Presentation on theme: "Source Selection and Evaluation"— Presentation transcript:
1 Source Selection and Evaluation Briefer: Raisa BarnesOffice: SORDAC-KXDate: 1 May 2013
2 Agenda Types of Source Selections Source Selection Process/Government’s ResponsibilitySource Selection TeamsSolicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP)Proposal Submission and Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation and Decision Process
3 Exchanges with Industry Before receipt of proposalsIndustry conferencesPublic hearingsMarket researchPre-solicitation noticesDraft RFPsSite 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 priceTrade-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 offerorAll evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly statedPossible Trade-offs: Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost
5 Source Selection Process Receive procurement request packageDevelop the acquisition strategy/planPrepare and issue the solicitationReceive proposalsConduct initial proposal evaluationEstablish competitive rangeConduct “meaningful” discussionsRequest final proposal revisionConduct final proposal evaluationSource selection decisionAwardDebrief unsuccessful offerorsUnderstanding the whole process before you begin is critical.DoD Source Selection Procedures Guide:
6 Acquisition Planning Government’s Responsibility: Identify the requirementDetermine how a successful offeror will be selectedDetermine the criteria used to measure the merit of the proposalIdentify important discriminating factors & sub- factorsIdentify the level of importance for each factor & sub-factorDetermine what information the offerors need to submit6
8 Evaluation and Decision Process Initial EvaluationDiscussionsCompetitiveRangeDetermination(Briefing)FinalProposal RevisionEvaluationENsFinal EvaluationFinal SSEB ReportFindingsRatingsAwardBest Value Decision (Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)Evaluation FactorsStrengthsDeficienciesSignificant WeaknessesWeaknessesUncertaintiesRatingsGo/ No-GoEvalutIoNOfferorProposalsAward w/oDiscussionInitial SSEB ReportDebriefs
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 submitEvaluation CriteriaHow we’re going to evaluate what offerors submitSection 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 M10
11 Factors & Sub-factors User Test Spec ComplianceQAKnow the important discriminating Factors & Sub-factorsTest ResultsKPP’sUser TestKnow the level of importance for each factor & sub-factorNot 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 LTHINK--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 RFPRead through the request for proposal - one time in totalRead through again and know what the government is looking for, what are the key elements
14 Proposal Evaluation vs. Source SelectionPROPOSAL EVALUATIONExamination 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 SELECTIONComparing 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 criteriaGovernment cannot use what they know about the Offeror, it must be included in the Offeror’s proposalProposals are not evaluated against one anotherproposals are evaluated against the criteria outlined in Section MEvaluating the offeror’s unique approach to the requirementGovernment will issue Evaluation Notices (ENs) as the tool to understand discrepancies or obtain clarificationsENs are not providing or developing a solution for the Offeror, they are to obtain additional informationENs are specific to individual concern within an Offeror’s proposalAll source selections are governed by the DoD Source Selection Procedures
16 Evaluation Methodology TECHNICALPAST PERFORMANCESUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCESATISFACTORY CONFIDENCELIMITED CONFIDENCENO CONFIDENCEUNKNOWN CONFIDENCEPRICE$ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (FFP Contracts)or$ Most Probable Cost (MPC) (CPFF Contracts/Incentive Contracts)BlueOUTSTANDINGPurpleGOODGreenACCEPTABLETechnical receives a color/adjectival rating at the subfactor level which rolls up to the factor level.Past Performance receives a confidence rating.YellowMARGINALRedUNACCEPTABLE
17 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings ColorRatingDescriptionBlueOutstandingProposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.PurpleGoodProposal 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.GreenAcceptableProposal 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.YellowMarginalProposal 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.RedUnacceptableProposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
19 Technical Team Evaluation Process Tech Team reviews and evaluates, as a wholeThe technical approach described in the proposalThe SOW to ensure that it implements what is described in the proposalThe Basis of Estimates (BOEs) to ensure that the hours estimated to implement the approach described in the proposal are adequate to perform the workReview estimating methodology to ensure it’s reasonableThe Bill of Materials to ensure that the material types and quantities necessary to execute the approach are included
21 Roll-Up Process TECHNICAL - AREA Product Samples - FACTOR Technical Approach - FACTORManagement - FACTORABCDLLHHLLLLThe sub-factor rating are “rolled up” to the Factor ratings.MLHMTo derive the Technical Area rating, roll-up the factor ratings
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 performanceProvide recent contracts with similar scope/ requirementsEnsure current contacts are provided with name and phone numbersConsider relevant subcontracts
24 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings DefinitionVery RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.Somewhat RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.Not RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
25 Past Performance Confidence Assessments RatingDescriptionSubstantial ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.Satisfactory ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.Limited ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.No ConfidenceBased 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 OfferorsTECHNICALPAST PERFABCDLLHHSub 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 conditionsRealism: 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 ( 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 priceGovernment will not adjust the TEPIf the price quoted appears unrealistically low, it may influence performance risk rating and reflect a lack of understanding of the requirementCoordination 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 InputsLabor HoursMaterial (Type & Quantities)Travel (# People,# Trips, Duration)ODC (E.G. Computer Time)Rates & CostsLabor RatesIndirect RatesMaterial CostsProfit/FeeTerms and ConditionsIncentive StructureCeiling Price / Share RatiosRESPONSIBILITYTECHEVALUATORCOST TEAMPCO / BUYERPRICE ANALYST
30 Cost/Price Team Cost Team Responsibilities: Verifying Rates and FactorsChecking the cost proposal for completenessUnderstanding pricing assumptions that may affect cost/ priceCoordination with Technical Team to ensure consistency between Technical Volume and Cost/Price VolumeCoordination 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 proposalsClear understanding of solicitation requirementsSound approach to satisfying these requirementsMethodology:Labor and ODC evaluated for realism in relation to RFP and offeror ‘s unique approachCost impact of Technical/Management risks assessedCosts adjusted to eliminate competitive advantage from proposed use of Gov’t property or facilitiesMost Probable Cost (MPC) developed for each offeror’s proposalTechnique:Comparison to program cost estimate, analogous programs, parametric models (SEER-SEM), historical databases, and SSEB engineering assessments
32 Initial Evaluation Results OfferorsTECHNICALPAST PERFPRICEABCDLLHHSub Sat Sat Limited$10M $9.8M $12M $15MGovernment 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 discussionsLeave in all offerors that have a reasonable chance to win. Eliminate from the CRD all othersIf 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 RevisionProposals 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 VocabularyClarifications – 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 requirementPrepare the acquisition strategy/planPrepare the source selection planPrepare and issue the solicitationReceive proposalsConduct (initial) proposal evaluationEstablish competitive rangeConduct “meaningful” discussionsRequest final proposal revisionConduct final proposal evaluationSource selectionAwardDebrief unsuccessful offerorsAll changes to FPRs are evaluated, new SS briefing and award decision made.