SS training contractors PPT 2011.ppt
PPT presentation 476 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8100-12-R-0003
About this file
Source Selection Training Slides
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Source Selection Training
OKLAHOMA CITY
AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
Van Garmon
OC-ALC/XPR
736-8714 van.garmon@tinker.af.mil I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
TEAM TINKER
Topics
| SOURCE SELECTION |
| What Is It |
| Best Value |
| Main Members |
| Exchanges with Offerors |
| EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS |
| Technical |
| Past Performance |
| Cost/Price |
AWARD DECISION
CONCLUSION
Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical acceptability and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror, outweighs the cost difference The Government reserves the right to….
Trade-off possibilities
| Past Performance |
| Price |
Technical Proposals Evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable
PERFORMANCE – PRICE TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION
| Source Selection Authority (SSA) |
| Makes the award decision |
| Selects which proposal or proposals represent the best value to the Government |
| Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) |
| Directs the evaluation of proposals |
| Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors |
| Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) |
| Evaluate Proposals |
| Assign ratings |
| Present evaluation results to the SSA |
Source Selection Main Members
SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria Source Selection Evaluation
Offeror A OfferorB
C
Offeror B
C
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
OfferorB Offeror C SSA does compare proposals against each other SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations Technical acceptability for each offeror Past Performance ratings and total evaluated price for each offeror Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP Source Selection Decision
EVALUATION
FACTORS FOR
AWARD
| EVALUATION CRITERIA |
| Criteria for award selection |
| Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other |
| Factor rating definitions |
| Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria |
INSTRUCTIONS
TO
OFFERORS
INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL
CONTENT AND FORMAT
| Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc |
| Proposal separated into volumes, such as Technical, Past Performance, Cost, etc |
| Past Performance Package |
Request For Proposal
Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal ENs prepared and finalized Evaluation of EN responses Follow-up ENs Initial Ratings established Ratings adjusted Based on EN responses Release ENs to offerors Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Receive FPRs from offerors Final evaluation of proposals Final ratings established SSA Best Value Decision
INITIAL
EVALUATION
DISCUSSIONS
FINAL
EVALUATION
Draft FPR Three Phases of Source Selection Receive FPRs from offerors
TECHNICAL
PAST PERFORMANCE
COST / PRICE
1 Resource Management 2 Program Management 3 Quality Control Subfactors Evaluation Factors 4 Phase In Plan Solicitation will state the order of importance between Past Performance and Cost/Price for trade-off purposes
Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)
| Three types of ENs |
| Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated |
| Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range |
| Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range |
| Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range |
| Each offeror is given the opportunity to revise their proposal |
Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection
PAST
PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF
CONFIDENCE
SATISFACTORY
LIMITED
NO
UNKNOWN
FACTOR 2
TRADEOFF
Evaluation Factors and Ratings for PPT
TECHNICAL
SUBFACTOR
LEVEL RATING
ACCEPTABLE
UNACCEPTABLE
FACTOR 1
COST/
PRICE
TOTAL
EVALUATED
PRICE
COMPLETENESS
REASONABLE
FACTOR 3
Technical Rating Definition Technical Rating Definitions
ACCEPTABLE
Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
UNACCEPTABLE
Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Technical Evaluation Proposals will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable”
An unacceptable rating for any subfactor will make the entire technical proposal unacceptable
Only those proposals determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions will be considered for award
RESOURCE
MGT
PROGRAM
MGT
QUALITY
CONTROL
a) b) c) a)
Technical Factor Rating
TECHNICAL FACTOR
RATED AS
ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE
PHASE IN
PLAN
c) d)
SUBFACTORS
Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.
Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.
Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.
Emphasis is on demonstrated performance – not promises
Performance Confidence Assessment Rating
LIMITED
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.
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
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.
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.
SATISFACTORY
CONFIDENCE
NO
CONFIDENCE
UNKNOWN
CONFIDENCE
(Neutral)
Confidence Definitions
Recency
| Recency, as stated in the RFP |
| The effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP |
If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance
For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago.
Relevancy Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price for this requirement
| Relevancy considerations |
| Similar service |
| Similar complexity of effort |
| Breadth and depth of skills |
| Similar contract type, scope, magnitude and schedule |
PAST PERFORMANCE
RELEVANCY
Reflects how relevant the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work
BLUE -- EXCEPTIONAL
PURPLE -- VERY GOOD
GREEN -- SATISFACTORY
YELLOW -- MARGINAL
RED -- UNSATISFACTORY
CONFIDENCE RATING
RECENCY
RELEVANT
SOMEWHAT RELEVANT
NOT RELEVANT
Past Performance Evaluation
R
VG
N/A
SUB 4
PI
SUB 3
QC
SUB 2
PM
SUB 1
RM
R
VG
R
VG
SR
VG
$40M (10 yr) Government Program
F34601-99-C-9932 FFP/CR
R E R S R S $30M (8 yr) Company A Excel Project Cost Plus
SR
VG
SR
S $5.3M (5yr) Company B Order 58CP T & M
ALPHA, INC.
N/A N/A
DOLLAR
AMOUNT
PROGRAM
CONTRACT #
ALPHA, INC
N/A $10M (10 yr) Company C N/A (G) FFP with Incentive $25M (9 yr) Government Program
F09603-98-C-9950 CPFF
N/A
ZETA CORP
R E R P N/A N/A S R
VG
SR
S
PRIME
SUBCONTRACTOR
COST
R S R S R S
Past Performance Evaluation N/A N/A
Past Performance and Executive Summary volume of the offeror’s proposal
| Contract Information Sheets (Prime and Subcontractors) |
| Provided by contractor as part of proposal |
| Questionnaires |
| Included as part of the RFP package |
| Completed by contractor references |
| Submitted directly to PCAG Evaluation Team |
| Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) |
| Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts |
Past Performance Data Sources
| Completeness |
| Did the offeror complete the Bid Schedule as required by the RFP |
| Does the offeror’s proposal include all supporting cost/price information as required by the RFP |
| Reasonableness |
| Cost/Price proposal should address all RFP requirements |
| Competitive market should establish price reasonableness |
| PCO makes the determination of price reasonableness |
Cost/Price Evaluation
SOURCE SELECTION
AWARD
Total Evaluated Price Past Performance Confidence Level Technical SSA’s Best Value Decision is based on comparison of all remaining offerors
ACCEPTABLE
Offeror A $75.0M
SATISFACTORY
CONFIDENCE
Evaluation Summary
Source Selection is a Subjective process
Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror
SSET evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals
SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria
Summary
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .