Suzanne Snyder,
CPCM,CFMC, CPPO,
Fellow

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
215.300 / PGI)*
*New procedures will be applicable over the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold (currently set at $150,000)
2

•
•
•
•
•
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
3

• 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
4

Source Selection Process Overview
Peer Review (MIRT)
ASP
Pre-
RFP
CPD #1
RFP
Release
CPD #2
Competitive Range Briefing
(Initial Evaluation Brief IEB)
CPD#3
Proposal
Receipt
Oral Presentations
Interim Ratings and ENs released
Pre-FPR
CPD #4
EN Responses
Peer Review Peer Review
Request for FPR
Ratings
Released
Decision
CPD #5
FPR Receipt
Award
Debriefings
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
• 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
Communications for greater understanding leading to Competitive
Range Determination
Discussions
(only w/offerors in CR)
• Must discuss
• significant weaknesses
• deficiencies
• other aspects to enhance award potential
• Proposal revisions allowed
• Contract
Clearance
• Independent
Review
• Independent
Review
PAR
SSDD
Debriefings of successful and unsuccessful offerors. Same rating charts as shown to SSA
5

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 16.505
(b)(1)) and
---Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.
6

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
Advisors PCO/CO/KO
SSAC
SSEB Chair
Advisors
Technical Capability Past Performance Team Cost/Price Contract Elements
7

• 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

 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:
1.4.1.1 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 15.303 unless the Agency head or designee appoints another individual.
9

 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)
10

 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 9.505-4)





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 3.104-4)
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
11

 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
12

 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:
•1.4.3.1.2.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.
•1.4.3.1.3. 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.
13

 SSEB Chairperson







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
14

 SSEB Members
 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
15

May be authorized, but should be minimized as much as possible (1.4.5.2)
-- Non-Government advisors, other than Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs), shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR 37.203 and
37.204.
All non-Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreement signed by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection
(1.4.5.2.1)
-- S ubmit 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
1.4.5.2.2.
-- Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly prohibited (FAR 42.1503)
16

• 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
17

Requirements Docs
SOO
Less
DETAILS
PWS
Best Value Continuum Source Selection Criteria
More
FULL
TRADE-OFF
CRITERIA
HYBRID e.g. PPT
Less
More
Detailed construction specs
LPTA
18

Relative Importance of Cost or Price
Importance of Non-Cost Factors
Lesser
Greater
Greater
Lesser
FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented
Lowest Price
Technically Acceptable
(LPTA) Source
Selection Process described in DoD Source
Selection Procedures,
Appendix A
Selection
Oh! The possibilities!
Technical described in
Mix-n-match tradeoffs: Technical Risk
DoD Source
Cost or Price Non-Cost Factors
Non-Cost Factors
19

• 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
20

• 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
21

• 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
22

• 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
23

• 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
24

*Variations refer to DoD Source Selection Appx
Cost/Price
Past
Performance
(Pass/Fail)
Full
Performance
Confidence
Assessment
Technical (All
Subfactors
Pass/Fail)
Technical
(Combination of Pass/Fail and
Color/Adjectival
Ratings by
Subfactor)
Technical Risk
(Low,
Moderate, or
High)
Variation
1a


Variation
1b


Variation
2a



Variation
2b



Variation
3a




Variation
3b

Variation
4a



Variation
4b








25

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 3.2 - 3.10 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.”
26

COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence
Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source
Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
27

COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
TECHNICAL P/F
• 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 A2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 -
3.10, as applicable)
28

COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence
TECHNICAL P/F
• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A,
Table A1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”,
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence
Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection
Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of
DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
29

COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
TECHNICAL P/F
RISK
• 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
A2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)
30

COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE Confidence
TECHNICAL P/F
RISK
• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A,
Table A1 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 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)
31

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 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source
Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
32

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 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection
Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
33

• 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
34

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
Green Acceptable
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.
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
Red Unacceptable
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.
Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
35

Table 2. Technical Ratings
Color
Blue
Purple
Green
Yellow
Red
Rating
Outstanding
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
Description
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.
Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.
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.
Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.
36

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
High
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.
37

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.
38

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating
Substantial Confidence
Satisfactory Confidence
Limited Confidence
No Confidence
Unknown Confidence
(Neutral)
Description
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the
Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the
Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the
Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
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.
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.
39

• 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
40

• 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
41