Mandatory Procedure
1. Proposal Instructions. To facilitate timely awards of sole source contract actions and definitization of Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs) within 180-days after issuance of the UCA, contracting officers must:
a. provide contractors with clear and concise proposal instructions, including a suspense date for proposal submission;
b. require that contractor proposals (both prime and subcontractors) are submitted as adequate for evaluation and valid for the anticipated time required to conduct evaluation, audit, negotiation and award, with data updates provided until the conclusion of negotiations in accordance with TINA.
c. include the Air Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist (AFPAC) in sole-source draft and final Requests for Proposals (DRFP/RFP) and RFPs for UCAs when the contract value is anticipated to exceed the threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data. The AFPAC may be tailored for acquisition-specific reasons, as long as it remains consistent with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2.
AFPAC Word Version: Click Here
AFPAC Excel Version: Click Here
d. substantially utilize the following language in either Alternate I to the basic provision at FAR 52.215-20 or FAR 52.215-21, or as a paragraph within letter RFPs:
“The offeror shall prepare and submit certified cost or pricing data and supporting attachments in accordance with Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408. Further, the offeror shall (1) include the attached Air Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist (AFPAC) in pre-submission proposal quality reviews, and (2) furnish the completed checklist as part of their proposal submission.”
2. Proposal Kick-Off and Proposal Walk-Through Meetings. For all sole source contract actions greater than $50M and any UCA greater than $1M, contracting officers must:
a. schedule a proposal kick-off meeting as soon as practicable after issuance of the RFP (or Draft RFP if appropriate) to discuss:
● award/definitization schedule requirements and expectations on timely contractor support;
● the contractor's spend-plan for obligation limitations in accordance with DFARS 217.7404-4(b), and,
● expected major subcontracts (>$700,000 where cost and/or price analyses are required),
○ subcontractors subject to TINA and the subcontract evaluation plan (will Government assist audits be required?)
○ Commercial subcontractors and Government’s expectations as to the data required to determine price reasonableness
Meeting participants include:
● the Government team (e.g., contracting officer, contract specialist, price analyst, program/project office personnel, to include engineers, DCMA, DCAA);
● the prime contractor, and,
● major subcontractors having a significant role in the award/definitization (requires prime contractor’s agreement).
b. schedule a proposal walk-through meeting after proposal submittal and preliminary review by the Government team. The prime contractor will conduct this meeting to:
● ensure an understanding of the proposal composition (use the proposal adequacy checklist to facilitate the meeting and guide discussions);
● validate or revisit the award/definitization schedule;
● review the contractor's spend-plan for obligation limitations in accordance with DFARS 217.7404-4(b), and,
● establish action items for any obvious data omissions. (Note: If data omissions are so significant as to render the proposal inadequate for analysis, the contracting officer may reject the proposal.)
Meeting participants include:
● the Government team (e.g., contracting officer, contract specialist, price analyst, program/project office personnel, to include engineers, DCMA, DCAA);
● the prime contractor, and,
● major subcontractors having a significant role in the award/definitization (requires prime contractor’s agreement).
c. In the event that the contracting officer determines the meetings described above are not appropriate for a specific negotiation situation, the contracting officer must document the contract file and obtain the concurrence of the business clearance approval authority before proceeding. The contracting officer must obtain concurrence at one level above the business clearance approval authority in cases where the contracting officer is the business clearance approval authority.
d. Convening the meetings described above should also be considered for sole source contract actions less than $50M and any UCA less than $1M, as determined necessary by the contracting officer.
3. Requesting data/documentation after receipt of the proposal.
a. A contracting officer request for supporting data/documentation from a contractor (whether verbally or in writing) after proposal receipt, must clearly state what data/documentation is needed and when it should be provided.
b. If requested data/documentation is not readily available because of extenuating circumstances (e.g., data that did not form the basis of the contractor's proposal), the contracting officer and the contractor should agree in writing as to a reasonable time for submittal of data.
c. Where system generated data is to be provided, the contracting officer should review the data fields to be reported before the data is generated to ensure a common understanding of what is needed. The contracting officer must inform the contractor that all data requests will be tracked and will be considered open action items until the Government concurs that the data has been received and is complete.
d. If the data is not provided by the requested date or, if applicable, the agreed-to-date, and an acceptable resolution cannot be achieved, the contracting officer must elevate the issue to appropriate senior contracting management for both the Government and the contractor until an appropriate resolution is reached. The contracting officer must document the outcome of the elevation process in writing to include any revised dates for receipt of requested data/documentation.
e. If, after elevation, an acceptable resolution has not occurred or the contractor fails to provide the data/documentation within the revised agreed-to date, the contracting officer may take remedial actions:
● for UCAs, contracting officers should consider reducing or suspending progress payments (FAR 32.503-6) when the contractor does not submit a timely qualifying proposal or has otherwise not supported the established definitization schedule; and/or,
● Assign an unsatisfactory rating for a singular performance problem, such as the failure to submit a timely, complete and quality proposal (or subsequent data submissions), in connection with a UCA when the problem is of such serious magnitude that it alone justifies an unsatisfactory Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating in the assessment of Management Responsiveness (Block 18d(1) for a Systems CPAR) or Business Relations (Block 18d for a Non-Systems CPAR). Ratings must track to the definitions provided in Attachment 2, “Evaluation Rating Definitions” to the DoD CPARS Policy Guide.
f. Consistent with the notice given to contractors in the AFPAC Preparation Guidelines, in situations when the contractor’s original proposal is inadequate and requires revision or rework, contracting officers should consider whether to recognize as reasonable any contractor costs associated with the revision/rework effort and must consider the nature and extent of any proposal inadequacies when negotiating profit.