Broad Agency Announcement Guide.pdf

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

(BAA) GUIDE FOR

CONTRACTING AND TECHNICAL

PERSONNEL

Version 1.2 Mar 2015

Attachment 1: Broad Agency Announcement Guide

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Version 1.1 Updated Attachment 5, BAA Non- Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

Feb 2014

Version 1.2 Updated Chapter 4 to clarify communications with Industry and update BAA numbering format

Mar 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW

B. CRITERIA FOR USE

CHAPTER 2: DEFINITIONS

CHAPTER 3: BAA VARIATIONS

CHAPTER 4: BAA INITIATION

A. COMMUNICATION WITH INDUSTRY AND POSTING CONVENTIONS 12

B. ACQUISITION TEAM

C. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

D. EVALUATION TEAM

CHAPTER 5: SYNOPSIS TO RECEIPT OF WHITE PAPER/PROPOSALS

A. DRAFT PACKAGE CONTENTS

B. SYNOPSIS

C. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKAGE

D. DRAFT PACKAGE REVIEW

E. FINAL PACKAGE

F. FBO/GRANTS.GOV SYNOPSIS

G. WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL RECEIPT

H. PROPOSALS EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITATIONS

CHAPTER 6: WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL EVALUATION

A. EVALUATION

B. APPROVAL

C. TRACKING AWARD VALUES

CHAPTER 7: PURCHASE REQUEST PACKAGE

A. PR PACKAGE PREPARATION

B. COORDINATION/APPROVAL

CHAPTER 8: NEGOTIATION TO AWARD

A. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD DECISION

B. MODEL DOCUMENT

C. COST REALISM ANALYSIS

D. CLEARANCE

E. NEGOTIATIONS

F. AWARD

CHAPTER 9: DEBRIEFINGS/PROTESTS

A. DEBRIEFINGS

B. PROTEST

CHAPTER 10: MANAGING OPEN-ENDED BAAs

A. CARE AND FEEDING

B. RETENTION OF WHITE PAPERS AND PROPOSALS

ATTACHMENT 1: SAMPLE EVALUATION REPORT LETTER

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FORM

ATTACHMENT 3: GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF COMMON BAAs

ATTACHMENT 4: NOTIONAL TIMELINE………………………………………….38

ATTACHMENT 5: BAA NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW

Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) are solicitation methods for Research and Development (R&D) efforts based on synopses published in the FedBizOpps and/or Grants.gov that provide for full and open competition in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and merit-based, competitive procedures IAW DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations (DoDGARs) 22.315(a). BAAs are established in FAR 35.016 and are authorized for the acquisition of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement (generally 6.1or 6.2 funds; however, other types of funds, such as 6.3, may be determined to meet the definition for use of a BAA). The objective of a BAA is to encourage participation by science and technology firms and educational institutions in meeting Air Force Research and Development goals for innovative ideas and approaches for research that is general in nature.

B. CRITERIA FOR USE

Use of a BAA to solicit for research and development is encouraged when:

1. The Government desires new and creative solutions to problem statements.

2. Using a conventional statement of work could result in unintentionally stifling ideas and concepts given many possible approaches.

3. Fulfilling requirements for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state-of-the-art or increasing knowledge or understanding rather than focusing on a specific system or hardware solution.

4. The Government must be able to state its objectives in terms of areas of need or interest rather than specific solutions or outcomes.

5. Meaningful proposals with varying technical/scientific approaches are reasonably anticipated.

6. Evaluation will be based on a peer or scientific review.

Development of prototype hardware may be pursued under a BAA; however, such development must be for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of a technology or solution. It should not be for the purpose of acquiring specific hardware that has already been defined or developed by the Government.

BAAs should not be used to avoid standard contracting procedures when a FAR Part 15 Request for Proposal (RFP) would be appropriate.

Documentation must be included in the contract file substantiating why a BAA is considered the appropriate solicitation method. The documentation should justify that the nature of the program is appropriate for a BAA and that the proposal selection process will be consistent with peer or scientific review methods. The further from basic and applied research, the more thorough the justification must be. Justification for BAA use must be included in the Combined Acquisition Plan and Acquisition Strategy Panel. When necessary, more detailed supporting documentation can be included in a Memorandum for the File.

CHAPTER 2: DEFINITIONS

Air Force Materiel Command Contracting Mandatory Procedures and Informational Guidance (AFMC/PK MPs and IG): This site contains Mandatory Procedures and Informational Guidance for AFMC contracting activities. It is located at https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc pk mp ig/default.aspx.

Acquisition Plan (AP): The document resulting from the process by which the efforts of all personnel responsible for an acquisition are coordinated and integrated through a comprehensive plan for fulfilling the agency need in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The process includes developing the overall strategy for managing the acquisition. (See FAR Part 7.)

Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP): The panel is a level of management commensurate with the dollar level of the acquisition to assist the acquisition team in the development of the acquisition strategy. It is chaired by the individual responsible for signing the AP. Generally, the acquisition team will present a briefing of the acquisition to the panel.

Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS): Those services provided under contract by nongovernmental sources to support or improve: Organizational policy development; decision-making; management and administration; program and/or project management and administration; or R&D activities. It can also mean the furnishing of professional advice or assistance rendered to improve the effectiveness of Federal management processes or procedures (including those of an engineering and technical nature). In rendering the foregoing services, outputs may take the form of information, advice, opinions, alternatives, analyses, evaluations, recommendations, training and the day-to-day aid of support personnel needed for the successful performance of ongoing Federal operations.

Assistance Instrument: Business arrangement that is appropriate when the goal of the program is to transfer a thing of value to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation as authorized by law. Assistance instruments include grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and other transactions for research. Assistance instruments are covered by the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulation (DoDGARs) and are not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA): A general announcement of an agency’s research interest including criteria for selecting proposals and soliciting the participation of all offerors capable of satisfying the Government’s needs. (See

FAR 35.016.)

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/default.aspx

BAA Amendment: A change to the terms and conditions of the Announcement Overview, BAA, or Call. A BAA amendment may also change the time and date for receipt of proposals or white papers.

Combined Acquisition Plan and Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP/AP): An alternative acquisition plan template that is approved for S&T programs by AFMC/PK MP 5307.104-92(3)(90)(i) Air Force Procedures for Acquisition Plans.

Contract Specialist: Term used interchangeably to include the Contract Negotiator or Buyer. Be advised only a Contracting Officer is warranted to obligate the Government. Regulations specify several other functions that must be performed by a Contracting Officer.

Contracting Officer: Title given to a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Only a Contracting Officer has the authority to obligate the Government.

Cooperative Agreement: An assistance instrument in which there will be substantial involvement between the Government and the recipient to perform basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development. A cost-sharing arrangement may be required. (See DoDGARs 22.215(a)(2).)

Cost Realism Analysis: The process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed;

reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. Cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. (See FAR 15.404-1(d).)

FedBizOpps.gov (FBO): The Governmentwide point of entry (GPE) by which U.S. Government agencies identify proposed contract actions and contract awards. BAA solicitations are published in FBO.

Government Furnished Property (GFP): Property in the possession of, or directly acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the contractor for performance of a contract. Government-furnished property includes, but is not limited to, spares and property furnished for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification. Government-furnished property also includes contractor-acquired property if the contractor-acquired property is a deliverable under a cost contract when accepted by the Government for continued use under the contract. (See FAR Part 45.)

Grant: An instrument under which the Government provides assistance to a recipient for basic, applied or advanced research. There is no substantial Government involvement. (See DoDGARS 22.215(a)(1).)

Grants.gov: The public notification media used when a BAA will allow for the award of an assistance instrument (grant, cooperative agreement, technology investment agreement).

Independent Research and Development (IR&D) Cost: The cost of effort which is neither sponsored by a grant, nor required in performing a contract, and which falls within any of the following four areas: (a) Basic research, (b) Applied research, (c) Development, and (d) Systems and other concept formulation studies. (See FAR 31.001.)

Other Transactions for Prototype: Section 845 of Public Law 103-160, as modified, provides the Secretary of the Air Force authority to enter into transactions (other than contracts) under 10 U.S.C. 2371 for prototype projects directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD. Agreements issued under this authority are commonly referred to as Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype agreements or Section 845 agreements. (See The OSD Other Transaction Guide for Prototype Projects for more information)

Other Transactions for Research: An instrument under which the Government provides assistance to a recipient (can be a single contractor or a team of contractors) to transfer something of value to the public sector. Substantial Government involvement and 50/50 cost sharing are required. Used when it is not appropriate or feasible to use a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

(See 10 U.S.C. 2371.)

Price Analyst: A contracting professional whose function is focused on analyzing an offeror's cost proposal and documenting the results of the negotiation. A Price Analyst is not a Contract Specialist.

Program Manager (PM): The individual responsible for overseeing/managing a Science & Technology (S&T) acquisition or assistance project. This individual may have a different job title in their primary position.

Statement of Work (SOW): The document that captures the technical content of the contractual effort. The contract may incorporate portions of the offeror’s technical proposal instead of a formal SOW. For BAAs, offerors are often required to submit a non-proprietary contractor statement of work (sometimes referred to as a C-SOW).

Synopsis: An individual BAA announcement published in the FedBizOpps (FBO) and Grants.gov if applicable. Can also be used to announce awards, provide information on future contracting actions, etc.

Technical/Cost Evaluation: The team’s evaluation of each proposal against each evaluation criterion. The team is required to document this evaluation and provide a recommendation to the Contracting Officer.

Technology Investment Agreements (TIA): An assistance instrument used to attract non-traditional DoD contractors and facilitate the integration of the defense and commercial industries. It requires a 50/50 cost share unless waived.

(See DoDGARS 37.)

White Paper: A brief (usually 2-5 pages) summary of the proposed technical approach with an accompanying rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) price.

CHAPTER 3: BAA VARIATIONS

Variations of the BAA process are available for use. The following types are commonly used, but are not considered all inclusive. The below is a brief description and should be discussed in greater detail with your Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist:

One-Step: The one-step process is used to request full technical and cost proposals from each offeror. The proposals are evaluated in accordance with the solicitation criteria and all of a selected proposal, part of a selected proposal, or none of the proposals are selected.

Two-Step: The two-step process is sometimes used when a large number of proposals are anticipated. Potential offerors are invited to submit brief descriptive white papers in lieu of full proposals. The BAA must state whether an unfavorable white paper evaluation will bar the offeror from further consideration.

Full proposals are requested from those offerors selected in the white paper evaluation process. When proposals are received, they are evaluated, and selection decisions are made.

Open BAA: This approach allows for white paper and/or proposal submittals at any time within a specified period. BAAs must be publicized no less frequently than annually. White papers/proposals are evaluated when received during the period that the BAA is open.

Closed BAA: This approach allows for white paper and/or proposal submittals at a specified date and time as set forth in the BAA. Late bid and proposal provisions (IAW FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)) are usually included in the BAA.

BAA with Calls: This technique allows for publication of a basic BAA solicitation that contains overarching information, but does not request white papers or full proposals. The basic BAA often functions as a framework identifying the technical areas and giving the basic terms and administrative information of the BAA, and it is usually open for at least 12 months. The requests for white papers and/or proposals are transmitted via Calls that are published separately from the basic BAA at various times during the open period of the basic BAA (Note: The first Call(s) may be published with the basic BAA.). The Calls may further define the technology/government needs or just request white papers or full proposals.

The Calls may also include specific terms that apply to that Call such as further technical details and any pertinent clauses such as available GFP or specific Organizational Conflict of Interest requirements. Proposals or white papers are submitted only when Calls to the basic BAA request them. Late bid and proposal provisions (IAW FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)) are usually included in the BAA.

Staggered-Closed BAA: The staggered-closed BAA states a specified date and time for receipt of proposals or white papers, but also allows for proposals/white papers after the date and time set for proposal receipt. All offerors should be cautioned that the likelihood of funding proposals received after the specified date and time is substantially reduced.

Combinations of the above can result in subsets such as; closed one-step;

closed two-step; open one-step; open two-step; two-step with calls; one-step BAA with calls; or two-step staggered-closed.

See Attachment 3 for graphic depiction of some common BAA variations and Attachment 4 for a notional timeline.

To avoid confusion between acquisition and assistance program solicitations, AFRL uses the following naming convention:

• BAA is used for acquisition and combination acquisition/assistance program solicitations.

• Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is used for assistance only program solicitations.

CHAPTER 4: BAA INITIATION

A. COMMUNICATION WITH INDUSTRY AND POSTING CONVENTIONS

1. The guiding principle for communications between the Government and Industry during the BAA process is all potential offerors must be treated fairly. Potential offerors desire for feedback must be balanced with ensuring all offerors are kept on an even playing field. Even the appearance of favoritism must be avoided. Government personnel may not reveal an offeror’s technical solution or price to another offeror.

Communication between Government technical focal points and industry representatives is sometimes allowed until the closing date of the BAA.

In other situations, the Contracting Officer may require all communications go through the Contracting Officer. For each BAA, the Contracting Officer establishes communication procedures. A written copy of these procedures must be provided to the acquisition team no later than the issuance of the announcement. In establishing communication procedures for a BAA, the Contracting Officer will consider factors such as the preferences of Government team members, technology maturity (Is it a 6.1 – Basic Research, 6.2 – Applied Research, or 6.3 – Advance Technology Development program?), and likelihood of protest.

2. In addition to the above, the type of communication with industry (i.e.

one-on-one discussions, briefing to industry, or written questions/answers that may result in an amendment to the BAA, etc) is dependent upon the specificity or lack of specificity of the requirement as identified in the technical objectives stated in the BAA. For less definitive requirements, more consideration should be given to one-on-one discussions between acquisition team and Contractor. Conversely, the more definitive the requirement the more formal the communication (i.e. briefing to industry).

a. One-on-one discussions with potential offerors are encouraged and could be very beneficial for Basic Research (6.1) efforts where the area of scientific study and experimentation typically can only be described in very broad terms. These discussions may be used to help potential offerors better understand whether their intended research effort would be consistent with the Government’s needs.

Note the restrictions identified in para 4.A.3 below still apply.

b. One-on-one discussions may also be useful for some Applied

Research (6.2) depending upon how definitive the requirement is or is not. Applied Research is a systematic study to understand the means to meet a recognized and specific need. This type of effort may vary from systematic mission - directed research beyond that found in Basic Research efforts to sophisticated breadboard hardware, study, programming, and planning. Applied Research efforts include studies, investigations, and non-system specific technology efforts. The team will need to determine the appropriate level of communications to employ with this type of requirement.

c. Generally, more formal communication with industry would be appropriate for Advanced Technology Development (ATD) (6.3) efforts which include development of subsystems and components and efforts to integrate subsystems and components into prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment. ATD includes concept and technology demonstrations of components and subsystems or system models.

Under this type of acquisition, it’s likely that potential offerors may want to discuss specific details of the requirements and the acquisition team must be diligent to ensure all requirements are made available to all potential offerors while protecting unique approaches to satisfy these requirements.

d. Each BAA shall identify the pre-proposal communication procedures for the effort established by the Contracting Officer.

Something the acquisition team may consider, depending on the nature of the questions/answer, is posting a Q&A page on the announcement site. If the team decides to do this they must be careful not to disclose the offerors proprietary, bid/proposal or offeror sensitive information. The team should seek legal advice prior to posting a Q&A page.

3. At a minimum the following communication guidelines apply:

• PMs cannot attempt to replace the proposer’s original ideas with their own ideas or the program office’s preferred approach.

• PMs cannot share ideas or technical solutions provided in conversations, white papers, or proposals to a competing proposer or anyone else outside the Government BAA team.

• If a PM provides information concerning the objectives / goals / requirements of the BAA to one proposer, this information must be provided to all proposers with the CO’s coordination.

• If a proposer is provided with information that expands / contradicts / retracts information contained in the published anouncement, this same information must be made publically available to all potential proposers in a Questions and Answers document. In some cases, this will also require an amendment to the BAA.

• Should any potential offeror, in which a Government Acquisition Team member or their immediate family has a financial interest, express interest in submitting a proposal in response to a BAA, the team member must immediately contact the PCO and program legal counsel.

Consult your Contracting Officer for clarification on the procedures for communication. In all cases, it is essential the Government does not tell or lead a prospective offeror on how to propose an approach or solve a problem. The Government may possibly provide feedback to a potential offeror (similar to responding to a white paper), however, the Government must guard against providing any offeror with information that provides an unfair competitive advantage or that is proprietary to another offeror. Any information on the Government’s requirements that is provided to an offeror should be considered for publication to allow for access by all offerors unless such release would reveal another potential offeror’s confidential business or technical strategy.

4. All AFRL/PK sites must use the following standardized administrative and posting conventions for FBO.gov. The goal of these procedures is to standardize communications with industry by posting BAAs in a uniform fashion throughout the center.

e. BAA Numbers: The format is: BAA (or FOA) – (insert location) –

(insert 4-digit fiscal year) – (insert 4-digit number) (example: “BAA-

AFRL-RWK-2012-0003”).

f. BAAs will be coded “pre-solicitation” in FBO.gov.

g. Amendments of BAAs, Amendments of Calls, and annual updates to BAAs will be coded “modification/amendment” in FBO.gov.

h. Calls will be posted under the associated full-text announcement.

The format for Call numbers is Call-(insert 3-digit number).

B. ACQUISITION TEAM

For each acquisition, a multi-functional team is formed with the members being commensurate with the level of complexity and dollar value of the acquisition.

The technical focal point is normally the Program Manager (PM). The relationship of the PM and the Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist is essential to the successful achievement of any research effort. The PM should enlist the assistance of appropriate technical, administrative, contracting, and functional advisors to ensure compliance with such regulatory requirements as HAZMAT, foreign disclosure, OPSEC, etc.

C. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

All BAAs require some level of acquisition planning. Depending on the dollar value, a Streamlined Acquisition Strategy Summary (SASS), an Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP) and/or Acquisition Plan (AP) may be required. Note: An alternate process for Science & Technology actions above the thresholds in

DFARS 207.103(d)(i) is the use of the approved AFRL ASP/AP Template (See AFMC MP 5307.104-92(3)(90)(i)). At the beginning of a new effort, a Government kick-off meeting should be held to facilitate input from all team members and advisors, to include representatives, as appropriate, from contracting, legal, finance, small business, program management, safety, and engineering. Such a meeting brings all team members together up-front to discuss areas such as project objectives, preliminary decisions, individual responsibilities, milestones, and evaluation criteria. Early team involvement allows early preparation of documents and helps to avoid pitfalls that can increase acquisition time.

The AFRL/CA memo entitled “Combined Acquisition Strategy Panel/Acquisition Requirements,” dated 20 Jun 2011, discusses and clarifies implementation procedures for Combined Acquisition Strategy Panel/Acquisition Plans including determining the applicable approval threshold when using different BAA variations. The memo is at https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc pk mp ig/ST/Master/Combined Ac quisition Strategy PanelAcquisition Plan Requirements20 Jun 11.pdf

D. EVALUATION TEAM

The Program Manager (PM) should begin identifying technical team members as early as possible. Except in the instance of open-ended BAAs against which proposals may be submitted for some period of time, evaluation team members should be identified prior to approval of the acquisition strategy. For open-ended BAAs, evaluators may be designated upon receipt of white papers or proposals.

The experience of candidates for the evaluation team should span the scientific knowledge base required by the project. All evaluators should be available during the period of technical evaluation (TDY/leave is discouraged.). Just prior to receipt of proposals, the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist should provide some form of just-in-time (JIT) training to the technical evaluation team, familiarizing them with the peer or scientific review process, templates, and requirements to evaluate only in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. This JIT training includes having the acquisition team members sign a BAA Non-Disclosure Agreement (See Attachment 5) prior to accessing proposal information. Alternately, sites making a high volume of relatively similar awards may elect to provide technical evaluation team training on a periodic basis and have acquisition team members sign annual BAA Non-Disclosure Agreements; this approach is not suitable for use with high-dollar or otherwise complex programs, which would benefit from tailored training.

The evaluation team should be limited to critical members since too many members can create inefficiencies that stretch out the evaluation. Management attention and planning are required to ensure compliance with the award schedule. Use of contractors as technical advisors requires written approval by AFRL/CC and notification to offerors in the BAA; therefore, intent to use contractors as advisors should be discussed with the Contracting Officer as early https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf in the planning process as possible. Contractors used as advisors will be strictly controlled and Contractor personnel will have access only to the portion of the proposal they are advisors for. All potential evaluation team members should immediately notify the Contracting Officer and program legal counsel if they have any potential conflict of interest relating to serving as an evaluation team member.

CHAPTER 5: SYNOPSIS TO RECEIPT OF WHITE

PAPER/PROPOSALS

A. DRAFT PACKAGE CONTENTS

The Program Manager (PM) typically is responsible for preparing the BAA Package. Since the package contents will differ based on the acquisition specifics, the PM should contact the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist for assistance. The BAA package may contain documents such as:

1. Proposed BAA including:

a. Evaluation criteria for white papers or proposals and their relative importance (Note: The technical evaluation must speak specifically to these criteria.)

b. Description of areas of potential research, broadly defined areas of potential research, or a description of the scientific or engineering problems needing new and creative research solutions

c. Necessary information for the offerors to prepare a white paper or full technical and cost proposal

d. Any contemplated GFP/base support

e. Notifications to any foreign-owned firms if export control restrictions are applicable IAW the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR)

f. Notification if request is for white papers or full proposals

g. Notification if assistance instruments will be considered for award

h. Notification if any type of informational briefings or pre-proposal conferences will be offered

i. Proposal page number and formatting limitations

j. Specify date for receipt of proposals (must be minimum of 45 days;

may be reduced to 30 days for full proposal if utilizing a two-step BAA or a Closed BAA with Calls when the BAA has already been posted for at least 15 days; see FAR 5.203(e))

2. Draft SASS, ASP charts, acquisition plan, or combined ASP/AP (as applicable).

SPECIAL NOTE: Other Agency BAAs. As a word of caution, there may be times where you will make awards from another agency's announcement (DARPA, Navy, etc.). These present special situations that need to be addressed by the acquisition team.

B. SYNOPSIS

Per FAR 35.016(f), publishing a BAA satisfies the requirement for synopsis of proposed contract actions in FAR 5.201. The PM prepares the draft synopsis for publication in the FBO and Grants.gov (if award of an assistance instrument will be considered) (Note: A synopsis cannot be posted on Grants.gov without including an accompanying application forms package to allow for electronic application.). Refer to the template posted on AFRL/PK’s website and contact your Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist for program-specific samples/templates. The template contains an Announcement Overview that is published in FBO and Grants.gov and used in conjunction with the Full Text Announcement that complies with the format required by Grants.gov. Tailor the synopsis to reflect project unique objectives. The following is additional information that should be considered when preparing the synopsis:

1. Develop the evaluation criteria, which have to be published in the solicitation. Limit the number of evaluation criteria and choose criteria that are key discriminators for your project. Per FAR 35.016(e), the primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical, importance to agency programs, and funds availability. Cost realism and reasonableness shall be considered to the extent appropriate.

Also see FAR 35.007(e) for examples of technical criteria. BAA evaluation criteria should be general in nature, few in number, and open to varying approaches. Please note: The technical evaluation must speak specifically to these criteria.

2. The acquisition team may choose to add specific language to encourage the offeror to divide the proposal into separate tasks that would allow the Government to easily procure individual tasks or combinations thereof.

C. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKAGE

Consider a supplemental package when one of the following conditions exists:

1. Description of the effort is too lengthy to explain within the size guidelines for a solicitation; or

2. The effort to be procured involves Government-furnished classified or ITAR restricted information that the offerors must have in order to propose. The classified or ITAR restricted information should be transmitted in a supplemental package to potential offerors. This allows for review of an offeror's facility clearance or DD Form 2345 prior to release of the classified or ITAR restricted material.

D. DRAFT PACKAGE REVIEW

Ideally, the PM, working with the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist, will prepare a draft of the complete package for review by all team members involved in the process. The PM should consider sending the draft package to representatives from (as applicable) the technical, safety, flight test, contracting, small business, data management, security, finance, operational security (OPSEC), legal communities, etc. for review. Consider concurrent reviews to streamline this process to facilitate defining the package. This will also reduce the number of iterations. Use electronic distribution of draft documents whenever possible. If during the course of the reviews any major issue or problem arises, team members may want to consider a team meeting to resolve the problem.

The PM has the primary responsibility for creating, coordinating, and ensuring the accuracy of the package, though other functionals will provide inputs.

E. FINAL PACKAGE

Once all reviews and issues have been resolved, the PM should revise the package accordingly, obtain final internal coordination, and forward the package to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist in preparation for solicitation clearance review (AFMC MP 5301.9000(a)(6)). It is essential that any OPSEC coordination be accomplished by the required activities’ OPSEC office before the package is forwarded to contracting.

F. FBO/GRANTS.GOV SYNOPSIS

Once the final package has been through coordination and any required reviews, the Contracting Officer will publish the synopsis to the FBO and/or Grants.gov.

G. WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL RECEIPT

Depending on the solicitation procedure the team has adopted (e.g., one-step, two-step, etc.) white papers may be received by the Contracting Officer or PM;

however, full proposals should normally be received by the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist. The white paper/proposals are reviewed for compliance with proposal preparation requirements specified in the FBO/Grants.gov synopsis and forwarded to the evaluation team. Both the technical and cost proposals are reviewed by the evaluation team in accordance with the evaluation criteria. All white papers and proposals are considered to be proprietary and must be protected at all times from unauthorized release or disclosure. White papers and proposals must not be given to contractor personnel without prior approval.

Contractor personnel may not serve as technical advisors without prior Center Commander approval and disclosure in the BAA.

H. PROPOSALS EXCEEDING THE PAGE LIMITATIONS

Due to numerous offerors’ failure to follow formatting rules stated in the solicitation, the Government must check the proposal and SOW for conformance to the requirements stated in the solicitation. General Accounting Office (GAO) precedent states solicitations must describe the consequences for exceeding the page limitation. Therefore, if pages exceeding the stated page limitation (after the format check) will not be used in the evaluation, this must be clearly stated in the solicitation. If the consequences are not described in the solicitation, excess pages cannot be removed.

CHAPTER 6: WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL EVALUATION

A. EVALUATION

The objective of the technical evaluation is to conduct and document the assessment of white papers/proposals in response to the BAA in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

1. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide:

a. Documentation of the evaluation results,

b. Rationale for selection of proposals for funding,

c. Basis for cost-realism analysis,

d. Basis for debriefings, and

e. Basis for protest decisions.

2. The evaluation process depends on the type of solicitation procedure used

(closed-ended one-step, closed-ended two-step, open-ended, or etc.) as described in Chapter 5. If white papers are requested and received, the technical team evaluates the white papers in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the BAA and then documents this evaluation.

The technical evaluation team will then notify the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist which white papers have been selected to invite full technical and cost proposals. The BAA must state whether an unfavorable white paper evaluation will bar the offeror from further consideration.

Proposals, whether received initially or after white paper evaluations, are evaluated as described in this chapter. The procedures described in this chapter can and should be tailored to meet the needs of your specific acquisition.

a. As mentioned previously, the Contracting Officer or Contract

Specialist should provide some form of JIT technical evaluation training to the technical team just prior to, or immediately following, receipt of proposals. Sometimes JIT is provided generically to all PM’s rather than specifically for an effort. It is critical JIT be tailored to the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation.

b. The PM assesses and updates the schedule for white paper/proposal evaluation. The PM should inform management and team members of the projected time each evaluation team member can expect to dedicate to the evaluation.

c. The PM should consider conducting a meeting no more than one day after receiving proposals to distribute proposals to team members. This meeting could be conducted with any JIT training as discussed previously. The meeting covers evaluation criteria, format for evaluation inputs from team members, and schedule dates for draft and final comments to team lead.

d. In some cases, the technical lead may wish to obtain clarification during the evaluation process. Communication processes will be determined by the CO. Only the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist should discuss pricing or contractual issues. Offerors should not initiate communication with technical personnel during evaluation. The process for communication after receipt of proposals should be specified in the BAA.

e. The technical evaluation team’s job is to independently evaluate technical and cost proposals against stated announcement evaluation criteria; identify and document strengths and weaknesses and risk if identified as an evaluation criteria; assess quantitative aspects of the cost proposal; work with the Technical Evaluation Team Lead to categorize the proposals (see categories below); provide rationale for why the proposal was or was not selected for funding. Note: If the evaluation criteria consider cost/price, then the overall assessment will need to include a discussion of proposed prices and tradeoff with other evaluation factors.

f. The Team Lead gathers all comments, discusses merits of proposals, and reconciles any differences among team members.

The Team Lead assigns proposals to a category. (Note: It is imperative proposals are categorized in accordance with the evaluation criteria and categories stated in the BAA which may not be the same as the below.)

• Highly Recommended: Proposals are recommended for acceptance if sufficient funding is available, and normally are displaced only by other Highly Recommended proposals

• Selectable: Proposals are recommended for acceptance if sufficient funding is available, but at a lower priority than Highly Recommended proposals. May require additional development.

To ensure a diversity of approaches, a Selectable proposal may be prioritized over a Highly Recommended proposal if the Selectable proposal presents a unique approach unlike any of the Highly Recommended proposals.

• Not Selectable: Even if sufficient funding existed, the proposal should not be funded.

o Note: The Government reserves the right to award some, all, or none of proposals. When the Government elects to award only part of a proposal, the selected part may be categorized as Highly Recommended or Selectable, though the proposal as a whole may not merit such a categorization.

Next the team lead prepares the draft evaluation which discusses the evaluation of each proposal against each evaluation criterion.

The technical evaluation must speak specifically to the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The templates at Attachment 1 and 2 may be used. The technical evaluation must discuss the strengths and weaknesses to include the impact of each strength or weakness and risk, if identified as an evaluation factor, of each proposal against all of the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. When cost/price is an evaluation criterion, the evaluation team must ensure the proposed labor hours, skills, mix, other direct costs, etc.

are realistic for the effort. The evaluation must refrain from evaluating the offeror on the basis of any factors not contained in the solicitation. Check with the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist regarding technical evaluation templates and format that will also be discussed during any JIT training.

g. The Team Lead, the Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist and, if appropriate, the Price Analyst should continue to work together during the evaluation process. It is recommended that draft copies of the evaluation be provided to all team members for advance reviews.

h. The Team Lead shall provide the individual evaluations, the roll-up for each offeror, and the selection letter to the CO. The selection letter shall include the rationale for the selection of the offerors.

B. APPROVAL

a. All technical team members should coordinate on final evaluation letter as appropriate for your organization.

b. The evaluation Team Lead obtains appropriate management signature of the evaluation. Follow local requiring organization procedures for forwarding the technical/cost evaluation to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist.

C. TRACKING AWARD VALUES

Contracting Officers must track the total value of all awards under a BAA to ensure the cumulative value does not exceed the total dollar value approved by the ASP/AP. This is especially important for Open BAAs. See AFRL/CA memo entitled “Combined Acquisition Strategy Panel/Acquisition Requirements,” dated 20 Jun 2011, discusses revisions to ASP/AP for BAA. The memo is at https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc pk mp ig/ST/Master/Combined Ac quisition Strategy PanelAcquisition Plan Requirements20 Jun 11.pdf.

Maintaining a log is recommended for Open BAAs that allow unlimited submittal of proposals.

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/afmc_pk_mp_ig/ST/Master/Combined_Acquisition_Strategy_PanelAcquisition_Plan_Requirements20_Jun_11.pdf

CHAPTER 7: PURCHASE REQUEST PACKAGE

A. PR PACKAGE PREPARATION: The Purchase Request (PR) package may be started prior to receipt of proposals to avoid unnecessary delays in completing the package. Some contracting officers encourage coordination of a draft PR package. This allows the various disciplines to make necessary changes and the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist to start work on the model award document and to request information not in the package. The final PR package cannot be completed until the technical evaluation has been completed and approved. Separate PR packages will need to be completed for each proposal being funded. Organizations may have contracting tools they utilize to assist the PM in preparing a PR package.

1. Package Components: Documents to be included in the PR package will depend on the project objective(s) and will vary by organization. The PR package may contain items such as the following:

a. Purchase Request/Funding Document (i.e. AFMC Form 36, AF

Form 9)

b. Statement of Work (SOW) to be incorporated into the contract.

Ensure appropriate reviews have been accomplished IAW internal procedures.

c. Original cost and technical proposal

d. Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs)

e. Government-Furnished Property and base support approval letters as appropriate

f. Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254), as appropriate

g. Packaging requirements (after transportation review)

h. Environmental paperwork (HAZMAT, Ozone Depletion, etc.), as appropriate

i. Memo identifying part(s) of proposal to be acquired (if other than entire proposal)

j. Technical evaluation, if not already provided

k. Any applicable notes to the buyer. This should include special circumstances which could require the inclusion of certain clauses, e.g., hazardous materials, use of human subjects, possible conflicts of interest.

l. Results of market research, including literature search

m. Foreign Disclosure Review, if applicable

n. Evaluation of cost and other quantitative items such as labor hours, travel, GFP, etc.

o. AFRL Flight Test office coordination, if applicable

2. Technical Requirements: Decide how best to incorporate the technical requirements into the contractual document. There are two basic methods: (1) attaching the SOW or a discrete separable portion of the offeror’s proposal; and (2) incorporation by reference of carefully selected portions of the offeror's proposal utilizing special contract requirement. If revisions are necessary, be careful to stay within the scope and intent of the contractor's proposal. Note it may be necessary for the technical team members to assist the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist in negotiating with the offeror(s) to establish technical content that is clear, concise, definitive yet flexible, and agreeable to all parties.

a. Incorporate SOW: BAAs generally require offerors to propose a

SOW that does not contain proprietary information. The SOW incorporated in the final contract should be acceptable to all parties.

b. Incorporate Technical Proposal: The second method is to incorporate by reference carefully selected portions of the offeror's technical proposal. The PM and Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist should work together to identify the portions of the proposal to incorporate. Do not incorporate technical procedures and descriptions that are too detailed. A concise reference to the nature of the research and tasks should be sufficient to ensure the flexibility necessary for optimal performance. Do not incorporate contractor proprietary information, cost proposals, or resumes.

Ensure the incorporated portions of the technical proposal do not conflict with the contract. It is not advisable to incorporate the entire technical proposal.

B. COORDINATION/APPROVAL: The PM should follow their normal procedures to obtain coordination and approval of the PR package. The PM should incorporate any corrections/changes identified by reviewing officials during the coordination process. Reviewing officials should provide any feedback to the PM in a timely manner.

CHAPTER 8: NEGOTIATION TO AWARD

A. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD DECISION: The Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist should notify, in writing, offerors selected for potential award and offerors that were not selected. Such notification can only occur after the technical evaluation has been approved.

B. MODEL DOCUMENT: The period between selection of the proposals for funding and an award requires coordinated effort between technical and contracting personnel. The team must work to award the best possible cost and technical arrangement. The Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist should work with the other team members to determine the appropriate award vehicle and pricing arrangement. Choices include contracts or assistance instruments (grants, cooperative agreements, TIAs, and other transactions). Information concerning assistance instruments is available in the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations. The Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist may construct and transmit the Government's anticipated contractual format (Model Document) to the selected offeror(s) upon receipt of a reasonably defined technical description.

The Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist will base the document on information provided by the PM through the Purchase Request (PR) Package or similar means.

C. COST REALISM ANALYSIS: FAR 15.404-1(d) requires a cost realism analysis for any cost-type contract, even if industry submitted proposals in an environment characterized by Adequate Price Competition (APC). The Contracting Officer will make the determination if APC is applicable. The Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist may need further analysis if APC does not exist. The Contract Pricing Reference Guides (available at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=406579&lang=en-US are a source of information on cost, price and realism analyses. Cost and pricing assistance may be available from the cognizant Defense Contract Management Command or Defense Contract Audit Agency office. Information also can be obtained by comparing pricing information among cost proposals received in response to the BAA or in other contracts for substantially similar efforts. The information provided by the technical/cost team concerning the risk inherent in a proposed effort can be used to assess the reasonableness of any proposed fee.

D. CLEARANCE: AFMC MP 5301.9000(a)(6) requires BAA actions to follow the noncompetitive process for purposes of clearance. In addition, if total awards under a BAA are expected to exceed the clearance threshold, the BAA solicitation requires review by the Clearance Reviewer set forth in the AFMC MP Appendices. When a BAA bars further consideration of offerors who submit unsuccessful white papers, clearance is required prior to notification to offerors;

the clearance threshold is the same as for the solicitation that requested the white papers unless an open BAA is used. For two-step, open BAAs that bar further consideration of offerors who submit unsuccessful white papers, the…