview Simplified or small purchase acquisition Sealed Bidding Negotiated Source Selection Typical Evaluation Factors Proposal Evaluation Techniques Evaluation Rating Scales Contract Award

Simplified or Small Purchases Usually at or below Simplified Acquisition Threshold (150k) Competition tends to ensure fair and reasonable price Technical requirements are typically straight forward as for commercial or commodity items Usually a matter of low price or low price technically acceptable. Best value may also be used

Sealed Bid Generally awarded on low price based on cost factor(s) in IFB Bid must be “Timely” Bid must be “Responsive” Bidder must be “Responsible”

Timeliness Bid must be received at the stated location on or before the time stated in the IFB Late bids may be accepted if Received prior to award Doing so is advantageous to the government Evidence shows it was received and under government control

Responsiveness Bids that fail to conform to the essential requirements of the IFB SHALL be rejected Bid Guarantees Bids that do not conform to the specifications SHALL be rejected Bids that fails to conform to the delivery schedule SHALL be rejected Bids that are “conditioned” shall be rejected Bids that are unreasonably priced MAY be rejected Materially unbalanced prices for line items MAY be rejected.

Responsible Bidder Adequate financial resources Satisfactory performance record Not debarred or otherwise sanctioned Managerial capability Has necessary facilities, equipment, and workforce

Negotiated Source Selection All FAR solicitations NOT accomplished by sealed bids are “Negotiated” Competitive proposals are the normal solicitation method Proposals may be oral or written or both. Source selection is accomplished by evaluation and ranking proposals Evaluation must be in accordance with the Solicitation Typical solicitation lists evaluation factors in section M Evaluation factors also should be documented and explained in detail in the Source Selection plan

Price 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 criteria Low Cost Technically Acceptable Tradeoff (i.e., “Best Value)

Technical Considerations Requirements usually stated in SOW or other section of proposal Evaluation goes to how well offeror understands the requirements and is able to meet them

Management How the offeror intends to manage the proposed effort Organizational structure Self performed vs. Subcontractors Management controls Cost controls Risk may be a considerable factor in the evaluation Schedule Risk Cost Risk

Past Performance Usually a strong indicator of future performance Lack of past performance may be weighted neutrally Performance references usually requested and vetted Performance database (CPARS etc.)

Weighting of Factors Solicitation (and Source Selection plan) must identify relative weights of the various factors A is more important than B; C is more important than D; B and C are equally important etc.

Basis of Award Low Price, Technically Acceptable Tradeoff Proposals are deemed technically “acceptable or unacceptable” with respect to technical requirements Lowest price “acceptable” proposal wins. Tradeoff Proposals are rank ordered or categorized based on technical merit Price is considered Source Selection team able to trade off price if it results in a better, more valuable (to the government) solution Relative weight of cost to non-cost factors must be clearly stated in solicitation.

Proposal Evaluation Techniques All proposals must be treated equally and evaluated using the same criteria and methods. Independent evaluation by each member of the evaluation team Technical volumes usually evaluated separately from cost Did proposal adequately address all evaluation factors and subfactors Compliance matrix commonly used

Rating 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 awarded Failure to follow this guidance is a significant cause of protests.

Adjectival Evaluation Rating System Rating Scale Adjectival Evaluation Rating System Outstanding A 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. Good A 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. Acceptable A 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. Marginal A 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. Unacceptable A 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.

Compare Results and Reach Consensus Compare individual evaluations and discuss areas of agreement/disagreement Ideally team comes to a consensus opinion of rating for each proposal Recommendations are summarized in memo to Source Selection Authority (SSA) SSA is final authority but usually accepts recommendations of evaluation team.

Discussions Award may be made with or without discussions Discussions, if accomplished, must be conducted with all offerors May 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 requirements Discussions may be held to resolve uncertainties or doubts Revised proposal usually submitted following discussions – sometimes called Best and Final Offer (BAFO) although that terminology is not officially recognized.

Contract Award Prepare the contract (Federal) Federal contracts remove sections L&M Section 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 Contracts Special contracts/language Terms and conditions reached through negotiation/discussion must be documented in the resulting contract to be enforceable Draft contract (including all appendices) is sent to offeror for review and signature. Edits may be requested to make resulting contract acceptable Certain language or provisions (clauses) may not be edited or changed due to underlying law

Notification Successful offeror usually notified by receipt of model contract Unsuccessful offerors notified when Eliminated from competitive range or When award is made to successful offeror

Notification (FAR) Notification provides Number of offerors solicited Number of proposals Name & address of successful offeror List of items and prices or total dollar value of the award Reason(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

Debriefing (FAR) Unsuccessful offeror may request a debriefing. May either receive debriefing when Eliminated from competitive range Following award Debriefing is to inform offeror: Why their proposal was not selected What they can do in the future to make their proposal more competitive