DCSO-R2-CPI-SSP-02MAR17.docx

Source Selection Plan Defense Logistics Agency Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)

SP4703-17-R-5002

Reference: Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures

1. Background and Objectives

A. The purpose of this acquisition is to solicit support for Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Support Services for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Headquarters (HQ) to include expert consultation, advisory services for CPI and associated methodologies to include Lean Six Sigma, Process Management, Business Process Reengineering, Theory of Constraints, and others.

B. The purpose of this contract is to obtain vendor support for CPI deployment, growth and sustainment at the Enterprise and organizational levels, and coaching and execution of CPI Projects at all levels. With vendor support, the Government intends to improve the support delivered to the Agency and its customers, engage leadership, deliver on high-level/visibility projects, and ensure organic resources and candidates are coached to develop a culture of problem solvers. The anticipated period of performance will be base period of twelve (12) months, from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018 with two twelve (12) month option periods.

C. The purpose of this Source Selection Plan (SSP) is to provide written guidance to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and members of the Evaluation Team on how to evaluate proposals and select the offeror(s) whose proposal offers the best value to the Government utilizing the Best Value, Tradeoff Source Selection Process as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

2. Acquisition Strategy

A. Acquisition Authority. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items” is the acquisition authority for this procurement.

B. Selection Process. Best Value, Tradeoff Source Selection

The Tradeoff process is appropriate when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost/price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The perceived benefits of the higher priced offer shall merit the additional cost/price, and the rationale for tradeoffs shall be documented in the contract file. When using the Tradeoff Process, all evaluation factors and significant sub-factors that will affect contract award, and their relative importance, shall be clearly stated in the solicitation.

The Government’s objective is to obtain highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the required objectives. The non-price factors will result in considerable benefits to DLA and DoD as well. Thus, these factors are deemed significantly more important than price.

In the event of a single responsive proposal, the Government reserves the right to utilize a streamlined technical acceptability evaluation. Technical Acceptability is defined in Table 1.

3. Source Selection Team (SST)

The acquisition is to be conducted pursuant to the authority and procedures of FAR 12: however, some of the structure described in FAR Subpart 15.3 will be adopted. The source selection team for this procurement will consist of the following:

· Source Selection Authority (SSA)

· Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

· Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

A. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this acquisition is:

Name: Angela M. Evans Title: J5, DLA Deputy Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Organization: J5, DLA Logistics Operations Phone No: (703) 767-5208 E-mail Address: Angela.Evans@dla.mil

The duties of the Source Selection Authority (SSA) are described as follows:

i. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

ii. Appoint the chairperson for the SSEB.

iii. Ensure that personnel appointed to the Source Selection Team (SST) are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly, and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

iv. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS 203.170(a).

v. Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

vi. Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C., Section 423, and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of offeror bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information. Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement. Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements (from both Government members/advisors and non-Government team advisors) are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See CFR 2635).

vii. Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

viii. Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in the solicitation.

ix. Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Members:

The SSEB will be comprised of technical and functional experts, and will be responsible for fulfilling the responsibilities as outlined below:

SSEB Chairperson shall:

i. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSA.

ii. Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.

iii. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and time assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

iv. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

v. Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

vi. Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA.

vii. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

The SSEB members shall:

i. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

ii. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

iii. Support any post-source-selection activities, such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

Neither the SSEB Chairperson nor the SSEB members shall perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested by the SSA.

B. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for this procurement is:

Name: Ms. Mary L. Smith Title: Contracting Officer Organization: DLA Contracting Services Office Richmond Phone No: (804) 279-3329 E-mail Address: Mary.L.Smith@dla.mil

The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection. The contracting officer shall:

i. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and advise and assist the SSA in the execution of the responsibilities as outlined in 3(A), and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation.

ii. Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the solicitation before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (e.g. FAR 7.503 and 37.205).

iii. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and offeror bid or proposal information. Approve access to or release of source selection information and offeror bid or proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

iv. Maintain as a minimum, the documents and source selection evaluation records. Release the final solicitation only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

v. Serve as the single point of contact for all solicitation-related inquiries from actual or prospective offerors. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306. With the approval of the SSA to enter discussions, establish the competitive range and enter into discussions.

4. Communications All communication with offerors shall only go through the Procuring Contracting Officer. The acquisition will be posted via Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) to notify potential offerors of the Government’s requirement. The contract specialist shall mark or ensure all received proposals are marked with “Source Selection Information per FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104”. The SSEB will only perform technical evaluations in a secure room away from other Government personnel and non-Government personnel. Proposals will be kept in a locked location. Emails between Government personnel will be encrypted. The contracting officer shall facilitate, coordinate, and conduct all exchanges between the Government and offerors via clarifications, communications, and/or discussions. The contracting officer shall initiate exchanges through the release of Evaluation Notices to offerors. The SSEB shall prepare and the Procurement Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel shall review Evaluation Notices before their release. All discussions shall be documented in writing.

5. Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors Evaluation factors and sub-factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements and objectives having an impact on the selection decision and are expected to be discriminators, or are required by statute / regulation. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated allowing the Government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors and sub-factors, their relative order of importance and the importance of non-price to price factors shall be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated. The evaluation factors and sub-factors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors. In addition, all source selections shall evaluate price and the quality of the product or services provided in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity.

A. Factors and Sub-Factors for this Acquisition

Sub-factor C: Overall IDIQ Management Plan

Aspect One: Recency of Prior Contracts Aspect Two: Relevancy of Prior Contracts Aspect Three: Quality of Historical Projects

Factor 5: Price Proposal

Relative Importance of Factors:

The RFP includes four Non-Price factors (Management Approach, Technical Approach, Key Personnel, and Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment); Price is the fifth factor. The first three Non-Price Factors listed are of equal importance; Factor 1, Management Approach; Factor 2, Technical Approach; and Factor 3, Key Personnel. The three sub-factors listed under Factor 1, Management Approach, are of equal importance. The three sub-factors listed under Factor 2, Technical Approach, are of equal importance. The three Aspects listed of Past Performance are of equal importance.

Within the non-price factors, the three Technical factors (Management Approach, Technical Approach and Key Personnel) when combined are more important than the Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment Factor. The four Non-Price factors (Management Approach; Technical Approach; Key Personnel; and Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment) when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor. As the four non-price factors become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Basis for Award and Summary Evaluation of Non-Price Factors and Sub-Factors Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of the four Non-Price Evaluation Factors (Management Approach; Technical Approach; Key Personnel; and Past Performance / Performance Confidence Assessment), and then evaluated on Price. The detailed evaluation process is defined in Paragraph 5B.

Past Performance information will be provided by the offerors to show their relevancy of successfully accomplishing PWS tasks and to determine the quality of their recent, relevant past performance in order to assign a performance confidence assessment rating. Assessment for this area will be subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluation will investigate information furnished by the offeror to ensure they have consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity. This is a matter of judgment and will be a subjective assessment based on investigative findings.

Factor 5 Price, will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness and completeness.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government based on the requirement and the established evaluation factors.

B. Tables and Specific Instructions Proposals must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the offeror will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated objective in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the submissions, on the basis, of the material presented in the written proposals, including any proposed alternative performance standards.

Each Factor and sub-factor is rated in accordance with specific adjectival ratings and definitions, which are provided to the Evaluation team in Tables.

Table 1:

Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings and will be used to rate Factors 1, 2 and 3. Each sub-factor under Factors 1 and 2 will be rated independently, and the sub-factor ratings rolled up into an overall rating.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, with fair and reasonable prices. Award will be made on the basis of trade-off source selection process. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Firms are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, price will become the major consideration in selecting the best value. In the event of a single responsive proposal, the Government reserves the right to utilize a technically acceptable evaluation in lieu of the trade-off source selection process. Technical Acceptability is defined in Table 1.

A proposal must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the offeror will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated objective in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the submissions on the basis of the material presented in the written proposals, including any proposed alternative performance standards.

Note: The Government may use past performance information other than that provided by the offeror in its proposal. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

Factor 1: Management Approach

Sub-Factor A: Task Order Management Plan

In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

Vendors’ proposal regarding the Task Order Management Plan should include a narrative highlighting the management plan that will be incorporated to manage each task order. Vendors must provide a successful management plan and ensure successful performance of the work per task order.

Sub-Factor B: IDIQ Quality Control Plan (QCP)

In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The offeror’s proposed DRAFT IDIQ Quality Control Plan will adequately describe the methodology for quality assurance and compliance with the Deliverables and Performance Requirements Summary listed in Section 2.5 of the PWS. An agreed upon QCP will be incorporated as part of each task order.

Sub-Factor C: Overall IDIQ Management Plan In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The vendors’ proposed DRAFT IDIQ Quality Control Plan will adequately describe the methodology for quality assurance and compliance with the Deliverables and Performance Requirements Summary listed in Section 2.5 of the PWS. An agreed upon QCP will be incorporated as part of each task order.

Factor 2: Technical Approach

Vendor’s Technical Approach must demonstrate an understanding of the PWS that supports the CPI and all the supporting tasks that are encompassed in this goal.

The staffing solution, as proposed by the vendor, presents the most effective use of resources to meet the objectives of this RFP. A project plan or similar graphic is of key importance, with narrative, that outlines that vendors’ technical approach to meet or exceed the goals as described within this RFP. Vendors are to include a discussion of methods and techniques for completing each task, and address potential problem areas to include solutions, new processes or procedures.

Sub-Factor A: CPI Experience and Expertise

In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

Vendor must demonstrate that they have the experience and expertise as an organization to perform the required tasks. Experience not directly related but relevant will be considered.

Sub-Factor B: Methodology and Technical Approach

In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The vendor’s written proposal must clearly address the proposed approach that will enable them to ensure all requirements and tasks that are outlined in the PWS are met. Additionally, the vendor must provide details on how the vendor proposes to meet the tasks as outlined in the task order.

Sub-Factor C: Task Order One Technical Response

In evaluation of this sub-factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

a) The Contractor understands the work of Task Order One, as evidenced by the proposed plan for overall implementation and execution of project

b) Evidence of a process for ensuring quality and timeliness of deliverables

c) Documentation of a high performing quality process in place

Factor 3: Key Personnel Education, Certification, Experience

In evaluation of this factor, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

Vendor proposes personnel who demonstrate the required education, certification, and overall years of required experience as required by the PWS in Section 2. Experience not directly related but relevant will be considered.

Note: DoD/DLA/Federal department CPI experience is preferred and will be more highly rated than non-DoD/DLA/Federal department experience. Relevant experience will be considered but may not be as highly rated as directly related experience.

Factor 4: Past Performance/Performance Confidence Assessment

The Government will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of the contractor’s past performance on other contracts/projects within the last five years. This past performance information will be reviewed and assessed to assign a performance confidence assessment rating.

Aspect One: Recency of Prior Contracts

In evaluation of this aspect, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The recency of the vendor’s recent projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the vendor’s written proposal. More recent past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than older past performance. Recency will be rated as either Recent (within the last 5 years) or Not Recent (over 5 years).

Aspect Two: Relevancy of Prior Contracts In evaluation of this aspect, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The relevancy of the vendor’s relevant projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the vendor’s written proposal. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service / support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Aspect Three: Quality of Historical Projects In evaluation of this aspect, proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

The vendor’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction and history of staying on schedule and within budget, as evidenced by Past Performance Questionnaires and information provided in the vendor’s written proposal.

Evaluation of Aspect Three (Quality) will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the vendor’s proposal, and may include the Government’s independent verification with vendor’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the vendor’s proposal, the vendor will be asked to clarify this information. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

The Quality rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable or Neutral will be assigned for the levels as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Past Performance Quality Ratings

Past performance information will be reviewed and assessed to determine its recency, relevancy and quality in order to assign a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance Confidence Assessment will be rated in accordance with Table 4.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

Factor 5: Price All price proposals will be evaluated to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and completeness.

Price Proposals will be evaluated for the total IDIQ period of performance: (1) base year plus (2) option years. The total acquisition price utilized for evaluation will be the sum of the proposed price for all labor and other direct costs (ODC)/Travel, if any, for the entire period of performance of the basic IDIQ as provided in the Pricing Summary Sheet/ROM.

The proposed price for Task Order One will be evaluated to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and completeness; and to ensure the pricing is in accordance with the proposed basic IDIQ pricing; however, the total proposed price for Task Order One will not be included in the evaluation price.

6. Evaluation Process and Documentation

The SSEB is responsible for preparing an “Evaluation Summary Report” and if exchanges are required, an “Evaluation Notice” (EN) for each proposal.

The PCO shall document exchanges between the Government and offerors. If required, the PCO shall prepare a Competitive Range Determination (CRD) and Pre-Negotiation Briefing Memorandum (PBM). The PCO shall prepare a Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) and draft the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) for the Source Selection Authority.

The SSA is responsible for the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD). The SSA receives the draft SSDD from the PCO. The SSA reviews, revises, and ensures the SSDD reflects her independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

A. General

Each SSEB member must review the requirements of the RFP prior to the start of evaluations. The order of evaluation will be randomly decided. Each team member will complete an evaluation of a proposal before starting the evaluation of the next proposal.

B. Evaluation and Rating of Each Factor By Individual SSEB Members

Each SSEB member will independently evaluate each proposal using the criteria defined in this plan. The submission for each sub-factor and factor will be evaluated and assigned a rating using the rating scheme defined in the plan for that sub-factor and factor. The basis for the ratings will be documented on worksheets. Ratings must be supported by narrative findings, which identify strengths, weaknesses, omissions, errors, deficiencies, and associated risks noted during the evaluation. Worksheets may be handwritten.

C. Consensus Rating of Each Sub-Factor and Factor

A meeting of the SSEB members, facilitated by the team leader, will be held to arrive at a consensus rating for each sub-factor and factor.

Each sub-factor will be discussed and a consensus rating reached using the rating scheme defined in the plan for that sub-factor. The basis for the ratings will be documented on worksheets. Ratings must be supported by narrative findings, which identify strengths, weaknesses, omissions, errors, deficiencies, and associated risks noted during the evaluation.

Once a consensus rating is reached for each sub-factor under a factor, a consensus rating is assigned to the factor using the rating scheme defined in the plan for that factor. The basis for the ratings will be documented on worksheets. Ratings must be supported by narrative findings, which identify strengths, weaknesses, omissions, errors, deficiencies and associated risks noted during the evaluation.

If a consensus is not reached within a reasonable time, a rating will be decided by the team leader based on input from the members. In the case of a tie, the team leader will decide on the factor rating. If this situation arises, it must be addressed on the worksheets and in the written evaluation report.

C. Consensus Rating of the Proposal

After the consensus ratings are assigned for each factor, the SSEB, facilitated by the board chairman, will arrive at a consensus rating of the proposal. Each proposal will receive a consensus Technical/Risk rating from Table 1 and a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating from Table 4. The basis for the ratings will be documented on worksheets. Ratings must be supported by narrative findings, which identify strengths, weaknesses, omissions, errors, deficiencies, and associated risks noted during the evaluation.

D. Written Documentation

Each SSEB member will document their individual ratings and the sub-factor, factor, and proposal level, on worksheets as discussed above.

The SSEB will document their consensus ratings at the sub-factor, factor, and proposal level, on worksheets as discussed above.

A consensus report, signed by all SSEB members, will be prepared which sets forth for each proposal the basis of the consensus rating for each sub-factor, factor and the proposal.

7. Schedule of Events

8. Non-Government Personnel: Not Applicable

9. Securing Selection Materials

The SSEB will only perform technical evaluations in a secure room away from other Government personnel and non-government personnel. Proposals will be kept in a secure locked location.

10. Definitions

· Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. FAR 15.306(a)(1).

· Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. FAR 15.306(b).

· Competitive Range is all of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings if each proposal against all evaluation criteria, which can be limited for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c)

· Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. FAR 15.001.

· Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. FAR 15.306(d).

· Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Quality of product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-price evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience.

· Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. All evaluations that include a technical factor shall also consider risk. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Low Risk, Proposal has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 3.1.2.1.2 at Table 2B.

· Moderate Risk, Proposal can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 3.1.2.1.2 at Table 2B.

· High Risk, Proposal is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), 3.1.2.1.2 at Table 2B.

· Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. FAR 15.001.

· Source Selection Evaluation Board is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with evaluating proposals against the solicitation criteria. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 2016), Section 5, Definitions.

· Technical, as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance.

· Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. FAR 15.001.

APPROVED:

ANGELA M. EVANS DATE

Source Selection Authority J5, DLA Deputy Director, Strategic Plans and Policy

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR PART 2.101 AND 3.104