AFFARS Part Appendix BB

Previous PageTable Of Contentshttp://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffar1.htmNext Page



APPENDIX BB-SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR OTHER THAN MAJOR ACQUISITIONS

Read the SAF/AQC Memo at this address before using this part. http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/library/DecPolmem2.doc

PART 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-100 Scope.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

[Amended per CPM 98-C-12, effective 28 Aug 98]

  1. BB-101 Applicability.
  1. BB-102 Objective of the source selection process.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-10, dated 10 July 98]

  1. BB-103 Definitions.

"Acquisition Plan (AP)" means a comprehensive plan for fulfilling agency needs in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost (price). The acquisition plan contains the overall strategy for managing the acquisition. (See FAR Part 7.)

"Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)" means a group of functional experts who serve in an advisory capacity by reviewing and recommending acquisition strategies for a specific product or service.

"Advisors" means Government or non-Government personnel, designated by the SSA, who provide advice to the SSA or Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET).

"Assessment Criteria" means evaluation criteria which are used by evaluators in performing the technical evaluation by relating certain aspects of an offeror's proposal to specific evaluation criteria.

[ ]

"Best Value" [See FAR 2.101 Definitions as amended by FAC 97-02 (30 Sep 97)*.]

"Clarification" [See FAR 15.306(a).]

"Contract Team" means a group of Government personnel within the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) who are responsible for evaluating cost (price) proposals and negotiating the contract(s).

"Deficiency" [See FAR 15.301 Definitions.]

"Essential Characteristics or Baseline Requirements" means qualitative/quantitative determinations that establish the minimum level of acceptability for each requirement or effort in the statement of objectives, statement of work, or performance work statement.

"Evaluation Criteria" means the basis for measuring each offeror's ability, as expressed in its proposal, to meet the Government's needs as stated in the solicitation.

["Evaluation Notice (EN)" means Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) inquiries to offerors to better understand offeror proposals or to notify offerors about deficient aspects of their proposals. ENs issued prior to competitive range determination are for the purpose of enhancing Government understanding of proposals without revisions to those proposals. After the competitive range determination, ENs are also used to identify deficiencies and allow offerors to revise their proposals.]

"Evaluation Standards" means establishing a uniform baseline against which each offeror's solution is compared to determine its value to the Government. They establish the level an offeror's proposal must meet in any area, factor, subfactor, or element to be judged acceptable ("green"). A standard may be quantitative, qualitative, or some combination of both. [When possible, evaluation standards should be written as part of the evaluation factors and subfactors. If evaluation standards are written separately, they should be released to offerors.]

"General Consideration" means an element of evaluation in the source selection that typically relates to proposed contractual terms and conditions, results of preaward surveys, and other surveys or reviews.

"Minimum Mandatory Requirement" means the absolute lowest threshold acceptable in performance and capability.

"Oral Presentation" [See FAR 15.102, Oral presentations.]

[*This and subsequent changes to FAR cites are through FAC 97-02 as noted.]

[ ]

"Performance Risk" means the assessment of an offeror's present and past work record to assess confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform as proposed.

"Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG)" means a group of experienced Government personnel that may be appointed by the SSAC chairperson to assess performance risk.

"Proposal Analysis Report (PAR)" means the report prepared by the source selection evaluation team during the source selection that fully documents the results of the technical evaluation, risk assessment, cost analysis, and contract/business issues resolutions.

"Proposal Risks" means the risks that are identified with an offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation.

"Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP)" means a concise, comprehensive program document which serves two functions: (1) it is the management plan program managers follow to successfully execute the acquisition of a requirement; (2) it is the supporting documentation which enables a program decision authority to reach a milestone decision.

"Source Selection Authority" (SSA) means the official designated to direct the source selection process and make the source selection decision.

"Source Selection Evaluation Guide" means an optional document tailored to the specific source selection that describes in detail the procedures for how the source selection will be run. It identifies specific responsibilities, duties, schedules, processes, administrative details, and other details for team members to ensure all actions are accomplished in a timely and appropriate manner. It is extremely useful when the source selection team members are not familiar with the formal source selection process. (See Attachment BB-5.)

"Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET)" means a group of Government personnel representing the various functional and technical disciplines relative to the acquisition that evaluates proposals and reports its findings to the SSA.

"Source Selection Plan (SSP)" means a plan, approved by the SSA, that describes in detail how the SSET is organized, how the proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how the source(s) will be selected.

"Specific Criteria" means a subset of evaluation criteria that relate to specific program characteristics. Specific criteria typically are divided into technical and/or management areas. These areas are divided into factors, which are further divided into subfactors and elements, as necessary, depending on the complexity of the factor being evaluated.

"Strength" means a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an offeror's proposal that exceeds the evaluation standard and provides a useful capability that will be included in the specification, or statement of objectives or statement of work, or is inherent in the offeror's process.

"Weakness" [See FAR 15.301, Definitions.]

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-104 Policies.
  1. BB-105 Source Selection Authority (SSA).

[Amended per contracting Policy Memo 97-C-16, dated 3 Nov 1997]

Table A _ AFMC Source Selection Authority (SSA) Thresholds

PEO and DAC Programs (non Information Technology)// Other Contracting

Threshold SSA (Delegable) SSP Review

$5M to < $50M Single Manager* BOCO/[//***]

> $50M to < $500M PEO or DAC//Center CC SCCO

> $500M ASAF(A) SSAC

MAIS Programs and non-MAIS Information Technology Acquisitions

Threshold SSA (Delegable) SSP Review

$5M to < $15/30M** Single Manager* BOCO/[//***]

> $15/30M** to < $120M PEO or DAC//Center CC SCCO

and non-MAIS

> $120M or MAIS PDASAF(A&M) SSAC

* Single Manager (SM) includes System Program Director, [(SPD)] Product Group Manager (PGM), Materiel Group Manager (MGM), and [Technology Director (TD)]

** $15/$30M means $15M or more in any FY or $30M or more for all program years.

[*** For other contracting, the first contracting official in the contract chain subordinate to the SCCO]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table B _ Other MAJCOMs, FOAs, DRUs Source Selection Authority Thresholds

(Other Contracting)

Threshold SSA (Delegable) SSP Review

< $500M Commanders* Per Command Guidance

> $500M ASAF(A) SSAC

MAIS Programs and non-MAIS Information Technology Acquisitions

Threshold SSA (Delegable) SSP Review

< $120M Commanders* Per Command Guidance

and non-MAIS

> $120M or MAIS PDASAF(A&M) SSAC

* Commanders of MAJCOMs, FOAs and DRUs

TABLE B NOTE: If an acquisition is designated a PEO Program, the PEO is the SSA for thresholds below ASAF(A) (delegable).

  1. BB-106 Organization.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-107 Responsibilities and duties.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-108 Advisors.
  1. BB-109 Conflicts of interest.
  1. BB-110 Solicitation and contract documents.
  1. BB-111 Plant visits.
  1. BB-112 Interface with contractors.
  1. BB-113 Foreign Military Sales (FMS).
  1. BB-114 Deviations.
  1. BB-115 Regulatory references.

PART 2 - PRE-EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

  1. BB-201 Introduction.
  1. BB-202 Acquisition strategy.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-203 Basis of award, evaluation criteria, and general considerations.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-204 Source Selection Plan (SSP).
  1. [Per CPM 98-C-16, effective 08 Oct 1998.]
  2. BB-205 Evaluation standards.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-206 Solicitation.
  1. BB-207 Notice of source selection action.

PART 3 - PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

  1. BB-301 General.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-302 Offerors' oral presentations.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-303 Technical evaluation.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-10, dated 10 July 98]

  1. BB-304 Use of rating techniques.

NOTE: Both ratings will be maintained and submitted to the SSAC.

  1. BB-305 Assessment of risk.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-306 [Exchanges with offerors.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-30[7] Narrative assessments.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-30[8] Cost (price) evaluation.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON, DC

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

7 APR 1997

  1. CONTRACTING POLICY MEMO 97-C-05

MEMORANDUM FOR ALMAJCOM-FOA-DRU (CONTRACTING)

FROM: SAF/AQC

1060 Air Force Pentagon

Washington DC 20330-1060

SUBJECT: Source Selection Technical Team Member Access to Cost Information

References: (a) AFFARS Appendix AA, Formal Source Selection For Major Acquisitions, para AA-309(b)

For many years, technical evaluators have been prohibited from access to offerors' cost proposals. The reason for this prohibition was worthwhile - to ensure that each offeror's technical proposal was evaluated on its own merits without any influence from knowledge of the bottom line cost figures.

Our acquisition processes are evolving and improving. One major change is the establishment of integrated teams. Our source selection teams must work closely together to ensure that Source Selection Authorities (SSAs) are presented with the most accurate, integrated assessment possible of each offeror's proposal. These teams must be provided with the full range of evaluation tools available.

In order to ensure the best possible evaluation, our clear preference is for technical teams to have access to cost information. The technical and cost teams already share the basics upon which bottom line cost is developed - labor types and hours, material types and quantities, and schedule information. Allowing full access to cost information will enable them to more readily and easily find disconnects between the technical, cost, and schedule volumes, thereby ensuring a better and faster evaluation is performed. In addition, full access to cost information should enhance the use of cost as an independent variable (CAIV).

The prohibition established by the above references is hereby eliminated. SSAs should now ensure the entire government evaluation team has access to cost information.

On an exception basis, SSAs may limit or prohibit technical evaluator access to cost information. The source selection plan must document if technical evaluator access to cost information will be limited or prohibited. If limited access is to be imposed, the limitations must be described and included in the source selection plan and in an SSA determination. SAF/AQ has directed that a copy be provided to SAF/AQC of any such determination.

To the extent that other documents and guides prohibit technical evaluator access to cost information, this memorandum prevails. This policy is for solicitations issued after 1 May 97; earlier application is encouraged.

A major rewrite of AFFARS Appendices AA and BB is in progress. A copy of this memorandum has been provided to the AA/BB rewrite team for their consideration and inclusion in the rewrite. When issued, the new source selection policy and procedures will supersede the guidance in this memorandum.

/signed/

TIMOTHY P. MALISHENKO, Brig Gen, USAF

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)

Assistant Secretary (Acquisition)

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-3[09] Establish consensus on strengths and weaknesses within the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET).

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-3[10] Determination of competitive range.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-312 Conducting written or oral discussions.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[2] The Proposal Analysis Report and presentation.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[3] Source selection briefings.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[4] Selection and contract award.

NOTE:

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[5] Announcement of source selection decision.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[6] Notification and debriefings.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[7] Lessons learned.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-31[8] Security requirements.

PART 4 - SOURCE SELECTION DOCUMENTATION AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

  1. BB-401 General.

[Amended per Contracting Policy Memo 98-C-02, dated 8 Jan 98]

  1. BB-402 Source selection records.

* Normally will require continued protection after contract award.

  1. BB-403 Protecting source selection records.

23 OCT 1997                

CONTRACTING POLICY MEMO 97-C-15
                                     

MEMORANDUM FOR ALMAJCOM-FOA-DRU (CONTRACTING)

FROM: SAF/AQC
             1060 Air Force Pentagon
             Washington DC 20330-1060

SUBJECT: Request for Class Deviation to AFFARS Appendices AA and BB Paragraph 403(b), Release of Source
                  Selection Information

        We received the attached request from Air Force Materiel Command's Electronic Systems Center for a class deviation to AFFARS Appendices AA and BB paragraph 403 (b) for the purpose of reuse of Software Capability Evaluation (SCE) data in source selections. Since this deviation pertains to all Air Force contracting activities, I have decided to approve it for all.

        You must ensure that use of the SCE data is limited to those situations where the data is clearly relevant to the requirement undergoing source selection, and prior to implementation ensure that each location identifies an SCE repository including associated maintenance and utilization procedures. This approval does not alleviate the responsibility of all participants in the source selection process to continue to protect information as necessary to ensure the integrity of the reuse process and prevent disclosure of contractor proprietary information to unauthorized personnel. This approval remains in effect for one year from the date of this memorandum, or upon issuance of a revised Air Force source selection policy, whichever occurs first.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[NOTE: Attachments have not been revised to reflect the new FAR 15 Rewrite. The attachments are intended for use as samples only, and may be modified as necessary to comply with FAR 15 and the revised text contained within this Appendix.]

ATTACHMENT BB-1 SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

Undisplayed Graphic

ATTACHMENT BB-2 SCHEDULE OF SOURCE SELECTION EVENTS

ATTACHMENT BB-3 EXAMPLE OF EVALUATION MATRIX

Undisplayed Graphic

ATTACHMENT BB-4 SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

FOR

[Insert title of effort]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

3. PROPOSED PRESOLICITATION ACTIVITIES

4. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

5. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

7. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

8. NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

ATTACHMENT BB-5 SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION GUIDE

(May be tailored to fit complexity of the acquisition or
eliminated if other structured evaluation approach is used)

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION GUIDE

FOR

[Insert title of effort]

I have reviewed this document for accuracy and completeness and agree
with the proposed Source Selection Evaluation Guide.

______________________________________________
PCO

______________________________________________
PROJECT OFFICER

____________________________________________
SOURCE SELECTION OFFICER

I approve this Source Selection Evaluation Guide.

_____________________________________________

SSET CHAIRPERSON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

1. INTRODUCTION

a. General
b. Responsibility

2. SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

a. Organization
b. Description of Responsibilities

3. SECURITY

a. General
b. Management
c. Procedure
d. SSET Personnel Duties
e. Office Security Manager Duties
f. Accountable Officer Duties
g. Certifications

4. ADMINISTRATION

a. General
b. Evaluation Area
c. Proposal Control
d. Classified Material
e. Working Hours
f. Schedule of Events

5. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. General
b. Proposal Evaluation
c. Presenting the Evaluation Results
d. Discussions/Negotiations
e. Best and Final Offer
f. Final Evaluation and Decision

6. EVALUATION CRITERIA/STANDARDS

a. Structure of Proposals
b. Evaluation Criteria
c. Evaluation Standards

7. BRIEFINGS/REPORTS/DECISION DOCUMENT

a. Briefings
b. Reports
c. Decision Document

EVALUATION GUIDE

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

NOTE: This section must be the same as the SSP.

SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

[Insert "wiring" diagram here]

3. SECURITY

4. ADMINISTRATION

DAILY SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

5. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

NOTE: This section must track to the section in the SSP.

NOTE: Deficiency reports and clarification requests provided to offerors do not have to be in question format with a question mark at the end of the statement; "Explain your procedure for XYZ" will get the point across as well as "What software will you use to evaluate ABC?". Evaluators must be concerned about technical leveling when preparing questions (i.e., don't lead the offeror to the correct answer); however, the questions must be sufficiently direct to tell the offeror what to respond to. Ask the offeror to explain the merits of the proposed method/software/procedure ABC, not why method/software/procedure DEF that was used by company [insert company name] wasn't proposed. If the offeror failed to completely answer part of a PPI criterion, specifically identify the information required, do not simply state that the offeror's answer to PPI criterion #[insert number] was vague.

NOTE: Do not compare offerors. If two offerors did the same thing, use the same words to describe the problem or strength and give it the same emphasis. This drives out what the true differences are between two similar sounding evaluations.

6. EVALUATION CRITERIA/STANDARDS

7. BRIEFINGS/REPORTS/DECISION DOCUMENT

8. TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY CHART

ATTACHMENT BB-6 EXAMPLES OF EVALUATION STANDARDS

EXAMPLES OF QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS

NOTE: A quantitative standard relates to terms of quantity or a measurement of quantity. For example, a quantitative standard would be involved in an acquisition for services or equipment. The service or item would fail, meet, or exceed the standard.

(1) AREA: TECHNICAL

    FACTOR: MISSION SUPPORT

    SUBFACTOR: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

    ELEMENT: VEHICLE AVAILABILITY

    DESCRIPTION:

    This element is defined by the contractor by proposing a vehicle availability rate that supports the Air Force base transportation maintenance mission.

    STANDARD:

    The proposed availability rate meets the standard of [insert standard rate] as contained in SOW paragraph [insert paragraph number].

(2) AREA: TECHNICAL

    FACTOR: COMPUTER CAPABILITY

    SUBFACTOR: MODEMS

    ELEMENT: TRANSMISSION SPEED

    DESCRIPTION:

    This element is defined as the data transmission speed required to operate in an efficient manner, for example, a speed of at least 2400 baud.

    STANDARD:

    The standard is met when the modem operates at a speed of at least 2400 baud, in accordance with SOW paragraph [insert paragraph number].

EXAMPLES OF QUALITATIVE STANDARDS

NOTE: A qualitative standard relates to quality or kind. It does not relate specifically to quantity.

(1) AREA: TECHNICAL

    FACTOR: RANGE SUPPORT

    SUBFACTOR: GROUND SAFETY

    DESCRIPTION:

    The proposed ground safety program will be evaluated for adequacy in meeting Air Force installation ground safety objectives. The evaluation will consider the specific tasks, procedures, criteria, and techniques the contractor proposes to use in the ground safety program.

    STANDARD:

    The standard is met when the proposal:

    a. Defines the scope of the ground safety effort and supports the stated safety objectives;

    b. Defines the qualitative analysis techniques proposed for identifying hazards to the extent required; and

    c. Describes procedures by which test plans, procedures, test data, and results will be reviewed at appropriate intervals to ensure safety requirements are specified and followed.

(2) AREA: TECHNICAL

    FACTOR: JANITORIAL SERVICES

    SUBFACTOR: QUALITY CONTROL

    DESCRIPTION:

    The proposed quality control program will be evaluated for adequacy in meeting the requirements of AFMAN 64-108, "Service Contracts."

    STANDARD:

    The standard is met when the contractor provides evidence of a documented and functioning quality control program in accordance with PWS paragraph(s) [insert paragraph number(s)].

(3) AREA: MANAGEMENT

    FACTOR: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

    SUBFACTOR: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

    DESCRIPTION:

    The State requires vehicle operations be licensed to move materials of this type. The evaluation will consider the experience and qualifications of the personnel proposed by the offeror to perform this task.

    STANDARD:

    The standard is met when the offeror provides evidence that the proposed drivers have at least a Class III driver's license and three years experience in this type of effort in accordance with PWS paragraph [insert paragraph number].

ATTACHMENT BB-7 FORMAT FOR PREPARING DEFICIENCY REPORTS OR CLARIFICATION REQUESTS

NOTE:
When using this format for clarification requests, substitute "clarification request" for "deficiency report" and in the body of the request provide:

ATTACHMENT BB-8 SSET PROPOSAL ANALYSIS REPORT

ATTACHMENT BB-9 EXAMPLE OF FORMAT FOR SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

FOR THE [insert name of effort]

RFP No.________________

[Insert Source Selection Authority signature and signature block]

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

NOTE:
(1) Each decision document must be written to describe the specific rationale for the source selected.
(2) Ensure that the decision document adequately addresses the impact of the past performance assessment.
(3) This document will likely be released to the public after award.

ATTACHMENT BB-10 SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION BRIEFING CERTIFICATE AND DEBRIEFING CERTIFICATE

Source Selection Information Briefing Certificate

Name: ____________________ Grade: _______ Job Title: ___________________________

Organization: _______________ Source Selection: ____________________ Date: _________

Briefing Acknowledgment

1. I acknowledge I have been assigned to the source selection indicated above. I am aware that unauthorized disclosure of source selection or proprietary information could damage the integrity of this procurement and that the transmission or revelation of such information to unauthorized persons could subject me to prosecution under the Procurement Integrity Laws or under other applicable laws.

2. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not divulge, publish, or reveal by word, conduct, or any other means, such information or knowledge, except as necessary to do so in the performance of my official duties related to this source selection and in accordance with the laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized in writing in each and every case by a duly authorized representative of the United States Government. I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and in the absence of duress.

3. I acknowledge that the information I receive will be given only to persons specifically granted access to the source selection information and may not be further divulged without specific prior written approval from an authorized individual.

4. If, at any time during the source selection process, my participation might result in a real, apparent, possible, or potential conflict of interest, I will immediately report the circumstances to the Source Selection Authority.

5. All personnel are requested to check the applicable block:

SIGNATURE:______________________________________ DATE:_____________________

Debriefing Certificate

I have been debriefed orally by ____________________________________ as to my obligation to protect all information to which I have had access during this source selection. I no longer have any material pertinent to this source selection in my possession except material that I have been authorized in writing to retain by the SSA. I will not discuss, communicate, transmit, or release any information orally, in writing, or by any other means to anyone after this date unless specifically authorized to do so by a duly authorized representative of the United States Government.

________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Person Debriefed Date of Debriefing

________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Debriefer Date of Debriefing

ATTACHMENT BB-11 FORMAT FOR SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION COVER SHEET

See next page.

Undisplayed Graphic

This page is blank.

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of Contentshttp://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffar1.htmNext Page