Mandatory Procedure |
INDEX
Section Page
2.0 Applicability 3
2.1 Exemptions 3
3.0 Source Selection Objective 3
4.0 Pre-solicitation Activities 3
4.1 Source Selection Team 3
4.2 Protection of Source Selection Documentation 4
4.3 Pre-Solicitation Planning 4
4.4 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award 6
4.5 Development and Release of Request for Proposal 7
5.0 Evaluation Activities 7
5.1 Source Selection Advisory Council chairperson 7
5.2 Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) 7
5.3 Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson 7
5.4 Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) 7
5.5 Evaluation Factors 7
5.6 Exchanges 10
6.0 Decision Activities 10
6.1 Decision Briefing 10
6.2 Source Selection Authority 10
6.3 Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson 11
6.4 Source Selection Evaluation Team 11
6.5 Source Selection Advisory Council 11
6.6 SSET chairperson, SSAC, or advisors 11
6.7 Contracting Officer 11
7.0 Documentation Requirements 11
7.1 Source Selection Plan 11
7.2 Draft Request for Proposal 11
7.3 Request for Proposal 11
7.4 Proposals 11
7.5 Evaluation Worksheets and Summaries 11
7.6 Competitive Range Determination 12
7.7 Evaluation Notices 12
7.8 Clearance Documentation 12
7.9 Decision Briefing 12
7.10 Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) 12
7.11 Simplified Source Selection Report 12
7.12 Source Selection Decision Document 12
7.13 Source Selection Debriefing Documents 12
PREFACE
Following are mandatory procedures for Air Force source selections (all competitive negotiated acquisitions not meeting the exemptions defined in paragraph 2 below). Compliance with FAR 15, DFARS 215, and AFFARS 5315 and related law, regulation, and policy is required; this procedure describes how Air Force contracting activities are to accomplish certain of those requirements.
Accompanying Informational Guidance, integrated by endnote throughout this procedure, augment AFFARS 5315 and this mandatory procedure. The Informational Guidance is based upon proven practices and lessons learned and is not mandatory. The reader can access the endnote by hovering over the endnote number. This will cause a window with the endnote to pop-up. The Informational Guidance (endnotes) will be located at the end of the printed version of the Mandatory Procedures.
Another feature of this Mandatory Procedures is pop-up windows to definitions, which are located in paragraph 8. While viewing the electronic version of the Mandatory Procedures, the reader can access pop-up windows to definitions by hovering over “[DEF]”.
Comments and recommendations concerning this mandatory procedure may be submitted to SAF/AQCP, 1060 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1060.
1. Policy. The following procedure is required for acquisitions as specified in paragraph 2 below. Deviations from this procedure may be processed and approved in accordance with AFFARS 5301.4. However, if the deviation authority approves a Source Selection Plan [DEF] that includes any proposed deviation, the signature constitutes deviation approval.
2.1 Exemptions. This procedure is required for all competitive negotiated acquisitions conducted by Air Force contracting activities except:
2.1.1. Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) and Program Research and Development Announcements (PRDAs) are used in accordance with FAR 35 to solicit proposals and award contracts;
2.1.2. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) acquisitions solicited and awarded in accordance with 15 USC Sec. 638 ;
2.1.3. Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded in accordance with FAR 36;
2.1.4. Acquisitions using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process (see FAR 15.101-2),
2.1.5. Acquisitions using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) process.
2.1.6. Acquisitions less than $1 million; and
2.1.7. Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures.
3. Source Selection Objective. The objective of source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the government.
4. Pre-solicitation Activities
4.1.1. The Source Selection Authority [DEF] shall --
4.1.1.1. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure.
4.1.1.2. Appoint the respective chairpersons for the Source Selection Evaluation Team [DEF] and the Source Selection Advisory Council [DEF] when used.
4.1.1.3. Establish a source selection team as needed and ensure that the team membership remains consistent for the duration of the selection process.
4.1.1.4. Ensure all involved in the source selection are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection.
4.1.2. The Source Selection Advisory Council Chairperson. When the Source Selection Authority establishes a Source Selection Advisory Council, the appointed chairperson shall, subject to source selection authority approval, appoint source selection advisory council members and request, when appropriate, additional Secretariat, HQ USAF, and joint service members. The chairperson shall ensure all Source Selection Advisory Council members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities.
4.1.3. The Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson. When the Source Selection Authority establishes a Source Selection Evaluation Team, the appointed chairperson shall --
4.1.3.1. Appoint members to the Source Selection Evaluation Team, including a Performance Confidence Assessment Group [DEF] and its chairperson as required, subject to approval of the Source Selection Authority.
4.1.3.2. Establish a Performance Confidence Assessment Group for all source selections in excess of $100 million.
4.1.3.3. Ensure personnel, resources, and time assigned to the source selection reflect the complexity of the program. Personnel substitutions for the Source Selection Evaluation Team may be approved by the Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson subsequent to Source Selection Plan approval and documented in an addendum. A formal amendment to the Source Selection Plan is not required.
4.1.3.4. Ensure members of the Source Selection Evaluation Team are knowledgeable of their responsibilities before any proposal is reviewed, including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted.
4.1.4. The contracting officer shall --
4.1.4.1. Ensure that, in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305(c), required approvals are obtained and contract clause requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support; and
4.1.4.2. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition.
4.1.5. Advisors. The Source Selection Authority may establish advisors as necessary to assist in the source selection evaluation. Although advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, they may not determine ratings or rankings of offerors' proposals.
4.1.6. Primary Responsibility. 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 other work assignments. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that other work assignments do not adversely impact the source selection process. Key members of the source selection team, such as the Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group Chairperson and the contracting officer, shall have source selection experience, if possible, and be designated early in the acquisition process.
4.2. Protection of Source Selection Documentation
4.2.1. The source selection authority shall --
4.2.1.1. 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 Sec. 423 and FAR 3.104) regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information.
4.2.1.2. 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, Attachment MP5315.3-1.
4.2.2. The Contracting Officer shall --
4.2.2.1. Ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information in accordance with FAR 3.104 as supplemented.
4.2.2.2. Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award, in accordance with FAR 3.104-4.
4.3. Pre-Solicitation Planning
4.3.1. Risk Assessment. The source selection team, in consultation with other stakeholders, shall determine the extent of risk analysis necessary to support the acquisition.
4.3.2. Source Selection Plan. Acquisitions covered under this Mandatory Procedure shall have a Source Selection Plan. The Source Selection Plan shall include the information outlined below. Whenever the contracting officer is the Source Selection Authority, a streamlined Source Selection Plan may be documented in the Simplified Source Selection Report (see7.11 below). Whenever possible, refer to and attach supporting documents rather than repeating information in the Source Selection Plan.
4.3.2.1. A brief description of the requirement, including reference to any applicable guidance such as a Program Management Directive (PMD).
4.3.2.2. A summary of the acquisition strategy, including, when applicable, type(s) of contract(s) anticipated, the incentives contemplated, milestone demonstrations intended, special contract clauses, performance metrics and language supporting it as a performance based services acquisition.
4.3.2.3. Source selection team. Describe the proposed organizational structure. List recommended members and advisors by name, position title, company affiliation, if applicable, or by functional area. Identify other government organizations that will participate in the source selection.
4.3.2.4. 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.
4.3.2.5. Evaluation factors and subfactors. Describe the evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative order of importance by attaching the relevant portions of the instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria (Sections L and M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation). Describe the evaluation process, including specific procedures and techniques to be used in evaluating proposals.
4.3.2.6. 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.
4.3.2.7. Non-government personnel. Address the use of non-government personnel.
4.3.2.8. Identify and explain requested or approved deviations and delegations.
4.3.3. The Source Selection Authority shall approve the Source Selection Plan before solicitation release and approve subsequent revisions to the plan.
4.3.4. The Source Selection Team shall --
4.3.4.1. Prepare and maintain the Source Selection Plan.
4.3.4.2. Coordinate the plan within the source selection organization prior to forwarding the plan to the Source Selection Authority for approval.
4.3.4.3. Submit the plan sufficiently in advance of the planned acquisition action to permit review and approval by the source selection authority and early establishment of the source selection organization. Whenever possible, in order to accelerate the acquisition, the Source Selection Plan shall be prepared and approved in conjunction with the Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP), Integrated Program Summary (IPS), or Acquisition Plan (AP) (see AFFARS Library - Part 5307). Briefing charts may be used to document the Source Selection Plan.
4.3.4.4. Submit proposed revisions to an approved Source Selection Plan to the Source Selection Authority.
4.3.5. The Source Selection Advisory Council Chairperson shall review the Source Selection Plan prior to Source Selection Authority approval.
4.3.6. The Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson shall be responsible for establishing effective liaison with the requiring office [DEF] to ensure requirements are effectively addressed within the requirements documents [DEF] and, if used, within threshold/objective [DEF] language.
4.3.7. The Performance Confidence Assessment Group shall [DEF] develop the recency and relevancy definitions and recommend the past performance information to be required from offerors in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and this procedure.
4.3.8. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that any requests for source selection delegations are properly accomplished and documented in the Source Selection file.
MP5315.304 -- Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors.
4.4. Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award. Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision and that are expected to be discriminators. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated allowing the government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative weights shall be set forth in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provision) of the solicitation in enough depth to communicate how the proposal will be evaluated and the rating determined. They may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both. The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors (Section L or equivalent provision).
4.4.1. Evaluation Factors. Air Force source selections shall address the following evaluation factors:
4.4.1.1. Mission Capability. The mission capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the government’s requirements. When subfactors are used, establish the minimum number necessary for the evaluation of proposals, normally limited to six subfactors. Additional subfactors may be justified and documented in the Source Selection Plan. Systems Engineering shall be a mission capability subfactor in all ACAT program acquisitions, and in all other acquisitions where systems engineering effort is required. If the ACAT acquisition has no Systems Engineering effort, the SSA, with PEO approval, shall document the contract file accordingly and a systems engineering subfactor is not required.
4.4.1.2. Proposal Risk. The proposal risk evaluation factor assesses the risk that the offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation will cause significant disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance. This factor is optional for acquisitions $10 million and below.
4.4.1.3. Past Performance. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A past performance evaluation is required in accordance with Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29, 1999, which states the requirement thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care. A past performance evaluation may be accomplished for acquisitions below these thresholds at the discretion of the Source Selection Authority. For acquisitions that require a past performance evaluation, but are below the threshold for establishing a Performance Confidence Assessment Group, the Source Selection Plan shall indicate individual(s) responsible for the Past Performance review. 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.
4.4.1.4. Cost or Price. The evaluation of the cost or price to the government for the supplies or services being acquired. This evaluation may include an assessment of the risk associated with the proposed cost or price. (See paragraph 5.5.4).
4.4.2. Relative Weight of Factors and Trade-offs. The solicitation shall state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are (1) significantly less important than cost or price; (2) approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in the Request for Proposal.
4.4.3. Other Solicitation Requirements. The statement and accompanying instructions required by AFFARS 5315.305(a) shall inform offerors how the government will consider those solicitation requirements not covered by the items in 4.4.1 above. While offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the government is not obligated to accept such offers. Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract.
4.4.4. MAJCOMs and DRUs may establish alternative factors or subfactors for specific classes of “other contracting” acquisitions when required to conduct an effective and efficient evaluation of offers. However, all other requirements of this procedure must be followed.
4.5. Development and Release of Request for Proposal. The contracting officer shall –
4.5.1. Release the solicitation only after the Source Selection Authority has approved the Source Selection Plan.
4.5.2. After release of a solicitation, serve as the single point of contact for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors.
MP5315.305 Proposal Evaluation.
5.1. The Source Selection Advisory Council chairperson shall convene Source Selection Advisory Council meetings at any stage in the evaluation process as requested by the Source Selection Authority.
5.2. The Source Selection Advisory Council shall review the evaluation and findings of the Source Selection Evaluation Team to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the Source Selection Authority.
5.3. The Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the criteria contained in the solicitation (Section M or equivalent solicitation provision) and ensure the evaluation is properly documented in accordance with paragraph 7.
5.4. The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of each proposal and any subsequently submitted information or proposal revisions, [DEF] against the factors and subfactors and other solicitation requirements (see 4.4.3).
5.4.1. The Performance Confidence Assessment Group shall conduct the past performance assessment.
5.5. Evaluation Factors. Air Force factor ratings and assessments focus on each factor or subfactor as described below.
5.5.1. Mission Capability Evaluation. Mission capability ratings focus on the strengths [DEF] and deficiencies in the offeror's proposal. If subfactors are established, the mission capability factor shall be rated at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned. Mission capability shall be rated using the color ratings listed in TABLE 1 below. If an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable.
TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS | ||
Color |
Rating |
Description |
Blue |
Exceptional |
Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue. |
Green |
Acceptable |
Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal; proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths. |
Yellow |
Marginal |
Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal, but any such uncertainty is correctable. |
Red |
Unacceptable |
Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements; proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable. |
Through exchanges, the government evaluators should obtain the necessary information from offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to clarify outstanding issues within the offer. Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the time of the final evaluation.
5.5.2. Proposal Risk. The proposal risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses [DEF] associated with an offeror's proposed approach. When mission capability subfactors are established, a proposal risk rating shall be assigned to each mission capability subfactor and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned. If mission capability subfactors are not established, a proposal risk rating is assigned for the factor. Assessment of proposal risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that approach is or is not manageable. Proposal risk evaluation including an evaluation of cost/price (if required, see paragraph 5.5.4) shall use the ratings listed in TABLE 2 below.
TABLE 2 - PROPOSAL RISK RATINGS | |
Rating |
Description |
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 disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely 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 likely be able to overcome any difficulties. |
5.5.3. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs. The performance confidence assessment [DEF] is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.
5.5.3.1. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation.
5.5.3.1.1. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror.
5.5.3.1.2. Past performance information shall be obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, from Defense Contract Management Agency, from interviews with program managers and contracting officers, Fee Determining Officials, or from other sources known to the government. Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments shall be used if the information is recent and relevant. The recency and relevancy of the past performance information is important in determining what contracts/programs/effort are evaluated. Recency and relevancy definitions shall be individually tailored for each acquisition and stated in Section M or equivalent solicitation provision.
5.5.3.2. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in TABLE 3 below.
TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS | |
Rating |
Description |
HIGH CONFIDENCE |
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. INFORMATIONAL GUIDANCE: Historically, the Air Force has considered “High Confidence” as essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE |
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. INFORMATIONAL GUIDANCE: Historically, the Air Force has considered “Significant Confidence” as little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE |
Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems. |
UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE |
No performance record is identifiable. INFORMATIONAL GUIDANCE: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) & (iv)).
|
LITTLE CONFIDENCE |
Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
NO CONFIDENCE |
Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
5.5.4. Cost or Price Evaluation. Cost or price shall be an evaluation factor in each source selection. The proposed and, if applicable, evaluated total cost/price (such as probable cost) are presented with narrative descriptions of reasonableness, realism, affordability, etc. to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Evaluation team must use the appropriate analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404 as supplemented to evaluate the proposed cost or price and shall inform offerors of the technique(s) to be used in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation). For all ACAT programs, a risk rating shall be assigned to the cost/price evaluation factor to characterize cost risk when a government probable cost/price analysis is conducted. For non-ACAT acquisitions when a government probable cost/price analysis is conducted, a risk rating may be assigned to the cost/price factor at the discretion of the SSA. When a risk rating is assigned, use the same ratings as listed in Table 2 – Proposal Risk Ratings. To ensure the best possible evaluation, the entire government evaluation team shall have access to cost or pricing information. Under appropriate circumstances, non-government advisors may be permitted access as required.
MP5315.306 -- Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals.
5.6.1. The Source Selection Authority shall --
5.6.1.1. Review all necessary information prior to entering discussions to determine if award without discussions is appropriate. The approval to award without discussions constitutes clearance in accordance with AFFARS 5301.90.
5.6.1.2. Establish the competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve the release of evaluation notices. The Source Selection Authority may designate the Contracting Officer as the approval authority for release of evaluation notices by so stating in the source selection plan. No other designations are permitted.
5.6.2. The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall evaluate all proposals, prepare evaluation notices and, if discussions are to be conducted, recommend through the contracting officer whether any offeror should be eliminated from the competitive range. The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall prepare the competitive range briefing, if required; the charts may be used to document the evaluation and competitive range determination.
5.6.2.1. If adverse past performance information, to which the contractor has had no opportunity to respond, is the reason an offeror may not receive an award without discussions or be excluded from the competitive range, the offeror must be provided an opportunity to address the information. This exchange occurs through the issuance of a “Clarification” or “Communications” evaluation notice (EN). Do not provide names of individuals providing information about a contractor’s past performance.
5.6.3. The Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson shall --
5.6.3.1. Review Evaluation Notices and recommend Source Selection Authority approve their release through the contracting officer; and
5.6.3.2. Ensure that the team membership remains consistent for all discussions with offerors.
5.6.4. The contracting officer shall, after receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306. All exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Any exchange addressing a proposal deficiency shall clearly indicate that a deficiency exists.
5.6.5. Discussions. As a minimum, at the initiation of and again at the conclusion of discussions, the Source Selection Evaluation Team through the contracting officer shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) strengths, (c) weaknesses, and (d) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation. This should be accomplished by providing the offeror its own color, risk, and confidence rating briefing charts (if accomplished) and, in the final disclosure, shall reflect the evaluation results of discussions.
5.6.6. Final Proposal Revision and Evaluation. The Source Selection Authority shall review all material to determine if release of the Final Proposal Revision Request is appropriate. The approval to request the Final Proposal Revision constitutes clearance in accordance with AFFARS 5301.90.46 The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall complete the proposal evaluation, incorporating the information provided through discussions and in the Final Proposal Revisions, as set forth in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation).
MP5315.308 -- Source Selection Decision – Documentation Requirements.
6.1. A Decision Briefing shall be conducted whenever the Source Selection Authority is other than the contracting officer.
6.2. The Source Selection Authority shall --
6.2.1. Select the source or sources whose proposal offers the best value to the government.
6.2.2. Base the decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Source Selection Authority may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the Source Selection Authority's independent judgment.
6.2.3. Document the supporting rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (see 7.12 below).
6.3. The Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson shall, in conjunction with the contracting officer, --
6.3.1. For all acquisitions over $100 million or as required by the Source Selection Authority, prepare the Proposal Analysis Report (see 7.10 below). The report shall be signed by the Source Selection Advisory Council chairperson (if used) and Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson.
6.3.2. Prepare the Source Selection Decision Document [DEF] for the Source Selection Authority's signature.
6.3.3. Participate in debriefings to offerors.
6.4. The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall present the results of the final proposal revision evaluations to the Source Selection Authority. The team shall prepare required source selection decision briefing charts that clearly summarize and justify the evaluation results. Briefing charts shall be suitable to serve as the official record of Source Selection Evaluation Team proceedings for source selections when more formal documentation, such as the Proposal Analysis Report, is not used. The results of the evaluation shall be presented to the Source Selection Advisory Council (if used) and to the Source Selection Authority.
6.5. The Source Selection Advisory Council shall, with the assistance of the Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson, provide the required comparative analysis of offers when the Source Selection Authority assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the Source Selection Advisory Council.
6.6. The Source Selection Evaluation Team chairperson, the Source Selection Advisory Council, or other advisors involved in the source selection evaluation may offer a recommended source selection decision when specifically requested by the source selection authority.
6.7. The Contracting Officer shall ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed in accordance with FAR 15.505 & 15.506 and AFFARS 5315.506. The contracting officer shall document the debriefing(s) provided to offeror(s). The debriefing summary must also include a record of offeror questions and government responses.
7. Documentation Requirements. Air Force source selection documents include:
7.1. The Source Selection Plan. The Source Selection Plan and any revisions shall be maintained in the source selection file.
7.2. The Draft Request for Proposal. When a Draft Request for Proposal is issued it shall be included in the contract file along with all comments received from interested parties and government responses thereto.
7.3. The Request for Proposal. The final Request for Proposal is required, as well as any Amendments thereto including the Final Proposal Revision request, and shall be included in the contract file.
7.4. Proposals. Offeror proposals are to be included as submitted in the source selection file. The proposal, including all revisions, shall be annotated with the date of receipt. Rejected proposals, or portions thereof, shall be handled in accordance with the instructions to offerors (Section L or equivalent provision of the solicitation).
7.5. Evaluation Worksheets and Summaries. After each member of the evaluation team has completed his or her review of a proposal, the evaluation must be documented and included in the source selection file.
7.6. A Competitive Range Determination. When the Source Selection Authority is other than the contracting officer this determination may be documented in a briefing. Briefing information/charts shall be in sufficient detail to support the contracting officer recommendation and included in the source selection file. Include any documentation with the Competitive Range Briefing regarding approval to release Evaluation Notices, or enter into discussions.
7.7. Evaluation Notices. Include all Evaluation Notices and responses in the source selection file.
7.8. Clearance Documentation. Clearance documentation in addition to the determination to award without discussions or the final proposal revision request approval shall be included in the contract file.
7.9. Decision Briefing. Whenever the Source Selection Authority is other than the contracting officer, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file.
7.10. Proposal Analysis Report (PAR). The objective of this report is to document the results of the Source Selection Evaluation Team evaluation and to provide the comparative analysis of competitive offers. The Proposal Analysis Report includes the assessment of Cost or Price, past performance, mission capability and proposal risk. The Proposal Analysis Report shall be included in the source selection file.
7.11. Simplified Source Selection Report . The Simplified Source Selection Report is required for all source selections $10 million and below and, at the discretion of the Source Selection Authority, may be used for all other source selections when a Proposal Analysis Report is not used. For acquisitions less than $10 million, Section I of the report may be a streamlined Source Selection Plan (signed by the Source Selection Authority), which includes a brief description of the requirements, description of the source selection organization, the evaluation factors with their relative importance, and the evaluation process and techniques to be used in evaluating proposals. For acquisitions greater than $10 million, attach the Source Selection Plan. This report shall be maintained in the source selection file. The objective of this report is to be simple, concise, and to utilize already existing documentation (e.g., Rating Team Worksheet) to the maximum extent practicable. The Simplified Source Selection Report is written incrementally as the source selection progresses.
7.12. Source Selection Decision Document. A Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) shall be prepared for all Air Force source selections; shall reflect the Source Selection Authority's integrated, comparative assessment and decision; and shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the Source Selection Authority, including benefits associated with additional costs. The Source Selection Decision Document shall be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; it shall clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the Source Selection Authority to reach the decision.
7.12.1. The Source Selection Decision Document is fully releasable to the General Accounting Office and others authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information. When releasing a copy of the Source Selection Decision Document to offerors or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information, redacted material shall 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 Source Selection Decision Document.
7.13. Source Selection Debriefing Documents. The source selection debriefing documents, as required in AFFARS 5315.506, shall be maintained in the source selection file.
8.1. "Deficiency" is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement. (Reference AFFARS 5315.001)
8.2. "Evaluation notices (ENs)" are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.
8.3. “Mission capability” expresses evaluation criteria that address technical, performance, or capability requirements.
8.4. “Performance confidence assessment” is an evaluation of the likelihood (or government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully complete the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance.
8.5. "Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG)" is a group of experienced government personnel assigned to accomplish the Performance Confidence Assessment.
8.6. "Proposal Analysis Report (PAR)" is a report that fully documents the results of the evaluation of each proposal and the comparative analysis of all proposals within the competitive range.
8.7. “Proposal risk” is an evaluation of the likelihood or risk that the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the solicitation will cause significant disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance.
8.8. "Requirements documents" are all aspects of the Request For Proposal 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).
8.9. "Requiring office" is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the Request For Proposal that communicate those requirements to offerors.
8.10. "Simplified Source Selection Report” (formerly known as “Proposal Evaluation Report” or PER) is a report in simplified format that documents the acquisition approach, Source Selection Plan, description of the services or supplies acquired, evaluation results, comparative analysis of offerors, and the Source Selection Decision Document.
8.11. "Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)" is a group of senior personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and may prepare the comparative analysis of the Source Selection Evaluation Team's evaluation results, when directed by the Source Selection Authority.
8.12. "Source Selection Authority (SSA)" is the official designated to make the source selection decision.
8.13. "Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)" is the document that reflects the Source Selection Authority's integrated assessment and selection decision.
8.14. "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 Source Selection Evaluation Team evaluates proposals and reports its findings to the Source Selection Advisory Council (if used) and the Source Selection Authority.
8.15. "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.
8.16. "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 that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror's process.
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
Informational Guidance
The endnotes to MP5215.3, which follow this page, are intended as Informational Guidance only.
Informational Guidance provides discussions, proven practices, lessons learned, and references to training material related to source selections. Compliance with Informational Guidance is NOT required.
The following are samples referenced within the Informational Guidance below.