2.0_Industry_Communication_Guide_(June_2014).pdf

Industry Communication Guide for Contracts Personnel

Developed by:

AIR-2.5.1

June 2014

NOTICE: This document is for guidance only and does not change any requirements mandated by law or regulation nor impose any new requirements. Contracting Officers are expected to use sound business judgment in applying the best practices and should consult with the Contracts chain of command and Legal Counsel for advice on particular situations.

Industry Communication Guide for Contracts Personnel, June 2014

Table of Contents

1. PURPOSE……………………………………………………………..………… 3

2. BACKGROUND……………………………………………………..…..……… 4

3. ENSURING APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATIONS…………………….……. 5

4. COMMUNICATION GATES & GUIDANCE…………………………….……. 6

a. COMPETITIVE COMMUNICATION GATES

i. Long Range Acquisition Plan

ii. Industry Days

iii. Sources Sought Synopsis

iv. Draft Statements of Work & Requests for Proposal

v. Presolicitation/Advance Planning Notices

vi. Requests for Proposal

vii. Post-Proposal Receipt Exchanges & Discussions

viii. Notice to Successful & Unsuccessful Offerors

ix. Debriefs

x. Post-Award Synopsis

xi. Post-Award Conferences

b. SOLE SOURCE COMMUNICATION GATES

i. LRAF

ii. Presolicitation Notice

iii. Joint Procurement Planning Conferences

iv. Draft Statements of Work & Requests for Proposal

v. Requests for Proposal

vi. Fact-Finding

vii. Negotiations

viii. Post-Award Synopsis

ix. Post-Award Communications (Joint IPTs)

c. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

5. REFERENCES…...…………………………….………...……………………. 23

6. APPENDICES…...…………………………….………...……………………. 23

a. Industry Day Template

b. Sources Sought Synopsis & Evaluation Sheet

c. Sources Sought Response Letter – Capable

d. Sources Sought Response Letter – Indeterminable

e. Advanced Planning Notice

f. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter

g. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter – Exclusion from Competitive Range

h. Debrief Package – Oral (Power Point Presentation)

i. Debrief Package – Written (PCO Letter)

1. PURPOSE

This Industry Communication Guide (ICG) for Contracts Personnel is a supplement to reference

(a), Acquisition Communication Guide for NAVAIR Personnel dated 01 March 2013. The ICG was developed to enhance competition, improve proposal quality, and reduce cycle time through more robust and consistent communications between industry and NAVAIR throughout the acquisition cycle.

The content of the ICG largely discusses Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and FAR

16.505(b)(1) procedures, pertains specifically to the AIR-2.0 Contracts competency and is comprised of two major components: 1) an identification and discussion of the various competitive and sole source communications gates during the acquisition process (strategy phase through post-award administration) and 2) templates to increase the consistency of 2.0’s interaction with industry. Figure 1 below depicts the document flow and intended outcomes.

Acquisition

Communication

Guide

ICG

• Improved Communication

• Increased Competition

• Better Proposal Quality

• Cycle Time Reduction

Communication

Gates

Templates

Source

Document

ICG Content

Outcomes

ICG: Source, Content & Outcomes

Figure 1

2. BACKGROUND

This guide was created in response to industry feedback and NAVAIR’s review of current business processes and communication tools. It represents a compilation of best practice and provides methodologies that Contracting Officers may use to enhance communication. Except for those procedures mandated by the FAR or other regulations, this guide is for guidance and is not directive.

As NAVAIR adapts to budget uncertainties and an increased focus on the acquisition of services, improving acquisition efficiency is imperative. To that end, consistent and effective communication with industry has a direct connection to increased competition, improved proposal quality and reduced cycle time – all outcomes promoted by the ICG.

The importance of robust industry communication becomes clear with an understanding of the impact of

NAVAIR’s demand signals on the contractor community. Industry is poised to respond to

NAVAIR’s requirements. The publication of future requirements in the Long-Range Acquisition Forecast

(LRAF), conduct of Industry Days, and the issuance of

Sources Sought Synopses or Requests For Proposal

(RFPs) all influence industry partnering, bid/no-bid decisions, resource utilization, and financial forecasts.

Further, prospective offerors tracking an anticipated

RFP or those that have submitted a response to a

Sources Sought Synopsis and/or a formal proposal are particularly sensitive to delays in projected procurement milestones. Industry begins incurring costs early in the acquisition process and often makes bid/no-bid decisions based on projected capture rates and the timing of solicitations and contract awards. Unknown changes to the status of anticipated requirements contribute to inefficient resource utilization and increased costs of products or services.

To minimize such inefficiencies, Contracts personnel must ensure that upcoming/on-going requirements are appropriately advertised, published procurement schedules (via Advanced

Planning notices, Sources Sought Synopses, RFPs, etc.) are updated promptly, and industry understands NAVAIR’s feedback during negotiations or the source selection process (answers to

RFP questions, Evaluation Notices during discussions, debriefings, etc.). If industry is not appropriately informed - be it of an upcoming RFP, the projected award date for an on-going source selection, or feedback provided during negotiations/discussions - it will be reflected in the quality of industry’s responses throughout the acquisition process.

“Contracts personnel must ensure that upcoming/on-going requirements are appropriately advertised, published procurement schedules…are updated promptly and industry understands NAVAIR’s feedback during the source selection process.”

Reference (b), Department of Defense Vendor Communication Plan, and references (c) and (d), Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) “Myth-Busting: Addressing Misconceptions to

Improve Communication with Industry during the Acquisition Process” Memorandums #1 (dated

02 Feb 2011) and #2 (dated 07 May 2012) provide additional guidance on the acquisition community’s interaction with industry. A brief summary of these referenced documents is provided below:

Department of Defense Vendor Communication Plan: Includes DoD’s commitment to “increased dialogue with the vendor community prior to awarding contracts.” It was disseminated on 18 July 2012 via Communiqué 12-65. The eight primary areas of the Plan are identified below.

i. Statement of agency commitment

ii. Identification of the cognizant senior agency and bureau official

iii. Description of efforts to reduce barriers and promote engagement

iv. Criteria for acquisitions requiring pre-award vendor input

v. Publication requirements for engagement events (industry days, pre-solicitation conferences, etc.)

vi. Description of positional roles and responsibilities

vii. Training and awareness efforts

viii. Links to applicable policies

OFPP “Myth-Busting” 1: The stated purposes of OFPP’s first “myth-busting” memorandum are to:

i. identify common Government misconceptions about engagement with industry that may be limiting the Government’s interactions;

ii. direct agencies to remove unnecessary barriers to reasonable communication with industry and to develop a communications plan, and;

iii. outline steps for continued engagement with industry.

The memorandum identifies ten frequent misconceptions and debunking facts regarding Government interaction with industry.

OFPP “Myth-Busting” 2: Whereas “Myth-Busting” 1 focused on the Government’s communication with industry, “Myth-Busing” 2 was issued to address common industry misconceptions about communications with the Government. Similar to the format of “Myth-Busting” 1, this memorandum identifies five frequent industry-held misconceptions and debunking facts regarding interactions with the

Government.

3. ENSURING APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATIONS

The ICG advocates enhanced communications between industry and NAVAIR throughout the acquisition cycle; however, it is paramount that Contracts personnel maintain the highest ethical standards of the Navy and in no way compromise the procurement process in all exchanges with industry. Acquisition planning, Government evaluation and source selection teams must be well versed in the statutes, regulations, and policies that comprise the framework for interactions with industry, including the Procurement Integrity Act, the Trade Secrets Act, the Joint Ethics

Regulation, and other amplifying Command-level information.

Several resources are available to ensure all Government personnel are trained on the source selection process and, specifically for the ICG, understand how to properly conduct exchanges with industry. Examples of these resources include: 1) reference (a), Acquisition

Communication Guide for NAVAIR Personnel; 2) reference (e), NAVAIRINST 4200.39C, Principles and Procedures for Competitive Source Selection dated 18 Sep 2012; 3) reference (f), NAVAIRINST 4200.59 Technical Evaluation Of Contractor Proposals For Sole Source

Procurements; 4) NAVAIR’s computer-based Source Selection training (available via the

MyNAVAIR website); 5) FAR Part 15 and FAR 3.104, and; 6) AIR 2.5.1’s Technical Evaluation

Kickoff Meeting template presentation (available via the 2.5.1 SharePoint site).

Of note for source selection team members, the reference (e) instruction states, “Participants in the source selection process are required to complete all source selection training that pertains to the overall process and their roles and responsibilities.” The instruction also defines the roles and responsibilities for source selection participants and includes pertinent subsections addressing source selection security, disclosure of information, exchanges with offerors and the role of non-Government personnel.

Contracts personnel can always obtain additional guidance through their chain of command and the Office of Counsel prior to any exchanges with industry.

4. COMMUNICATION GATES & OTHER

INFORMATION

This section identifies and discusses various formal communication gates and other informal interactions with industry during the acquisition process – a period that begins with requirement identification and early acquisition planning and continues through post-award activities. When executing any communication gate or communicating informally with an

“…handle Procurement

Information

(PI)…properly and ensure that all interaction with industry complies with the

Procurement Integrity Act and other regulatory restrictions.”

actual or potential offeror, Contracts personnel must handle Procurement Information (PI) – a term inclusive of both Source Selection Information (defined in FAR 2.101) and Contractor Bid and Proposal Information (defined in FAR 3.104-1) - properly and ensure that all interaction with industry complies with statutory and regulatory restrictions.

a. COMPETITIVE COMMUNICATION GATES

The Government-industry communication gates are presented chronologically and include: 1) formal, recurring interaction points and 2) other available communication opportunities to be utilized at the PCOs discretion. Figure 2 below provides an illustration of various communication gates (those commonly used and others that should be considered in certain circumstances) along an acquisition continuum. In the narrative that follows, utilization tips and

2.0 business rules are provided for each communication gate.

LRAF

Industry

Day

Competitive Communication Gates

Pre-Award Synopses/Advanced

Planning Notices

RFP

Discussions

Sources

Sought

Sources Sought

Response Letters

Post-Award

Conference

Debriefs

Successful & Unsuccessful

Offeror Letters

Other Communication Opportunities

Recurring Communication

Gates

Communication Is Critical Throughout The Acquisition Process

Post-Award

Synopsis

Draft SOW or

RFP

Figure 2

i. Long Range Acquisition Forecast (LRAF)

The Long Range Acquisition Forecast (LRAF) includes all contracting opportunities in the current and two subsequent fiscal years anticipated to exceed the Simplified Acquisition

Threshold. It is maintained by all NAVAIR Competencies, COMFRCs, PEOs and the Office of

Small Business Programs (OSBP) and is posted to the NAVAIR’s public website at www.navair.navy.mil. The policy, roles and responsibilities, and procedures for the LRAF are established by NAVAIRINST 5000.26A, dated 19 September 2012. While 2.0 personnel are not responsible for inputting or updating data in the LRAF, maintaining an awareness of LRAF content is advised to ensure alignment with your customer base, provide knowledge of future workload, and support industry inquiries about upcoming procurements under your cognizance.

Further, it is advised that Contracts personnel ensure that the requirement activity’s technical point of contact listed on an LRAF entry is aware of the “Do’s and Don’ts” regarding contact with prospective offerors posted on the OSBP’s non-public website available through https://mynavair.navair.navy.mil.

ii. Industry Days

In accordance with FAR Part 10, the Government “must conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances.” Industry Days are one market research tool the Government can use to communicate anticipated requirements to industry, learn about capabilities and potential solutions available in the marketplace, ensure the appropriate acquisition strategy is developed, and provide a forum for industry networking.

Industry Days...

are often formal, in-person events focused on a specific acquisition;

typically are held well in advance of the acquisition strategy development and RFP release;

promote open dialogue between NAVAIR’s requirement owners and industry;

contribute to a better understanding of the requirement;

should be considered when a requirement is new or has changed significantly, when the marketplace is unknown and/or to promote enhanced competition.

The Acquisition Communication Guide contains additional information on Industry Days. See

Appendix (a) for a template Industry Day presentation.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/ https://mynavair.navair.navy.mil/

iii. Sources Sought Synopsis

A sources sought synopsis is another commonly used market research tool. It typically includes a brief description of the program/requirement, requests a capabilities statement from respondents, and provides additional information regarding submission guidelines and eligibility.

A sources sought synopsis should be used in similar situations to industry days - when the requirement is new (in whole or in part), industry capabilities are unknown, or to promote competition. Sources Sought Synopses are also helpful in identifying whether a requirement can be considered for a set-aside for small business, including Historically Underutilized Business

Zone, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned or Woman-Owned programs.

Prior to issuing a sources sought synopsis, Contracting Officers should carefully consider the impact to procurement milestones and the resources required to generate and assess capability statements. While sources sought synopses are an effective market research tool in particular situations, they do require a considerable resource commitment from industry and the

Government.

Please consult reference (g), Sources Sought Process Guidebook Rev 1, dated September 2012, for more information. Examples of Sources Sought Synopses and evaluation sheets for capability statements can be found within the Guidebook and at Appendix (b). In issuing response letters to submitted capabilities statements, Contracting Officers should use a format similar to the templates provided herein at Appendices (c) and (d). Further, if a sources sought synopsis conveys an intent to set a requirement aside (for small business or a socio-economic category) and the market research does not support this approach, Contracting Officers should communicate the anticipated change to the acquisition strategy in the response letters.

iv. Draft Statements of Work and Requests for Proposals

An effective tool in improving communications with industry, increasing competition, and refining requirements and solicitations is issuing a draft Statement of Work (SOW) and/or a draft

RFP for review and comment. Industry feedback, prior to the release of the RFP, can help identify overly restrictive requirements, terms, and conditions; enhance prospective offerors’ understanding of the Government’s requirement; address errors or inconsistencies in the solicitation package; and improve proposal quality.

Contracting Officers should consider issuing draft solicitations when:

the requirement is new or complex;

the existing contract was a single-bid;

the contemplated source selection procedures are unique;

the acquisition strategy has changed (for example, full and open to a small business set-aside).

Contracting Officers must ensure required reviews are conducted prior to issuing draft RFPs that include Sections L and M. If a Contracting Officer issues a draft SOW and/or solicitation via the

SeaPort-e portal, the NAVAIR solicitation website or through another mechanism, it is important that all questions and answers are accessible by all prospective offerors. Contracting Officers are strongly encouraged to establish a deadline for receipt of questions/comments and clearly communicate to industry that the Government is under no obligation to alter any aspect of its solicitation based on industry input. Impact to cycle time should be assessed prior to posting draft SOWs and solicitations. Considering the Government resources required to address industry’s concerns, there needs to be a clear benefit to inviting feedback on pre-solicitation documents.

v. Presolicitation/Advanced Planning Notices

Presolicitation notices posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website and Advanced

Planning Notices (APNs) in Seaport-e are mechanisms used to provide industry notice of upcoming RFPs. See section 4(b)(ii) for more information on presolicitation notices. APNs typically include:

a brief description of the requirement, applicable SeaPort Zone and Product Service

Code (PSC);

the anticipated RFP release date and period of performance or delivery dates;

whether the RFP will be a full and open competition, limited competition, or a set-aside;

the current contract(s) and prime contractor(s) (if it is a notice for a follow-on);

a prominent statement that the APN is not a RFP.

In general, APNs should be posted within the portal at least 30 days prior to RFP release;

however, it may be beneficial to issue the APN even earlier in the process. Because industry is very sensitive to projected RFP release dates, APNs should be updated to reflect any delays to communicated procurement milestones. Further, if APNs are issued while acquisition planning is on-going, broader RFP timelines (month or quarter) are recommended until such time that a more precise schedule can be provided. An example of an APN can be found at Appendix

(e).

vi. Requests for Proposal

FAR 15.203(a) reads, “Requests for proposals (RFPs) are used in negotiated acquisitions to communicate Government requirements to prospective contractors and to solicit proposals.” The

RFP, because it represents a formal Government requirement and requests an official, potentially contractually binding response from industry, can be considered, in many ways, the most significant communication gate in the acquisition process. Below are several RFP elements to consider before and during the RFP phase.

Focus on Quality: Industry will begin expending bid and proposal resources upon

RFP release. It is important for Contracting Officers to maintain focus on releasing quality solicitations. Industry input received through pre-RFP communication gates should be considered and internal Government processes (Peer Reviews, Legal

Review Boards, etc.) followed in developing the final RFP package. A well-constructed RFP will allow industry to make precise bid/no-bid decisions and will contribute to improved proposal quality.

Duration: Per reference (h), DASN Memorandum “Improving Competition in

Defense Procurements” dated 01 Dec 2010, “Solicitations should be open a minimum of 30 days.” Reference (h) also states, “…if a solicitation is open less than 30 days and only one offer (is) received, the acquisition will be re-solicited for a minimum of an additional 30 days…”. Contracting Officers should consider additional response time (>30 days) for particularly large or complex requirements or if it would promote enhanced competition. Also of note, the SeaPort-e CONOPS mandates a minimum response time of 10 working days for task orders with an estimated value less than $5 million and 25 working days for task orders with an estimated value greater than $5 million. Please refer to

FAR 5.203 for more information.

Post-RFP Information Exchange: After receipt of an RFP, prospective offerors will often submit questions about the requirement, solicitation, source selection procedures, etc. It is important for all members of the acquisition team to understand that release of the final RFP indicates entry into formal source selection; therefore, it is critical that all interaction with industry post-

RFP release be coordinated through the

Contracting Officer. Further, it is incumbent upon the Contracting Officer to respond in accordance with sound source selection procedures. Any changes to the RFP will be executed via amendments. Answers to

Contracting Officers should consistently update estimated procurement milestones provided to industry via APNs, RFPs or other communication tools.

questions merely providing clarification should be posted in a forum – FBO, the

SeaPort-e portal or the NAVAIR solicitation website, for example – that affords all offerors the same access to the information.

Managing RFP Timelines: RFPs typically include the proposal due date/time, the proposal effectivity period, and the anticipated contract award date. As mentioned previously, industry is constantly monitoring NAVAIR’s requirements and making bid/no-bid and teaming decisions based on various factors, including: company expertise, bid and proposal resources, capture rate projections, and the projected timing of contract award. After RFP release and throughout the evaluation period, Contracting Officers should appropriately notify industry – via a formal amendment or, if after closure of the RFP, a notification to offerors - of changes to anticipated award dates. Similarly, extensions to proposal due dates/times and requests for extensions to proposal validity should be issued as soon as practicable.

vii. Post-Proposal Receipt Exchanges/Discussions

Per FAR 15.306 (a) and (b), Contracting Officers may seek clarification on an offeror’s proposal when award without discussions is contemplated or have communications with industry before establishing the competitive range. Further, Contracting Officers are required to have communications with offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being included in the competitive range. In particular, any adverse past performance information that an offeror has not had an opportunity to respond to shall be addressed. In either scenario, these exchanges should be limited and, in the case of communications before establishment of the competitive range, may only be held with offerors whose inclusion/exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain.

When negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and are called discussions. As a communication tool, discussions are an opportunity for the Government to present its evaluation findings to offerors in the competitive range (input that will likely provide further clarification of the requirement) and for offerors to materially enhance their proposals. After documenting the competitive range determination, the Contracting Officer is required to hold meaningful discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. The procedures for conducting discussions and the limitations on exchanges with offerors (during discussions) can be found at FAR 15.306(d) and 15.306(e).

A brief summary of the major concepts, intent and responsibilities of the discussions phase is provided below.

Objectives: Discussions are conducted with the primary intent of maximizing the

Government’s ability to obtain best value or, more generally, selecting a source that best meets the Warfighter’s needs based on the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

Discussions with industry should assist the Government in determining an offerors’ comprehension of the agency’s needs (per Competitive Negotiation – The Source

Selection Process by Nash, Cibinic and O’Brien) and provide industry an opportunity to materially enhance its proposal.

Tailored: Discussions must be tailored to each offeror in the competitive range.

Further, Contracting Officers must ensure that offerors are informed fairly and equally of evaluation findings that will have an impact on the source selection decision.

Content: Per FAR 15.306(d)(3), “The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment”; however, discussions must be meaningful. At a minimum, Contracting Officers must discuss with each offeror in the competitive range proposal deficiencies or significant weaknesses and any adverse past performance findings to which the offeror has not had an opportunity to respond.

Discussing other findings that could be altered to materially enhance an offeror’s proposal is encouraged.

Method (Basic): During discussions, NAVAIR typically communicates via written

Evaluation Notices (ENs). ENs should clearly articulate the Government’s findings

– the rationale for the deficiency, significant weakness, etc. - and reference the applicable solicitation requirement. ENs should be drafted by the appropriate

Evaluation Team Members and require PCO review prior to release. PCOs may request Legal Counsel review of ENs and/or support of any exchanges with industry to clarify EN content and/or intent.

Method (Enhanced): Since discussions can be oral or in writing, Contracting

Officers may provide offerors in the competitive range an opportunity to verbally review (via teleconference in most situations) recently distributed ENs with the

Government. A one-time, joint discussion of the ENs will enhance an offeror’s understanding of the Government’s findings and assist industry in preparing its response. This review may be particularly effective in source selections for highly complex supplies or services and/or where a significant number of deficiencies are present. If this opportunity to enhance communication is pursued, it shall be offered to all offerors in the competitive range. Contracting Officers are advised that the content of such exchanges should be limited to clarifying aspects of the

ENs and shall not include prohibited information covered by FAR 15.306(e).

Limits on Exchanges: While conducting discussions, Government personnel shall not: 1) favor one offeror over another, 2) reveal an offeror’s technical solution or price to another offeror, 3) reveal the individuals providing past performance information on an offeror, or 4) knowingly furnish source selection information (see

FAR 2.101) to any offeror.

viii. Notifications to Successful and Unsuccessful Offerors

Contracting Officers are required to notify offerors when submitted proposals have been excluded from the competitive range or are otherwise eliminated from the competition. Prompt notification of unsuccessful proposals will permit offerors to focus resources on other opportunities. Pre- and post-award notification procedures for unsuccessful offerors are contained at FAR 15.503 (a) and (b), respectively. FAR 15.504 addresses notification procedures – either through a signed contract or “other notice” - for successful offerors.

Examples of letters excluding offerors from the competitive range or notifying offerors that submitted proposals were not selected for award can be found at Appendices (f) and (g).

Contracting Officers are responsible for ensuring that unsuccessful offeror letters contain at least the minimum content as required by the FAR and comport to the regulatory timelines.

ix. Debriefings

Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from a competition may request a debriefing. If an offeror’s request is made properly, the Government is required to provide a debriefing. Debriefings, as a communication tool, contribute to improved proposal quality by providing constructive feedback on submitted offers. Properly conducted debriefings may also avoid protests – a resource-intensive procedure for both the Government and industry.

FAR 15.505 and 15.506 discuss pre- and post-award debriefings, respectively. Below is a brief summary of debriefing procedures found in the FAR.

Timely Requests: Offerors must submit a written request for a debriefing to the

Contracting Officer within 3 days after receiving notice of exclusion from the competition (for pre-award debriefings) or 3 days after the offeror has received notification that its proposal was not selected for award (for post-award debriefings).

Timing of Debriefs: Pre-award debriefings should occur as soon as practicable;

post-award debriefings should occur, to the maximum extent practicable, within 5 days after receipt of the written request. Offerors requesting a pre-award debriefing may request, in writing, that the debriefing be delayed until after award.

Method: Pre- and post-award debriefings of successful and unsuccessful offerors may be done orally, in writing or by any other method acceptable to the Contracting

Officer. Contracting Officers should determine the appropriate method for each procurement. Of note, a clear preference for written debriefings is expressed in the

SeaPort-e CONOPS which states, “Contracting Officers are encouraged not to entertain “face-to-face” post-award discussion sessions with unsuccessful offerors”;

however, oral debriefings are NAVAIR’s preferred method regardless of the contracting vehicle utilized. If oral debriefings are contemplated, it is highly recommended that the Government team conduct mock debriefings. All debriefing packages – written or oral – shall be reviewed by NAVAIR Legal Counsel.

Content: The content of debriefing packages can be found at FAR 15.505 (e) and

(f) (pre-award) and at FAR 15.506(d) and (e) (post-award).

An example of an oral (power point presentation) and a written debriefing package is provided at

Appendices (h) and (i), respectively.

x. Post-Award Synopsis

Per FAR Subpart 5.301, Contracting Officers are required to synopsize contract awards exceeding $25,000 and certain contract actions – Federal Supply Schedule orders, limited source

BPAs and task orders awarded without fair opportunity – greater than the simplified acquisition threshold. Exceptions to this requirement can be found at FAR 5.301(a)(3) and 5.301(b).

For purposes of the ICG, the primary benefit of synopsizing contract awards is to provide industry notification of potential subcontracting opportunities.

xi. Post-Award Conference

A post-award conference is often a one-day event to review and clarify the requirements associated with a recent contract award. Post-award conferences are a particularly effective communication tool for supporting the transition from an incumbent contractor to the successful offeror or in support of a new or technically complex requirement. Attendees typically include, at a minimum, the successful offeror and/or the incumbent contractor and Government technical and Contracts representatives. Contracting Officers, in concert with their customers, should determine, on a case-by-case basis, when a post-award conference is in the best interest of the

Government. Post-award conferences should not be held until after the GAO protest period has elapsed.

b. SOLE SOURCE COMMUNICATION GATES

The Government-industry sole source communication gates are presented chronologically below and include: 1) formal, recurring interaction points, 2) other available communication opportunities to be utilized at the PCOs discretion, and 3) other exchanges required during contract administration or by program execution within a joint IPT structure. Figure 3 below provides an illustration of various sole source communication gates (those commonly used and others that should be considered in certain circumstances) along an acquisition continuum. In the narrative that follows, utilization tips and any AIR-2.0 business rules are identified.

LRAF

Sole Source Communication Gates

Joint

PPC

RFP

Negotiations

Draft RFP and/or SOW

Fact-Finding

Post-Award

Synopsis

Presolicitation

Notice Other Communication Opportunities

Recurring Communication

Gates

Communication Is Critical Throughout The Acquisition Process

Post-Award

Communications

(Joint IPT)

Figure 3

i. Long-Range Acquisition Forecasts

LRAF reporting is required for both competitive and sole source actions. NAVAIRINST

5000.26A contains the roles and responsibilities for posting future requirements to the LRAF.

See section 4(a)(i) for more information.

ii. Presolicitation Notice

Per FAR 5.101, Contracting Officers are generally required to post a synopsis of anticipated contract actions exceeding $25,000 to Federal Business Opportunities, also referred to as

FedBizOpps, at www.FBO.gov. Actions anticipated to exceed $15,000 but be less than $25,000 are required to be displayed in a public place or by an appropriate electronic means. Exceptions to this requirement can be found at FAR 5.202.

Notices of intended sole source actions must be published for 15 days prior to issuance of the solicitation (FAR 5.203). Contracting Officers may establish a shorter duration or issue a combined synopsis and solicitation when acquiring commercial items.

http://www.fbo.gov/

The synopsis of proposed contract actions is a widely recognized and important communication tool. Synopses provide industry an opportunity to present information that could alter the

Government’s “other than full and open competition” acquisition strategy or to approach intended sole source contractors about subcontracting opportunities. FAR 2.207 contains the synopsis format and required content. Contracting Officers are encouraged to direct those interested in subcontracting opportunities to the intended sole source (whose identification is required per FAR 5.207(c)(15)) or to the NAVAIR OSBP in the description section of the synopsis.

iii. Joint Procurement Planning Conferences

In accordance with NAVAIRINST 4200.37B, dated 27 August 2010, “…a Procurement Planning

Conference (PPC) shall be conducted for any procurement with an estimated value that is equal to or greater than $1 million.” PPCs for actions below $1M are at the Program Manager’s discretion; however, an appropriate level of procurement planning is required for all actions to establish a baseline schedule in the Procurement Management Tool (PMT).

In a sole source environment (i.e., after execution of a Justification & Approval (J&A)), Contracting Officers are encouraged to conduct PPCs - formal (>$1M) or informal (<$1M) -with appropriate representatives from the prime contractor and, if appropriate, major subcontractors. Joint, Government-industry PPCs are an opportunity for sole source contractors to provide input on industry-“owned” milestones - proposal preparation, submission of a

Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, for example – and to gain an awareness of the over-arching procurement schedule (such as the anticipated timing of RFP release, the negotiation schedule and contract award/commencement of performance). The enhanced communications gained from joint PPCs increases industry’s understanding of near-term Government requirements, the expectations of its customer and ownership of critical milestones – all outcomes that improve the likelihood of a successful procurement.

To capture the value of the enhanced communications achieved through joint PPCs, Contracting

Officers should consider having industry representatives – the cognizant Contracts and/or

Program Manager, for example – sign a joint Procurement Planning Agreement (PPA) along with the Government Contracting Officer and Program Manager and/or IPT lead.

iv. Draft Requests for Proposals and Statements of Work

After a J&A for other than full and open competition has been approved, Contracts personnel should consider providing draft versions of the SOW and/or RFP to the sole source contractor.

Soliciting a sole source contractor’s input on requirements documents prior to RFP release presents similar benefits – address errors and inconsistencies, identify confusing terms and conditions, enhance the contractor’s understanding of the requirement, and improve proposal quality – to those previously addressed for competitive procurements. Unique to the sole source environment, a well-coordinated RFP package may increase the effectiveness of fact-finding or negotiations and could reveal budgetary challenges (contractors may identify unexpected complexities associated with a requirement) that alter the acquisition strategy at an early stage.

v. Requests for Proposals

Similar to a competitive solicitation, a sole source RFP represents a formal Government requirement and requests an official, potentially contractually binding response from the contractor. The quality of the RFP contributes to the quality of the contractor’s response and the joint team’s success during negotiations and through contract award.

Duration: Whereas competitive solicitations often require proposals within 30 days, the duration of sole source proposals is often longer. Contracting Officers, through joint PPCs or conversations with their industry counterparts, should establish proposal response times based on program need, concurrent requirements, and complexity of the action.

Post-RFP Information Exchange: In a sole source environment, open dialogue between Government and industry representatives can continue post-RFP release.

These exchanges may be formal, such as fact-finding sessions (discussed below), or informal queries seeking clarification on requirements, pricing structure or general ground rules and assumptions.

Managing RFP Timelines: Sole source RFP letters should include the required due date for the contractor’s proposal. It is important, particularly in the current fiscal environment, for Contracting Officers and their industry counterparts to identify potential proposal delays, assess the impact to the procurement schedule and brief the joint program leadership (Program Managers, IPT Leads, etc.). Early identification and diagnosis of delays supports effective mitigation (changes to the requirement, adjusted priorities, etc.) of negative procurement schedule variances.

vi. Fact-Finding

Fact-finding is a formal communication tool that often occurs post-proposal receipt and prior to the Government’s pre-negotiation position being established. It typically involves the contractor providing the Government, via the Contracting Officer, its initial labor and material estimates at the requested level of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The contractor’s estimates are reviewed by Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and the findings are provided to the contractor – typically via a face-to-face meeting at the contractor’s facility - for consideration in advance of formal negotiations. The fact-finding results should be documented by the

Government evaluation team and provided to the Contracting Officer.

The goal of this communication tool is to address any major concerns with the contractor’s original estimate and reduce cycle time in the negotiation phase. However, fact-finding is not formal negotiations and the discussions are non-binding for both parties. To capture the intended schedule gains, support efficient negotiations, and assist Government evaluators in developing a final technical evaluation report, changes to the contractor’s estimate or adjustments to the

Government’s position since the fact-finding session(s) should be presented at the opening of negotiations.

vii. Negotiations

For purposes of this section, negotiations are considered exchanges between the Government and a sole source contractor after proposal receipt.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1), “The Contracting Officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices.” This requirement often necessitates additional communications with industry to gain a better understanding of the proposal, to provide information to the contractor regarding the Government’s evaluation of the proposal and to negotiate a fair and reasonable price.

Contracting Officers negotiating sole source contracts have broad discretion when communicating with industry and maintaining open dialogue with the contractor after proposal submission will support timely contract award. However, exchanges with industry - particularly those that alter the terms, conditions or prices of the proposal or the Government’s negotiation position – should be properly documented (via emails, memorandums to file, Requests for Information

(RFIs), etc.) to support the pre- and post-Business Clearance Memorandums and compliance with FAR 15.406-3, Documenting the Contract File.

Further, as proposal evaluation and negotiations typically require interaction between

Government technical evaluators (DCMA, DCAA, program representatives, etc.) and contractor personnel, Contracting Officers must ensure that all Government representatives understand and adhere to proper information sharing protocol and data handling restrictions. Examples of these limitations to communications with sole source contractors include:

Program Budget: While it is common for sole source contractors to submit Rough

Orders of Magnitude (ROMs) to assist a program in requesting then-year funding and executing appropriated funds, Government estimates for specific projects should not be disclosed to the contractor.

Proposal Information: The majority of proposals submitted will include proprietary data and an appropriate marking restricting use and/or disclosure of the information.

No surprises: Changes to the format or timing of negotiations should be communicated to the sole source contractor.

Government technical evaluators in possession of company proprietary or business sensitive data must comply with the restrictive markings, secure hard copies of proposals, and limit discussions involving proprietary data to controlled forums.

Government Negotiation Positions: Disclosure of the Government’s negotiation position, in whole or in part (labor or material estimates, learning curve assumptions, indirect rate analysis or profit/fee percentages), must be coordinated through the Contracting Officer.

As with the procurement schedules for source selections, Contracts personnel must keep sole source contractors apprised of the negotiation schedule and the expectations of the joint team.

Negotiations are a critical phase and require careful coordination to ensure the right people and data are available at the right place and time. Surprising the contractor with an offer, a revised schedule or a different approach to negotiations (from that discussed at the joint PPC) is not conducive to effective negotiations and will only contribute to decreased trust and delays to contract award.

viii. Post-Award Synopsis

The FAR 5.301 requirements for synopsizing contract awards exceeding $25,000 and certain contract actions – Federal Supply Schedule orders, limited source BPAs and task orders awarded without fair opportunity – greater than the simplified acquisition threshold also apply to sole source awards. Exceptions to this requirement can be found at FAR 5.301(a)(3) and 5.301(b).

For purposes of the ICG, the primary benefit of synopsizing contract awards is to provide industry notification of potential subcontracting opportunities.

ix. Post-Award, Joint Integrated Product Team, Communications

For awarded sole source and/or major weapon systems contracts executed in a joint Integrated

Product Team (IPT) environment, Government Contracts and Program personnel have broad discretion to collaborate with industry to address post-award issues with program cost, schedule and performance. Post-award conferences, as discussed in section 4(a)(xi), are one tool available for ensuring all parties understand their roles and responsibilities with regard to administration and preventing duplication of effort. Regular and effective communication – including productive discord - between NAVAIR Contracts personnel and their industry counterparts is a critical component of supporting joint IPTs and program objectives. However, all members of the IPT – Government and industry – should recognize joint program discussion as just that – discussions. The contract remains the governing document for execution and only the

Contracting Officer has the authority to change the contract’s terms and conditions, direct the contractor, or obligate the Government.

c. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

Industry will often solicit information from the Government – be it through the Contracts organization, requirements activity, the Freedom of Information Act office, or Command leadership – regarding upcoming or on-going source selections. Industry’s requests can come via phone, email, written correspondence, or occur during jointly attended Command outreach events. All exchanges with potential offerors should be coordinated through the Contracting

Officer during source selection; however, programs and competencies are permitted to engage contractors to discuss industry capabilities during early acquisition planning or while conducting specific (for a particular requirement) or general market research.

Contracts teams (in concert with NAVAIR Legal

Counsel), must remain apprised of any customer-industry interaction and provide acquisition phase-specific limitations or restrictions on exchanges.

Additionally, Contracts personnel should be diligent in responding to any industry queries either submitted directly to the Contract Specialist or to the Contracting

Officer or forwarded to the cognizant Contracts team from the requirement owner. The stage of the acquisition cycle will dictate the appropriate content of the response;

however, while the Government may not be at liberty to address a contractor’s concerns, it is important to at least acknowledge the transmission.

5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The following reference documents offer amplifying guidance on the concepts described herein.

The references are available on the MyNAVAIR website and the AIR-2.0 website.

a. Acquisition Communication Guide for NAVAIR Personnel dated March 2013

b. Department of Defense Vendor Communication Plan

c. Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Memorandum “Myth-Busting”:

Addressing Misconceptions to Improve Communication with Industry during the

Acquisition Process dated 02 Feb 2011

d. OFPP Memorandum “Myth Busting 2”: Addressing Misconceptions to Improve

Communication with Industry during the Acquisition Process dated 07 May 2012

e. NAVAIR INST 4200.39C, Principles and Procedures for Competitive Source

Selection, dated 18 Sep 2012

“Contracts personnel should be diligent in responding to any industry query…While the

Government may not be at liberty to address a contractor’s concerns, it is important to at least acknowledge the transmission.”

f. NAVAIR INST 4200.59 Technical Evaluation Of Contractor Proposals For Sole

Source Procurements

g. Sources Sought Process Guidebook Rev 1, dated September 2012

h. DASN Memorandum “Improving Competition in Defense Procurements” dated 01 Dec

i. Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy (DPAP) Memorandum dated 04 March

2011, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures

6. APPENDICES

The following is a list of Appendices referenced herein and attached hereto.

a. Industry Day Template

b. Sources Sought Synopsis & Evaluation Sheet

c. Sources Sought Response Letter – Capable

d. Sources Sought Response Letter – Indeterminable

e. Advanced Planning Notice

f. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter

g. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter – Exclusion from Competitive Range

h. Debrief Package – Oral (Power Point Presentation)

i. Debrief Package – Written (PCO Letter)