Proposal Evaluations for Task/Delivery Orders Part II: Conducting the Evaluation

1. TRICARE Management Activity HEALTH AFFAIRS Proposal Evaluations for Task/Delivery OrdersPart II: Conducting the Evaluation Acquisition Management and Support (AM&S) Contracts Operations Division-Falls Church (COD-FC)

2. Overall Seminar Agenda Ethics as Applied to Source Selection Planning and Preparation Conducting and Documenting the Evaluation

3. Agenda • Introduction • Review of Tradeoff & Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Process • Key Elements of an Evaluation • Evaluation Process • Procedural Guidelines • References • Questions

4. Introduction Two Types of Evaluation Processes 1. Tradeoff 2. Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Phases of an Evaluation An Evaluation generally consists of three phases: 1. Planning 2. Forming Evaluation Team 3. Conducting the Evaluation This presentation will elaborate on Phase 3 which includes conducting the evaluation, collecting and validating past performance, and compiling the consensus document.

5. Tradeoff Process Review • Tradeoff is appropriate when in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. • This process permits tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost/price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file. (FAR 15.101-1)

6. Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Process Review • Appropriate when best value is expected to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluation price. • This process does not permit tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost/price factors. Award will be made to Offeror whose price is lowest among all proposals that were deemed to be technically acceptable. 

7. Key Elements of an Evaluation Conducting a successful proposal evaluation depends on these three key elements: 1. Consistent use and application of evaluation criteria 2. Consistent use and application of evaluation rating standards among all evaluators and proposals being evaluated 3. A careful review of the language in each proposal: • Verify how the offeror will meet RFP/RFQ requirements • Identify assumptions (whether or not labeled as such) • Identify any statements that may indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government 4. Fully documented evaluation findings

8. Evaluation Overview The evaluation consensus must stand on its own subjective merit as qualified by the evaluation consensus documented determination. Although this determination need not be quantified by any formula it must stand the test of a benefit analysis and be agreed to by the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Contracting Officer (KO). Steps of the Evaluation 1. Prepare Individual Evaluation Worksheets 2. Meet (in-person or remotely) to come to Consensus for award 3. Fill Out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Form  4. Submit Forms to your AM&S COD-FC Contract Specialist (KS)

9. Evaluation ProcessFlowchart Two Panels Single Panel Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Non-Cost/PriceEvaluation Cost/Price Evaluation Can happen simultaneously Cost/Price Evaluation Collect & document past performance Draft Consensus Draft Consensus Forward all evaluation worksheets and Panel Consensus Form to AM&S COD-FC-KS Update & Submit Final Consensus to AM&S COD-FC-KS Contracting Officer for Final Decision

10. Step 1 – Preparing Individual Evaluations • Complete a Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet and a Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet for each proposal by each evaluator • i.e. 3 Evaluators x 4 proposals = 12 Non-Cost/Price & 12 Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets) • Single Panel (one team for both evaluation worksheets): • Complete the Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets (without knowledge of any cost or pricing data); collect past performance; complete Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets. • Two Panels (one team for each evaluation worksheet): • Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets and Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets are completed by separate teams (either concurrently or consecutively).    • All completed worksheets should be submitted to the supporting AM&S COD-FC KS. Requiring activities should also maintain copies until Source Selection is complete. • Follow direction of the SSA/KO regarding final disposition of individual evaluation worksheets.

11. Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet • Contains a section for each evaluation factor identified in the acquisition package (Technical Approach, Experience, Quality Control Approach, Past Performance, etc.)  • Evaluator • Lists the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to support the rating he/she has given the proposal.  • Presents specific comments to the proposal (with reference to the page and paragraph) and to the pertinent requirement(s) in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). • Applies an adjectival rating on each evaluation factor in each proposal.  Do not compare proposals against one another during this part of the Tradeoff evaluation.  • Evaluate only the factors that were listed in the Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR).

12. Past Performance • Past performance shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000, however, the Contracting Officer may, as in the LPTA approach, determine that past performance is not an acceptable factor for the acquisition in which case it need not be evaluated. • Solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating Offeror’s with no relevant performance history. • One indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully; validate provided reference and solicit additional input.

13. Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet • Provides a framework for analysis of proposed labor and other cost/price factors and documents significant variance from the IGCE. • Provides for an integration of both non-cost/price and cost/price aspects of the evaluation, resulting in an overall "individual" or "cross talk” based recommendation that considers both non-cost and cost aspects of the proposal. • Allows evaluators to discuss the rationale for recommendation based on the factors selected (strengths) and any cost/price trade-offs made if the lowest price proposal was not recommended.  When completing the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet, evaluators should bear in mind that the current generation of TMA multiple award contracts such as T/AARMS, TEAMS and D/SIDDOMS 3 already had their labor rates certified as reasonable when the contract was awarded.  While labor rates proposed in response to Fair Opportunity solicitations should be consistent with previously certified rates, evaluators should nevertheless pay attention to the labor categories being proposed to ensure that they are appropriate to accomplish the work described in the PWS and the proposal. 

14. Step 2 - Evaluation Panel Consensus Form • Evaluators “meet” locally or remotely to review and discuss individual comments and write-ups. • Evaluators document the team’s recommendation which serves as the basis for the Contracting Officer’s award decision. • Consensus is signed by Lead Evaluator and other panel members or by the Source Selection Board (SSB) Chairperson (if applicable). • Evaluators • Collectively complete one consensus evaluation for each Offeror. • Apply an adjectival rating and supporting narrative to each category for EACH proposal.  • Complete the Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation section once the evaluation has been completed and the recommendation has been made. 

15. Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation • Depending on approach, this is completed by the SSB chair or Lead Evaluator. • Fill out this section even if you only received one offer. • When recommending a proposal that is not a “lowest cost,” describe WHY the added non-cost/price capability outweighs the cost differential from both an absolute dollar value and a percent differential. • Remarks should describe why the proposal was recommended for award and most importantly, why the other proposal(s) were NOT recommended. • It is not sufficient to simply say “Offeror B offers the best value to the Government.”

16. Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation Examples

17. Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation It is critical that the panel’s recommendation be fully supported by the narrative justification.  The evaluation panel must make a solid “Business Case” for selecting one Offeror over the others.  This is particularly important in the following case: • Where there are one or more Offerors that meet the requirements of the RFP/RFQ, but the panel wishes to recommend award to a considerably higher priced Offeror with a higher overall rating.  The business case must answer these questions: • Why pay X% and Y dollars more, and what does the Government get for price differential? Where a panel recommends award to an Offeror with the same overall rating as another, lower priced Offeror the award will, as a rule go to the lower priced Offeror.

18. Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation • Any price/cost in question should be brought to the attention of the KO.  • The panel must also indicate in their narrative justification, the use of any proposal language that constitutes an increased risk to the Government.  • Some examples of Increased Risk Language to look out for in the proposal. The Government will not be liable for contingencies.

19. Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation • It is not uncommon to see this type of proposal language (especially in the IT/service industry and larger contractors).  • All of the statements on the previous slide could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government and must be pointed out in writing to the KO as part of the evaluation process. • If an offeror using this language is recommended for award, such wording can then be stricken from the proposal prior to award.

20. Step 3 - Submit Forms to AM&S COD-FC Contract Specialist • When the evaluation process is complete, all documentation pertaining to the source selection should be submitted to your AM&S COD-FC KS (Individual evaluations, consensus form, etc.) • The AM&S COD-FC KS will submit the signed Consensus form to the Contracting Officer.  This form constitutes the board’s/panel’s recommendation.  • As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), the KO will make the final decision on selection for award. • The KO is not bound to award to the recommended offeror.

21. Procedural Guidelines – DOs • DO look carefully at the text in the proposal that may include statements and/or assumptions that could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government. • DO give each proposal the same consideration up front. • The name of the offeror should not influence (positively or negatively) the evaluator’s comments or ratings, except when evaluating past performance.  • DO document your reasoning for any potential increased risk to the Government on the evaluation form for the KO’s review. • DO evaluate proposals against the RFP/RFQ requirements.

22. Procedural Guidelines – DOs • DO provide detailed comments and accurate references. • Comments should be complete, clear, and detailed enough that the Contracting Officer is able to determine the evaluator’s intent without having to contact them.

23. Procedural Guidelines – DOs • DO ensure that it is clear how your comment relates to the evaluation factor. • DO use references to limit amount of time and space that each comment requires.

24. Procedural Guidelines – DOs • DO provide comments that are clear and “plainly” written. • Avoid using language that may be too “technical”. • Avoid using language that is jargon-laden and legalistic.  This will not clearly convey important information but may cause confusion and misinterpretation. • Avoid undefined or overused abbreviations and acronyms.  • DO be fair and consistent in the proposal evaluation. • If an item is a strength/weakness for one proposal it should also be noted as a strength/weakness when it appears in other proposals. • Be Critical, but Fair in your evaluation.   • Do not “take it easy” or be overly harsh.  Fairly evaluate all proposals against the requirements of the RFP/RFQ.

25. Procedural Guidelines – DON’Ts • DO NOT evaluate or compare proposals against one another during the initial evaluation. They must be evaluated individually against the evaluation factors in the RFP/RFQ.  (The evaluation team may compare the proposals against each other only within the justification of the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form.) • DO NOT make assumptions.  Evaluate the text in the proposal.

26. Procedural Guidelines – DON’Ts Avoid protest by avoiding these mistakes: • Rating an idea as a positive in one proposal and the same idea as a negative in another. • Rating based on criteria not included in the RFP/RFQ.

27. Procedural Guidelines – Always Ask Yourself… • Always ask yourself:  How is the contractor going to meet the requirements of the RFP/RFQ? • Simply stating that, “I will comply” with the requirements does not explain how they intend to accomplish compliance with the requirements. • Do not make assumptions.  Evaluate the text in the proposal.  • Always ask yourself: If I was present at the debrief, would I be able to defend this assessment? • Ensure that your comments are concise, clear and professionally stated. • Antagonistic or inflammatory comments can be used to support a protest and must be avoided. All materials prepared as part of the evaluation, including all notes, worksheets, and materials, are “discoverable” if an award is protested by a non-winning contractor.  If a protest occurs, the Government is legally obligated to provide these materials to the protesting contractor. Prepare all documentation accordingly.

28. References • TMA Non-Purchased Care Desk Top Reference http://tricare.mil/tma/ams/ams_desktop.aspx Click on “Tools and Guides” from the left-hand side menu. The following templates/forms can be found within each specific task order template: • Task Order Proposal Request Template (T/AARMS, T/EAMS, D/SIDDOMS 3 or GSA) • Non-Cost/Price Worksheet • Cost/Price Worksheet • Tradeoff Evaluation Template (in Excel format)

29. Questions Questions??