AFFARS Part 5315

Previous PageTable Of ContentsAFFARSNext Page



PART 5315 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
[Revised November 22, 2002]


5315.001 Definitions.
"Evaluation Notices (ENs)" are exchanges ith offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions. ENs which result from deficiencies in the offeror's proposal shall be clearly identified to the offeror as deficiencies.


"Objective Performance Requirement" is a measurable, desirable capability or characteristic above the threshold. This is the capability or characteristic desired by the user and which the program manager would like to obtain. The objective should represent an operationally meaningful increment above the threshold performance requirement.


"Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG)" is a group of experienced personnel assigned to accomplish the past performance evaluation. The PRAG assigns or recommends to the SSA a confidence assessment rating based on assessing performance risk. The confidence assessment measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror's ability to perform. The confidence assessment rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror's recent, current and relevant contract performance.


"Proposal Analysis Report (PAR)" is a report that fully documents the results of the evaluation and the comparative analysis of offerors' proposals.


"Proposal Evaluation Report (PER)" is a report in simplified format which documents the source selection approach, description of the acquisition, evaluation results, comparative analysis of offerors, and the Source Selection Decision Document.


"Proposal Inadequacy" is an aspect or omission from an offeror's proposal that may contribute to a failure in meeting specified minimum performance or capability requirements.


"Requirements Documents" are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offeror, including Statements of Objectives (SOOs), Statements of Work (SOWs), Performance Work Statements (PWSs), Technical Requirement Documents (TRDs) and System Requirement Documents (SRDs).


"Requiring Office" is the office (normally a program management or equivalent organization) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents that communicate those requirements to offerors within the RFP.


"Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)" is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and prepare a comparative analysis of the Source Selection Evaluation Team's evaluation results, unless otherwise directed by the SSA.


"Source Selection Authority (SSA)" is the official designated to make the source selection decision.


"Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)" is the document that reflects the SSA's integrated assessment and selection decision.


"Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET)" is the group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition. The SSET evaluates proposals and reports its findings to the SSAC (if used) and the SSA.


"Source Selection Plan (SSP)" is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.


"Strength" is a significant, outstanding or exceptional aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror's process.


"Threshold Performance Requirement" is a minimum, measurable capability or characteristic required to satisfy the user's need. If a threshold is not achieved, that aspect of the offeror's proposal is deficient.


SUBPART 5315.1 - SOURCE SELECTION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES

5315.101 Best value continuum. (No Text)
5315.101-1 Tradeoff process.
Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) is a procedure in which tradeoffs are conducted between past performance and price/cost for technically acceptable proposals. The contracting officer should refer to Part 15 under the Contracting Toolkit on the SAF/AQC web site for guidance on PPT.


SUBPART 5315.2 - SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND INFORMATION

5315.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(1) The contracting officer may include a provision substantially the same as the provision at 5352.215-9000, Facility Clearance, in solicitations that include a DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification.


(2) The contracting officer may include a provision substantially the same as the provision at 5352.215-9001, Notice of Pre-bid/Pre-proposal Conference, in the request for proposal when appropriate. When access to classified documents is contemplated, the contracting officer may include a provision substantially the same as the provision with its Alternate I.


SUBPART 5315.3 - SOURCE SELECTION

5315.300 Scope of subpart.
(1) This subpart establishes Air Force source selection policy.


(2) This policy applies to all competitive negotiated acquisitions conducted by Air Force contracting activities above the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and for which Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or PPT procedures are not used. The following types of acquisitions are also exempt from this policy:


(3) Air Force source selection procedures are separated into three categories based upon the dollar value and complexity of the acquisition.


TABLE 5315-1- SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES*

All source selections other than IT**


IT


Basic Procedures


SAT to < $10M


SAT to < $15/30M***


Median Procedures


> $10M to < $100M


$15/30M to < $120M


Agency Procedures


> $100M


> $120M


* For Source Selection Authorities, see 5315.303(a).


** Information Technology (IT)


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


(4) Deviations. When the SSA is at SAF/AQ or higher, deviations from this policy shall be approved by the SSA and should be documented in the Source Selection Plan (SSP). When the SSA is at SAF/AQ or higher and deviations are documented in the SSP, approval of the SSP constitutes approval of the requested deviation(s) unless otherwise noted by the SSA. For all other deviations from this policy, follow FAR Subpart 1.4, as supplemented.


5315.302 Source selection objective.
Acquisition teams shall ensure that rapid delivery of affordable capability from the right industry partner is considered as a key aspect of the best value determination. When developing source selection criteria and during the conduct of the source selection, acquisition teams shall ensure that they maintain this focus on the warrior and their needs and priorities and selecting the right industry partner. Overall, selecting the right industry partner is the single most important thing the acquisition team can do to ensure the ultimate success of a program or acquisition.


5315.303 Responsibilities.
(a) The SSA for source selections using Basic procedures is the contracting officer. The SSAs for PEO and DAC program source selections using Median or Agency procedures are as listed below. SSA shall not be delegated lower than the contracting officer. MAJCOMs and DRUs shall establish SSAs for "Other Contracting" source selections using Median and Agency procedures.


(b) The SSA shall:


(c) The contracting officer shall:


5315.303-90 Additional responsibilities.
(a) The SSET Chairperson shall:


(b) The SSET shall:


(c) The SSAC Chairperson shall:


(d) The SSAC shall:


(e) The PRAG, comprised of Government personnel, shall conduct the past performance assessment. Members of the PRAG are appointed by the PRAG Chairperson.


(f) Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) employees. Because an FFRDC enjoys a unique relationship with its Government sponsor to provide long term technical support, an FFRDC employee may serve as a member of an SSET; however, an FFRDC employee may not serve as a chairperson of an SSET, member of the PRAG or SSAC, or as an SSA. If FFRDC personnel are used, subparagraph (g)(3) applies.


(g) Advisors. Advisors may be used as necessary to assist in the source selection evaluation. These advisors may be Government personnel or contractor personnel. Although advisors may assist in the evaluation and provide input regarding the strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies, and deficiencies in proposals, they shall not determine ratings or rankings of offerors' proposals. If contractor personnel are used as advisors the following applies:


(h) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers and international cooperative project partners. The FMS customers may participate in the source selection process as advisors only. In addition, the contracting officer shall not release cost information or any part of an offeror's cost proposal to representatives of FMS customers. International cooperative project partners shall not serve as the chairperson of the PRAG, SSET or SSAC, or as the SSA.


(i) 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, shall have source selection experience, if possible, and be designated early.


5315.303-91 Source selection organization structure.
The organization structure for each category of source selection is described below.


(a) Basic Source Selection Procedures. The acquisition team will normally consist of one technical member and one contracting member. If additional team members are required, it shall be approved by an official at least one level above the contracting officer.


(b) Median Source Selection Procedures. The source selection organization shall normally consist of the SSA and the SSET, which shall include only those persons necessary to perform the evaluation of proposals against the stated evaluation factors and subfactors . The SSET consists of technical evaluators, contracting officer/buyers, PRAG (optional), cost or price analyst(s), and advisors.


(c) Agency Source Selection Procedures. The source selection organization shall normally consist of the SSA, SSAC and the SSET, which shall include only those persons necessary to perform the evaluation of proposals against the stated evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements. The SSET consists of technical evaluators, contracting officer/buyers, PRAG, cost or price analyst(s), and advisors.


5315.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.
(b) It is Air Force policy to establish the absolute minimum number of factors necessary for evaluation of proposals. Source selection factors may be subdivided into subfactors that, in rare instances, may be further subdivided into elements if needed for Agency source selections. Evaluation factors and, if used, subfactors and elements, are the basis for assessing each offeror's ability to meet the Government's needs. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror's proposal is compared to determine the confidence the Government has that the offeror will be able to actually perform the work that the offeror proposes. They establish the level an offeror's proposal shall meet in order to be judged acceptable. Factors and subfactors shall be limited to those that are real discriminators. Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements:


(c) Source selections shall use the following four evaluation factors: Cost or Price, Past Performance, Mission Capability, and Proposal Risk. For Basic source selections, however, evaluation of proposal risk is optional. The Mission Capability factor shall be limited to six subfactors, unless additional subfactors are justified, documented in the SSP, and approved by the SSA. Proposal risk shall be assessed at the Mission Capability subfactor level. Subfactors are not normally used for Past Performance and Cost or Price.


5315.305 Proposal evaluation.
(a) Air Force factor ratings and assessments focus on the proposal strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies, deficiencies, performance confidence, and affordability. For a sample evaluation matrix, see Attachment 5315-2. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, or elements to be eligible for award. Section M of the RFP shall inform offerors of this condition for award. The factor ratings and assessments are described as follows:


TABLE 5315-2- PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating


Definition


Exceptional/High Confidence


Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


Very Good/Significant Confidence


Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


Satisfactory/Confidence


Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


Neutral/Unknown Confidence


No performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iii) and (iv)).


Marginal/Little Confidence


Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.


Unsatisfactory/No Confidence


Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


TABLE 5315-3 - MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS

Color


Rating


Definition


Blue


Exceptional


Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force.


Green


Acceptable


Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.


Yellow


Marginal


Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but any proposal inadequacies are correctable.


Red


Unacceptable


Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.


TABLE 5315-4- PROPOSAL RISK RATINGS

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 performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.


5315.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
All exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions).


(c) Competitive range. A competitive range briefing shall be conducted for Median and Agency acquisitions where the contracting officer recommends elimination of an offeror from the competitive range.


(d) Exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range.


5315.308 Source selection decision.
A Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) shall be prepared for all Air Force source selections and shall reflect the SSA's integrated assessment and decision. The SSDD shall be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. The SSDD shall clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the SSA to reach the 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 shall 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.


5315.308-90 Air Force source selection documents.
Required source selection documents include:


(a) Briefing charts.


(b) Proposal Evaluation Report (PER). The objective of this report is to be simple and concise and to utilize existing documentation, e.g., evaluator worksheets, to the maximum extent possible. The PER is required for Basic source selections and shall not be used for the other categories of source selection. The PER is written incrementally as the source selection progresses and documents the integrated assessment of Cost or Price, Past Performance, Mission Capability and Proposal Risk. Section I of the report provides a modified SSP with a description of the acquisition and evaluation factors used and their relative importance. Section II details the evaluation by offeror and should be used for debriefings. Section III is the comparative analysis of offerors. For those offerors excluded from the competitive range, this section will include the rationale for the competitive range determination. Section IV is the source selection decision document. Separate cost or price and technical reports are not required.


(c) Proposal Analysis Report (PAR). The objective of this report is to document the results of the SSET evaluation and to provide the comparative analysis of competitive offers. The PAR includes the integrated assessment of Cost or Price, Past Performance, Mission Capability and Proposal Risk. The PAR is required for Agency and optional for Median source selections, however, all ACAT programs other than those for which Basic procedures are used require a PAR. For non-ACAT Median source selections, the SSA is the approval authority for use of a PAR.


SUBPART 5315.4 - CONTRACT PRICING

5315.402 Pricing policy.
(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 from offerors shall be obtained from the DAS(C). Requests should address the following:


5315.403 Obtaining cost or pricing data. (No Text)
5315.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b).
(c) Standards for exceptions for cost or pricing data requirements.


5315.407 Special cost or pricing areas. (No Text)
5315.407-4 Should-cost review.
(b) Program should-cost review.


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

5315.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.
(d) Open and frank exchanges of information with offerors after award are necessary in order to demonstrate the fairness and integrity of the source selection process and reduce unnecessary protests. Debriefings to all successful and unsuccessful offerors shall provide sufficient information to effectively convey the basis of the SSA's integrated assessment and selection decision and to assist offerors in improving future proposals. 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.


SUBPART 5315.6 - UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

5315.606 Agency procedures.
HQ AFMC/PKP is the point of contact for the receipt and disposition of all unsolicited proposals received at the Air Staff (HQ USAF) and Secretariat (SAF) with the exception of proposals dealing with satellites, space systems and launch vehicles. HQ AFSPC/LGCP is the central point of contact for all unsolicited proposals dealing with satellites, space and launch systems. The responsible HQs office shall review the proposal contents and determine the proper activity within the Air Force to evaluate and process the proposal. MAJCOMs and DRUs shall establish points of contact and procedures for receipt and disposition of unsolicited proposals received locally, consistent with the requirements in FAR Subpart 15.6. Unless otherwise directed by SAF/AQC, the cognizant point of contact responsible for receipt and disposition of unsolicited proposals shall provide the Air Force's response to offerors.


ATTACHMENT 5315-1 - SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION BRIEFING AND DEBRIEFING CERTIFICATES

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


Source Selection Information 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 DATE


ATTACHMENT 5315-2 - SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION MATRIX

MISSION CAPABILITY


SUBFACTOR 1


SUBFACTOR 2


SUBFACTOR 3


SUBFACTOR 4


SUBFACTOR 5


PROP


RISK 1


PROP


RISK 2


PROP


RISK 3


PROP


RISK 4


PROP


RISK 5


PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE *


*assessed at subfactor, rated at factor level


PRICE / COST


Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsAFFARSNext Page