PART 5315 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
[Revised 2 April 2003]
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:
(i) Basic research, and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) and Program Research and Development Announcements (PRDAs) are used to solicit proposals and award contracts.
(ii) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) acquisitions.
(iii) Architect-engineer services.
(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.
(i) For non-space related ACAT I programs, ASAF(A) is the SSA.
(ii) For space related ACAT I programs, USECAF is the SSA.
(iii) For ACAT II and III programs, the PEO or DAC is the SSA.
(iv) For AFPEO/SV acquisitions, the PEO is the SSA.
(b) The SSA shall:
(1)(A) Appoint the SSET chairperson(s) and the SSAC chairperson and PRAG chairperson (if the SSAC and PRAG are used);
(B) Ensure the SSET is knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection, as necessary; and,
(C) Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 USC 423)(FAR 3.104) regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information.
(2)(S-90) The SSP should include applicable Program Management Directive (PMD) or other applicable guidance or direction and contain the elements described below. The SSP shall be prepared by the acquisition team. For Basic source selections, this plan need not be a separate document, nor shall it include all the items listed in (3) below, but may be a description of the acquisition, the evaluation factors used and their relative importance, and be included in the Proposal Evaluation Report (PER).
(i) The SSP shall be submitted sufficiently in advance of the planned acquisition action to permit review and approval by the SSA and early establishment of the source selection organization. In order to accelerate the acquisition, the SSP should be prepared and approved in conjunction with the Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP)/Integrated Program Summary (IPS)/Acquisition Plan (AP). Briefing charts may be used to document the SSP.
(ii) When changes in acquisition strategy require a revision to the SSP, the requiring office will send the proposed revision through source selection channels to the SSA.
(iii) The SSP shall include the following sections or references to other documents containing this information if it is addressed in other official documents (whenever possible, refer to and attach supporting documents rather than repeating the information in the SSP):
(A) Acquisition strategy. The SSP will include a summary of the acquisition strategy, including type(s) of contract(s) proposed, the incentives contemplated, milestone demonstrations intended, special contract clauses, etc. The SSP acquisition strategy shall reflect the strategy in the SAMP/IPS/AP.
(B) Source selection organization. Describe the proposed organization (see 5315.303-91). List recommended members by name, position title, or by functional area. The plan shall identify other Government organizations that will participate in the source selection.
(C) Presolicitation activities. Describe the activities leading up to the release of the solicitation such as market research, draft solicitations, and synopsis. For the market research, discuss how it was used to achieve competition, including a discussion of screening criteria, if applicable.
(D) Evaluation procedures. Identify which evaluation procedures will be used, i.e., Basic, Median, or Agency Level procedures and any deviations from those procedures that have been approved for use.
(E) Evaluation factors, subfactors and elements. Describe the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements and their relative order of importance. (NOTE: This shall be reflected verbatim in Section M of the RFP.)
(F) Schedule of events. Identify the schedule for significant source selection activities in sufficient detail to allow the reviewing authorities to assess the practicality of the schedule.
(G) Non-government personnel. Address the use of non-Government personnel.
(6) Make selection decision and document the supporting rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD); and
(S-90) Review all necessary information to determine if award without discussions is appropriate; and approve release of ENs and exclusion of any offeror from the competitive range.
(c) The contracting officer shall:
(S-90) Manage all business aspects of the acquisition. As the business advisor, the contracting officer is the principal advisor to the SSET on the conduct of the source selection;
(S-91) Ensure that the team membership remains consistent for all discussions with offerors;
(S-92) Process any required requests for delegation;
(S-93) Issue notice of source selection process initiation to appropriate parties at time of final RFP issuance. Notice shall state that all communications regarding the source selection shall be through the contracting officer. For Agency source selection procedures, make SAF/AQCK an addressee on this notice;
(S-94) Ensure required approvals are obtained, solicitation notifications are issued, and contract clause requirements are met before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support;
(S-95) Make competitive range determination, if discussions are necessary (see FAR 15.306(c)).
5315.303-90 Additional responsibilities.
(a) The SSET Chairperson shall:
(1) Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process;
(2) Ensure personnel, resources, and time assigned to the source selection reflect the complexity of the program;
(3) Be responsible for establishing effective liaison with the requiring office to ensure requirements are effectively addressed in terms of the requirements documents and with threshold/objective language, if used;
(4) Appoint members to the SSET, subject to approval of the SSA. Substitutions may be approved by the SSET Chairperson subsequent to SSP approval and do not require an amendment to the SSP;
(5) Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct and sign the Source Selection Information Briefing Certificate (see Attachment 5315-1);
(6) Recommend approval of the SSP to the SSAC Chairperson (if applicable) or to the SSA;
(7) Ensure members of the SSET are knowledgeable of their responsibilities before any proposal is reviewed, including details on how the evaluation is conducted;
(8) Review and recommend SSA approval of release of ENs through the contracting officer;
(9) In conjunction with the contracting officer, prepare the PAR (if required)/SSDD for the SSAC chairperson's/SSA's signature, unless otherwise directed by the SSAC Chairperson/SSA;
(10) Offer a recommended source selection decision for the SSA's consideration if requested by the SSA; and
(11) Participate in debriefings to offerors.
(b) The SSET shall:
(1) Conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of each proposal, and any subsequent revisions, against the approved factors, subfactors, elements, and other solicitation requirements; and
(2) When a briefing is used, prepare briefing charts that clearly summarize the evaluation results. Briefing charts shall be suitable to serve as the official record of SSET proceedings for Median source selections in lieu of more formal documentation, such as the PAR. These briefing charts will be presented to the SSAC (if an SSAC is used). Otherwise, these briefing charts will be presented directly to the SSA.
(c) The SSAC Chairperson shall:
(1) Appoint SSAC members (other than Secretariat, HQ USAF, and joint service members) subject to SSA approval;
(2) Ensure that SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities, involved from the beginning of the source selection process (e.g., acquisition strategy meeting), and instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct and sign the Source Selection Information Briefing Certificate (see Attachment 5315-1); and,
(3) Convene SSAC meetings to review the evaluation and findings of the SSET and to provide advice and/or analysis as requested by the SSA.
(d) The SSAC shall:
(1) Review the SSP prior to SSA review/approval;
(2) Review the evaluation and findings of the SSET and provide advice and analysis as requested by the SSA;
(3) Provide briefings and consultation at the request of the SSA;
(4) Normally, provide comparative analysis unless the SSA does not require it; and
(5) Offer a recommended source selection decision for the SSA's consideration, if requested by the SSA.
(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:
(1) Access to offeror proposals shall be restricted to only those portions for which the advisor's expertise is required in the evaluation (e.g., software support contractor only reviews software hours proposed).
(2) The contracting officer shall ensure that the necessary approval has been obtained in accordance with FAR Part 37.2.
(3) The solicitation shall list contractors who will be used in evaluating the proposals and provide notice to prospective offerors that such contractor personnel will be used and the manner in which they will be used unless offerors object to release of proposal information to such contractors (see (5) below).
(4) Appropriate Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clauses shall be included under the contract through which the advisors are provided.
(5) If any of the above conditions are not met, or competing offerors object to the release of their proposal information to support contractors, the non-Government personnel shall not be permitted to participate in the source selection or have any access to any source selection data, whatsoever.
(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:
(i) Shall be written in enough depth to communicate the measures of merit used to determine how the proposal will be evaluated and the rating determined;
(ii) Shall include only those specific program characteristics that are tied to warrior needs, significant enough to have an impact on the source selection decision, and expected to be discriminators based on market research;
(iii) Shall be set forth in Section M of the draft and final RFPs and the Evaluation Factors for Award. In addition, the relative importance of all factors, subfactors, and elements shall be consistent with warrior priorities and shall be specified in Section M of the RFP; and
(iv) May be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both.
(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:
(1) Cost or price evaluation. 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.
(A) For cost-reimbursement contracts, the cost realism analysis that results in a probable cost is accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) and shall be presented to the SSA in addition to the proposed cost.
(B) In fixed price contracting, cost realism analysis is not required except under the conditions specified in FAR 15.404-1(d)(3).
(C) For all firm-fixed price (FFP) contracts where adequate price competition is anticipated, obtaining information other than cost or pricing data from offerors is discouraged and should occur in only rare cases (see FAR 15.403-3(b), FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), and 5315.402(a). This approval requirement does not apply to A-76 studies because of the cost comparison requirements between private offerors and the Government Most Efficient Organization (MEO).
(D) To ensure the best possible evaluation, the entire Government evaluation team shall have access to cost or pricing data and information other than cost or pricing data. Under appropriate circumstances, non-Government advisors may be permitted access as required.
(2) Past performance evaluation. 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.
(A) The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule.
(B) The recency and relevancy of the past performance information is critical in determining what contracts/programs should be evaluated and should be individually tailored for each acquisition. Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. In determining relevancy, consideration should be given but not limited to such things as product similarity, product complexity, contract type, program phase, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. The evaluation should be constrained to a few most recent and most relevant contracts/programs for a comprehensive review. Early identification and use of past performance information to enable Government evaluators to focus on this measure of the performance confidence assessment is critical. Offerors should be informed of the information used to assess past performance (subject to the restrictions in FAR 15.306(e)(4)) and be given the opportunity to recommend other information, if appropriate, that will provide recent relevant information.
(C) The past performance evaluation should concentrate on those aspects of the instant acquisition most critical to overall success. Evaluation of offerors' performance should focus on demonstrated performance in these specific areas. Evaluators should consider mitigating circumstances, such as process changes, that have resulted in improvements to previous performance problems. However, process changes should only be considered when objectively measurable improvement in performance has been demonstrated as a result of the changes.
(D) Past performance information may be obtained through the Past Performance Automated Information System (PPAIS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, through Defense Contract Management Agency, through interviews with program managers and contracting officers, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments should be used if the data is recent and relevant.
(E) In performing a past performance evaluation each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:
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. |
(3) Technical evaluation.
(A) The Mission Capability subfactors shall be derived from requirements or objective and threshold performance requirements when used. Mission Capability ratings focus on the strengths and proposal inadequacies of the offeror's proposal. Mission capability shall be evaluated using the following color ratings. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up to an overall color rating. Through exchanges, the Government evaluators should be able to obtain the necessary information from offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to determine if the proposal inadequacies have been satisfactorily addressed. Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the time of the final evaluation. Note that if an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal.
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. |
(B) Proposal risk assessment focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach. Assessment of proposal risk is done at the subfactor (or element, if used) level, and includes potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposal for mitigating those weaknesses and why that approach is or is not manageable. Note that if a combination of significant weaknesses leads to unacceptably high proposal risk, this is a deficiency in the proposal. Proposal risk shall be evaluated using the following ratings:
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.
(3) For all ACAT program source selections, the SSET, through the contracting officer, may provide to all offerors in the competitive range their rating status at the time of competitive range determination and shall provide to all offerors in the competitive range their rating status at the end of discussions. The rating status shall include the description of that offeror's strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies, and deficiencies, if any remain. This may be accomplished by providing the offeror its own color and risk rating briefing charts (if accomplished) as they appear at the end of discussions with that offeror and should reflect the evaluation results of discussions. Rating status may also be provided to offerors on non-ACAT programs.
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.
(1) When a competitive range briefing is required, charts shall be in sufficient detail to support the contracting officer recommendation. At this point in the process, there are frequently numerous issues to discuss with offerors. Therefore, it is especially important to explain clearly to the SSA which issues are of greatest significance, particularly those for which it may be necessary to issue ENs regarding deficiencies in the offeror's proposal.
(2) Charts for the SSA decision briefing are mandatory for Median and Agency source selections, but are not required for Basic. Charts presented to the SSA shall include the integrated assessment of cost or price, performance confidence, color ratings for mission capability subfactors and a separate proposal risk rating for each subfactor. Only the final ratings are required to be shown (changes from the competitive range briefing, if conducted, to the source selection decision briefing should not be depicted). In addition, sufficiently detailed narrative descriptions of each offerors' strengths, proposal inadequacies, weaknesses and deficiencies shall be included.
(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:
(i) Description of effort including estimated dollar value;
(ii) Discussion of why competitive forces were found to be inadequate;
(iii) Description of the information being requested from offerors;
(iv) Specific alternatives to obtaining this information that were considered or used and why those alternatives were not employed or their use was unsuccessful;
(v) Detailed justification for why the information is needed, why the information is obtained from offeror(s), and the impact to the evaluation if the information is not obtained; and
(vi) Copy of solicitation language (i.e., Instructions to Offerors, Section L, or equivalent) which specifies the type of information being requested from offerors.
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.
(4) Waivers.
(S-90) Requests for waiver of certified cost or pricing data shall include, in addition to a clear description of the methods to be used to determine the price reasonable, the following additional information (when a subcontractor has refused to provide cost or pricing data to a prime contractor, each item of the information required shall cover both the prime contract and subcontract):
(i) Contract type and number, RFP or purchase request number, including supplemental agreement number;
(ii) A concise description of supplies or services being purchased;
(iii) Any outside influences or time pressures;
(iv) Complete company name and location;
(v) If applicable, a complete description of the data the contractor or subcontractor refuses to submit and the basis for refusal (include all correspondence);
(vi) If applicable, names and titles of the contractor and/or subcontractor personnel contacted and the Government personnel making the contact; and
(vii) A summary statement of the approval action being requested.
5315.407 Special cost or pricing areas. (No Text)
5315.407-4 Should-cost review.
(b) Program should-cost review.
(4) The contracting office organizes and manages the program should-cost review. The team chief is responsible for the completion of the should-cost report.
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.
(i) 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, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.
(ii) The debriefing shall include the ratings and narrative description provided to the SSA of the strengths, proposal inadequacies, and weaknesses of the successful offeror's proposal, appropriately redacted. The successful offeror and the unsuccessful offerors shall not be provided 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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 questions, 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
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:
· I have submitted a current OGE Form 450, Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, as required by DODD 5500.7, Standards of Conduct.
· I am not required to submit an OGE Form 450.
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 |