Attachment_5_DOD_Source_Selection_Procedures_1_July_2011.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Purpose, Roles, and Responsibilities

1.1 Purpose 1

1.2 Best-Value Continuum 1

1.3 Applicability 2

1.4 Source Selection Team Roles and Responsibilities 2

1.5 Program Management/Requirements Office Roles and

Responsibilities

Chapter 2. Pre-Solicitation Activities

2.1 Conduct Acquisition Planning 9

2.2 Develop a Source Selection Plan 10

2.3 Develop the Request for Proposals 11

2.4 Release the Request for Proposals 13

Chapter 3. Evaluation and Decision Process

3.1 Evaluation Activities 14

3.2 Documentation of Initial Evaluation Results 20

3.3 Award without Discussions 20

3.4 Discussion Process 21

3.5 Final Proposal Revisions 21

i ii

3.6 Documentation of Final Evaluation Results 22

3.7 Conduct and Documentation of Comparative Analysis 22

3.8 Best-Value Decision 22

3.9 Source Selection Decision Document 23

3.10 Debriefings 23

Chapter 4. Documentation Requirements

Documentation Requirements 24

Chapter 5. Definitions

Definitions 25

Appendix A. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process

Appendix B. Debriefing Guide

Chapter 1

Purpose, Roles, and Responsibilities

1.1 Purpose

This document provides the Department of Defense (DoD) procedures for conducting competitively negotiated source selections and outlines a common set of principles and procedures for conducting such acquisitions. The goal of this procedure is to ensure the Department’s source selection process delivers quality, timely products and services to the Warfighter and the Nation at the best value for the taxpayer.

1.2 Best-Value Continuum

This document describes two of the acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition: Tradeoff Source Selection Process and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process.

• Tradeoff Source Selection Process (see FAR 15.101-1). This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. Further, it describes various rating approaches to evaluating proposals when using a tradeoff process. The application of this process, as well as general source selection principles, is discussed in the body of this document.

• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process (see FAR

15.101-2). The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The application of LPTA is discussed in Appendix A. In addition, the general principles outlined in the body of this document also apply to LPTA (see preface to Appendix A for exemptions).

In the best-value continuum described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101, an agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. However, regardless of the source selection approach taken, agencies are required to utilize the standardized rating tables as detailed in this procedure. For any factors/subfactors evaluated on other than an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, the ratings at Section 3.1 shall be utilized. For any factors/subfactors evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, the ratings at Appendix A, Table A-1 and A-2 shall be utilized.

1.3 Applicability

This procedure is required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15. Compliance with law, FAR Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215 and the companion resource Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) is required. These procedures are not required for the following acquisitions:

• Competitions where the only evaluated factor is price

• Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) are used in accordance with FAR Part 35 to solicit proposals and award contracts,

• Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer

Research (STTR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT) acquisitions solicited and awarded in accordance with 15 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 638.

• Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded in accordance with FAR Part 36,

• FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions,

• Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures in accordance with FAR Part 13 (including Part 12 acquisitions using Part 13 procedures),

• Orders under multiple award contracts – Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.505 (b)(1)), and

• Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.

The procedures in this guide may be waived only with the express permission of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy.

1.4 Source Selection Team Roles and Responsibilities

Source selection is accomplished by a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition.

Composition of the team generally consists of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) (if different from the SSA), Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), Advisors, Cost or Pricing Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts. Team members may include personnel from other Governmental sources such as headquarters or joint service members. Key members of the Source Selection Team (SST)—such as the SSA, SSEB, chairperson and functional leads, and the PCO— should have source selection experience. All members of the team shall be designated early in the source selection process, and agencies shall provide the needed training to execute that specific source selection.

1.4.1. SSA. The SSA is the individual designated to make the best-value decision.

1.4.1.1. Appointment of SSA: The appointment of the individual to serve as the SSA shall be commensurate with the complexity and dollar value of the acquisition. For acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SSA shall be an individual other than the PCO. For all other acquisitions, the PCO may serve as the SSA in accordance with FAR 15.303 unless the Agency head or designee appoints another individual.

1.4.1.2. SSA Responsibilities. The SSA shall:

1.4.1.2.1. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

1.4.1.2.2. Appoint the chairpersons for the SSEB and, when used, the SSAC.

1.4.1.2.3. Ensure that personnel appointed to the SST are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

1.4.1.2.4. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS 203.170(a).

1.4.1.2.5. Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

1.4.1.2.6. Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C., Section 423, and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information.

Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement. Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements (from both Government members/advisors and non-Government team advisors) are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See CFR 2635).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/41/423.html

1.4.1.2.7. Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

1.4.1.2.8. Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in Section M (or a non-Uniform Contract Format (UCF) solicitation).

1.4.1.2.9. Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) (as detailed in Chapter 4).

1.4.2. PCO. The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection.

1.4.2.1. Selection of PCO: Agencies have discretion in the selection of the individual to serve as the PCO. However, the PCO, as the principal guidance source, should have experience in the source selection process.

1.4.2.2. PCO Responsibilities. The PCO shall:

1.4.2.2.1 Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and advise and assist the SSA in the execution of the responsibilities as outlined in 1.4.1, and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation.

1.4.2.2.2. Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the solicitation before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (e.g. FAR 7.503 and 37.205).

1.4.2.2.3. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information. Approve access to or release of source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

1.4.2.2.4. Maintain as a minimum, the documents and source selection evaluation records as detailed in Chapter 4.

1.4.2.2.5. Release the final solicitation only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

1.4.2.2.6. Serve as the single point of contact for all solicitation-related inquiries from actual or prospective offerors.

1.4.2.2.7. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306.

1.4.2.2.8 With the approval of the SSA to enter discussions, establish the competitive range and enter into discussions.

1.4.3. SSAC.

1.4.3.1. Establishment and Role of SSAC.

1.4.3.1.1. The SSA establishes an SSAC to gain access to functional area expertise to provide the support the SSA requires throughout the source selection process.

1.4.3.1.2.Organizations shall establish an SSAC for acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more. An SSAC is optional for acquisitions with a total estimated value of less than $100M.

1.4.3.1.3. The primary role of the SSAC is to provide a written comparative analysis and recommendation to the SSA. When an SSAC is established, it will provide oversight to the SSEB.

1.4.3.1.4. The SSA may convene the SSAC at any stage in the evaluation process as needed.

1.4.3.2. Composition of SSAC.

1.4.3.2.1. The SSAC is comprised of an SSAC Chairperson and SSAC Members.

1.4.3.2.2. SSAC Members should represent the specific functional areas from which the SSA may require expertise.

1.4.3.3. Responsibilities of SSAC.

1.4.3.3.1 SSAC Chairperson shall:

1.4.3.3.1.1. Appoint SSAC members, subject to SSA approval.

1.4.3.3.2. The SSAC Members shall:

1.4.3.3.2.1. Review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied.

1.4.3.3.2.2. Consolidate the advice and recommendations from the SSAC into a written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best-value decision. Ensure that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.

1.4.4. SSEB.

1.4.4.1. Composition of the SSEB.

1.4.4.1.1. The SSEB is comprised of a Chairperson and Evaluators (also known as SSEB Members). Frequently, the SSEB Members will be organized into functional teams corresponding to the specific evaluation criteria (e.g., Technical Team, Past Performance Team, Cost Team, etc). In those instances, a Functional Team Lead may be utilized to consolidate the evaluation findings of the team and serve as the primary team representative to the SSEB Chair. Use of non- Government personnel as voting members of the SSEB is prohibited. (See FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii), FAR 37.203 and FAR 37.204).

1.4.4.1.2. Government personnel assigned to the SSEB shall consider this duty as their primary responsibility. Their source selection assignment shall take priority over other work assignments. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that other work assignments do not adversely impact the source selection process.

1.4.4.2. Responsibilities of the SSEB.

1.4.4.2.1. SSEB Chairperson shall:

1.4.4.2.1.1. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSAC (if utilized) and the SSA.

1.4.4.2.1.2. Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.

1.4.4.2.1.3. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and time assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

1.4.4.2.1.4. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

1.4.4.2.1.5. Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

1.4.4.2.1.6. Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA or the SSAC if the SSAC is designated as the interface between the SSEB and SSA.

1.4.4.2.1.7. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

1.4.4.2.2. The SSEB members shall:

1.4.4.2.2.1. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

1.4.4.2.2.2. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

1.4.4.2.2.3. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

1.4.4.2.2.4. Support any post-source-selection activities, such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

1.4.4.2.3. Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested by the SSA.

1.4.5. Advisors.

1.4.5.1. Government Advisors. When an SSAC is not used, consideration should be given to the use of Government advisors to assist the SSA. These advisors can provide expertise within specific functional areas, similar to the involvement of the SSAC, but need not provide the formal written comparative analysis required of an SSAC. Government advisors may also be used to provide assistance to the SSEB as subject-matter experts.

1.4.5.2. Non-Government Advisors. Use of non-Government personnel as advisors may be authorized, but should be minimized as much as possible. Non-Government advisors, other than Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR 37.203 and 37.204.

1.4.5.2.1. Requirements for use of non-Government advisors. All non- Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreement required to be signed by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection. They shall also submit documentation to the PCO indicating their personal stock holdings prior to being allowed access to source selection sensitive information. In addition, the PCO must ensure that before the non-Government advisor is given access to proprietary information, that the Government has received the consent of the submitting contractor(s) to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the source selection.

1.4.5.2.2. Limitations on use of non-Government advisors. Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, but they may not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly prohibited (reference DoD Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) Policy Guide, Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) Policy Guide, and Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Policy Guide). Accordingly, non-Government advisors shall not participate in the review and evaluation of past performance information. (See

FAR 42.1503).

1.5. Program Management/Requirements Office Roles and Responsibilities

The requirements community is vital to the success of the overall source selection process. The leadership of the Program Management/Requirements Office shall:

1.5.1 Ensure the technical requirements—consistent with the cognizant requirements document—are approved and stable, establish technical specifications, and develop a Statement of Work (SOW), Statement of Objectives (SOO), or Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1.5.2. Allocate the necessary resources including personnel, funding and facilities to support the source selection process.

1.5.3. Assist in the establishment of the SST to include serving as an advisor or member to the SSAC and/or the SSEB as needed.

1.5.4. Assist in the development of the evaluation criteria consistent with the technical requirements/risk.

Chapter 2

Pre-Solicitation Activities

2.1 Conduct Acquisition Planning

2.1.1. Acquisition Planning. Appropriate acquisition planning is paramount for a successful source selection. FAR subpart 7.1 and DFARS subpart 207.1 address policies related to acquisition planning and development of written Acquisition Plans.

2.1.1.1. Requirements. The SST is responsible for maintaining effective liaison with the requiring office to ensure requirements are effectively addressed within the requirements documents.

2.1.1.2. Risk Assessment. The requiring office—in conjunction with the acquisition team members, initial membership of the SST, and stakeholders—shall conduct the risk analysis in accordance with FAR 7.105 necessary to support the acquisition planning process. This assessment will be critical in developing evaluation factors.

2.1.1.3. Acquisition of Services. Existing DoD policy requires all non-information technology (IT) service acquisition over $1B ($500M for acquisition of IT services) to have their acquisition strategy reviewed and approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD(NII)), or their designees (see DoD Instruction (DODI) 5000.2, Enclosure 9). Specifically, senior officials of the Military Departments and decision authorities in DoD Components outside the Military Departments shall, before the final solicitation is issued, notify the USD(AT&L), Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) of any proposed acquisition of non-IT services with a total estimated value over $1 billion (base year(s) and options), or the ASD(NII)/DoD Chief Information Officer of any proposed acquisition of IT services with a total estimated value over $500 million (base year(s) and options). Reference DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 9, Acquisition of Services, for specific requirements and further instructions.

2.1.1.4. Independent Management Reviews (“Peer Reviews”). Pre-Award Peer Reviews shall be conducted on all Supplies and Services, solicitations, and contracts over $1B (including options). The Director, DPAP, in the Office of the USD(AT&L), shall organize the Peer Reviews. The reviews shall be advisory in nature and conducted in a manner that preserves the authority, judgment, and discretion of the PCO and senior officials of the acquiring organization. Reference DFARS 201.170 and DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, Section 9 and Enclosure 9, Section 6 for specific requirements for these Pre-Award Peer Reviews of Services and Supply contracts over $1B. Finally, Pre-Award procedures in Paragraph 6.a. of Enclosure 9 shall also apply to Peer Reviews of Supplies. (Reference Enclosure 2, Procedures Section 9, Paragraph g, of DODI 5000.02.) The acquisition team must build these review requirements into their acquisition planning milestones. (See DFARS 201.170 and PGI 201.170).

2.1.2. Market Research. Market research is essential to identifying capabilities within the market to satisfy the agency’s needs and is key in determining whether a commercial item or small business can meet the Government’s needs. Market research significantly influences the work statement, is central to designing an acquisition strategy and identifying candidate evaluation criteria which influence the overall source selection process. Thorough and complete market research is the foundation of an effective source selection process toward meeting the agency’s needs. See FAR 10.001 and DFARS

201.001 for requirements and benefits of conducting and documenting market research.

As an effective part of Market Research, early industry involvement is vital to the source selection process. Exchanging information on upcoming acquisitions improves understanding of Government requirements and Government understanding of industry capabilities.

2.1.2.1. Industry Day(s). A vital tool in collecting information and feedback important to framing the Government’s acquisition strategy is the use of industry day(s) (e.g., pre-solicitation conference, pre-proposal conference, etc.). An industry day(s) is highly recommended for all acquisitions.

2.1.2.2. Utilization of Draft Request for Proposals (RFP). The draft RFP is an important tool to seek input from industry on the Government requirement and ensure greater understanding on both sides of the acquisition. Use of a draft RFP is highly recommended for all acquisitions. The specific content of the draft RFP will be determined by the PCO.

2.2. Develop an SSP

An SSP is required for all best–value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15.

The SSA shall approve the SSP before the final solicitation is issued. At a minimum, the SSP shall include:

2.2.1. Background and Objectives. Include a brief description of the requirement, a summary of the objectives, and any reference to applicable guidance.

2.2.2. Acquisition Strategy. Provide a summary of the planned acquisition approach to include a description of how the specific acquisition being competed fits into the entire program.

2.2.3. SST. Describe the organizational structure and identify the various roles and responsibilities of each of the source selection teams, such as the SSET, the SSAC, the PCO, and the SSA, during the phases of the source selection. List members and advisors by name, position title, company affiliation, if applicable, or by functional area. (See PGI 215.303).

2.2.4. Communications. Describe the process and controls for communication with industry as well as internal Government team communication, to include the use of e-mail, during the source selection, and outline the security measures that will be utilized to ensure the information is protected as source selection information. (See FAR 2.101 and

FAR 3.104.)

2.2.5. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. Identify the evaluation factors, subfactors, their relative order of importance; the importance of all non-cost or price factors to the cost or price factor; and the evaluation process, including specific procedures and techniques to be used in evaluating proposals. Include within the SSP document or attach the relevant and most current portions of Sections L and M in the RFP (or a non-UCF solicitation) to preclude inconsistencies between the SSP and RFP.

2.2.6. Documentation. Identify the types of documents that will be prepared during the course of the source selection, to include at a minimum an SSEB Report covering the initial evaluation, updated as necessary following responses to discussion questions, and a final SSEB Report after receipt of Final Proposal Revisions, an SSAC Report, if there is an SSAC, which reflects the SSAC’s consideration of the final SSET Report and makes the SSAC’s recommendation to the Source Selection Authority, and in accordance with FAR 15.308, the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), which reflects the SSA’s independent determination. A power point presentation is acceptable to brief the SSA and the SSAC on the status of the procurement, but should not as a general rule, constitute the official Reports required for the source selection.

2.2.7. Schedule of Events. List the major acquisition activities and projected completion dates. Reference 2.1.1.4, 2.1.2.1, and 2.1.2.2 for information on the use of independent management reviews, Industry Days, and draft RFPs as significant source selection activities.

2.2.8. Non-Government Personnel. Address the use of non-Government personnel and compliance with requirements of 1.4.5.2.

2.2.9. Securing Source Selection Materials. Detail the plan for securing all source selection materials throughout the evaluation process.

2.3. Develop the Request for Proposals

A well-written RFP is absolutely critical to the success of the source selection. There shall be consistency between the requirements documents, SSP, and RFP. The acquisition team must ensure a clear linkage between the requirements and evaluation factors to maximize the accuracy and clarity of the RFP.

2.3.1. Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements and objectives having an impact on the source selection decision and are expected to be discriminators, or are required by statute/regulation. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated allowing the Government to make a best-value determination. The evaluation of factors and subfactors may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both.

However, numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used. The evaluation factors and subfactors, their relative order of importance, and the importance of non-cost or price factors to cost or price factors shall be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated. The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors. If subfactors are used, they are to be evaluated separately. All source selections shall evaluate cost or price, and the quality of the product or services.

2.3.1.1. Cost or Price. The Government shall evaluate the cost or price of the supplies or services being acquired. See 3.1.1 for more information.

2.3.1.2 Quality of Product or Service. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(2), the quality of product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience.

All source selection evaluations shall utilize one or more quality of product or service evaluation factors tailored to the source selection process employed.

The term “technical,” as used below and throughout the document, refers to non-cost factors other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. However, the ratings in Tables 1, 2, and 3 shall be used for all quality of product or service factors other than past performance, regardless of the “technical” factor title.

2.3.1.2.1. Technical. The purpose of the technical factor(s) is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. There are many aspects which may affect an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. Examples include technical approach, risk, management approach, personnel qualifications, facilities, and others. The evaluation of risk is related to the technical assessment.

Technical Risk. Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

All evaluations that include a technical evaluation factor shall also consider risk.

Risk can be evaluated in one of two ways:

• As one aspect of the technical evaluation, inherent in the technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings (reference 3.1.2.1).

• As a separate risk rating assigned at the technical factor or subfactor level (reference 3.1.2.2).

Finally, the technical factor may be divided into subfactors that represent the specific areas that are significant enough to be discriminators and to have an impact on the source selection decision. When subfactors are used, establish the minimum number necessary for the evaluation of proposals.

2.3.1.2.2. Past Performance. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A past performance evaluation is required in accordance with Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29, 1999, which states the requirement thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support; (2) $1 million for services, IT; and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care. A past performance evaluation may be accomplished for acquisitions below these thresholds at the discretion of the SSA. Past performance need not be evaluated if the PCO documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition (see FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii)).

2.3.1.2.3. Small Business. Where required by FAR 15.304(c), FAR 19.1202, and DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the SST shall evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns. This may be accomplished by one of the following:

• Establishing a separate Small Business Participation evaluation factor,

• Establishing a Small Business Participation subfactor under the technical factor, or

• Considering Small Business Participation within the evaluation of one of the technical subfactors.

2.3.2. Relative Importance of Factors. The solicitation shall state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are (1) significantly more important than cost or price; (2) approximately equal to cost or price;

or (3) significantly less important than cost or price. (FAR 15.101)

2.4.Release the Request for Proposals

Use of a draft RFP is highly recommended. The specific content of the draft RFP will be determined by the PCO. Prior to release of the final RFP, a thorough, consolidated review by a multi-disciplined team is recommended

Chapter 3

Evaluation and Decision Process

3.1. Evaluation Activities

The SSEB shall conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation, and assign evaluation ratings.

3.1.1. Cost or Price Evaluation. Cost or price to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection. However, no adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluating cost or price since cost or price is not rated. The level of detail of analysis required will vary among acquisitions depending on the complexity and circumstances of the acquisition, including the degree of competition, the phase of the program, the type of product/services to be acquired, and the contract type. In order to enable offerors to make informed decisions on how best to propose, every solicitation will provide an adequate description of the cost or price evaluation. In all source selections, the analysis must include a determination, by the PCO, of whether the proposed cost or price is fair and reasonable. I n addition to determining reasonableness of the proposed cost or price, the PCO must also conduct a cost realism analysis if contracting on a cost reimbursement basis. Cost realism analysis may also be used on competitive, fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts. FAR Subpart 15.4 and the Contract Pricing Reference Guides (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html) provide additional guidance on cost or price evaluation.

3.1.2. Technical Rating Evaluation Processes. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

As referenced in 2.3.1.2.1, one of two distinct methodologies can be used to evaluate the technical approach and related risk. Methodology 1, outlined at 3.1.2.1, includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating. Methodology 2, outlined at 3.1.2.2, provides separate technical and risk ratings.

3.1.2.1. Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

3.1.2.2. Methodology 2: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process.

3.1.2.2.1. Technical Rating. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Technical 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.

3.1.2.2.2. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 3. For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions.

Table 3. 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.

3.1.3. Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. See FAR 15.305.

3.1.3.1. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 4. When source selections require a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the SST shall use all four of the relevancy ratings identified below. However, for those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, the past performance evaluation team may use, as a minimum, “Relevant” and “Not Relevant” past performance ratings. The SSP shall clearly identify the treatment of relevancy within past performance evaluation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

3.1.3.2. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

3.1.3.3. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 5. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

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

3.1.3.4. Small Business Evaluation. When required by 2.3.1.2.3, the SST shall evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns. (Reference 2.3.1 for evaluation methodologies.) The ratings utilized for the small business evaluation will be dependent on the small business evaluation methodology utilized.

3.1.3.4.1 When evaluating small business participation as a stand-alone evaluation factor or a subfactor under the technical factor, there are two rating options as follows:

3.1.3.4.1.1. Use the ratings acceptable and unacceptable only (i.e., pass/fail), or

3.1.3.4.1.2. Utilize all ratings outlined in Table 1 or 2, depending on the treatment of risk. References to the term “requirements” in the technical rating description at Table 1 or 2 shall equate to small business requirements, often reflected in the RFP as small business objectives.

3.1.3.4.2. When small business participation is not evaluated as a stand-alone evaluation factor or subfactor but instead is considered within the evaluation of one of the technical subfactors, a separate small business rating is not applied.

However, the small business participation shall be considered in determining the appropriate technical rating to be applied. References to the term “requirements” in the technical ratings description at Table 1 or 2 shall equate to small business requirements, often reflected in the RFP as small business objectives.

3.2. Documentation of Initial Evaluation Results

3.2.1. Following the initial round of evaluations, the SSEB Chairperson will consolidate the inputs from each of the evaluation teams for presentation to the SSA. The PCO and the SSEB Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated solely on the criteria contained in Section M (or a non-UCF solicitation). All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed by the PCO, Legal Counsel, and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. When an SSAC has been established, it will consolidate the advice and recommendations from the SSAC into a written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best-value decision. It will ensure that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis

3.2.2. Based upon review of the initial evaluation results the SSA will decide to either (1) approve award without discussions, or (2) enter into the discussion process.

3.3. Award without Discussions

3.3.1. The SSA may choose, in rare circumstances, to award a contract on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting discussions. Offerors may be given a chance to clarify certain aspects of their proposal and to resolve minor or clerical mistakes. However, offerors are not given an opportunity to respond to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies or revise their proposals. Instead, the SSA makes a best-value decision based upon the evaluations of the initial proposal as submitted. To award without discussions, the RFP must contain the solicitation provision at FAR 52.215-1, which notifies offerors that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. This clause provides incentive to offerors to provide in their initial proposal their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint as there may not be an opportunity to revise their proposals.

3.3.2. The process of engaging with industry after proposal submission affords the Government the opportunity to effectively understand and evaluate a proposal and permits industry the opportunity to clearly explain any aspects of a proposal that appear to be deficient, ambiguous or non-compliant. Such dialogue leads to more efficient, effective and improved source selections. Therefore, award without discussions shall occur in only limited circumstances.

3.3.3. If the SSA chooses to award without discussions, the SSA shall prepare a SSDD (reference 3.9). Once the SSDD is signed and all contractual requirements have been met (e.g., Congressional Notification, Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance.), the PCO may award the contract.

3.4 Discussion Process

3.4.1. Discussions are highly recommended for source selections. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

3.4.2. If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO shall, with the approval of the SSA, establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see FAR 15.306(c)). Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, and after the decision to conduct discussions has been made, the PCO may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. These communications are limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1). The establishment of the competitive range is formally documented by the PCO in a competitive range determination. The PCO will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

3.4.3. Discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal and must be conducted by the PCO with every offeror within the competitive range. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of PCO judgment. As a minimum, during discussions, the SSEB through the PCO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) significant weaknesses, and (c) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation. This is accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs). ENs are prepared by the SSEB and reviewed by the PCO and Legal Counsel. All ENs shall clearly indicate the type of exchange being conducted (e.g. clarification, communication, etc). Any EN addressing a proposal deficiency or weakness shall clearly indicate that a deficiency/weakness exists. The PCO is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could in the opinion of the PCO be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award.

However, the PCO is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved as outlined at FAR 15.306(d) and (e). All discussions shall be documented in writing.

3.5 Final Proposal Revisions

3.5.1. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time, as established by the PCO (FAR 15.307(b)). When the PCO is not the SSA, the PCO shall obtain the SSA’s concurrence prior to releasing the FPR request.

3.5.2. After receipt of the FPR, the SSEB shall complete evaluation of the FPR.