What’s New in Source Selection 14 Mar 2012

1. What’s New in Source Selection 14 Mar 2012 Chris Gerfen Chief of Source Selection ESC/AQ

2. Training Agenda • Background and Overview • New Source Selection Procedures • Chapter 1 - Purpose, Roles, Responsibilities • Chapter 2 - Pre-Solicitation Activities • Chapter 3 - Evaluation and Decision Process • Chapter 4 - Documentation Requirements • Chapter 5 - Definitions • Appendix A - LPTA • Appendix B - Debriefing Guide • AF Chapter 6 - Mandatory AF Source Selection Training • AF Attachments • HERBB Shutdown

3. Background and Overview • Joint Analysis Team established Nov 08 by USD(AT&L) • Objective: Standardize methodology and approach DoD uses to conduct competitively negotiated source selections • JAT Methodology: Examined current processes utilized within DoD and identified key elements of a successful source selection • Results: Common set of principles and procedures for conducting such acquisition • Goal of procedure – to ensure DoD’s source selection process delivers quality, timely products and services to the Warfighter and the Nation at the best value for the taxpayer

4. Background and Overview • OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP Memo, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures wasissuedon 4 Mar 11(DFARS 215.300 / PGI) • Provides uniform source selection guidance within DoD and simplifies the source selection process • * Effective 1 Jul 11 * • Mandatory for all competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures • All RFPs issued after 1 Jul 11 are subject to these procedures

5. Background and Overview • SAF/AQC Policy Memo 11-C-04, Mandatory Air Force Source Selection Procedures, 8 May 11 • Aligns AFFARS 5315 and Mandatory Procedure MP5315.3 with new DoD procedures • Establishes mandatory source selection training policy for members of the acquisition/source selection team (MP5315.3, Chapter 6 and AFFARS 5307.104(S-90)(a)) • MP5315.3 is no longer a stand-alone set of procedures • Same effective date as DoD Procedures Applicable above Simplified Acquisition Threshold in lieu of $1M threshold in current MP regardless of source selection technique used

6. Purpose, Roles, Responsibilities • DoD Procedures section 1.2 describes two of the acquisition processes and techniques within Best-Value Continuum that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition • Tradeoff Source Selection Process (body of document) • Process for tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price including various rating approaches to evaluate proposals • General source selection principles • Air Force “Performance Price Tradeoff” falls within the Tradeoff Source Selection Process • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process (Appendix A) • Must follow “general source selection principles” from body of document – exemptions in preface of Appendix A

7. Purpose, Roles, Responsibilities • May use any one or a combination of source selection approaches • Required to use standardized ratings/descriptions/definitions regardless of approach taken • For any factors/subfactors evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, the ratings at Appendix A, Table A-1 and A-2 shall be utilized • For any factors/subfactors evaluated on other than an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, the ratings at Section 3.1 shall be utilized

8. Greater Relative Importance of Cost or Price Lesser Lesser Importance of Non-Cost Factors Greater Cost or Price Non–Cost Factors The Best-Value Continuum – Source Selection Techniques FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented Trade-Off Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A Tradeoff Source Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection Procedures Oh! The possibilities! Mix-n-match tradeoffs: Technical Technical Risk Past Performance Cost or Price Non-Cost Factors Low Price Lowest Price

9. Here are Just a Few!

10. Source Selection Team Composition • Source Selection Authority (SSA) • Shall be other than the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more, regardless of procedure used • AF MP reflects revised SSA designations and delegations (see para 1.4.1.1) • PCO • Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) • Required for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more • Prepares written comparative analysis of proposals, provides source selection recommendation to SSA and oversight to the SSEB • Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) instead of SSET • “Past Performance Team” instead of acronym “PCAG” • SSEB may conduct comparative analysis/make source selection recommendation only if specifically requested by SSA or required by Source Selection Plan

11. Source Selection Team Composition • Advisors, cost/pricing experts, legal counsel, small business specialists, other subject matter experts • Use of non-Government personnel as voting members of the SSEB is PROHIBITED (see FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii), FAR 37.203 and FAR 37.204) • Use of non-Government personnel as advisors may be authorized but should be minimized as much as possible • No access to offeror’s past performance information • Must sign same Non-disclosure agreement and Conflict of Interest Statement as Government participants • Must provide documentation to PCO indicating their personal stock holdings prior to being allowed access to source selection sensitive information • PCO must have consent of submitting contractors to provide proprietary information to non-Government advisors

12. Pre-Solicitation Activities • Risk Assessment—shall conduct in accordance with FAR 7.105 necessary to support the acquisition planning process • Market Research—Use of Industry Day(s) and draft Request for Proposals (RFP) are highly recommended for all acquisitions • Source Selection Plan (SSP) required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15 • SSA approves SSP prior to issuance of final RFP • Evaluation Factors/Subfactors--expected to be discriminators • All source selections shall evaluate: • Cost or Price of supplies or services being acquired • Quality of Product or Service • Consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factor(s) tailored to the source selection process employed

13. Technical Evaluation Process • Technical approach and related technical risk evaluation • Combined (single) rating – risk evaluated as one aspect of technical evaluation, inherent in technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings; OR • Separate technical and risk ratings assigned at technical factor (or subfactor level if subfactors used); OR • Technical “Acceptable/Unacceptable” rating approach • Extent of participation of Small Business concerns • Separate evaluation factor, or a subfactor under technical factor • “Acceptable/Unacceptable” or use same ratings scheme as for technical/risk • Considered within evaluation of one of the technical subfactors • No separate small business rating applied

14. Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 1)

15. Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 2)

16. Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)

17. Technical Ratings

18. Past Performance Evaluation Process Past Performance need not be evaluated if PCO documents reason it is not an appropriate evaluation factor • Performance Confidence Assessment; OR • Rate past performance on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis using rating definitions from DoD Source Selection Procedures Table A-2 in LPTA (Appendix A) process • Four levels of relevancy defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 4, but for those source selections requiring less discrimination in past performance evaluation, you may use, as a minimum, “Relevant” and “Not Relevant” • Five levels of Performance Confidence described in DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 5

19. Past Performance Evaluation

20. Past Performance Evaluation

21. Past Performance Evaluation Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned , the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

22. Evaluation and Decision Process • Discussions are highly recommended for source selections • Award without discussions shall occur in only limited circumstances • Obtain contract clearance prior to SSA making decision to award without discussions • Prior to establishment of the competitive range and after decision to conduct discussions has been made, PCO may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion/exclusion from competitive range is uncertain • PCO establishes competitive range; SSA approves

23. Evaluation and Decision Process • Obtain contract clearance prior to submission of all material (e.g., Pre-FPR briefing) to the SSA to obtain approval for releasing the FPR request • When PCO is not SSA, SSA concurrence required prior to releasing the request for final proposal revisions • Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) will be used to document the results of SSEB’s evaluation regardless of dollar value or source selection technique utilized • PAR prepared by SSEB and signed by SSEB Chairperson and PCO (and SSAC Chairperson if an SSAC is used)

24. Evaluation and Decision Process • SSAC conducts and documents comparative analysis and makes award recommendation to SSA • Comparative Analysis Report and Award Recommendation is a separate document from PAR • SSEB must be specifically requested by the SSA (or required by the SSP) to conduct a comparative analysis of proposals/provide an award recommendation

25. Evaluation and Decision Process • A decision briefing prepared by SSEB will generally be conducted whenever the SSA is other than the PCO • PCO shall obtain contract clearance approval prior to the SSA making a source selection decision • SSA shall document supporting rationale for best-value decision in Source Selection Decision Document

26. Documentation Requirements • Minimum list of source selection documents for the contract file are set forth in DoD Source Selection Procedures Chapter 4 • AF MP requires that the SSEB fully, completely, and contemporaneously document the rationale and justification for evaluation results and assignment of interim ratings and include this documentation in the source selection file • Documentation includes evaluation worksheets and summaries and is in addition to information regarding final evaluation results and ratings to be documented in Proposal Analysis Report (PAR)

27. Definitions • See Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures • New for AF: “Strength” -- 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 • Will not use AF unique terms -- “uncertainty,” “Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG),” “Mission Capability”, “Simplified Source Selection Report (SSSR),” “Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET)” • AF MP5315.3 adds definition of “Proposal Analysis Report (PAR)” -- the narrative report prepared by the SSEB that fully documents the results of the evaluation of each proposal (reference DoD Source Selection Procedures, para 3.6.1)

28. Appendix A - LPTA Highlights • Used for acquisition of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be low risk • Shall evaluate cost/price and acceptability of the product or services (consideration of one or more non-price evaluation factors/subfactors) • Defined ratings for acceptable/unacceptable required for use • Past Performance shall be used as evaluation factor unless waived by PCO • Rated on acceptable/unacceptable basis – ratings defined • Small Business participation is exempted from evaluation • If determined an appropriate evaluation factor, should be considered one of the “technical” factors/subfactors

29. Appendix B – Debriefing Guide • PCO encouraged to use Debriefing Guide provided within the DoD Source Selection Procedures: • Purpose of debriefings • Requirements • Notification of debriefing • Debriefing location • Debriefing attendees • Preparing for the debriefing • Outline for the debriefing • Conducting the debriefing • Sample offeror questions that may be used for a “dry-run” debriefing

30. Training Policy – “New”MP5315.3, Chapter 6 • SCO/SCCO Responsibilities • Have a Source Selection Training Program • Execution of the training policy • Designation of training manager/Point of Contact and trainers • Source selection experience • Maintain quality of trainers • Must have “train-the-trainer” training • Encourage “guest” participation by legal or other SME – “tag team” • Ensure acquisition teams have opportunity for advance preparation prior to training

31. Training Policy – “New”MP5315.3, Chapter 6 • Source selection training • Training applicable for competitive acquisitions – “just-in-time “ (JIT) • During acquisition planning or prior to development of evaluation criteria (Phase I Planning) • Prior to evaluation of proposals (Phase II Execution) • Mandatory use of training module topics, tailoredto specific acquisitions • Can not delete mandatory topics

32. AF MP5315.3 Attachments • Required use • Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)—note revisions • Conflict of Interest Statement—New • Source Selection Information Coversheet—note revisions

33. HERBB Shutdown • ESC’s HERBB will be shutdown this spring • Fed Biz Ops (FBO) will now be the only source for posting of RFP and program information • Timeline • 1 Feb 12- No new program pages allowed on HERBB • 1 Feb-1 Apr 12: migration of HERBB info to FBO • 1 Apr 12: No RFP posting on HERBB, only FBO • 1 May 12: No more industry access to HERBB • 1 Jun 12: No more Gov’t access to HERBB