Industry_Day_Briefing.pdf

Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate

Small Rocket Program 4

(SRP-4)

Industry Day

RSLP Chief: Mr. Randy Riddle SRP-4 Team Lead: Ms. Angie Bradbury Contracting Officer: Ms. Cassandra Way

1 Mar 2016

All information in this brief is tentative and subject to change

Building the Future of Military Space

Presenter Presentation Notes First slide at the program level. Complete program template charts for each program.

LAUNCH ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE

Agenda

Tuesday, 1 Mar 2016 (Aerospace Conf Rm)

– 0830 – 1000 Industry Briefing

– 1000 – 1020 Break

– 1020 – 1120 Industry Briefing (cont’d)

– 1120 – 1200 Q&A Session

– 1200 – 1300 Lunch

– 1300 – 1700 Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

Wednesday, 2 Mar 2016 (Aerospace Conf Rm)

– 0800 – 1630 Continued One-on-One Sessions

Building the Future of Military Space

Notes From The Contracting Officer

• We are still in the pre-RFP stage of the acquisition; free and open communication is our goal, although communication will be somewhat structured today

• Information presented during Industry Day is subject to change

• Draft solicitation documents were posted and will be updated based on industry feedback

• Once the Final RFP is issued, communication will be strictly controlled by and through the Contracting Officer

• Most importantly, follow the instructions in the “FINAL” RFP

Questions

• Questions may be submitted as follows:

– During this brief using the forms provided

• These questions may be addressed today during an open Q&A session or may be deferred for later response

• During One-on-One Sessions

– Discussion notes for these sessions will be recorded

• Later questions must be submitted in writing

– Send to PCO via e-mail at any time prior to RFP release

Cassandra.Way@us.af.mil

• Responses to all questions will be posted to the FedBizOps web site

• Sources of questions will not be disclosed mailto:steven.armenta@kirtland.af.mil

Overview

• LE and LEX Mission & Organization

• RSLP Background/Overview

• SRP-4 Contract Specifics

• Performance-based Work Statement

– Mission Assurance

• RFP Structure

– Section L : Instructions to Offerors

– Section M: Evaluation Criteria

• Proposal Expectations

• Source Selection Process

Mission:

Guardian of assured access: Launching when and where the nation needs

Vision:

The most respected and innovative spacelift team, delivering mission success and enabling a robust US launch industry

Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate

Building the Future of Military Space 6

Organizational Structure Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate

Col Kent Nickle Deputy Director

(SMC/LE)

Dr. Claire Leon Director, Launch Enterprise

(SMC/LE)

Lt Col Kevin Hobbs Contracting

(SMC/LEK)

Mr. Scott Zingler Program Control

(SMC/LEP)

Col Douglas Pentecost EELV Systems

(SMC/LES)

Col Robert Bongiovi EELV Acquisition

(SMC/LEA)

Col Alvin Burse EELV Generation & Ops

(SMC/LEG)

Sr. Aerospace Leads Mr. Randolph Kendall

Dr. Mark Brosmer Dr. Jeffrey Emdee

VACANT – Selection Made Chief Executive Director

(SMC/LE)

Capt Steve Lanuzo Executive Officer

Ms. June Moore Administrative Assistant

Jamie Fernandez East Coast Operations

(SMC/LE)

“Functionals”

“Ops”“Acquisitions”

Mr. Randy Riddle Experimental Launch & Test

(SMC/LEX)

Mr. Edward Porr Management Operations

(SMC/LEO)

Col Jon Strizzi Engineering

(SMC/LEE)

Building the Future of Military Space

Presenter Presentation Notes The Experimental Launch and Test Division is one of 8 Divisions which compose the SMC Launch Systems Enterprise.

https://insidesmc.losangeles.af.mil/sites/LRSW/FunctionalsAndGroups/LRD/Organization%20Information/Burse_Bio.docx https://insidesmc.losangeles.af.mil/sites/LRSW/FunctionalsAndGroups/LRD/Organization%20Information/Burse_Bio.docx

SMC/LEX Organization Experimental Launch & Test Division

Division Chief, Program Manager Mr. Randy Riddle (Acting) Mr. Tom Freeman, Deputy ADK Contracting Branch

Mr. Jay Strub LEXP Program Control Lead

Ms. Lydia Duran

Logistics Branch Maj Andrew Reed

• Motor Storage

• Inventory

• Configuration Mgmt

• Sustainment

• Tech Orders

• Aging Surveillance

• Motor Processing

• Transportation & Handling

• Field Operations

• Motor Demil/Disposal

• Operating Location Hill AFB

Launch Operations Branch Mr Rob Douglass

• Mission Mgmt

• Range Rqmts

• Mission

Assurance

• Financial

Mgmt

• Payload

Integration

• Launch/Field

Ops

• Flight Readiness Rvws

• Information Assurance

Experimental Launch and Test Division

• Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) – A unique hybrid of space and missile cultures:

– Provide cost effective space launch and target flight test mission integration and support for national operational and R&D requirements on a cost-reimbursable basis

– Maintain active control and management of all Air Force deactivated ICBM missile assets

Provide small, responsive launch architecture and capabilities Challenge status quo of launch processes with flexibility and innovation

Rocket Systems Launch Program

• Predecessor Programs:

– Advanced Ballistic Re-entry Systems (ABRES)

– Advanced Strategic Missile Systems (ASMS)

– Re-Entry Systems Launch Program (RSLP)

• 1st Launch – Atlas 159D, Nike/Zeus Target 25 Oct 62

• Launches to Date: 706

10Building the Future of Military Space

RSLP Mission/Business Overview

Design Develop

Launch Campaign

Ship and Integrate

Launch Facility Storage Facility Transport Modes

Vehicle Synthesis

Booster Mod/Refurb Buyoff

XBM

Missions

Aging Surveillance

Storage Program

Destruction Source

Selection and TO

Competition

OO-ALC

SFWC

Cert

Launch Vehicle Single Manager Mission Director

LSMA Mission Assurance Services

Risk Mgmt

Lessons Learned

Fixed Mil/Civ PM, Eng, Financial Mgmt, and Contract Mgmt

Program SE A&AS Financial Mgmt A&AS

Program Management A&AS

Funded Program

Reimbursable Program

Aerospace Corp FFRDC

Follow-on Small to Medium

Spacelift

OSP-3

Multiple Award

IDIQ

Follow-on Small Rocket Program

SRP-4

Multiple Award

IDIQ

Legacy Small – Med Spacelift

OSP-1/2

Single Award

IDIQ

Legacy Sounding Rocket

SRP-1/2/3

Multiple Award

IDIQ

Mission Assurance, Systems Engineering, Program Management, and Financial Support Contracts

Excess ICBM EnablersSpace and Test/Target Launch Contracts

Motor Disposal Logistics

Aging Surveillance

400-4,000 lbs to LEO

4,000-20,000 lbs to LEO

Targets

Lane 2 Ordering Period Ends Dec 17 4,000-20,000 lbs to LEO – EELV contract

Storage

OSP=Orbital/Suborbital Program GFE=Government Furnished Equipment GSE=Ground Support Equipment

SRP-4 Extends Sounding Rocket Capability to Include Small Space Launch Procurement

Acquisition Program Overview

GSA 871

Rideshare

Service

GFE Motors, Ordnance, GSE

“Partial LV”

Sounding Rocket Program Launch Contracts History/Lessons Learned

2000 2005 2010 2020

Customer Funded

Reuse Excess Motors

Foster Competition

Ballistic Launch Service N

O W

Tailorable Mission

Assurance (Similar to OSP-3 )

SRP-1

OSP-1

SRP-2

OSP-2

RSS

SRP-3

P re vi ou s C ur re nt Fo llo w

-O n

Small Space Launch Service

Current

New

Fill 0-400 lb Capability Gap

(Not Covered by

OSP-3)

OSP-3

OSP-4

SRP-1 SRP-2 SRP-3

Contract Multiple Award IDIQ Multiple Award IDIQ Multiple Award IDIQ

Ceiling / Awarded $130M $191M / $168M $375M / $219M

Ordering Period 5 Years 7 Years 7 Years

Contract Type FFP CPIF, CPFF, FFP CPIF, CPFF, FFP

Contractors Orbital, Coleman, Space Vector, Lockheed Martin

Orbital, Coleman, Space Vector, Lockheed Martin

Orbital, Coleman, Space Vector, ATK

Lessons Learned CPIF required to meet new capability requirements

50% surge clause, launch campaign as separate CLIN

Multi-level mission assurance, Technical Performance Measures

Ordering Period

Ext

SRP-4

Rideshare

Presenter

Need to be able to narrate this chart

• Mission Assurance (MA) expectations creep (always “up”)

• MA in the “trade space”

– Cat 1, Cat 2; No Cat 3 on SRP-4

• Small payload missions

– P-PODs, single ESPA-Class

– Disaggregation

Mission Trends

SRP-4 Intent - Background

• Small launch support

– Suborbital missions – SRP Legacy

– Up to 400 lbs to LEO – Growth Area

• OSP-3 “Leave Behind”

– Tailorable Mission Assurance Support

• Full & Open Competition

– $489 includes 25% surge; ~15 launches anticipated

– Multiple Awards; 7-yr ordering period

– Award 2QFY17

• Incentives

– CPIF Overrun/Underrun Structure

– FPIF Ceiling

Rocket Systems Launch Program

Customer Missions

National Space Policy

SMC

Compliance

SRP-4

15Building the Future of Military Space

Presenter Presentation Notes RSS: (Responsive Space Service) 5 Yr Multiple awd IDIQ to Orbital and SpaceX (05-10)

OSP-2: 10 Yr Single Award IDIQ to Orbital Sciences Corp (2003) Provides orbital and suborbital launch services using excess ballistic missile assets – Minotaur family launch vehicles Expires 2013, however Minotaur IV already at ceiling

OSP-3: plan 8 Yr Multiple Award IDIQ …on track for 2QFY12 Provide small and medium launch services from multiple capable providers … foster competition Provide tailored mission assurance…match launch vehicle pedigree/IV&V to mission need Create opportunity for providers to grow into viable EELV competitors Reuse excess ballistic missiles when efficiencies allow, consistent with U.S. laws and policies

• Balance between sufficient government insight and efficiency

• RFP adequacy to support award without discussions

• Proposal Basis of Estimate (BoE)

• Technical Performance Measures

SRP-4 Challenges

Competition Strategy

• Initial award of up to six IDIQ contracts based on full and open competition

– One award to be set aside for a Small Business (SB)

– IDIQ contractors compete for task order (TO) awards to support customer requirements

• Potential to set aside TO awards for SB

– Emerging launch providers may be accommodated via on-ramps through the 7 year ordering period

• Targeted market research anticipated at 2 year and 4 year points

17Building the Future of Military Space

Contract Specifics

• “D” Type Task Order Contract

• Special Terms and Conditions

– CLIN Structure per TO

• CLIN 0001 – LV Design, Integration and Launch (CPIF)

• CLIN 0003 – LV Integration and Launch (FPIF)

• CLIN 0005 – Technical Analysis (existing Task Orders) (CPFF)

• CLIN 0007 – Concept Analysis/Hardware (CPFF)

• CLINs 0002, 0004, 0006, and 0008 – Data (not separately priced)

– Enabling Clause (SMC)

• Included to allow for interface between the contractor and SMC’s

FFRDC, Aerospace Corporation

– Associate Contractor Agreements (AFFARS IG 5317.9500) (Jun

2006)

• AFFARS IG 5317.9500 (Jun 2006)

• Included to require agreements between the mission assurance service provider and RSLP launch providers

• Launch Delay Clause

– Initial Launch Capability (ILC) established at TO award

• No later than ILC - 60 days: Government will establish launch date (LD)

• LD = ILC date, if no notice by ILC - 60

– AF may establish LD between ILC and ILC + 60 days

• AF can modify LD after ILC - 60 days: Negotiate costs

• Grace period (LD + 15 days): Non-chargeable to either party

• AF caused delays past 15 days: Equitable adjustment

• Contractor caused delays: No equitable adjustment

Contract Specifics

Performance-based Work Statement

• Requirements

– Requirements Verification Matrix

• Design

– PDR, CDR

– Technical Performance Measures

• Development

– Test Readiness Review

• Integration & Test

– Pedigree Review

– Pre-ship Review

• Mission Assurance Support

– Cat 1 – FAA License, Launch Service Provider internal MA, MA

Contractor SME

– Cat 2 – SMC/CC Certifies, MA Contractor performs IV&V, Launch Service

Provider supports MA Contractor

• Technical/Concept Analysis/Hardware

• Satisfies PWS Requirements; FAA Licensed Launch

– Government Insight

• Program Management Tasks

– Planning/Scheduling/Critical Path

– Risk Management

• System Engineering Tasks

– Requirements Allocation/Verification

– Developmental Test Plan/Execute

– Acceptance Test Plan/Execute

– Functional Test Plan/Execute

– Pathfinders/Fit Checks

– Major Review Prep/Closure

– Technical Performance Measures

• Mission Assurance Tasks

Cat 1 Mission Assurance Support

MA scope limited; all CDRLs submittal only (no approvals) 21Building the Future of Military Space

Presenter

The “SEPM” CLIN covers the standard scope of PM, SE, and MA work that we expect the contractor to execute that is not unique to a mission, i.e. the scope/look/cost of this effort should be consistent from one mission to the next. This CLIN covers all of the analytical work (e.g. requirements traceability, allocation, verification) and programmatic activity (e.g. system safety program, scheduling, financial reporting, test planning, risk management program, TPMs, hosting major reviews) that is required and same scope for every mission.

Mission Assurance Overview (Cat 2)

FRR, LRR &

Launch

Rqmts and Acquisition

System Design And Development

Hardware/ Software Integration/Test

Readiness Rvws & Launch Campaign

Mission Assurance Kickoff Review

- Program Overview/Risks

- MA Lessons Learned

- ER Review

- MA Scope/Planning

- Informs MM for CDR

Mission Assurance Midterm Review

- Program Update

- Risk Update

- IV&V Status

- MA Data/Progress Issues

- Informs MM for PSRR

MA Final Review

- Pgm Overview

- IV&V Results by Discipline

- Mission Risk Assessment

- Informs Gov MRR/FRR

MA Msn Lead Discipline Leads In-Plant & On-site Verification Team

Mission Phases/Milestones

Award

SRR

3 4 5

TRR

6 7

PDR CDR Pedigree PSRR

IRR

MRR

1 10

18-24 Months Nominal

On-Range Oversight Tech Lead Provides MRA MA Senior Advises LVSM

2 Categories of Mission IV&V Cat 1 is less than this Cat 2 is the norm Cat 3 is more than this

• Basic PWS + Cat 2 Scope = SMC Certification

– Cat 2 Program Management Tasks

• Monthly TPMs

– Cat 2 System Engineering Tasks

• Invoke Approval CDRLs

• Red Team Review of Major Review Entry Criteria

• Pedigree Review

– Cat 2 Mission Assurance Tasks

• MA Contractor Data Access and Procedural Oversight

• SMC IRRs (w/ pre-briefs)

• SMC MRR Support (w/ pre-briefs)

• SMC FRR Support (w/ pre-briefs)

• SMC IRRT Interface

• SMC PFR (w/ pre-briefs)

Cat 2 Mission Assurance Support

Cat 2 scope “typical” for SRP; approval CDRLs enabled 23Building the Future of Military Space

Presenter

The “SEPM” CLIN will include the cost of SOW enhancements in Appendix A if Cat 2 mission type is invoked in the MRD. This enhancement is design to cover the added scope of work the contractor will have to perform to support the SDL mission assurance process and SMC flightworthiness certification.

RFP Structure

• Model Contract

• PWS and CDRLs

• Section L

– Instructions on Proposals – Volumes, contents, page limits, due dates

– Appendix A: Sample WBS

– Appendix B: GFP List

– Appendix C: Past Performance Documents

– Appendix D: Rate Table

– Appendix E: Sample Mission MRDs

RFP Structure

• Section M – Evaluation Criteria

– Factor 1: Technical (Subfactors listed in order of importance)

• Subfactor 1: Mission Capability

• Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment

– Factor 2: Past Performance (A/U)

– Factor 3: Price/Cost

– Trade-off

• Technical > Price/Cost

• Past Performance = Acceptable/Unacceptable

In a well-structured RFP there should be an evident correlation between the proposal structure directed by L and the evaluation structure described by M.

Proposal Structure

• The CWBS and CWBS Dictionary are considered cornerstone documents for the proposals received.

These artifacts take the place of most information that is typically found in the main Technical Volume of a proposal by defining in a structured manner what the offeror intends to do to meet the PWS requirements.

Offerors are encouraged to pay attention to the correlation between the CWBS and:

– The Government’s PWS

– Offeror schedules

– Offeror BoEs

Building the Future of Military Space 27

SRP-4 Proposal Expectation

CWBS

• … correlation between the CWBS and:

– The Government’s PWS

– The offeror’s CWBS must demonstrate offeror’s knowledge of the effort required at least one level “deeper” than the PWS.

– Example: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5

• Acceptance Testing: Once the design has been qualified, acceptance testing may commence. The LSC shall not ship major hardware to the Range for field processing until acceptance testing has been successfully completed, test documentation has been verified and the as-built verification of all hardware and software has been completed.

Building the Future of Military Space 28

– The Government’s PWS

– Example continued: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5

– Correlation Matrix says:

• PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5=CWBS 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

• CWBS Dictionary:

– 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing: Once the design has been qualified, acceptance testing may commence. The LSC shall not ship major hardware to the Range for field processing until acceptance testing has been successfully completed, test documentation has been verified and the as-built verification of all hardware and software has been completed.

Building the Future of Military Space 29

– The Government’s PWS

– Example continued: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5

– Correlation Matrix says:

• PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5=CWBS 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

• CWBS Dictionary:

– 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing » 2.4.2.1 Confirm Test/Flight Article Configuration: [Definition] » 2.4.2.2 Confirm Test/Flight Article Environments: [Definition] » 2.4.2.3 Draft Acceptance Test Plan: [Definition] » 2.4.2.4 Acceptance Test Plan Review/Approval: [Definition] » 2.4.2.5 Procure Test House Services: [Definition] » 2.4.2.6 Ship Hardware to Test House: [Definition] » 2.4.2.7 Receive Hardware and Test Data Post-Test:[Definition] » 2.4.2.8 Complete/Deliver Test Report [Definition] » 2.4.2.9 Update Pedigree Data [Definition]

Building the Future of Military Space 30

– Offeror schedules

• 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

Building the Future of Military Space 31

SRP-4 Proposal Expectation

CWBS

CWBS Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

– Offeror schedules

Building the Future of Military Space 32

SRP-4 Proposal Expectation

CWBS

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2.4.2.1 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.3 2.4.2.4 2.4.2.5 2.4.2.6 2.4.2.7 2.4.2.8 2.4.2.9

– Offeror BoE

– A full BoE includes:

• 1) Offeror’s estimated hours for the effort

• 2) Some detail on allocation of hours by skill mix

• 3) The basis of the estimated hours, such as:

– 3a) A source estimate

– 3b) Analytical comparison of source effort to proposed effort

– 3c) Derivation of estimate for proposed effort

– Example: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

• “Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate for this rocket is 872 hours based on this experience base. Half of the effort is performed by an Engineer 2 and the other half is performed by an Engineer 5.”

Building the Future of Military Space 33

– Offeror BoE

– Example continued: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

• 2.4.2.1 Confirm Test/Flight Article Configuration

– “Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate to confirm flight article configuration is 8 hours per component, multiplied by our estimated 42 components for this rocket. 25% of the effort is performed by an Engineer 2 to compile the design data and hardware build record, and 75% is performed by an Engineer 5 to develop the comparison.”

• 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 Confirm Test/Flight Article Environments

– “Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate to confirm flight article environments is 16 hours per component, multiplied by our estimated 42 components for this rocket. 27% of the effort is performed by an Engineer 3 to evaluate the environments analysis and 73% is performed by an Engineer 5 to compare the analysis to the test plan.”

• 2.4.2.3 etc….

Building the Future of Military Space 34

– Offeror BoE

– Example continued: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

• “Carol’s Rocket Company conducted 34 acceptance tests for the Medium Air Launched Target, a rocket with similar design requirements to the proposed launch vehicle design. The acceptance testing for MALT required a total of 800 hours. Since the proposed system has a more complex attitude control requirement than MALT, we estimate approximately 10% more acceptance tests will be required, for a total of 880 hours proposed.

For MALT, these hours were approximately equally distributed between Engineer 2, Engineer 3, and Engineer 5, so we have applied a similar allocation to the proposed effort.

Building the Future of Military Space 35

• Bottom Line: The government expects the offeror’s CWBS Dictionary to define what (tasks) they’ll be doing to meet the PWS requirements; for the mission schedules to demonstrate appropriate sequencing, iterations, and durations when those tasks will be performed; and for the BoE to provide an experience-based estimate of how much and what kind of resources those tasks require.

Building the Future of Military Space 36

• Result: The offeror who meets these expectations will be evaluated as fully knowledgeable of the effort required to meet the PWS requirements to meet the mission schedule with realistic cost estimates.

Building the Future of Military Space 37

Source Selection

• DoD Source Selection Procedure

• AFFAR Supplement Mandatory Procedure 5315

• Full Trade-Off Competition

– Allows for selection other than lowest price or highest technical rating

Evaluation Ratings

• Factor 1: Technical

– Subfactor 1: Mission Capability

– Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price/Cost

Evaluation Ratings

• Factor 1: Technical (Both Subfactors) 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.

Evaluation Ratings

• Factor 1: Technical (Both Subfactors)

Evaluation Ratings

• Factor 2: Past Performance

Evaluation Ratings

• Factor 3: Price/Cost

– Total Evaluated Price = Sum of 2 Sample Missions

– Reasonableness

• Typically established through Price Competition = Multiple competitive offers received which satisfy the government’s requirement

– Realism

• Does the price proposed reflect the offeror’s proposed technical approach?

Technical Factor Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation – Technical Factors

Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment

Assessment (Criterion)

Technical Assessment

1. Strength

2. Meets

3. Does Not Clearly Meet

4. Deficiency

Risk Assessment

1. No Weakness

2. Weakness

3. Significant Weakness

Impact on Performance

Evaluation – Technical Subfactors

Deficiency (Criterion)

Does Not Clearly Meet (Criterion)

Strength (Criterion)

Meets (Criterion)

Unacceptable (Subfactor)

Does Not Clearly Meet (Criterion)

Meets (Criterion)

Meets (Criterion)

Evaluation – Technical Subfactors

Significant Weakness (Criterion)

No Weakness (Criterion)

No Weakness (Criterion)

Weakness (Criterion)

No Weakness (Criterion)

Weakness (Criterion)

No Weakness (Criterion)

High Risk (Subfactor)

Weakness (Criterion)

Weakness (Criterion)

Air Force Source Selection Process Proposal Evaluation

Release Clarification & Communication

ENs

Competitive Range

Notification

Evaluate Clarification & Communication

Responses Revise Evaluations

Prepare Initial Evaluation Results

& Competitive Range

Initial Evaluation Conduct Evaluations(Identify Strengths/Deficiencies/ Weaknesses); Consolidate Evaluations:

Prepare Evaluation Notices

Conduct Discussions Provide Offeror Initial Ratings , Release All Other ENs & Discuss Model Contract Issues

MIRT/

CDP4

Receive & Evaluate EN Responses

Continue Discussions As Necessary To Resolve

Issues & Model Contract

Revise Initial Evaluation & Revise Model

Contract

Prepare Pre-FPR Evaluation Results

Legal Review & FPR Business

Clearance

Provide Offeror FPR Ratings & Request FPR

Receive /Review FPR Revise Evaluation

Draft PAR

Prepare Final Evaluation

Briefing

MIRT/

CDP5

MIRT/

CDP3

Award W/O Discussion

No

SSA Approval To Release FPR

Pre-Final Official Source Selection Documentation Including PAR, Comp Analysis and

SSDD

Legal Review & Final

Contract Clearance

SSA

Decision

Brief

SSA

Initial

Evaluation Comp Range

Brief (ENs)

Color codes

SSA

SSEB

MIRT

Yes

Debriefs

• Per the FAR, each offeror must be provided the opportunity for a debriefing:

– Unsuccessful Offerors:

• Will be offered a debrief after Award, which will identify:

– The unsuccessful offeror’s evaluation (Assessments and Ratings)

– The successful offeror’s Ratings

• If not in the Competitive Range:

– Can request an immediate debrief of Competitive Range Determination instead

– Successful Offerors:

• Will be offered a debrief after Award, which will identify:

– The successful offeror’s evaluation (Assessments and Ratings)

Evaluation Notices

• Evaluation Notices (ENs) are the government’s communication to the offeror to identify proposal:

– Deficiencies and Significant Weaknesses (required)

– Does Not Clearly Meet and Weaknesses (optional)

– “New” adverse PPI

• 3 Flavors of ENs:

– Clarification ENs – Used for limited exchange of information prior to

Award without Discussions. May not change proposal.

– Communication ENs – Used for limited exchange of information prior to establishing the Competitive Range. May not change proposal.

– Discussion ENs – Used for full exchange with all offerors, during Discussions

• Offeror may change proposal

• “There’s a problem with your proposal, please change something.”

Questions ??