Source Selection Procedures
Presented by:
John Krieger (703) 805-5046
John Pritchard (703) 805-3800
WARNING! What you’ve been doing before is probably
not what you’ll be doing in your next source selection.
Applicability of New Procedures
These procedures are not required for the following acquisitions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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,
Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer Research (STTR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT)
acquisitions solicited and awarded,
Architect-engineer services in accordance with FAR Part 36,
FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions,
Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures in accordance with FAR
Part 13 (including Part 12 acquisitions using Part 13 procedures),
Orders under multiple award contracts – Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.505), and
Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Environment
Best Value Under the FAR
Organization Roles and Responsibilities
Pre-Solicitation Activities
Tradeoff Source Selection Process
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
Source Selection Process
• How Do We Do That?
• Ethics in Source Selection
The Environment
BBPi Comparison
BBPi 1.0 Guidance Roadmap
BBPi 2.0 Focus Areas
Target Affordability and Control Cost
Growth
Achieve Affordable Programs
Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in
Industry
Incentivize Productivity and Innovation in
Industry and Government
Promote Real Competition
Promote Effective Competition
Improve Tradecraft in Services Acquisition
Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of
Services
Reduce Non-Productive Processes and
Bureaucracy
Eliminate Unproductive Processes and
Bureaucracy
Control Costs Throughout the Product
Lifecycle
Improve the Professionalism of the Total
Acquisition Workforce
Note: BBPI 2.0 order has been modified to align with BBPI
1.0 order.
DPAP Hot Topics
1. Target Affordability and Control Cost Growth
Contract Pricing, Should Cost, Performance Based Payments
2. Incentivize Productivity and Innovation In Industry
Increased attention to the use of Incentives
3. Promote Real Competition including Only One Offer
4. Improve Tradecraft in Services Acquisition and Surveillance of
Services:
COR certification, Limited use of T&M contracts, Inherently
Governmental Functions, Reduction in Spending, and SAM & ARRT
5. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and Personal Conflict of
Interest (PCI)
6. Contracting in a Combat / Contingency Environment
7. Proper Use of Interagency Agreements
8. System for Award Management (SAM)
9. Contractor Business Systems including CBAR
10. Small Business including WOSB
11. Commercial Items
Defense Competition Statistics
Fiscal Year 2014
Trend
Contracting Agency
DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE
DEPT OF THE ARMY
DEPT OF THE NAVY
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY
DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY *
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY
DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY
DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY
DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY
DEFENSE MICROELECTRONICS ACTIVITY
DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY
DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE
DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY
DEPT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY
JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT ORGANIZATION
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES
USTRANSCOM
WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES
TOTAL
Total Actions Total Dollars
Compete $
143,096 $55,638,404,843 $24,607,568,911
302,392 $74,526,059,168 $48,637,049,690
286,230 $83,674,572,087 $37,091,138,558
588,055 $31,560,501,413 $26,524,228,400
1,165
$875,458,083
$741,492,622
137,099
$1,422,235,216
$1,314,449,782
770
$107,061,874
$74,036,856
876
$132,691,851
$113,924,492
1,882 $13,069,956,555 $11,558,167,570
779
$257,292,656
$129,256,728
66,415
$5,125,460,900
$3,940,628,843
814
$80,835,636
$57,761,546
651
$399,614,093
$383,755,750
787
$47,440,587
$32,429,871
451
$95,979,294
$76,419,637
1,789
$996,337,234
$856,732,307
2,642
$314,221,644
$226,125,024
176
$67,135,014
$56,670,541
4,521
$6,050,847,487
$2,536,652,717
7,502
$2,445,983,250
$1,832,120,816
691
$37,329,929
$24,134,582
11,432,990
$4,063,497,236
$4,045,603,216
9,062
$1,265,095,537
$750,753,246
12,990,835 $282,254,011,589 $165,611,101,706
Compete %
44.2%
65.3%
44.3%
84.0%
84.7%
92.4%
69.2%
85.9%
88.4%
50.2%
76.9%
71.5%
96.0%
68.4%
79.6%
86.0%
72.0%
84.4%
41.9%
74.9%
64.7%
99.6%
59.3%
58.7%
GAO’S View
Promote Effective Competition
GAO-10-833
Competition in
Federal
Contracting
One-Offer Requirement Includes Three Rules
Source Selection Approaches
Estimated Frequencies of Source Selection Approaches Used in Fiscal
Year 2009 for New, Competitively Awarded DOD Contracts Obligating over
$25 million
Sealed bid
Non-cost factors more
important than price
Lowest price technically
acceptable
Recent GAO findings state
LPTA has increased up to 39%
Non-cost factors less
important than price
Non-cost factors
equal to price
GAO Report 11-8, Figure 2
Characteristics of Contracts
Estimated Frequencies of Selected Characteristics of Contracts or Agreements
Awarded using a Best Value Tradeoff Process
GAO Report 11-8, Figure 3
“Henceforth I expect
contracting officers to
conduct negotiations with
all single bid offerors and
that the basis of that
negotiation shall be cost or
price analysis, as the case
may be, using non-certified
data.”
Best Value Under the FAR
Federal Acquisition System Guiding Principles
The Federal Acquisition System will –
– Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and
timeliness of the delivered product or service
– Minimize administrative operating costs
– Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and
openness
– Fulfill public policy objective
FAR 1.102
Acquisition Team Concept
The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise
personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the
best value product or service to meet the customer’s needs. In
exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team
may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is
in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the
FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or
other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a
permissible exercise of authority.
FAR 1.102(d)
Successful source selection streamlining begins with the
Acquisition Team and timely, effective acquisition planning.
Source Selection Objective
“The objective of Source Selection is to
select the proposal that represents the
Best Value”
FAR 15.302
Best Value: “The expected outcome of an
acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation,
provides the greatest overall benefit in response
to the requirement.”
FAR 2.101
FAR 15.101 Best Value Continuum
An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using
any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In
different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or
price may vary. For example, in acquisitions 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.
BBP 2.0 Guidance on Source Selection
When Lowest Price Technically
Acceptable is used, define
Technically Acceptable to ensure
needed quality
Better define value in “best value”
competitions
When LPTA is used as a source
selection technique, Section M of
the RFP and the Source Selection
Plan must clearly describe the
minimum requirements that will be
used to determine the acceptability
of the proposal.
The Department routinely sets
“threshold” and “objective” level
requirements for the products it
acquires and also routinely defaults
to threshold performance as the
basis for selecting a product. This
initiative directs the Components,
where possible, to quantify the value,
in terms of an increased premium
they will pay, for proposals above the
threshold level of performance and to
include this information in
solicitations to industry.
[Tradeoff Process]
Organization Roles and
Responsibilities
Source Selection Team
Source selection is accomplished by a team that is tailored to
the unique acquisition. Composition of the team generally
consists of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), Procuring
Contracting Officer (PCO) (if different from the SSA), Source
Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), Source Selection
Evaluation Board (SSEB), Advisors, Cost or Pricing Experts,
Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subjectmatter experts. Team members may include personnel from
other Governmental sources such as headquarters or joint
service members. Key members of the Source Selection Team
(SST)—such as the SSA, SSEB, chairperson and functional
leads, and the PCO— should have source selection experience.
All members of the team shall be designated early in the source
selection process, and agencies shall provide the needed
training to execute that specific source selection.
Source Selection Team — An Example
SSA
SSAC
As Required
SSEB
SSEB
Chair
Staff Advisors
(Contracting, Legal)
PPET*
Technical & Risk
(Technical Evaluators
& Advisors)
Briefing Focus
PCO/
Contract
Team
Cost/Price
Analysis
Team
May be Combined
* Use of PPET to evaluate Past Performance
Source Selection Authority (SSA)
The appointment of the individual to serve as the SSA shall be
commensurate with the complexity and dollar value of the
acquisition. 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.
The SSA is responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of
the source selection process in accordance with this procedure
and all applicable laws and regulations.
SSA Roles and Responsibilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appoint the chairpersons for the SSEB and, when used, the SSAC.
Ensure that personnel appointed to the SST are knowledgeable of policy and procedures
for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members
have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the
source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the
duration of the selection process.
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 203.170(a).
Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection
events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules.
The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection
procedures outlined in the Source Selection Procedures and SSP for the acquisition.
Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of FAR 3.104
regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as
source selection information; compliance with applicable standards of conduct; and sign
a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement.
Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.
Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance
with evaluation established criteria in Section M.
Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).
Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)
The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal
guidance source for the entire Source Selection. Agencies have
discretion in the selection of the individual to serve as the PCO.
However, the PCO, as the principal guidance source, should have
experience in the source selection process.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and advise and assist the SSA
Obtain approvals and ensure notification clause is included in the RFP before
non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support
Ensure procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and
contractor bid or proposal information.
Maintain documents and evaluation records as detailed in Chapter 4.
Release final RFP after obtaining required approvals including the SSA’s.
Serve as the single point of contact for all solicitation-related inquiries.
After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors.
With the approval of the SSA, establish the competitive range and enter into
discussions.
Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)
The SSA establishes an SSAC to gain access to functional area
expertise to provide the support the SSA requires throughout the
source selection process. 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. The SSA may convene the SSAC at any stage in the
evaluation process as needed.
• Composition of SSAC.
– The SSAC is comprised of an SSAC Chairperson and SSAC Members.
– SSAC Members should represent the specific functional areas from which the
SSA may require expertise.
SSAC Roles and Responsibilities
• SSAC Chairperson shall:
– Appoint SSAC members, subject to SSA approval.
• The SSAC Members shall:
– Review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation
process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately
and consistently applied.
– Consolidate the advice and recommendations from the SSAC into a
written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in
making the best-value decision. Ensure that minority opinions within the
SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.
Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)
The SSEB is comprised of a Chairperson and Evaluators (also known as SSEB
Members). Frequently, the SSEB Members will be organized into functional teams
corresponding to the specific evaluation criteria (e.g., Technical Team, Past
Performance Team, Cost Team, etc). In those instances, a Functional Team Lead
may be utilized to consolidate the evaluation findings of the team and serve as the
primary team representative to the SSEB Chair. Use of non-Government personnel
as voting members of the SSEB is prohibited.
Government personnel assigned to the SSEB shall consider this duty as their
primary responsibility. Their source selection assignment shall take priority over
other work assignments. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that other work
assignments do not adversely impact the source selection process.
Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative
analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested
by the SSA.
SSEB Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the
SSEB’s interface to the SSAC (if utilized) and the SSA.
Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient
source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the
functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.
Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and time assigned
are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.
Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an
evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.
Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are
being consistently applied.
Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA or the SSAC if the SSAC
is designated as the interface between the SSEB and SSA.
Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and postaward reviews/meetings, as required.
SSEB Member Roles and Responsibilities
•
•
•
•
Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the
solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.
Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the
RFP.
Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.
Support any post-source-selection activities, such as debriefings and postaward reviews/meetings, as required.
Source Selection Evaluation Board Membership
• Career Civilian and Military Personnel
• Mixed Skill Set
– Contracting
– Technical
– Cost and Price Analysis
• Non-Governmental Personnel May be Used as
Advisors, but Not as Evaluators
Advisors
Government Advisors. When an SSAC is not used, consideration should be given
to the use of Government advisors to assist the SSA. These advisors can provide
expertise within specific functional areas, similar to the involvement of the SSAC,
but need not provide the formal written comparative analysis required of an
SSAC. Government advisors may also be used to provide assistance to the SSEB
as subject-matter experts.
Non-Government Advisors. Use of non-Government personnel as 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 37.203
and 37.204.
[Note: There are special requirements for, and limitations on, non-Government
advisors.]
Non-Government Advisors
Requirements for use of non-Government advisors. All non-Government
advisors shall sign non-disclosure agreements. They shall also submit
documentation to the PCO indicating their personal stock holdings prior to
being allowed access to source selection sensitive information. In addition, the
PCO must ensure that before the non-Government advisor is given access to
proprietary information, that the Government has received the consent of the
submitting contractor(s) to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in
the source selection.
Limitations on use of non-Government advisors. 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. Accordingly,
non-Government advisors shall not participate in the review and evaluation of
past performance information.
Program Management/Requirements Office
The requirements community is vital to the success of the overall
source selection process. The leadership of the Program
Management/Requirements Office shall:
•
•
•
•
Ensure the technical requirements—consistent with the cognizant
requirements document—are approved and stable, establish technical
specifications, and develop a Statement of Work (SOW), Statement of
Objectives (SOO), or Performance Work Statement (PWS).
Allocate the necessary resources including personnel, funding and facilities
to support the source selection process.
Assist in the establishment of the SST to include serving as an advisor or
member to the SSAC and/or the SSEB as needed.
Assist in the development of the evaluation criteria consistent with the
technical requirements/risk.
Pre-Solicitation Activities
Pre-Solicitation Activities
•
•
•
•
Conduct Acquisition Planning
Develop an SSP
Develop the Request for Proposals
Release the Request for Proposals
Acquisition Planning
• Develop/define the requirement
– Services
– Supplies
– Construction
• Market Research
– Pre-solicitation notices
– Industry Days
– Requests for Information (RFIs)
Publicizing Business Opportunities
• FedBizOps
• Bulletin Boards
• Pre-solicitation notices
Exchanges with Industry Before Receipt of Proposals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Industry or small business conferences
Public hearings
Market research
One-on-one meetings
Presolicitation notices
Draft Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
Requests for Information (RFIs)
Presolicitation or preproposal conferences
Site visits
After release of the solicitation, the contracting officer must be the
focal point of any exchange with potential offerors. (FAR 15.201(f))
Independent Management Reviews
Independent Management Reviews (“Peer Reviews”). Pre-Award Peer Reviews
shall be conducted on all Supplies and Services, solicitations, and contracts
over $1B (including options). The Director, DPAP, in the Office of the USD(AT&L),
shall organize the Peer Reviews. The reviews shall be advisory in nature and
conducted in a manner that preserves the authority, judgment, and discretion of
the PCO and senior officials of the acquiring organization. Reference DFARS
201.170 and DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, Section 9 and Enclosure 9, Section 6 for
specific requirements for these Pre-Award Peer Reviews of Services and Supply
contracts over $1B. Finally, Pre-Award procedures in Paragraph 6.a. of Enclosure
9 shall also apply to Peer Reviews of Supplies. (Reference Enclosure 2,
Procedures Section 9, Paragraph g, of DODI 5000.02.) The acquisition team must
build these review requirements into their acquisition planning milestones. (See
DFARS 201.170 and PGI 201.170).
Evaluation Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost or Price – Always a factor
Past performance
Quality is always a consideration under the FAR
Technical/Management
Risk
Key Personnel
Others
Specified in Source Selection Plan and Section M of the solicitation.
Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
Cost or Price. The Government shall evaluate the cost or price of the supplies or
services being acquired.
Quality of Product or Service. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(2), the quality of
product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through
consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past
performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence,
management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience. All
source selection evaluations shall utilize one or more quality of product or
service evaluation factors tailored to the source selection process employed.
The term “technical,” used throughout the Procedures, refers to non-cost factors
other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and
titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. However,
the ratings in Tables 1, 2, and 3 shall be used for all quality of product or service
factors other than past performance, regardless of the “technical” factor title.
Technical and Technical Risk Ratings
Technical. The purpose of the technical factor(s) is to assess the offeror’s
proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s
requirements. There are many aspects which may affect an offeror’s ability to
meet the solicitation requirements. Examples include technical approach, risk,
management approach, personnel qualifications, facilities, and others. The
evaluation of risk is related to the technical assessment.
Technical Risk. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed
technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption
of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for
increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract
performance. All evaluations that include a technical evaluation factor shall also
consider risk.
Risk can be evaluated in one of two ways, as one aspect of the technical
evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings, or as
a separate risk rating assigned at the technical factor or subfactor level.
Past Performance in DoD Procedures
3.1.3.3. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a
performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned
one of the ratings in Table 5. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) (sic) for
information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)
A.2.1.2. Past Performance.
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.”
Past Performance in USC and FAR
41 USC § 1126 - Policy regarding consideration of contractor past
performance
(b) Information Not Available.— If there is no information on past
contract performance of an offeror or the information on past contract
performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated
favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance.
FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of
relevant past performance or for whom information on past
performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated
favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
Comptroller General Decisions
B-254738.3
Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp.
03/08/1994
B-261044.4
Caltech Serv. Corp.
12/14/1995
B-271431
Quality Fabricators, Inc.
06/25/1996
B-272017
Excalibur Systems, Inc.
08/12/1996
B-272526
Hughes Georgia, Inc.
10/21/1996
B-278921.2
Braswell Services Group, Inc.
10/17/1998
B-286044.2
SWR, Inc.
11/01/2000
B-287697
Gulf Group, Inc.
07/24/2001
B-291170.4
MW-All Star Joint Venture
08/04/2003
B-295375
FR Countermeasures, Inc.
02/10/2005
B-400109
Systalex Corporation
07/17/2008
B-403085
Structural Associates, Inc.
09/21/2010
B-409148
Motorola Solutions, Inc
01/28/2014
GAO on Past Performance and Experience
• Past Performance
– Consideration of information collected by other
evaluation boards in other procurements
– Lack of relevant past performance
– Unequal effort, on the agency’s part, in contacting
references
• Experience Evaluations
– Relevant experience
– Evaluation of subcontractor experience
Past Performance vs. Experience
Commercial Window Shield, B-400154, July 2, 2008
CWS’s argument, however, fails to recognize that the experience and past
performance factors reflected separate and distinct concepts. Under the
experience factor, the agency examined the degree to which a vendor had
experience performing similar projects; under the past performance factor, the
agency considered the quality of a vendor’s performance history. Given the
fundamentally different nature of the evaluations, a rating in one factor would not
automatically result in the same rating under the other.
Shaw-Parsons Infrastructure Recovery Consultants, LLC; Vanguard Recovery
Assistance, Joint Venture; B-401679.4, March 10, 2010
Generally, an agency’s evaluation under an experience factor is distinct from its
evaluation of an offeror’s past performance. Specifically, the former focuses on
the degree to which an offeror has actually performed similar work, whereas the
latter focuses on the quality of the work.
Cost/Price Evaluations
FAR 15.305(a)(1)
• Cost/Price Reasonableness
Normally evaluated and assessed under price competition; may
also be determined by other price analysis techniques such as
parametric analysis
• Cost Realism
Required for cost-reimbursement contracts, an assessment
that proposed price appropriately considers scope and degree
of effort. As elected by the contracting officer, may be
considered for other contract types such as FPIF
Other Evaluation Considerations — FAR
FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) — In solicitations that involve bundling,
past performance must include extent to which the offeror
attained applicable goals for small business.
FAR 15.304(c)(4) — Extent of participation of small
disadvantaged business concerns all be evaluated in
unrestricted acquisitions expected to exceed $650,000 ($1.5
million for construction).
FAR 15.304(c)(5) — In solicitations involving bundling that
offer significant subcontracting opportunities, include
proposed small business subcontracting participation in
the subcontracting plan as an evaluation factor.
Other Evaluation Considerations — DFARS
DFARS 15.304(c)(i) – (iv)
(i) In acquisitions that require a Small Business
Subcontracting Plan, other than LPTA, extent of
participation in performance of the contract shall be
addressed in source selection.
(ii) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2436, consider the
purchase of capital assets manufactured in the United
States, in source selections for MDAPs.
(iii) Additional evaluation factors required for the direct
purchase of ocean transportation services.
(iv) Consider the manufacturing readiness and
manufacturing-readiness processes for MDAPs.
Other Evaluation Considerations — DFARS
DFARS 215.370 Evaluation factor for employing or
subcontracting with members of the Selected Reserve.
215.370-2 Evaluation factor.
In accordance with Section 819 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163), the contracting officer may
use an evaluation factor that considers whether an offeror intends to
perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors
who are members of the Selected Reserve.
PGI 215.370-2 Evaluation factor.
(1) This evaluation factor may be used as an incentive to encourage
contractors to use employees or individual subcontractors who are
members of the Selected Reserve.
Evaluation Description in RFP
FAR 15.304(d) — All factors and significant subfactors that will affect
contract award and their relative importance shall be stated clearly in
the solicitation (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(2)(A)(i) and 41 U.S.C. 253a(b)(1)(A))
(see 15.204-5(c)). The rating method need not be disclosed in the
solicitation. The general approach for evaluating past performance
information shall be described.
FAR 15.304(e) — The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum,
whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when
combined, are—
(1) Significantly more important than cost or price;
(2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or
(3) Significantly less important than cost or price (10 U.S.C.
2305(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 41 U.S.C. 253a(c)(1)(C)).
Source Selection Evaluation Factors
Most Frequently Selected Non-cost Evaluation Factors and Their Relative
Importance in 88 Contracts Using a Tradeoff Process
GAO Report 11-8, Figure 4
“Worst Source Selection Criterion Ever”
[a] determination of price realism and reasonableness will include a determination
by the [Contracting Officer (“CO”)] that proper discounts have been offered
commensurate with maximum order thresholds for prime contractors and teaming
partners and in accordance with subcontractor arrangements. The Government
reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption or condition
that impacts or affects the Government’s requirements. . . .
Evaluation of Pricing shall be based upon the proposed single, minimum “team”
discount (expressed as a percentage) which shall be applicable to all labor
categories, labor rates, and support products contained in the awarded BPA SINs
of each team member’s GSA Schedule Contract. For price evaluation purposes,
the Government will simply compare the minimum “team” discount percentage
proposed, and will not apply the proposed discount to any of the underlying labor
rates/support products contained in any of the proposed GSA Schedule contracts.
Given this analysis, a team percentage discount of 10% will be evaluated more
favorably than a discount of 5%, regardless of the underlying labor rates and/or
support product prices resident in the proposed GSA Schedule contracts.
UNISYS Corporation V. The United States,
Court of Federal Claims, No. 09-271C
A Potential Runner Up
TABLE 2.1.a PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS
RATING
DEFINITION
SATISFACTORY
Based on the offeror's performance record, the
government has an expectation that the offeror
will successfully perform the required effort.
UNSATISFACTORY Based on the offeror's performance record, the
government has a low expectation that the offeror
will successfully perform the required effort.
FA8625-10-R-6600
Section M, Evaluation Factors for
Award, 24 Feb 2010
Evaluation Rating Schemes
• Schemes are generally categorized as
– Color
– Adjectival
– Numerical/Points (Not Generally Used)
• This information is usually not provided in
the solicitation
• DoD now requires a combination of Color
and Adjectival ratings
ALL Source Selection Rating Systems are Adjectival
Tradeoff Source Selection
Process
FAR 15.101-1 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.
(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
15.406.
Combined Technical/Risk Ratings
Technical Ratings
Technical Risk Ratings
Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Performance Confidence Assessments
Lowest Price Technically
Acceptable (LPTA) Source
Selection Process
FAR 15.101-2 Lowest Price Technically
Acceptable Source Selection Process
(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection
process is appropriate when best value is expected to result
from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the
lowest evaluated price.
(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable
process, the following apply:
(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that
establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in
the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be
made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals
meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost
factors.
(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.
(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not
ranked using the non-cost/price factors.
(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).
Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings
Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
How Do We Do That?
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
Logistics)
Aug 25 1999
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
Logistics)
Aug 25 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR BRIG GEN FRANK ANDERSON
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: Acquisition Management Training
Reference is made to the attached letter from Ron
Fox, Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Administration, George F. Baker Foundation, dated August 2,
1999. I believe (and have believed for some time) that a far
more extensive and different (I.e. much more case study
oriented) program is requiredrequired--as Ron Fox so eloquently
describes herein. I would like you to give this some serious
thought and then get together (soon) with us (including
those on distribution). It may be that the required
acquisition management “information” which now fills much
of the DSMC curriculum could be done via a program of
distance/computerdistance/computer-based learning; then the time at the
campus could be devoted to case studies (i.e. “how to”). Or,
perhaps you have some other ideas. (Obviously, Ron’s
suggestion of a 10 month program is another.)
With you just taking over, this is a great time to
address this issue.
Signed
J.S. Gansler
MEMORANDUM FOR BRIG GEN FRANK ANDERSON
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: Acquisition Management Training
Reference is made to the attached letter from Ron
Fox, Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Administration, George F. Baker Foundation, dated August 2,
1999. I believe (and have believed for some time) that a far
more extensive and different (I.e. much more case study
oriented) program is requiredrequired--as Ron Fox so eloquently
describes herein. I would like you to give this some serious
thought and then get together (soon) with us (including
those on distribution). It may be that the required
acquisition management “information” which now fills much
of the DSMC curriculum could be done via a program of
distance/computerdistance/computer-based learning; then the time at the
campus could be devoted to case studies (i.e. “how to”). Or,
perhaps you have some other ideas. (Obviously, Ron’s
suggestion of a 10 month program is another.)
“The Defense Department
has successfully conducted
without protest a number of
major program competitions
in recent years. A key
characteristic of these
competitions was an open,
on going detailed dialogue
with each bidder about their
proposal.”
With you just taking over, this is a great time to
address this issue.
Signed
J.S. Gansler
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
Logistics)
Aug 25 1999
The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
Logistics) MEMORANDUM FOR BRIG GEN FRANK ANDERSON
Aug 25 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR BRIG GEN FRANK ANDERSON
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: Acquisition Management Training
Reference is made to the attached letter from Ron
Fox, Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Administration, George F. Baker Foundation, dated August 2,
1999. I believe (and have believed for some time) that a far
more extensive and different (I.e. much more case study
oriented) program is requiredrequired--as Ron Fox so eloquently
describes herein. I would like you to give this some serious
thought and then get together (soon) with us (including
those on distribution). It may be that the required
acquisition management “information” which now fills much
of the DSMC curriculum could be done via a program of
distance/computerdistance/computer-based learning; then the time at the
campus could be devoted to case studies (i.e. “how to”). Or,
perhaps you have some other ideas. (Obviously, Ron’s
suggestion of a 10 month program is another.)
With you just taking over, this is a great time to
address this issue.
Signed
J.S. Gansler
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: Acquisition Management Training
“Communication is a key
element in the Department’s
ability to conduct reliable and
successful source
selections. We need to
encourage government
participants involved in
source selections to fully
engage with industry at all
stages of the competitive
process.”
Reference is made to the attached letter from Ron
Fox, Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Administration, George F. Baker Foundation, dated August 2,
1999. I believe (and have believed for some time) that a far
more extensive and different (I.e. much more case study
oriented) program is requiredrequired--as Ron Fox so eloquently
describes herein. I would like you to give this some serious
thought and then get together (soon) with us (including
those on distribution). It may be that the required
acquisition management “information” which now fills much
of the DSMC curriculum could be done via a program of
distance/computerdistance/computer-based learning; then the time at the
campus could be devoted to case studies (i.e. “how to”). Or,
perhaps you have some other ideas. (Obviously, Ron’s
suggestion of a 10 month program is another.)
With you just taking over, this is a great time to
address this issue.
Signed
J.S. Gansler
Source Selection Do’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain challenging goals
Use draft RFPs
Use advisory multi-step process
Limit documentation requirements
Limit the size of proposals
Make use of oral presentations
Electronic submission of cost proposals
Keep evaluation factors to a minimum
Establish small, expert evaluation panels
Determine need for audit and field pricing support
Assess proposals realistically determining competitive range
Use past performance as a key determining factor
Provide full and complete debriefings
Source Selection Don’ts
• Do not engage in “square filling”
• Do not engage in “cover your six” actions
• Do not encourage “brochuremanship”
Pre-Solicitation Process
Solicitation
Preparation
Requirement
Market Research
Acquisition
Strategy & Plan
Source
Selection
Strategy
Draft Request
for
Proposal
FedBizOpps:
Advisory Multi-Step
DRFP Release
Reading
Room
Finalize
RFP
RFP Release
Briefing to
SSA
Advertise RFP
Release
RFP Release
to Industry
UCF Format
• Part I – The Schedule.
– Section A Solicitation/contract Form.
– Section B Supplies or services and prices/costs.
– Section C Description/Specifications/Statement of Work.
(Statement of Objective (SOO), if used)
– Section D Packaging and Marking.
– Section E Inspection and Acceptance.
– Section F Deliveries or Performance.
– Section G Contract Administration data.
– Section H Special contract requirements.
UCF Format
• Part II – Contract Clauses.
– Section I Contract Clauses.
• Part III – List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments.
– Section J List of Attachments.
• Part IV – Representations and Instructions.
– Section K Representations, certifications, and other
statements of offerors or respondents.
– Section L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors
or respondents.
– Section M Evaluation factors for award. [From Source
Selection Plan (SSP)]
Document Linkage
Provided in RFP
Provided in Proposal On Contract at Award
Model
Contract
Model
Contract
Section L
Proposal
Narratives/
Volumes
Contract
Sections
A-K
IMP/IMS
SOO
SOW
Instructions
PWBS
Compliance &
Ref. Docs
SDP
Expand
Expand
Propose Additions
IMS
Section M
IMP
SDP
(Annex to IMP)
(Annex to IMP)
SOW
SOW
CWBS
CWBS
Compliance &
Ref. Docs
Compliance &
Ref. Docs
CDRLs
Add (optional)
CDRLs
CDRLs
TRD
Expand
System Level
Performance
Spec
CLINS
Expand
System Level
Performance
Spec
CLINS
CLINS
Post-Solicitation Process
(No Discussions)
Process/RFP
Release
Face-to-Face
Discussions/
Negotiations
Request Final
Proposal
Revision
Initial Evaluation
Clarifications
Limited
Communications
Receipt of
Proposals/Pres
entations
Receive & Analyze
Field Surveys
(if requested)
Receive &
Analyze
Final Proposal
Contract Award
(Distribution)
Competitive
Range
Determination
Prepare for discussions
with
Remaining Offerors
Brief
SSAC
Brief
SSA
SSA
Decision
At RFP Release
Offerors Complete Proposal Development
Example Proposal Development
Process
Proposal Complexities In Government Contracts
• Contracting With The Government Requires A Proposal Process
– Government is Sovereign With Many Laws, Rules and
Regulations
• Processes Are Necessary To Insure Compliance
• Government Contracting Relationships Are Complex
(legally)
• Competitive Acquisitions Utilize Government Procedures That
Provide For Little Flexibility
– Proposals Must be IAW Proposal Instructions, Laws,
Regulations
– Proposals Must Also Be Timely (Late proposals are rejected)
Proposal Quality
• Factors that often drive proposal quality
–
–
–
–
–
RFP and supporting document clarity
Early industry involvement
Understanding the requirement
Contractor Pre-planning (Business Development)
Proposal Development Time
(Proposal Submission Dates - RFP Instructions)
– Contractors Proposal Process
Offerors Should Understand the RFP
• Read all RFP instructions carefully
– Note page limitations
– Note organization requirements
– Note submission dates
– Note special contract requirements
Offerors Should Understand the RFP
• Seek clarification when necessary,
– Do not make assumptions
• Continuously update compliance matrix as
proposal develops
• Allow sufficient time to meet proposal due dates
– Late proposals may not be accepted
• Plan early for how your proposal will be
submitted and organized
Proposal & Contract Manager Interfaces
The Spider’s Web
Financial
Customer
Request For
Information
Sources Sought
Request
For
Proposal
Marketing &
Business
Development
Program
Manager
Divisional
Executives
Manufacturing
Corporate
Executives
Proposal Manager
--------------------Contracts Manager
Pricing Support
Legal
Project Planning
And
Scheduling
Personnel
Process
Design
Subcontract
Administrator
Engineering
Estimating
Interdepartmental
Transfers (IDT)
Subcontractors
Purchasing
Generic Proposal Process Flow Diagram
1
2
Bid/No Bid
Yes
RFP
No
Develop Program Baseline
Statement of Work
Make or Buy Decisions
Program Schedule
Work Breakdown Structure
Responsibility Matrix
Equipment List
Analyze Customer
Requirements
Dissect the
Source Selection
Evaluation Criteria
Stop
3
Determine
Estimating
Technique
IAW RFP
Develop and publish a
Proposal Plan Of Action
And
Pricing Instructions
4
Subcontract
Managers
Accomplish an
Analysis
Subcontract
Proposals
Received
IPT
Provides
Technical
Evaluation
Prepare Prime Contractor Estimates
And Rational (BOEs)
Labor, Supplier Mgt, IWA Responses
Other Direct Costs
8
7
Apply Rates And Factors
• FPRAs
• Unique Rates
Proposal
Kickoff
Meeting
5
6
IPTs (Proposal Mgrs)
Review BOEs for
sufficiency/completeness
Pricing Receives
Data and Begins
Building the
Cost
Proposal
Input into
Pricing Software
RELEASE SUBCONTRACT RFPs
Also includes materials, supplies,
Interdepartmental Transfers, etc
9
Provide Draft Proposals
(Technical, Management,
Past Performance and any other
Proposals IAW RFP Sec L & M)
Develop
Cost/Price
Develop/Integrate
Cost
Proposal
Compile the
Proposal
Packages
Cost
Technical
Management
Past Performance
(IPT Reviews)
Estimating
Manager
Reviews
Red
Teams
10
Mgt
Reviews
(Divisional
Corporate)
11
Proposal
Submission
Bid/No Bid Review Issues
• The Bid/No Bid decision is crucial as proposing on contract
actions consumes tremendous resources
• Items often addressed include:
-- Strategic Analysis
-- Customer Information
-- Capture/Win Strategy
-- Management Baseline
-- Past Performance
-- Proposal Management
-- Potential Profit/Loss
-- Financial Information
-- Competition Issues
-- Technical Baseline
-- Cost Estimating/Pricing Issues
-- Risk (Technical/Cost/Management)
-- Internal Company Considerations
Proposal Plan of Action (PPOA) Issues
• The Proposal Plan of Action (PPOA) is a critical document
that communicates proposal instructions to all proposal
participants:
– General Program Information
– Provides proposal instructions
– Provides a Proposal Schedule (individual assignments/due
dates)
– Ground Rules and Assumptions
• Describes the proposal (Cost, Technical, Mgt, Past Performance)
–
–
–
–
Reviews the Statement of Work (SOW)
Pricing Instructions (including BOE form and other instructions)
Contracting Instructions
Points of Contact (Proposal Mgr, Pricing Mgr, Contracts Mgr, etc)
(See example Proposal Plan of Action (POA))
(See example Basis of Estimate (BOE))
Proposal Checklist Issues
• Proposal Checklists help insure:
– the submission of a quality proposal
– meeting customer requirements
– complying with any internal company procedures
• Forces the review of such things as:
– Competitive (did you bid to the source selection criteria?)
– Bidding Ground rules and Assumptions
– Cost Information (methodology, spreadsheet, WBS, Cost Detail, etc.)
– Rates and Factors (DCAA Approved? Are Costs Time-Phased? etc.)
– Company Resources
– Basis of Estimates (clarity, debit/credit, documented the sources of
BOEs)
– Identifying any Proprietary Data
– Management Judgments
Sample Compliance Matrix
This matrix is included in the solicitation with the following sections completed.
DESCRIPTION
CLIN /
SECTION B
CDRL/
SECTION J
PWS/
SECTION C
SECTION L
SECTION M
Administrative Support
0001
004A2
1.1
4.3
3.1
Records Management
0002
010A2
1.1.1
4.3.1
3.1.1
Forms and Publications
0003
020A2
1.1.2
4.3.2
3.1.2
Operations & Maintenance
0004
021A2
1.2
4.4
3.2
Equipment Records
0005
053A2
1.2.1.1
4.4.2
3.2.1
Maintenance Analysis
0006
054A2
1.2.2
4.4.3
3.2.2
Price
Section B
1.5.3
4.0
6.0
5.0
Past Performance
Sample Compliance Matrix
This matrix is included in the solicitation with the following sections completed.
DESCRIPTION
CLIN /
SECTION B
CDRL/
SECTION J
PWS/
SECTION C
SECTION L
SECTION M
Administrative Support
0001
004A2
1.1
4.3
3.1
Records Management
0002
010A2
1.1.1
4.3.1
3.1.1
Forms and Publications
0003
020A2
1.1.2
4.3.2
3.1.2
Operations & Maintenance
0004
021A2
1.2
4.4
3.2
Equipment Records
0005
053A2
1.2.1.1
4.4.2
3.2.1
Maintenance Analysis
0006
054A2
1.2.2
4.4.3
3.2.2
Price
Section B
1.5.3
4.0
6.0
5.0
Past Performance
Preparer’s
Name
Due Date for
Proposal
Columns
Added by
Offeror
Offeror Proposal Review Teams Example
• Blue Team – proposal team reviewers
• Green Team – “Is my pricing and cost strategy
sound?” – Financial staff
• Red Team – Critique and take apart proposal
team efforts. Role play governments evaluation
team.
• Black Hat Team – projects what they expect
competitors to propose and they provide their
projection to the proposal team
Mechanics of Offer Submission
• Offer must be signed by individual authorized to
bind the Offeror (Sections A/L)
• Provide all information requested in the
solicitation, including all representations and
certifications (Section K)
• Adhere to page count, if any (Sections L/M)
• Provide number of copies requested (Section L)
• Submit offer on time and at place designated in
the solicitation (Sections A/L/M)
Government Actions
As Proposals Are Being
Compiled and Submitted
DoD Preparation and Planning
• Before each Sub-Factor or Factor Team opens
proposals, strongly recommend:
– Team discussion of Section M criteria and parts of the
proposal that will be reviewed for each criteria
– Proposal parts: narrative, IMP, IMS, spec, CDRL, etc.
DoD Preparation and Planning
• Read key Request for Proposals (RFP) documents
– Government Executive Summary (If used)
– Statement of Objectives (SOO)
– RFP Sections A-K, especially:
• Statement of Work/Specification (Section C)
• Delivery schedule (Section F)
• Special Contract Requirements (Section H)
– Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS Dictionary
Performance Based Statement of Work (SOW) (if used)
– Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (Data Item Descriptions
(DIDs))
DoD Preparation and Planning
• Read key Request for Proposals (RFP)
documents
– RFP Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or
Quoters
•
•
•
•
Review proposal structure table
Specifications and Technical Requirements Documents
Statement of Work (SOW) Instructions (if used)
Cost/Price Instructions
– Study Section M - Evaluation Factors/Criteria for Award
• Understand RFP threshold/objectives (if used)
• Understand how criteria relate
• Understand the uniform baseline against which each
Offeror is compared
– Understand RFP/Proposal/Contract Document Linkage
Sample Compliance Matrix
This matrix is included in the solicitation with the following sections completed.
DESCRIPTION
CLIN /
SECTION B
CDRL/
SECTION J
PWS/
SECTION C
SECTION L
SECTION
M
Administrative Support
0001
004A2
1.1
4.3
3.1
Records Management
0002
010A2
1.1.1
4.3.1
3.1.1
Forms and Publications
0003
020A2
1.1.2
4.3.2
3.1.2
Operations & Maintenance
0004
021A2
1.2
4.4
3.2
Equipment Records
0005
053A2
1.2.1.1
4.4.2
3.2.1
Maintenance Analysis
0006
054A2
1.2.2
4.4.3
3.2.2
Price
Section B
1.5.3
4.0
6.0
5.0
Past Performance
How do we evaluate?
Column
Added for
Source
Selection
Initial Evaluation Example
Generate
and Approve
ENs
Draft Proposal
Analysis Report
* Evaluation Notices (Deficiencies, Weaknesses and Clarifications)
“Rollup”
Comments
Factor Chief
& PCO
Draft ENs
Comments
Subfactor Chiefs
Evaluators
Draft ENs
Comments
• Approve ENs, Assessments
• Review Ratings (Colors, Risks, Price)
• Draft Briefing Charts
• Approve ENs, Assessments
• Draft Ratings (Colors, Prop. Risk)
Review Comments and Draft “Assessments”
• Disregard w/disposition
• Combine w/other comments
• Modify with rationale
Draft ENs, based in part, on Advisor Comments
= Feedback
Advisors
(Advisor) Comments
With “Suggested Questions”
Comment Form
2
1
3
4
5
Mar 01 version
Assessment Form
Jan 01 version
Evaluation Notice Form
1
2
3
4
Mar 01 version
Integrating Ratings
Core Team: SSEB Chair, Factor Chiefs, Sub-Factor Chiefs, PCO, Recorder (admin)
Offeror A
TR
G
R
Y
G
B
Y
L
HC
MC TR & RR
Teams
Y
PROPOSAL RISK
H
M
M
M
L
CONFIDENCE
C
C
SC
C
PAST PERFORMANCE
PRICE OR COST
$ PRICE / $ PC
C
Offeror B
RR
L
L
H
M
M
M
L
HC
PCAG
SUB
SAT
CONFIDENCE
LIM
SUB
MISSION CAPABILITY
Y
G
Y
PROPOSAL RISK
M
M
L
M
L
CONFIDENCE
SC
C
SC
C
PAST PERFORMANCE
PRICE OR COST
$ PRICE / $ PC
C
Offeror C
SAT
LIM
L
SUB = Substantial Confidence
SAT – Satisfactory Confidence
LIM = Limited Confidence
NO = No Confidence
UN = Unknown Confidence
HC
PRICE =$Ms /Preliminary PC at Comp Range = $Ms
PRICE = $Ms/Probable Cost (PC) at Decision = $Ms
MISSION CAPABILITY
Y
Y
PROPOSAL RISK
M
H
M
L
L
CONFIDENCE
C
HC
C
SC
PAST PERFORMANCE
PRICE OR COST
$ PRICE / $ PC
C
Offeror D
MISSION CAPABILITY
L
Cost
Team
MISSION CAPABILITY
R
Y
PROPOSAL RISK
M
L
M
M
M
SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE
HC SC SC SC SC
C
PAST PERFORMANCE
PRICE OR COST
$ PRICE / $ PC
Exchanges with Industry After Receipt of Proposals
• Clarifications and award without discussions
• Communications with offerors before
establishment of the competitive range
• Exchanges with offerors after establishment of
the competitive range
• Limits on exchanges
DoD Source Selection Joint Analysis Team (JAT)
Recommended Change to DFARS
DFAR 215.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
(c) Competitive range.
(1) For acquisitions with an estimated value of $100 million or more,
contracting officers should conduct discussions. Follow the procedures at
FAR 15.306 (c) and (d).
• Significant positive correlation between high-dollar value source
selections conducted without discussions and protests sustained.
– Improve Quality
– Reduce Turbulence
– Improves industry’s understanding of solicitation
requirements
– Improve Government’s understanding of industry issues
• May increase time to complete source selection
Example Decision Phase
Source
Selection
Evaluation
Board
SSA or
Contracting
Officer Calls
Offerors
Brief
SSAC
Notify
Congress
Source
Selection
Advisory
Council
SSAC Develop
Recommendation
SSA
Decision
Debriefings
Brief
SSA
Price Differentials in Tradeoff Decisions
Price Differentials in the 68 DOD Contracts Reviewed in Which a Tradeoff
Analysis Was Conducted
GAO Report 11-8, Figure 5
Source Selection Decision
“The source selection authority’s (SSA) decision shall be
based on a comparative assessment of proposals against
all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the
SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others,
the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s
independent judgment.”
Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.308
Source Selection Decision Document
“The source selection decision shall be documented, and
the documentation shall include the rationale for any
business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by
the SSA, including benefits associated with additional
costs. Although the rationale for the selection must be
documented, that documentation need not quantify the
tradeoffs that led to the decision.”
Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.308
Source Selection Decision Documentation
“Contrary to Contracting Officer Shivers' position, the destruction of the
individual TEP members‘ score sheets is barred by the FAR provisions.
The current contract file for the challenged procurement does not
“constitute a complete history of the transaction,” FAR § 4.801(b)
(emphasis added), nor does it “[f]urnish[ ] essential facts in the event of
litigation.” FAR § 4.801(b)(4). FAR § 4.801(b) expressly refers to § 4.803,
which provides “examples of the records normally contained ... in contract
files.” FAR § 4.803. Specifically, the record as submitted does not contain
all “[s]ource selection documentation,” as required by FAR § 4.803(a)(13).”
“Contracting Officer Shivers' destruction of the rating sheets raises issues
of spoliation of evidence. “ ‘Spoliation is the destruction or significant
alteration of evidence, or failure to preserve property for another's use as
evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.’ ” See United
Med. Supply Co. v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 257, 263 (2007) (quoting West
v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir.1999)).”
Pitney Bowes Government Solutions v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 10-257C
Filed Under Seal: May 28, 2010.
Contract Award
•
•
•
•
Affirmative Responsibility Determination
Contract award
Notification of unsuccessful offerors
Debriefings
Not all solicitations result in contract award.
Solicitations may be cancelled prior to award.
Debriefings of Unsuccessful Offerors
• May be done orally or in writing
• Minimum information to be provided
– Government’s evaluation of significant weaknesses and
deficiencies in the proposal
– Overall evaluated cost/price and technical rating of
successful and debriefed offerors
– Overall ranking of all offerors, if created
– Summary rationale for award
• Make and model of commercial items
• Reasonable responses to relevant questions
Debriefing Timelines & Rules
• 3 Days -- Written request for debriefing
• 5 Days -- Debriefing
• An offeror excluded from the competition, but failed to
submit a timely request, is not entitled to a debriefing.
• Untimely debriefing requests may be accommodated.
• Government accommodation of a request for delayed
debriefing or any untimely debriefing request, does not
automatically extend the deadlines for filing protests.
• Debriefings delayed pursuant to 15.505(a)(2) could
affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to
the debriefing.
Release of Data
• No person or other entity may disclose
contractor bid or proposal information or source
selection information to any person other than a
person authorized, in accordance with
applicable agency regulations or procedures.
• Contractor bid or proposal information and
source selection information must be protected
from unauthorized disclosure
FAR Based Protests Forums
• Agency
• Government Accountability Office *
• United States Court of Federal Claims
* When the agency receives notice of a protest from the
GAO within 10 days after contract award or within 5 days
after a debriefing date offered to the protester for any
debriefing that is required by 15.505 or 15.506, whichever
is later, the contracting officer shall immediately suspend
performance or terminate the awarded contract . . . .
Protests
Interested
Parties
Agency
(PCO)
Court of Appeals
for Fed Circuit
GAO
Court of
Federal
Claims
FY
2008
FY
2007
FY
2006
FY
2005
FY
2013
FY
2012
Cases Filed
2561
2429
2,475 2,353 2,299 1,989 1,652 1,411 1,327 1,356
Cases Closed
2458
2538
2,495 2,292 2,226 1,920 1,581 1,394 1,274 1,341
Merit (Sustain +
Deny) Decisions
556
509
570
417
441
315
291
335
249
306
Number of
Sustains
72
87
106
67
82
57
60
91
72
71
Sustain Rate
13%
17%
18.6%
16%
19%
18%
21 % 27 % 29 %
23 %
Effectiveness
Rate
43%
43%
42%
42%
42%
45%
42 % 38 % 39 %
37 %
96
145
106
140
159
149
83%
86%
80%
82%
80%
93%
78 % 85 % 96 % 91 %
8%
10%
12%
6%
GAO
ADR Cases
ADR Success
Rate
Hearings
4.70% 3.36% 6.17%
FY
2011
FY
FY
2010 2009
FY
2014
78
62
8%
91
11 %
103
8%
DoD Protests
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
Protests
Sustained
400
200
0
DOD Contract Actions and Protests
Note: In Fiscal Year 2005 the contract action reporting threshold was
significantly reduced, resulting in a jump in reported contract actions.
123
Ethics in Source Selection
Procurement Ethics and Transparency
• Ethics and Procurement Integrity Laws
– Protection of contractor bid or proposal information
– Protection of source selection information
– Disqualification from participation
• Transparency
– Contract award decisions based on factors and
significant subfactors in the solicitation
– No special advantage given to specific interest groups
(e.g., Congressional District, Coalition Partners)
Operation Ill Wind
• Conviction of 46 individuals and 6 defense corporations
• Fines and penalties totaling $190 million
• Unisys pleaded guilty to an eight-count felony indictment
– Fraud
– Bribery
– Illegal campaign contributions
• More than a dozen former Unisys executives and defense
consultants admitted to unlawful activities
• Melvyn R. Paisley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 4 year
sentence and $ 50,000 fine
• Victor Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
• Litton Systems, Aydin Corp., Comptek Research, and others
protest various Ill Wind-related contract awards.
• Procurement Integrity Act
Darleen Druyun
Former Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force,
Acquisition and Management
and
Former Vice-President Boeing
Missile Defense Systems
Michael Sears
Former Boeing Chief Financial Officer
• Nine months in federal prison
• Seven months in a community facility
• 150 hours of community service
• $ 5,000 fine
• Four months in federal prison
• 200 hours of community service
• Fined $250,000
Back -Up