Attachment_6_-_Section_M_-_14_Dec_15.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the Tradeoff source selection process.

Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, through an integrated assessment of the specific evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

M-1.2 The Government contemplates award of one contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-2.

M-1.3 The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M-1.3.1 If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.3.2 Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’ s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY:

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance. Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than Price, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

M-2.2 Factor 1: Technical Capability (Technical & Risk). Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. There are three (3) subfactors under the Technical Capability evaluation factor. They are Program Management, Operations and Maintenance and Transition. The Program Management and Operations and Maintenance subfactors are equal in importance and are the most important subfactors. Transition is the least important subfactor.

M-2.2.1 Technical Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against evaluation criteria at the subfactor level.

Technical subfactor ratings are determined based on the Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the government’s requirement. Each subfactor shall be assigned a color rating, shown below, as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to an overall color rating for Technical factor.

Each subfactor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies. These findings will determine the overall rating for each subfactor.

Technical Capability Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating. The technical risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s approach.

Risk is assessed at the subfactor level, and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance based on the offeror’s identified approach and/or processes. In conducting the risk assessment, the Government will also consider information provided by the offeror in its proposal as to how the contractor will manage and mitigate risk.

Proposal risk will be evaluated using the following ratings as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M-2.2.3 Technical Subfactors

M-2.2.3.1 Subfactor A: Program Management.

M-2.2.3.1.1 Management and Integration. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. An effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels by position, skill sets by position, utilization of personnel to include specifics on any plans for cross-utilization, assigned roles and responsibilities, lines of authority, and cohesive functional relationships to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements.

ii. A comprehensive communication approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

iii. An effective system(s) for scheduling of tasks and system of controls to provide quality/timely services or products that safely fulfill mission requirements

M-2.2.3.1.2 Human Resources. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. An effective integrated approach to attract, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel by job category/position to execute all PWS requirements.

ii. Effective training approach to ensure any required initial, qualification, proficiency, certification, and recurring training actions are taken to provide a qualified workforce with no interruption in service.

iii. Demonstrates a comprehensive plan for creating and maintaining a work environment creating incentive for employee performance and innovation.

M-2.2.3.1.3 Quality Management System. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Documented AS9100 and/or AS9110 registration/certification.

ii. Effective approach to immediately implement and sustain AS9100 or AS9110 QMS from corporate management throughout the T-38 AMP contractor management team and workforce to meet or exceed all PWS requirements with focus on service summary metrics and conformance to Appendix G of the PWS.

M-2.2.3.2 Subfactor B: Operations & Maintenance

M-2.2.3.2.1 Centralized Repair Facility (CRF) Management. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Effective use of manpower, applicable shifts, docks, specific processes and procedures to control, manage and prioritize:

a. Aircraft inspection workload to meet service summary average fleet time metric.

b. CRF engine and fuels workload and maintenance recovery team (MRT) requirements for all aircraft broken off-station and aircraft beyond operating location (OL) maintenance capabilities IAW PWS requirements.

c. Specific methods and any innovations to maximize CRF efficiencies and ensure fleet health.

M-2.2.3.2.2 Aircraft Availability Management. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Effective integrated processes and procedures to maintain both the fleet and each OL aircraft availability service summary metrics as prescribed in the PWS. Demonstrates specific methods and any innovations to increase aircraft availability rates.

ii. Effective approach to coordinate with necessary agencies (Air Logistics Center, Original Equipment Manufacturer, etc.) for unanticipated and nonstandard aircraft discrepancies identified in minimal time.

M-2.2.3.2.3 Contractor’s Flight Operations Approach. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates expertise to provide Functional Check Flights (FCF) for supersonic fixed wing aircraft IAW Federal regulations and DoD published instructions. Presents an effective approach for establishing and enforcing safe flying operations for FCF and aircraft ferry missions. Provides effective pilot training, qualification, and documentation process. Integrates flight operations to meet the PWS Service Summary Aircraft Availability Metric. Provides sufficient qualified FCF pilots to support FCF and aircraft ferry missions to meet service summary aircraft availability.

M-2.2.3.3 Subfactor C: Transition

M-2.2.3.3.1 Transition Plan. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Realistic milestones to execute transition tasks in the mandated 45-day timeframe, to include an explanation for transitioning the incumbent's program management functions and government furnished equipment and materials into your approach.

ii. Effective organizational structure that includes appropriate number of personnel, functional assignments to effectively accomplish transition tasks.

iii. Effective approach to hire incumbent personnel and/or fill incumbent vacancies with trained personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities upon commencement of contract performance period.

iv. Effective process to acquire and integrate open actions (work orders, requisitions etc.) upon commencement of contract performance period to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

v. Effective approach for interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

vi. Effective plan to acquire and integrate an adequate number of vehicles to meet PWS requirements upon commencement of contract performance period.

M-2.3 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-2.3.1 The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance record to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract performance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

M-2.3.2 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (PPI/Other Source). Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluated the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

M-2.3.3 Relevancy. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance will be made for each recent PPI/Other Source. The Government will evaluate relevancy as “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant” or “Not Relevant” according to the following criteria:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past or present performance effort: Organizational and intermediate aircraft maintenance services on AF legacy, fighter/trainer aircraft maintained IAW AFI 21-101, utilizing a proven quality management system IAW AS9100 or AS9110, with a total contract value greater than $90M on a multiple year, fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Relevant Past or present performance effort: Organizational and intermediate aircraft maintenance services with military fixed wing aircraft maintained IAW technical directives with a proven quality management system IAW AS9100 or AS9110 with contract value greater than $65M on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Somewhat Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Organizational, intermediate or depot level aircraft maintenance services contract with military aircraft with contract value of at least $30M on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract.

Not Relevant Past or present performance effort did not involve any of the complexity or magnitude of effort required.

M-2.3.4 For each recent and relevant PPI/Other Source evaluated, the Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine the quality of recent/relevant PPI. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance. The Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals, and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, the following: 1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); 3) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases; 4) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; and 5) Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

M-2.3.5 Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

RATING DEFINITION

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M-2.3.6 Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), Communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-2.3.7 Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably, and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for this Past Performance factor as depicted in M-2.3.5.

M-2.3.8 Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

M-2.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

M-2.4.1 In addition to the price analysis described in FAR 15.404-1(b), an assessment of affordability will be performed on the total evaluated price. The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the total, overall evaluated price (TOEP), which consists of the total proposed price (FP and CR CLINS) of the transition period, base contract period, and all optional contract periods to include 50% of Option Year 8 for option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8. This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined affordable and represents the best value, based on tradeoffs including benefits associated with any additional costs. Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the Price factor. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of accomplishing the price analysis, including reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total overall evaluated price. The Government has provided estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs. The offeror’s proposed price should use their Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) for each cost-reimbursable (CR) CLIN. If offorer does not have a FPRA then offorer shall use fully burdened rates (FBR) in the price proposal spreadsheet that will be applied to each of the pre-established NTE amounts, for the Offerors proposed CR CLIN. The resulting total (estimated amount plus applicable FBRs) will be included in the total, overall evaluated price.

M-2.4.2 Price Realism. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal (reasonableness and completeness). Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an apparently low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced price proposal; the Government will analyze offers and those determined unbalanced may be rejected.

M-2.4.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Prime Contractors Only).

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and will be evaluated as part of general considerations for award. The plan shall maximize small business opportunities and include separate statements and goals for the base year and each option year. To be determined acceptable, the offeror shall demonstrate a plan that meets the requirements as outlined in FAR Part 19 and its supplements.

SSP Attachment 4

Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

Name: Grade:

Job Title:

Organization:

Source Selection: FA4890-15-R-0007, T-38 Aircraft Maintenance Contract

Briefing Acknowledgement

1. I acknowledge I have been assigned to the source selection indicated above. I have been briefed orally by and as such, am knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C., Section 423, and FAR 3.104. 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(s):

[ ] I have submitted a current OGE Form 450, Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, as required by DODD 5500.07, Standards of Conduct.

[ ] I am not required to submit an OGE Form 450.

[ ] I have submitted a current OGE Form 278, Public Financial Disclosure Report, as required by DODD 5500.07, Standards of Conduct.

[ ] I am not required to submit an OGE Form 278.

OR

[ ] I am a non-government employee. I have signed a proprietary information non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between my firm and the government that precludes me from divulging any proprietary data to which I may gain access during the source selection. I have submitted (or will submit) a Conflict of Interest Statement and documentation to the Contracting Officer indicating my personal stock holdings prior to accessing source selection information.

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 Source Selection Authority. 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.

SSP Attachment 5

Conflict of Interest Statement

Please review the list of prime contractors and their subcontractors who are offering proposals in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the acquisition identified above with the Contracting Officer (CO).

After reviewing the list, check the appropriate boxes, fill in the information requested, and sign:

[ ] I certify that neither I nor my immediate family, to the best of my knowledge, possess any financial interest whatsoever in any company, parent or subsidiary, which is proposing on the acquisition identified above now being considered by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) of which I am a member or advisor. Should any company in which I or my immediate family has a financial interest submit a proposal to my source selection team, I will reveal immediately such interest to the SSEB Chairperson and the CO. (Please note that ownership of a financial interest in a company described in this paragraph which interest is valued at less than $15,000 is not disqualifying and need not be reported on this form.

The $15,000 value is additive among your spouse and minor children, if any.)

OR

[ ] I do possess a financial interest in a company that is proposing on or is in a way involved in the acquisition identified above now being considered by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) of which I am a member or advisor. (If you have checked this box, please provide a description of your financial interests on the reverse side of this form.)

I further acknowledge my obligation to disclose any friendships; family or social relationships; past, present, or planned employment relationships, or any other type of relationship, such as housing or transportation arrangements, which might be perceived as compromising my independent judgment in connection with this Source Selection. (Please make any disclosures on the reverse of this form.)

Name (print):

Organization: Phone:

SSP Attachment 6

Plan and Procedures for the Protection, Maintenance, Retention, and Disposition of Source Selection Data

1.1. GENERAL

1.2. This document is an attachment to the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and approved by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) when the SSP is signed. The SSA delegates approval of any subsequent modifications to this Plan to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chair. Any modifications approved by the SSEB Chair shall be incorporated into the SSP Attachment by amendment to the SSP.

1.3. The Contracting Officer, Mr. Thomas Brannen, ACC AMIC/PKCA, and the Records Custodian are responsible for the management of all source selection documents and shall control and record all document transactions in accordance with these procedures. They will consult with HQ ACC/JA for legal advice when necessary.

2.1. PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE

2.2. The requirements and procedures contained in this plan shall be briefed to each member of the Source Selection Team. All team members shall and strictly adhered to all requirements and procedures contained in this Plan. A copy of the plan, including any approved modifications, shall be available through the T-38 AMP Source Selection Secured SharePoint site.

2.3. The Source Selection Team will use a formal Source Selection Electronic Tool for this action. All official records of their personal evaluation and consensus recommendations, to include dissenting opinions, shall be recorded on the MS Excel Source Selection Evaluation Spreadsheet tools provided.

These shall be maintained on the T-38 AMP Source Selection Secured SharePoint Team Site. All electronic records of working papers shall be created using the MS Office Suite and maintained within the team members’ individual folders provided on that site.

2.4. All members of the Team must protect all documents and data they generate, in hard copy or electronically, throughout the source selection until they are reviewed and dispositioned by the Contracting Officer and RC according to these procedures. This includes official records, drafts, working papers, and personal notes.

2.5. The Shared Documents section of the Secured SharePoint site shall conform to the T-38 AMP Source Selection File Directory, which also include non-sensitive documents stored on the DRXA T-38 AMP Source Selection SharePoint site and provides a cross reference to the final official contract file location of all source selection documentation. The Secured SharePoint site shall contain a link to the DRX SharePoint site to allow access to those non sensitive documents not stored on the Secured site.

2.6. The Secured SharePoint site shall be maintained by the RC, who shall be responsible for ensuring access is limited to authorized personnel. At a minimum, this includes the members of the SSEB, the SSEB Chair, and the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). The Contracting Officer and RC shall ensure the final version of every record is stored on the Secured SharePoint site and review all drafts to make a retention recommendation.

2.7. Hard copy files for the T-38 AMP Source Selection shall be maintained in the secured Source Selection Facility for the duration of the action. Access to the SS Facility shall be limited to the personnel actively involved in the action. Any document or data that is part of the official record but not included in the Secured SharePoint shall be logged by the RC and maintained with the hard copy files.

2.8. All recipients of Source Selection documents are responsible for the protection of these documents until returned to the CO/RC. All SS documents must be marked accordingly and shall not be removed, circulated, or mailed (electronically or manually) outside of the SS Facility or Secured SharePoint site without the approval of the CO. Any approvals for such dissemination outside these controlled Source Selection locations shall be documented and logged by the T-38 AMP Source Selection personnel dissemination the data outside the secured areas. Any Source Selection document transmitted electronically shall be under appropriate security control, such as via encrypted email to and from a .mil address.

2.9. At each Critical Point of the Source Selection, the record will be “frozen” by creating a copy of the Secured Source Selection SharePoint data on the secured PKC Official File share drive, a Compact Disk (CD), or data Digital Video Disk (DVD).

3.1. RETENTION AND DISPOSITION

3.2. The Contracting Officer and RC will review any notes, working papers, and other documents to make a retention determination prior to each brief to the SSA and at the conclusion of the process. If disposition of any hard copy or digital data is unclear, it shall be retained and reviewed for retention. The Contracting Officer and RC shall seek guidance from legal counsel as necessary when determining retention.

3.3. At the conclusion of the Source Selection, the RC shall transfer all retained records of the Source Selection from the Secured Source Selection SharePoint site and the DRXA T-38 AMP Source Selection SharePoint Site to the PKC Share Drive Contract File and ensure all necessary documents are retained or printed for the hard copy Official Contract File. At a minimum, the following documents are required for retention in the Official Contract File and will be filed IAW the official contract file structure:

a. The SSP and all revisions

b. All non-disclosure and conflict of interest statements

c. The draft RFP, all comments received, and all Government responses.

d. The RFP, all amendments, and the request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

e. Past performance information used during evaluation (such as CPARs, PPQs, interview records).

f. Official file copy of all Offeror proposals and all revisions. Retention preference is given to any copy marked “Original” by the Offeror.

g. Competitive range determination and supporting documentation

h. All Evaluation Notices (ENs), offeror responses, and Government evaluation of responses.

i. Evaluation results (to include PAR and SSA Briefings)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

j. Any comparative analysis and recommendations provided to the SSA (to include the SSAC document)

k. The Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

l. Debriefing documents

m. Approval documentation (to award without discussions, FPR approval, etc.)

Other documents that may be included in the official file include:

n. Working papers – These must be clearly identified as such and are only included in the official record if they include information relevant to the Source Selection decision and this information is not captured elsewhere in the official files.

o. E-mails – These exchanges are considered records and must be retained unless all relevant information contained in them has been transferred into the official documents or a review by the Contracting Officer and legal counsel determines the email is irrelevant or superfluous to the Source Selection.

3.4. At the conclusion of the Source Selection and expiration of the Protest Period, whichever comes later, the computers in the secured source selection area will be cleared by DRIN. The RC will transfer the official Secured SharePoint and DRXA T-38 AMP Source Selection SharePoint files to the PKC Share Drive contract file, remove access to the secured site, and archive, delete, or otherwise remove the secured SharePoint site. The RC will also incorporate hard copies of official source selection records into the official contract file and destroy excess hard copies containing source selection information by approved means.