MDA 5013.06 - Source Selection Procedures.pdf

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

MDA INSTRUCTION 5013.06

June 5, 2023

Office of Primary Responsibility: Directorate for Acquisition (DA)

MDA 5013.06-INS, June 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURPOSE

APPLICABILITY

POLICY

RESPONSIBILITIES

Director for Acquisition (DA) Director for Contracting (CT) Source Selection Team (SST) Source Selection Authority (SSA) Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chair

SSAC

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chair SSEB Members Contract Specialist (CS) Government Advisors Nongovernment Advisors (NGA) General Counsel (GC)

PROCEDURES

Pre-solicitation Activities Evaluation Activities Discussions Documentation of Final Evaluation Results Protection of Source Selection Information Source Selection Support

EFFECTIVE DATE

ENCLOSURE 1, REFERENCES

ENCLOSURE 2, MDA SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

ENCLOSURE 3, GLOSSARY

PART I. ACRONYMS

PART II. DEFINITIONS

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

5700 18th STREET

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-5573

DA 5013.06-INS

SUBJECT: Source Selection Procedures

References: Enclosure 1

1. PURPOSE. This instruction:

a. Supersedes Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Manual 5013.06-M, “Source Selection Procedures,” dated August 20, 2019 [Reference (a)].

b. Provides policy, responsibilities, and procedures for conducting MDA source selections.

MDA specific guidance complements existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (SSP) [Reference (b)]. The DoD SSP provides source selection practices for DoD procurements conducted under FAR Part 15 [Reference (c)], and DFARS Part 215 [Reference (d)].

c. Supports MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)] by aligning processes and documentation of the source selection activity with MDA policies, programs, and investment decisions.

2. APPLICABILITY. This instruction applies to all competitive acquisitions executed by MDA under FAR Part 15 [Reference (c)].

3. POLICY. It is MDA policy that:

a. MDA source selections under FAR Part 15 [Reference (c)] with an estimated value greater than $10 million in accordance with (IAW) the DoD SSP [Reference (b)] will follow the policies and procedures established in this instruction, with the exception of guidance identified as “best practices,” which are highly recommended.

b. As required by the DoD SSP [Reference (b)], waivers to the requirements of the document required by section 1.2 of the procedures require Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) approval for acquisitions valued at $1 billion or more. For acquisitions lower than $1 billion, the MDA Director or delegate, per MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)], is the approval authority for items listed in section 1.2 of the DoD SSP [Reference (b)].

4. RESPONSIBILITIES.

a. The Director for Acquisition (DA) will approve the overall source selection policy.

b. The Director for Contracting (CT) will be the approving official for waivers related to this instruction.

c. The Source Selection Team (SST) will be comprised of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) members (if applicable), Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) members, and other key personnel (as required), which will be designated as early as possible after Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)/Acquisition Strategy Board (ASB) approval. See MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)] for SSA appointment levels.

d. The Source Selection Authority (SSA), in addition to the SSA responsibilities identified in the DoD SSP [Reference (b)], will:

(1) Complete and sign a Source Selection Information Briefing Certificate (SSIBC) or Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) as well as financial disclosure documentation [i.e., Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 450 or Standard Form (SF) 278] as appropriate.

(2) Identify the SSEB chairperson IAW the DoD SSP [Reference (b)] within 30 days of the ASP/ASB approval to ensure the SSEB Chair and SSEB members are involved in the development of solicitation evaluation criteria and relative order of importance of factors and subfactors.

(3) Approve, in writing, the SSEB chairperson’s recommendation of SSEB members.

Initial membership, and any subsequent changes to membership, will be captured in the Source Selection Plan (SSP). The SSA may delegate approval of changes in SSEB membership to the SSEB Chair.

(4) When an SSAC is to be established, identify the SSAC chairperson within 30 days of the ASP/ASB approval to ensure stakeholder/functional representation and SSEB oversight in development of solicitation and execution of the evaluation process [DoD SSP, Reference (b)].

(5) When an SSAC is to be established, approve in writing the SSAC chairperson’s recommendation of SSAC members. Membership of the SSAC may include stakeholders in addition to requisite functional expertise. Initial membership, and any subsequent changes to membership, will be captured in the SSP. The SSA may delegate approval of changes in membership of the SSAC to the SSAC Chair.

(6) Approve the SSP prior to the issuance of the final Request for Proposal (RFP) IAW MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)].

(7) Approve release of both the draft and final RFP IAW MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)].

(8) Approve the Procuring Contracting Officer’s (PCO’s) competitive range recommendation or recommendation to award without discussions based on the ratings and narrative comments for each proposal against all evaluation criteria IAW FAR 15.306 [Reference (h)].

(9) Approve, in writing, PCO release of the final proposal revision (FPR) request IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)].

(10) Approve release of responses to enhanced post-award debriefing questions.

e. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), in addition to the PCO responsibilities identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], will:

(1) Review the content of NDAs or SSIBCs for all SST members and advisors, seek the advice of General Counsel (GC) if there are potential conflicts, consult the SSA as required, and sign NDAs when appropriate to authorize access. SSIBCs are permitted for MDA executive leaders/select staff and will be retained by Contract Source Selection Directorate (CTS). CTS can be contacted via email to the “SourceSelectionDirectorate” in the Global address book. All others must complete an acquisition-specific NDA when they are assigned to the SST. The PCO will retain the NDAs and/or SSIBCs in the source selection file. The NDA template [Reference (r)] is available on the DA acquisition library.

(2) Schedule a consultation with CTS within 30 days of the ASP/ASB approval.

Consultation shall include Acquisition Team (AT) and stakeholder/functional representation as appropriate. Topics during consultation should include, but are not limited to establish the Information Protection Plans (IPP), criteria development, lessons learned, SST structure, and training needs. The PCO should make CTS aware of significant issues and involve CTS in deliberations, as appropriate. The PCO will grant CTS unfettered access to all source selection files (following procedures specified in the source selection plan addressing nondisclosure, conflict of interest, etc.).

(3) In coordination with the SSEB chairperson, ensure all SSEB members receive source selection training, including applicable Federal, DoD, and MDA-specific source selection guidance.

(a) Schedule the following MANDATORY source selection training, through CTS early in the acquisition strategy/RFP/source selection development process:

1. Introduction to Source Selection (includes Source Selection Policy, Roles and Responsibilities, Process and Key Events, Pre-solicitation Activities, Evaluation Activities and Decision and Award Activities).

2. Procurement-Specific Source Selection (PS3) Training (includes tailored to RFP & SSP (e.g., sections L and M), Source Selection Ethics, Information Security, Source Selection Tool, Source Selection Facilities, and Trends and Lessons Learned).

(b) Schedule the following OPTIONAL source selection training, through CTS early in the acquisition strategy/RFP/source selection development process:

1. MDA Executive/Senior Leader Source Selection training – tailorable executive-level training for MDA leadership as requested.

2. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Interactive Source Selection Training (SS Simulation). Schedule through the DA Total Force Management Office (DAO) early in the acquisition strategy/RFP/source selection development process. DAU interactive training requires pre-coordination and is subject to DAU resource limitations, so early coordination is essential.

(4) Ensure sections L and M attachments to the SSP are identical to the RFP sections L and M and the attachments are updated any time the RFP sections L and M are amended.

(5) Review the solicitation to ensure it is written in a clear, unbiased, and complete manner IAW the DoD SSP [Reference (b)].

(6) Guide industry days, pre-solicitation, and pre-proposal conferences, when required, IAW the DoD SSP [Reference (b)].

(7) Ensure the source selection is conducted IAW the SSP, RFP, DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], and MDA Instruction 5013.78-INS [Reference (f)].

(8) In coordination with the SSEB Chair, develop and deliver a proposal quick look. A quick look template [DA-06-T3, Reference (i)] is available on the Source Selection Portal.

(9) With input from the past performance team (if applicable), determine responsibility of offerors IAW FAR and DFARS [Reference (j)] prior to award.

(10) Ensure the Policy and Compliance Directorate (CTP) and GC reviews of applicable documents are completed IAW MDA Manual 5013.58-M [Reference (k)] and procedures at paragraph 5.

(11) Attend consensus meetings that determine the final ratings.

(12) Ensure safeguards are established to prevent disclosure of past performance information to nongovernment personnel (if applicable) IAW with Reference (l).

(13) Lead the contract award announcement process and coordinate with the appropriate Program Management Office (PMO) and MDA staff offices IAW FAR 5.303 [Reference (m)] and MDA Manual 5013.08-M [Reference (n)].

(14) In coordination with the SSEB chairperson, ensure the responses to enhanced post-award debriefing questions are reviewed by CTS, Associate General Counsel (GCA), and the SSAC chairperson (when applicable), before being sent to the SSA for approval to release.

(15) In coordination with the SSEB chairperson, collect source selection lessons learned and provide a consolidated report to CTS within 30 days of completion of post-award debriefings.

f. The Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chair, in addition to the SSAC Chair responsibilities identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], will:

(1) Complete and sign an SSIBC or NDA as well as financial disclosure documentation (i.e., OGE 450 or SF 278) as appropriate.

(2) Sign the SSP.

(3) Provide to the SSEB Chair the comparative analysis and recommendation for incorporation into the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) and sign the PAR prior to submitting it to the SSA.

(4) Review the draft Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) IAW DA-06-T18 [Reference (o)].

g. The Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), in addition to the SSAC responsibilities identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], will complete and sign an SSIBC or NDA as well as financial disclosure documentation (i.e., OGE 450 or SF 278) as appropriate.

h. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chair, in addition to the SSEB Chair responsibilities identified in the DoD SSP [Reference (b)], will:

(2) Be responsible for the conduct of the complete, fair, and impartial evaluation of each proposal against the evaluation criteria and consider this duty as their primary responsibility through contract award and the contractor debrief and/or protest period (as required).

(3) Review the solicitation to ensure it is written in a clear, unbiased, and complete manner.

(4) Facilitate preparation of the SSP in coordination with the PCO, program office, functional organizations, CTS and GC as required, to ensure timely review and approval by the SSA in advance of release of the solicitation.

(5) In coordination with the PCO, program office, functional organizations, CTS and GC, finalize the factors/subfactors and relative order of importance for SSA approval.

(6) In coordination with the program office, appoint to the SSEB a Source Selection Data Manager from the program office with the responsibility to manage source selection data through use of approved MDA sites and software (e.g., SharePoint). This includes uploading and managing all solicitation, proposal, and evaluation materials (e.g., data, files, and folders) on portal sites or isolated networks (as appropriate), protecting the information via Information Rights Management (IRM) or other means, ensuring individual accessibility to the sites/documents, and performing other duties as assigned. The Source Selection Data Manager will work with the SSEB Chair, PCO, and Contract Specialist (CS) to ensure formal documentation is properly organized, filed, maintained, and protected during the evaluation and later prepared and delivered to the PCO and CS for incorporation into the official contract file.

(7) In coordination with the program office, ensure the AT or Project Team Lead assigned to the acquisition prior to solicitation release is appointed to the SSEB to ensure their continued involvement and support throughout the source selection process.

(8) Ensure the evaluation process properly executes the SSP and the solicitation criteria are consistently applied.

(9) Support the PCO in development, coordination, and delivery of a proposal quick look to the SSA.

(10) Brief the SSAC (when applicable) and SSA on findings of the evaluation team and document the results in the PAR.

(11) When there is no SSAC or when specifically requested by the SSA, the SSEB Chair will assist in the preparation of the comparative analysis of proposals and/or make source selection recommendations IAW DoD SSP [Reference (b)].

(12) In coordination with the PCO, CTS, and GCA, prepare the SSDD for SSA signature, per instructions from the SSA.

(13) In coordination with the PCO, ensure the responses to enhanced post-award debriefing questions are reviewed by CTS, GCA, and SSAC chairperson (when applicable).

Courtesy copy to CT and CT Deputy when routing the responses to the SSA for approval to release.

(14) Support the PCO in collecting source selection lessons learned and providing a consolidated report to CTS within 30 days of completion of post-award debriefings.

i. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Members, in addition to the SSEB responsibilities identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], will:

(2) Assist with the development of the factors and subfactors for evaluation and relative order of importance.

(3) Assist the cost evaluation team in cost realism analysis as requested.

(4) Assist the past performance evaluation team as necessary during the source selection process. Note: Nongovernment (contractor) personnel are strictly prohibited from this information IAW FAR 42.1503 [Reference (p)].

(5) Perform other duties as assigned by the SSEB Chair and consider this duty as their primary responsibility through contract award and the contractor debrief and/or protest period (as required).

j. The Contract Specialist (CS) will:

(1) Assist the PCO in Industry Day/Pre-Solicitation/Pre-Proposal Conferences preparation and execution. Draft the MDA responses to issues identified by industry participants.

(2) Assist the PCO in building the solicitation and ensuring it is written in a clear, unbiased, and complete manner. Ensure all RFP attachments are current, complete, and included in the RFP. Ensure special provisions/clauses are included in the RFP.

(3) Attend the RFP review board and be responsible for providing responses to all RFP issues.

(4) Support and be involved in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Peer Reviews IAW DFARS 201.170 [Reference (q)].

(5) Provide assistance to the SSEB Chair and PCO as requested (e.g., Consensus meetings).

(6) In coordination with the SSEB Chair and the PCO, begin building the initial evaluation and final decision charts and Proposal Analysis Report as early in the source selection process as possible.

(7) Attend and participate in all Senior Leadership reviews and briefings to SSAC/SSA as directed by the PCO.

(8) Manage tracking of all Evaluation Notices (ENs) to ensure all ENs are closed.

(9) Assist in the development of contract award documentation.

(10) Attend all debriefings and ensure all offeror questions are captured and Government responses are properly coordinated and provided to the PCO for release in a timely manner.

k. Government Advisors will:

(1) Include select MDA functional staff [DA, CT, CT Deputy, CTS, GC, GCA, and

Pricing (CTZ)] who are considered mandatory advisors and part of every source selection team by virtue of their position unless there is an identified conflict of interest.

(2) Include CTS as the primary office for source selection advisory, training and facilities/information technology support. CTS provides advice, best practices, lessons learned, training, and conducts both mandatory and recommended reviews of source selection documentation. CTS representatives are considered mandatory advisors for all source selections.

(3) Use an interactive approach to ensure CTS representatives are involved early, often, and throughout the source selection process. CTS should be involved with significant issues and deliberations, as appropriate, with unfettered access to all source selection files.

(4) Submit NDAs to the cognizant PCO or SSIBCs to CTS who will maintain SSIBCs on MDA executive leaders and select staff and will provide access to PCO on an as-needed basis.

(5) Include CTP Procurement Analysts who will also provide policy review during all phases of the procurement, in coordination with CTS.

(6) Include other Government advisors as necessary, depending on the unique requirements of each procurement.

l. Nongovernment Advisors (NGA) will, in addition to the guidance identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)]:

(1) Provide company information of nongovernment advisors for use in Section L of the RFP. Offerors will be given an opportunity to object to the release of its proposal information to nongovernment advisors and will be required to provide justification. The PCO will assess the facts and determine the appropriate course of action. This must be documented in the contract file.

(2) Adhere to the use of nongovernment personnel in MDA acquisitions IAW Reference (l). Nongovernment personnel will not rate or rank proposals, nor act as voting members of SSEBs or SSACs. Nongovernment personnel may provide input on the content of offerors’ proposals in the areas of technical, management, cost, or schedule factors and may also provide advice regarding strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and risks.

(3) Provide, as needed, their technical findings and conclusions to the Government employees performing evaluations and rating offeror proposals. Nongovernment personnel will read, sign, and submit an NDA to the PCO or an SSIBC to CTS. Unless the nongovernment personnel meet the requirements specified in Reference (1) and have signed an NDA/SSIBC [per DA-06-F1, Reference (r)], they must not be provided access to offerors’ proprietary data. See also FAR 9.505-4(b) [Reference (g)].

m. General Counsel (GC), in addition to the legal counsel responsibilities identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)], will provide ethics training as necessary, and, if the PCO’s review of each SST member’s SSIBC or NDA indicates an actual or potential conflict of interest, legal counsel will provide advice to the PCO upon request.

5. PROCEDURES.

a. Pre-solicitation Activities. In addition to the guidance and procedures identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)] for pre-solicitation activities, the following MDA guidance applies:

(1) ATs that contemplate potential courses of action including competition will engage CTS as early as possible, starting with consultation and review of Pre-ASP slides. CTS can assist the AT with identification of source selection methodologies, including establishment of potential evaluation criteria. CTS will assign representatives to support the AT and SST throughout the procurement process, providing advice, training, and independent reviews of source selection related documentation. Within 30 days of the approval of a competitive strategy at the ASP/ASB, the PCO will engage with CTS to schedule all required source selection training and source selection plan support requirements for the duration of the source selection.

Sample templates are located on the DA Acquisition library and source selection portal [Reference (s)]. While not mandatory, templates are provided as a starting point to assist source selection teams in formulating source selection documentation and should be tailored to each acquisition, as appropriate. Enclosure 2 provides a graphic representation of the MDA Source Selection Process.

(2) Source Selection Plan (SSP). An SSP template [Reference (t)] is available on the DA Acquisition library and Source Selection Portal [Reference (s)].

(a) Sections L and M of the RFP should be developed within the SSP as early as possible. It is a best practice to develop Section M first and develop Section L to align with Section M. Ideally, Sections L and M are nearly identical in what is being asked for (Section L), and what is being evaluated (Section M). Development of Section M evaluation criteria factors and subfactors begins with identification of key requirements and program risks through market research, industry exchanges, risk analysis, and the ASP/ASB process. Section M factors and subfactors should be limited to essential elements that will enable discernment among the proposals (i.e. discriminators). Careful attention should be paid to avoid evaluating contractor approaches to significant portions or all requirements in the statement of work (SOW), specification, or performance work statements. Limiting the evaluation to key areas of importance and program risk streamlines evaluations and reduces evaluation complexity and risk.

(b) In drafting the initial SSP, identify and explain any requested delegations such as allowing the SSAC Chair or SSEB Chair to approve subsequent personnel changes at the SSAC or SSEB level (as appropriate) in the SSP.

(c) Document any change to the SSP, Section L or M of the RFP, or source selection team membership (including advisors) in an amendment to the SSP. Amendments to the SSP will be signed by the SSA. When delegated, the SSAC or SSEB Chairs can sign the amendment (e.g., membership changes).

(d) If the SSP will deviate from procedures established in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures [Reference (b)] or this instruction, the PCOs will submit a waiver request with detailed rationale to CTP for review prior to staffing to the applicable approving authority.

(3) Industry Days/Pre-Solicitation and Pre-Proposal Conferences. Industry day events with interested offerors and other industry partners are highly encouraged. A general best practice is to conduct at least one industry day event after the issuance of a draft RFP and before issuance of the RFP. The appropriate number of industry day events or the need for a pre-solicitation/pre-proposal conference after RFP release is dependent on the complexity of the Government’s requirement and the timetable for contract award. Any documentation to be released to the general public, including industry day materials, draft RFPs, and RFPs, must be cleared for public release IAW MDA Directive 5400.03 [Reference (u)].

(4) Utilization of draft RFPs. With the exception of commercial buys, at least one draft RFP should be issued to seek input from industry and resolve issues that may impact or limit responses to the RFP.

(a) Prior to issuing the draft RFP to industry, the PCO will determine the specific content in concert with the responsible MDA project or program manager/director and program executive. See MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)] for approval authorities for release of draft RFPs.

(b) Unclassified draft RFPs, when utilized, will be announced via the Government Point of Entry website (https://sam.gov/) and made available to potential offerors via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) solicitation module website (https://piee.eb.mil/). PCOs may incrementally post portions of a draft RFP or the complete draft RFP on the PIEE website, depending on availability of products and schedule considerations.

For solicitations including classified content, instructions will be provided on the website for how offerors can separately request classified information. PCOs should encourage constructive feedback from industry (e.g., how the Government might better define its requirements or input on contractual terms and conditions).

(c) CTS and GCA will conduct a review of the draft RFP (including SOW and Sections L and M) before release.

(5) Questions and Answers (Q&As). For activities including, but not limited to: industry days, draft RFPs, RFPs, and pre-proposal conferences, PCOs must document all questions or comments received from industry and the final answers or responses provided to industry. When applicable, the PCO may combine like questions or comments into a single issue and response.

All questions and responses relevant to all offerors will be announced on SAM.gov and made available on PIEE, unless classified. Offerors should be informed that in any conflict between the RFP and Q&As, the RFP prevails.

(6) Source Selection Documentation Development.

(a) MDA generally evaluates offeror proposals on the basis of a minimum of three factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price. Other technical factors may also be included, such as management, small business, security, etc. Subfactors under the factors should be tailored to address the specifics of the particular acquisition.

(b) Fewer subfactors place more emphasis on discriminators in the best value decision. A best practice is to limit subfactors ideally to three and no more than five for each technical (e.g., technical or management) factor. It is also a best practice to limit the number of Government “will evaluate” statements to five to ten statements per subfactor and avoid compound “will evaluate” statements.

(c) Depending on the unique circumstances of each acquisition, past performance may or may not be assessed as an evaluation factor. For source selections requiring a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, the SST will use the four relevancy ratings and performance confidence assessment ratings identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)]. For those source selections requiring less discrimination in the past performance evaluation, ratings of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” provided in Appendix C, Table C-2, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures [Reference (b)] for Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selections may also be used for tradeoff source selections. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii) [Reference (w)], past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.

(d) Determination of the past performance evaluation methodology should be made only after careful consideration of the requirements and market research. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.

Market research may indicate a large number of potential offerors with widely varying past performance, increasing the discriminant value of past performance, leading to performance confidence assessment rating or conversely a small pool of offerors with well-established past performance records of limited discriminant value, indicating the acceptable/unacceptable ratings approach or no assessment of past performance may be appropriate.

(e) The MDA source selection portal [Reference (s)] provides past performance templates [References (x), (y), and (z)]. Tailor these templates to the unique aspects of each acquisition. When using past performance questionnaires for the past performance evaluation, questionnaires should be constructed to elicit responses that address the technical factors or subfactors of the solicitation and cost/price.

(f) Prior to RFP release, CTS and GCA will review the RFP. In addition, the CTP Procurement Analyst will conduct contract compliance review of acquisition files, in coordination with CTS, consistent with requirements outlined in MDA Manual 5013.58-M [Reference (k)] prior to RFP release.

(7) Peer Reviews. DFARS PGI 201.170-4 [Reference (q)] specifies required documentation for pre-award peer reviews, including prior to issuance of the solicitation/RFP, when applicable. Also, see MDA Manual 5013.65-M [Reference (v)] for additional guidance and a list of documents may also be requested by the peer review team.

(8) RFP Release.

(a) The PCO shall not release the draft or final RFP without prior coordination with the SSA or other approval authority. The coordination and approval will be in writing IAW with MDA Directive 5013.01 [Reference (e)].

(b) It is a best practice for the PCO to post a notice in the MDA Communications Roundtable concurrent with issuance of the RFP announcing: (1) the name of the program, (2) the PCO name and contact information, (3) that the PCO is the single point of contact for solicitation-related inquiries by industry, (4) that the PCO is the person who controls all contact or exchanges with industry/offerors and is the only person authorized to release source selection information before and after contract award.

(c) Immediately after release of the RFP, the PCO will work with CTS to schedule the training in advance of the receipt of proposals (approximately 3 weeks). Consistent with the requirements in the DoD SSP [Reference (b)], the SST will receive the necessary training to execute the source selection (for MDA, this PS3 includes Source Selection Ethics, Information Security, Source Selection Tool, and Source Selection Facility training to prepare for the source selection) [see paragraph 4.e.(3)(a)2.].

b. Evaluation Activities.

(1) Upon receipt of proposals, the PCO will conduct a review to ensure proposals comply with the solicitation, such as page restrictions and required supporting documentation (e.g., representations and certifications, organization conflict of interest requirements, and small business subcontracting plan, or others, as required).

(2) The PCO, in conjunction with the SSEB Chair, will provide the SSA with “quick look” information as soon as possible after the compliance review is completed. A quick look identifies the proposals received and includes: (1) a list of offerors (primes and major/critical subcontractors), (2) a summary of any missing proposal documentation, (3) any page count issues, (4) any exceptions taken to any RFP requirements, and (5) other obvious issues of initial concern that could impact the source selection. The Quick Look Briefing template [DA-06-T3, Reference (i)] is available on the Source Selection Portal [Reference (s)]. The quick look information should be reviewed in advance by CTS for quality and completeness. The quick look information can be delivered as a briefing or provided virtually (e.g., SharePoint or e-mail) to the SSA, with distribution also including the SSAC Chair (when applicable), CT, PCO, SSEB Chair, GCA, and CTS.

(3) The SSEB will conduct independent evaluations of proposals against the solicitation and produce evaluation comments, ENs, and color/adjectival ratings in an SSEB report.

Comments/ratings and EN templates [Reference (aa)] are available on the Source Selection Portal [Reference (s)]. CTS and GCA will review the initial evaluation documentation results (comments, ENs, ratings) after the initial evaluation of the first offeror is complete and provide feedback to the team. CTS will also review comments, ENs, and ratings again after all offerors are complete.

(4) Upon completion of the initial evaluation of all proposals, the SSEB Chair will consolidate the evaluation results into the SSEB report, thus documenting the initial ratings and findings. After this, the SSEB Chair and PCO should consider if discussions are appropriate.

For acquisitions with an estimated value of over $100 million, DFARS 215.306 [Reference (d)] establishes a presumption that discussions will be held. In those acquisitions, before deciding to move forward with award without discussions, the PCO shall document why discussions are not necessary in writing for review and approval by the SSA. If award without discussions is not likely, then the SSEB Chair and PCO should proceed to identify possible offerors in the Competitive Range and begin preparing a Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD). A CRDD template [DA-06-T19, Reference (bb)] is available on the Source Selection Portal [Reference (s)].

(5) The SSEB Chair and PCO will prepare an Initial Evaluation briefing to the SSA that captures the evaluation results, ratings, draft ENs/comments, and the decision to Award without Discussions OR establish the competitive range, open discussions, and issue ENs. If awarding without discussions, the team will subsequently prepare the PAR and SSDD. If establishing a competitive range, the briefing should include any recommendations to eliminate an offeror(s) from the competitive range, and clearly identify issues that will be captured in ENs and addressed during discussions with offeror(s). The briefing may contain a request that the SSA delegate the approval and release of successive ENs to the PCO. The PCO should prepare the notification to the excluded offerors as well as the associated pre-award debriefing charts. The Source Selection Portal [Reference (s)] contains templates for the initial evaluation briefing [Reference (kk)] and CRDD [Reference (bb)].

(a) The PCO will pre-coordinate the Initial Evaluation briefing with CTS and GCA.

The review will focus on all ENs, rating rationale, and other substantiating data offered in the briefing and supporting documents. The PCO should plan for a minimum 5 business days for review and adjudication of comments. The review will be completed prior to final preparation of briefing package to the SSA and SSAC (if established). The briefing package will summarize any substantive comments offered by CTS that have not been resolved. All briefing packages must be coordinated with the CTS designee prior to read-ahead submittal (or conduct of the briefing, if read-ahead not provided) to the SSA/SSAC.

(b) SSEBs shall plan for a functional review (e.g., DA and CT) to be held on a case-by-case basis at the direction of CT prior to an initial evaluation or decision brief to the SSA.

The purpose of this review is to ensure the documentation is thorough and complete to support an initial evaluation or award decision by the SSA. The decision to hold a functional review will flow from CT to CTS and will be further coordinated with the SSEB Chair and PCO.

(6) If the SSA approves establishing a competitive range/opening discussions, proceed to paragraph 5.c. If the SSA decides to award without discussions, then proceed to paragraph 5.d.

c. Discussions.

(1) After the SSA approves the PCO recommended competitive range, the source selection enters the discussions phase. When discussions are held, ENs will be issued to those offerors remaining in the competitive range. Discussions/ENs must identify (at a minimum) deficiencies and significant weaknesses in an offeror’s proposal, in sufficient detail, to lead an offeror into the areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision in a manner that will allow them to materially enhance its potential for receiving an award. All exchanges will be documented in writing, to include any form of oral, virtual, or telephonic exchanges with offerors. This also includes any interviews in support of other portions of the evaluation (e.g., telephone interviews in support of the past performance evaluation). All written documentation will include specific details (e.g., participants, discussion items, questions asked, action items, and after-actions taken). The PCO will maintain this documentation with the source selection file.

(2) The SSEB Chair and PCO shall brief the SSA on the results of the discussions and any issue(s) not resolved in discussions. The SSA will provide written approval of the closure of discussions and approve release of the request for FPR in writing. The PCO will coordinate the results of discussions with CTS and GCA. CTS and GCA will review documentation related to closing discussions and requesting FPRs. This may include review of unique aspects from discussion, such as how proposed “attractive attributes” of the proposal(s) were discussed or any other matters related to discussions or the actual FPR request. The PCO should plan for 5 business days for review and adjudication of comments. The review will be completed prior to final preparation of briefing package to the SSA and SSAC (if established). The briefing package will summarize any substantive comments offered by CTS that have not been resolved.

All briefing packages must be pre-coordinated with the CTS designee prior to being submitted or briefed to the SSA/SSAC.

d. Documentation of Final Evaluation Results.

(1) A PAR is required for all source selections to document the final evaluation results regarding all evaluation factors and ratings. The PAR is drafted after initial evaluations if awarding without discussions or after FPR evaluations if discussions are conducted. If applicable, any minority opinion will be included in the PAR, see DA-06-T13 [Reference (cc)].

(2) In source selections without an SSAC, the PAR will include the SSEB evaluation narrative and, if requested by the SSA, the SSEB Chair’s comparative analysis of offers and recommendation.

(3) For source selections including an SSAC, the PAR will include the SSEB evaluation narrative and the SSAC’s comparative analysis of offers to the SSA. After initial evaluations, if awarding without discussions or after the FPR evaluation if discussions are conducted, the SSEB will draft the PAR and forward it to the SSAC Chair for the SSAC comparative analysis. The comparative analysis is conducted by the SSAC, unless the SSA specifically approves SSEB assistance to the SSAC. Along with the comparative analysis, the SSAC will provide its source selection recommendation to the SSA. It is a best practice for the SSEB Chair, with the concurrence of the SSAC, to draft the SSDD to ensure continuity with the PAR and the comparative analysis per DA-06-T13 [Reference (cc)] and DA-06-T18 [Reference (o)].

(4) The decision briefing is held after the initial proposal evaluations are completed, if the award will be made without discussions, or after completion of final proposal evaluations when discussions were conducted. The briefing contains a summary of the SSEB and/or SSAC evaluation from the PAR, including matrices displaying technical ratings, risk ratings, past performance evaluation, and cost/price analysis for all offerors in the competitive range (if applicable). The briefing will also contain supporting narratives characterizing the significant strengths, strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies for SSA consideration. These assessments, which contribute to the color/risk ratings, must include an indication of the potential benefits or negative impacts on the Government from a cost, performance, or schedule standpoint. See the Source Selection Decision Briefing template [DA-06-T4, Reference (dd)]. The PCO will also prepare the post-award debriefing charts for the successful/unsuccessful offerors. See Appendix A in the DoD SSP [Reference (b)] and DFARS

215.506 [Reference (ee)] for further guidance.

(a) The PCO will pre-coordinate the final evaluation information with CTS and GCA. The review will focus on the draft PAR, draft SSDD, decision brief, and debriefing documents. The PCO should plan for a minimum of 5 business days for review and adjudication of comments. The review will be completed prior to final preparation of briefing package to the SSA and SSAC (if established). The briefing package will summarize any substantive comments offered by CTS that have not been resolved. All briefing packages must be coordinated via e-mail or other written means with the CTS designee prior to read-ahead submittal (or conduct of briefing, if read-ahead not provided) to the SSA/SSAC.

(b) SSEBs shall plan for a functional review prior to the SSA brief. Reference paragraph 5.b.(5)(b) above.

(5) The SSA will document supporting rationale for the selection decision in the SSDD, see DS-06-T18 [Reference (o)].

(6) CTP and GC must review the contract file prior to award IAW MDA Manual 5013.58-M [Reference (k)]. CTP’s Procurement Analyst will conduct contract compliance of acquisition files, consistent with requirements outlined in 5013.58-M [Reference (k)] prior to contract award. The Procurement Analyst will coordinate with CTS on review of all source selection evaluation documentation.

(7) The PCO will issue letters to the successful and unsuccessful offerors, identifying the apparent successful offeror, allowing 5 business days for challenge of size or small business status per DA-06-J01 [Reference (ff)], FAR 15.503(a)(2) [Reference (gg)], and FAR 19.302(d)(1) [Reference (hh)]. The PCO will also execute the Congressional Notifications process and announcements with the appropriate coordination. Finally, the PCO will award the contract and conduct debriefings.

(8) The PCO and SSEB Chair will ensure the responses to enhanced post-award debriefing questions are reviewed by CTS, GCA, and the SSAC Chair (when applicable).

Courtesy copy to CT and CT Deputy when routing the responses to the SSA for approval to release.

e. Protection of Source Selection Information. (as applicable, tailor the SSP or Information

Protection Plan as necessary to address these concerns).

(1) Many aspects of Source Selection Information are considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Ensure appropriate CUI markings and controls are used, consistent with the latest guidance.

(2) Electronic source selection information should follow the DoD and MDA policy for marking and protection of source selection information. At a minimum, all source selection information must be encrypted and only disseminated to members of the SST as identified in the SSP. Use of IRM tools for e-mail and other electronic documents is highly encouraged.

(3) With limited exceptions, distribution/processing of source selection material should occur within an approved source selection facility, on an isolated local area network, or within a secure portal on the MDA network. Removal of any source selection data from the source selection environment shall be approved by the PCO. Care should be taken to protect source selection information both electronically and physically, particularly if individuals are working remotely or outside designated source selection facilities.

(4) Cover all written source selection documentation carried outside of an approved Source Selection Facility (SSF).

(5) Use of e-mail to transmit source selection information should be limited. All e-mails containing source selection information will be encrypted. For additional protection, attachments should have IRM applied and/or be password protected. When applicable, e-mail subject lines, narratives, and attachments should be appropriately marked, to include CUI and “Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104” as appropriate. E-mails should also include caveats on limitations to further distribution, subject to PCO discretion.

f. Source Selection Support.

(1) The SSF is located at the Von Braun complex, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Additional SSF locations may be established within the MDA Enterprise. Facility reservation and use is governed by the SSF Concept of Operations [Reference (ii)], which is maintained by the Source Selection Facility Manager (SSFM). The PCO should notify the SSFM as early as possible to reserve adequate space. The PCO and/or SSEB Chair should provide detailed support requirements to the SSFM, including but not limited to: the timeline of the evaluation, the composition and number of team members, and any other unique requirements such as classified processing or information technology (IT) requirements. All participants in MDA source selections operating out of MDA designated source selection space will be required to take training provided by the SSFM and acknowledge the facility security requirements outlined in SSF Security Standard Operating Procedures [Reference (jj)].

(2) The remote source selection process allows controlled access and data protection through the use of secure audio collaboration via virtual conferencing tool, file protection via

IRM, and the use of data collaboration via a secured SharePoint site. The file protection and SharePoint site are managed by the MDA Identity Management Gateway security groups established for the AT. The AT Lead, Data Manager, or PCO will establish permissions.

Members of the SSF IT Team will initially configure the site.

(3) MDA uses a proposal evaluation/source selection support tool as its primary evaluation tool and method to capture evaluator comments and ratings. Use of the source selection tool is mandatory, unless a waiver is obtained. The PCO should arrange for support no later than 30 days prior to receipt of contractor proposals. Training on the software should be conducted as close to proposal receipt as possible. Additional on-site contractor support can be arranged through CTS to assist the source selection team with planning, setting up how the evaluation will be managed within the tool, and actual use of the tool.

6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This instruction is effective immediately.

LAURA M. DESIMONE

Executive Director

Enclosures

1. References

2. MDA Source Selection Process

3. Glossary

DESIMONE.LAUR

A.M.1229135976

Digitally signed by

DESIMONE.LAURA.M.122913597

Date: 2023.06.05 14:57:50 -04'00'

20 ENCLOSURE 1

ENCLOSURE 1

REFERENCES

(a) MDA Manual 5013.06-M, “Source Selection Procedures,” August 20, 2019 (hereby superseded)

(b) DoD Source Selection Procedures, August 20, 2022

(https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000740-22-DPC.pdf)

(c) FAR Part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”

(d) DFARS Part 215 and PGI 215.3

(e) MDA Directive 5013.01, “Acquisition Management,” September 30, 2019, with

Administrative Change 1, February 8, 2021

(f) MDA Instruction 5013.78-INS, “Organizational Conflict of Interest,” October 14, 2020

(g) FAR 9.505-4(b), “General Rules”

(h) FAR 15.306, “Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals”

(i) DA-06-T3, Quick Look Briefing Template

(j) FAR 9.104, “Standards”/DFARS 209.104-1, “General Standards”

(k) MDA Manual 5013.58-M, “Contract Action, Document, and File Reviews,” February 12,

(l) Determination and Findings, “Authority to Utilize Non-Government Advisors to Support

Government Source Selections,” August 19, 2020

(m) FAR 5.303, “Announcement of Contract Awards”

(n) MDA Manual 5013.08-M, “Publicizing Contract Opportunities and Award Information,”

May 12, 2021

(o) DA-06-T18, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Template

(p) FAR Part 42, “Contract Administration and Audit Services”

(q) DFARS 201.170-4, “Purpose, Authority, Issuance”

(r) DA-06-F1, Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) Template

(s) DA Acquisition Library and MDA/CT Source Selection Portal

(https://mko.mda.mil/sites/da/ct/source_selection/default.aspx)

(t) DA-06-T16, Source Selection Plan (SSP) Template

(u) MDA Directive 5400.03, “Security and Policy Review of Missile Defense Agency

Information for Public Release,” October 25, 2021

(v) MDA Manual 5013.65-M, “Peer Reviews Manual,” July 28, 2020

(w) FAR 15.304, “Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors”

(x) DA-06-T8, Past Performance Information (PPI) Template

(y) DA-06-T9, Past Performance Client Authorization letter Template

(z) DA-06-T10, Past Performance Questionnaire Template

(aa) DA-06-T7, Evaluation Notice (EN) Template

(bb) DA-06-T19, Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD) Template

(cc) DA-06-T13, Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) Template

(dd) DA-06-T4, Source Selection Decision Briefing Template

(ee) DFARS 215.506 “Postaward Debriefing of Offerors”

(ff) DA-06-J01, “Preaward Notices for Small Business Programs,” January 11, 2023

(gg) FAR 15.503(a)(2), “Notification to Unsuccessful Offerors”

(hh) FAR 19.302(d)(1), “Protesting a Small Business Representation or Rerepresentation”

21 ENCLOSURE 1

(ii) “Source Selection Facilities Concept of Operations,” July 14, 2021

(jj) Source Selection Facilities Security Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), April 28, 2021

(kk) DA-06-T22, Initial Evaluation Briefing template

22 ENCLOSURE 2

ENCLOSURE 2

MDA SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

23 ENCLOSURE 3

ENCLOSURE 3

GLOSSARY

PART I. ACRONYMS

ASB Acquisition Strategy Board ASP Acquisition Strategy Panel AT Acquisition Team CRDD Competitive Range Decision Document CS Contract Specialist CT Contracting Directorate and/or Director for Contracting CTP Policy and Compliance Directorate CTS Contract Source Selection Directorate CTZ Pricing CUI Controlled Unclassified Information DA Acquisition Directorate and/or Director for Acquisition DAO DA Total Force Management Office DAU Defense Acquisition University DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation…