Source Selection Process &
Successful Proposal Tips
Presented by: Brooke C. Robison
Contracting Officer
21 June 2011
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Objectives
Objectives of the source selection process:
 Ensure the impartial, equitable, and comprehensive
evaluation of offerors’ proposals;
Maximize the efficiency and minimize the complexity of
the proposal evaluation and contractor selection
process so as to minimize the cost of the process to
Government and industry;
Select the offeror whose proposal is the best value to
the Government considering cost/price, technical
factors, and past performance;
Document the basis for the selection decision.
References
 References
 FAR Part 15
 DFAR Part 215
 DPAP Memo “DoD Source Selection Procedures”,
effective July 1, 2011
Methods of Selection
 Source selection results in two methods of
selection for award of a contract:
 Tradeoff – Best Value – Allows for a tradeoff between
non-cost factors and cost/price (FAR 15.101-1)
 Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) – used
when best value is expected to result from selection
of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest
evaluated price (FAR 15.101-2)
Steps of the Source Selection
Process
1. Designate Source Selection Official
2. Establish evaluation groups
3. Develop and approve the SSP
4. Develop, review, and issue the solicitation
5. Receive and evaluate proposals
6. Conduct discussions and request, receive, and
evaluate final proposal revisions (if necessary)
7. Prepare the supporting documentation for the selection
decision
8. Select the source
9. Brief the principal results of the source selection decision to
appropriate officials
10. Award contract(s)
11. Debrief unsuccessful offerors
12. Report lessons learned
Source Selection Plan
 Required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive
acquisitions under FAR Part 15
 The SSP shall include, at a minimum
 Background and Objectives
 Acquisition Strategy
 Source Selection Team
 Communications
 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
 Documentation
 Schedule of Events
 Non-Government Personnel
 Securing Source Selection Material
Source Selection Team Roles
and Responsibilities
 Source Selection Authority (SSA)
 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
 Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)
 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)
 Advisors
 Cost or Pricing Experts
 Legal Counsel
 Small Business Specialist
 Other Subject Matter Experts
Source Selection Team Roles
and Responsibilities
 Source Selection Authority (SSA)
 Appoint chairperson for SSEB and, when used, SSAC
 Approve the SSP
 Make determination to award without discussions or
enter into discussions
 Select the source
 Document the source selection rationale
 SSA cannot be PCO for acquisitions of $100M or
more
Source Selection Team Roles
and Responsibilities
 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
 Assist SSA in execution of duties and work with SSEB Chair to ensure
proper technical evaluation
 Serve as the single point of contact for all solicitation-related inquiries
from prospective offerors
 Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)
 Provide written comparative analysis and recommendation to SSA
 Provide oversight to SSEB
 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)
 Refers to the price and technical evaluation team
 SSEB duties shall take priority over all other work
Source Selection Plan –
Evaluation Factors
 Cost or Price Evaluation
 Shall be evaluated in every source selection
 No adjectival ratings shall be used (cost/price not rated)
 Must determine reasonableness of cost/price
 Technical Rating Evaluation Process
 Degree to which the proposed technical approach meets or does not meet
minimum performance
 Past Performance Evaluation (when required, documented by PCO)
 Assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation
requirements
 Evaluation considers recent and relevant record of performance
 Small Business Evaluation (when required)
 Establish separate SB participation evaluation factor
 Establish SB participation subfactor under the technical factor, or
 Consider SB participation within evaluation of one of the technical subfactors
Evaluation Documentation

SSEB Chairperson consolidates the inputs from each
of the evaluation teams for presentation to the SSA

Minority views shall be documented

All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed
by the PCO, Legal Counsel, and the SSEB
Chairperson for completeness and compliance with the
solicitation

The SSAC will consolidate the advice and
recommendations from the SSAC into a written
comparative analysis and recommendation for the SSA
to make the best-value decision
Competitive Range/Discussions

The SSA may choose to award a contract on the basis of the
initial proposals
Award without discussions shall occur only in limited
circumstances
Discussions are highly recommended
PCO establishes competitive range
Discussions conducted through release of Evaluation Notices
(ENs)








Prepared by the SSEB
Clearly indicate the type of exchange being conducted (e.g.
clarification, communication, etc)
Any EN addressing a proposal deficiency or weakness shall
clearly indicate that a deficiency/weakness exists
The PCO shall obtain the SSA’s concurrence prior to releasing
the FPR request
Source Selection Process

If an SSAC is utilized, the SSAC shall review the evaluation
and findings of the SSEB to ensure accuracy, consistency, and
supportability IAW the evaluation criteria

SSAC shall provide a written comparative analysis of
proposals and award recommendation for the SSA’s
consideration

If an SSAC is not utilized, the SSEB should not conduct a
comparative analysis of the proposals or make an award
recommendation unless specifically requested by the SSA or
required by the SSP

Source selection decision shall represent the SSA's
independent judgment and the SSA shall document the
supporting rationale
Successful Proposal Tips
Presented by: Brooke C. Robison
Contracting Officer
21 June 2011
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Proposal Tips
Review the ENTIRE Request for Proposal
I -The Schedule: A –H
A: Solicitation/Contract Form
B: Supplies or services and prices/costs
C: Description/specifications/statement of work
D: Packaging and marking
E: Inspection and acceptance
F: Deliveries or performance
G: Contract Administration Data
H: Special contract requirements
II -Contract Clauses: I
III -List of Documents, Exhibits & Other Attachments: J
IV -Representations and Instructions: K, L & M
Proposal Tips
 Follow the Instructions!!




Proposal must be submitted on time and in the correct medium
Proposal must include all the requested information
Proposal should not contain extraneous information
Proposal must be complete, whereas “fill-ins” representations,
certifications, matrices are complete, especially in identifying
Government Rights to Technical Data (DFAR 252.227-7017)
 Questions asked relatively close to the proposal due date
run the risk of answers not being provided before the
closing time
Proposal Tips
What is the Government asking you to provide?
 Technical
 Recognize and understand the factors and weightings, Preliminary Evaluations
and/or Pass/Fail criteria
 Discuss product/service in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the
Government’s requirement
 Technical approach and pricing proposal should be consistent
 Sufficiently provide the required information and provide accurate data
 Cost/Price
 Provide the supporting documentation for pricing (Commercial Price List, pricing
anomalies, inflation, escalation, CDRLs, discount terms, etc.)
 Rates must be compliant with DCAA (if applicable)
 Past Performance
 Provide the supporting documentation for past performance
 Follow the instructions and understand the requirements
Proposal Tips
 Offeror must keep abreast of amendments to the solicitation
 Changes in the specification, proposal instructions, evaluation
criteria, proposal due date
 Don’t assume anything, if questionable, put in writing your
concern to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist
 Ensure you have met all of the minimum requirements of the
RFP
 Always put your best proposal together; there may not be any
rounds of discussions
Proposal Tips
REMEMBER:
SECTION L
or
FAR 52.212-1
SECTION M
or
FAR 52.212-2
Instructions to Offerors
Identifies for offerors what they are
required to submit
Evaluation Criteria
Identifies to offerors how the
Government is going to evaluate
what we have asked offerors to
submit
Basis for Award
Proposal Tips
 When there is a conflict between the SSP and
the RFQ/RFP….GAO will differ to the terms of
the solicitation
 An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals
and then assess their relative qualities solely on
the factors and subfactors specified in the
solicitation
QUESTIONS?
The NAVSUP Enterprise
BACK-UP SLIDES
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Evaluation Process
Combined Technical and Risk
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.
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Evaluation Process
Past Performance (Relevancy)
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.
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Evaluation Process
Past Performance (Confidence)
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.
The NAVSUP Enterprise
Evaluation Process
Small Business

Ratings dependent on the small business evaluation
methodology utilized

When evaluating small business participation as a standalone evaluation factor or a subfactor under the technical
factor, there are two rating options



Use the ratings acceptable and unacceptable only (i.e., pass/fail), or
Use all ratings outlined in the tables on the previous slides,.
When small business participation is not evaluated as a
stand-alone evaluation factor or subfactor but instead is
considered within the evaluation of one of the technical
subfactors, a separate small business rating is not applied
The NAVSUP Enterprise