AFFARS Part 5315

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



PART 5315-CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

SUBPART 5315.1 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS AND TECHNIQUES

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to an offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements affordably. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA, using sound business judgment, bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements.

SUBPART 15.2-SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND INFORMATION

SUBPART 5315.3-SOURCE SELECTION

SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES APPLICABILITY*

All source selections other than IT** IT

Basic Procedures SAT to < $10M SAT to <15/30$M**

Median Procedures >$10M to < $100M $15/30M to < $120M

Agency Procedures >$100M >$120M

* For Source Selection Authority, see Attachment 5315-3

**Information Technology (IT)

*** $15M or greater in a single fiscal year, or $30M or greater for all fiscal years

Note: The AP/SAMP approving official (or SSA if AP/SAMP is not required) for Median Procedures may use Basic or Agency procedures, if it is in the Government's best interest to do so, based on complexity of the acquisition or other considerations.

(Note that the terms "weakness," "significant weakness," and "deficiency" are defined in FAR Part 15.301.)

All Government personnel assigned as a source selection team member shall consider this duty as their primary responsibility. Their source selection assignment shall take precedence over all other work assignments. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that other work assignments do not conflict with subordinates' source selection duties. Key members of the source selection team such as the SSET Chairperson, the PRAG Chairperson and the contracting officer, must have source selection experience, if possible, and be designated early.

The organization structure for each category of source selection is described below.

Price or cost analysis is an assessment of affordability used to establish reasonableness and realism. The level of detail of analysis required will vary among acquisitions depending on the complexity and circumstances of the acquisition, including the degree of competition, the phase of the program, the type of product/services being acquired, and the contract type. In order to enable offerors to make informed decisions on how best to propose, every solicitation will contain a description of the method(s), techniques, and procedures by which cost or price will be analyzed. Price analysis is the preferred approach to be used.

Past performance may be established as the most important evaluation factor and shall be at least as important as the most important non-cost factor. Past performance evaluation is accomplished through assignment of a confidence assessment rating based on assessing performance risk. The risk assessment is accomplished by reviewing aspects of the offeror's relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors and cost or price. The confidence assessment rating is established through an integrated analysis of the those risks and strengths identified at the subfactor level as determined by the offeror's recent, current and relevant contract performance. This integrated past performance confidence assessment is rated as its own factor. The SSA has the option of assigning the rating at the factor level based on the subfactor assessment, or may elect to have the PRAG recommend a factor level confidence assessment rating based on the subfactor assessment.

Color Rating Definition

Rating Definition

High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of
performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close
Government monitoring.

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

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of per-
formance Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.

All exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the types of exchanges, i.e., clarifications, communications or discussions

An SSDD shall be prepared for all Air Force source selections and must reflect the SSA's integrated assessment and decision. The SSDD must be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. The SSDD clearly explains the decision and documents the reasoning used by the SSA to reach a decision. The SSDD is fully releasable to the General Accounting Office and others authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information. When releasing a copy of the SSDD to offerors or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information, redacted material should be limited to that which is proprietary and that which must continue to be protected as source selection information. The need to redact such information is not a sufficient reason to refrain from preparing a properly written SSDD.

Required source selection documents.

SUBPART 5315.4-CONTRACT PRICING

(a) For firm-fixed price (FFP) competitive contracts where adequate price competition is anticipated (see 5315.305 (a) (1), approval to obtain information other than cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.401) from offerors must be obtained from SAF/AQC. Submit requests for approval to SAF/AQCS for processing. Requests should address the following:

"Adverse opinion report" means an audit report containing the specific statement that the contractor's proposal is not acceptable as a basis for negotiation of a price.

"Closed audit report" means an audit report that has been disposed of by the contracting officer and closed for follow-up tracking purposes. (See the definition for "Disposition of contract audit reports.")

"Contract audit report" means the contract auditor's written advice to a contracting officer advocating specific action on the part of the contracting officer or contractor and/or including highly qualified or adverse opinion information. An audit report could include amounts questioned or disapproved, exceptions to a contractor's system or operations (usually expressed in terms of cost avoidance), recommended price adjustments, or notification of a contractor's noncompliance with cost accounting standards. Contract audit reports will include Contractor Insurance/Pension Reviews (CIPRs) issued by DLA.

"Costs questioned" means:

"Costs questioned sustained" means that portion of the costs questioned by the auditor which is upheld as a result of actions taken by either the contractor or the contracting officer.

"Disclaimed opinion report" means any audit denying the validity of a proposal when the scope of audit was so restricted that an audit opinion cannot be justified.

"Disposition of contract audit reports" occurs when:

"Highly qualified opinion report" means an audit report which typically indicates a significant inadequacy in the cost or pricing data, denial of access to records, or noncompliance with cost accounting standards or acquisition regulations. For the purpose of follow-up coverage under DOD Directive 7640.2, the audit report must specifically state that the results of audit are highly qualified. (Italics added for emphasis.)

"Litigation" means:

"Open audit report" means an audit report that has not been dispositioned.

"Original audit report date" means the date of the original audit report that first identified any issue that is still open and included in a superseding or supplemental audit report.

"Overage audit report" means an audit report that has not been dispositioned and is over 12 months old (from date of issuance) on the closing date of the semi-annual reporting periods ending 31 Mar and 30 Sep.

"Reports involved in investigation" means an audit report that is considered to be involved in an investigation when deferral of resolution or disposition action has been requested by an investigative agency of the U.S. Government.

"Resolution" means:

SUBPART 5315.5 - PREAWARD, AWARD, AND POSTAWARD NOTIFICATIONS, PROTESTS, AND MISTAKES.

(d) Debriefings to all successful and unsuccessful debriefed offerors shall contain information sufficient to convey the basis of the SSA's integrated assessment and assist all offerors in improving future proposals. Information in the debriefings shall be appropriately redacted and "point-by-point" comparisons of offerors proposals detailing specific language in the proposals are prohibited (FAR 15.506 (e)). Information showing how one offeror was evaluated and rated against the evaluation factors as compared to the successful offeror should be included in the debriefing. In no case shall information be provided which is prohibited from disclosure or exempt from release (FAR 15.506 (e) (1) - (4)).

(1) The debriefed offeror shall be provided the same ratings (or redacted PER for Basic source selections) for its proposal that were briefed to the SSA during the decision briefing. The debriefing shall also include the narrative description, provided to the SSA, of the strengths, proposal inadequacies, risks, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

(2) The debriefing shall include the ratings and narrative description presented to the SSA of the strengths, proposal inadequacies, risks, and weaknesses of the successful offeror's proposal, appropriately redacted. Neither the successful offeror nor unsuccessful offerors shall be provided the same information on any other unsuccessful offeror's proposal except for the case when there are only two offerors. In this case, the SSA may release all ratings and accompanying narratives on each offeror's proposal, appropriately redacted, to the other offeror.

(3) The SSDD, appropriately redacted, shall be provided to all debriefed offerors. The SSA may also release an appropriately redacted PAR to all offerors in the competitive range. The debriefing is not a forum for debate regarding the subjective judgment of the SSA. If the Government team participating in the debriefing is uncertain about a response to an offeror's question, or determines the question may be inappropriate (e.g., the response would reveal proprietary or classified information to which the offeror is not permitted access), the offeror should be so informed and provided with a response, if appropriate, as soon as possible after the debriefing.

SUBPART 5315.6-UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

Undisplayed Graphic

ATTACHMENT 5315-2 STATUS REPORT ON SPECIFIED CONTRACT AUDIT REPORT, CLOSED REPORT

Undisplayed Graphic

Attachment 5315-3

Table A

AFMC Source Selection Authority (SSA) Thresholds

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

Threshold SSA (Delegable[1]) SSP Review

SAT to < $10M Contracting Officer Technical Team Member

> $10M to < $50M Single Manager[2] BOCO//[See note 3]

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

> $500M[4] PDASAF(A&M) SSAC Chairperson

Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Programs and non-MAIS Information Technology Acquisitions

Threshold SSA (Delegable[1]) SSP Review

SAT to < $15/30M[5] Single Manager[2] BOCO//[See note 3]

> $15/30M[5]to < $120M PEO or DAC//Center CC SCCO

and non-MAIS

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

[1]Not delegable lower than the contracting officer.

[3]For Other Contracting, the first contracting official in the contract chain subordinate to the SCCO.

[4]Except new ACAT ID programs entering EMD (ASAF(A))

*AFMC/CC may designate an SSA at a level other than those listed above for a specific "Other Contracting" acquisition of less than $500 Million.

Table B

Other MAJCOMs, FOAs, DRUs Source Selection Authority Thresholds

Other Contracting*

Threshold SSA (Delegable[1]) SSP Review

> $500M PDASAF(A&M)[3] SSAC Chairperson

MAIS Programs and non-MAIS Information Technology Acquisitions

Threshold SSA (Delegable[1]) SSP Review

and non-MAIS

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

[1]Not delegable lower than the contracting officer.

[3]Except new ACAT ID programs entering EMD (ASAF(A))

ATTACHMENT 5315-4Undisplayed Graphic


ATTACHMENT 5315-5

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION BRIEFING
& DEBRIEFING CERTIFICATES

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 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

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