AFFARS Part 5315

Previous PageTable Of ContentsAFFARSNext Page



PART 5315-CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

SUBPART 5315.1 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS AND TECHNIQUES

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

(a) Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) permits tradeoffs between price/cost and the past performance evaluation for technically acceptable proposals. This technique may be applied in acquisitions which include an evaluation for technical acceptability as well as negotiated acquisitions for which price and past performance are the only discriminators. In PPT, tradeoffs do not occur on the basis of technical merit, but on the basis of the comparative assessment of offerors' past performance information and price/cost. The contracting officer is the source selection authority in PPT acquisitions unless the acquisition approving official designates otherwise.
(c) If threshold and objective performance requirements (see 5315.301-90) are identified in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the Air Force must communicate to offerors how a value analysis will be performed, comparing perceived benefit to the Government against associated cost or price. Generally, offerors' proposals that exceed threshold performance requirements provide added value to the Government. However, the SSA must determine in accordance with the evaluation factors, subfactors and elements whether or not exceeding the objective performance requirements at an associated cost or price provides the best overall affordable benefit to the Government. Section M of the RFP must be drafted to explicitly reflect the Government's intent in this regard. Although each RFP must be tailored to reflect the specific requirements of a particular acquisition, Section M of the RFP should reflect one of the following three alternatives:
(1) Identify the required threshold performance requirements but not any objective performance requirements and inform offerors that any features or technical offerings that enhance the system will be considered in the best value determination.
(2) Identify both threshold performance requirements and objective performance requirements and explicitly state that the Air Force reserves the right to evaluate and give evaluation credit for the proposed features that exceed either the stated thresholds or objectives.
(3) Identify both the threshold performance requirements and objective performance requirements and explicitly state that the Air Force reserves the right to evaluate and give evaluation credit for the proposed features that exceed the stated thresholds and offerors will not be given credit for performance beyond the objectives identified.

(b) When accomplishing a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) selection, the following procedures apply:
(1) Section M of the solicitation must state that award will be made to the lowest evaluated cost (price) offer that meets all the minimum mandatory criteria in the solicitation;
(3) The technical team must establish the evaluation factors prior to beginning evaluation of the offers. This evaluation plan should contain sufficient detail to justify a determination of minimum acceptability for each factor/subfactor;

(b) The contracting officer must make the award decision and ensure all aspects of the award decision are documented. Information must be protected in accordance with 5315.207(b).

SUBPART 15.2 SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND INFORMATION

(c) Early industry involvement and openness are the cornerstones of the Air Force's enhanced cooperative relationship with industry. Timely release of information to industry is essential to maximize the value of their inputs to the planning, requirements generation, and acquisition processes. This involves engaging industry during the drafting of solicitations through meetings and contracting business opportunity sites on the world wide web or other means. It will also include providing relevant program and/or estimated contract budget information (either approved or tentative) unless deemed inappropriate by the SSA. In competitive acquisitions, it is critical to balance the Government's obligation to ensure fair treatment and opportunities for all offerors, while protecting contractor proprietary, proposal and source selection information.
(8) 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 a pre-proposal conference is contemplated in accordance with FAR 15.201. When access to classified documents is contemplated, the contracting officer may include a provision substantially the same as the basic provision with its Alternate I in the request for proposal.

(b) Section L, Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or quoters. When industrial security verification is required, include a statement that the offeror must possess the highest degree of security clearance stated in the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification. Insert in Section L a provision substantially the same as the provision at 5352.215-9000, Facility Clearance, in solicitations which contain a DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification.

(5) Cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing information when required by FAR 15.403.

(b) To maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the source selection process, information related to the source selection and offeror proposal information must be handled with the utmost discretion to avoid any compromise. "Source selection information (SSI)" and "Contractor bid or proposal information" are defined in FAR 3.104-3. SSI must be marked in accordance with FAR 3.104-5(c). Disclosure of proposal information and SSI must only be in accordance with FAR 3.104-5(a). The contracting officer controls disclosure of SSI generated as part of the evaluation of a proposal with the offeror during exchanges and the debriefing process. After award, the contracting officer has full authority to approve access to or release of source selection information.

SUBPART 5315.3-SOURCE SELECTION

(a) This subpart establishes Air Force source selection policy. It implements FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and prescribes the responsibilities of the Air Force agency head for source selection contained in FAR 15.303(a).
(b) This policy applies to all competitive negotiated acquisitions conducted by Air Force contracting activities above the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and for which LPTA or PPT as described in 5315.101-1(a) and 5315.101-2 are not used. The following types of acquisitions are also exempt from this policy:

SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES APPLICABILITY*

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 Attachment 5315-3

**Information Technology (IT)
***$15M or greater in a single fiscal year, or $30M or greater for all fiscal years
Note: The AP/SAMP approving official (or SSA if AP/SAMP is not required) for Median Procedures may use Basic or Agency procedures, if it is in the Government's best interest to do so, based on the complexity of the acquisition or other considerations.

(d) Deviations. When the SSA is at SAF/AQ, deviations from this policy must be approved by the SSA and should be included in the Source Selection Plan (SSP). When submitted as part of 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 5301.402 (3).

(Note that the terms "weakness," "significant weakness," and "deficiency" are defined in FAR Part 15.001.)

(a) Evaluation Notice (EN): ENs are exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions. ENs which result from deficiencies in the offeror's proposal must be clearly identified to the offeror as deficiencies (see Form in Air Force Procedures Guide, Attachment 2).
(b) Objective Performance Requirement: 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.
(c) Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG): 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.
(d) Proposal Analysis Report (PAR): A report that fully documents the results of the evaluation and the comparative analysis of offerors' proposals.
(e) Proposal Evaluation Report (PER): 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.
(f) Proposal Inadequacy: An aspect or omission from an offeror's proposal that may contribute to a failure in meeting specified minimum performance or capability requirements.
(g) Requirements Documents: 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).
(h) Requiring Office: 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.
(i) Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC): 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.
(j) Source Selection Authority (SSA): Official designated to make the source selection decision.
(k) Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD): The document that reflects the SSA's integrated assessment and selection decision.
(l) Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET): 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.
(m) Source Selection Plan (SSP): 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.
(n) Strength: 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.
(o) Threshold Performance Requirement: 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.

(a) For Air Force source selections, the SSAs are as shown at Attachment 5315-3
(b) SSA must also:
(1) (i) Appoint the SSET chairperson(s) and the SSAC chairperson and PRAG chairperson (if the SSAC and PRAG are used);
(ii) Ensure the SSET is knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection, as necessary; and,
(iii) 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.

(5) Review all necessary information to determine if award without discussions is appropriate; and approve release of Evaluation Notices and exclusion of any offeror from the competitive range; and

(c) Contracting officer must also:
(1) 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) Issue notice of source selection process initiation to appropriate parties at time of final RFP issuance. Notice must state that all communications regarding the source selection must be through the contracting officer. For Agency source selection procedures, make SAF/AQCK an addressee on this notice;
(S-92) 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-93) Make competitive range determination, if discussions are necessary (see FAR 15.306(c));

(a) The SSET Chairperson must:

(b) The SSET must:

(c) The SSAC Chairperson must:

(d) The SSAC must:

(f) Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC). 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, risks, and deficiencies in proposals, they must not determine ratings or rankings of offerors' proposals. If contractor personnel are used as advisors the following applies:

(h) For Agency source selections for which PDASAF(A&M) or ASAF(A) is the SSA, SAF/AQCK shall:

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

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

(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 must be approved by an official at least one level above the contracting officer. The contracting officer is the source selection authority.
(b) Median Source Selection Procedures. The source selection organization must normally consist of the SSA and the SSET, which must 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. The SSA is as stated in Attachment 5315-3.
(c) Agency Source Selection Procedures. The source selection organization must normally consist of the SSA, SSAC and the SSET which must 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. The SSA is as stated in Attachment 5315-3.

(b)(2) 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 must meet in order to be judged acceptable. Factors and subfactors must be limited to those that are real discriminators. Evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements:
(i) Must be written in enough depth to communicate the measures of merit used to determine how the proposal will be evaluated and rating determined;
(ii) Must include only those specific program characteristics that are significant enough to have an impact on the source selection decision, such as those identified through program risk analysis;
(iii) Must be set forth in Section M of the draft and final RFPs, Evaluation Factors for Award. In addition, the relative importance of all factors, subfactors, and elements must be specified in Section M of the RFP; and

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

(a) Air Force factor ratings and assessments focus on the proposal strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies, deficiencies, risks, performance confidence, and affordability. For a sample evaluation matrix, see Attachment 5315-4. 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 must 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.
(i) 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 must be presented to the SSA in addition to the proposed cost.
(ii) In fixed price contracting, cost realism analysis is not required except under the conditions specified in FAR 15.404-1(d)(3).
(iii) 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) and FAR 15.404-1(d)(3)). In the rare cases when it is necessary to request information other than cost or pricing data on FFP contracts, approval must be obtained from SAF/AQC. Submit requests for approval to SAF/AQCK for processing (see 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).

(iv) To ensure the best possible evaluation, the entire Government evaluation team must 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 must 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.
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(S-90) 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.
(S-91) 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 Command 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.

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,substantialdoubt 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.

(i) The Mission Capability subfactors must 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 must be evaluated using the following color ratings. Subfactor ratings must 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 (see FAR 15.001).

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

(ii) Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach. Assessment of 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 risk identified, the evaluation must address the offeror's proposal for mitigating those risks 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 (see FAR 15.001, Definitions.) Proposal risk must be evaluated using the following 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 per-
formance Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.

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

(c) A competitive range briefing must be conducted for Median and Agency acquisitions where the contracting officer recommends elimination of an offeror from the competitive range.
(d)(3) For all ACAT (see DoDI 5000.2) 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 must provide to all offerors in the competitive range their rating status at the end of discussions. The rating status must include the description of that offeror's strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies, risks 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.

A Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) must be prepared for all Air Force source selections and must reflect the SSA's integrated assessment and decision. The SSDD must be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. The SSDD must 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 must continue to be protected as source selection information. The need to redact such information is not a sufficient reason to refrain from preparing a properly written SSDD.

Required source selection documents.

(a) Source Selection Plan (SSP). The SSP is a key document in conducting the source selection. It should include applicable Program Management Directive (PMD) or other applicable guidance or direction and contain the elements described below to ensure timely staff review and SSA approval. The program/project office, with assistance from the contracting officer, must prepare an SSP for all source selections conducted under this policy. For Basic source selections, this plan need not be a separate document, nor must 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).
(1) The SSP must 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 AP/SAMP. Briefing charts may be used to document the SSP. If SAF/AQ or higher is the SSA, the SSP must be sent to SAF/AQCK for coordination and approval by SAF/AQ.
(2) 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.
(3) The SSP must 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):
(i) 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 must reflect the strategy in the AP/SAMP.
(ii) SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION. Describe the proposed organization (see 5315.303-91). List recommended members by name, position title, or by functional area. The plan must identify other Government organizations that will participate in the source selection.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS and ELEMENTS. Describe the evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements and their relative order of importance. (NOTE: This must be reflected verbatim in Section M of the RFP.)
(vi) 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.
(vii) NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. Address the use of non-Government personnel.
(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 must 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) Briefing charts.

(d) 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.

(a) When the Air Force conducts a source selection for an FMS customer or in accordance with a cooperative agreement with a foreign Government, the policy of this supplement will be followed unless a deviation is approved in accordance with 5315.300(d).
(b) The FMS customer must not participate in the source selection process. Subject to approval by the SSA, representatives of the customer country may be called upon by the SSET or SSAC to clarify technical questions during evaluation of offeror proposals. The cost or price information or any part of an offeror's cost or price proposal must not be released to any representative of the FMS customer.

SUBPART 5315.4-CONTRACT PRICING

(a) For firm-fixed price (FFP) competitive contracts where adequate price competition is anticipated (see 5315.305(a)(1)), approval to obtain information other than cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.402(a)(2)) from offerors must be obtained from SAF/AQC. Submit requests for approval to SAF/AQCK for processing. Requests should address the following:

(c) Standards for exceptions from cost or pricing data requirements.

(ii)(B) For AFMC activities, the Senior Center Contracting Official must be the approval authority required in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii)(B). For all other activities, the Chief of the Contracting Office is the approval authority.

(i) When the HCA (see 5301.601-91) is SAF/AQC, submit waiver requests to SAF/AQCK. When the HCA is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), waiver requests must be processed through PEO/DAC channels to SAF/AQCK.
(ii) Requests for waiver of certified cost or pricing data must 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 must cover both the prime contract and subcontract):

(E) If applicable, a complete description of the data the contractor or subcontractor refuses to submit and the basis for refusal (include all correspondence);

(F) If applicable, names and titles of the contractor and/or subcontractor personnel contacted and the Government personnel making the contact; and

(b)(2)(v) Operational contracting activities must require the activity that prepared the Government estimate to review its accuracy and provide written review results before contract execution when the lowest acceptable cost proposal varies more than 20 percent from the Government estimate for new negotiated contracts or contract modifications exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer must place in the contract file a statement of actions taken to resolve differences between the cost proposed and the Government estimate.
(c)(2)(iii) Anticipated decrements, or decrement factors, are the historical differences between vendors' and subcontractors' proposed prices and the actual prices negotiated with those vendors and subcontractors (e.g., the historical average decrement for a specific vendor or the average decrement for a certain commodity or commodity group). When performing cost analysis on material costs based on quotes or estimates, the contracting officer should consider anticipated decrements, or decrement factors, that may be achieved by the contractor when the contractor subsequently negotiates the purchase order or subcontract. If a contractor does not include decrement factor information in its initial cost or pricing data submission, the contracting officer should not rely on a subsequent finding of defective pricing but should specifically request decrement factor information to conduct a meaningful analysis (see 5315.404-2).

(a)(2) When material costs are based on quotes or estimates, the contracting officer should request the auditor or administrative contracting officer (ACO), as appropriate, to verify that decrement factor information (see 5315.404-1(c)(2)(iii)) is current, accurate, and complete, and also determine if proposed decrement factors reflect specific experience with a vendor or an average decrement for a certain commodity or commodity group. For example, if a contractor's estimate for material costs is based on a quote obtained from only one vendor with whom the contractor historically negotiated a 20 percent reduction, it would not be appropriate to use the contractor's business-wide decrement factor of 10 percent.

(a) If the contractor refuses to provide the results of subcontract reviews and evaluations, or if the contracting officer determines that the reviews and evaluations are so deficient to preclude an adequate analysis and evaluation of the contractor's proposal, the contracting officer must attempt to secure the subcontract reviews and evaluations and/or elicit corrective action. If the contractor persists in refusing to provide subcontract reviews and evaluations, the contracting officer must assign below normal values for management and cost criteria under the performance risk factor when using the Weighted Guidelines Method (see DFARS 215.404-71) to establish a profit objective. In addition, the contracting officer should consider withholding the award and refer the matter to management for resolution. Contracting officers should consider taking action described in DFARS 215.407-5 when a contractor consistently fails to provide adequate subcontract reviews and evaluations. If a subcontract represents a significant cost risk to the Government, the contracting officer should consider: (1) directing the contractor to definitize the subcontract prior to completion of prime contract negotiations; or (2) conducting a joint Government/contractor team analysis of the subcontract proposal.

(c)(2) The authority to approve the use of an alternate structured approach in lieu of the Weighted Guidelines Method is delegated to the MAJCOM, FOA, and DRU Directors of Contracting. The contracting officer must forward a copy of approved alternate structured approaches to SAF/AQCP.

(a) PARTS is a pricing technique that provides for review of each line item in a spare parts or support equipment price proposal. When a proposal contains multiple line items, and the contracting officer determines that a detailed analysis of

each line item is impractical, the technique described in paragraph (b) below must be used. Contractor proposals which are not submitted on a line item basis, or include inappropriate allocation of support costs (see FAR 15.404-1(f)), must be returned to the contractor for revision.
(b) Under the PARTS methodology, the contracting officer must ensure that multiple line item proposals are evaluated as follows:

(i) Those items where the proposed unit price exceeds 25 percent of the lowest unit price paid for the item at any time within the most recent 12 month period. The proposed prices of all items must be compared to previous prices paid for that item to accomplish this review; and

(c) The combination of the analysis efforts described in this subsection, plus other appropriate inputs, must be used to establish the Government negotiation position for all line item prices, as well as for total price. The price negotiation memorandum must discuss the PARTS procedures employed by specifying the percentage of proposed value and number of line items subjected to detailed review, criteria for high-dollar/low-dollar value items, and so forth.

(a) Before meeting with an offeror to discuss any substantive issues related to a proposed new contract or modification to an existing contract which is significant to the using organization or program office, the Air Force negotiating team should first meet to ensure that they fully understand the proposal and have identified areas for discussion.
(b) For contract actions subject to the Air Force clearance process (see 5301.90), negotiation objectives must be documented in accordance with 5301.9007. For contract actions not subject to the 5301.90 clearance process, each MAJCOM must establish procedures for briefing negotiation objectives to management or otherwise providing for management review of objectives before negotiations begin. Consider briefings when: (1) a contract represents significant cost for the contracting office; (2) a new contract follows a contract(s) where a contractor's performance has been unsatisfactory or items acquired have performed poorly and required modification and retrofit; (3) a new contract substantially increases a contractor's annual sales and production volume; or (4) costs substantially exceed the original estimate.

5315.406-3 Documenting the negotiation.
(a) The contracting officer must ensure that all copies of the price negotiation memorandum (PNM) are marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." Distribution of the PNM must occur only after formal award and contract distribution. Each contracting activity must establish a system which will ensure that copies of PNM are provided in a timely manner to all required recipients.
(7) Each PNM must address whether similar goods or services have been purchased in the past and must address the cause of any substantial price difference between the previously purchased item (if any) and the current item. For example, if a quantity change caused the price to increase, explain the reasons for that increase.

(b)(1) The contracting office organizes and manages the program should-cost review.
(2) HQ AFMC must establish dollar thresholds for mandatory application of should-cost on noncompetitive production contracts. The authority established to waive mandatory application is not delegable. Should-cost techniques may also be applied to contracts below the mandatory dollar thresholds when the contracting office determines that significant savings can be achieved in comparison to the resources applied to the should-cost. Should-cost analysis should be applied early in the acquisition cycle, preferably the first production lot even if the first buy does not exceed the thresholds. Early incorporation of should-cost recommendations by the contractor will maximize program benefits as sufficient follow-on requirements allow investments and implementation cost to be amortized.
(vii) The contracting office must seek inputs and participation of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) in the initial planning for any should-cost review involving DCMA. Prior to performing a review, the contracting activity must study the documentation of all should-cost analysis and other reviews such as Production Readiness Reviews, Manufacturing Management/Production Capability Reviews, Contractor Purchasing System Reviews, Contractor Employee Compensation System Reviews, and Independent Cost Analyses (ICAs) conducted on the contractor within the last two years. The team should review all logistics considerations, including spare parts requirements.
(4) A formal should-cost report is required. The team chief is responsible for its completion. The report must contain a complete analysis of the contractor proposal and serve to establish the Government's negotiation objective. The report must document improvements to be made by the contractor and include a lessons learned section. The PNM must discuss any recommendations contained in the should-cost report. The formal should-cost report and the PNM must be submitted to the MAJCOM should-cost focal point within 45 days after completion of negotiations. The cognizant MAJCOM should-cost focal point is the repository for should-cost data.

(b) FPAs differ from Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) in that an FPRA is usually limited to an agreement on individual rates or factors (including Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs)), applies to items not specified in the agreement, and is required to be used by all buying activities.

5315.407-90-2 Policy.
(a) Establish FPAs when needed to reduce administrative costs and lead times associated with negotiation of large numbers of contract actions for items that can be identified or described in the agreement.
(b) Only establish FPAs with contractors under Government in-plant contract administration cognizance and having a resident DCAA auditor. (This requirement may be waived by the HCA.)
(c) FPAs anticipating individual acquisitions that will exceed the threshold for cost or pricing data must be approved by the HCA and must establish a maximum dollar amount for any acquisition priced using the FPA. Any individual proposal that exceeds the threshold for cost or pricing data must be subject to certification in accordance with 15.406-2.

All FPAs must:
(a) Be in writing and signed by the contracting officer;
(b) Cover no cost elements that would require discrete estimating and analysis (e.g., direct labor and material costs);
(c) Identify all rates and factors that are a part of the FPA. An FPA may reference FPRA(s) as long as it prescribes the effect and treatment of any changes in the FPRA(s);
(d) Establish terms and conditions covering application of the agreement, its expiration date, and any data requirements for systematic monitoring (e.g., provisions for review of actual cost data) to ensure its continuing validity;
(e) Provide for cancellation at the option of either party;
(f) Require the contractor to notify the contracting officer and the cognizant contract auditor of any significant change in its estimating/accounting system or the cost or pricing data and describe the impact on the FPA;
(g) Require the contractor to identify in each specific pricing proposal where the agreement is used:

(h) Provide that:

(i) Be supported by cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.403-4) and a signed certificate of current cost or pricing data that is submitted when agreement on the FPA is reached (and annually thereafter);
(j) Provide that contractual documents for items priced using the FPA, include:

and
(k) Be based on a pricing methodology that ensures that unit prices are in proportion to the item's base cost (see FAR 15.404-1(f)) and that prices may be adjusted, if it is found that:

5315.407-90 Responsibilities.
(a) Each MAJCOM using FPAs must
(1) Establish appropriate approval levels for FPAs;
(2) Maintain a list of FPAs that identifies each company and the group of items covered under each FPA
(3) Conduct periodic reviews of FPAs and contract actions priced using FPAs; and

(b) Contracting officers must:

(1) Negotiate FPAs in compliance with the requirements in 5315.407-90-2. This responsibility may be delegated to the ACO;

5315.407-90-5 FPAs negotiated by other DOD agencies.

Air Force activities may use FPAs of other agencies only if they comply with 5315.407-90-2.

5315.407-91 Follow-up on contract audit reports.

(c) Contracting officers must give full consideration to contract audit advice and must pursue timely and proper resolution and disposition of contract audit reports. Resolution of contract audit reports, other than preaward reports, is required within six months of report issuance by OMB Circular A-50, Audit Followup, dated 29 Sep 1982. Disposition should take place as soon as possible after resolution.

5315.407-91-2 Definitions.
"Adverse opinion report" means an audit report containing the specific statement that the contractor's proposal is not acceptable as a basis for negotiation of a price.
"Closed audit report" means an audit report that has been disposed of by the contracting officer and closed for follow-up tracking purposes. (See the definition for "Disposition of contract audit reports.")
"Contract audit report" means the contract auditor's written advice to a contracting officer advocating specific action on the part of the contracting officer or contractor and/or including highly qualified or adverse opinion information. An audit report could include amounts questioned or disapproved, exceptions to a contractor's system or operations (usually expressed in terms of cost avoidance), recommended price adjustments, or notification of a contractor's noncompliance with cost accounting standards. Contract audit reports will include Contractor Insurance/Pension Reviews (CIPRs) issued by DLA.
"Costs questioned" means:
(a) The amount questioned in the audit report that the reporting contracting officer or auditor has the responsibility and authority to disposition. Audit reports on final indirect cost rates (overhead) will typically have costs questioned relating to corporate allocations and costs questioned relating to divisional expenses. The divisional administrative contracting officer (ACO) should report only the amount questioned pertaining to divisional expenses which he or she is responsible for negotiating, and the corporate ACO should report the costs questioned at the corporate level which he or she is responsible for negotiating. Each contracting officer should report the total amount questioned subject to negotiation at that level, regardless of contract mix or percentage of commercial business;
(b) All costs set aside as "unsupported," qualified, and/or adverse opinion amounts, unless such amounts are disclaimed by the auditor because of requested assist audits or need for technical evaluation. Such amounts are not to be reported by the contracting officer until the assist audit and/or technical evaluation is incorporated by a supplemental report. At time of receipt, the amount questioned and the report date must be revised for correction in the next semi-annual report;
(c) Costs monetized as a result of a technical evaluation that are incorporated into the audit report; and
(d) For cost accounting standards cost impact audits, the total amount of the cost impact estimated by the auditor.
"Costs questioned sustained" means that portion of the costs questioned by the auditor which is upheld as a result of actions taken by either the contractor or the contracting officer.
"Disclaimed opinion report" means any audit denying the validity of a proposal when the scope of audit was so restricted that an audit opinion cannot be justified.
"Disposition of contract audit reports" occurs when:
(a) The contractor implements the audit recommendations or the contracting officer's decision;
(b) The contracting officer negotiates a settlement with the contractor and a contractual document has been executed;
(c) The contracting officer issues a final decision pursuant to the "Disputes" clause and 90 days elapse without contractor appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Should the

contractor appeal to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims within the 12 months after final decision, the audit report must be reinstated as an open report in litigation;
(d) A decision has been rendered on an appeal made to the ASBCA or U.S. Court of Federal Claims and any corrective actions directed by the Board or Court have been completed and a contractual document has been executed;
(e) Audit reports have been superseded by, or incorporated into, a subsequent report; or
(f) Any corrective actions deemed necessary by the contracting officer have been taken, so that no further actions can be reasonably anticipated.
In addition, divisional overhead audit reports may be considered dispositioned when the contracting officer has negotiated all local issues with the contractor and a written agreement detailing the results of the negotiations has been signed by both the contracting officer and the contractor, and distribution has been made to DCAA. A cost accounting standards noncompliance report may be dispositioned when the audit report on the related cost impact statement is received by the contracting officer.
"Highly qualified opinion report" means an audit report which typically indicates a significant inadequacy in the cost or pricing data, denial of access to records, or noncompliance with cost accounting standards or acquisition regulations. For the purpose of follow-up coverage under DOD Directive 7640.2, the audit report must specifically state that the results of audit are highly qualified. (Italics added for emphasis.)
"Litigation" means:
(a) An audit report is considered to be involved in litigation any time an appeal has been filed with the ASBCA, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, or with any other Federal or state court concerning matters dealing with a specific contractor identified in the report; or
(b) An audit report is considered to be involved in litigation whenever the Government appeals a decision of the ASBCA, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, or any other court, or there is other ongoing judicial action that has bearing on matters or issues identified in the report.
"Open audit report" means an audit report that has not been dispositioned.

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

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

"Reports involved in investigation" means an audit report that is considered to be involved in an investigation when deferral of resolution or disposition action has been requested by an investigative agency of the U.S. Government.
"Resolution" means:
(a) For reportable audits, the point at which the auditor and the contracting officer agree on the action to be taken on audit report findings and recommendations/qualifications, or, in the event of disagreement, when the contracting officer determines a course of action after following MAJCOM/local contracting activity prenegotiation documentation and review procedures;
(b) In the case of auditor determined final indirect cost rates, resolution is achieved when an agreement is reached between the auditor and the contractor, or when an agreement cannot be reached, a decision is rendered by the cognizant ACO after obtaining additional review, if required; or
(c) For preaward audits, the point at which an agreement is reached, a proposed negotiation objective is modified during review, a contract price is negotiated, or the proposed award is canceled, whichever occurs first; and

(d) In all of the above cases, resolution must be supported by specific written documentation in the file.
5315.407-91-3 Responsibilities.
(a) The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting), SAF/AQC, is the designated contract audit follow-up official responsible for managing the Air Force's contract audit follow-up program.
(b) MAJCOM Directors of Contracting must:

(c) The following is for information purposes only and is not directive. DOD Directive 7640.2 requires DCAA to:

(d) The following is for information purposes only and is not directive. DOD Directive 7640.2 requires DLA to identify to the DOD Component those CIPRs that are reportable.
5315.407-91-4 Tracking of contract audit reports.
(a) Contracting activities must track all contract audit reports, but only need to report those audits

specified in 5315.407-91-5(b). For the nonreportable contract audits specified in 5315.407-91-5(c), tracking may be accomplished using records maintained in official contract files.
(b) Every Air Force contracting office must appoint a contract audit follow-up focal point. The designated focal point must maintain a log of all reportable contract audit reports received by the activity for which that activity has disposition responsibility and must track and report the status of the reportable contract audit reports from the date of receipt through final disposition. The designated focal point must maintain this information on a current basis and must ensure that the information is adequate to serve as the source document for the semi-annual contract audit follow-up status reports. Audit reports must be dropped from the tracking system in the reporting period following closure.

(c) The audit tracking information must be accumulated and maintained centrally at a level no higher than the AFMC direct reporting unit and at command headquarters for all other MAJCOMs. The activity updates this information at least monthly. For auditor-determined final, indirect cost rate reports, a report is considered received for follow-up tracking purposes when it is forwarded by the auditor to the cognizant ACO for resolution and disposition.

5315.407-91-5 Reporting of contract audit reports.
(a) Although DCAA will identify reportable contract audits, the procurement or contract administration office having resolution/disposition responsibility is ultimately responsible for reporting all audits meeting the criteria identified below.
(b) Reportable audits include:
(1) Those containing findings and recommendations, whether or not the findings are qualified, covering estimating system surveys, accounting and related internal control system reviews, defective pricing reviews, cost accounting standards (CAS) issues, and CAS cost impact settlement reviews;
(2) Those covering operations reviews, incurred costs including final, indirect cost rates or auditor-determined final, indirect cost rates referred to the ACO for final decision, final pricing submissions, termination settlement proposals, and claims, if reported costs or rates questioned or qualified equal $100,000 or more; and

(c) Nonreportable audits. Reports covering preaward proposals; forward pricing labor, overhead, and other advance rate proposals; progress payments; preaward surveys; proposals for change orders or modifications; assist audits; and closing statements are not to be reported. Audit reports containing reportable findings and recommendations are not to be treated as reportable audits; however, if deemed appropriate, the contracting officer should ask DCAA to issue a separate audit report addressing the reportable issues in detail. Also, the following audit reports are not reportable: reports containing only positive findings and recommendations, such as those recommending that a contractor's proposed cost accounting standards change be approved; any interim report that will be incorporated into a future report; and final indirect cost audits that are auditor determined, if the auditor is successful in reaching an agreement on the rate(s) with the contractor.

(e) The required semi-annual MAJCOM status report submissions must provide the following data:

(f) Initial target dates for resolution and disposition must be within six months or twelve months, respectively, of the audit report issuance date. These target dates must be revised, as required, and such target dates must not be left unchanged if they are past-dated on the cut-off date of the current semi-annual status report.
(g) The MAJCOM status report submissions must denote the reporting activity for each audit listed, using the corresponding six digit activity address code listed in DFARS Appendix G. Activities not assigned a number must report by organization and address. MAJCOMs using an automated reporting system may satisfy this requirement by using their own location codes, as long as an explanation is furnished with the submission.
(h) The MAJCOM status report submissions must identify the type of audit using the following codes (MAJCOMs reporting via an automated system may also satisfy this requirement by using their own codes for audit type, provided an explanation is furnished with the submission):

* Reported costs, rates questioned, or reported CAS noncompliance's must equal $100,000 or more.
(i) MAJCOMs must make every possible effort to ensure the completeness and accuracy of their semi-annual submissions, including verification against their prior status report submissions and the control logs of reportable audits issued by DCAA. In particular, the MAJCOM must place special emphasis on confirming the reporting accuracy of any audit listed as unresolved and over six months old. HQ AFMC/PKPC, acting for SAF/AQCP, must accumulate the MAJCOM reports and submit the consolidated Air Force report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting), SAF/AQC, for signature and transmittal to the DOD/IG within 30 calendar days after the end of the reporting period.
(j) Contracting activities or MAJCOMs which discover inaccurate or incomplete data in their semi-annual reports must submit corrected data through channels to HQ AFMC/PKPC as soon as possible.

(k) The Status Report on Specified Contract Audit Reports has been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-IG(SA) 1580.
5315.407-91-6 Resolution of contract audit reports.
(a) Contracting officers must make every possible effort to resolve all reportable contract audits within six months of issuance.
(b) MAJCOM/local contracting activity procedures must provide for documentation and independent review of proposed prenegotiation objectives (for the disposition of both preaward and postaward contract audits) which are significantly different from the DCAA audit recommendations. For most contract audits, the contracting officer should obtain contractor comments and such technical advice as deemed necessary, prior to formulating a prenegotiation position. The contracting officer must share this additional information with the auditor, as appropriate. If additional audit effort is required because of data presented by the contractor, the contracting officer must promptly request such a review. (DCAA is required by DOD Directive 7640.2 to give priority to providing this necessary additional audit support.) If no additional audit effort is deemed necessary, the contracting officer must communicate with the auditor on the proposed disposition of the case, as necessary, to reach a fully informed decision. In documenting the prenegotiation position, the contracting officer should indicate whether the audit recommendations were accepted or, if not, whether the auditor has revised them. If the auditor agrees that a reduction in the applicable costs questioned is appropriate, the contracting officer must reduce the costs questioned amount being reported for that audit accordingly. When the contracting officer disagrees with the audit position, the contracting officer's prenegotiation documentation should include the rationale for not accepting the audit advice. The post negotiation documentation should include a summary of the field pricing report recommendations and the reasons for any pertinent variances from those recommendations.
(c) For auditor determined indirect cost rates, the auditor will seek agreement with the contractor upon completion of the audit. If agreement is reached, the contractor and auditor will execute a written understanding setting forth the final rates. If agreement is not reached, the auditor will issue a notice of costs suspended and/or disapproved, and advise the contractor of its right to submit a claim to the ACO for any disapproved costs. If the contractor submits a written objection to the ACO, the ACO may communicate further with the contractor in order to reach an agreement. If the ACO agrees with the audit recommendations, the ACO must issue a final decision. If the ACO disagrees with the audit recommendations, the ACO must comply with MAJCOM/local contracting activity procedures for documentation and review prior to disposition.
5315.407-91-7 Disposition of contract audit reports.
(a) Reportable contract audits should normally be disposed of within 12 months after issuance. Overaged audit reports must receive heightened management attention including, if necessary, the assignment of additional resources.
(b) Explicit and timely documentation and feedback on the final disposition of audit reports are essential. Therefore, the contracting officer must promptly prepare a memorandum covering the disposition of all reports. The memorandum must discuss the disposition of all recommendations and questioned/qualified amounts, including the underlying rationale for such dispositions. The contracting officer must provide a copy of the memorandum to the cognizant contract auditor before a report may be closed.
(c) Existing documentation, such as a price negotiation memorandum or a written overhead negotiation memorandum, should be used, when applicable, to meet the requirements of (b) above. For all other dispositions, the contracting officer must prepare a similar document for feedback purposes. To ensure that the final disposition of all audit reports is properly accounted for, the contracting officer must notify the cognizant DCAA office in writing of the cancellation of any acquisition action or of any unsuccessful offerors not receiving award of the contract or grant for which an audit report was issued

.
5315.407-91-8 Recovery of funds.
Policies regarding the collection of contract debts are contained in FAR Subpart 32.6. Any amount due the Government as a result of a contract audit is to be determined by the contracting officer either negotiating a settlement with the contractor or issuing a unilateral decision when negotiations are unsuccessful. Upon completion of either action, the contracting officer must make a prompt written demand for payment, citing the amount due, with a copy of the demand letter provided to the payment office cited in the contract. In accordance with FAR 32.610 (b), unless the contract is excluded pursuant to FAR 32.617, or the contract debt has been exempted from interest charges under agency procedures, the demand should include notification that any amounts not paid within 30 calendar days from the date of the demand will accrue interest from the date of the demand, or from any earlier date specified in the contract. FAR 32.610(b) also states that the interest rate on these debts must be the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the periods affected, under Public Law 92-41. In the case of a debt arising from a price reduction for defective pricing or a CAS noncompliance, interest will continue to accrue from the date of the overpayment by the Government until repayment by the contractor at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the periods affected, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2) (see FAR 32.610(b)). In all cases, interest and penalties should not be included in bottom-line settlements, but should be separately identified, through a specified date, for comptroller officials. In accordance with section 1802, Chapter 18 in Volume 10 of DoD 7000.14-4, when management determines that resources should be recovered from a defense contractor and the contracting officer issues a demand for payment, a receivable must be recorded and collection action initiated as soon as possible. Also, in accordance section 1803, Chapter 18 in Volume 10 of DoD 7000.14-R, all interest and penalties assessed on contract debts are to be identified separately and deposited directly to the U.S. Treasury.
5315.407-91-9 Coordination with other agencies.
The cognizant contracting office responsible for acting on contract audit reports that affect contracts of other Government agencies must inform the affected organizations of such actions.
5315.407-91-10 Contract audit follow-up for GAO reports.
GAO audit reports which disclose contract pricing issues and are issued directly to the buying activity must be tracked and reported in accordance with the procedures in 5315.407-91. Contracting officers must provide:
(a) An initial response to the GAO within 60 days of receipt of the audit report; and
(b) A copy of the initial response and the disposition documents, simultaneously, to the following:
(1) SAF/FMPF, Room 4D212, 1130 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1130, (703) 614-5422;
(2) SAF/AQCP;
(3) Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense, Attention: DAIG, GAO Report Analysis, Room 555, 400 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

(a) Except as authorized in paragraphs (b) and (c) below, when data are required to be delivered under a contract, the solicitation must include priced line items for that data. At a minimum, those line items must provide for separate prices for each major category of data to be delivered. Examples of major categories of data include technical orders, engineering data, and management data. When data to be delivered includes acquisition data (data which is being required to allow for the acquisition of an item on a competitive basis), the solicitation must require separate identification of the price of that data, including data rights necessary for the use of that data for the intended purpose.

(b) Not separately priced data line items (data line items for which no separate price is established, with the result that the prices for those line items are included in the price of hardware or other priced line items) must only be used in a solicitation or contract when the contracting officer specifically determines that it would not be practical to separately price those items. Such determination must be approved at a level higher than the contracting officer. The basis for the contracting officer determination must be documented in the contract file.
(c) Separate line item prices are not required in the following situations, and thus, the determination and approval requirements of paragraph (b) above do not apply:

(d) Cost proposal data provided to support proposed prices for data should be analyzed using the over-and-above pricing concept. This concept reflects the recognition that the contractor will have to prepare certain data as a natural consequence of contract performance, whether or not we identify a requirement on the DD Form 1423 and ask for its delivery. Accordingly, the price paid for a data item should be based on what it costs the contractor to furnish the item, over and above the costs the contractor would incur if we did not require it at all. When large numbers of data items are to be analyzed, the contracting officer should consider using sampling techniques similar to those used for the analysis of spare parts proposals.

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

(d) Debriefings to all successful and unsuccessful debriefed offerors must contain information sufficient to convey the basis of the SSA's integrated assessment and assist all offerors in improving future proposals. Information in the debriefings must be appropriately redacted and "point-by-point" comparisons of offerors proposals detailing specific language in the proposals are prohibited (see FAR 15.506(e)). Information showing how one offeror was evaluated and rated against the evaluation factors as compared to the successful offeror should be included in the debriefing Information must never be provided which is prohibited from disclosure or exempt from release (see FAR 15.506(e)(1)-(4)).

(1) The debriefed offeror must 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 must also include the narrative description provided the SSA, of the strengths, proposal inadequacies, risks, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.
(2) The debriefing must include the ratings and narrative description presented to the SSA of the strengths, proposal inadequacies, risks, and weaknesses of the successful offeror's proposal, appropriately redacted. The successful offeror and the unsuccessful offerors must 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.
(3) The SSDD, appropriately redacted, must be provided to all debriefed offerors. The SSA may also release an appropriately redacted PAR to all offerors in the competitive range. The debriefing is not a forum for debate regarding the subjective judgment of the SSA. If the Government team participating in the debriefing is uncertain about a response to an offeror's 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
5315.506-90 Air Force procedures.
(a) Each MAJCOM, FOA, and DRU must establish contact points and procedures for receipt and disposition of unsolicited proposals received locally, consistent with the provisions in FAR Subpart 15.6.

ATTACHMENT 5315-1 STATUS REPORT ON SPECIFIED CONTRACT AUDIT REPORTS, OPEN REPORTS

(Report Control Symbol DD-1G(SA) 1580)

OPEN REPORT

For Period Ending______________________
DoD Component_____USAF____________
MAJCOM___________________________

 

Audit Report Number

Report Date (1)

Contractor Name

Type of Audit (2)

Cost Questioned or Cost Avoidance

Deferred for Criminal Investigation (3)

In Litigation (4)

Resolved or Unresolved (5)

Disposition Target Date (1)

Reporting Activity (6)

A. Overaged reports
(over 12 months old)

B. Reports 6-12 months old

C. REPORTS LESS THAN 6 MONTHS OLD

D. REPORTS IN LITIGATION

E. Reports involved in criminal investigation

                   

Note:
(1) Year, month, day
(2) Use codes listed in AFFARS 5315.407-91-5(h)
(3) If investigative organization has requested deferral of resolution or disposition action, list date of request.
(4) Docket/Case No. or no (N)
(5) For resolved audits: insert R and date of resolution. For unresolved audits: insert U and resolution target date.
(6) Use DFARS Appendix G Activity Address Numbers

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

(Report Control Symbol DD-1G(SA) 1580)

CLOSED REPORT

For Period Ending______________________
DoD Component_____USAF____________
MAJCOM___________________________

 

Audit Report Number

Report Date (1)

Contractor Name

Type of Audit (2)

Date of Disposition (1)

Cost Questioned or Cost Avoidance

Cost Sustained/Avoided

Reporting Activity (3)

A. Reports listed as coveragein prior report

B. Other reports closed during period

               

Note:

(1) Year, month, day
(2) Use codes listed in AFFARS 5315.407-91-5(h)
(3) Use DFARS Appendix G Activity Address Numbers

ATTACHMENT 5315-3

Table A

AFMC Source Selection Authority (SSA) Thresholds

PEO AND DAC PROGRAMS (NON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)/OTHER CONTRACTING*

Threshold

SSA (Delegable [1])

SSP Review

SAT to < $10M

Contracting Officer

Technical Team Member

> $10M to < $50M

Single Manager [2]

BOCO[See note 3]

> $50M to < $500M

PEO or DAC/Center Commander

SCCO

> $500M [4]

PDASAF(A&M)

SSAC Chairperson

A-76 on > 300 FTEs

PDASAF(A&M)

SSAC Chairperson

MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM (MAIS) PROGRAMS AND NON-MAIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

Threshold

SSA (Delegable [1]

SSP Review

SAT to < $15/30M [5]

Single Manager [2]

BOCO[See note 3]

> $15/30M[5] to < $120M
and non-MAIS

PEO or DAC/Center Commander

SCCO

> $120M or MAIS

PDASAF(A&M)

SSAC Chairperson

[1] SSA delegable not lower than the contracting officer.
[2] Single Manager (SM) includes System Program Director (SPD), Product Group Manager (PGM), Materiel Group Manager (MGM), Technology Director (TD), and Wing Commander.
[3] For Other Contracting, the first contracting official in the contract chain subordinate to the SCCO.
[4] Except new ACAT ID programs entering EMD. SSA for ACAT ID programs entering EMD is ASAF(A).
[5] $15/$30M means $15M or more in any FY or $30M or more for all program years.

* Except for A-76 cost comparisons affecting 300 or more FTEs, AFMC/CC may designate an SSA at a level other than those listed above for a specific "Other Contracting" acquisition of less than $500 Million.

Other MAJCOMs, FOAs, and DRUs Source Selection Authority (SSA) Thresholds

OTHER CONTRACTING*

Threshold

SSA (Delegable [1])

SSP Review

SAT to < $10M

Contracting Officer

Technical Team Member

> $10 M to < $500M

Commanders [2]

Per Command Guidance

> $500M

PDASAF(A&M) [3]

SSAC Chairperson

A-76 on > 300 FTEs

PDASAF(A&M)

SSAC Chairperson

MAIS PROGRAMS AND NON-MAIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS

Threshold

SSA (Delegable [1]

SSP Review

SAT to < $10M

Contracting Officer

Technical Team Member

> $10 to < $120M
and non-MAIS

Commander [2]

Per Command Guidance

> $120M or MAIS

PDASAF(A&M)

SSAC Chairperson

TABLE B NOTE: If an acquisition is designated a PEO Program, the PEO is the SSA for thresholds below PDASAF(A&M) (delegable[1]).
[1] SSA not delegable lower than the contracting officer.
[2] Commanders of MAJCOMs, FOAs and DRUs
[3] Except new ACAT ID programs entering EMD. SSA for ACAD ID programs entering EMD is ASAF(A).

* Except for A-76 cost comparisons affecting 300 or more FTEs, the MAJCOM/CC may designate an SSA at a level other than those listed above for a specific "Other Contracting" acquisition of less than $500 Million.

ATTACHMENT 5315-4

AFFARS 5315.305

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION MATRIX

FACTORS

MISSION CAPABILITY

Undisplayed Graphic

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

ATTACHMENT 5315-5

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION BRIEFING
& DEBRIEFING CERTIFICATES

Source Selection Information Briefing Certificate
Name: ____________________ Grade: _______ Job Title: ___________________________
Organization: _______________ Source Selection: ____________________ Date: _________
Briefing Acknowledgment
1. I acknowledge I have been assigned to the source selection indicated above. I am aware that unauthorized disclosure of source selection or proprietary information could damage the integrity of this procurement and that the transmission or revelation of such information to unauthorized persons could subject me to prosecution under the Procurement Integrity Laws or under other applicable laws.
2. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not divulge, publish, or reveal by word, conduct, or any other means, such information or knowledge, except as necessary to do so in the performance of my official duties related to this source selection and in accordance with the laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized in writing in each and every case by a duly authorized representative of the United States Government. I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and in the absence of duress.
3. I acknowledge that the information I receive will be given only to persons specifically granted access to the source selection information and may not be further divulged without specific prior written approval from an authorized individual.
4. If, at any time during the source selection process, my participation might result in a real, apparent, possible, or potential conflict of interest, I will immediately report the circumstances to the Source Selection Authority.
5. All personnel are requested to check the applicable block:

SIGNATURE:________________________________ DATE:_____________________

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 of Person Debriefed Date

This page is blank.

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsAFFARSNext Page