source selection process

1. 9/8/2011 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS Fran Gomes and Sally Merritt NAVFAC Midwest

2. 9/8/2011

3. 9/8/2011 Procurement Regulations Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARs) Navy/Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARs) Naval Facilities Engineering Command Supplement (NFAS) Web site � www.arnet.gov/far Key chapters: Part 12 � Commercial Items Part 13 � Simplified Acquisition Procedures (under $100,000) Part 15 � Contracting by Negotiation (over $100,000) Part 36 � Construction and Architect/Engineer Contracts Part 37 � Service Contracting

4. 9/8/2011 Trade-off Analysis Best value: Selection can be made to other than the lowest priced or highest technically rated proposal Technical evaluation factors and sub-factors are established by relative order of importance Relative importance of cost/price and other factors is specified in the Request for Proposals Trade-offs are permitted

5. 9/8/2011 EVALUATION FACTORS Represent key areas of importance Create proper filters to select the best value offeror Support comparison and discrimination between and among proposals The Request for Proposals (RFP) will indicate their relative order of importance For example - �technical evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost or price� or �technical evaluation factors are approximately equal to cost or price�

6. 9/8/2011 Technical Evaluation Factors Historical information on proposer - financial capability - past performance - relevant experience - key personnel Quality of proposed product or service - facility - equipment - project organization - work procedures � safety and quality control - schedule

7. 9/8/2011 Price Evaluation Criteria Must be objective (the technical evaluation is subjective) One �bottom line� price to objectively compare to other proposal prices May include estimated cost of changed work May include completion schedule credit May include adds/deducts for alternate technical solutions

8. 9/8/2011 Rating System NAVFAC uses an adjectival rating system for rating technical evaluation factors Other agencies use numerical or point scoring rating systems Ratings are �exceptional,� �highly acceptable�, �acceptable,� �marginal,� �unacceptable�, or �not rated� to evaluate each technical factor and establish an overall rating Proposals are objectively compared to the requirements in the RFP � proposal of one firm is not compared to the proposals of the other firms

9. 9/8/2011 Evaluation of Proposals - Roles Source Selection Authority: makes the final selection decision Warranted Contracting Officer Source Selection Board: objectively reviews the reports from the Technical and Price Evaluation Boards and performs trade-off analysis Chairman is a warranted Contracting Officer with customer membership Technical Evaluation Board: evaluates the technical proposals and recommends the overall adjectival ratings does not have access to any price information to maximize technical objectivity Chairman has a high level of technical expertise Price Evaluation Board: evaluates the price proposals Contract Specialist

10. 9/8/2011 Technical Price Company A exceptional $1,000,000Company B acceptable $ 900,000Company C marginal $ 800,000

11. 9/8/2011 Past Performance Evaluation Factor Past performance is a required rating factor in all of our procurements Normally we are looking for contractors who have previously performed contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the current project Most current projects � work performed in the past three years � will be given the most weight

12. 9/8/2011 Past Performance Evaluation Factor Past performance is the best indicator of future performance Navy can better predict how a contractor will perform with regard to quality of work and customer satisfaction Contractors are incentivized to strive for excellence Navy and Army Corps of Engineers enter performance data for construction contracts over $100,000 in the Construction Contract Appraisal Support System (CCASS) program Navy and Army Corps of Engineers enter performance data for A/E contracts over $25,000 in the Architect/Engineer Contract Appraisal Support System (ACASS) program Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs) is the data base for service contracts

13. 9/8/2011 Past Performance Evaluation Factor Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Government considers past performance information provided by the proposer as well as information obtained from any other sources available.

14. 9/8/2011 Technical Qualifications Evaluation Factor Key personnel resumes � normally the project superintendent, quality control manager, safety manager etc. Specialized experience Relevant Recent Registrations (if applicable)

15. 9/8/2011 Technical Solution Evaluation Factor Might include: - design solution narrative - conceptual building design - sustainable design features - schedule and phasing plan - equipment schedule - durability/quality of materials

16. 9/8/2011 Safety Evaluation It has been NAVFAC�s experience that safe contractors are good contractors As part of the technical evaluation we may ask for the offeror to provide their experience modifier rate (EMR) for the past three years. Ratings lower than 1.0 are good Provide explanation if there are extenuating circumstances Contractors with no EMR will be rated neutrally

17. 9/8/2011 Small Business Subcontracting Effort Evaluation Factor Evaluation factor used in unrestricted procurements Procurements over $1,000,000 for construction Provide maximum opportunity to small, small disadvantaged, woman owned, HUBZone, and service disabled veteran businesses Contractors who exceed the NAVFAC goals will be rated most highly

18. 9/8/2011 Small Business Subcontracting � NAVFAC�s FY 06 Goals

19. 9/8/2011 Review of Proposals After review of initial proposals, the government: - may request clarifications � either to correct minor or clerical errors, or to resolve adverse past performance information - may make an award based upon initial proposals - may make a competitive range determination and open discussions with all contractors in the competitive range

20. 9/8/2011 Discussions Offerors eliminated from the competitive range will be notified Discussions are tailored to each offeror�s proposal Offerors will be notified when the discussion phase has ended and final proposal revisions are due

21. 9/8/2011 Debriefings Contractor�s can request a pre-award (exclusion from competitive range) or post award debriefing Contractors must request a debriefing in writing within 3 days from notification of their exclusion from the competitive range or from notification of award of the contract

22. 9/8/2011 Pre-award debriefing Reason contractor was not included in the competitive range Pre-award debriefings will NOT disclose: the number of offerors the identify of other offerors the ranking/evaluation of the other offerors

23. 9/8/2011 Post-award debriefings Significant weaknesses of the offeror�s proposal Overall price and technical rating of the successful offeror and the offeror being debriefed Award rationale Source selection procedures

24. 9/8/2011 Two-phase Design-Build selection procedures When do we use these procedures? FAR 36.3 Applicable to construction only When design work must be performed by offerors before developing price or cost proposals, and When offerors will incur a substantial amount of expense in preparing offers

25. 9/8/2011 Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures Phase I factors Past performance Key personnel Past performance in utilizing small business, small disadvantaged business, woman owned small business, service disabled veteran owned small business, and HUBZone contractors Management approach

26. 9/8/2011 Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures Phase II Based upon the phase I submittals, government decides how many firms will advance to the second phase No more than 5 firms advance to the second phase Phase II Request for Proposals normally includes a factor to evaluate the offeror�s technical solution and small business subcontracting plan

27. 9/8/2011 Important Web Sites www.fedbizopps.gov � federal government site for posting solicitations www.ccr.gov - Central contractor registration; prime contractors use this site to search for subcontractors www.esol.navfac.navy.mil � NAVFAC site for posting solicitations www.arnet.gov - acquisition regulations

28. 9/8/2011 Procurement Technical Assistance Centers Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC) provide assistance to contractors in obtaining information about upcoming projects and making proposals http://www.aptac-us.org/new College of DuPage PTAChttp://www.wingovcon.comPhone: 630-942-4611Contact: James Kleckner (kleckner@cdnet.cod.edu)Address: 425 Fawell Blvd.Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-6599 College of Lake County PTACPhone: 847-543-2580Contact: Marc N. Violante (clcptac@clcillinois.edu)Address: 19351 West Washington StreetGrayslake, IL 60030 Moraine Valley Community College PTACPhone: 708-974-5452Contact: Alvin Meroz (meroz@morainevalley.edu)Address: 10900 S. 88th AvenuePalos Hills, IL 60465-0937

29. 9/8/2011 Points of Contact You can contact Sally or Fran as follows: Sally Merritt NAVFAC Midwest Acquisition Support Line Coordinator (847) 688-2600 ext. 102 sally.merritt@navy.mil Fran Gomes NAVFAC Midwest Capital Improvements Business Line Coordinator (847) 688-4766 ext. 300 francine.gomes@navy.mil

30. 9/8/2011 QUESTIONS??