Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) TTP.docx

s

Air Force Contracting

Heidi Hoehn, Adam Jurkiewicz, Amanda Rossi & Nathaniel Searing December 2022 Version 1.0

Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO)

Mission Focused Business Leadership

Document Change History

Version No.

Original

Table of Contents

1. Purpose

2. Background

3. What is HTRO?

4. HTRO Evaluation Options

5. Lessons Learned

6. Protests

7. Points of Contact (POCs)

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) to use the various Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection methodologies. It is intended to further clarify HTRO source selection methodologies referenced in the DoD Source Selection Guide paragraph 1.3.1.5., Other Source Selection Methodologies. HTRO fosters award at the speed of relevance by reducing Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT), the parameters of which are statutorily defined as the time between solicitation date and award date. It incentivizes interested parties to deliver the best technical performance at a fair and reasonable price. HTRO enables acquisition innovation by delivering warfighting capability at the speed of relevance without compromising quality. This TTP is the first version.

Background

To help optimize mission outcomes, several CONUS and OCONUS contracting offices have successfully utilized this source selection methodology which results in substantial time savings in awarding more complex acquisitions to include services, construction, and commodities. The intent of this TTP is to share procedures used and lessons learned. The authors of this TTP can be contacted for more information.

What is HTRO?

The Highest Technically Rated Offeror is a source selection process that is neither a tradeoff nor Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA). It focuses on prior experience in performing the same or similar work. In using the HTRO process, the Government establishes a weighted points-based spreadsheet of objective criteria in the solicitation. Offerors self-score and provide substantiation for their scoring in their technical proposal. The Government’s technical evaluation is a review of this substantiation to validate the offeror’s self-score. Best Value is defined as the offeror with the highest Government-validated technical score (and where applicable, price and/or past performance). The 764 ESS at Ramstein AB, Germany has successfully used HTRO for multiple award and single award IDIQs. It can be used for any contract type in operational contracting provided you don’t need a technical proposal that explains the contractor’s approach. The use of price and/or past performance as additional evaluation factors is at the discretion of the CO based on the requirement, the contract type, and the results of market intelligence. HTRO is suitable for any competitive acquisition where the Government can establish objective scoring criteria.

Offerors self-score against the pre-defined objective scoring criteria and deliver supporting documentation to objectively prove self-score validity. The self-scoring spreadsheet reflects the maximum points and the weight factor for each criterion. After receipt of proposals, all offerors are ranked highest-to-lowest using each offeror’s self-scoring worksheet. The Government reviews the supporting documentation of the highest scored offeror to validate offeror self-scores, and scores are adjusted downward if not adequately substantiated (no upward adjustments can be made). The highest scoring offeror then proceeds to the next evaluation criteria (when price and/or past performance are used). If the price evaluation can be determined fair and reasonable and past performance is satisfactory or better, that offeror wins unless another HTRO evaluation option was used (see HTRO Evaluation Options in the following section). If the Government-validated HTRO fails price or other evaluations, the offeror with the next-highest self-score is evaluated. Active and archived solicitations using HTRO can be found at SAM.gov by using the search function.

HTRO Evaluation Options

1) HTROs (without price or other non-technical factors): Suitable solely for multiple award IDIQs when awarding to all offerors above a threshold technical score; i.e. A&AS. The Government evaluates all offerors with a self-score above the threshold to validate their scores. Cost/Price and, if required, past performance is evaluated at the task order level.

2) HTRO-Realistic and Reasonable Price (HTRO-RRP) (with price or other non-technical factors): The Government validated HTRO is evaluated on price/cost or other non-technical factors. If the offeror fails one of these evaluations, the offeror with the next highest self-score is evaluated. If only one offeror’s proposal is evaluated, price/cost must be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.

3) 2HTRO (with price or other non-technical factors): Evaluate two offerors (those with the highest and next-highest self-scores) in the same manner as #2 noted above. Once the Government has two awardable offers, conduct the following evaluation: If the offeror with the highest Government validated technical score has a lower price, award to this offeror. If 2nd HTRO has a lower price AND a Government validated technical score within 5% of HTRO, award to 2nd HTRO. The 5% is a subjective number which is predefined in your Section M/Evaluation Criteria and may differ based on your requirement. Price analysis following your stated evaluation criteria is accomplished for at least two offerors and is used to determine price fair and reasonableness.

Evaluation options number two (2) and number (3) could include past performance. Past performance should use modified relevancy ratings--only relevant or not relevant in order to avoid any ambiguities with our previous experience evaluation under the technical proposal. The solicitation should define relevant as any citation which accounted for Government validated technical scoring. If past performance is used as an evaluation factor, typically it is evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Keep in mind – unlike other source selections methodologies, there is no concern under HTRO with using an Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation and inadvertently selecting a contractor with no experience. An offeror with no recent/relevant past performance will never make it to the past performance evaluation (since they would have a validated technical score of 0). For multiple award IDIQ contracts, the recommendation is to not evaluate past performance. If required for more complex task orders, past performance can be evaluated at the task order level.

The HTRO concept can be modified, as needed to meet the acquisition team's needs. As already stated above, HTRO may be used for multiple award contracts either where prices have or have not been established, or, when suitable, for single award contracts, C-type contracts, and any other contract type. Examples of HTRO techniques:

· Realistic and reasonable price determination of the highest ranked offeror

· Two highest ranked offerors; price competition to establish price fair and reasonableness

· All offerors based on a minimum number of points achieved in the technical score; price competition at the task order level

· Any other creative strategy that fits your acquisition… Regardless of the contract type approach, the HTRO approach must establish reasonable and realistic prices IAW FAR 15.404-1 and meet the requirements of FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) regarding adequate price competition.

HTRO Advantages

· Streamlined process prioritizing recent work over price

· Allows Government to objectively validate previous work experience of offerors

· Puts the onus on contractors to self-score their proposals, and then the Government validates

· Reduced award protest risk

· Transparent process that is easier to execute for the evaluation team

· Excellent when technical evaluators have limited source selection experience

· Low likelihood of Discussions (no need to address Strengths, Weaknesses, etc.)

· Significantly reduced timelines:

· 767 ESF evaluations were complete in 8 days by a single evaluator (evaluating the top 2 HTRO’s)

· 764 ESS awarded an AFPEO/CM program in 7 months (from Requirements Approval to Award)

· Streamlined and more effective past performance evaluations

· It benefits contractors too!

· Scoring documentation is information they already have available (no need to write new proposal narratives)

· Objectively assess their own “probability of win”

· Lower barriers to entry = more competition

Lessons Learned

· Be specific! Requires very, very explicit, and specific technical criteria - If you don’t define the parameters of scoring system explicitly, you’ll get variations in interpretation. For example, for location-specific criteria list all countries, cities and/or regions that are applicable (don’t request OCONUS documentation if you seek EUCOME AOR). Also, provide a source of the information whenever possible (e.g., which website lists all of countries within the EUCOM AOR). As examples:

· Variations among self-scores: Two vendors gave different points for the same work, based on their interpretation of the criteria; be concise.

· Failing to specifically define Minor Electronic Systems, and instead giving examples “including but not limited to…” resulted in many different responses, some that were determined to be a stretch (such as IT or Security Systems) Due to the lack of specificity in the evaluation/scoring criteria, the work samples could not be invalidated.

· Role-play the Scoring Matrix from the Offeror’ s perspective--What is a “Minor Electronic System”?

· Ensure mission partners understand this process--it is not a trade-off, and like LPTA there is no wiggle room in the evaluations

· Ensure you spend quality time with the requirement owner(s) going over the scoring matrix to ensure it is clear and drives the technical qualifications/experience you are after

· Not feasible for classified contracts--It’s likely that many potential work samples will also be classified. Supporting documentation that offerors can share which is unclassified may not have sufficient detail to support the offerors self-score.

· Works best with lots of vendor input – industry days, draft RFPs, etc., to ensure buy-in for the factors and weighting of the scoring matrix.

· Industry may have examples of scoring documentation you had not considered.

· HTRO is also new to many vendors. Take the time on the front-end to educate them on the process (it will pay dividends when you open proposals).

· Works best with non-complex service contracts and IDIQs. As a technical proposal detailing an offerors approach to satisfy your requirement is not provided, you need to be relatively sure the offerors know what they’re doing and understand the requirement. If you have a requirement that can have multiple technical approaches which you would like to evaluate, HTRO is not the approach for you.

· Decide early on what is worth points. Does the Offeror need to demonstrate they actually accomplished the task (documentation in the form of CDRLs) or simply that they have a contract with that task (documentation in the PWS)?

· Clearly state the Government will not add points to an offeror’s self-score, only decrement.

· A detailed and thorough risk analysis is critical to developing scoring criteria--industry days and draft RFPs help to develop the factors and weights of the scoring matrix and ensure upfront industry buy-in.

· Avoid the Discussions trap! Offerors assume they’re the HTRO if you send ENs and none relate to Technical Ratings (i.e., they assume Discussions can only be “meaningful” with the HTRO). To avoid this, be explicit in the RFP regarding the potential for Discussions (and state that you will not engage in Discussions related to technical scoring and/or documentation).

· Don’t forget to include rank in Debriefings per FAR 15.506(d)(3)--Your validated Government score was 11,500, and you were ranked 6 of 9 offers.

Protests

Sumaria Systems, Inc., B-418796, September 9, 2020

· OASIS IDIQ – Solicitation used point scoring system for prior experience and past performance

· RFP stated a 10% above or below the Most Probable Cost will be either unreasonable or unrealistic.

· Protester on terms of solicitation – “Source selection methodology is flawed in that it fails to consider the cost/price of all offerors”

· Government stated it did consider price because the terms of the solicitation establish that, prior to making award, the agency will evaluate the cost/price of any potential awardee to determine whether it is reasonable, realistic, and balanced.

· Protestor stated - “We can’t offer a lower price in exchange for lower tech rating.”

· Government response – “That is precisely the point of the HTRO methodology."

· Government wins cost argument!

1. “An agency's chosen procurement procedure that is not prohibited by law or regulation is assumed to be permissible, and FAR subpart 16.5 does not prohibit an HTRO methodology.”

2. “16.5 expressly provides a contracting officer broad discretion in establishing the procedures to employ in awarding task orders.”

3. “While applicable law and regulation requires an agency to consider cost/price in the selection decision, it does not require an agency to perform a tradeoff between cost/price and the offerors' non-cost/price qualifications.”

Other HTRO GAO Protest Examples:

Sevatec, Inc., B-413559.3, January 11, 2017 U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc., B-414678, August 1, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 252 Cyberdata Technologies, LLC, B-417816, November 5, 2019 Amaze Technologies, LLC, , December 22, 2020B-419141; B-419141.2; B-419141.3, December 22, 2020

Additional Information:

“HIGHEST TECHNICALLY RATED OFFERORS WITH FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICING”: A New Source Selection Technique, Nash & Cibinic Report, May 2016, 30 No. 5 Nash & Cibinic Rep. NL ¶ 23, Ralph C Nash & Vernon J Edwards

Points of Contact (POCs)

Heidi Hoehn, AFICC/KU heidi.hoehn.de@us.af.mil Adam Jurkiewicz, AFICC/KU, adam.jurkiewicz@us.af.mil Amanda Rossi, SAF/AQCP, amanda.rossi@us.af.mil Nathaniel Searing, AFICC/KS, nathaniel.searing@us.af.mil image1.png image2.png