Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures

Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures
National Contract Management Association (NCMA) Pikes Peak Chapter May 17, 2012 Suzanne Snyder, CPCM,CFMC, CPPO, Fellow

Source Selection Policy Update
Contracting Officers shall follow the principles/procedures in OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP memo, 4 Mar 11, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures (DFARS / PGI)* *New procedures will be applicable over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently set at $150,000)

Background for DoD Policy Update
Procedures resulted from a Joint Analysis Team Examined current source selection processes utilized within DoD Identified key elements of a successful source selection Develop procedures to provide uniform guidance Develop procedures to simplify the source selection process

Refresher…What is Source Selection?
Source Selection is a process that deals with the selection of a contractor through a competitive negotiation The process begins with the establishment of an evaluation plan for a proposed acquisition and ends when the Source Selecting Authority (SSA) selects a contractor who will receive a contract award Consists of a continuum of approaches and tradeoff options to obtain the best value - under DoD two distinctions: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Tradeoffs between non-cost factors and cost/price

Source Selection Process Overview
Competitive Range Briefing (Initial Evaluation Brief IEB) CPD#3 Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review (MIRT) ASP Pre-FPR CPD #4 Decision CPD #5 Request for FPR Ratings Released Pre- RFP CPD #1 RFP Release CPD #2 Proposal Receipt Interim Ratings and ENs released Award EN Responses FPR Receipt Debriefings Oral Presentations EXCHANGES CO controls after release of RFP Req Devel Risk Assessment Acq Strategy DRFPs Conferences One-on-One Mtgs Market Research Acquisition Plan Cost/Price Risk exchanges with offerors Business Clearance Independent Review Discussions (only w/offerors in CR) CO Responses to Questions RFP Amendments All proposals eval Comp range deliberated No revisions allowed Communicate only with those uncertain if in/out of CR Must discuss significant weaknesses deficiencies other aspects to enhance award potential Proposal revisions allowed Contract Clearance Independent Review Independent Review This is an overview chart for the complete Source Selection process as provided to AF personnel. CPD stands for critical decision points and MIRT For Multifunctional Independent Review Team PAR SSDD Communications for greater understanding leading to Competitive Range Determination Debriefings of successful and unsuccessful offerors. Same rating charts as shown to SSA

Source Selection Policy Update
These procedures ARE NOT required for: ---Competitions where the only evaluated factor is price ---Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) are used in accordance with FAR Part 35 to solicit proposals and award contracts ---Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT) acquisitions solicited and awarded in accordance with 15 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 638 ---Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded in accordance with FAR Part 36 --Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures in accordance with FAR Part 13 (including Part 12 acquisitions using Part 13 procedures) ---FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions ---Orders under multiple award contracts – Fair Opportunity (FAR (b)(1)) and ---Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.

Source Selection Organization
Source Selection Team Source Selection Authority (SSA) Advisors (Cost or Pricing, Legal, Small Business and other subject-matter experts. Contracting Officer (PCO,CO, KO) Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) SSA SSEB Chair Technical Capability Past Performance Team Cost/Price Contract Elements Advisors SSAC PCO/CO/KO

The Players --Source Selection Team Composition
Source Selection Authority (SSA) Shall be other than the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more, regardless of procedure used PCO is also referred to as CO or KO Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Required for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more Prepares written comparative analysis of proposals, provides source selection recommendation to SSA and oversight to the SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) SSEB may conduct comparative analysis/make source selection recommendation only if specifically requested by SSA or required by Source Selection Plan Advisors, cost/pricing experts, legal counsel, small business specialists, other subject matter experts

SSA Roles and Responsibilities
Individual designated to make the best-value decision Responsible for proper and efficient conduct of source selection in accordance with laws & regulations Appoint chairpersons for SSEB and SSAC when used Establish team and ensure team membership remains consistent for duration of selection process Ensure all involved in source selection are knowledgeable of the policies and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting source selection Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership roles in the source selection Ensure source selection pacing is driven by events and not by the schedule DOD Procedures: For acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SSA shall be an individual other than the PCO. For all other acquisitions, the PCO may serve as the SSA in accordance with FAR unless the Agency head or designee appoints another individual. DOD Procedures: For acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SSA shall be an individual other than the PCO. For all other acquisitions, the PCO may serve as the SSA in accordance with FAR unless the Agency head or designee appoints another individual. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS (a).

SSA Roles and Responsibilities cont.
Source Selection Authority (SSA) Ensure all are briefed and knowledgeable of law regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with standards of conduct and sign the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement Approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP) before release of RFP Make the determination to award w/o discussions, establish competitive range or enter into discussions, approve release of Evaluation ns Select the source whose proposal offers best value IAW RFP evaluation criteria Document decision in Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

PCO-CO-KO Roles and Responsibilities
Contracting Officer (CO, KO or PCO) – primary business advisor & principal guidance source for the entire source selection (BIG JOB) Manage all business aspects of the acquisition Assist and advise the SSA on proper execution of each source selection event Ensure required approvals are obtained and contract clause requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (CO must have copy of agreement in file as required by FAR ) Ensure procedures exist to safeguard source selection information (FAR 3.104) Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award (FAR ) Maintain source selection evaluation records Ensure that the SSP reflects the approved acquisition strategy and contains linkages between requirements documents, program risks, evaluation criteria, and proposed evaluation methodology that will facilitate a sound SS decision Ensure that requests for delegations are completed and documented in file

PCO-CO-KO Roles and Responsibilities
Contracting Officer (CO) Release RFP after approval of business clearance and SSA approved SSP Single Point of Contact (POC) for inquires from actual or prospective offerors Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with mandatory procedure Control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals Approve release of ENs if designated this authority by the SSA in the Source Selection Plan Assist SSEB chairperson with preparation of the PAR and SSD Obtain contract clearance before contract award Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed and that the debriefing is documented

SSAC Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities
Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chairperson Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSAC members and request additional assistance from other governmental sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service members Ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities Review the SSP and any revision prior to SSA approval Convene SSAC meetings as requested by SSA SSAC shall review the evaluation and findings of the SSEB to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the SSA Shall recommend a source for the SSA’s consideration DOD Procedures: Organizations shall establish an SSAC for acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more. An SSAC is optional for acquisitions with a total estimated value of less than $100M. The primary role of the SSAC is to provide a written comparative analysis and recommendation to the SSA. When an SSAC is established, it will provide oversight to the SSEB.

SSEB Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities
Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSEB members including PCAG and chair Ensure personnel, resources, time assigned to the source selection reflect the complexity of the acquisition Ensure SSEB members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted BEFORE any proposal is reviewed SSEB shall prepare and maintain SSP Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with mandatory procedure Support SS activities such as debriefings & post award meetings

SSEB Members Roles and Responsibilities
Comprehensive review & evaluation of proposals only using the RFP requirements and established criteria Write ENs for SSEB Chairman to recommend SSA approve release Prepare the evaluation documentation Participate in debriefings to offerors If no SSAC, recommend a source to the SSA

Non-Government Advisors
May be authorized, but should be minimized as much as possible ( ) -- Non-Government advisors, other than Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR and All non-Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreement signed by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection ( ) -- Submit documentation to the PCO -- PCO must ensure Government has received consent of the submitting contractor(s) to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the source selection Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, but they may not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals -- Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly prohibited (FAR )

CAUTION There is no one “best approach” to source selection
The least complex option that meets the acquisition needs will be the best considering: Degree of complexity of requirement If the requirements are clearly defined (SOO vs PWS) If the government desires different options and approaches The risk of successful performance The market conditions Successful source selections start with engaged multi-functional teams from the point at which the need is identified

Source Selection Criteria
Traditional Outcomes Requirements Docs Best Value Continuum Source Selection Criteria Less More More Less SOO FULL TRADE-OFF CRITERIA PWS HYBRID e.g. PPT This chart illustrates the correlation between the type of requirements document such as a SOO (which doesn’t have details and leaves the how to’s and approach to the offeror) and the resulting evaluation criteria that the team would end up with. For example, in the case of a SOO –the number and types of evaluation criteria would most likely be more or wider range of subfactors. On the other hand, a detailed construction specification may not require many criteria other than past performance and cost. DETAILS Detailed construction specs LPTA

The Best-Value Continuum – Source Selection Techniques
Greater Relative Importance of Cost or Price Lesser Lesser Importance of Non-Cost Factors Greater FAR Part , FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented Tradeoff Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures Oh! The possibilities! Mix-n-match tradeoffs: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A Cost or Price Non-Cost Factors Technical Technical Risk Past Performance Trade-Off Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures FAR 15: An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination (hybrid) of source selection approaches and two of those processes, tradeoff and lowest price technically acceptable source selection, are established in the FAR. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary--where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection. Two acquisition processes and techniques are described in the New DoD Source Selection Procedures to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition are (1) Tradeoff Source Selection Process (outlined in the body of the document) and (2) Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process in Appendix A of the DoD Procedures. LPTA is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price—no tradeoffs. The Tradeoff process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost or price allows the Government to accept other than the lowest-priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. There are many design possibilities within the tradeoff process. The source selection methods range from those on the left where price is the most important factor in the award decision to the right hand side where technical, risk, and past performance are more important than cost/price. It is important to note that when using the Full Trade-Off approach, evaluation teams need not trade-off all non-cost evaluation criteria (Factors and/or subfactors) against the Price/Cost Factor as long as the solicitation clearly identifies what will be traded and the relative order of importance. Non-Cost Factors Low Price Lowest Price

Determining the Source Selection Technique
First, consider the rating methodology the team will use for the subfactors and factors w/o subfactors Determine if the offerors’ response to the criteria (technical solution and/or risk) can be assessed by Pass/fail –acceptable/unacceptable Rating levels – acceptable – better - best Method of assessment can vary for factors/subfactors (pass/fail for some, rating for others) Selected approach must consider trade space Do we have money to pay for better or best? Is there a benefit to exceeding the requirements? How critical is price? Finally, review the best value continuum to determine which source selection technique (or hybrid) is most appropriate

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process
Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price Not limited to low dollar actions! When bar to meet “pass” is high and budgets tight may not be anything to trade -- LPTA appropriate Tradeoffs are not permitted (no better or best) Past Performance (PP) may be used as an evaluation factor but rated only as acceptable or unacceptable Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors New DoD Procedures Appendix A explains the LPTA process FAR (b)(1)-- If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to (c)(3)(iv), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in LPTA. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with However, the comparative assessment in (a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’s past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination. The evaluation of past performance in a LPTA source selection should be thoroughly discussed with the contracting officer, requirements personnel and legal, if applicable. Since award must be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror, past performance normally becomes a part of the contracting officer’s responsibility determination under FAR 9.1.

Trade-Off Process Trade-Off is used when it is 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 This process permits: Tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors Best combination of technically superior, low risk proposals that also have a history of favorable past performance Selection of approach where benefit of a higher priced proposal merits the additional cost Requires environment where trade space exists in cost or price and non-cost factors Documentation is very important as you are justifying what the merits are for the additional cost. FAR Tradeoff process. (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be 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. (b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price. (c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with

Pre-Solicitation Activities
Risk assessment--required as necessary to support acquisition planning process Market research—Use of Industry Day(s) and draft Request for Proposals (RFP) are highly recommended for all acquisitions Source Selection Plan (SSP) required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15 SSA approves SSP prior to issuance of final RFP Evaluation factors/subfactors--expected to be discriminators All source selections shall evaluate: Cost or Price of supplies or services being acquired Quality of Product or Service Consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factor(s) tailored to the source selection process employed

Developing Evaluation Criteria – Factors & Subfactors
Iterative Process! Incorporate knowledge gained from: Market Research Acquisition activities Evaluation factors shall Represent key areas of importance and emphasis Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals We must evaluate: Price/Cost Quality of Product or Service Technical (Examples - Technical excellence/management capability/past performance/Small Business) Focus on significant Discriminators and Maximize Streamlining by only Evaluating what Must be Evaluated

Here’s Just a Few of the Options
Here’s Just a Few of the Options! *Variations refer to DoD Source Selection Appx

Variation 1a COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE P/F Evaluate Cost or price of all proposals, and Past performance of all offerors on “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-2) Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable) “The SSA may choose, in rare circumstances, to award a contract on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting discussions.” Teams will use Table 4, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings/Definitions from the DoD Source Selection Procedures – When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, teams shall use all four ratings (“Very Relevant / Relevant / Somewhat Relevant / Not Relevant”. For those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, teams may use, as a minimum, “Relevant” and “Not Relevant”.

Variation 1b Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable) Looks a lot like what has become known as PPT (price performance tradeoff) Model without technical proposals… Table 5 Performance Confidence Assessments -- Ratings and Descriptions – “Substantial Confidence / Satisfactory Confidence / Limited Confidence / No Confidence / Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” from the DoD Source Selection Procedures Also use Table 4 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings mentioned on previous chart

COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE P/F TECHNICAL P/F Variation 2a Evaluate: All technical proposals using DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, Cost or price of all proposals, and Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections , as applicable)

Variation 2b COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence TECHNICAL P/F Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable) Along the lines of the other PPT Model that requires Technical Proposals

COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE P/F TECHNICAL P/F RISK Variation 3a Evaluate: All technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and separately assess Technical Risk as “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” rating using Table 3 descriptions Cost or price of all proposals, and Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections , as applicable)

COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE Confidence TECHNICAL P/F RISK Variation 3b Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections , as applicable)

Variation 4a COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE P/F TECHNICAL Adjectival RISK Evaluate All technical proposals using a combination of color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3, and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions at the subfactor level, Cost or price of all proposals, and Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

Variation 4b COST/PRICE PAST PERFORMANCE Confidence TECHNICAL Adjectival RISK Evaluate all technical proposals using a combination of color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3, and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions at the subfactor level, Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

Evaluation Process Technical approach and related technical risk – one of two evaluation methodologies can be used Combined (single) rating – risk evaluated as one aspect of technical evaluation, inherent in technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings; or Separate technical and risk ratings assigned at technical factor (or subfactor level if subfactors used) Past Performance Extent of participation of Small Business concerns Separate evaluation factor, or a subfactor under technical factor Pass/fail; or use same ratings scheme as for technical/risk Considered within evaluation of one of the technical subfactors No separate small business rating applied -Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating: includes consideration of risk associated with the technical approach in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal in determining one of five technical ratings (Table 1) Methodology 2: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process –uses five technical ratings (Table 2) and three technical risk ratings (Table 3). However, regardless of source selection approach taken, required to utilize the standardized rating tables as detailed in this procedure. Past Performance: One performance confidence assessment rating assigned for each offeror - 4 levels of relevancy defined in Table 4, but for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, you may use, as a minimum, “Relevant” and “Not Relevant” 5 levels of Performance Confidence described in Table 5 CAN opt to evaluate past performance on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis using the rating definitions from Table A-2 in the LPTA (Appendix A) process - FAR (c), FAR and DFARS (c)(i) sets forth requirements for evaluating extent of participation of small business concerns

Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 1)
Table 1. 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. Blue Rating: For the risk of unsuccessful performance to be “very low”, either there will be no weaknesses identified or the risk rationale statements associated with any weaknesses identified will attribute nearly negligible risk impact

Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 2)
Table 2. Technical Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies. Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies. Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies. Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable. No standard definitions are provided for the words “exceptional”, “thorough”, “adequate”, however, the source selection evaluation record must adequately explain why a proposal is considered to have either an “exceptional”, “thorough”, or “adequate” approach and understanding of the requirements, or “has not demonstrated one”

Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)
Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. If an evaluation team assigns a combination of “significant weaknesses” (See FAR ) that increases “the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level”, then that is also a deficiency per the FAR deficiency definition and thus would result in a Red, Unacceptable technical rating and render the proposal “unawardable”. This would apply to either Methodology 1 or 2. For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions in Table 3.

Past Performance Evaluation
Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating 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. -When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the SST shall use all four of the relevancy ratings. However, for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the past performance evaluation team may use, as a minimum, “Relevant” and “Not Relevant” past performance ratings. -With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Performance Confidence Assessments
Table 5. 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.

Evaluation and Decision Process
Discussions are highly recommended for source selections Award without discussions shall occur in only limited circumstances PCO establishes competitive range; SSA approves When PCO is not SSA, SSA concurrence required prior to releasing the request for final proposal revisions Definitions Chapter: “strength” -- an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance Debriefings -- PCO encouraged to use Debriefing Guide provided at Appendix B “Strength” definition -- not only includes exceeding specified performance or capability requirements, but also permits assigning a strength for an aspect that has “merit”. Websters defines merit as a “praiseworthy quality”, thus strengths may be assigned for praiseworthy or valuable qualities that do not exceed requirements. Generally, exceeding a requirement is probably of greater value than just having merit. --new definition no longer states that a strength either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process. Team will need to decide whether contractual inclusion is appropriate if the strength is not inherent in the offeror’s process. - Appendix B sets forth the purpose, basic requirements, notification of debriefing, location where it will be conducted, who should attend, how to prepare for the debriefing, an outline for conducting the event, issues related to conducting the debriefing (such as roles, how to respond to questions, what information is not appropriate for disclosure and documentation requirements, and some sample offeror questions that may be used for a “Dry Run”.

Summary Goal is to select the proposal that represents the best value
FAR 15 negotiated competitive actions More formal process, try to make it simplified Teams are essential Evaluation criteria tailored to each acquisition Must be followed through the evaluation process and award decision Integrity and creditability of the process must be maintained

Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback