The objectives of peer reviews are to—

(a) Ensure that DoD contracting officers are implementing policy and regulations in a consistent and appropriate manner;

(b) Continue to improve the quality of contracting processes throughout DoD; and

(c) Facilitate cross-sharing of best practices and lessons learned throughout DoD DPCAP maintains a compilation of peer review lessons learned and best practices that is available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/peer-reviews.html for competitive peer reviews and at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/docs/ss-peer-reviews/Sole-Source-Peer-Reviews-Best-Practices-V1.0-14June21.pdf for noncompetitive peer reviews.

(a) Pre-award peer reviews for competitive acquisitions shall be conducted prior to each of the following three phases of the acquisition:

(1) Issuance of the solicitation.

(2) Request for final proposal revisions (if applicable).

(3) Contract award.

(b) Pre-award peer reviews for non-competitive acquisitions shall be conducted prior to each of the following two phases of the acquisition:

(1) Negotiation.

(2) Contract award.

(a) The results and recommendations that are products of peer reviews are intended to be advisory in nature; however, in the event the Peer Review report includes a recommendation that is identified as “significant” and the contracting officer does not intend to follow that recommendation, the senior procurement official of the contracting activity for the reviewed organization must be made aware of this fact before action is taken (or inaction, as applicable) that is contrary to the recommendation. Reviews will be conducted in a manner that preserves the authority, judgment, and discretion of the contracting officer and the senior officials of the requiring activity.

(b) Peer review teams should be comprised of senior contracting officials and attorneys as appropriate. Teams may include civilian employees or military personnel external to the department, agency, or component that is the subject of the peer review.

(c) Reviews are generally, conducted remotely. However, a peer review may be conducted at the location of the executing contracting organization when appropriate.

(d) A list of the documents that must be made available to the competitive peer review team, along with the specific elements the team will examine, is provided at paragraph (g) of this PGI section. A list of the documents that must be made available to the noncompetitive peer review team, along with a link to the noncompetitive peer review preparation checklist, is provided at paragraph (h) of this PGI section.

(e) The review team observations and recommendations will be communicated to the contracting officer and the senior procurement official immediately upon completion of a review.

(f) The contracting officer shall document the disposition of all peer review recommendations (i.e., state whether the recommendation will be followed and, if not, why not) as a signed memorandum for the record in the applicable contract file. For competitive acquisitions, the contracting officer shall submit this memorandum to osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.dpc-cp@mail.mil prior to the next phase peer review or prior to contract award for phase 3 reviews. For noncompetitive acquisitions, the contracting officer shall submit this memorandum to osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.dpc-pcf@mail.mil prior to the phase 2 review or prior to contract award for phase 2 reviews.

(g) Competitive acquisition preaward peer review required documents and elements. Submit any required peer review documents to osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.dpc-cp@mail.mil.

(1) Required documents. At a minimum, peer review teams shall have access to the following documents, as applicable, at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled date of a peer review:

(i) The most recent acquisition decision memorandum for the program.

(ii) The acquisition strategy, or acquisition plan.

(iii) The source selection plan.

(iv) The draft for phase 1 or final request for proposals (RFP) and all amendments, with a synopsis of what, if any, RFP requirements (technical and contractual) were changed and why.

(v) The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) analysis and findings to ensure the evaluation of offers was consistent with the source selection plan and RFP criteria.

(vi) Any meeting minutes memorializing discussions between the Government and offerors.

(vii) All evaluation notices generated as a result of deficiencies in the offerors’ proposals as well as the offerors’ responses to those evaluation notices.

(viii) All minutes memorializing the conduct of source selection advisory council (SSAC) deliberations held to date.

(ix) The offerors’ responses to the request for final proposal revision.

(x) The final SSAC deliberation.

(xi) The final source selection authority (SSA) determination and source selection decision.

(xii) Award/incentive fee arrangements, documentation of any required head of the contracting activity determinations and findings regarding non-availability of objective criteria.

(2) Peer review teams may make recommendations on any aspect of the procurement, including the following:

(i) The process was well understood by both Government and Industry.

(ii) Source selection was carried out in accordance with the source selection plan and RFP.

(iii) The SSEB evaluation was clearly documented.

(iv)The SSAC advisory panel recommendation was clearly documented.

(v) The SSA decision was clearly derived from the conduct of the source selection process.

(vi) All source selection documentation is consistent with the Section M evaluation criteria.

(vii)The business arrangement.

(h) Noncompetitive acquisition preaward peer review required documents and noncompetitive peer review preparation checklist. Submit any required peer review documents to osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.dpc-pcf@mail.mil.

(1) Required documents. At a minimum, peer review teams shall have access to the following documents, as applicable, at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled date of a peer review:

(i) Preliminary price negotiation memorandum/business clearance for phase 1 or price negotiation memorandum/business clearance for phase 2, including all listed attachments.

(ii) Summary documents to support a discussion of salient aspects of the acquisition, e.g., business/contract clearance charts. Special charts do not need to be developed for the peer review.

(iii) The anticipated or negotiated language of clauses affecting the price or the business arrangement, e.g., economic price adjustment, performance-based payments, incentive or award-fee/award-term provisions, terms establishing price adjustment when using demand bands, reopener clauses, exchange rate clauses, or other clauses.

(iv) Award-fee plan and documentation of any required head of the contracting activity determination and findings regarding nonavailability of objective criteria (see FAR 16.401(e)(1));

(v) Defense Contract Audit Agency audits and Defense Contract Management Agency technical and/or price analyses, upon request.

(vi) The proposed performance-based payments schedule and Government analysis, if use of performance-based payments is contemplated.

(vii) Any other documents deemed necessary by the review team.

(2) Noncompetitive peer review checklist. The noncompetitive peer review preparation checklist is available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/docs/ss-peer-reviews/Sole-Source-Peer-Review-Preparation-and-Checklist-8Apr21.pdf . The checklist identifies frequently addressed areas of emphasis. It is recommended that acquisition teams review these listed areas of interest in advance of releasing a request for proposal.