(4) Weighted Guidelines (WGL) Checklist.pdf

WGL Checklist

(DFARS 215.404-4)

FA8672-18-C-0001

Attachment 4

Please use this check list to help determine the weighting factor to use on the WGL spreadsheet. Please cross out all elements that do not apply.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Normal – 5%, Range – 3 to 7%

Recommended = X%

General:

Review the contract requirements and focus on the critical performance elements in the statement of work or specifications. Factors to consider include:

1. Technology being applied or developed by the contractor;

2. Technical complexity;

3. Program maturity;

4. Performance specifications and tolerances;

5. Delivery schedule; and

6. Extent of a warranty or guarantee.

Evaluation Criteria:

Maximum Value:

The following may justify a maximum value:

Development or initial production of a new item, particularly if performance or quality specifications are tight; or

A high degree of development or production concurrency.

Significantly Above Normal Conditions:

The following may justify a value significantly above normal:

Extremely complex, vital efforts to overcome difficult technical obstacles that require personnel with exceptional abilities, experience, and professional credentials.

Above Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a higher than normal value in those cases where there is a substantial technical risk. Indicators are:

Items are being manufactured using specifications with stringent tolerance limits;

The efforts require highly skilled personnel or require the use of state-of-the-art machinery;

The services and analytical efforts are extremely important to the Government and must be performed to exacting standards;

The contractor's independent development and investment has reduced the Government's risk or cost;

FA8672-18-C-0001

The contractor has accepted an accelerated delivery schedule to meet DoD requirements; or

The contractor has assumed additional risk through warranty provisions.

Below Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value in those cases where the technical risk is low. Indicators are:

Requirements are relatively simple;

Technology is not complex;

Efforts do not require highly skilled personnel;

Efforts are routine;

Programs are mature; or

Acquisition is a follow-on effort or a repetitive type acquisition.

Significantly Below Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a value significantly below normal for:

Routine services;

Production of simple items;

Rote entry or routine integration of Government-furnished information; or

Simple operations with Government-furnished property.

MGT/COST CONTROL

Normal – 5%, Range – 3 to 7%

General:

The contracting officer should evaluate:

1. The contractor’s management and internal control systems using contracting officer information and review made by field contract administration offices or other DoD field offices;

2. The management involvement expected on the prospective contract action;

3. The degree of cost mix as an indication of the types of resources applied and value added by the contractor;

4. The contractor’s support of Federal socioeconomic programs;

5. The expected reliability of the contractor’s cost estimates (including the contractor’s cost estimating system);

6. The adequacy of the contractor’s management approach to controlling cost and schedule; and

7. Any other factors that affect the contractor’s ability to meet the cost targets (e.g., foreign currency exchange rates and inflation rates).

FA8672-18-C-0001

Maximum Value:

The contracting officer may justify a maximum value when the effort:

Requires large scale integration of the most complex nature;

Involves major international activities with significant management coordination (e.g., offsets with foreign vendors); or

Has critically important milestones.

Above Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a higher than normal value when there is a high degree of management effort. Indicators of this are:

The contractor's value added is both considerable and reasonably difficult;

The effort involves a high degree of integration or coordination;

The contractor has a good record of past performance;

The contractor has a substantial record of active participation in Federal socioeconomic programs;

The contractor provides fully documented and reliable cost estimates;

The contractor makes appropriate make-or-buy decisions; or

The contractor has a proven record of cost tracking and control.

Below Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value when the management effort is minimal. Indicators of this are:

The program is mature and many end item deliveries have been made;

The contractor adds minimal value to an item;

The efforts are routine and require minimal supervision;

The contractor provides poor quality, untimely proposals;

The contractor fails to provide an adequate analysis of subcontractor costs;

The contractor does not cooperate in the evaluation and negotiation of the proposal;

The contractor's cost estimating system is marginal;

The contractor has made minimal effort to initiate cost reduction programs;

The contractor's cost proposal is inadequate;

The contractor has a record of cost overruns or another indication of unreliable cost estimates and lack of cost control; or

The contractor has a poor record of past performance.

The following may justify a value significantly below normal:

FA8672-18-C-0001

Reviews performed by the field contract administration offices disclose unsatisfactory management and internal control systems; or

The effort requires an unusually low degree of management involvement.

FACILITIES CAPITAL EMPLOYED

Normal – 17.5%, Range–10 to 25%

Description:

This factor focuses on encouraging and rewarding capital investment in facilities that benefit DoD. It recognizes both the facilities capital that the contractor will employ in contract performance and the contractor’s commitment to improving productivity.

In evaluating facilities capital employed, the contracting officer –

1. Should relate the usefulness of the facilities capital to the goods or services being acquired under the prospective contract;

2. Should analyze the productivity improvements and other anticipated industrial base enhancing benefits resulting from the facilities capital investment, including –

a. The economic value of the facilities capital, such as physical age, undepreciated value, idleness, and expected contribution to future defense needs; and

b. The contractor’s level of investment in defense related facilities as compared with the portion of the contractor’s total business that is derived from DoD; and

3. Should consider any contractual provisions that reduce the contractor’s risk of investment recovery, such as termination protection clauses and capital investment indemnification.

Significantly Above Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a value significantly above normal when there are –

Direct and measurable benefits in efficiency and significantly reduced acquisition costs on the effort being priced

Maximum values apply only to those cases where the benefits of the facilities capital investment are substantially above normal.

FA8672-18-C-0001

Above Normal Conditions:

Then contracting officer may assign a higher than normal value if the facilities capital investment has direct, identifiable, and exceptional benefits. Indicators are –

New investments in state-of-the-art technology that reduce acquisition cost or yield other tangible benefits such as improved product quality or accelerated deliveries; or

Investments in new equipment for research and development applications

Below Normal Conditions:

The contracting officer may assign a lower than normal value if the facilities capital investment has little benefit to DoD. Indicators are –

Allocations of capital apply predominantly to commercial item lines;

Investments are for such things as furniture and fixtures, home or group level administrative offices, corporate aircraft and hangars, gymnasiums; or

Facilities are old or extensively idle.

The contracting officer may assign a value significantly below normal when –

A significant portion of defense manufacturing is done in an environment characterized by outdated, inefficient, and labor-intensive capital equipment.

COST EFFICIENCY FACTOR

Normal – 0%, Range 0-4%

Recommended = X%, if applicable

MUST QUANTIFY SAVINGS IN DOLLARS TO THIS ACTION

This special factor provides an incentive for contactors to reduce costs. To the extent that the contractor can demonstrate cost reduction efforts that benefit the pending contract, the contracting officer may increase the prenegotiation profit objective by an amount not to exceed 4 percent of total objective cost (Block 20 of DD Form 1547) to recognize these efforts (Block 29).

To determine if using this factor is appropriate, the contracting officer shall consider criteria, such as the following, to evaluate the benefit the contractor’s cost reduction efforts will have on the pending contract:

The contractor’s participation in Single Process Initiative (SPI) improvements;

Actual cost reductions achieved on prior contracts ;

Reduction or elimination of excess or idle facilities ;

FA8672-18-C-0001

The contractor’s cost reduction initiatives (e.g., competition advocacy programs, technical insertion programs, obsolete parts control programs, spare parts pricing reform, value engineering, outsourcing of functions such as information technology).

Metrics developed by the contractor such as fully loaded labor hours (i.e., cost per labor hour, including all direct and indirect costs) or other productivity measures may provide the basis for assessing the effectiveness of the contractor’s cost reduction initiatives over time;

The contractor’s adoption of process improvements to reduce costs;

Subcontractor cost reduction efforts;

The contractor’s effective incorporation of commercial items and processes; or

The contractor’s investment in new facilities when such investments contribute to better asset utilization or improved productivity.

When selecting the percentage to use for this special factor, the contracting officer has maximum flexibility in determining the best way to evaluate the benefit the contractor’s cost reduction efforts will have on the pending contract. However, the contracting officer shall consider the impact that quantity differences, learning, changes in scope, and economic factors such as inflation and deflation will have on cost reduction.