Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

AFARS Appendix AA

AFARS — Appendix AA

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A__________________________LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS (No Army Text)

APPENDIX B__________________________DEBRIEFING GUIDE (No Army Text)

APPENDIX D__________________________PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDIX E__________________________ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROPOSALS

APPENDIX F__________________________USING CURRENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE AS A SOURCE SELECTION FACTOR

APPENDIX G__________________________PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX H__________________________SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

APPENDIX I__________________________COST REALISM ANALYSIS

APPENDIX J__________________________ON-LINE REVERSE AUCTIONS

APPENDIX K__________________________SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION TEMPLATES

SAMPLE/TEMPLATE PAGE(S)

- Determination and Findings (D&F) for Authority K-2 through K-4

to Use Non-Government Advisors in Source Selections

- Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award and Post Award) K-5 through K-8

- Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter K-9

- Source Selection Appointment Letters and K-10 through K-22

Responsibilities

- Source Selection Decision Document K-23 through K-28

- Source Selection Plan (Cost or FFP with SSAC)* K-29 through K-92

- Sample Task Used In Source Selection K-93 through K-95

* This template may also be used for Source Selections that do not utilize a SSAC. In such cases, eliminate references to SSAC in these documents.

Defense Acquisition Guidebook;

The Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) is a comprehensive source selection resource, which sets forth best practices that promote source selection flexibility and consistency in Army source selections. The AS3 is not a stand-alone document and shall be used in conjunction with FAR Part 15 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures as a supplementary guide. Any conflicts shall be resolved through normal chain of command procedures. It applies to best value, negotiated, competitive source selections; it may also be used as guidance in all other acquisitions. See DoD Source Selection Procedures at 1.3, page 2 for exceptions. The extent to which you will use the processes and techniques described in this supplement will depend upon the complexity and dollar value of the specific acquisition and your available resources. When using the AS3, apply prudent business sense to tailor the processes to fit your circumstances.

Any request for waiver of the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be submitted by the cognizant Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC), through the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement) (DASA(P)), Attn: SAAL-PP. DASA(P) will process all waivers and forward those as required, to the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) for approval/denial.

Overview


Key Components of the SST

SSEB

SSA

Contracting Officer

(Business Advisor)

SSAC

Other Advisors

(e.g., Legal Counsel, SB Advisor, Technical Experts)

Chairperson

Technical Team

Evaluates

Technical Requirements & Risk

Cost Team

Evaluates Cost/Price

Past Performance Team

Evaluates Past Performance

Small Business Team

Evaluates Small Business


Each of these SST entities has distinct and compartmented functions (See Figure 1-2). The SSEB is usually comprised of multiple groups of evaluators who are responsible for evaluating specific areas of the proposal against the request for proposal (RFP) requirements. The precise structure of the SSEB is a matter within the SSA’s discretion. Figure 1-3 illustrates a typical SST for an acquisition with a total estimated value of $100M or more.

On ACAT I/II Source Selections involving requirements organizations from across the Army (or from other services on joint-service programs), the SSAC must include representation from all significant requirements organizations and the SSAC representatives must be at an organization and grade level commensurate with the other members of the SSAC, usually military 0-6/GS-15 or higher.

● Roles and Responsibilities of SST Members

1. Source Selection Authority. The SSA shall ensure that the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and evaluation criteria are consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and applicable regulations.

NOTE: The identity of the SSA shall be considered procurement sensitive and shall not be disclosed to anyone who has not signed a non-disclosure agreement for that solicitation.

2. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will:

b. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

3. Source Selection Advisory Council. The SSAC will:

a. Meet and discuss evaluation findings with appropriate members, as required.

b. Before the PCO issues the Request for Final Proposal Revisions, meet with the SSA to determine that meaningful discussions with offerors have been concluded.

c. Identify discriminating evaluation findings for each offeror in the written comparative analysis and award recommendation to aid the SSA in the selection process.

d. Review the source selection decision document for the SSA’s signature, if requested by the SSA.

4. Source Selection Evaluation Board. The SSEB will:

a. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

b. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

c. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

1. The SSAC will consist of senior Government personnel including a person from the cognizant contracting office to advise the SSAC.

2. The SSEB will consist of a Chairperson, and as necessary, a Deputy Chairperson, Factor Chairpersons, Subfactor Chairpersons, and evaluators.

a. SSEB Chairperson - The SSEB Chairperson is also required to review all aspects of all proposals and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of competitive proposals in an impartial and equitable manner. The SSEB Chairperson is also responsible for the following:

(i) Assure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

(ii) Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

(iii) Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

(iv) Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, authorized, and approved.

(v) Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

(vi) Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

(vii) Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

(viii) Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

(ix) Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

(x) Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

(xi) Secure source selection Non-Disclosure Agreements and conflict of interest statements from all members participating in the source selection per the DoD Source Selection Procedures found in 1.4.1.2.6.

Administrative Support Considerations


Acquisition planning is the process by which the Government coordinates and integrates the efforts of all personnel responsible for an acquisition through a comprehensive plan. Its purpose is to satisfy an agency’s needs in the most effective, economical and timely manner and should address how the Government will manage the acquisition through all phases of the acquisition life cycle.

Acquisition planning should start when an agency identifies a need for supplies, construction and/or services. When practical, utilize an Integrated Product Team (IPT) approach to develop the acquisition strategy. This early teaming effort will reduce false starts and resultant delays that frequently accompany the preparation of a complex procurement.

● Performing Market Research

Examples of Market Research Techniques


● Use general sources of information available from the market place, Government sources, and Internet.

● Contact knowledgeable individuals regarding market capabilities and business practices, include Small Business Advisor.

● Review the results of recent market research.

● Query Government and/or commercial data bases.

● Participate in interactive, on-line communication.

● Review catalogs and product literature.

● Selection of Evaluation Factors


Factors and subfactors must:

● be definable and measurable in readily understood quantitative and/or qualitative terms,

● represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision, and

● be limited to the essential elements that will enable you to distinguish among the proposals; i.e., will be true discriminators.


● Mandatory Evaluation Considerations


You must address the technical quality of the product or service through one or more non-cost evaluation factors; e.g.:

● technical excellence,

● management capability,

● key personnel qualifications.


In every source selection, you must evaluate cost/price and the quality of the proposed product or service. Additionally, you must evaluate past performance on all negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the thresholds identified in FAR 15.304, unless the PCO documents why it would not be appropriate (Appendix F). The contracting officer’s belief that all past performance ratings will be the same is not a basis for this exception. There may be other required evaluation factors, such as small business participation, based upon regulatory and/or statutory requirements (see FAR 15.304 and its supplements). From this point, apply prudent business judgment to add other evaluation factors, subfactors and elements that are important to selecting the most advantageous proposal(s). You have broad discretion in determining these other factors, subfactors and elements and their relative importance. The number of factors and subfactors should be kept to the absolute minimum required to effectively assess the proposals.

Remember that not everything that an offeror will have to provide or perform under the contract is a discriminator in selecting the best value proposal. It is of utmost importance to limit the evaluation factors and subfactors to those that warrant a comparative evaluation in a particular area. Adding non-discriminators will dilute the importance of the true discriminators, make proposal preparation more burdensome, require more evaluators, and increase the evaluation time. Limiting factors also serves to reduce the evaluation oversight span-of-control responsibilities of the SSEB leadership, SSA/SSAC, PCO and legal staff, thereby permitting more focused oversight on the remaining (and most important) factors/subfactors and reducing the likelihood of evaluation errors.

Common evaluation factors are cost/price, technical, past performance, and small business participation. Additionally, as appropriate, you may have other evaluation factors and/or may use one or more levels of subfactors. The standard Army naming convention for the various levels is: Evaluation Factor – Subfactor – and Element. Figure 2-4 illustrates a sample evaluation factor structure. More evaluation factors are often a net negative. Use caution when subdividing factors into multiple levels of subfactors since they further diminish the importance of any one aspect of the factor and introduces unnecessary complexity into the source selection process. This can also lead to closely rated proposals with little discrimination among competitors and no distinction among criteria that drive performance and criteria that have no real impact.


Figure 2-4: Sample Structure of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors



Subfactor 2













Element 3



Element 2



Small Business Participation Factor



Technical Factor



Cost Factor



Past Performance Factor











Subfactor 1







Element 1


Developing Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

As practical, use a multi-disciplined team to develop the evaluation factors and any appropriate subfactors. The team should select the factors and subfactors based on user requirements, acquisition objectives, perceived risks, and thorough market research. Figure 2-5 illustrates the steps involved in developing the factors and subfactors. Before finalizing the evaluation criteria on major hardware acquisitions, a multi-disciplined team must crosswalk the draft criteria against the program's Requirements and Risk Management documentation to ensure that the evaluation criteria development process has appropriately considered the program's key risks. RFP amendment changes to Sections L and M must cross-map to the Source Selection Plan and be approved by the SSA prior to issuance of the amendment.

● Conduct risk analysis in accordance with FAR 7.105 necessary to support the acquisition.

● Brainstorm critical factors and subfactors.

● Identify key discriminators.

● Define the discriminators as evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative order of importance.

● Obtain SSA approval of the list of factors and subfactors.

● When a draft RFP is used, clearly inform offerors in the draft RFP of the proposed factors and subfactors and their relative importance.

n Assess feedback during presolicitation exchanges.

n Get SSA approval as necessary to change the factors and subfactors before issuing the RFP.


● Evaluation Relative Importance

When using the tradeoff process, you must assign relative importance to each evaluation factor and subfactor. Tailor the relative importance to your specific requirements.


The Technical, Past Performance and the Small Business Participation Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Technicalis significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation, which are equal. The Past Performance and Small Business Participation Factors are more important than the Cost Factor.



Figure 2-6

Sample Priority Statement


Use priority statements to express the relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors. Priority statements relate one evaluation factor (or subfactor) to each of the other evaluation factors (or subfactors). Figure 2-6 contains a sample priority statement. Numerical weighting, i.e., assigning points or percentages to the evaluation factors and subfactors, is NOT an authorized method of expressing the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors (see AFARS 5115.304(b)(2)(D)).

Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e), you must identify in the RFP whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are –

n approximately equal to cost or price, or

n significantly less important than cost or price.

Establishing the Rating Methodology

Utilize the rating methodologies and associated definitions as set forth in Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for factors and subfactors.

Methodology 1. For any “Technical” Factor (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance), the most suitable rating methodology for most Army source selections is Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.1). This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process.

Methodology 2. When applying Methodology 2 (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2), Weaknesses, Risks, and Uncertainties are captured under the Technical Risk Rating (which also considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance). For firm-fixed price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions. Strengths and Deficiencies are captured under the Technical Rating.

Access to the Source Selection Plan

The plan is source selection information, as defined by FAR 2.101. You will not disclose source selection information to any person not authorized to receive the information. Normally, only SST members and personnel from the responsible contracting activity with a need to know are authorized access to the plan. Development of the SSP is managed by the Contracting Officer and the requirements office. The SSA must approve access to anyone outside the SST and the recipient(s) must sign a non-disclosure agreement. All source selection information will be marked in accordance with FAR 3.104-4(c).

However, the evaluation factors and significant subfactors and their relative importance will eventually become public knowledge, as they become part of the solicitation. The PCO will put them into Sections L and M (or equivalent) of the solicitation exactly as they appear in the SSP.

Source Selection for Services

Generating the SSP for a services type source selection offers some unique challenges to organizations and to the SST conducting the evaluation. For instance, Past Performance is frequently a major factor in the evaluation of services and usually ranks as the first or second most heavily weighted factor. As with all source selections, organizations shall take great care in providing qualified personnel to the SST, who are knowledgeable in the types of services being acquired.

The use of Sample Tasks is an effective tool in the evaluation of services (see Chapter 5 for a definition of Sample Task and Appendix K for an example of a Sample Task). They can provide a reasonable basis to assess the relative cost of the competing proposals, but only to the extent they are representative of the contract work. However, care must be taken to draft the sample tasks as closely as possible to the types of services being acquired and to limit the evaluation criteria to essential areas. This will provide the SSA with a meaningful understanding of the cost or price implications of making award to one or another concern.

● Format

● Small Business Participation

● Common Problems with the RFP Process

Inconsistency among the RFP and Related Documents -- It is critical that there be alignment between the RFP and related documents. It is particularly important that there be consistency between the SSP and the RFP. Figure 2-6 illustrates how the key documents and evaluation standards track to one another and shows the recommended sequencing for document preparation.

Inconsistencies Within the RFP -- Particularly troublesome are inconsistencies between the descriptions of the Government’s requirements, instructions on how to prepare a proposal, and information related to the evaluation factors and subfactors. These inconsistencies may be caused by different groups of people developing the different RFP sections without proper coordination. Such inconsistencies can result in less advantageous offers, necessitate changes to the RFP, cause delays in the acquisition, lead to offerors losing confidence in the process, or result in litigation.

Requesting Too Much Information from the Offerors -- The instructions for preparing and submitting proposals are critical to an acquisition. There has to be a link between solicitation requirements and objectives, each evaluation factor and subfactor, and the proposal preparation instructions. Request only the essential information needed to evaluate proposals against the evaluation factors and subfactors. Never ask for information you do not intend to evaluate. Instructions that require voluminous information can cause potential offerors to forego responding to the solicitation in favor of a less costly business opportunity. Furthermore, excessively large proposals may increase the time and costs associated with performing the evaluation. Proposal page limitations or page recommendations are encouraged but need to be clearly defined and tailored to the needs of the acquisition (See Appendix K). Focus exclusively on discriminators. Failure to do so compromises the ability to identify the best value proposal.

WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS)

SPECIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENET (PWS)

EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION






 





 

WBS

SPECIFICATION

PWS

PROPOSAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

Factor - Technical

Subfactor - Software Modification Approach

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

3.1 Systems Engineering

3.1.1 Software Engineering

3.1.1.1 Software Modification

3.1.1.2 Code

3.1.1.3 Software Documentation

Software code shall meet the computer software design and coding requirements as defined in International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000-3.

3.1.1. The contractor shall modify, integrate and test software as specified in

the system Specification.

3.1.1.3 The contractor shall prepare a software modification plan.

The offeror's software modification

approach will be evaluated relative to the modified software’s ability to accommodate open architecture, tracking accuracy, and reliability.

The offeror will describe its approach to software modification and explain how the software will accommodate open architecture, conforms to ISO-9000-3, tracks accurately, and maintains reliability.

Unnecessary Use of Design Requirements -- Presentation of the Government’s requirements in the RFP can have a significant impact on a source selection using the tradeoff process. Use of detailed design requirements or overly prescriptive performance work statements severely limits the offerors’ flexibility to propose their best solutions. Instead, use functional or performance-based requirements to the maximum extent practicable. While it may be more difficult to develop evaluation criteria and conduct the evaluation process using this approach, the benefits warrant it. These benefits include increased competition, access to the best commercial technology, better technical solutions, and fewer situations for protests.

● Ways to Improve the RFP Process

Ř Maximize the use of appropriate contractual incentives to ensure the resultant contract(s) represents an effective business relationship.

● Independent Management Reviews (“Peer Reviews”)

Pre-award Peer Reviews will 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) and (3) contract award. See AFARS 5101.170(b)(1) for specific requirements.

Reference DFARS 201.170, DFARS PGI 201.1 and AFARS 5101.170 Peer Reviews.

● Evaluation Steps

Figure 3-1

Sample Audit Sheet

Figure 3-2

Methodology 1 Sample Summary Evaluation Form

SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM

RFP No:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL REFERENCES:

VOLUME/PARAGRAPH:

SUBFACTOR:

PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U))

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Discussions: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

RATIONALE: Include supporting narrative rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation rating definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Also include any evaluation notices. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any identified risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the identified risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Address the identified risks associated with the deficiency.)

UNCERTAINTIES:

EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency, and uncertainty.

Figure 3-3

Comparison of Price, Cost, Cost Realism, and Profit Analyses

 

Price Analysis

Cost Analysis

Cost Realism Analysis

Profit/Fee Analysis

What is it?

The process of examining and evaluating an offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee.

Price analysis always involves some type of comparison with other prices; e.g., comparing an offeror’s proposed price with the proposed prices of competing offerors or with previously proposed prices for the same or similar items.

The review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit/fee in an offeror’s proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.

The process of indepen- dently evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s cost estimate to determine whether the estimated cost elements are:

    realistic for the work to be performed;

    reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

    are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

The probable cost estimate is a product of a cost realism analysis.

The process of examining the proposed profit or fee to determine if it is reasonable in light of the associated risks.

DFARS 215.404-4 contains DoD’s policy on performing profit or fee analysis.

When must you perform it?

When cost and pricing data is not required to determine if the overall price is fair and reasonable.

Price realism may be performed to determine that the price offered is consistent with the effort proposed.

When cost or pricing data is required.

Also you may use it to evaluate information other than cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness or cost realism.

When cost-reimbursement contracts are anticipated.

Also you may use it on fixed price (FP) incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive FP contracts when the offerors may not fully understand new requirements, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality/service shortfalls.

When cost analysis is performed.

Following are some general evaluation guidelines and recommendations for evaluating cost/price:

● While interchange between the SSEB factor teams is permissible with the approval of the SSEB Chairperson and the PCO, it is necessary to protect the cost/price data to avoid intentional or unintentional bias on the part of the evaluators. To preclude prejudice, in most cases you should disclose cost/price information to the non-cost evaluators only after the initial non-cost/price evaluations are complete. To the extent required, the SSEB chairperson and the PCO shall manage the sharing of cost information to include information required to conduct cost realism analysis. In all cases, provide copies of the proposed BOEs without costs (or prices) to the non-cost evaluators so that they can ensure the proposed BOEs track to the associated technical narrative. The Cost Factor should include a requirement in section L of the RFP that requires offerors to provide a cross-walk in their cost volume that reconciles by page reference the proposed Statement of Work by CLIN in the technical volume with the proposed Basis of Estimates by CLIN in their cost volume.

● When conducting price analysis, consider not only the total price, including options, but also the prices for the individual CLINS to ensure they are not unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. The PCO with concurrence of the SSA (and if permitted by the RFP) may reject the offer if they determine that this poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. For more information on unbalanced pricing, see FAR 15.404-1(g).

If cost realism is performed, the cost evaluators will identify and consider cost risks as part of that process. This risk is not scored. Cost realism analysis results in a probable cost estimate. The difference between the estimated cost and the probable cost estimate provides the evaluators with insight into the risk associated with performance from a cost perspective. The larger the difference between the cost proposed and the probable cost estimate, the larger the risk that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

● When conducting a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (MA IDIQ) competition, and in order to perform a meaningful evaluation of cost/price within the confines of the Competition in Contracting Act, key proposed IDIQ prices (i.e., labor rates, indirect rates, specific tasks, prices on a bidding schedule) must be binding and incorporated into resultant contract awards. Binding rates/prices must be included for base and all option periods. This assessment is not satisfied by the promise that cost/price will be considered later during the award of individual task or delivery orders.

● In some cases, where you are using lowest price technically acceptable as basis for award, you may find it beneficial to utilize on-line reverse auctions as a pricing tool. See Appendix J for more information on this tool.

During exchanges with offerors, the Government may not:

● favor one offeror over another,

● reveal an offeror’s solution to another offeror,

● reveal an offeror’s price to another offer without that offeror’s permission,

● knowingly disclose source selection information, or

● reveal the name of individuals providing past performance information.


Conducting Exchanges with Offerors

Figure 3-5

Comparison of Types of Exchanges (After Receipt of Proposals)

 

Clarifications

Communications

Negotiations/Discussions

When They Occur

Limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors when award WITHOUT discussions is contemplated

When award WITH discussions is contemplated -- prior to establishing the competitive range

May only be held with those offerors (other than offerors under FAR 15.306 (b)(1)(i)) whose exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain.

After establishing the competitive range

Note: The term “negotiations” applies to both competitive and non-competitive acquisitions. In competitive acquisitions, negotiations are also called discussions.

Scope of the Exchanges

Most limited of the three types of exchanges

Limited; similar to fact finding

Most detailed and extensive

Purpose

To clarify certain aspects of proposals

To enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposal by addressing issues that must be explored to allow a reasonable interpretation of the offeror’s proposal to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the competitive range

To allow the offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal so that the Government obtains the best value, based on the requirement and applicable evaluation factors

Examples of Topics of Exchanges

    Relevance of an offeror’s past performance

    Adverse past performance information

    Resolution of minor or clerical errors.

    Ambiguities or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes)

    Relevance of an offeror’s past performance

    Adverse past performance information

Examples of potential discussion topics include the identification of all evaluated deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.

Are Resultant Proposal Revisions Allowed?

No

No

Yes

● Conducting Clarifications

● Conducting Communications

● Establishing the Competitive Range

Based on the language of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Establishing the competitive range results in greater efficiency by limiting the number of offerors with whom you must hold discussions.

Figure 3-6: Development of the Competitive Range


Step 1:
Identify the most highly rated proposals. (Note: If there is only one proposal falling within the competitive range, ensure the evaluation factors and subfactors are not too restrictive and the procurement is truly competitive. The single proposal must meet the requirements of the RFP.)

Step 2: If these proposals exceed the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted and the RFP allows restricting the competitive range, limit the competitive range to the greatest number of proposals that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In such a case, the basis for this further restriction must be adequately documented. However, consider the following before doing so:

The expected dollar value of the award,

The complexity of the acquisition and solutions proposed, and

The extent of available resources.

Step 3: Obtain the SSA’s approval of the competitive range.

Step 4: Document the competitive range determination and the supporting rationale.

Step 5: Promptly send written notification to the offeror(s) whose proposal is excluded from the competitive range.


● After Establishment of the Competitive Range

The PCO will confirm information obtained through discussions by requesting or allowing proposal revisions, as appropriate, from offerors who are within the competitive range and still eligible for selection. The PCO should require offerors to submit written proposal changes resulting from discussions before requesting final proposal revisions. As necessary, this will allow you to conduct further discussions before the final cutoff date. After receipt of the offerors' responses to all the issues raised during discussions, the SSEB must re-evaluate proposals. Responses based on final proposal revisions (FPRs) must be evaluated/rated again in the same manner as in the initial evaluation.

The PCO shall obtain contract clearance approval as part of the Peer Review process, prior to releasing the request for final proposal revisions (FPR) (required for acquisitions equal to or greater than $1B). The PCO must notify the offerors remaining in the competitive range of the cut-off date for FPRs and that the FPR is subject to the provision on late submissions. If, after receipt of FPRs further negotiations are necessary, the PCO must re-open discussions and extend a second FPR opportunity to all offerors remaining in the competitive range after receiving approval from the SSA.

At the request of the SSA, the SSAC and/or SSEB members present the evaluation results by means of one or more briefings. Figure 3-7 illustrates a sample format for the briefing. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 illustrate sample attachments to the report. The documentation should be clear and concise and should cross-reference, rather than repeat, information in existing documents as much as possible (e.g., the SSP, evaluation team reports, etc.). In rare occasions, if the SSA identifies concerns with the evaluation findings and/or analysis, the SSA may require the SSEB and/or SSAC to conduct a re-evaluation and/or analysis to address these concerns. The evaluation results shall clearly be documented in the Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM). (See FAR 15.406-3, DFARS PGI 215.406-3.)


I. INTRODUCTION:
Include information such as the evaluation factors and subfactors; Source Selection Team (SST) structure; summary of the solicitation requirements; the number of offers received; and number of offerors remaining in the competitive range.


Figure 3-8 Sample Format for Individual Proposal Evaluation Results

FACTORS

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT/RISK

Summarizes assessment of the offeror’s proposal as measured against the technical subfactors. Also, summarizes assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with the offeror’s proposed approach derived from the technical evaluation

Example: Good




Technical Subfactor 1

Technical Subfactor 2

Technical Subfactor 3

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

Summarizes assessment of the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent and relevant contracts. Also see Small Business Participation text at Appendix H.

Example: Limited Confidence



Past Performance Relevancy

Past Performance Record

(including small business if applicable)

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Summarizes assessment of small business participation as a prime or subcontractor, and the offeror’s commitment to meeting goals specified in the RFP. Also see Small Business Participation text at Appendix H.

Example: Good



Small Business Participation

COST/PRICE

Reflects the total proposed or evaluated cost/price. Where cost realism is evaluated, the cost also reflects the probable cost resulting from any adjustments made for cost realism.

Example: Proposed Cost $XXX. Probable Cost $XXX

Figure 3-9

OFFEROR

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/

RISK

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE*

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

EVALUATED PRICE

A

Outstanding

Substantial Confidence

Good

$171,503,971

B

Outstanding

Limited Confidence

Good

$134,983,305

C

Good

Limited Confidence

Outstanding

$120,976,836

D

Outstanding

Limited Confidence

Outstanding

$150,840,308

E

Acceptable

Substantial

Confidence

Acceptable

$115,751,933

*One performance confidence rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. SEE FAR 15.305 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.3.

In the first two outcomes, the decision is fairly clear that the award should be made to the lowest-priced offeror unless there is a significant distinction between the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. However, in the case of the third outcome, the decision is not as clear. The SSAC must consider whether or not the benefits of the non-cost strengths warrant the additional price premium. This is accomplished by conducting a trade-off analysis among the competing proposals. Figure 3-10 is a decision model that the SSAC may use when preparing the comparative analysis and award recommendation. While the award recommendation decision model appears simple, the process is far from simple. The evaluation, proposal comparison, and tradeoff analysis process require a great deal of subjectivity and judgment. Note: If the SSA disagrees with the award recommendation of the SSAC or the SSEB (if applicable), the rationale and justification for the disagreement must be addressed in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

Figure 3-10

Award Recommendation Decision Model









NO



NO







YES





Conduct tradeoff analysis and document results



There are meaningful distinctions between the non-cost portions of the proposals



Lowest priced proposal is the superior proposal in terms of non-cost factors



Conduct comparative analysis and document results



Conduct comparative analysis and document results







YES



Recommend award to lowest priced offeror




Step 1. Identify the individual proposal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced during evaluations.

Step 3. Compare proposal evaluations

Step 4. Assess the best mix of cost (or price) and non-cost benefits and determine whether the strengths of higher-rated proposals are worth the price premium.


The comparative analysis does not preclude eventual selection of the lowest price offer as providing the best value. In fact, selection of a higher-priced offer always involves the necessity to state in the source selection decision document the rationale for concluding that payment of a higher price is justified by a proportionate superiority in non-cost factors. If the superior technical proposal is not selected, it is also imperative that the rationale for its non-selection be documented.

The SSA must document the rationale for selecting the successful offeror(s) in an independent, stand-alone Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD). Merely referencing the comparative assessment or other documentation is NOT adequate. Figure 3-12 illustrates the type of information that must be included in the source selection decision document. (See also SSDD definition in Chapter 5, Definitions.)

Likewise, where the SSA determines the non-cost benefits offered by the higher-priced, technically superior proposal are not worth the price premium as compared to the other offeror(s), an explicit justification also is necessary. The SSA shall engage legal counsel in review of the source selection decision document to assure that the decision clearly articulates the business judgment of the SSA.

This document becomes part of the official contract file and can be released, provided that any information exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is not released (i.e., proprietary and business sensitive information, trade secrets and cost information). You may find it beneficial to provide the unsuccessful offeror(s) with a copy of the document at their debriefing(s). If you choose to provide them with a copy, you must redact the copy to remove information pertinent to other unsuccessful offerors and information that is exempt under FOIA.

Figure 3-12

Sample Outline for Source Selection Decision Document


1. Decision Statement.
Example: As Source Selection Authority for this acquisition, I have determined that the ____ product/service proposed by (fill in offeror’s name) provides the best overall value to satisfy Army needs. This selection was made based upon the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation and my integrated assessment and comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. This memorandum documents the basis for my decision.

2. Brief description of the product/service being procured.

3. Extract of the basis for award (as set forth in the RFP), including the factors and subfactors against which proposals were measured and their relative order of importance.

4. A list of offerors in the competitive range.

5. Rationale for business judgments and tradeoffs. Include the following:

Ř Succinct comparison of each proposal, focusing on key proposal differences (strengths, weaknesses, and risks) that surfaced in the evaluation and their impact on the acquisition.

Ř Explanation of specific tradeoffs that led to the decision.

Ř Explanation of specific benefits of the technically superior offeror(s) and why they are or are not significant enough to warrant any additional cost.

6. Summary. Example: In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals in accordance with the specified evaluation factors and subfactors, it is my decision that (fill in offeror’s name) proposal offers the best overall value.

Signature

Source Selection Authority


● Awarding the Contract(s)

After the SSA has signed the source selection decision document, the PCO will execute and distribute the contract(s). Congressional notification may be required IAW FAR 5.303. For Section 8(A) Set Asides, the SBA shall be notified IAW FAR 19.804. For Small Business Programs, the apparent unsuccessful offerors shall be provided the pre-award notice required by FAR 15.503.

● Notification to Unsuccessful Offerors

The PCO must notify unsuccessful offerors in writing after contract award or whenever their proposals are eliminated from the competition within the timeframe identified in Figure 3-13. The type of information that must be included in the notice will depend upon whether it is sent before or after contract award. Figure 3-13 provides a side-by-side comparison of the differences between pre-award and post-award notices.

Figure 3-13

Comparison of Pre-award and Post-award Notices

 

PRE-AWARD NOTICE

FAR 15.503(a)

POST-AWARD NOTICE

FAR 15.503(b)

Who Must be Notified?

Any offeror whose proposal was excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition before contract award.

Any offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range but was not selected for award or who had not received a pre-award notice.

When Must it be Sent?

Promptly after the offeror’s proposal was eliminated from the competition.

Within three days after the date of contract award.

What is Included in the Notice?

      A summary of the basis for the determination

      A statement that the Government will not consider any further proposal revisions from the offeror.

    Note:

    Small business offerors are entitled to

    additional information as described at FAR Part 15.503(a)(2).

    After contract award and upon request from an

    offeror who previously received a pre-award notice, the PCO must provide the offeror the information normally provided as part of a post-award notice.

      Number of proposals received;

      Name(s) and address(es) of awardee(s)

      Items, quantities, and unit prices of each

    awardee. If listing the unit prices is impracticable, include only the total contract price. (However, upon request, the items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award shall be made publicly available.)

      A summary of the reason(s) the offeror’s

    proposal was not selected, unless the price information readily reveals the reason.

      Notice of right to request a debriefing.

● Pre-award versus Post-award Debriefings

Figure 3-14: Comparison of Pre-award and Post-award Debriefings

 

PRE-AWARD DEBRIEFING

FAR 15.505

POST-AWARD DEBRIEFING

FAR 15.506

Who is Entitled to a Debriefing?

Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award.

Any unsuccessful offeror who has not had a pre-award debriefing.

When Must the Government Conduct a Debriefing?

As soon as practicable after receipt of a timely, written request. However, the PCO may refuse the request for a pre-award debriefing if it is not in the best interest of the Government to conduct a pre-award debriefing.(1) (2)

Within five days, to the maximum extent practicable, after receipt of a timely, written request for a debriefing. (3)

What is a Timely Request?

A request received by the contracting activity within 3 calendar days after the offeror received notice of exclusion from the competition. (4)

A request received by the contracting activity within 3 calendar days after the offeror received notice of contract award. (4)

What Can Not Be Disclosed?

    Number of offerors

    Identity of other offerors

    Content of other offerors’ proposals

    Ranking of other offerors

    Evaluation of other offerors

    Point-by-point comparisons of a debriefed offeror’s proposal with other proposals

    Information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202 or information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5)

    Point-by-point comparisons of a debriefed offeror’s proposal with other proposals (The ratings of a debriefed offeror and the awardee may be disclosed to the second level of evaluation without violating this principle.)

    Information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202, or information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5).

What Should Be Discussed?

    The agency’s evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal (6);

    A summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition

    Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition.

    The Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable;

    The overall evaluated cost/price (include unit prices only if releasable under FOIA, and DO NOT disclose the IGCE); technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror; and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;

    The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;

    A summary of the rationale for award;

    For acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and

    Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

    Other information, as appropriate.

Notes to Figure 3-14:

(1) The offeror may request the debriefing be delayed until after contract award. When delayed, the debriefing shall include all the information provided in a post-award debriefing.

(2) In the event either the Government or offeror delays the debriefing, the PCO must provide the debriefing within the timeframe established for post-award debriefings.

(3) If an offeror submits an untimely request for debriefing, the PCO may nonetheless conduct a debriefing if feasible. In such case, inform the offeror the request is untimely.

(4) Do not count the day the offeror received the notice; start with the next day. Consider sending the notice by mail with return receipt requested or by electronic means (facsimile transmission or e-mail) with immediate acknowledgment requested so that you can easily establish the date the offeror received it.

(5) Includes such things as trade secrets; privileged or confidential information, e.g., manufacturing processes and techniques, commercial and financial information, and cost data; and the names of individuals providing past performance information. It does not include information otherwise available without restriction to the Government or public.

(6) If the element was significant enough to eliminate the offeror from the competitive range, it is significant for debriefing purposes. Include both positive and negative elements of the offeror’s proposal to help improve future proposals.

● Other Information to Ensure a Meaningful Debriefing


In a post-award debriefing, disclose the evaluation ratings of the debriefed offeror and awardee to the subfactor level of evaluation; and all significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and deficiencies (if any) of the debriefed offeror’s proposal.

● The Post Debriefing Memorandum

No Army Text

Best Value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Source Selection Process

No Army Text

Debriefing Guide

No Army Text

Release of Source Selection Information and Contractor Proposal Information

Security/Ethics Briefing

● Should be knowledgeable of, and adhere to, governing security procedures and regulations;

● Will not discuss, communicate, reveal participation in the SST, or otherwise deal on matters related to the source selection with any individual not assigned to the SST, unless authorized (see above), and then only within appropriately secure areas; and

● Will challenge the presence of any apparent unauthorized individual within the SST physical location.

Required Certificates and Reports

Important! This Agreement concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of a United States government agency. This Agreement prohibits you from making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and/or certifications. If you do so, you may be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C §1001.

AGREEMENT

5. Except as set forth below, I do not presently hold, and will not obtain during my participation in this acquisition, any financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, my spouse and dependent children do not have a financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

7. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, none of the following is a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor for this acquisition, or represents a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor with regard to this acquisition:

. any person or company with whom I have or am seeking a business, contractual or other financial relationship that involves other than a routine consumer transaction;

ˇ my spouse and dependent children;

ˇ any person or company with whom I have been affiliated within the last year;

ˇ any organization in which I am an active participant.

*Financial Interest - Any continuing financial interest (such as through a pension or retirement plan, shared income, continuing termination payments, or other arrangements as a result of any current or prior employment or business or professional association) or any financial interest through legal or beneficial ownership of stock, stock options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements including trusts.

**Affiliation - A relationship as an employee, officer, owner, director, member, trustee, partner, advisor, agent, representative, or consultant; or a person having any understanding, plans or pending contacts regarding such a relationship in the future. (This includes sending resumes, making telephone inquiries or any act that reasonably could be construed as an indication of interest in a future affiliation.)

8. I understand that I may request a statement from the Contracting Officer as to whether a person or company is considered to be a reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Date

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Handling of Source Selection Materials

Security of Physical Facilities

In more complex source selections, you should identify the location of the SSEB early in the process, and establish procedures to ensure the security of the source selection physical facilities. These procedures may include:

● Requiring identification to access the SST area and requiring authorized visitors (e.g., maintenance/service personnel) to sign in and out;

● Ensuring access points to the facilities are either manned at all times by a representative of the SSO or are kept locked (with appropriate key or password control procedures);

● Establishing procedures for approving visitors to the facilities; and

● Conducting security inspections and spot checks.

Responsibilities

Experience, Education and Skills

Table D-1

Hierarchy of Source Selection Expertise

• Look within own organization for expertise.

• Identify and appoint Government personnel outside own organization with the requisite expertise.

• Identify junior personnel to grow expertise and experience in source selection by allowing them to participate on non-technical factors.

• If expertise does not exist then move acquisition elsewhere.

• Consider establishing and/or hiring, on an ad hoc basis, qualified retired annuitants to supplement source selection teams.

• Establish an advance pool of experts to supplement on an ad hoc and rotational basis.

• In accordance with FAR Subparts 7.5 and 9.5, hire contractor experts to augment the SSEB assuring there is no organizational conflict of interest or inclusion of inherently governmental functions .

Freedom from Bias or Conflict of Interest

SST members must not have any biases or conflicts of interest that would impact the source selection process. Financial interests in offerors and employment discussions with offerors are examples of conflicts of interests that would preclude an employee from participating in a source selection. (See the associated sample certificate at Appendix C that the SST members must sign that will assist you in determining if an individual has a conflict of interest.)

Support Personnel

Once you identify the primary evaluation team, determine if support personnel may be desired or required. Examples of such personnel are:

Sources of Personnel


(1) Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-government advisors in the source selection process. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition.

INSERT NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF FIRMS

(2) In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors' proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal.

Note: This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors.


Figure D-2: Suggested Solicitation Language

Staffing Levels

Management Support

Introduction

Oral presentations may be beneficial in a variety of acquisitions. They are most useful when the requirements are clear and complete and are stated in performance or functional terms. Oral presentations are ideal for gathering information related to how qualified the offeror is to perform the work, how well the offeror understands the work, and how the offeror will approach the work.

Scope of the Oral Presentation

Before you can decide if oral presentations are appropriate for a given acquisition, you must select the evaluation factors and subfactors. Then decide whether the information you need to evaluate these criteria can be better presented orally or in writing or through a combination of both means.


In deciding what information to have the offerors provide through oral presentations, you should consider the following:

Require offerors to submit their briefing materials in advance of the presentations. This will allow Government attendees an opportunity to review the materials and prepare any associated questions.

Request for Proposal Information

If oral presentations are appropriate, you must notify offerors in the RFP that the Government will use oral presentations to evaluate and select the contractor. The proposal preparation instructions must contain explicit instructions and guidance regarding the extent and nature of the process that will be used. Discourage elaborate presentations since they may detract from the information being presented. At a minimum, include the following information in the RFP:

● The types of information the offeror must address during the oral presentations and how they relate to the evaluation criteria,

● The required format and content of the presentation charts and any supporting documentation,

● Any restrictions on the number of charts or the number of bullets per chart and how you will handle material that does not comply with these restrictions,

● The required submission date for the presentation charts and/or materials,

● The approximate timeframe when the oral presentations will be conducted and how you will determine the order of the offerors’ presentations,

● Whether any rescheduling will be permitted if an offeror requests a change after the schedule has been established,

● The total amount of time each offeror will have to conduct their oral presentation,

● Who must make the presentation and a requirement that the offeror provide a list of names and position titles of the presenters,

● Whether the presentation will be video or audio taped,

● The location of the presentation site and a description of the site and resources available to the offeror,

● Any rules and/or prohibitions regarding equipment and media,

● How you will treat documents or information referenced in the presentation material but never presented orally,

● Any limitations on Government-offeror interactions during and after the presentation,

● Whether the presentation will constitute discussions (See Figure 3-4),

● Whether you will use the information in the oral presentation solely for source selection purposes or whether such information will become part of the contract (which will require a subsequent written submission of that information), and

● Whether the offeror should include any cost/price data in the presentation.

Timing and Sequencing

You can conduct oral presentations either before or after establishing the competitive range. Where oral presentations are the only means of proposal submission, they must be presented by all offerors. If you conduct the oral presentations prior to establishing the competitive range, you must be careful they do not result in discussions.

Since preparing and presenting an oral presentation involves time and expense, you do not want to require offerors who are not likely to be serious candidates for award to have to conduct oral presentations. This can be an important consideration with small businesses. When this is a concern, establish the competitive range prior to oral presentations and clearly articulate in the RFP the methodology for doing so.

The contracting officer will often draw lots to determine the sequence of the offerors’ presentations. The time between the first and the last presentation should be as short as possible to minimize any advantage to the offerors that present later.

Time Limits

Establish a total time limit for each offeror’s presentation. It is not advisable to limit the time for individual topics or sections within the presentation; this detail is the presenter’s responsibility. If you are planning a question and answer session, exclude it from the allotted time and set a separate time limit for it.

There is no ideal amount of time to be allotted. Make this decision using prudent business judgment based upon the complexity of the acquisition and your own (or others’) experience and lessons learned.

Facility

Recording the Presentations


Recording the presentation by some appropriate means is not only required, it makes good business sense.


Having an exact record of the presentation could prove useful both during the evaluation process and in the event of a protest or litigation. You can record the oral presentations using a variety of media; e.g., videotapes, audio tapes, written transcripts, or a copy of the offeror’s briefing slides or presentation notes. The SSA is responsible for determining the method and level of detail of the record.

If you use videotaping, allow for the natural behavior of the presenters. If slides or view graphs are used, the camera should view both the podium and screen at the same time. Place the microphones so that all communications can be recorded clearly and at adequate volume. Every effort should be made to avoid letting the recording become the focus of the presentation.

Government Attendance

Presenters

Reviewing the Ground Rules

If you are using a quiz as part of your evaluation, the PCO needs to discuss the related ground rules. For example, can the offeror caucus or contact outside sources by cell phone before answering?

Evaluation of Presentations

Evaluations should be performed immediately after each presentation. Using preprinted evaluation forms will help the evaluators collect their thoughts and impressions. Remember, even if you use preprinted forms, evaluators have to provide the rationale for their conclusions.

Introduction

Where possible, use past performance information available from Government-wide and agency-wide databases. Use of such information will help to expedite and streamline the evaluation process. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a web-based system used to input data on contractor performance. In addition, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) provides access to information about contractors and their performance collected throughout the Federal Government. If information is not readily available from existing databases, seek it from other Government entities and private sector sources (e.g., by means of questionnaires, published commercial evaluations and interviews).

● OFPP guide: Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information

Relative Importance Assigned to Past Performance

You may assign any relative importance to past performance compared to any other evaluation factor. However, the importance assigned to past performance should be sufficient enough to ensure that it is meaningfully considered throughout the source selection process and will be a valid discriminator among the proposals received.

Drafting Instructions to Offerors (Section L or Equivalent)

Contract References -- Request offerors to submit a list of Government and non-Government contract references (including contract number, type, and dollar value; place of performance; date of award; whether performance is on-going or complete; extent of subcontracting; and the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of at least two points of contact (POCs) for each contract):

Ř Require the list to include all relevant on-going contracts or contracts completed during a specified period. This approach will provide an “unfiltered” view of the offeror’s contract efforts, not just the “select” contract efforts. If you anticipate that the number of contracts will be excessive, limit the submission to a specified number of the most recent, relevant contracts. In such cases, require the contracts to have been ongoing for a specified period of time, since newly awarded contracts will probably not provide sufficient information.

Ř Limit the specified period to contracts performed within the last three years (six years for construction) from the RFP release date. This is because the Government must retain past performance information for no longer than three years (six years for construction) after completion of the contract. A shorter period may be appropriate for acquisitions where there are numerous actions and/or many vendors providing the required items. In rare cases, where market research suggests a period of a 3 year period will not yield meaningful past performance information, a longer period (not more than 5 years) may be appropriate.

Ř When offerors are likely to be large, multi-function firms, limit the contract references to those performed by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal.

Ř Allow offerors to submit information related to their past performance on relevant efforts for state and local Governments, private sector clients, subcontracts, and team or joint efforts. Additionally, if offerors have no relevant past performance, allow them to provide past performance information for their key personnel and/or key subcontractors. This will help ensure firms new to the Federal contracting process have a fair opportunity to compete and will reduce the instances where offerors have no record of past performance.

Ř Advise the offerors that, while they may submit past performance information on relevant efforts under subcontracts, you may be unable to obtain any qualitative information due to the Government’s lack of privity with subcontractors. In other words, since the Government deals directly with prime contractors, the POCs may be unaware of the offeror’s performance under a subcontract.

Past Performance Information of a Prospective Subcontractor -- When you intend to evaluate subcontractors’ past performance, explain how you will handle any related adverse past performance information. In many acquisitions, an offeror’s prospective subcontractor may be the offeror’s competitor on other acquisitions. In such cases, the prospective subcontractor may be hesitant to have any adverse information related to its past performance released to the offeror. On other acquisitions, this may not be an issue. You should tailor your acquisition accordingly and advise offerors in the RFP how you will handle disclosure of such information.

Description of Past Performance -- It is not necessary or efficient to ask the offeror to provide a detailed description of all of its relevant past performance efforts. Instead, request offerors provide detailed information on a smaller number of the most relevant contracts, while the Government seeks the appropriate information from existing databases and/or from identified contract POCs. However, you should allow potential offerors the opportunity to provide details on past performance problems and the corrective actions taken. As appropriate, have the offerors provide such information as part of their proposals or presented as part of their oral presentation, if used.

Sources of Information

Ř Rely on existing documentation from Federal databases to the maximum extent practicable. This will expedite and streamline the source selection process. Sources of existing information available to the Government include the Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS).

Ř Advise potential offerors that you may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror.

Ř Advise potential offerors that you may not obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs.

Ř If adequate documentation is not readily available, you should seek the necessary information from individuals having knowledge about the offeror’s past performance (e.g., contract POCs, etc.). You may utilize questionnaires or interviews to obtain the information from these individuals. Consider the following when using questionnaires:

n Keep the questionnaire short. Typically, it should be no longer than 1-2 pages; long surveys are not returned timely, if at all.

n Include a copy of the questionnaire in the RFP.

n Either distribute the questionnaires to the POCs or have the offerors distribute them. In the latter case, the POCs must return the completed questionnaires directly to the Government. Having the offerors send out the questionnaires may save time and resources.

n Where the Government is sending out questionnaires itself and when practical, contact the respective POC prior to sending out a survey to advise them that they will be receiving it and emphasize the importance of their returning the completed surveys to you promptly.

Relevant Past Performance --

Drafting Evaluation Criteria (Section M or Equivalent)

● Past Performance of Prospective Subcontractors and/or Team Members -- You may find it beneficial to evaluate a key subcontractor’s or team member’s past performance. However, as the Government only has privity of contract with the prime contractor, do not make the past performance of a prospective subcontractor and/or joint venture partners a separate rating.

Synergy of Evaluation Considerations -- Use past performance to streamline the source selection process. For example, instead of evaluating management as an evaluation factor, assess management effectiveness in meeting Technical and Schedule requirements (and in Cost estimating, on Cost reimbursement contracts) as part of the past performance evaluation. A good record of management is an indicator that the offeror will perform well in this area on the immediate acquisition. Using past performance in this way may, under appropriate circumstances, eliminate the need for the offeror to submit management and quality plans.

Past Performance Considerations -- At a minimum, consider the offeror’s record of complying with contractual requirements in the areas of schedule, technical quality, and cost control (for cost reimbursement contracts). You may also consider the offeror’s record of business relations. Tailor the scope of the areas considered so that they match the immediate requirement. Carefully consider whether they add value to the overall assessment, warrant the additional time to evaluate, and are discriminators among the competing proposals.


Potential Areas of Consideration

Quality of Product or Service – e.g., record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates.

Timeliness of Performance – e.g., record of meeting milestones and delivery schedules, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction.

Cost Control (Cost Reimbursement type contracts only)– e.g., record of using cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated costs to actual costs and providing current, accurate, and complete billing.

● Business Relations – e.g., record of effective management, subcontractor management, meeting socioeconomic goals, cooperative and proactive behavior with Government representatives, flexibility, submission of reasonably priced change proposals and responsiveness to inquiries.

● Small Business Subcontracting Compliance - e.g., record of complying with requirements of Clauses FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 (unless evaluating under the Small Business Participation factor).


Stand-Alone Evaluation Factor -- Do not integrate past performance with other non-cost factors. Past performance should be a separate evaluation factor in order to reduce the chances of its impact being lost within other factors.

Evaluating Past Performance


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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.


In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, take into consideration the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data. When your SSP uses the 4 point relevance scale from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, remember that contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating. The final assessment will merge the extent of relevance/recency of prior contract, along with the quality of performance on those contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence assessment of Past Performance. What you are looking for is overall results, not problem-free management.

Lack of Past Performance Information

If the offeror is truly a new entity and none of the company principals have relevant work experience, the offeror is considered to have no past performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, you must evaluate the offeror’s lack of past performance as Unknown Confidence (Neutral), having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation. When using the LPTA source selection process “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past Performance Versus Experience

It is important to understand the definition of an offeror’s experience and its past performance. Experience is what the offeror has done; past performance is how well the offeror did it.


Experience reflects WHAT an offeror has done.

Past performance reflects HOW WELL the offeror performed the work.


Adverse Past Performance Information

If there is past performance information that adversely (see Chapter 5 for definition) impacts an offeror’s proposal assessment, provide the offeror an opportunity to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. Whether this opportunity occurs during clarifications, communications or discussions depends upon whether discussions are anticipated and, if they are, if they have been opened. Figure F-1 illustrates when adverse past performance should be addressed.

Figure F-1


Address during discussions













NO

Have discussions been opened?



Are discussions anticipated?



YES



YES




Is the adverse information the contributing factor for the offeror not being placed in the competitive range
?



NO








Address during communications



Address during clarifications





Is the adverse information the contributing factor in the offeror not getting the award
?







Do not have to provide offeror an opportunity to address the information




Figure F-2

SAMPLE PAST PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(To be completed for each project reviewed)

Step 1. Gather Contract Efforts. Review each project and record the information on a worksheet for each:

Offeror:

Project:

Dollar Value:

Period of Performance:

Description of Project Effort, Source of Information, and Offeror’s Role:

Step 2. Determine the extent of relevancy and recency of the past performance information by applying the appropriate adjectival descriptor:

Determine extent of recency/relevancy of the project being reviewed and your rationale, then apply the adjectival descriptors below (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the instant RFP). If you determine the effort is not relevant for consideration, document why.

 

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.

Figure F-2

SAMPLE PAST PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET

Step 3. Assess the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the project/effort if it is determined to be recent and relevant.

Record your findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties) relative to how well the Offeror performed using the information gathered (including database, questionnaire, interview, etc.). If the information provided is negative and the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond to it, using the appropriate Exchanges Process, the Contracting Officer will submit it to them in an Evaluation Notice (EN) process.

Step 4. Assign a rating to the Past Performance Factor.

IMPORTANT: The SSP may require ratings to be assigned considering the information in steps 1-3 above by both individual evaluators and then by team consensus. Follow the SSP as to the assignment of the past performance confidence assessment rating.

 

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Figure F-3

SAMPLE PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RFP No.:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

SUBFACTOR:

PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral)) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating:__________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

Interim:________________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

Final Rating:____________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

      RATIONALE: Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance).

      Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings (with specific strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies below.) Identify (e.g. Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

UNCERTAINTIES:

EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency/uncertainty

Normal practice is to use a written questionnaire addressed to points of contact and solicit a response. After questionnaires are received or if there is no response you may initiate an interview. Interview questions/discussion topics should be consistent with the written questionnaire. At the start of the interview, explain its purpose and assure the interviewee anonymity. While you may provide the interviewees with a generic description of the instant requirement, do not release the solicitation number, detailed program description, or other specific solicitation information to the interviewee.

When using interviews, you may find it beneficial to have at least two evaluators conduct each interview. This will facilitate preparing a complete and comprehensive summary of the interview.

Figure G-1

Sample Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire

(See Appendix K for a Sample Cover Letter that can be sent with the Questionnaire)

Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does. Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter within 3 days.

Adjectival Rating Definitions:

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

Overview

Small Business Participation Goals

Small Business Participation Language (Example)

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

e. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {2%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.50%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {1%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Proposal (Sample Format)

Small Business Participation Proposal (Format)

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime

{ } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU)

or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a

{ } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

{ } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

{ } Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business

{ } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______


When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal

100%.


100%

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Disadvantaged Business _________%

HUB Zone Small Business _________%

Woman Owned Small Business _________%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________%

Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

HBCU /MI _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business (SB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)

Overview

Probable Cost Estimate

When developing a probable cost estimate (which is used in Cost Reimbursement efforts), consider the following points.

● As you collect the information required to evaluate the realism of the offeror’s cost/price estimate, you are also collecting the information required to develop your own estimate of the probable contract cost.

● In developing your estimate, adopt the portion of the offeror’s estimate that appears realistic and modify the portion of the estimate that you believe is unrealistic. For example, you may accept proposed labor hours and adjust the labor rate based on an audit recommendation. Adjustments may increase or decrease cost estimates.

● Use relevant estimating tools and techniques.

● To the extent necessary, conduct meaningful discussions with offerors in the event there are any noteworthy adjustments to the offeror’s estimated cost.

● As you complete your estimate, clearly document your rationale for any adjustment.

Figure I-1

Steps Involved in Cost Realism Analysis

(see note below)





No



Yes





STEP 7



STEP 8

● If cost contract, determine the Probable Cost of Performance

● If FP contract, determine

risk associated with unrealistically high or low proposal and risk to

contract completion



Analyze cost & technical proposals

● Assess offeror’s understanding of contract requirements

● Identify obvious mistakes/ask for validation







Govt Field

Pricing Reports



Historical

Pricing



Other

Proposals



Contractor

Data



Audit

Reports



IGCE



Required







STEP 3

Definition

An on-line Reverse Auction (RA) is an internet-based (electronic commerce) acquisition tool that allows the government to procure goods and services from suppliers in a competitive environment in which sellers, anonymously, bid prices down until the auction is complete.


ON-LINE REVERSE AUCTION TOOLS ARE BEST USED FOR:

● Healthy price competition

● A well-defined requirement

● Bulk commodity type procurements (i.e. IT equipment, spare parts)

● Procurements in which there is a well-defined supplier base

● Procurements where the award evaluation criteria is not subject to interpretation (i.e. lowest price versus multiple criteria for trade-offs and subjective judgments)


A reverse auction is simply the opposite of a traditional auction. In a traditional auction, the seller offers an item for sale and multiple potential buyers submit sequentially higher bids for the item. Conversely, in a reverse auction, there are multiple sellers of items that compete for the business of a single buyer. During this competition the sellers ultimately drive the price of the item down.

Applicability to Best Value Acquisitions

FAR Subpart 4.5 supports the use of electronic commerce whenever practical or cost-effective. On-line Reverse Auctions should be utilized when it is anticipated that this method will deliver more value than the use of other available procurement methods. Additionally, RAs are more advantageous to the Government in reducing acquisition cycle time when the requirements are best suited for an RA environment.

Process


SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION TEMPLATES

TEMPLATE PAGE(S)

- Determinations and Findings (D&F) for Authority K-2 through K-4

to Use Non-Government Advisors in Source Selections

- Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award and Post Award) K-5 through K-8

- Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter K-9

- Source Selection Appointment Letters and K-10 through K-22

Responsibilities

- Source Selection Decision Document K-23 through K-28

- Source Selection Plan (Cost or FFP with SSAC)* K-29 through K-92

- Sample Task Used In Source Selection K-93 through K-95

Sample Determination and Findings (D&F) for Authority to Use Non-Government Advisor(s) in Source Selections

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

Authority to Use Non-Government Advisor Support for ____________________

Solicitation No. _________

Upon the basis of the findings and determination which I hereby make pursuant to the authority of 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419) (as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204) contractor support may be utilized for the proposed contract described below.

1. Background: The US Army REQUIRING ACTIVITY / PM has been tasked to conduct an acquisition for the DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT. The acquisition shall provide for NEED FOR GOODS/SERVICES. The TYPE OF CONTRACT FFP / COST PLUS / IDIQ, ETC. contract will be in effect from PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, A best value source selection will be conducted in support of this acquisition.

If authority to use Contractor Support is approved, the individuals listed above shall be made aware of their responsibilities in accordance with the Federal Procurement Policy Act 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 (formerly 41 USC 423), as implemented under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104 and shall be required to agree to and sign a NAME OF PROGRAM Source Selection Participation Agreement.

DETERMINATION

Based upon the foregoing justification, and 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204, I hereby determine that sufficient personnel, with the requisite training and capabilities, are not available at the current time within Federal agencies to provide the required expertise needed for the PROGRAM NAME acquisition.

DATE: ____________ CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

CONTRACTING OFFICER

DATE: ____________ LEGAL CONCURRENCE

APPROVAL

In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419) and as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204, AND CITE ANY ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY I hereby approve the use of non-Government advisors to assist in the evaluation of the proposals for PROGRAM NAME.

DATE: ____________ PARC NAME

Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting

Sample Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award)

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

DATE

Contracting Organization Name

SUBJECT: Solicitation Number _________, Program Name________________

COMPANY NAME

Dear XXX:

The Government has completed its initial evaluation of the proposals submitted in response to the subject solicitation and regrets to inform you that your proposal has been excluded from the competitive range and thereby eliminated from the competition. Based on the ratings of your proposal that were derived against all of the evaluation criteria, I have determined that your proposal is outside the competitive range because it is not one of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1).

In accordance with Section M of the Solicitation, Basis for Award, the Technical Factor is more important than the Performance Risk Factor, the Performance Risk Factor is more important than the Price Factor, and the Price Factor is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation Plan Factor. The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than the Price Factor. Section M of the Solicitation, Basis for Award, further states that to receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Factors and each of its Subfactors. After extensive evaluation, your proposal has been rated (provide ratings for the Factors and Subfactors of the Offeror and brief explanation/reasons for the ratings). Those ratings did not place your proposal among those proposals that were most highly rated. This is based primarily on your (explain).

Based on the above and in accordance with the Evaluation Approach, it has been determined that Corporation Name, Corporation Division is outside the competitive range. Further negotiations concerning this acquisition are not contemplated; revisions to your proposal will not be considered.

You may request a debriefing in writing within three days after receipt of this notice. This debriefing may be delayed until after award if so requested. However, if you do not request a debriefing within those three days, the Government is not obligated to grant either a pre-award or post-award debriefing. Your attention is directed to FAR 15.505 regarding these procedures.

The Government thanks you for your participation in this acquisition and looks forward to your continued interest in future business opportunities at NAME OF COMMAND.

Sincerely,

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

Contracting Officer

Sample Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Post Award)

 

YOUR OFFER

SUCCESFUL OFFEROR

TECHNICAL FACTOR

Good

Good

OPERATING REQUIREMENTS SUB-FACTOR

Good

Outstanding

RELIABILITY SUB-FACTOR

Good

Good

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS SUB-FACTOR

Good

Good

     

SCHEDULE FACTOR

Outstanding

Good

     

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Substantial Confidence

Substantial Confidence

     

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION FACTOR

Good

Good

     

PRICE FACTOR

$XXXXXXXXXXX

$XXXXXXXXXXX

(Total Evaluated Price)

   

Sample Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

COMMAND LETTERHEAD (Dependent upon appointment level, DASA-P, HCA, PARC)

MEMORANDUM FOR XXXXXXX, Requiring Office (XXXX-XXX-XX)

SUBJECT: Appointment as Source Selection Authority

1.      Acting in my capacity as DASA-P, Head of the Contracting Activity or the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (as appropriate) for the XXXXX Command, I hereby designate you, XXXXX, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the XXXXX Acquisition. This appointment is made per AFARS 5115.303.

2.      The XXXXXXXX Area is responsible for conducting two of the Army's Advanced Technology Demonstration programs. These programs will push the state-of-the-art as a step toward transition to the XXXXX program. To support these efforts, the XXXXX Area will competitively award a contract to perform both the integration of technology testbeds and the experimentation activities associated with these testbeds. A (type/length) contract is anticipated, with a potential total value of $XX.XM.

3. As SSA, you are responsible for the proper conduct of the source selection process in accordance with applicable regulations and shall:

5. (NAME), Associate Director of the XXXX Acquisition Center, should serve on the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), as well as any other individual you believe is necessary. You may also choose to appoint subject matter experts as advisors, as appropriate.

6. I am advised that you have discussed your appointment with the XXXXX Command Ethics Counselor and you have received an ethics briefing and the Ethics Counselor has conducted the appropriate screening of your financial disclosure report and there are no financial conflicts of interest that would preclude you from performing the duties of the SSA. You are also to consult with an Ethics Counselor should any situation arise which might result in a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one.

7. This appointment of the SSA for the XXXX Acquisition is to you personally, and you may not re-delegate this authority. If, for any reason, you are unable to complete your duties as SSA, please notify me promptly.

XXXXXXXX

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Procurement)

OR (as appropriate)

XXXXXXX

Major General, US Army

Commanding

OR (as appropriate)

PARC NAME

Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting

Sample SSAC Appointment Letter

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSAC Member)

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), (Name of Acquisition)

1. As the Source Selection Authority for the subject competitive acquisition, I hereby appoint you to the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). Your temporary duty assignment was requested because of your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. Your appointment as a SSAC member is effective immediately and terminates upon dissolution of the Source Selection Advisory Council. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will complete whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the council's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. Temporary release from your duties for return to your parent organization may occur. However, you will be called upon to provide assistance and clarification of matters as necessary throughout the process.

4. In connection with your duties as a SSAC member, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

5. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay the Source Selection for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), (Name of Acquisition)

6. Your specific responsibilities are outlined at Enclosure 1; a Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete Enclosure 2 and return it to:

(Contracting Officer’s Name)

ADDRESS

7. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

2 Encls Name

Source Selection Authority

SSAC RESPONSIBILITIES

SAMPLE SSEB CHAIRPERSON APPOINTMENT LETTER

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSEB Chairperson)

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson, (Name of Acquisition)

1. As the Source Selection Authority for the subject competitive acquisition, I hereby appoint you to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in the capacity of SSEB Chairperson. Your temporary duty assignment as Chairperson of the SSEB was requested because of your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. Your appointment is effective immediately and terminates upon dissolution of the Source Selection Evaluation Board. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will assign whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the board's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. During the term of this appointment the SSEB will be your primary responsibility. Temporary release from your SSEB duties for return to your parent organization may occur when circumstances warrant.

4. In connection with your duties as a Chairperson of the SSEB, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

5. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay source selection process for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

6. Your specific responsibilities are outlined at Enclosure 1; a Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete Enclosure 2 and return it to:

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson, (Name of Program)

Contracting Officer

ADDRESS

7. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

2 Encls Name

Source Selection Authority

SSEB CHAIRPERSON RESPONSIBILITIES

SAMPLE SSEB APPOINTMENT LETTER

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSEB Member)

SUBJECT: Assignment to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), (Name of Program)

1. As the Chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for the subject competitive acquisition, I am assigning/appointing you to be a member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Your assignment to the SSEB is based upon your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. As an assigned member to the SSEB you will be required to serve on a full-time basis. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will complete whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the board's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. During the term of this appointment the SSEB will be your primary responsibility. Temporary release from your SSEB duties for return to your parent organization may occur when circumstances warrant.

4. This assignment will take effect upon receipt of this letter and will terminate upon formal dissolution of the SSEB.

5. In connection with your duties as a member of the SSEB, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

6. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay the source selection process for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Assignment to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), (Name of Program)

7. Your specific responsibilities as a member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board are listed at Enclosure 1.

8. A Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete the Enclosure 2 return it to:

(Contracting Officer)

ADDRESS

9. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

Encl (Appointed Chairperson)

Chairperson

Source Selection Evaluation Board

APPROVED:

(Appointed Chairperson)

Chairperson

Source Selection Advisory Council

SSEB RESPONSIBILITIES

SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Source Selection Decision Document,

Solicitation Number XXXXXX-XX-R-XXXX, Program Name.

1. Reference is made to subject solicitation for Program Name. The Program Name is a state-of-the-art, compact vision enhancing system for land-based warriors. The solicitation consists of a requirement for a one year basic contract for a quantity of XXX including warranties and a data item for a Safety Assessment Report, with an option for up to XXXX including warranties.

2. A Request For Proposal (RFP) for the above requirement was issued on 24 May 20XX, with proposals due on 23 June 20XX. Three (3) amendments were issued with no impact to the original proposal due date. Amendment Number 0001 was issued on 14 June 20XX to clarify information previously provided in the original solicitation. Amendment Number 0002 was issued on 16 June 20XX to add XXX marking information to the Statement of Work. Amendment Number 0003 was issued on 18 June 20XX to delete FAR Clause 52.215-4, entitled “Type of Business Organization” from the solicitation. Three (3) responses were received and identified as Offerors A, B and C to protect source selection information.

5. Below are the offerors’ ratings for Technical (including the Subfactors), Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Final Evaluated Price. Offerors A, B and C did not submit Technical, Past Performance, or Small Business Participation changes to their Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs), however, Offerors B and C did revise their Prices.

 

OFFEROR A

OFFEROR B

OFFEROR C

TECHNICAL

ACCEPTABLE

OUTSTANDING

ACCEPTABLE

Performance

ACCEPTABLE

OUTSTANDING

ACCEPTABLE

Quality Validation

ACCEPTABLE

GOOD

ACCEPTABLE

PAST PERFORM

SUBST CONFID

SUBST CONFID

SUBST CONFID

SM BUSINESS

ACCEPTABLE

GOOD

GOOD

PRICE

$1,486,450

$1,433,846

$1,258,846

7. The SSEB findings show that Offeror B has a significantly better Technical proposal than Offerors A and C, with significantly better ratings in both Technical Subfactors. Offerors A, B and C received Substantial Confidence ratings for the Past Performance Factor. Offeror A received an Acceptable rating for SB Participation Factor while Offerors B and C received a Good rating. The price of Offeror B falls between Offeror A’s and Offeror C’s with Price being the least important factor.

Performance Subfactor (Technical Factor)

Offeror A submitted a complete Quality Validation Plan, but with minimal reliability standards. Additionally, there is some concern regarding Offeror A’s manufacturing subcontractor meeting the specified quality system requirement.

Offeror B has proposed an exceptional Quality Validation Plan which included a comprehensive Initial Production Test Plan (IPT) and Quality Conformance Inspection (QCI) plan which included a broad range of environmental and performance tests at reasonable intervals. Offeror B’s proposed Quality Validation Plan provided detailed test descriptions and involves very little risk.

Offeror C proposed an adequate Quality Validation Plan, but with minimal details regarding the IPT and QCI and very limited sample lot quantities. Offeror C has proposed minimal environmental testing after the initial IPT which concerns the Government because this lack of testing may lead to field failures under typical operational conditions, therefore there is significant risk associated with this Offeror’s Quality Validation Plan proposal.

Past Performance Factor

Offeror A met SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror A adequately identified small businesses and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror A showed a good commitment to utilizing small businesses however did not propose binding agreements with one or more small businesses. Offeror A’s proposal showed acceptable past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

Offeror B slightly exceeds SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror B adequately identified small businesses and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror B showed an exceptional commitment to utilizing small businesses with one or more binding agreements with small business firms. Offeror B’s proposal showed good past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting and or exceeding requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

.

Offeror C slightly exceeded SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror C adequately identified small businesses in one or more subcategories and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror C showed a good commitment to utilizing small businesses and proposed binding agreement with Mentor-Protégé firm. Offeror C’s proposal showed good past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting and or exceeding requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

Price Factor

The Price Factor is evaluated utilizing each offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP equals the Evaluated Basic CAIV Price, plus the Evaluated Option CAIV Price, plus the Safety Assessment Report (SAR) Price. The findings of the SSEB provided the following evaluated prices:

Offeror A Offeror B Offeror C

PRICE $1,486,450 $1,433,846 $1,258,846

Summary

Offeror A’s sample hardware submission was incomplete and, therefore, it is difficult to confirm the performance and use of their proposed system. Additionally, there were several problems with the hardware that was submitted for evaluation which if these problems occurred in the field raise a major readiness issue. Offeror B provided an overall outstanding technical proposal with the least amount of risk. The evaluation of the sample hardware for Offeror B confirms the design and performance of the system defined in their proposal. Offeror C’s sample hardware failed to perform as specified in the Offeror’s proposal and the Government was unable to verify that the Offeror’s proposed system could meet two of the four KPPs. As discussed in previous paragraphs of this document and extensively detailed in the evaluation reports, Offeror B’s Technical proposal (Outstanding) and the advantages associated with it is clearly superior to the technical proposals submitted by both Offeror A (Acceptable) and Offeror C (Acceptable). Offeror A, B and C’s all received a Past Performance Rating of Substantial Confidence. Offerors B and C’s Small Business Participation rating of Good is slightly better than Offeror A’s rating of Acceptable. In addition, it is worth noting that Offerors B and C both demonstrated successful achievement of their stated SB goals than Offeror A. Offeror B’s evaluated Price is lower than that of Offeror A and is approximately $175,000.00 higher than Offeror C. The technical benefits of Offeror B’s proposal far outweigh the savings in price associated with Offeror C’s proposal.

NAME

Source Selection Authority

CONTRACTING OFFICE

CITY, STATE, ZIP

DATE

Coordination Page

_________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

DESCRIPTION/TITLE

PAGE

     

I.

OVERVIEW…………………………………..………..……………………..

K-33

 

A.

Background and Objectives…………………………………...….

33

 

B.

Acquisition Strategy....…………………………………………….

33

II.

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS……………………….……………………

K-34

 

A.

Basis for Award………………………..……………………………

34

 

B.

Factors and Sub-Factors to be Evaluated……………………..

34

 

C.

Evaluation Approach………………………………………………

35

 

D.

Proposal Submission…..………………………………………….

41

 

E.

Discussions…………………………………………………………

49

III.

EVALUATION ORGANIZATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES..

K-50

 

A.

Evaluation Organization…………………………………….……..

50

 

B.

Responsibilities of the Organizational Elements….……..…...

50

IV.

EVALUATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES……………………….

K-56

 

A.

Key Milestones………………………………………………………

56

 

B.

Definitions…………………………….……………………………..

56

 

C.

Rating Method……………………………………..………………..

60

 

D.

E.

Proposal Evaluation…………………....………………………….

Communications and Securing Source Selection Material…

61

62

 

F.

SSAC Written Comparative Analysis……………………………

62

 

G.

Best Value Decision……..…………………………………………

62

 

H.

I.

Announcement of Selection.……………………………………..

Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors……………………………

63

63

       

V.

POLICIES, INSTRUCTIONS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT…….

K-64

 

A.

General………………..………………………………………..…….

64

 

B.

Safeguarding Procurement Information.………………….……

64

 

C.

Evaluation Policies..………………………………………………..

65

APPENDICES

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. Small Business Participation Factor. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {2%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.50%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {1%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

SECTION III

SECTION IV

Utilize the rating methodologies and associated definitions as set forth in Chapter 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for factors and subfactors. (SELECT THE METHODOLOGY AS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR PROCUREMENT.)

Methodology 1. For any “Technical” Factor (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance), the most suitable rating methodology for most Army source selections is Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.1). This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process.

Methodology 2. When applying Methodology 2 (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2), Weaknesses, Risks, and Uncertainties are captured under the Technical Risk Rating (which also considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance). For firm-fixed price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions. Strengths and Deficiencies are captured under the Technical Rating. Typical source selections where a separate risk rating (Methodology 2) may be applicable is in the R&D area.

Small Business Participation Methodology. The most preferred method for rating of the Small Business Participation Factor is Methodology 1. Neither Methodology 2 nor the Acceptable/Unacceptable rating methodology (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.3.4.1.1) is preferred for the Small Business Participation Factor.

Methodology 1

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Definition

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.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Methodology 2

Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors.

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.

SECTION V

APPENDIX A

Important! This Agreement concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of a United States government agency. This Agreement prohibits you from making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and/or certifications. If you do so, you may be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C §1001.

AGREEMENT

5. Except as set forth below, I do not presently hold, and will not obtain during my participation in this acquisition, any financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

6. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, my spouse and dependent children do not have a financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

7. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, none of the following is a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor for this acquisition, or represents a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor with regard to this acquisition:

*Financial Interest - Any continuing financial interest (such as through a pension or retirement plan, shared income, continuing termination payments, or other arrangements as a result of any current or prior employment or business or professional association) or any financial interest through legal or beneficial ownership of stock, stock options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements including trusts.

**Affiliation - A relationship as an employee, officer, owner, director, member, trustee, partner, advisor, agent, representative, or consultant; or a person having any understanding, plans or pending contacts regarding such a relationship in the future. (This includes sending resumes, making telephone inquiries or any act that reasonably could be construed as an indication of interest in a future affiliation.)

8. I understand that I may request a statement from the Contracting Officer as to whether a person or company is considered to be a reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor.

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Date

APPENDIX C

INDIVIDUAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION FORM

SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM

RFP No:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL REFERENCES:

VOLUME/PARAGRAPH:

SUBFACTOR:

PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U))

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Discussions: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:

RATIONALE: Include supporting narrative rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation rating definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Also include any evaluation notices. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any identified risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the identified risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Address the identified risks associated with the deficiency.)

UNCERTAINTIES:

EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency, and uncertainty.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION TEAM

CONSENSUS FORM

OFFEROR:__________________________ DATE:_________________________

CONSENSUS AGREEMENT

The Technical Evaluation Team has completed their evaluation for the above named offeror.

An adjectival rating of ________________________ has been assigned to the aforementioned offeror.

The following is a summarization of the team’s findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and uncertainties):

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

MINORITY OPINION REPORT

Evaluator Name:_________________________________________

Offeror :________________________________________________

FACTOR ____________________

To be attached to respective evaluation documentation

FACTOR/SUBFACTOR:

PROPOSAL REFERENCES

(Cite Volume/Section/Page(s)/Paragraph(s))

   

 

Ratings (mark one): Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U)

Past Performance Ratings (mark one): Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

Evaluation (circle one) Initial Interim Final Revised

 

Date:

I disagree with the Committee Consensus on the following issue for the reasons/rationale stated below:

My recommended rating for the Factor or Subfactor in question is indicated above. My assessment produced the following findings and results:

APPENDIX D


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
COMMAND/ACTIVITY LETTERHEAD

 

(DATE)

Insert Contracting Office

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) Number (Insert solicitation number)

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Contractor:____________________ Contract No.:____________________________

Subcontract No. (if applicable):_________________________________

POC:________________________ Title:________________________
(Name) (E.G. PCO/ACO/TM)

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail Address & Fax Number)

The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

_________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date

____________________________________
Typed or Printed Name

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Contractor:____________________ Contract No.:____________________________

Subcontract No. (if applicable):_________________________________

POC:________________________ Title:________________________
(Name) (E.G. PCO/ACO/TM)

_____________________________________________________________________

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail & Facsimile No.)

If conducting a telephone interview:

“Hello, I am ______________________. I am calling in reference to Contract ____________________ with a company called ________________________. My questions will pertain to the contractor’s record of past, which is defined as within the past three years, and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. A summary of this discussion may be sent to you for your records. The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

Record of Interview: (to be filled out by PPT member)

( ) Discussed recentness and relevance of information

( ) Read summary to person contacted Date:____________________

( ) Sent copy to person contacted Date:____________________

______________________________ ________________________________
PPT Member Signature Typed or Printed Name

______________________________ ________________________________
Telephone Fax

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW REPORT FORWARDING MEMORANDUM

Contracting Office

MEMORANDUM FOR

SUBJECT: Telephone Interview Report

1. Enclosed is a summary of your telephone conversation, (date), with a member of a Past Performance Team at this Command.

2. It is requested that you review and verify the accuracy of this report and e-mail or fax it to us by (date). It is extremely important that you respond by this date so Army readiness will not be compromised. If we do not hear from you by the day indicated above, we will consider the summary of the discussion official.

3. We would like to thank you in advance for your time and assistance regarding this acquisition. If you have any questions or comments, you may address them to the Contract Specialist at XXX-XXX-XXXX or fax to XXX-XXX-XXXX.

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Encl(1)

APPENDIX D

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RFP No.:

EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:

RFP REFERENCES:

FACTOR:

PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

SUBFACTOR:

PAGE NUMBER:

Evaluation Rating:

(Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral)) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.

Evaluator’s Rating:

Initial Rating:__________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

Interim:________________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

Final Rating:____________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____

      RATIONALE: Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance).

      Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings (with specific strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies below.) Identify (e.g. Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed

STRENGTHS:

(Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)

WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

(Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)

DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one):

UNCERTAINTIES:

EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency/uncertainty

TEAM EVALUATION CONSENSUS FORM

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

OFFEROR:__________________________ DATE:_________________________

CONSENSUS AGREEMENT

The Past Performance Evaluation Team has completed the interview and assessment process for the above named offeror. This assessment takes into consideration the quality/ relevance of the Offeror’s performance for projects/references provided as well as information as documented from any other sources considered.

A confidence assessment rating of ________________________ has been assigned to the aforementioned offeror.

The following is a summarization of the team’s findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and uncertainties):

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

APPENDIX E

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs)

1. In the competitive procurement, your job is not to get the contractor to submit the best possible proposal. Your job is to evaluate the proposal submitted; obtain additional information (through the SSEB Chairperson/PCO) from the contractor when needed to perform this process; document your evaluation/assessment; and evaluate/assess the Final Revised Proposal (if any) including responses to the evaluation notices. The Government’s obligation during discussions is to call the contractor’s attention to all deficiencies, uncertainties, significant weaknesses and weaknesses at least once.

2. Always reference the RFP, proposal and prior related ENs when writing a notice. This provides an excellent method of tracking the finding.

3. Do not use adjectives (e.g. poor) which require some comparison to an unknown standard in order to establish the meaning of the objective, nor use the adjectival rating within the narrative (e.g. outstanding solution).

4. Remember to write the ENs so that, to the extent possible, contracting and legal can understand them as well as the offeror.

5. If the RFP establishes a firm requirement, the offeror’s proposal must not deviate from the requirement. In writing a deficiency EN, reference the RFP requirement, offeror’s proposal (if appropriate) and state that offeror has failed to comply with a firm requirement of the RFP.

6. If the RFP does not establish a firm requirement, you may not suggest or imply ways to improve the proposal. You should identify significant weaknesses and weaknesses and explain why the Government considers it to be a weakness. Include reference to the proposal and RFP (if appropriate).

7. If you believe the Government’s PWS/requirement is in error or deficient, do not attempt to get the offerors to cure it in their proposal by an EN. Instead, bring it to the attention of the SSEB Chairperson or PCO immediately.

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime

{ } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU)

or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a

{ } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

{ } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

{ } Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business

{ } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______


When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal

100%.


100%

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Disadvantaged Business _________%

HUB Zone Small Business _________%

Woman Owned Small Business _________%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________%

Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

HBCU /MI _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business (SB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)

APPENDIX G

a.

Acquisition Planning Activities (e.g., Market Research, Review Previous Similar Acquisitions, Industry Days)

 

b.

Army Services Strategy Panel (ASSP) – For Services

 

c.

Acquisition Strategy Approved – For Services

 

d.

Appointment of Source Selection Authority (SSA)

 

e.

Acquisition Plan Approved

 

f.

Source Selection Plan Approved

 

g.

Phase I Peer Review

 

h.

Issue RFP

i.

Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit

 

j.

Receive Proposals

 

k.

SSEB Evaluation

 

l.

SSAC/SSA Brief

 

m.

Competitive Range Determination

 

n.

Discussions with Offerors

 

o.

Phase II Peer Review

 

p.

SSAC/SSA Brief to Request Final Proposal Revisions

 

q.

Evaluation Final Proposal Revisions

 

r.

SSAC/SSA Brief of Evaluation Results

 

s.

SSAC Prepares Written Comparative Analysis/Award Recommendation

 

t.

Source Selection Decision

 

u.

Phase III Peer Review

 

v.

Contract Award

 

w.

Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors

 

Sample of a Sample Task Used In Source Selection

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsNext Page