Headquarters U.S. Air Force
Integrity - Service - Excellence
SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING
(ACQUISITION PLANNING)
<acquisition title>
<Trainer’s name>
<Trainer’s
Organization>
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
1
Introductions
 Facilities Orientation
 Ground Rules
 Start/Stop Times
 Blackberry’s/PDA’s – turned off
 Encourage Interaction
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
2
Overview
 Market Research
 Acquisition Planning
 4 W’s
 Requirements Documents
 Risk Assessment
 Acquisition Considerations
 Contract Type Selection
 Performance-Based
Acquisition
 Source Selection Planning
 SS Plan and Content
 SS Evaluation Approaches
 Tradeoff
 LPTA






Evaluation Criteria
SS Technique
Team Members R&R
SS Tools
Pre-Solicitation & RFP release
Governance/Oversight and
Clearance
 MIRT and PEER Reviews
 Ethics
 Summary
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
3
Objectives
 Ensure Market Research is conducted throughout
acquisition process
 Recognize importance of Acquisition Planning for a
successful Source Selection
 Understand Key Elements of Source Selection
Process
 Know consequences of behaviors and actions as
they relate to Ethics and Procurement Integrity
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
4
Objectives (cont.)
 Prepare team to successfully develop and support
Acquisition Strategy/Plan and Source Selection Plan
 Recognize how Contracting Process relates to
Acquisition Strategy and Planning Process
Output: Evaluation criteria for inclusion in Source Selection
Plan and RFP Section M (or equivalent commercial provision)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
5
Source Selection Process Roadmap
Start
END
Source Selection Process
Pre-RFP Release
Integrity - Service - Excellence
MARKET RESEARCH
Market Research Training Module
Useful Market Research Sources
GAO/COFC Protest Decisions: Lack of Competition and Market Research
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
8
Engaging with Industry…
Article from “The Source”
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
9
Why Conduct Market
Research?
 Identify commercial sources for gov’t requirements
 Obtain business intelligence for informed decisions
impacting:
 Acquisition Strategy & Planning
 Source Selection Planning
 Contract Type Selection
 Reduce business risks
 Identify opportunities, industry trends, technological
developments
Improves Chances for Success
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
10
Benefits of Market Research
 Identifies:
 Sellers & Buyers
 Our leverage in the market
 Industry trends
 Technology changes/advancements
 New commercial items
 Business/financial arrangements
 Factors influencing doing business with Government
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
11
Benefits of Market Research
(cont.)
 Reveals key information about sources:
 Capability
 Technological improvements
 Alliances and joint ventures (relationships and type of
agreements with their suppliers)
 Business/contract type preferences (cost type, fixed price, etc.)
 Financial strength and growth potential
 Contractor incentives
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
12
Market Research Activities
 Activities include:
 Industry Days
 Requests for Information
 Survey of market-sector - Sources Sought Synopsis
 Internet Search of commercial marketplace
 Networking with trade associations in specific market
sectors
 One-on-one meetings with potential offerors
 Draft Request For Proposals
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
13
Market Research Toolkit
 Synopsis
 Internet Search
 Virtual Networks
 Report Template
 Market Research Report Database
 Market Research Product/Service
 Training and References
 GSA Schedules, Yellow Pages, Catalogs, etc.
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
14
Document Your Actions
 If you have not documented it - you have not done it!
 Determine your documentation methodology during
the planning phase
 Document contemporaneously – after the fact
documentation is seldom accurate
 GAO and COFC place great emphasis on
documentation at all phases of acquisition including
GAO/COFC Decision Summaries
Importance of Documentation in Source Selections
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
15
ACQUISITION PLANNING
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
16
Acquisition Planning – 4 W’s
 Who
 Acquisition team, led by program / requirements manager
 What
 Acquisition of commercial items or non-developmental items
 Full and Open Competition
 Formalize Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)
 Why
 Satisfy government needs in most effective, efficient,
economical, and timely manner
 When
 As soon as requirement is identified
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
17
Contents of Acquisition Plans
(a) Acquisition Background and Objectives
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Statement of Need
Applicable conditions
Cost
Capability or Performance
Delivery or Performance-Period
Requirements
(6) Trade-offs
(7) Risks
(8) Acquisition Streamlining
(b) Plan of Action
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Sources
Competition
Contract Type Selection
Source-Selection Procedures
Acquisition Considerations
Budgeting and Funding
Product or Service Descriptions
(b) Plan of Action (cont.)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Priorities, Allocations, and Allotments
Contractor Versus Government
Performance
Inherently Governmental Functions
Management Information Requirements
Make or Buy
Test and Evaluation
Logistics Considerations
Government-Furnished Property
Government-Furnished Information
Environmental and Energy
Conservation Objectives
Security Considerations
Contract Administration
Other Considerations
Milestones for the Acquisition Cycle
Identification of Participants in
Acquisition Plan Preparation
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
18
Acquisition Planning
Key Activities
(b) Plan of Action (cont.)
Statement
of Need - Requirements Documents
(a) Acquisition Background and Objectives
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Statement of Need
Applicable conditions
Cost
Capability or Performance
Delivery or Performance-Period
Requirements
(6) Trade-offs
(7) Risks
(8) Acquisition Streamlining
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Sources
Competition
Contract Type Selection
Source-Selection Procedures
Acquisition Considerations
Budgeting and Funding
Product or Service Descriptions
Priorities, Allocations, and Allotments
Contractor Versus Government
Performance
Inherently Governmental Functions
Management Information Requirements
Make or Buy
Test and Evaluation
Logistics Considerations
Government-Furnished Property
Government-Furnished Information
Environmental and Energy
Conservation Objectives
Security Considerations
Contract Administration
Other Considerations
Milestones for the Acquisition Cycle
Identification of Participants in
Acquisition Plan Preparation
Tradeoffs
Risks
(b) Plan of Action
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Source Selection ‘Procedures’ Planning
Acquisition Considerations
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
19
Requirements Documents
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
20
Performance Work
Statement (PWS)
Statement of
Work (SOW)
Requirements
Documents
Describe
Agency Needs
Purchase
Descriptions
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
21
Requirements Documents
Typical Content
 Descriptions, specifications, and criteria that define
minimum needs of agency for supplies or services
 Requirements may be expressed as:
 Minimum value or level of performance (threshold
performance requirement)
 Desired goal (objective performance requirement)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
22
Requirements Documents
Commonalities
 Based on Market Research, describe Government
needs in terms of:
 Functions to be performed
 Performance level required
 Essential physical characteristics
 These documents are basis for:
 Risk assessment
 Development of evaluation criteria
 Preparation of solicitation and proposal
 Contract type selection, formation and execution
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
23
Requirements Documents
“Connecting the Links”
 Basis for Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
 Establish connection from Requirement Document to
IGE, Schedule, Prices/Costs, Evaluation Criteria,
Proposal Preparation Instructions
Requirements Document
Schedule of Prices or
Costs
Evaluation Criteria
Independent Government
Estimate
Proposal Preparation Instructions
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
24
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Briefing
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
25
Purpose of Risk Assessment
 Identifies:
 High-risk areas for both Government and contractors
 Impact and probability
 Discriminators for Source Selections
 Incentive areas
 Foundation for evaluation criteria
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
26
Risk Management Process
Risk
Identification
Risk Tracking
Risk Analysis
Risk Mitigation
Planning &
Implementation
Conducting Risk Assessment
 Link risks to requirements clearly
 If high risk, ensure:
 RFP requires offerors to address risk and provide mitigation
strategies in proposal
 Evaluation criteria includes evaluation of risks and
mitigation strategies
 Oversight of mitigation strategies in post award/incentives
 Obtain Industry input on Risk Assessment
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
28
Acquisition Considerations
Contract Type Selection
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
29
Spectrum Contract Type and Risk
Cost Risk
LOW
HIGH
Requirements POORLY
DEFINED
Definition
Acquisition
Phase
Contract
Type
WELL
DEFINED
RESEARCH
CR
SUSTAINMENT
CPFF
CPIF or
FPIF
CPIF,
FPIF, or
FFP
FFP,
FPIF, or
FPEPA
FFP, FPIF,
or FPEPA
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
30
Selecting the “Right”
Contract Type
 Consider what Market Research indicates
 Understand your potential offerors
 Technical capability
 Financial responsibility
 Adequacy of accounting/business systems
 Extent and nature of anticipated subcontracting
 Discuss your Program
 Type, complexity, urgency
 Acquisition history – competitive/sole source
 Period of performance/length of production run
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
31
Selecting “Right”
Contract Type (cont.)
 Consider political and fiscal environment in which
you operate
 May effect current program requirements, acquisition
plan/strategy and overall business deal
 Be aware of key stakeholders and possible impact(s)
 SECDEF, AT&L, DPAP, AQ, PEO, CC, PM, etc.
 Be cognizant of leadership’s current guidance & preferences
 Policy & info memos/guidance issued by Agency or DoD
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
32
Acquisition Considerations (cont.)
Performance-Based Acquisitions
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
33
Performance-Based
Acquisitions
DoD Directive 5000.01, para E.1.1.16
Performance-Based Acquisition
 Use performance-based strategies & contractual
language to:
 Maximize competition, innovation, & interoperability
 Enable flexibility
 Reduce cost
 Improve life-cycle support
 Task contractor in clear and concise language
Resource:
Performance Based Payments – Guide Book and Analysis Tool
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
34
Performance-Based
Services Acquisition
 All service acquisitions > Simplified Acquisition
Threshold (few exceptions) should be performance-based
 Include identifiable and measurable cost, schedule, and
performance outcomes
 Consider customer requirements (ensure consistency)
 Ensure adequate planning and management to achieve
desired outcome
 Performance Work Statement (PWS)
 Conveys “what” we want -- not “how” to do it!
 Cite required directives and standards by specific
process/procedure ( paragraph or chapter vs. wholesale inclusion
of AFI)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
35
Source Selection Planning
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
36
Source Selection Plan (SSP)
 Required for all best-value, negotiated competitive
acquisitions under FAR Part 15 (exceeding SAT - $150K)
 Name all individuals involved in source selection, and
clearly define their roles in SSP
 Ensure SSP is approved by SSA prior to solicitation
release
 Cover all required areas/topics
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
37
Source Selection Plan Contents
 As a minimum include:
 Background and Objectives
 Acquisition Strategy
 Source Selection Team (names and roles)
 Communications
 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
 Documentation
 Schedule of Events
 Non-governmental personnel (by name)
 Source Selection materials management
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
38
SS Evaluation Approaches
Tradeoff
and
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
(LPTA)
GAO & COFC Summaries on Best Value Tradeoff Decision
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
39
Tradeoff
 Tradeoff is normally used for more complex
acquisitions
 Evaluation process requires more in-depth review of
proposals than LPTA
 Level of detail depends on:
 Complexity of acquisition
 Degree of competition
 Contract type
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
40
Tradeoff (cont.)
 Used when in best interest of Gov’t to Award to:
 Other than lowest-priced proposal
 Other than highest technically rated proposal
 Process is more flexible - permits:
 Tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost factors
 Best combination of technically superior, low risk proposals
that also have a history of favorable past performance
 Best value decision is based on comparative
assessment of proposals
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
41
Tradeoff Considerations
 What are expected consequences of tradeoffs among
following elements?
 Cost/Price
 Capability
 Performance and Schedule
 Does your Requirements Document reflect user’s
expectations?
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
42
Lowest Price Technically
Acceptable (LPTA)
 LPTA process is used when:
 “Best Value” is expected from lowest-priced, technically
acceptable proposal
 Procuring commercial, non-complex supplies or services
 Requirements are firm, clear and definitive
 No benefit is expected from proposals exceeding minimum
technical or performance requirements
Excellent Article on LPTA
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
43
LPTA (cont.)
 When using LPTA:
 Evaluate proposals against minimum technical requirements
(Acceptable/Unacceptable)
 Past Performance may be an evaluation factor
(Acceptable/Unacceptable)
 Tradeoffs are not permitted
 Proposals cannot be ranked on non-cost/price factors
 Exchanges may occur
 Comparative Analysis is not required
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
44
LPTA (cont.)
 Technical
 Critical to define what constitutes “Acceptable”
 Clearly state minimum requirements
 Past Performance
 May be waived by PCO
 If evaluated, ‘Unknown’ rating is considered acceptable
 “Acceptable” rating required in all non-price
factors/subfactors
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
45
Evaluation Criteria Factors &
Subfactors
 Methodical process incorporates knowledge from:
 Market Research
 Acquisition planning activities
 Evaluation factors:
 Must be critical areas of importance and emphasis
 Identify “key discriminators”
 Provide meaningful comparison and discrimination between
competing proposals
 Factors must address:
 Price/Cost
 Quality of Product or Service
 Non-cost factors
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
46
Developing Evaluation Criteria
Factors & Subfactors
BRAINSTORM ideas to develop your evaluation criteria
 Assumptions:
 Knowledge of market and requirements
 Potential offerors
 Discuss:
 KEY discriminators
 Your confidence in offerors’ ability to meet requirement
 Uniqueness or clarity of specifications
 Identify high or moderate risks
 Small Business Participation
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
47
Determining Source Selection
Approach/Technique
 Determine factor rating methodology and relative
importance based on brainstorming
 Factor: Cost/Price
 Factor: Past Performance (unless PCO waives)
 Acceptable/Unacceptable
 Performance Confidence Assessment
 Factor: Technical
 Subfactors
 Acceptable/Unacceptable (no “tradeoff”)
 Combined technical/risk or separate ratings (range of
colors/adjectival ratings)
 Combination (can vary by subfactor)
Ratings
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
48
Source Selection Team
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
49
Source Selection Team –
Example
SSA
SSAC or Advisors
SSEB
Technical Team
Advisors
PCO
Past
Performance
Team
Cost/Price Team
Contracting
Team
SSA Roles and Responsibilities
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS
- Approves Source Selection Plan
- Appoints SSEB and SSAC Chairs
- Appoints and approves PCO, if ACAT I
- Establishes realistic schedule
- Limits Senior Leader Roles (major acquisitions)
- Ensures all SST members properly trained and experienced
- Responsible for execution of Non-disclosure agreements and COI
statements
- Determines whether to award with or without discussions
- Selects the Best Value source
- Documents the SS decision
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
51
PCO Roles and
Responsibilities
PRIMARY BUSINESS ADVISOR AND PRINCIPAL GUIDANCE SOURCE
FOR ENTIRE SOURCE SELECTION
- Establishes plan/procedures to protect Source Selection information,
and manages SS documents
- Releases the RFP
- Single point of control for all Source Selection information
- Obtains all required approvals for Non-government advisors
- Ensures SSEB evaluation is consistent with RFP
- Controls exchanges with offerors
- Establishes competitive range after SSA approval
- Awards Contract
- Submits SS participants worksheet to SAF/AQC
52
SSAC Roles and Responsibilities
PROVIDES FUNCTIONAL EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT TO SSA
- Oversees SSEB
- Reviews SSEB evaluation results to ensure consistency with RFP
- Provides written comparative analysis & recommendation to SSA
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
53
SSEB Chairperson Roles and
Responsibilities
MANAGES EVALUATION TEAM
- Appoints SSEB members
- Establishes functional evaluation teams
- Ensures SSEB members know HOW to evaluate proposals BEFORE they
review
- Staffs Source Selection Team with proper skill and experience
- Schedules adequate time to successfully complete Source Selection
- Ensures adequate resources are available
- Provides consolidated results
- Documents SSEB evaluation results (PAR, briefing slides, etc)
- Does not perform comparative analysis of proposals or make Source
Selection recommendation unless requested by SSA
- Supports post Source Selection activities
54
SSEB Evaluators - Roles and
Responsibilities
NORMALLY ORGANIZED INTO FUNCTIONAL AREAS
- Source Selection responsibilities take priority over other work i.e. primary
duty responsibility
- Conduct comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against
solicitation evaluation criteria
- Document contemporaneously evaluation results
- Support post-award activities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
55
Advisors Roles and
Responsibilities
TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF ADVISORS: GOVERNMENT AND
NON-GOVERNMENT
Government advisors:
- Assist SSA if no SSAC used
- Assist the SSEB as subject matter experts
Non-Government advisors:
- Used on a limited basis – only advisory
- Must be approved in writing (except FFRDC, FAR 37.203/37.204)
- Sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), COI statement, AND provide
documentation regarding stocks owned
- May not rate or rank any offeror’s proposal
- May not see or evaluate past performance information
56
Source Selection Tools
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
57
EZ Source Tool
 Mandatory Use for Competitive Acquisitions
 Value $50M or greater
 Hi-Vis Programs
 Consolidation of individual contracts
 Re-competition as a result of sustained protest (corrective
action)
 Political sensitivity
 PEO or CC deems high-risk program regardless of $ value or
ACAT level
 EZ Source Deployment - two spirals over 18 months
(Jun
2013 - Oct 2014)
 Spiral I locations meeting mandatory criteria use EZ Source if
solicitation is issued on/after location’s effective date
 Spiral II - all remaining locations
Policy Memo 13-C-02
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
58
Source Selection Tools POCs
 EZ Source tool (AFMC)
 POC: Kerry Estes, DSN 785-5471, kerry.estes@wpafb.af.mil
EZ Source Templates
 Electronic Source Selection (ESS) tool (SMC)
 POC: Mr. Ted Nguyen, DSN 633-5072, ted.nguyen@losangeles.af.mil
 Decision Point
 See www.acqcenter.com for more information
 Fed Select
 See www.caci.com
 POC: Steve Ford, (703) 486-3266 ext 1031, sford@caci.com
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
59
Pre-Solicitation
and
RFP Release Activities
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
60
Source Selection Process Roadmap
Start
END
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Developing Sections L & M
 Section L - Proposal Instructions to Offerors
 Section M - Evaluation Factors and Criteria
 Must be developed by entire team!
 All stakeholders must be involved
 L & M are tailored to each source selection
 Consider program risks
 Leverage L & M templates and language when appropriate
 Link L & M and requirements
 Cross Reference Matrix helps
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Cross Reference Matrix
Sample 1
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Cross Reference Matrix
Sample 2
Cross Reference
PWS Para
Transition Phase-in
Element 1a – GFE Usage Plan
1.2.2
Element 1b – Repair Process
Demonstrations
Element 1c – Hire/Retain Qualified
Personnel
Element 1d – Facilities Plan
1.2.1
Element 1e – Data Reporting
1.11
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.9, 1.5.4
1.3, 1.8, and 1.9
Element 3c – Small Business
Requirements
CDRL
SF1
0001
A00F
L: 4.1a
M: 2.2.1a
L: 4.1b
M: 2.2.1b
L: 4.1c
M: 2.2.1c
L: 4.1d
M: 2.2.1d
L: 4.1e
M: 2.2.1e
0001
N/A
0001
N/A
0001
N/A
0001
N/A
0003
A00A-A0AD
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices, 0005
A00C-A00E,
A00G-H, A00N
N/A
0002
N/A
Imbedded in overhaul /
repair prices
A00R
L: 4.2a
M: 2.2.2a
L: 4.2b
M: 2.2.2b
SF3
Program Management
Element 3a – Schedule / Produce
Requirements, Surge Responsiveness,
and O&A
Element 3b – Transition Phase-Out
CLIN
SF2
Supply Chain / Material Management
Element 2a – Parts Forecasting and
documentation of approved sources
Element 2b – Material Storage, Packaging /
Transportation
RFP Section L&M
1.4.1.a, 1.15, and
1.16
L: 4.3a
M: 2.2.3a
1.17
L: 4.3b
M: 2.2.3b
L: 4.3c
M: 2.2.3c
PWS: N/A
Clause H002
Proposal (Vol & Para)
A00D, A00E,
A00G, A00H
A00C, A00E,
A00R
A00C, A00E
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
64
Draft Request For Proposal
(DRFP)
 Highly recommended for ALL acquisitions
 Must be consistent with acquisition strategy and SSP
 Specific content determined by PCO – consider:
 Detailed description of Government’s requirements, e.g.
Requirements Document, PWS, SOO, etc.
 Price/Cost Schedule
 Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Contents e.g. Sections L&M
 Benefits - Input from Industry on:
 Realism and clarity of government requirements
 Contract type contemplated
 Schedule realism
Note: Maintain record of comments and adjudication
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
65
Review Draft RFP
Requirements
 SSEB and SSAC (if used) review requirements as a standard for
evaluation
 SOO or SOW must clearly describe work objectives or work to be
performed
 Is SOO/SOW performance-based?
 Specification must clearly delineate key technical characteristics
of product or service
 Schedule B CLIN structure must be complete and clear
 Requirements must be achievable and not overly restrictive
 Review Acquisition Strategy, unique special clauses and critical
technical requirements
 Gov’t estimate must be consistent with requirements and
available funding
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
66
Request for Proposal
 Government’s formal tool to:
 Communicate technical and contractual rqm’ts to industry
 Solicit proposals from industry to satisfy its requirements
 Must be consistent w/ requirement docs, AP and SSP
 Final solicitation cannot be released until:
 AP or LCMP is approved
 SSP is approved
 Business Clearance has been obtained
 Notification required concurrent w/ issuance of RFP
RFP becomes the Binding Contract
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
67
Clearance
and
Governance Oversight
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
68
Clearance
 Objectives:
 Implement approved acquisition strategies
 Ensure fair and reasonable business arrangements
 Follow laws, regulations, and policies
 Perform independent review and assessment of action
 Clearance Approval Authority:
ACAT I:
> $500M
DAS(C) & ADAS(C) for Business Clearance Only
> $50M
Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO)
$25M-$50M
One Level Below SCCO
$5M-<$25M
Two Levels Below SCCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OPERATIONAL:
> $2M
SCCO
$1M - $2M
$500K - $1M
Squadron Commander
At Least One Level Above PCO
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
69
Business & Contract
Clearance
Business
Competitive
Business
Clearance
Issue Solicitation
Contract
Competitive
70
Contract
Clearance
Award w/o discuss
or FPR & SSA Decision
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
Multi-Functional Independent
Review Team (MIRT)
 Required for competitive actions >$50M
 Provides independent assessment to CAA on acquisition,
source selection or procurement
 Five Critical Decision Points (CDP)
 Pre-Business Clearance CDPs (simultaneously w/Clearance)
 CDP #1 – ASP/Acq Plan
 CDP #2 – Sections L&M of RFP
 Pre-Contract Clearance CDPs (simultaneously w/Clearance)
 CDP #3 – Competitive Range Briefing or Award w/o Discussions
 CDP #4 – Final Proposal Revision Request
 CDP #5 – Source Selection Decision Briefing
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
71
OSD Peer Reviews
 OSD Peer Reviews (DFARS 201.170)
 Competitive solicitations > $1B (including options)
 Sole Source and IT solicitations > $500M
 Comprised of senior contracting officials and attorneys from
DoD, (civilian or military) external to the department, agency,
or component
 Pre-award Peer Reviews - conducted in 3 phases:
 Prior to issuance of solicitation
 Prior to request for final proposal revisions (if applicable)
 Prior to contract award
 Post-award Peer Reviews may be conducted for all
contracts for services valued > $1B (including options)
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
72
72
Common Findings in MIRTs
and Peer Reviews
 Inconsistent language in acquisition documents between
Sections L&M and requirements
 Develop matrix showing crosswalk between performance
specification, SOW and Sections L&M of RFP
 Evaluation criteria in RFP did not address key areas of
importance and emphasis
 Focus must be on “key discriminators”
 Define “discriminators” as evaluation factors/subfactors
 Assess feedback during pre-solicitation exchanges
 Keep factors/subfactors to a minimum (3-5) to simplify RFP
 If too many, then importance of each is diluted
 Consider using an "acceptable/not acceptable" approach to
some evaluation criteria
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
73
Common Findings in MIRTs
and Peer Reviews (cont.)
 ENs not written in a clear, concise and consistent way
 Be clear, complete, and direct when you write your EN
 Ensure SSEB Chair, PCO and Legal review all ENs
 LPTA approach did not make clear in Sections L&M
what constituted “technical acceptability”
 Describe technical factors/subfactors in RFP in enough depth
to communicate what will be evaluated on A/U basis and
 Satisfy Government minimum requirements when assessing
offeror’s proposal
 Pressure on SS teams to meet unrealistic schedules
 “Need dates” drive teams to meet deadlines w/o regard to
team experience, complexity of acquisition, or limited
resources
 SSA should validate “need dates” and advise SST on ways to ease
schedule risks
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
74
Uniform Contract Format
Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors or
Respondents
Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents
Evaluation Factors for Award
Commercial Contract Format
Use the following format to the maximum extent possible:
(a) Standard Form (SF) 1449;
(b) Continuation of any block from SF 1449, such as-(1) Block 10 if a price evaluation adjustment for small disadvantaged business concerns is applicable
(the contracting officer shall indicate the percentage(s) and applicable line item(s)), or if set aside
for emerging small businesses;
(2) Block 18B for remittance address;
(3) Block 19 for contract line item numbers;
(4) Block 20 for schedule of supplies/services; or
(5) Block 25 for accounting data;
(c) Contract clauses–
(1) 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-- Commercial Items, by reference (see SF 1449 block
27a); (2) Any addendum to 52.212-4; and (3) 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to
Implement Statutes and Executive orders;
(d) Any contract documents, exhibits or attachments; and
(e) Solicitation provisions(1) 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, by reference (see SF 1449, Block 27a); (2)
Any addendum to 52.212-1; (3) 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Items, or other description of
evaluation factors for award, if used; and (4) 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items.
76
References
 DoD Source Selection Procedures
 Effective 1 Jul 2011 and mandatory for all competitive
acquisitions utilizing FAR Part 15 procedures
 Source Selection Trainer’s Reference/Resource Material
 Assists trainers in presenting SS Phase I & II training modules
 Types of Contracts - FAR Part 16.103 & 104, DFARS 216.1
 Contracting by Negotiation - FAR Part 15, DFARS 215
 Acquisition of Commercial Items - FAR Part 12.303
 Describing Agency Needs (Rqmts) - FAR Part 11.101, DFARS 211.1
 Market Research - FAR Part 10, DFARS 210
 Acquisition Planning - FAR Part 7.1, DFARSS 207.1
 Conflicts of Interest - FAR Part 3.104, DFARSS 203.104
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
77
Summary
 Each Acquisition or Source Selection is unique
 Source Selection process is both objective and
subjective
 Professional judgment, and critical thinking is
required at every step
Goal: Ensure quality, timely products and services are delivered
to the war-fighter and the nation. Obtain best value for the
taxpayer
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
78
Feedback and Certificate

For acquisitions $10M and above:
 Attendees names will be provided to designated Source
Selection Trainers
 Certificates (Phase I or Phase II) will be provided to attendees by
SS Trainers

Continuous Learning (CL) points
 6 CL points for each full day of instruction;
 3 CL points for any half day of instruction, and
 1 CL point for 2 hours or less of instruction
Your Feedback is Very Important . . . Please Take The Time To
Complete The Survey
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
79
ETHICS AND PROCUREMENT
INTEGRITY
SS Ethics Training
GAO/COFC Summaries-Organizational Conflicts of Interest
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
80
Summary of Changes
for
Phase I Acquisition Planning
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
81
LINKED CHARTS
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost
82
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.
83
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
Yellow
Marginal
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate
approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal
has no strengths or deficiencies.
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.
84
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.
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.
High
85
Technical Ratings
Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings
Rating
Description
Acceptable
Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of
the solicitation.
Unacceptable
Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements
of the solicitation.
86
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.
Present/past performance effort involved some of
the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities
this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant
Not Relevant
Present/past performance effort involved little or
none of the scope and magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.
May use, as a minimum, “Relevant” & “Not Relevant” ratings for source selections
requiring less discrimination in past performance evaluation.
87
Past Performance Evaluation
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.
88
Past Performance Evaluation
Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Rating
Description
Acceptable
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the
Government has a reasonable expectation that the
offeror will successfully perform the required effort,
or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See
note below.)
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government
has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able
to successfully perform the required effort
Unacceptable
Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom
information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past
performance rating can be reasonably assigned , the offeror may not be evaluated
favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the
offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of
acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.
89
The Best-Value Continuum
Source Selection Techniques
Greater
Relative Importance of Cost or Price
Lesser
Lesser
Importance of Non-Cost Factors
Greater
FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented
Trade-Off Process
Source
Lowest Price
Tradeoff Source Selection
Procedures
Technically Acceptable described in DoD Source Selection
Selection
(LPTA) Source
Process
Oh! The possibilities!
Selection Process
described in
DoD
Technical
described in DoD Source
Selection Procedures,
Appendix A
Technical Risk
Source Selection
Past Performance
Procedures
Mix-n-match tradeoffs:
Cost or Price
Cost or Price
Non-Cost
Non–Cost
Factors
Factors
Low Price
Be America’s Best…War-Winning Capabilities on Time, on Cost 90