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 ( 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 ?