AntennaPreproposalConfSlides-4Mar08-Final.pdf

HFGCS HFGCS

Antenna Program Support (APS)Antenna Program Support (APS)

PrePre--Proposal ConferenceProposal Conference 4 Mar 084 Mar 08

OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA CITY

AIR LOGISTICS CENTERAIR LOGISTICS CENTER

Dr. Tony Schones Program Management Flight Chief

(405) 734-2314 email: tony.schones@tinker.af.mil

Willie Washington Engineering Flight Chief

(405) 734-2334 email: willie.washington@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

547th ACSS

CLSCLS

OPENING

• Facilities

• Emergency Evacuation/Safety

• Introductions

• Agenda Review

AGENDA

8:00 – 8:15 Opening Remarks/Items of Interest 8:15 – 8:30 Opening 8:30 – 9:00 HFGCS Program Mission/

General HFGCS APS Requirements

9:00 – 9:15 BREAK

9:15 – 10:00 HFGCS APS Performance Work

Statement (PWS) Review

10:00 – 10:15 BREAK

10:15 – 11:00 HFGCS APS Contract Specifics

11:00 – 11:10 BREAK

11:10 – 12:00 HFGCS APS Contract Specifics

12:00 – 13:00 BREAK FOR LUNCH

13:00 Sidebar Meetings

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Opening Remarks

• Contracting Officer, only one with authority to bind the Government

• Information stated orally today will not alter the terms and conditions of the solicitation

• Will provide answers to questions up to posting date of solicitation to FedBizOpps

• Questions and answers will be incorporated into the solicitation and posted to FedBizOpps

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Items of Interest

• Issue Solicitation – approximately 26 Mar 08

• Proposals Due – approximately 12 May 08

• Estimated Contract Award Date – 12 Dec 08

TOPICS COVERED

• HFGCS Mission

• Map of HFGCS Sites

– Typical Station Nodes

• HFGCS Customers

• Antenna Program Overview

– Antenna Subsystem

– Program Goal

– Program Challenges

• Antenna Services

– Services to be covered under this solicitation

• PWS

– Services being sought

– Details of the Service Summary

– Covers Government property and services

• Closing Remarks

HFGCS MISSION

HFGCS provides and supports a highHFGCS provides and supports a high--power, high frequency global power, high frequency global communications network for the US Air communications network for the US Air Force and joint warfighter.Force and joint warfighter.

SCOPE Command is the modernization of HFGCS through integration of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and software.

HFGCS STATION LOCATIONS

HAWAII

Central Network Control Station

ASCENSION

DIEGO GARCIA

LAJESWEST COAST

OFFUTT

CROUGHTON

YOKOTA

SIGONELLA

GUAM

ELMENDORF

PUERTO RICO

ANDREWS

High Power HF Communications

Receiver SiteTransmitter

Site

DISA Network (GIG)Control Site Intersite Communication via

Microwave or Cable

TYPICAL STATION NODES

5 – 50 Miles

HF GLOBAL CUSTOMERS

AMC’s Tactical Airlift Control Center & Airlift Fleet

• 80% of MAF

• Tactical Airlift Control Element

• MEDEVAC

STRATCOM

CJCS

AWACS

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

US CENTCOM

US NAVY High Command (HICOM) WHCA Presidential Communications (MYSTIC STAR) NCA/CINCs/VIP Communications Support Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)

- NASA

ACC – Heavies Mobility/Tactical Forces USAF MAJCOMs

NATO

System of Cooperation Among the American Air Forces, (SICOFAA) Federal Emergency Management Agency State Department Civil Air Patrol United Kingdom Royal Air Force (RAF) Canada

KEY C2 PROVIDER:

9/11

OIF

OEF

ONE

PLATFORMS:

Air Force One

NAOC

TACAMO

VIP Fleet

AWACS

P-3 Orion

KC-135/10

C-130/141/5/17

HFGCS ANTENNA PROGRAM

Jeff Johnston, Program Manager

Jeff Blosser, Program Engineer

Margaret Wright, Program Contracting Officer

• 194 HF Antennas Currently in Use

• 8 Different Manufacturers

• 25 Different Types

– 20 Fixed Omni-Directional

– 3 Fixed Directional

– 2 Rotatable

• Long-Term Standardization Target

– 9 Different Types

HFGCS ANTENNA PROGRAM

• Additional Sub-System Components

– Coaxial Cabling

• Air and Foam Die-Electric

– Electrical Power System

– Cable Pressurization System

– Surge-Suppression

– Lightning Protection

– Obstruction Lighting

Program Goal: To insure maximum long-term mission reliability

• Comprehensive Antenna Support Plan Optimizes and Monitors

– Maintenance

– Serviceability

– Standardization

– Future Life-Cycle of All Antenna Assets

ANTENNA PROGRAM CHALLENGES

• Many Different Types of Antennas

• No Standard Type Configuration

• Some Antennas In Varying Degrees of Disrepair

• Most In Environmentally-Unfriendly Global Locations

• No Standard Maintenance Concept

Severe corrosion on tower leg Broken radiator The wiring of the panel does not meet National Electric Code (NEC)

HFGCS ANTENNA SERVICES

Performance Work Statement (PWS)

• Scheduled Maintenance Support

• Teardown / De-Installation

• Installation

• Inspections

• Grounding, Bonding Shielding & Lightning Protection

• System Integration / Upgrades & Compatibility Needs

• Service Standards / Membership

• Acts of Nature / Unscheduled Maintenance

QUESTIONS?

High Frequency Global Communication System (HFGCS) Antenna Program Support (APS)

Margaret A. Wright

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Contracting Support

● 727 ACSG / PKC

● Purchasing Contracting Officer (PCO) Contact Information

Name: Margaret A. Wright Email: margaret.wright@tinker.af.mil

Phone: (405) 739 - 4448

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Overall Contract Framework

• Competitive 100% Small Business Set Aside

• Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

• Single Best Value Award

• 7-Year Contract (Basic Year + 3 Option Years + 3 incentive Option Years)

• Performance-Based Services Acquisition

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 – Commercial Contract

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Standard Form (SF) 1449

• SF 1449 - Contains information for the solicitation

• Front page – Contractor needs to fill-in all of 17a and 30a, 30b and 30c (signature)

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Contractor Line Items (CLINS)

● CLIN 0001 – Program Support – Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IAW Paragraph 1.1.1 of Statement Of Work (SOW)

● CLIN 0002 – Program Engineering Support

– Time & Material (T&M)

IAW Paragraph 1.1.2 of SOW To Be Determined (TBD) on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0003 – Reserved

● CLIN 0004 – Unscheduled Maintenance Support – T&M IAW Paragraph 1.1.3.2 of SOW TBD on Individual Delivery Order

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

CLINS

● CLIN 0005 – Short Notice Maintenance Support – T&M IAW Paragraph 1.1.3.3 of SOW TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0006 – Site Survey/De-Installation/Installation – T&M IAW Paragraph 1.1.4 of SOW -Table 1-1 in SOW -Attachment F: Proposed Antenna Replacement Matrix TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0007 – Antenna and Antenna Subsystems

– FFP Per Event/Occurrence

IAW Paragraph 1.1.4.1 of SOW

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

CLINS

● CLIN 0008 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection

- FFP Per Event/Occurrence IAW Paragraph 1.1.5.1 and 1.1.3.1 of SOW -Attachment E: Antenna Database and -Attachment F: Proposed Antenna Replacement Matrix TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0009 – Phase Inspection – FFP Per Event/Occurrence IAW Paragraph 1.1.5.2 and 1.1.3.1 of SOW -Attachment C: Applicable Documents -Attachment G: Proposed Phase Inspection Requirements

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

CLINS

● CLIN 0010 – GBSLP – T&M

IAW Paragraph 1.1.6 of SOW -Attachment C: Applicable Documents TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0011 – Phase-Out Period Requirement

- FFP Per Event/Occurrence-60 Day Period IAW Paragraph 1.11 of SOW TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0012 – Other Direct Costs – T&M

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

CLINS

● CLIN 0013 – Over & Above – T&M Accomplished only when authorized by Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) TBD on Individual Delivery Order

● CLIN 0014 – Data (CDRLS) – FFP – Not Separately Priced

● CLIN 0016 - Site Survey - This is an error and will not be in final solicitation.

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Special Clause – Incentive Options

1 2 3 4 5 6B

1 2 3 4 5 6B

1 2 3 4 5 6B

•Exceptional performance in contract years 1-3 yields three incentive options

•Failure to earn incentive option in base through option 2 results in the loss of opportunity for final incentive option

•Failure to earn at least one option during any two consecutive evaluation periods will result in loss of opportunity for additional incentive options (must begin source selection)

1 2 3 4 5 6B

1 2 3 4 5 6B

1 2 3 4 5 6B

Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Incentive Option

Incentive Not Earned

Incentive Lost

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Special Clause – Base Support

• Base Support 5352.245-9004

- Government support:

storage space for contractor furnished material and space for contractor’s hand tools

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Clauses

• Representations and Certifications (Reps & Certs)

- Ensure all applicable reps/certs/ are completed

- Read Online Representations and Certifications Applications (ORCA) instructions carefully

• Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

- Need to be registered in CCR

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Source Selection

● Full-tradeoff source selection

● Air Force procedures

- In Accordance With (IAW) new Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3

- Air Force Acquisition Circular (AFAC) 2008-0128 dated 28 Jan 2008

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Source Selection

● Instructions to Offerors

- Make sure the instructions are followed for preparation of your proposals

- Pay attention to required page limits and number of hard copies/disk copies

- Proposal Organization IAW Table 2.2

Volume I – Executive Summary Volume II – Mission Capability Volume III – Proposal Risk Volume IV – Past Performance Volume V – Cost/Price Volume VI – Contract Documentation

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Source Selection

• Evaluation of Proposals

- Explains how proposals will be evaluated

- Explains past performance ratings

- Explains how technical evaluation is done and when a factor is met

HFGCS APS ACQUISITION

Closing

● Work in Progress

● Monitor FedBizOpps Postings for updates under FA8106-08-R-0001 not FA8102-07-R-0001

Source Selection Training

OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA CITY

AIR LOGISTICS CENTERAIR LOGISTICS CENTER

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

Gary Macri PKC Contracting Branch Chief

TOPICS

• SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

• EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Mission Capability

– Proposal Risk

– Past Performance

– Cost/Price

• AWARD DECISION

What is Source Selection

• Source Selection is the Proposal Evaluation Phase of an acquisition cycle

• Determination is made as to which offeror receives the Contract Award

• Objective is to select the proposal that represents the Best Value to the Government

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 superiority and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror, outweighs the cost difference

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities

– Mission

Capability

– Proposal Risk

– Past Performance

– Price

• 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 Team Main Members

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSET does not compare proposals against each other

SSET evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical and Past Performance ratings for each offeror

Total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

• Describes the Government’s requirement

• Solicits proposals from contractors to satisfy those requirements

• Includes Bid Schedule and Anticipated Terms and Conditions

• Instructions to Offerors (Section L)

– Information required to be in the proposal

• Evaluation Criteria for Award

Formal document issued by the GovernmentFormal document issued by the Government

Request for Proposal

(RFP)

RFP

Sections L and M

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor and Subfactor ratings 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 Mission Capability, Past Performance, Cost, etc Past Performance Package

FACTOR 1

MISSION CAPABILITY

FACTOR 2

PROPOSAL RISK

FACTOR 3

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4

COST / PRICE

SUBFACTOR 1

SUBFACTOR 2

SUBFACTOR 3

SUBFACTOR 4

Evaluation Criteria Factors and Subfactors

3 Levels of Importance

1. Relative importance of

Factors 1, 2, and 3

2. Importance of Factors

1, 2, and 3, when combined in relation to Factor 4

3. Importance of each subfactor

• 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

COST/

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

COMPLETE

REASONABLE

REALISM

Evaluation Factors and Ratings

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

PROPOSAL

RISK

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

UNACCEPTABLE

MISSION

CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

FACTOR 1

FACTOR 2

FACTOR 3

FACTOR 4

COST/

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

COMPLETE

REASONABLE

REALISM

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

PROPOSAL

RISK

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

UNACCEPTABLE

MISSION

CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

FACTOR 1

FACTOR 2

FACTOR 3

Technical Evaluation

Technical Evaluation

MISSION CAPABILITY AND PROPOSAL RISK

TWO RATINGS FOR EACH SUBFACTOR

PROPOSAL RISKMISSION CAPABILITY

Depicts how well the proposal meets the mission capability subfactors listed in Section M

Assesses the risks associated with a proposed approach as it relates to the subfactors

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

UNACCEPTABLE

Color Rating Definitions

YELLOW Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable

RED Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

GREEN Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths

BLUE Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Color Definition

• SSET documents evaluation results in terms of Strengths, Clarifications, Uncertainties, and Deficiencies

– Strength: a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process.

– Clarification: Meets minimum requirement. Additional information needed for minor clarification purposes, or for the purpose of determining a strength.

– Uncertainty: Doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement.

– Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Color Rating Documentation

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.

Proposal Risk Definition

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.

UNACCEPTABLE

The existence of a significant weakness (or combination of weaknesses) that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increase cost or severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Mission Capability Risk Definitions

HIGH

Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

• Includes potential for significant disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, or necessity for government oversight

• SSET documents proposal risk evaluation in terms of weaknesses

– Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• A Moderate or High risk rating for a subfactor must include one or more identified weaknesses within the subfactor

Proposal Risk Evaluation

Color and Proposal Risk Differences

PROPOSAL RISKMISSION CAPABILITY

Does the offeror’s proposal meet the requirements of Section M?

Based on the offeror’s proposed approach, what is the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance?

Strengths, Clarifications Uncertainties, Deficiencies

Weaknesses

B G Y R L M H U

COST/

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

COMPLETE

REASONABLE

REALISM

PROPOSAL

RISK

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

UNACCEPTABLE

MISSION

CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

FACTOR 1

FACTOR 2

FACTOR 4PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

FACTOR 3

Past Performance Evaluation

• 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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

NO

CONFIDENCE

Confidence Definitions

Rating Definition

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offer’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Recency

• Recency, as stated in the RFP

– Example: The contract shall have been performed during the past four 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.

PAST PERFORMANCEEXPERIENCE

Reflects how relevant the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

HIGHLY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

BLUE - EXCEPTIONAL

PURPLE – VERY GOOD

GREEN - SATISFACTORY

Past Performance Evaluation

YELLOW - MARGINAL

RED - UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

HR VG N/A

SUB 4

ES

SUB 3

CM

SUB 2

QY

SUB 1

PM

R VG R VG

SR VG

$100M (10 yr)

Government Program

F34601-99-C-9932 FFP/CR

R E HR S R S$340M

(8 yr)

Company A Excel Project Cost Plus

SR VG SR S$5.3M

(5yr)

Company B Order 58CP T & M

ALPHA, INC.

SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE

N/A

N/A

DOLLAR

AMOUNT

PROGRAM

CONTRACT #

ALPHA, INC

N/A$100M (10 yr)

Company C N/A (G) FFP with Incentive

$200M (9 yr)

Government Program

F09603-98-C-9950 CPFF N/A

ZETA CORP

HR E

R P

N/A

N/AS

R VG

SR S

PRIME

SUBCONTRACTOR

Past Performance Evaluation

• 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

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

PROPOSAL

RISK

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

LOW

MODERATE

HIGH

UNACCEPTABLE

MISSION

CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

FACTOR 1

FACTOR 2

FACTOR 3

COST/

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

COMPLETE

REASONABLE

REALISM

Cost / Price

• 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

• Realism

– Is the proposed price realistic for the work to be performed

– Does the proposed price reflect a clear understanding of the requirement

– Does the proposed price provide a sound approach to satisfy RFP requirements

– Is the proposed price consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal

– Are differences between the proposed price and the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) reasonably explained

Cost/Price Evaluation

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

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

SOURCE SELECTIONSOURCE SELECTION

AWARDAWARD

SSA Decision Briefing Debriefings

Offeror A $75.0M

Total Evaluated

Price Past Performance Confidence Level

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Mission Cap Subfactors Color & Proposal Risk

Ratings

1 2 3 4

B L

G L

G M

B L

Evaluation Summary

SSA’s Best Value Decision is based on comparison of all remaining offerors

Debriefings

• Conducted separately for each offeror that requests debrief

• Purpose

– Identify weaknesses in the offeror’s proposal so they can prepare better proposals in future government acquisitions

– Instill confidence in the offeror that their proposal was treated fairly and evaluated in accordance with the RFP

• A debriefing is not intended to be…

– A page-by-page analysis of the offeror’s proposal

– A point-by-point comparison of the proposals of the debriefed offeror and the successful offeror(s)

– A debate or defense of the government’s award decision or evaluation results

• 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

• Link to Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3, Source Selection Procedures

– http://farsite.hill.af.mil/archive/AFFARS/2005-

0209/MP5315.3.htm#P234_38575

Summary

TEAM TINKER