1 / 234

SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING

8/5/2012. 2. Purpose. Purpose of this source selection training is to deliver deliberate and consistent training and support to Air Force Source Selection Teams.. 8/5/2012. 3. OVERVIEW. 8/5/2012. 4. Overview. Introduction to Air Force Source SelectionFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR

kali
Download Presentation

SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 8/6/2012 1 Welcome to the AF Source Selection Training Session. This is just-in-time training for your AF source selection. Updates made for AFAC 2008-0128, 28 Jan 2008 Welcome to the AF Source Selection Training Session. This is just-in-time training for your AF source selection. Updates made for AFAC 2008-0128, 28 Jan 2008

    2. 8/6/2012 2 Purpose Purpose of this source selection training is to deliver deliberate and consistent training and support to Air Force Source Selection Teams.

    3. 8/6/2012 3

    4. 8/6/2012 4 Overview Introduction to Air Force Source Selection Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) & Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Ethics and Procurement Integrity AF Source Selection Key Participates, Organization, Roles and Responsibilities Source Selection Process Overview Early Acquisition Activities Planning for the Acquisition, Assign Key Personnel Requirements Document, Market Research, Dialogue with Industry Risk Assessment Acquisition Plan (AP) Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP) These overview charts will provide an outline of the training sections. First we will discuss the applicable laws and regulations, applicable ethics and procurement integrity issues, the AF source selection team, and an overview of the source selection process. Then we will focus on early activities required in the acquisition from the designation of key personnel through the acquisition strategy panel. These overview charts will provide an outline of the training sections. First we will discuss the applicable laws and regulations, applicable ethics and procurement integrity issues, the AF source selection team, and an overview of the source selection process. Then we will focus on early activities required in the acquisition from the designation of key personnel through the acquisition strategy panel.

    5. 8/6/2012 5 Overview Pre-solicitation Activities Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) Source Selection Techniques Section M—Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria Section L and Attachments—Instructions to the Offerors Source Selection Plan (SSP) Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Prior to Receipt of Proposals Source Selection Tools and Training Final Questionnaire Next we will cover the development of the solicitation document called Request for Proposals (RFP) specifically Sections L, Instructions to the Offerors and Section M, Evaluation Criteria and release of the RFP. We will also address other key pre-solicitation activities. We will focus of what the team needs to do after the RFP is issued but before the proposals are received—getting ready for the evaluation of proposals. Next we will cover the development of the solicitation document called Request for Proposals (RFP) specifically Sections L, Instructions to the Offerors and Section M, Evaluation Criteria and release of the RFP. We will also address other key pre-solicitation activities. We will focus of what the team needs to do after the RFP is issued but before the proposals are received—getting ready for the evaluation of proposals.

    6. 8/6/2012 6 Overview Evaluation Activities Safeguarding Source Selection Information FAR 2.101 Administrative Review of Proposals Quick Look Exchanges and Evaluation Notices (ENs) Mission Capability (MC) Technical and Risk Evaluation Past Performance Evaluation Cost/Price Risk Evaluation Cost/Price Evaluation Contracting Evaluation Competitive Range Briefing Then we will cover evaluation of the proposals. We will discuss how the different groups within the source selection team evaluate their section of the proposal. Then we will cover evaluation of the proposals. We will discuss how the different groups within the source selection team evaluate their section of the proposal.

    7. 8/6/2012 7 Overview Additional Evaluation Activities Release of Interim Ratings Discussion with Offerors Clearance Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Final Proposal Evaluation Final Decision Briefing Documentation Requirements Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Debriefings Summary Finally we will discuss the final activities leading up to award of the contract. We will cover the required documentation. In conclusion, we will discuss the debriefing process. Finally we will discuss the final activities leading up to award of the contract. We will cover the required documentation. In conclusion, we will discuss the debriefing process.

    8. 8/6/2012 8

    9. 8/6/2012 9

    10. 8/6/2012 10 Federal Acquisition Regulation Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 and Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 gave authority for federal agencies to purchase goods and services by negotiations. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) System is in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 (Pub. Law 93-400), as amended by Pub. Law 96-83. FAR was issued as Chapter 1 of Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations. Purpose: FAR System is established for the codification and publication of uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies. Armed Service Procurement Act of 1947 gave authority to DoD and NASA to purchase goods and services by negotiations. Prior to that law purchases were made by bids. The Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 gave authority for GSA and others to do purchases. FAR 1.103 Authority, paragraph (a) The development of the FAR System is in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-400), as amended by Pub. L. 96-83. FAR 1.105-1(b) The FAR is issued as Chapter 1 of Title 48 CFR. FAR 1.101 states the purpose of the FAR.Armed Service Procurement Act of 1947 gave authority to DoD and NASA to purchase goods and services by negotiations. Prior to that law purchases were made by bids. The Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 gave authority for GSA and others to do purchases. FAR 1.103 Authority, paragraph (a) The development of the FAR System is in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-400), as amended by Pub. L. 96-83. FAR 1.105-1(b) The FAR is issued as Chapter 1 of Title 48 CFR. FAR 1.101 states the purpose of the FAR.

    11. 8/6/2012 11 Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR Guiding Principles Vision—deliver best value product or service on a timely basis while maintaining public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives. Federal Acquisition System will … Satisfy customer—cost, quality, and timeliness of delivered product or service by: Maximizing use of commercial products/services Using contractors with record of successful past performance or current superior ability to perform Promoting competition Minimize admin operating cost Conduct business with integrity, fairness and openness Fulfill public policy objectives FAR 1.102—Statement of Guiding Principles for the Federal Acquisition System. “The vision of the Federal Acquisition system is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives. The Federal Acquisition system will—(1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example—(i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative cost; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives.” FAR 1.102(b) The Federal Acquisition System will— (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service, by, for example— (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative operating costs; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives.FAR 1.102—Statement of Guiding Principles for the Federal Acquisition System. “The vision of the Federal Acquisition system is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public’s trust and fulfilling public policy objectives. The Federal Acquisition system will—(1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example—(i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative cost; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives.” FAR 1.102(b) The Federal Acquisition System will— (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service, by, for example— (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services; (ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and (iii) Promoting competition; (2) Minimize administrative operating costs; (3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and (4) Fulfill public policy objectives.

    12. 8/6/2012 12 Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR Part 15—Contracting By Negotiation Describes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions. Negotiated contract is one that is awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures. FAR Part 15.002(b)—Competitive Acquisition Procedures Are Intended to: Minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation and the source selection decision, Foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of proposals Lead to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the government FAR 15.000 Scope of part. This part prescribes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions. A contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures (see 14.101) is a negotiated contract. FAR 15.002 Types of negotiated acquisition. (a) Sole source acquisitions. (b) Competitive acquisitions. When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101). In accordance with FAR 2.101, the definition of Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.FAR 15.000 Scope of part. This part prescribes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions. A contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures (see 14.101) is a negotiated contract. FAR 15.002 Types of negotiated acquisition. (a) Sole source acquisitions. (b) Competitive acquisitions. When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101). In accordance with FAR 2.101, the definition of Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

    13. 8/6/2012 13 FAR and DFARS FAR Subpart 15.1 – Source Selection Processes and Techniques 15.101—Best Value Continuum. 15.101-1—Tradeoff Process (a) Appropriate when it may be in the best interest of Government to consider award to other than lowest priced offeror or other than highest technically rated offeror. (b) Must have evaluation factors and subfactors and relative order of importance in RFP. (c) Permits tradeoffs among cost/price and other factors 15.101-2—Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with lowest evaluated price. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3—Source Selection FAR Subpart 15.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques FAR 15.100—Scope of subpart This subpart describes some of the acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition. FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff Process. (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be 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. (b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price. (c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost 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 in accordance with 15.506. FAR Subpart 15.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques FAR 15.100—Scope of subpart This subpart describes some of the acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition. FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff Process. (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be 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. (b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price. (c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost 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 in accordance with 15.506.

    14. 8/6/2012 14 AFFARS Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315—Contracting by Negotiation AFFARS 5315.101—Tradeoff Process added Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Tradeoff conducted between past performance and price/cost for technically acceptable proposals (Informational Guidance at IG5315.101) AFFARS 5315.3—Source Selection and Mandatory Procedures at MP5315.3 set forth the AF Source Selection responsibilities and procedures Air Force added another tradeoff process called performance price tradeoff (PPT). AFFARS MP5315.3 covers Source Selection mandatory procedures. Air Force added another tradeoff process called performance price tradeoff (PPT). AFFARS MP5315.3 covers Source Selection mandatory procedures.

    15. 8/6/2012 15 The Best Value Continuum This is a picture of the two previous word charts. It explains the continuum of tools to simplify and streamline the process for selecting the contractor to get a contract. As already stated, FAR Part 15 establishes various acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. Two of the processes are (1) tradeoff and (2) lowest price technically acceptable source selection. The AFFARS added more definition to the tradeoff process by establishing Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) as another evaluation process. The source selection methods range from those on the left where price is the most important factor in the award decision to the right hand side where technical solutions, proposal risk, and past performance confidence are more important than cost/price. This is a picture of the two previous word charts. It explains the continuum of tools to simplify and streamline the process for selecting the contractor to get a contract. As already stated, FAR Part 15 establishes various acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. Two of the processes are (1) tradeoff and (2) lowest price technically acceptable source selection. The AFFARS added more definition to the tradeoff process by establishing Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) as another evaluation process. The source selection methods range from those on the left where price is the most important factor in the award decision to the right hand side where technical solutions, proposal risk, and past performance confidence are more important than cost/price.

    16. 8/6/2012 16 AFFARS Source Selection procedures mandatory for all competitively negotiated acquisitions except: Basic research and acquisitions using Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) IAW FAR 35; Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTTR); Architect-engineer services IAW FAR 36; Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) except when using PPT past performance shall be evaluated consistent with MP 5315.305 paragraphs 5.5.3 and 5.6.2.1 Acquisitions less than $1M; and Acquisitions using Simplified Acquisition Procedures. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 2.1 states the exemptions to the mandatory source selection procedures. a. Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) and Program Research and Development Announcements (PRDAs) are used in accordance with (IAW) FAR 35. b. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) IAW 15 USC Sec.638. c. Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded IAW FAR 36 d. Acquisitions using LPTA or PPT except as stated in AFFARS 5315.101-1(a) which states that for PPT’s past performance shall be evaluated consistent with MP5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.2 and 5.6.2.1. e. Acquisitions less than $1 Million or using the Simplified Acquisition Procedures AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 2.1 states the exemptions to the mandatory source selection procedures. a. Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) and Program Research and Development Announcements (PRDAs) are used in accordance with (IAW) FAR 35. b. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) IAW 15 USC Sec.638. c. Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded IAW FAR 36 d. Acquisitions using LPTA or PPT except as stated in AFFARS 5315.101-1(a) which states that for PPT’s past performance shall be evaluated consistent with MP5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.2 and 5.6.2.1. e. Acquisitions less than $1 Million or using the Simplified Acquisition Procedures

    17. 8/6/2012 17 Regulations Applicable to Specific Acquisitions DoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, applies to all acquisition programs. DoD Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, implements these policies and procedures. Enclosure 3 contains statutory, regulatory, and contract reporting information and milestone requirements which apply to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) Major Automated Information Systems (MAISs) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities Air Force Instruction 63-124, Performance-Based Services Acquisition (PBSA) Section 801, National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 required the service establish management and oversight of acquisition of services SAF/AQ Letter dated Jun 3, 2003 Delegated Management and Oversight of Services to AFPEO/SV for all acquisitions of services (not in another PEO portfolio) in excess of $100M All service acquisitions shall contain outcome based objectives and appropriate metrics DoD 5000.1, paragraph 2.1 states that this directive applies to all acquisition programs. Paragraph 3.2, an acquisition program is a directed, funded effort that provides a new, improved, or continuing materiel, weapon or information system or service capability in response to an approved need. DoD 5000.2 establishes the management framework that implements these policies and procedures. A-76 established a process for conducting public-private competitions (outsourcing). A-76 does not apply to depot maintenance workload. AFI 63-124 implements AF Policy Directive 63-1, Capability-Based Acquisition System, by directing performance-based procedures for developing requirements, acquiring services, and managing acquisitions within the AF. This AFI is applicable to all service acquisitions with an annual contract value above the Simplified Acquisition threshold except as stated in FAR 37.102(a)(1). See USAF Management and Oversight of Acquisition of Services Process (MOASP). (Services is being added to DoD 5000 and MOASP being replaced with section in AFI 63-101.) DoD 5000.1, paragraph 2.1 states that this directive applies to all acquisition programs. Paragraph 3.2, an acquisition program is a directed, funded effort that provides a new, improved, or continuing materiel, weapon or information system or service capability in response to an approved need. DoD 5000.2 establishes the management framework that implements these policies and procedures. A-76 established a process for conducting public-private competitions (outsourcing). A-76 does not apply to depot maintenance workload. AFI 63-124 implements AF Policy Directive 63-1, Capability-Based Acquisition System, by directing performance-based procedures for developing requirements, acquiring services, and managing acquisitions within the AF. This AFI is applicable to all service acquisitions with an annual contract value above the Simplified Acquisition threshold except as stated in FAR 37.102(a)(1). See USAF Management and Oversight of Acquisition of Services Process (MOASP). (Services is being added to DoD 5000 and MOASP being replaced with section in AFI 63-101.)

    18. 8/6/2012 18

    19. 8/6/2012 19 Ethics As Federal officials and personnel, we act for the benefit of the American public, not for private interests. The ethics rules are intended to ensure that we perform our mission with that public interest in mind. Our adherence to ethics principles, and the rules that implement them, is important because it upholds the public’s confidence in the integrity of our Government. Slide and notes from OSD Ethics Training 2005 As Federal officials and personnel, we act for the benefit of the American public, not for private interests. The ethics rules are intended to ensure that we perform our mission with that public interest in mind. Our adherence to ethics principles, and the rules that implement them, is important because it upholds the public’s confidence in the integrity of our Government. Slide and notes from OSD Ethics Training 2005

    20. 8/6/2012 20 Regulations on Ethics There are numerous executive orders, laws, regulations, standards and guidelines on ethics Sources especially important to acquisition professionals are the following: Executive Order 12674, Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government officers and employees Procurement Integrity Act DoD Joint Ethics Regulations FAR Part 3, DFARS Part 203, AFFARS Part 5303 -- Improper Business Practices & Personal Conflicts of Interest FAR Part 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest Executive Order 12674, April 12, 1989 as amended. Procurement Integrity Act was enacted in 1989. Congress revised the law in 1996. The revised version went into effect on 1 Jan 1997. The law is implemented in the FAR 3.104. DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation provides specific guidance for DoD personnel.Executive Order 12674, April 12, 1989 as amended. Procurement Integrity Act was enacted in 1989. Congress revised the law in 1996. The revised version went into effect on 1 Jan 1997. The law is implemented in the FAR 3.104. DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation provides specific guidance for DoD personnel.

    21. 8/6/2012 21 Fundamental Basis for Ethics Federal employees hold their positions as a public trust US citizens have a right to expect that all federal employees will place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain Federal employees shall fulfill that public trust by adhering to general principles of ethical conduct as well as specific ethical standards Federal employees must avoid any action that would create the appearance of violating ethical standards and laws By observing these laws and ethical standards, federal employees help to ensure that citizens have complete confidence in the integrity of Government operations and programs Code of Federal Regulations Title 5, Chapter XVI, Office of Government Ethics, Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch Subpart A, Sec. 2635.101 sets forth the basic obligation of public service. It states that public service is a public trust. “Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each employee shall respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section, as well as the implementing standards contained in this part and in supplemental agency regulations.” The next two charts contain items from this subpart about what employees shall do and shall not do.Code of Federal Regulations Title 5, Chapter XVI, Office of Government Ethics, Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch Subpart A, Sec. 2635.101 sets forth the basic obligation of public service. It states that public service is a public trust. “Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each employee shall respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section, as well as the implementing standards contained in this part and in supplemental agency regulations.” The next two charts contain items from this subpart about what employees shall do and shall not do.

    22. 8/6/2012 22 Employees’ Responsibilities under Executive Order 12674 (as amended) Employees MUST … Place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain. Act impartially to all groups, persons, and organizations. Give an honest effort in the performance of your duties. Protect and conserve Federal property. Disclose fraud, waste, and abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. Fulfill in good faith your obligations as citizens, and pay your Federal, State, and local taxes. Comply with all laws providing equal opportunity to all persons, regardless of their race, color, religion (Chart from OSD 2005 Ethics Training.) Your responsibilities under the Executive Order on ethical principles for Government personnel, are summarized in this slide and the next one. DO Place Loyalty to the Constitution, the Laws, and Ethical Principles above Private Gain. Act Impartially to all Groups, Persons, and Organizations. Give an Honest Effort in the Performance of your Duties. Protect and Conserve Federal Property. Disclose Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Corruption Fulfill Obligations as Citizens, and Pay your Taxes. Comply with Equal Opportunity Laws (Chart from OSD 2005 Ethics Training.) Your responsibilities under the Executive Order on ethical principles for Government personnel, are summarized in this slide and the next one. DO Place Loyalty to the Constitution, the Laws, and Ethical Principles above Private Gain. Act Impartially to all Groups, Persons, and Organizations. Give an Honest Effort in the Performance of your Duties. Protect and Conserve Federal Property. Disclose Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Corruption Fulfill Obligations as Citizens, and Pay your Taxes. Comply with Equal Opportunity Laws

    23. 8/6/2012 23 Employees’ Responsibilities under Executive Order 12674 (as amended) Employees MUST NOT … Use nonpublic information to benefit yourself or anyone else. Solicit or accept gifts from persons or parties that do business with or seek official action from DoD (unless permitted by an exception). Make unauthorized commitments or promises that bind the government. Use Federal property for unauthorized purposes. Take jobs or hold financial interests that conflict with your government responsibilities. Take actions that give the appearance that they are illegal or unethical. (Chart from OSD 2005 Ethics Training.) DO NOT Use Nonpublic Information to Benefit Yourself or Associates Solicit or Accept Gifts from Parties Doing Business With or Seeking Official Action from DoD Make Unauthorized Commitments or Promises Use Federal Property for Unauthorized Purposes Take Jobs or Hold Financial Interests that Conflict with our Government Responsibilities. Take Actions that even Appear to be Illegal or Unethical (Chart from OSD 2005 Ethics Training.) DO NOT Use Nonpublic Information to Benefit Yourself or Associates Solicit or Accept Gifts from Parties Doing Business With or Seeking Official Action from DoD Make Unauthorized Commitments or Promises Use Federal Property for Unauthorized Purposes Take Jobs or Hold Financial Interests that Conflict with our Government Responsibilities. Take Actions that even Appear to be Illegal or Unethical

    24. 8/6/2012 24 Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest -- Mandatory Disqualification You may not participate personally & substantially (e.g., make a decision, give advice, make a recommendation) in any government matter that would affect the financial interests of: You, your spouse, or your minor child Your general partner An organization in which you are serving as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, OR An organization with which you are negotiating for employment, or have an arrangement for future employment DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation. Reference Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, Chapter XVI, Part 2635, Subpart D, Conflicting Financial Interests, Sec 2635.402, Disqualifying financial interests and Subpart E, Impartiality in Performing Official Duties.DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation. Reference Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, Chapter XVI, Part 2635, Subpart D, Conflicting Financial Interests, Sec 2635.402, Disqualifying financial interests and Subpart E, Impartiality in Performing Official Duties.

    25. 8/6/2012 25 Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest -- Discretionary Disqualification Your supervisor may disqualify you from participating in a government matter that affects the financial interests of: A member of your household A relative with whom you have a close personal relationship An organization with which you are an “active participant” (such as committee chairperson) A company with which you have an off-duty business relationship An organization in which you served within the last year as an officer, director, trustee, consultant, contractor or employee An organization in which your spouse is currently serving as an officer, director, trustee, consultant, contractor or employee AFFARS MP5303, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, sets forth the procedure for disqualification of a person from participation in an acquisition to which they have been assigned. It also sets forth procedures for the Contracting Officer’s Request for Exception to FAR 3.601 for award of a contract to government employee.AFFARS MP5303, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, sets forth the procedure for disqualification of a person from participation in an acquisition to which they have been assigned. It also sets forth procedures for the Contracting Officer’s Request for Exception to FAR 3.601 for award of a contract to government employee.

    26. 8/6/2012 26 Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest -- Discretionary Disqualification Balancing Test: In above situations, supervisor should allow employee to participate in the matter only if supervisor determines that government’s need to have that employee participate in the matter outweighs the appearance problems that would result Contracting officer and supervisor who makes this judgment must seek legal advise, review and coordination on decision The contracting officer and supervisor must seek legal review and coordination on their decision to remove or let an employee participate in the source selection. The contracting officer and supervisor must seek legal review and coordination on their decision to remove or let an employee participate in the source selection.

    27. 8/6/2012 27 Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest – Stock Federal employees may not work on any government matter (e.g. source selection) that affects the financial interests of a company, if they (their spouse or child) own stock in the company Exception: if value of stock owned by you, your spouse or child in all the companies involved in the matter is $15,000 or less The Source Selection Authority (SSA) must be advised on any Conflict of Interest Issues—Either disqualification or retention decisions The SSA must be made aware of any conflict of interest issue no matter whether the Contracting Officer and legal recommend removing the person from the source selection OR retaining the person based on a determination that there is no conflict of interest.The SSA must be made aware of any conflict of interest issue no matter whether the Contracting Officer and legal recommend removing the person from the source selection OR retaining the person based on a determination that there is no conflict of interest.

    28. 8/6/2012 28 Procurement Integrity Act Procurement Integrity Act (FAR 3-104) Prohibition on disclosing procurement information – Ban applies to: Current Federal employees Former Federal employees Individuals such as contractor employees who are currently advising the government regarding the procurement Individuals such as contractor employees who have advised the government regarding the procurement but are no longer doing so Prohibition on obtaining procurement information other than as provided by law Ban applies to everyone including Federal and contractor personnel FAR 3-104-2 (a) This section implements section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (the Procurement Integrity Act) (41 U.S.C.423) referred to as “the Act”). FAR 3.104-3 Statutory and Related Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Requirements. (a) Prohibition on disclosing procurement information (subsection 27(a) of the Act. (b) Prohibition on obtaining procurement information (subsection 27(b) of the Act). A person must not, other than as provided by law, knowingly obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the award of a contract to which the information relates. Procurement Integrity Law enacted by congress in 1989. Revised in 1997. Law is implemented in FAR 3.104. FAR 3-104-2 (a) This section implements section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (the Procurement Integrity Act) (41 U.S.C.423) referred to as “the Act”). FAR 3.104-3 Statutory and Related Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Requirements. (a) Prohibition on disclosing procurement information (subsection 27(a) of the Act. (b) Prohibition on obtaining procurement information (subsection 27(b) of the Act). A person must not, other than as provided by law, knowingly obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the award of a contract to which the information relates. Procurement Integrity Law enacted by congress in 1989. Revised in 1997. Law is implemented in FAR 3.104.

    29. 8/6/2012 29 Procurement Integrity Act Requires agency official (officer, employee, member of the uniformed services) to report employment contacts by or with a competing contractor Promptly report the contact in writing to the employee’s supervisor and to the designated ethics official, AND Either: Reject the possibility of employment, OR Disqualify himself or herself from further personal and substantial participation in the procurement until the agency has authorized the employee to resume participation in the procurement on the grounds that: The company the employment contact was with is no longer a bidder or offeror in the procurement, OR All discussions between the employee and the company regarding possible employment have terminated without an agreement for employment FAR 3-104.3(c) Actions required when an agency official contacts or is contacted by an offeror regarding non-Federal employment (subsection 27(c) of the Act). (1) If an agency official, participating personally and substantially in a Federal agency procurement for a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, contacts or is contacted by a person who is an offeror in the Federal agency procurement regarding possible non-Federal employment for that official, the official must -- (i) Promptly report the contact in writing to your supervisor and to the agency ethics official; and (ii) Either reject the possibility of non-Federal employment or disqualify himself or herself from further personal and substantial participation in that Federal agency procurement until such time as the agency authorizes the official to resume participation in that procurement. FAR 3-104.3(c) Actions required when an agency official contacts or is contacted by an offeror regarding non-Federal employment (subsection 27(c) of the Act). (1) If an agency official, participating personally and substantially in a Federal agency procurement for a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, contacts or is contacted by a person who is an offeror in the Federal agency procurement regarding possible non-Federal employment for that official, the official must -- (i) Promptly report the contact in writing to your supervisor and to the agency ethics official; and (ii) Either reject the possibility of non-Federal employment or disqualify himself or herself from further personal and substantial participation in that Federal agency procurement until such time as the agency authorizes the official to resume participation in that procurement.

    30. 8/6/2012 30 Procurement Integrity Act A one-year ban on accepting compensation from the contractor on acquisitions over $10M Applies to people serving on a source selection such as the Contracting Officer (CO), Program Manager (PM), SSA, members of the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET), etc. Can apply regardless of whether one retires, resigns or separates from government Applies to accepting compensation as an employee, officer, director or consultant of the contractor Ban does not apply to accepting compensation from any division or affiliate of a contractor that does not produce “the same or similar products or services” as the entity of the contractor that is responsible for the contract the employee was involved in (such as a commercial division of the contractor) (FAR 3.104.3(d)(3)) FAR 3.104-3(d) Prohibition on former official’s acceptance of compensation from a contractor (subsection 27(d) of the Act. (1) A former official of a Federal agency may not accept compensation from a contractor that has been awarded a competitive or sole source contract, as an employee, officer, director, or consultant of the contractor within a period of 1 year after such former official— (i) Served, at the time of selection of the contractor or the award of a contract to that contractor, as the PCO, the SSA, a member of a source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial or technical evaluation team in a procurement in which that contractor was selected for award of a contract in excess of $10M; (ii) Served as the program manager, deputy program managers, or ACO for a contract in excess of $10M awarded to that contractor; or (iii) Personally made for the Federal agency a decision to— (A) Award a contract, subcontract, modification of a contract or subcontract, or a task order of delivery order in excess of $10M to that contractor, (B) Established overhead or other rates for a contract or contracts for that contractor valued in excess of $10M; (C) Approve issuance of a contract payment or payments in excess of $10M to that contractor; or (D) Pay or settle a claim in excess of $10M with that contractor. (2) The 1-year prohibition begins on the date— (i) Of contract award for positions described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) or date of contractor selection if the official was not serving in the position on the date of award; (ii) The official last served in the of the positions described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii); or (iii) The official made one of the decisions described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii). FAR 3.104-3(d) Prohibition on former official’s acceptance of compensation from a contractor (subsection 27(d) of the Act. (1) A former official of a Federal agency may not accept compensation from a contractor that has been awarded a competitive or sole source contract, as an employee, officer, director, or consultant of the contractor within a period of 1 year after such former official— (i) Served, at the time of selection of the contractor or the award of a contract to that contractor, as the PCO, the SSA, a member of a source selection evaluation board, or the chief of a financial or technical evaluation team in a procurement in which that contractor was selected for award of a contract in excess of $10M; (ii) Served as the program manager, deputy program managers, or ACO for a contract in excess of $10M awarded to that contractor; or (iii) Personally made for the Federal agency a decision to— (A) Award a contract, subcontract, modification of a contract or subcontract, or a task order of delivery order in excess of $10M to that contractor, (B) Established overhead or other rates for a contract or contracts for that contractor valued in excess of $10M; (C) Approve issuance of a contract payment or payments in excess of $10M to that contractor; or (D) Pay or settle a claim in excess of $10M with that contractor. (2) The 1-year prohibition begins on the date— (i) Of contract award for positions described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) or date of contractor selection if the official was not serving in the position on the date of award; (ii) The official last served in the of the positions described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii); or (iii) The official made one of the decisions described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii).

    31. 8/6/2012 31 All source selection participants and advisors must review, fully understand and adhere to these ethical standards and laws Never risk compromising the integrity of a source selection Refer all ethics questions and concerns to the contracting officer and legal Ask yourself if a reasonable person who knew the relevant facts may think that the law or ethical standards had been violated Avoid even the appearance that you are violating the law or any ethical principle Remember -- any violations may subject you to administrative, civil or criminal penalties Each person shall sign a Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement. Contact the CO and Legal if you have questions Procurement Integrity and Ethics Summary Specific guidance for DoD personnel may be found in DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation. AFFARS 5303.104-4 requires any individual requiring access to source selection information as a result of participating on a source selection or in the performance of their duties shall sign a Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (See MP5315.3, Attachment 1). The Non-Disclosure Agreement has been re-designed for use by both government and non-government employees. All non-government employees must indicate that they have signed a proprietary information non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between their firm and the government precluding them from divulging any proprietary data to which they may gain access during the evaluation of proposals. In addition, both government and non-government employees are attesting that they, nor anyone in their immediate family, has any financial interest in any company involved in the source selection as either a prime contractor of subcontractor. Specific guidance for DoD personnel may be found in DoD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation. AFFARS 5303.104-4 requires any individual requiring access to source selection information as a result of participating on a source selection or in the performance of their duties shall sign a Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (See MP5315.3, Attachment 1). The Non-Disclosure Agreement has been re-designed for use by both government and non-government employees. All non-government employees must indicate that they have signed a proprietary information non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between their firm and the government precluding them from divulging any proprietary data to which they may gain access during the evaluation of proposals. In addition, both government and non-government employees are attesting that they, nor anyone in their immediate family, has any financial interest in any company involved in the source selection as either a prime contractor of subcontractor.

    32. 8/6/2012 32

    33. 8/6/2012 33 AF Source Selection – Key Participants Source Selection Authority (SSA) Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chairperson Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) Chairperson Mission Capability Team Chief Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) Chair Cost/Price Team Chief Contracting Officer (CO) Note Restrictions: Senior Leaders—AFFARS 5315.303(b) Non-Government Personnel—FAR 9.5, AFFARS 5315.305(c) AFFARS MP5315.3 sets forth definitions for the source selection key participants. a. Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision. b. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process c. Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) is the group of personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition. FAR 15.303 states that the Contracting Office (CO) serves as the focal point for inquires from actual or prospective offerors after release of solicitation, controls exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, and awards the contract. For Program Executive Officer (PEO) acquisitions or source selections over $100M, the team structure normally consist of SSA, SSAC, SSET, and any advisors. SSET typically consists of technical/service/programmatic evaluators, contracting officer/buyers, PCAG, cost or price analyst(s) and advisors. The SSET should include the minimum number of evaluators necessary and may be supplemented with advisors as required. Senior leaders (05s/civilian equivalents) cannot perform multiple leadership roles in source selections for any ACAT or major service (Category 1 and 1A) acquisitions such as functioning as both advisor and evaluator. Note limitation on use of non-government personnel in source selection. AFAC 2008-0128 added further discussions concerning use of Non-Government Personnel (NGP) as part of the Source Selection AFFARS 5315.305(c)(2) AFFARS MP 5315.3 Para 4.3.3.8 NGP CANNOT have any financial interests nor be the SSA, Chairperson of the SSET/SSAC or an advisor to or a member of the PCAG Additionally Atch 1 Source Selection Information Briefing and Debriefing Certificate was changed to Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement AFFARS MP5315.3 Atch 1 Area for Non-government personnel was added to acknowledge non-disclosure and non-financial interest. Non-Government Personnel — AFFARS 5315.305(c) (See FAR 37.2 for required approvals.) (a) FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) employees may serve as a team member including membership in a SSAC or SSET; however, an FFRDC employee may not serve as a member of the PCAG, as chairperson of a SSAC or SSET, or as an SSA. (b) Non-government advisors may be used as necessary to assist in the source selection evaluation. Although advisors may assist in the evaluation and provide input regarding strengths, notable aspects, deficiencies, and weaknesses in proposals, they shall not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals. Additionally they shall not be the SSA, Chairperson of the SSET/SSAC or a member of the PCAG. If contractor personnel are used as advisors the following applies: (1) Restricted to only necessary part of proposals; (2) CO shall obtain necessary approval (FAR 37.2); (3) solicitation shall list contractors in clause; (4) offeror must be given opportunity to object to the release of proposal information to non-government personnel, (5) appropriate OCI clauses in contract under which non-government contractor personnel are provided; and (6) requirement for CO to make determination is competing offeror objects. SAF/AQ Letter dated Jul 11, 2007 requires the CO obtain a copy of the agreement to protect information from unauthorized use or disclosure in accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b). Letter delegates approval required in FAR 37.203(d) and AFFARS 5315.305(c) to HCA with further delegation authorized within AFMC and AFSPC to Center Commanders. AFFARS MP5315.3 sets forth definitions for the source selection key participants. a. Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision. b. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process c. Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) is the group of personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition. FAR 15.303 states that the Contracting Office (CO) serves as the focal point for inquires from actual or prospective offerors after release of solicitation, controls exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, and awards the contract. For Program Executive Officer (PEO) acquisitions or source selections over $100M, the team structure normally consist of SSA, SSAC, SSET, and any advisors. SSET typically consists of technical/service/programmatic evaluators, contracting officer/buyers, PCAG, cost or price analyst(s) and advisors. The SSET should include the minimum number of evaluators necessary and may be supplemented with advisors as required. Senior leaders (05s/civilian equivalents) cannot perform multiple leadership roles in source selections for any ACAT or major service (Category 1 and 1A) acquisitions such as functioning as both advisor and evaluator. Note limitation on use of non-government personnel in source selection. AFAC 2008-0128 added further discussions concerning use of Non-Government Personnel (NGP) as part of the Source Selection AFFARS 5315.305(c)(2) AFFARS MP 5315.3 Para 4.3.3.8 NGP CANNOT have any financial interests nor be the SSA, Chairperson of the SSET/SSAC or an advisor to or a member of the PCAG Additionally Atch 1 Source Selection Information Briefing and Debriefing Certificate was changed to Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement AFFARS MP5315.3 Atch 1 Area for Non-government personnel was added to acknowledge non-disclosure and non-financial interest. Non-Government Personnel — AFFARS 5315.305(c) (See FAR 37.2 for required approvals.) (a) FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) employees may serve as a team member including membership in a SSAC or SSET; however, an FFRDC employee may not serve as a member of the PCAG, as chairperson of a SSAC or SSET, or as an SSA. (b) Non-government advisors may be used as necessary to assist in the source selection evaluation. Although advisors may assist in the evaluation and provide input regarding strengths, notable aspects, deficiencies, and weaknesses in proposals, they shall not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals. Additionally they shall not be the SSA, Chairperson of the SSET/SSAC or a member of the PCAG. If contractor personnel are used as advisors the following applies: (1) Restricted to only necessary part of proposals; (2) CO shall obtain necessary approval (FAR 37.2); (3) solicitation shall list contractors in clause; (4) offeror must be given opportunity to object to the release of proposal information to non-government personnel, (5) appropriate OCI clauses in contract under which non-government contractor personnel are provided; and (6) requirement for CO to make determination is competing offeror objects. SAF/AQ Letter dated Jul 11, 2007 requires the CO obtain a copy of the agreement to protect information from unauthorized use or disclosure in accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b). Letter delegates approval required in FAR 37.203(d) and AFFARS 5315.305(c) to HCA with further delegation authorized within AFMC and AFSPC to Center Commanders.

    34. 8/6/2012 34 AF Source Selection – Key Participants SSA Designations (AFFARS 5315.303(a)) AFFARS 5315.303 (a)(1) The CO is the SSA for acquisition of $10M or less. Except as provided in paragraph (4) below (A-76s), CO is the SSA for acquisitions of any dollar value using PPT or LPTA procedures, unless the acquisition plan approving authority designates otherwise. (2) SSAs for ACAT (acquisition category) and AFPEO/CM (Air Force Program Executive Office for Combat and Mission Support) acquisitions >$10M and using other than PPT or LPTA are as follows: (1) ASAF(A) is the SSA for non-space related ACAT I programs. (ii) For space related ACAT I programs, USECAF is the SSA. (iii) For ACAT II and III programs, the PEO is the SSA. (iv) For acquisitions in the AFPEO/CM portfolio, the PEO is the SSA. (3) SSAs for Other Contracting except for AFMC is as follows: (i) For Wing-level acquisitions $10M-$100M and non-PEO/CM programs above $100M, the SSA shall be the Wing Commander or comparable Army position (for USAFE), and in the rank of O-6 or above. (ii) For MAJOM Headquarters/DRUs/FOAs acquisitions $10M - $100M and non-PEO/CM programs above $100M, the SSA shall be the Headquarters Director, of DRU/FOA equivalent wing commander, having program responsibility, and in the rank of 0-6/GS15 or above. (4) SSAs for A-76 competitions are as follows: (i) AFPEO/CM for those competitions within the PEO/CM portfolio, unless designated by the PEO/CM. (ii) For all other A-76 competitions greater than $10M, the MAJCOM/FOA/DRU Vice Commander (CV) shall appoint the SSA. The CV must be a General Officer of Senior Executive Service Civilian. If the CV does not meet this criterion, the SSA appointment authority is the Component Competitive Sourcing Official (CCSO). (5) SSA, if delegated in paragraph 2, 3, or 4 above, shall be no lower than the contracting officer. For those acquisitions for which the SSA is the SCO or SCCO, clearance will be accomplished IAW 5301.9001(g)(4). SSAs for AFMC ACAT II & III and Other Contracting actions using other than LPTA or PPT procedures are delegated in AFMCFARS 5315.303(a). AFFARS 5315.303 (a)(1) The CO is the SSA for acquisition of $10M or less. Except as provided in paragraph (4) below (A-76s), CO is the SSA for acquisitions of any dollar value using PPT or LPTA procedures, unless the acquisition plan approving authority designates otherwise. (2) SSAs for ACAT (acquisition category) and AFPEO/CM (Air Force Program Executive Office for Combat and Mission Support) acquisitions >$10M and using other than PPT or LPTA are as follows: (1) ASAF(A) is the SSA for non-space related ACAT I programs. (ii) For space related ACAT I programs, USECAF is the SSA. (iii) For ACAT II and III programs, the PEO is the SSA. (iv) For acquisitions in the AFPEO/CM portfolio, the PEO is the SSA. (3) SSAs for Other Contracting except for AFMC is as follows: (i) For Wing-level acquisitions $10M-$100M and non-PEO/CM programs above $100M, the SSA shall be the Wing Commander or comparable Army position (for USAFE), and in the rank of O-6 or above. (ii) For MAJOM Headquarters/DRUs/FOAs acquisitions $10M - $100M and non-PEO/CM programs above $100M, the SSA shall be the Headquarters Director, of DRU/FOA equivalent wing commander, having program responsibility, and in the rank of 0-6/GS15 or above. (4) SSAs for A-76 competitions are as follows: (i) AFPEO/CM for those competitions within the PEO/CM portfolio, unless designated by the PEO/CM. (ii) For all other A-76 competitions greater than $10M, the MAJCOM/FOA/DRU Vice Commander (CV) shall appoint the SSA. The CV must be a General Officer of Senior Executive Service Civilian. If the CV does not meet this criterion, the SSA appointment authority is the Component Competitive Sourcing Official (CCSO). (5) SSA, if delegated in paragraph 2, 3, or 4 above, shall be no lower than the contracting officer. For those acquisitions for which the SSA is the SCO or SCCO, clearance will be accomplished IAW 5301.9001(g)(4). SSAs for AFMC ACAT II & III and Other Contracting actions using other than LPTA or PPT procedures are delegated in AFMCFARS 5315.303(a).

    35. 8/6/2012 35 Source Selection Organization This is a wiring diagram of the typical source selection organization. The source selection evaluation team usually consists of all the functions in the blue box. In some cases, some of the boxes may be combined. AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance (IG) paragraph 4.1.1.3(1) states, “For PEO acquisitions or source selections greater than $100M, the team structure normally consists of the Source Selection Authority, Source Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Evaluation Team and any advisors.” This is a wiring diagram of the typical source selection organization. The source selection evaluation team usually consists of all the functions in the blue box. In some cases, some of the boxes may be combined. AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance (IG) paragraph 4.1.1.3(1) states, “For PEO acquisitions or source selections greater than $100M, the team structure normally consists of the Source Selection Authority, Source Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Evaluation Team and any advisors.”

    36. 8/6/2012 36 SSA Roles and Responsibilities Source Selection Authority (SSA) Responsible for proper and efficient conduct of source selection IAW mandatory procedures. Appoint chairpersons for SSET and SSAC when used. Establish team and ensure team membership remains consistent for duration of selection process. Ensure all involved in source selection are knowledgeable of policy/procedures for properly and efficiently conducting source selection. Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership roles in the source selection. Ensure all are briefed and knowledgeable of law regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information.) FAR 15.303(b) The source selection authority shall (1) Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers; (2) Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan, if applicable, before solicitation release; (3) Ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses, and data requirements; (4) Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(1) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(3)); (5) Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any); and (6) Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(B) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(3)). AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.1 states that the SSA shall: 4.1.1.1 Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection IAW this procedure. 4.1.1.2 Appoint chairperson for the SSET and SSAC when used. 4.1.1.3 Establish a source selection team and ensure that the team membership remains consistent for the duration of the selection process. 4.1.1.4 Ensure all involved in the source selection are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. 4.1.1.5 For ACAT or major services (Category 1 and 1A) acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership roles in the source selection. 4.2.1.1 Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 USC Sec. 423 and FAR 3.104) regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information. FAR 15.303(b) The source selection authority shall (1) Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers; (2) Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan, if applicable, before solicitation release; (3) Ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses, and data requirements; (4) Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(1) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(3)); (5) Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any); and (6) Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(B) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(3)). AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.1 states that the SSA shall: 4.1.1.1 Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection IAW this procedure. 4.1.1.2 Appoint chairperson for the SSET and SSAC when used. 4.1.1.3 Establish a source selection team and ensure that the team membership remains consistent for the duration of the selection process. 4.1.1.4 Ensure all involved in the source selection are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. 4.1.1.5 For ACAT or major services (Category 1 and 1A) acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership roles in the source selection. 4.2.1.1 Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 USC Sec. 423 and FAR 3.104) regarding unauthorized disclosure of source selection information.

    37. 8/6/2012 37 SSA Roles and Responsibilities Source Selection Authority (SSA) Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with standards of conduct and sign the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement. Approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP) before release of RFP. Determine if award without discussions is appropriate Establish competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve release of Evaluation Notices (ENs) Select the source whose proposal offers best value Document decision in Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) AFFARS MP5315.3, states that the SSA shall: 4.2.1.2 Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of source selection information) and sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement. 4.3.4 Approve the Source Selection Plan before release of RFP and approve subsequent revisions to the plan. For changes to the source selection team membership, see paragraph 4.1.3.3. 5.6.1.1 Review all necessary information prior to entering discussions to determine if award without discussions is appropriate. 5.6.1.2 Establish the competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve release of evaluation notices (ENs). Other types of ENs (Clarification and Communications) can be released prior to defining a competitive range. The SSA may designate the CO as the approval authority for release of ENs in the Source Selection Plan. 6.2.1 Select the source or sources whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. 6.2.2 Base the decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. 6.2.3 Document the supporting rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document. AFFARS MP5315.3, states that the SSA shall: 4.2.1.2 Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of source selection information) and sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement. 4.3.4 Approve the Source Selection Plan before release of RFP and approve subsequent revisions to the plan. For changes to the source selection team membership, see paragraph 4.1.3.3. 5.6.1.1 Review all necessary information prior to entering discussions to determine if award without discussions is appropriate. 5.6.1.2 Establish the competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve release of evaluation notices (ENs). Other types of ENs (Clarification and Communications) can be released prior to defining a competitive range. The SSA may designate the CO as the approval authority for release of ENs in the Source Selection Plan. 6.2.1 Select the source or sources whose proposal offers the best value to the Government. 6.2.2 Base the decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. 6.2.3 Document the supporting rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document.

    38. 8/6/2012 38 SSAC Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chairperson Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSAC members and request additional assistance from other governmental sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service members. Ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities Review the SSP and any revision prior to SSA approval. Convene SSAC meetings as requested by SSA SSAC shall review the evaluation of the SSET to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the SSA. Shall offer a source selection recommendation for the SSA’s consideration MP5315.3, paragraph 8.10 definition of SSAC is a group of senior personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and may prepare the comparative analysis of the SSET’s evaluation results, when directed by the SSA. 4.1.2. When the SSA establishes a SSAC, the SSAC chairperson shall, subject to the SSA approval, appoint source selection advisory council members and request additional assistance from other government sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service members. The chairperson shall ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities. Informational Guidance 4.1.2 states typically, most of the council will have source selection experience and as a whole the council will represent the primary stakeholders in the acquisition, including the users. 4.3.6. SSAC chairperson shall review the Source Selection Plan and revisions prior to SSA approval. 5.1. Shall convene SSAC meetings at any stage in the evaluation process as requested by the SSA. 5.2. The SSAC shall review the evaluation and findings of the SSET to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the SSA. 6.5. SSAC shall, with the assistance of the SSET chairperson, provide the required comparative analysis of offers when the SSA assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the SSAC. 6.5.1. SSAC (if used) shall offer the source selection recommendation for the SSA’s consideration following evaluation of offeror's Final Proposal Revisions, or to support an award without discussions decision. In the event that there is significant disagreement among the SSAC members regarding the recommendation that should be presented to the SSA, a minority opinion shall be presented providing the SSA sufficient information to fully consider the minority view.MP5315.3, paragraph 8.10 definition of SSAC is a group of senior personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and may prepare the comparative analysis of the SSET’s evaluation results, when directed by the SSA. 4.1.2. When the SSA establishes a SSAC, the SSAC chairperson shall, subject to the SSA approval, appoint source selection advisory council members and request additional assistance from other government sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service members. The chairperson shall ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities. Informational Guidance 4.1.2 states typically, most of the council will have source selection experience and as a whole the council will represent the primary stakeholders in the acquisition, including the users. 4.3.6. SSAC chairperson shall review the Source Selection Plan and revisions prior to SSA approval. 5.1. Shall convene SSAC meetings at any stage in the evaluation process as requested by the SSA. 5.2. The SSAC shall review the evaluation and findings of the SSET to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the SSA. 6.5. SSAC shall, with the assistance of the SSET chairperson, provide the required comparative analysis of offers when the SSA assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the SSAC. 6.5.1. SSAC (if used) shall offer the source selection recommendation for the SSA’s consideration following evaluation of offeror's Final Proposal Revisions, or to support an award without discussions decision. In the event that there is significant disagreement among the SSAC members regarding the recommendation that should be presented to the SSA, a minority opinion shall be presented providing the SSA sufficient information to fully consider the minority view.

    39. 8/6/2012 39 SSET Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities SSET Chairperson Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSET members including PCAG & chair Establish PCAG for all source selections > $100M Ensure personnel, resources, time assigned to the source selection reflect the complexity of the acquisition. After SSP is approved, approve personnel changes and document in an addendum. Ensure SSET members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted BEFORE any proposal is reviewed. SSET shall prepare and maintain SSP Establish effective communications with requiring office Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M Review ENs and recommend SSA approve release Ensure team membership remains same for all discussions with offerors Prepare the PAR for acquisitions > $100M and sign Prepare the SSDD for the SSA Participate in debriefings to offerors If no SSAC, offer a source selection recommendation to the SSA AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. SSET chairperson shall appoint members to the SSET, including a Performance Confidence Assessment Group and its chairperson as required, subject to approval of the SSA. 4.1.3.2. Establish a PCAG for all source selections > $100M. Informational Guidance 4.1.3.2—Use of PCAG for source selections <$100M is at the discretion of the SSA. 4.1.3.3. Ensure personnel, resources, and time assigned to the source selection reflect complexity of the program. After source selection plan approval, any personnel changes to the SSET may be approved by the SSET chairperson in an addendum to the SSP. 4.1.3.4 Ensure members of the SSET are knowledgeable of their responsibilities before any proposal is reviewed, including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted. 4.3.5.1. SSET shall prepare and maintain the SSP 4.3.7. Responsible for establishing effective liaison with the requiring office to ensure requirements are effectively addressed within the requirements documents and, if used, within threshold/objective language. 5.3. The SSET Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the criteria contained in the solicitation (Section M or equivalent provision) and ensure the evaluation is properly documented IAW paragraph 7 of the MPs. 5.6.3.1. Review Evaluation Notices (ENs) and recommend SSA approve release through the CO 5.6.3.2. Ensure team membership remains consistent for all discussions with offerors. 6.3.1. Shall prepare the Proposal Analysis Report for acquisitions >$100M or as required by the SSA. SSAC Chairperson (if used) and the SSET chairperson shall sign. 6.3.2. Prepare the SSDD for SSA’s signature. 6.3.3. Participate in debriefings to offerors. 6.3.4. If an SSAC is not used, the SSET chairperson shall make an award recommendation, based on the SSET’s evaluation, at the decision briefing. Rationale for the recommendation shall be based upon the evaluation criteria (Sec M or equivalent provision) of the solicitation. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. SSET chairperson shall appoint members to the SSET, including a Performance Confidence Assessment Group and its chairperson as required, subject to approval of the SSA. 4.1.3.2. Establish a PCAG for all source selections > $100M. Informational Guidance 4.1.3.2—Use of PCAG for source selections <$100M is at the discretion of the SSA. 4.1.3.3. Ensure personnel, resources, and time assigned to the source selection reflect complexity of the program. After source selection plan approval, any personnel changes to the SSET may be approved by the SSET chairperson in an addendum to the SSP. 4.1.3.4 Ensure members of the SSET are knowledgeable of their responsibilities before any proposal is reviewed, including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted. 4.3.5.1. SSET shall prepare and maintain the SSP 4.3.7. Responsible for establishing effective liaison with the requiring office to ensure requirements are effectively addressed within the requirements documents and, if used, within threshold/objective language. 5.3. The SSET Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the criteria contained in the solicitation (Section M or equivalent provision) and ensure the evaluation is properly documented IAW paragraph 7 of the MPs. 5.6.3.1. Review Evaluation Notices (ENs) and recommend SSA approve release through the CO 5.6.3.2. Ensure team membership remains consistent for all discussions with offerors. 6.3.1. Shall prepare the Proposal Analysis Report for acquisitions >$100M or as required by the SSA. SSAC Chairperson (if used) and the SSET chairperson shall sign. 6.3.2. Prepare the SSDD for SSA’s signature. 6.3.3. Participate in debriefings to offerors. 6.3.4. If an SSAC is not used, the SSET chairperson shall make an award recommendation, based on the SSET’s evaluation, at the decision briefing. Rationale for the recommendation shall be based upon the evaluation criteria (Sec M or equivalent provision) of the solicitation.

    40. 8/6/2012 40 CO Roles and Responsibilities Contracting Officer (CO) Ensure required approvals are obtained and contract clause requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (CO must have copy of agreement in file as required by FAR 9.505-4) Manage all business aspects of the acquisition Ensure procedures exist to safeguard source selection information (FAR 3.104) Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award (FAR 3.104-4) Maintain source selection evaluation records Ensure that requests for delegations are completed and documented in file Release RFP after approval of business clearance and SSA approved SSP Single point of contact for inquires from actual or prospective offerors Control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals Approve release of ENs if designated this authority by the SSA in the Source Selection Plan Assist SSET chairperson with preparation of the PAR and SSD Obtain contract clearance before contract award Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed and debriefing is documented AFFARS MP5315.3, Contracting Officer (CO) shall 4.1.4.1. Ensure that IAW AFFARS 5315.305(c)1, required approvals are obtain and contract clause requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support. (CO must comply with FAR 9.505-4 (b) “A contractor that gains access to proprietary information of other companies in performing advisory and assistance services for the Government must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. The contracting officer shall obtain copies of these agreements and ensure that they are properly executed.” 4.1.4.2. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition. IG 4.1.4.2 says that the SSA usually requests the CO manage the protection of source selection information. 4.2.2.1. Ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information IAW FAR 3.104 as supplemented. 4.2.2.2. Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award IAW FAR 3.104-4. 4.2.2.3. Maintain source selection evaluation records. When evaluation information developed by any member of the source selection team is presented in any form to the SSA, that evaluative material and any related supporting evaluative material becomes an official record that must be maintained and must not be altered. Updates, revisions, or changes to that evaluation information must be captured in subsequent documentation in a way that the original record remains distinct. Evaluative materials are considered working papers prior to their disclosure to the SSA. These working papers may be changed or modified by their author as necessary in order to support the evaluation process. 4.3.9. Ensure that any request for source selection delegations are properly accomplished and documented in the source selection file. 4.5.1. Release the solicitation only after approval of business clearance and the SSA has approved the Source Selection Plan. 4.5.2. After release of the solicitation, serve as the single point of contact for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors. 5.6.4.1. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors IAW FAR 15.306. 5.6.4.2. If awarding without discussions, the CO shall obtain contract clearance prior to contract award. And per 5.6.6, obtain contract clearance approval in accordance with AFFARS 5301.9000. 6.3.1. In conjunction with SSET chairperson, prepare PAR. 6.3.2. Assist in preparation of the SSDD. 6.6. Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed IAW FAR 15.505 and 15.506. The CO shall document the debriefing(s) provided to offeror(s). The debriefing summary must also include a record of offeror questions and government responses. AFFARS MP5315.3, Contracting Officer (CO) shall 4.1.4.1. Ensure that IAW AFFARS 5315.305(c)1, required approvals are obtain and contract clause requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support. (CO must comply with FAR 9.505-4 (b) “A contractor that gains access to proprietary information of other companies in performing advisory and assistance services for the Government must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. The contracting officer shall obtain copies of these agreements and ensure that they are properly executed.” 4.1.4.2. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition. IG 4.1.4.2 says that the SSA usually requests the CO manage the protection of source selection information. 4.2.2.1. Ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information IAW FAR 3.104 as supplemented. 4.2.2.2. Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award IAW FAR 3.104-4. 4.2.2.3. Maintain source selection evaluation records. When evaluation information developed by any member of the source selection team is presented in any form to the SSA, that evaluative material and any related supporting evaluative material becomes an official record that must be maintained and must not be altered. Updates, revisions, or changes to that evaluation information must be captured in subsequent documentation in a way that the original record remains distinct. Evaluative materials are considered working papers prior to their disclosure to the SSA. These working papers may be changed or modified by their author as necessary in order to support the evaluation process. 4.3.9. Ensure that any request for source selection delegations are properly accomplished and documented in the source selection file. 4.5.1. Release the solicitation only after approval of business clearance and the SSA has approved the Source Selection Plan. 4.5.2. After release of the solicitation, serve as the single point of contact for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors. 5.6.4.1. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors IAW FAR 15.306. 5.6.4.2. If awarding without discussions, the CO shall obtain contract clearance prior to contract award. And per 5.6.6, obtain contract clearance approval in accordance with AFFARS 5301.9000. 6.3.1. In conjunction with SSET chairperson, prepare PAR. 6.3.2. Assist in preparation of the SSDD. 6.6. Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed IAW FAR 15.505 and 15.506. The CO shall document the debriefing(s) provided to offeror(s). The debriefing summary must also include a record of offeror questions and government responses.

    41. 8/6/2012 41 This is an overview chart for the complete Source Selection process. Depending on the size and complexity of the acquisition, the acquisition team may be required to do an Acquisition Strategy Briefing. Other briefings that may be required are Initial Evaluation Briefing, Pre-FPR or Clearance Briefing, and Decision Briefing. These briefings may be combined briefings to the SSA and SSAC. Acquisitions over $100M will have the following briefings to the SSA and SSAC: Initial Evaluation Briefing (The process ends here if awarding without discussions.) Pre-FPR Briefing unless awarding without discussions Decision Briefing unless awarding without discussions AFFARS MP 5.6.5 states that as a minimum, at the initiation of and again at the conclusion of discussions, the SSET through the CO shall indicate, to or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: Adverse past performance to which the offeror has not had an opportunity to respond, uncertainties, weaknesses, deficiencies, and strengths. This should be accomplished by providing the offeror its own mission capability, cost/price risk (if applicable) and past performance ratings. The final disclosure of ratings to the offeror prior to requesting final proposal revisions shall reflect the results of discussions with the offeror. Offerors eliminated from the competitive range may choose to receive a de-briefing then or wait until after award—they can have only one de-briefing. After award of contract, the other offerors may receive a de-briefing. This is an overview chart for the complete Source Selection process. Depending on the size and complexity of the acquisition, the acquisition team may be required to do an Acquisition Strategy Briefing. Other briefings that may be required are Initial Evaluation Briefing, Pre-FPR or Clearance Briefing, and Decision Briefing. These briefings may be combined briefings to the SSA and SSAC. Acquisitions over $100M will have the following briefings to the SSA and SSAC: Initial Evaluation Briefing (The process ends here if awarding without discussions.) Pre-FPR Briefing unless awarding without discussions Decision Briefing unless awarding without discussions AFFARS MP 5.6.5 states that as a minimum, at the initiation of and again at the conclusion of discussions, the SSET through the CO shall indicate, to or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: Adverse past performance to which the offeror has not had an opportunity to respond, uncertainties, weaknesses, deficiencies, and strengths. This should be accomplished by providing the offeror its own mission capability, cost/price risk (if applicable) and past performance ratings. The final disclosure of ratings to the offeror prior to requesting final proposal revisions shall reflect the results of discussions with the offeror. Offerors eliminated from the competitive range may choose to receive a de-briefing then or wait until after award—they can have only one de-briefing. After award of contract, the other offerors may receive a de-briefing.

    42. 8/6/2012 42 The next section of the training will cover those activities accomplished early in the acquisition process. The next section of the training will cover those activities accomplished early in the acquisition process.

    43. 8/6/2012 43

    44. 8/6/2012 44 Acquisition Planning Agencies shall perform acquisition planning and conduct market research for all acquisitions in order to promote and provide for – Acquisition of commercial items or non-developmental items to the maximum extent practicable Full and Open Competition to extent practicable Planning is to ensure Government meets needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner. Acquisition planning should begin as soon as the need is identified. Acquisition Planning—FAR Part 7.102 (a) Agencies shall perform acquisition planning and conduct market research for all acquisitions to promote and provide for— (1) Acquisition of commercial items or non-developmental items to the maximum extent practicable (2) Full and Open Competition to extent practicable (b) Planning is to ensure Government meets needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner. 7.104 (a) Acquisition planning should begin as soon as the need is identified. AFFARS 5307.102 Develop flexible acquisition strategies that provide rapid delivery of affordable capability to the warrior that meets expectations. Priority established among cost, schedule, and performance IAW 5311.002 shall drive strategy. AFFARS 5307.104 (a) In order to help develop a sound acquisition strategy, the acquisition team shall provide appropriate opportunities for the early involvement of industry in all acquisitions. Acquisition Planning—FAR Part 7.102 (a) Agencies shall perform acquisition planning and conduct market research for all acquisitions to promote and provide for— (1) Acquisition of commercial items or non-developmental items to the maximum extent practicable (2) Full and Open Competition to extent practicable (b) Planning is to ensure Government meets needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner. 7.104 (a) Acquisition planning should begin as soon as the need is identified. AFFARS 5307.102 Develop flexible acquisition strategies that provide rapid delivery of affordable capability to the warrior that meets expectations. Priority established among cost, schedule, and performance IAW 5311.002 shall drive strategy. AFFARS 5307.104 (a) In order to help develop a sound acquisition strategy, the acquisition team shall provide appropriate opportunities for the early involvement of industry in all acquisitions.

    45. 8/6/2012 45 Key Personnel Assigned Assign SSET Chairperson, Mission Capability Team Chief, PCAG Chairperson, Contracting Officer, and Cost Team Chief Source Selection experience, rank/grade, and acquisition experience important in these positions Key participants in the acquisition planning process Early participation ensures each person knows requirements, understands strategy, and assist in preparing the request for proposal (RFP) instructions and evaluation criteria AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.1.1.3: While the SSA will officially establish the source selection team when he/she approves the Source Selection Plan, the program manager or contracting officer usually uses a group to complete activities prior to the plan approval. This group drafts the Source Selection Plan, recommends the team structure, and should become key individuals on the source selection team. Your recommendation should establish the team size and organizational structure that is necessary to perform the evaluation of proposals based upon the complexity, size, visibility, and other considerations. SSET Chairperson should have broad experience in acquisitions similar to instant acquisition, APDP Level III certified and have previous experience as an SSET member. The individual assigned as the PCAG chairperson should have broad experience in acquisitions similar to instant acquisition, previously served on a PCAG, if possible, and APDP Level II certified is desirable. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.1.1.3: While the SSA will officially establish the source selection team when he/she approves the Source Selection Plan, the program manager or contracting officer usually uses a group to complete activities prior to the plan approval. This group drafts the Source Selection Plan, recommends the team structure, and should become key individuals on the source selection team. Your recommendation should establish the team size and organizational structure that is necessary to perform the evaluation of proposals based upon the complexity, size, visibility, and other considerations. SSET Chairperson should have broad experience in acquisitions similar to instant acquisition, APDP Level III certified and have previous experience as an SSET member. The individual assigned as the PCAG chairperson should have broad experience in acquisitions similar to instant acquisition, previously served on a PCAG, if possible, and APDP Level II certified is desirable.

    46. 8/6/2012 46

    47. 8/6/2012 47 Requirements Documents Document is the basis for informing offerors what the Government’s technical requirements are for a given acquisition Defines functional/performance/other requirements that the acquisition is to satisfy. Includes criteria for verification of requirement satisfaction and acceptability. Forms baseline for offeror/contractor to develop their proposal. Serves as the legal basis for contract formation and execution. What are we really talking about when we say "requirements documents"? The focus of this training is not to develop requirements documents but to talk about the documents that support an RFP or solicitation. Terms you may be familiar with include Statement of Work (SOW), Statement of Objectives (SOO), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Work Specification (WS), System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Requirements Document (TRD), Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Document (CDD), and Capability Production Document (CPD). These documents form the technical basis industry uses to develop proposals and provide the contractual scope for the acquisition. Note that good functional and performance requirements have good verification methods while poor requirements may not be easily verifiable. What are we really talking about when we say "requirements documents"? The focus of this training is not to develop requirements documents but to talk about the documents that support an RFP or solicitation. Terms you may be familiar with include Statement of Work (SOW), Statement of Objectives (SOO), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Work Specification (WS), System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Requirements Document (TRD), Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Document (CDD), and Capability Production Document (CPD). These documents form the technical basis industry uses to develop proposals and provide the contractual scope for the acquisition. Note that good functional and performance requirements have good verification methods while poor requirements may not be easily verifiable.

    48. 8/6/2012 48 What is the policy? Use performance-based strategies & contractual language to: Maximize competition, innovation, & interoperability. Enable flexibility. Reduce cost. Improve life cycle support. Task contractor in clear and concise language. DoDD 5000.1 directs the use of performance-based strategies and language whenever feasible. This is directly applicable to the development of requirements documents. In a performance based environment the acquisition strategies, methods, and techniques describe and communicate the performance outcomes. Simply put, it is a method for acquiring what is required and placing the responsibility for how it is accomplished on the contractor. A well written performance document enhances the opportunity for all potential offerors to compete equally for Government contracts. “To maximize competition, innovation, and interoperability, and to enable greater flexibility in capitalizing on commercial technologies to reduce costs, acquisition managers shall consider and use performance-based strategies for the acquiring and sustaining products and services whenever feasible. For products, this includes all new procurements and major modifications and upgrades, as well as the reprocurements of systems, subsystems, and spares that are procured beyond the initial production contract award. When using performance-based strategies, contract requirements shall be stated in performance terms, limiting the use of military specifications and standards to Government-unique requirements only. Acquisition managers shall base configuration management decisions on factors that best support implementing performance-based strategies throughout the product life cycle.” DoDD 50001. E1.16 DoDD 5000.1 directs the use of performance-based strategies and language whenever feasible. This is directly applicable to the development of requirements documents. In a performance based environment the acquisition strategies, methods, and techniques describe and communicate the performance outcomes. Simply put, it is a method for acquiring what is required and placing the responsibility for how it is accomplished on the contractor. A well written performance document enhances the opportunity for all potential offerors to compete equally for Government contracts. “To maximize competition, innovation, and interoperability, and to enable greater flexibility in capitalizing on commercial technologies to reduce costs, acquisition managers shall consider and use performance-based strategies for the acquiring and sustaining products and services whenever feasible. For products, this includes all new procurements and major modifications and upgrades, as well as the reprocurements of systems, subsystems, and spares that are procured beyond the initial production contract award. When using performance-based strategies, contract requirements shall be stated in performance terms, limiting the use of military specifications and standards to Government-unique requirements only. Acquisition managers shall base configuration management decisions on factors that best support implementing performance-based strategies throughout the product life cycle.” DoDD 50001. E1.16

    49. 8/6/2012 49 Performance-Based Service Contracts Air Force Instruction 63-124 Implements AF Policy Directive 63-1, Capability-Based Acquisition System, by directing performance-based procedures for developing requirements, acquiring services, and managing service acquisitions in the AF. Applies to all AF service acquisitions > Simplified Acquisition Threshold (FAR 2.101) with exceptions listed in FAR 37.102(a)(1). Performance Work Statement (PWS) Defines requirements in terms of results rather than the method of performing the work. Cite reference directives by specific process/procedure (e.g. paragraph or chapter) rather than the entire publication. AFI states that as a minimum a PWS includes: Description of Services/General Information (definitions, etc) Services Summary Government-Furnished Property and Services, if applicable Appendices such as workload estimates, labor hour rates, square footage, etc. AFI—”Training on PBSA. The SAF/AQC Contracting Website, AFFARS Library Part 37, PBSA Training, “Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition,” at http://www.arnet.gov/comp/seven_steps/home.html, provides a comprehensive training tool to understanding PBSA.” AFI states that as a minimum a PWS includes: Description of Services/General Information (definitions, etc) Services Summary Government-Furnished Property and Services, if applicable Appendices such as workload estimates, labor hour rates, square footage, etc. AFI—”Training on PBSA. The SAF/AQC Contracting Website, AFFARS Library Part 37, PBSA Training, “Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition,” at http://www.arnet.gov/comp/seven_steps/home.html, provides a comprehensive training tool to understanding PBSA.”

    50. 8/6/2012 50 Requirements Documents Types of requirements documents Product Capability documents, concept of operations, operational architecture (user). System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Requirements Document (TRD), technical architecture (acquirer). System and segment specifications, design component specifications, system architecture (developer). Program and process Statement of Objectives (SOO), Statement of Work (SOW), Work Specification (WS), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Performance Requirements Document (PRD). There are 2 types of requirements documents. Product – this type defines the product. Product requirements documents start with capability documents such as the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Documents (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD) which define the needed capability, CONOPs - how the product will be utilized in an operational environment and operational architecture documents. System Requirements Document (SRD) and Technical Requirements Document (TRD) are the next level of definition. This is the type of document that is included in the RFP or solicitation. It defines the system to the level that will allow the contractor to develop lower level specification and price the effort. Systems Specifications, component specifications and lower level systems architectures are developed by the contractor. Program and Process – these requirements documents define what needs to be done to deliver a product or service. Tasks are concerned with the requirements to be completed and to what standard the tasks must be performed. Process requirements are generally related to service type contracts. Process and task requirements documents do not contain performance specification requirements. AFMC Requirements Document Development (current as of 20 Oct 2005) Training Module provides training to personnel tasked to develop/finalize technical requirements documents necessary for a successful source selection. https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-AQ-PK-S1-10&Filter=OO-AQ-PK-S1 There are 2 types of requirements documents. Product – this type defines the product. Product requirements documents start with capability documents such as the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Capability Development Documents (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD) which define the needed capability, CONOPs - how the product will be utilized in an operational environment and operational architecture documents. System Requirements Document (SRD) and Technical Requirements Document (TRD) are the next level of definition. This is the type of document that is included in the RFP or solicitation. It defines the system to the level that will allow the contractor to develop lower level specification and price the effort. Systems Specifications, component specifications and lower level systems architectures are developed by the contractor. Program and Process – these requirements documents define what needs to be done to deliver a product or service. Tasks are concerned with the requirements to be completed and to what standard the tasks must be performed. Process requirements are generally related to service type contracts. Process and task requirements documents do not contain performance specification requirements. AFMC Requirements Document Development (current as of 20 Oct 2005) Training Module provides training to personnel tasked to develop/finalize technical requirements documents necessary for a successful source selection. https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-AQ-PK-S1-10&Filter=OO-AQ-PK-S1

    51. 8/6/2012 51

    52. 8/6/2012 52 Market Research Market Research FAR 2.101 definition—Market Research means collecting and analyzing information about capabilities within the market to satisfy agency needs. Purpose of Market Research Arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting supplies and services. (FAR 10.000) Objectives of Market Research Determine applicable business practices What is available commercially, Obtain industry input on government requirements and acquisition strategy. FAR Part 10 established the requirement to conduct Market Research. 10.001 Policy (a) Agencies must— (1) Ensure that legitimate needs are identified and trade-offs evaluated to acquire items that meet those needs. (2) Conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances— (1) Before developing new requirements documents for an acquisition by that agency; (2) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions with an estimated value > $100,000; (3) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions with an estimated value <$100,000 when adequate information is not available and the circumstances justify its cost; (4) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions that could lead to a bundled contract; and (5) Agencies shall conduct market research on an ongoing basis…of commercially available market research methods, to identify effectively the capabilities, including the capabilities of small businesses and new entrants into Federal contracting, that are available in the marketplace for meeting the requirements of the agency for requirements of defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack. FAR Part 10 established the requirement to conduct Market Research. 10.001 Policy (a) Agencies must— (1) Ensure that legitimate needs are identified and trade-offs evaluated to acquire items that meet those needs. (2) Conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances— (1) Before developing new requirements documents for an acquisition by that agency; (2) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions with an estimated value > $100,000; (3) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions with an estimated value <$100,000 when adequate information is not available and the circumstances justify its cost; (4) Before soliciting offers for acquisitions that could lead to a bundled contract; and (5) Agencies shall conduct market research on an ongoing basis…of commercially available market research methods, to identify effectively the capabilities, including the capabilities of small businesses and new entrants into Federal contracting, that are available in the marketplace for meeting the requirements of the agency for requirements of defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.

    53. 8/6/2012 53 Market Research Prepare a brief description of the requirements Can be as simple as 1 or 2 sentences Should be outcome oriented Market Research will help develop statement further Members talk/visit with contractors/vendors to discuss issues/questions/topics Repeat as needed Document details in market research report Sources Sought synopsis is NOT market research. Team should be established to do market research. Develop a short needs statement. Market research may include developing a baseline or understanding of previous contracting or acquisition activities, i.e. types of contracts, source selection, issues from customer/contractor/contracting point of view in the execution of the contract and delivery/performance concerns, etc. Market research may include “benchmarking”, i.e. finding out how commercial and other government activities accomplish similar requirements – may lead to types of contracts and new initiatives, etc.Sources Sought synopsis is NOT market research. Team should be established to do market research. Develop a short needs statement. Market research may include developing a baseline or understanding of previous contracting or acquisition activities, i.e. types of contracts, source selection, issues from customer/contractor/contracting point of view in the execution of the contract and delivery/performance concerns, etc. Market research may include “benchmarking”, i.e. finding out how commercial and other government activities accomplish similar requirements – may lead to types of contracts and new initiatives, etc.

    54. 8/6/2012 54 Market Research Use the results of market research to— Determine if sources exist capable of satisfying the agency’s requirements Determine if commercial items or, to the extent commercial items suitable to meet the needs are not available, non-developmental items are available Determine extent to which commercial or non-developmental items could be incorporated at the component level Determine practices of firms such as warranties, maintenance and packaging, and marking of commercial items Ensure maximum practicable use of recovered materials and promote energy conservation and efficiency Determine whether bundling is necessary and justified (See FAR 7.107) Determine whether consolidation is in the best interest of the Gov’t AFLMA Market Research Guide http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/tngtool.html This website provides a thorough guide to the Market Research process from the AF perspective. OSD Market Research Guide http://www.dsp..dla.mil/documents/sd-5.html This website provides a thorough guide to the Market Research process from the DoD perspective. It is intended to complement DoD 5000.2-R and FAR Part 10. SAF/AQC Training Home Page http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/tngtool.html This website provides access to self-study training, including: - Contracting Pricing Reference Guides - Commercial Item Contracting Seminar AFCESA http://www.afcesa.af.mil/AFCESA/Contracts/Docs/PWS/Market/ This website provides samples of Market Research Analysis in many type of base operations support services. AFLMA Market Research Guide http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/tngtool.html This website provides a thorough guide to the Market Research process from the AF perspective. OSD Market Research Guide http://www.dsp..dla.mil/documents/sd-5.html This website provides a thorough guide to the Market Research process from the DoD perspective. It is intended to complement DoD 5000.2-R and FAR Part 10. SAF/AQC Training Home Page http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/tngtool.html This website provides access to self-study training, including: - Contracting Pricing Reference Guides - Commercial Item Contracting Seminar AFCESA http://www.afcesa.af.mil/AFCESA/Contracts/Docs/PWS/Market/ This website provides samples of Market Research Analysis in many type of base operations support services.

    55. 8/6/2012 55

    56. 8/6/2012 56 Dialogue with Potential Offerors Conduct open and frank discussions with potential offerors before receipt of proposals Examples include market research, one-on-one sessions, industry days, issuances of technical materials by electronic media, pre-solicitation notices, Requests for Information (RFI), Draft RFP (DRFP), Presolicitation or Preproposal Conferences, and site visits Early involvement with applicable industry sector is highly encouraged from date of requirement identification through the date of RFP release—FAR 15.201 Avoid disclosing proprietary information or creating potential unfair competitive advantage or biased judgment FAR 15.201—Exchanges With Industry Before Receipt of Proposals “Exchanges of information among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, are encouraged. Any exchange of information must be consistent with procurement integrity requirements (see 3.104). Interested parties include potential offerors, end users, Government acquisition and supporting personnel, and others involved in the conduct or outcome of the acquisition.” To develop sound acquisition strategy, the team shall provide appropriate opportunities for early involvement of industry in all acquisitions (AFFARS 5301.104) Emphasize continuous interface and one-on-one sessions. Acquisition team must be fair to potential offerors. If one contractor request a one-on-one session and you conduct the session, then you should allow one-on-one sessions with any other company that requests a meeting. Protection of proprietary or competitive advantage data or ideas is essential. Request for information (RFIs) may be used when the Government does not presently intend to award a contract, but wants to obtain price, delivery, other market information or capabilities for planning purposes—FAR 15.201(e). FAR 15.201—Exchanges With Industry Before Receipt of Proposals “Exchanges of information among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, are encouraged. Any exchange of information must be consistent with procurement integrity requirements (see 3.104). Interested parties include potential offerors, end users, Government acquisition and supporting personnel, and others involved in the conduct or outcome of the acquisition.” To develop sound acquisition strategy, the team shall provide appropriate opportunities for early involvement of industry in all acquisitions (AFFARS 5301.104) Emphasize continuous interface and one-on-one sessions. Acquisition team must be fair to potential offerors. If one contractor request a one-on-one session and you conduct the session, then you should allow one-on-one sessions with any other company that requests a meeting. Protection of proprietary or competitive advantage data or ideas is essential. Request for information (RFIs) may be used when the Government does not presently intend to award a contract, but wants to obtain price, delivery, other market information or capabilities for planning purposes—FAR 15.201(e).

    57. 8/6/2012 57 Most-Probable-Cost Analysis Exchanges with Industry or Potential Offerors During solicitation development conduct detailed exchanges or deliberations between government and potential offerors regarding program cost estimates and the methods of estimating these costs (Cost Model) AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.3.2 states, “Exchanges with Industry or Potential Offerors on Most-Probable-Cost Analysis (for ACAT programs entering System Development and Demonstration (SDD) utilizing a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price-Incentive contract). Ensure during the solicitation development, detailed exchanges or deliberations occur between the government and potential offerors regarding program cost estimates and the methods of estimating such costs.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.3.2. (ref.1), “It is critical that Industry as early as practical understands what cost models (to include uncertainty analysis) and methodology we will be using. The goal of these discussions is to fully understand the reasons for the magnitude of the differences between an offeror’s proposed costs or prices and the government most probable cost by the end of the source selection; including key cost elements. The end result should be detailed cost data and narrative bases of estimates by WBS element that are fully understood by both parties prior to contract award.”AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.3.2 states, “Exchanges with Industry or Potential Offerors on Most-Probable-Cost Analysis (for ACAT programs entering System Development and Demonstration (SDD) utilizing a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price-Incentive contract). Ensure during the solicitation development, detailed exchanges or deliberations occur between the government and potential offerors regarding program cost estimates and the methods of estimating such costs.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.3.2. (ref.1), “It is critical that Industry as early as practical understands what cost models (to include uncertainty analysis) and methodology we will be using. The goal of these discussions is to fully understand the reasons for the magnitude of the differences between an offeror’s proposed costs or prices and the government most probable cost by the end of the source selection; including key cost elements. The end result should be detailed cost data and narrative bases of estimates by WBS element that are fully understood by both parties prior to contract award.”

    58. 8/6/2012 58

    59. 8/6/2012 59 Risk Management Risk--measure of future uncertainties in achieving program performance goals and objectives within defined cost, schedule and performance constraints (Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition (Aug 2006)). Risks have three components: A future root cause (yet to happen), which, if eliminated or corrected, would prevent a potential consequence from occurring, A probability (or likelihood) assessed at the present time of that future root cause occurring, and The consequence (or effect) of that future occurrence. Above statements are all from Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition dated Aug 2006. The following note is also from that guide. Note: Risks should not be confused with issues. If a root cause is described in the past tense, the root cause has already occurred, and hence, it is an issue that needs to be resolved, but it is not a risk. While issue management is one of the main functions of PMs, an important difference between issue management and risk management is that issue management applies resources to address and resolve current issues or problems, while risk management applies resources to mitigate future potential root causes and their consequences.Above statements are all from Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition dated Aug 2006. The following note is also from that guide. Note: Risks should not be confused with issues. If a root cause is described in the past tense, the root cause has already occurred, and hence, it is an issue that needs to be resolved, but it is not a risk. While issue management is one of the main functions of PMs, an important difference between issue management and risk management is that issue management applies resources to address and resolve current issues or problems, while risk management applies resources to mitigate future potential root causes and their consequences.

    60. 8/6/2012 60 DoD Risk Management Process The first key activity in the risk management process is Risk Identification. While in some publications “risk assessment” is used as an umbrella term that includes the primary activities of both risk identification and risk analysis the Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition addresses these two critical risk management activities separately. The intent of risk identification is to answer the question “What can go wrong?” by: (1) Looking at current and proposed staffing, process, design, supplier, operational employment, resources, dependencies, etc., (2) Monitoring test results especially test failures (readiness results and readiness problems for the sustainment phase), (3) Reviewing potential shortfalls against expectations, and (4) Analyzing negative trends. The intent of risk analysis is to answer the question “How big is the risk?” by: (1) Considering the likelihood of the root cause occurrence; (2) Identifying the possible consequences in terms of performance, schedule, and cost; and (3)Identifying the risk level using a Risk Reporting Matrix. The intent of risk mitigation planning is to answer the question “What is the program approach for addressing this potential unfavorable consequence?” One or more of these mitigation options may apply: (1) Avoiding risk by eliminating the root cause and/or the consequence, (2) Controlling the cause or consequence, (3) Transferring the risk, and/or (4) Assuming the level of risk and continuing on the current program plan. The intent of risk mitigation (plan) execution is to ensure successful risk mitigation occurs. It answers the question “How can the planned risk mitigation be implemented?” The intent of risk tracking is to ensure successful risk mitigation. It answers the question “How are things going?” The first key activity in the risk management process is Risk Identification. While in some publications “risk assessment” is used as an umbrella term that includes the primary activities of both risk identification and risk analysis the Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition addresses these two critical risk management activities separately. The intent of risk identification is to answer the question “What can go wrong?” by: (1) Looking at current and proposed staffing, process, design, supplier, operational employment, resources, dependencies, etc., (2) Monitoring test results especially test failures (readiness results and readiness problems for the sustainment phase), (3) Reviewing potential shortfalls against expectations, and (4) Analyzing negative trends. The intent of risk analysis is to answer the question “How big is the risk?” by: (1) Considering the likelihood of the root cause occurrence; (2) Identifying the possible consequences in terms of performance, schedule, and cost; and (3)Identifying the risk level using a Risk Reporting Matrix. The intent of risk mitigation planning is to answer the question “What is the program approach for addressing this potential unfavorable consequence?” One or more of these mitigation options may apply: (1) Avoiding risk by eliminating the root cause and/or the consequence, (2) Controlling the cause or consequence, (3) Transferring the risk, and/or (4) Assuming the level of risk and continuing on the current program plan. The intent of risk mitigation (plan) execution is to ensure successful risk mitigation occurs. It answers the question “How can the planned risk mitigation be implemented?” The intent of risk tracking is to ensure successful risk mitigation. It answers the question “How are things going?”

    61. 8/6/2012 61 Risk Assessment AFFARS MP5315.3—Source Selection team shall determine extent of risk analysis necessary to support acquisition. Information Guidance Paragraph 4.3.1 says it is prudent to perform some form of Risk Assessment for all competitive acquisitions to: Identify high-risk areas Determine discriminators for source selections, and Identify incentive focus areas. Subfactors need to be kept to a minimum and will result in a more efficient source selection After the government’s initial look, obtain industry input on the Risk Assessment results Risk Assessment results should be briefed at the ASP AF MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.3.1, “The source selection team, in consultation with other stakeholders, shall determine the extent of risk analysis necessary to support the acquisition.” AF MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.3.1, states that it is prudent to perform some form of Risk Assessment for all competitive acquisitions in order to identify high-risk areas, to determine discriminators for source Selections, and to identify incentive focus areas. Its these discriminators that should be used to establish the evaluation subfactors. Subfactors need to be kept to a minimum and will result in a more efficient source selection. After the government’s initial look, it is important to obtain industry input on the Risk Assessment results. Risk Assessment results should be briefed as a part of any Acquisition Strategy briefing. Subfactors should be developed as a result of Risk Assessment that identifies program/business/contract risks. Subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision, and expected to be discriminators. AF MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.3.1, “The source selection team, in consultation with other stakeholders, shall determine the extent of risk analysis necessary to support the acquisition.” AF MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.3.1, states that it is prudent to perform some form of Risk Assessment for all competitive acquisitions in order to identify high-risk areas, to determine discriminators for source Selections, and to identify incentive focus areas. Its these discriminators that should be used to establish the evaluation subfactors. Subfactors need to be kept to a minimum and will result in a more efficient source selection. After the government’s initial look, it is important to obtain industry input on the Risk Assessment results. Risk Assessment results should be briefed as a part of any Acquisition Strategy briefing. Subfactors should be developed as a result of Risk Assessment that identifies program/business/contract risks. Subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision, and expected to be discriminators.

    62. 8/6/2012 62 Example: Risk Assessment Summary This is an example of a result from the risk assessment process. The Probability is depicted on the left and the consequence is labeled across the top. Which blocks are High (depicted by Red), Moderate (depicted by Yellow), and Low (depicted by Green) is determined by the team prior to plotting the results of the risk analysis. The risks are numbered in order of listing and then plotted in the block that intersects the probability and consequence assessed for that risk. You can see that there is 1 high, 2 moderate risks, and the rest are low risks.This is an example of a result from the risk assessment process. The Probability is depicted on the left and the consequence is labeled across the top. Which blocks are High (depicted by Red), Moderate (depicted by Yellow), and Low (depicted by Green) is determined by the team prior to plotting the results of the risk analysis. The risks are numbered in order of listing and then plotted in the block that intersects the probability and consequence assessed for that risk. You can see that there is 1 high, 2 moderate risks, and the rest are low risks.

    63. 8/6/2012 63 Risk Assessment The risks should be clearly linked to the requirement If there is a high risk, the source selection team should: Ensure RFP requires the offeror to address the risk and provide any mitigation strategies in their proposal. Ensure evaluation criteria include evaluation of these risks and mitigation strategies. Strongly consider including oversight of the high risks and mitigation strategies in post award/incentive structure. Obtain Industry Input on the Risk Assessment Results Brief the Risk Assessment As a Part of Acquisition Strategy Panel Briefing Risks identified in the risk assessment become a critical element of the source selection plan and the RFP. Explain the thread that starts with the requirement, ties to the risk assessment, then to the RFP, proposal, evaluation and contract execution. Useful tool for doing a risk assessment can be found at: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=19366Risks identified in the risk assessment become a critical element of the source selection plan and the RFP. Explain the thread that starts with the requirement, ties to the risk assessment, then to the RFP, proposal, evaluation and contract execution. Useful tool for doing a risk assessment can be found at: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=19366

    64. 8/6/2012 64

    65. 8/6/2012 65 Acquisition Plan (AP) DFARS requires a written Acquisition Plan for— Acquisitions for development (FAR 35.001) when total cost of all contracts for the acquisition program >$10M. Acquisitions for production or services with total cost of all contracts >$50M or $25M or more for any fiscal year; and Any other acquisition considered appropriate by the department or agency. DFARS does not require written plans for— Final buy out or one-time buy AFFARS requires an AP for acquisitions >$5.5M (AFFARS 5307.104-92) DFARS 207.103(d)(i) sets forth the requirement for written acquisition plans. (d)(ii) states that written plans are not required in acquisitions for a final buy out or one-time buy. The terms “final buy out” and “one-time buy” refer to a single contract that covers all known present and future requirements. This exception does not apply to a multiyear contract of a contract with options or phases. SAF/AQC letter, Dec 13, 2006, states that SAF/AQCK shall participate in the acquisition planning phase for acquisitions where the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) or their deputy is the SSA since the clearance official is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting). AFFARS 5307.104-92(d) For MAJCOM and DRU Other Contracting acquisitions. (2) APs are to be prepared for acquisitions with a value > $5.5M. The AP must be approved by the SDO for services acquisitions or for non-services, the SCO. Further guidance for APs covered by this subparagraph is provided at IG5307.104-92.DFARS 207.103(d)(i) sets forth the requirement for written acquisition plans. (d)(ii) states that written plans are not required in acquisitions for a final buy out or one-time buy. The terms “final buy out” and “one-time buy” refer to a single contract that covers all known present and future requirements. This exception does not apply to a multiyear contract of a contract with options or phases. SAF/AQC letter, Dec 13, 2006, states that SAF/AQCK shall participate in the acquisition planning phase for acquisitions where the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) or their deputy is the SSA since the clearance official is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting). AFFARS 5307.104-92(d) For MAJCOM and DRU Other Contracting acquisitions. (2) APs are to be prepared for acquisitions with a value > $5.5M. The AP must be approved by the SDO for services acquisitions or for non-services, the SCO. Further guidance for APs covered by this subparagraph is provided at IG5307.104-92.

    66. 8/6/2012 66 Acquisition Plan (AP) AFFARS 5307.104-91 sets forth procedures for: Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP), Commodity Acquisition Management Plan (CAMP), and Integrated Program Summaries (IPS) LCMP required for all new ACAT I and II non-space related programs ACAT Programs falling under purview of OSD may utilize acquisition strategy documents required by OSD to fulfill LCMP requirements. For ACAT III programs, LCMP/SAMP (Single Acquisition Management Plan) may be prepared at the discretion of the MDA (Milestone Decision Authority For space related program, an IPS shall be prepared for all new programs under the purview of NSS 03-01. AS (Acquisition Strategy)/LCMP/CAMP shall include all required elements of a written acquisition plan (AP) For Approval Requirements see AFFARS 5307.104-91(b). LCMP approval authority has authority to waive the requirement to prepare a LCMP. However, the LCMP approval authority does not have authority to waive requirement for a written acquisition plan (see deviation procedures in FAR 1.4, as supplemented). AFFARS 5307-104.91(c)(1) For programs under the purview of DoDI 50002, the AS/LCMP/CAMP shall include all required elements of a written acquisition plan in accordance with FAR 7.105, as supplemented. The AS/PCMP/CAMP approval authority may determine additional content and coordination required of the AS/LCMP/CAMP, subject to law and higher regulation(s) (see FAR 7.1 as supplemented). You may go to AFFARS 5307.104-91(b) by clicking on the above hyperlink.AFFARS 5307-104.91(c)(1) For programs under the purview of DoDI 50002, the AS/LCMP/CAMP shall include all required elements of a written acquisition plan in accordance with FAR 7.105, as supplemented. The AS/PCMP/CAMP approval authority may determine additional content and coordination required of the AS/LCMP/CAMP, subject to law and higher regulation(s) (see FAR 7.1 as supplemented). You may go to AFFARS 5307.104-91(b) by clicking on the above hyperlink.

    67. 8/6/2012 67 Acquisition Plan (AP) Written Acquisition Plans (APs) should address the contents—FAR 7.105, DFARS 207.105 (a) Acquisition Background and Objectives (1) Statement of need. (2) Applicable conditions (3) Cost (4) Capability or performance (5) Delivery or performance-period requirements (6) Trade-offs (7) Risks (8) Acquisition streamlining (b) Plan of Action (1) Sources (2) Competition (3) Source-selection procedures (4) Acquisition considerations (5) Budgeting and funding (6) Product or service descriptions FAR 7.105 Contents of written acquisition plans. In order to facilitate attainment of the acquisition objectives, the plan must identify those milestones at which decisions should be made. The plan must address all the technical, business, management, and other significant considerations that will control the acquisition. The specific content of plans will vary, depending on the nature, circumstances, and stage of the acquisition. In preparing the plan, the planner must follow the applicable instructions in paragraphs (a) and (b) with agency’s implementing procedures. APs for service contracts or orders must describe the strategies for implementing performance-based contracting methods or must provide rationale for not using those methods (see 37.6).FAR 7.105 Contents of written acquisition plans. In order to facilitate attainment of the acquisition objectives, the plan must identify those milestones at which decisions should be made. The plan must address all the technical, business, management, and other significant considerations that will control the acquisition. The specific content of plans will vary, depending on the nature, circumstances, and stage of the acquisition. In preparing the plan, the planner must follow the applicable instructions in paragraphs (a) and (b) with agency’s implementing procedures. APs for service contracts or orders must describe the strategies for implementing performance-based contracting methods or must provide rationale for not using those methods (see 37.6).

    68. 8/6/2012 68 Acquisition Plan (AP) Plan of Action (Cont) (7) Priorities, Allocations, And Allotments. (8) Contractor Versus Government Performance. (9) Inherently Governmental Functions. (10) Management Information Requirements. (11) Make Or Buy. (12) Test And Evaluation. (13) Logistics Considerations. (14) Government-furnished Property (GFP). (15) Government-furnished Information. (16) Environmental And Energy Conservation Objectives. (17) Security Considerations. (18) Contract Administration. (19) Other Considerations. (20) Milestones For The Acquisition Cycle. See FAR 7.105, DFARS 207.105 (PGI 207.105), and AFFARS 5307.105 for contents of written acquisition plans.See FAR 7.105, DFARS 207.105 (PGI 207.105), and AFFARS 5307.105 for contents of written acquisition plans.

    69. 8/6/2012 69 Acquisition Plan (AP) AFFARS 5307.104-91(c) states: (1) For programs under the purview of DoDI 5000.2, the AS/LCMP/CAMP shall include all required elements of a written acquisition plan in accordance with FAR 7.105, as supplemented. The AS/LCMP/CAMP approval authority determines required content and coordination of AS/LCMP/CAMP, subject to law and higher regulation(s) (see FAR 7.1 as supplemented). For additional guidance see Defense Acquisition Handbook Chapter 2 and the LCMP Guide. (2) For space related programs, NSS 03-01 outlines required content and coordination of the IPS. The IPS is a collection of documents used by Independent Program Assessment Team to evaluate a program and includes the Acquisition Strategy. AS abbreviated above means acquisition strategy. AS abbreviated above means acquisition strategy.

    70. 8/6/2012 70

    71. 8/6/2012 71 Acquisition Strategy Panel Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)—AFFARS 5307.104-90 Program Manager/CO shall conduct ASP for ACAT programs Commodity Strategy Official (CSO) acquisitions Acquisitions in the AFPEO/CM portfolio For Other Contracting acquisitions, ASPs required when written AP required. ASP chairperson may establish streamlined ASP procedures for acquisitions <$5M ASP minutes prepared by program manager or CO and approved by ASP chairperson ASP chairperson has authority to waive an ASP See AFFARS 5307.104-90(b) for ASP Chairperson The first briefing you may present is the Acquisition Strategy Panel Briefing. You must schedule it early. For SAF/AQ ASP you must submit an Executive Summary 45 days in advance of the ASP. The ASP charts must be submitted at least 6 work days in advance of the ASP. Other ASP Chairpersons may require documents/charts in different time frames so strongly encourage the program manager/contracting officer contact that office early to establish requirements and time frames for ASP. NOTE: Remember the program manager or contracting officer shall prepare ASP minutes and obtain approval of the ASP minutes from the ASP Chairperson. Make sure the ASP chairperson agrees to what was said at the ASP and captured in the minutes. Use ASP action items to resolve open issues. ASP Executive Summary Template and ASP Template Charts are available at: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/mi./organizations_mil/ace_mil/asp.html The first briefing you may present is the Acquisition Strategy Panel Briefing. You must schedule it early. For SAF/AQ ASP you must submit an Executive Summary 45 days in advance of the ASP. The ASP charts must be submitted at least 6 work days in advance of the ASP. Other ASP Chairpersons may require documents/charts in different time frames so strongly encourage the program manager/contracting officer contact that office early to establish requirements and time frames for ASP. NOTE: Remember the program manager or contracting officer shall prepare ASP minutes and obtain approval of the ASP minutes from the ASP Chairperson. Make sure the ASP chairperson agrees to what was said at the ASP and captured in the minutes. Use ASP action items to resolve open issues. ASP Executive Summary Template and ASP Template Charts are available at: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/mi./organizations_mil/ace_mil/asp.html

    72. 8/6/2012 72 Acquisition Strategy Panel Areas to address during an ASP at the SAF/AQ Level Program Overview (include milestone chart of overall program) Funding Profile Market Research Major areas of SOO/SOW Key Performance Criteria Risk Assessment and Mitigation Systems Engineering Planning Contract Type/Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure/Pricing Structure Incentives (tied to performance metrics) Sustainment Strategy Special Contract Provisions Contract Schedule Evaluation Criteria with weighting (tied to risks and significant discriminators) Source Selection Organization Any known OSD concerns Requested Delegations and Waivers ASP conducted at the SAF/AQ and AFPEO/CM level will be expected to include all the details necessary to ensure the SAE standing ASP can deliberate and assess the viability of a proposed strategy. Although not all-inclusive, this list of items should be covered in an SAE chaired ASP. See AFFARS 5307.104-90(c) membership and content. ASP conducted at the SAF/AQ and AFPEO/CM level will be expected to include all the details necessary to ensure the SAE standing ASP can deliberate and assess the viability of a proposed strategy. Although not all-inclusive, this list of items should be covered in an SAE chaired ASP. See AFFARS 5307.104-90(c) membership and content.

    73. 8/6/2012 73

    74. 8/6/2012 74

    75. 8/6/2012 75 Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) MAJCOM or SSA May Require DRFP Develop DRFP consistent with acquisition strategy and draft source selection plan May be provided incrementally as sections are available—PRD, SOW, etc. Sections L and M must be Issued in the DRFP SSA may require review and approval before issuance in DRFP Request industry comments Consider industry comments and make changes as appropriate Publish and maintain record of the comments and the government’s response Before we discuss the specific content of parts of a Request for Proposal (RFP), I want to tell you that your SSA may require the issuance of a Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP). A draft RFP is an excellent way to provide the draft language to all offerors and obtain their comments prior to issuance of the RFP. The SSA may require that Sections L & M be reviewed by the SSA before release to industry. Encourage comments from industry in the cover letter of the DRFP. You may call out specific items that you want to bring to industry’s attention for comments. Be sure that you publish the government’s response to the comments on the web!! DO NOT publish the contractor’s name with the comment. Also DO NOT publish a question that would reveal a potential offeror’s confidential business strategy or other proprietary information. (Reference AF Knowledge Now, AF Deskbook, AFMC—Confidential RFP Feedback to Offerors.)Before we discuss the specific content of parts of a Request for Proposal (RFP), I want to tell you that your SSA may require the issuance of a Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP). A draft RFP is an excellent way to provide the draft language to all offerors and obtain their comments prior to issuance of the RFP. The SSA may require that Sections L & M be reviewed by the SSA before release to industry. Encourage comments from industry in the cover letter of the DRFP. You may call out specific items that you want to bring to industry’s attention for comments. Be sure that you publish the government’s response to the comments on the web!! DO NOT publish the contractor’s name with the comment. Also DO NOT publish a question that would reveal a potential offeror’s confidential business strategy or other proprietary information. (Reference AF Knowledge Now, AF Deskbook, AFMC—Confidential RFP Feedback to Offerors.)

    76. 8/6/2012 76 What is an RFP? To communicate the Government's requirements to industry, and To solicit proposals from industry to satisfy those requirements Becomes the contract RFP—Request for Proposals Some contracting organizations use model contract while others make an award by signatures on the front of the RFP. The next chart will show the content of the RFP. RFP—Request for Proposals Some contracting organizations use model contract while others make an award by signatures on the front of the RFP. The next chart will show the content of the RFP.

    77. 8/6/2012 77 Solicitation Uniform Contract Format Part I -- The Schedule A Solicitation/contract form B Supplies or services and prices/costs C Description/specifications/statement of work D Packaging and marking E Inspection and acceptance F Deliveries or performance G Contract administration data H Special contract requirements Part II -- Contract Clauses I Contract clauses Part III -- List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments J List of attachments Part IV -- Representations and Instructions K Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors or respondents L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents M Evaluation factors for award The RFP follows the Uniform Contract Format shown above. Parts I, II, and III (or Sections A through J) are completed with the specifics of the selected contractor and become the contract. Part IV does not become part of the contract, except the completed Section K is incorporated by reference into the contract. FAR 15.204- Uniform Contract Format, Table 15-1.The RFP follows the Uniform Contract Format shown above. Parts I, II, and III (or Sections A through J) are completed with the specifics of the selected contractor and become the contract. Part IV does not become part of the contract, except the completed Section K is incorporated by reference into the contract. FAR 15.204- Uniform Contract Format, Table 15-1.

    78. 8/6/2012 78

    79. 8/6/2012 79 Source Selection Techniques Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Performance Price Trade-off (PPT) Full Trade-off (FTO) As discussed earlier, FAR 15 establishes the forms of competitively negotiated acquisition. AFFARS 15 added Performance Price Trade-off. The following charts will talk about the difference between these techniques.As discussed earlier, FAR 15 establishes the forms of competitively negotiated acquisition. AFFARS 15 added Performance Price Trade-off. The following charts will talk about the difference between these techniques.

    80. 8/6/2012 80 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price Past Performance (PP) does not have to be an evaluation factor Tradeoffs are not permitted Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors While PPT and LPTA are considered part of the best value continuum, they do not afford the flexibility of the full tradeoff process. FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)-- If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iv), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in LPTA. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’s past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination. The evaluation of past performance in a LPTA source selection should be thoroughly discussed with the contracting officer, requirements personnel and legal, if applicable. Since award must be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror, past performance normally becomes a part of the contracting officer’s responsibility determination under FAR 9.1. (AFFARS IG5315.305(a)(2) Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Chapter 6, Jul 2005) While PPT and LPTA are considered part of the best value continuum, they do not afford the flexibility of the full tradeoff process. FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)-- If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iv), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in LPTA. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’s past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination. The evaluation of past performance in a LPTA source selection should be thoroughly discussed with the contracting officer, requirements personnel and legal, if applicable. Since award must be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror, past performance normally becomes a part of the contracting officer’s responsibility determination under FAR 9.1. (AFFARS IG5315.305(a)(2) Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Chapter 6, Jul 2005)

    81. 8/6/2012 81 Performance Price Trade-off (PPT) Process PPT can be used when it is unnecessary to distinguish levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision Like LPTA, proposals are evaluated for acceptability Tradeoffs can only be made between: Price/cost and Past performance Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) can be used when it is unnecessary to distinguish levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision. Technical acceptability is determined on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In a PPT the only factor traded off with cost/price is past performance. You may evaluate technical factors, but they are not traded off. Basically, PPT involves: a pass/fail evaluation for technical acceptability (if necessary) and an assessment of performance confidence. For some construction efforts and other services that have been typically acquired by IFB, a technical evaluation would not be appropriate. Also, PPT should not be used for commercial services where market research has shown that technical evaluations are not standard commercial practice. In addition PPT should not be used for other straight forward requirements. After evaluation of technical acceptability and past performance, a trade-off decision is made. The decision will be made to either award to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror or to award to a higher priced, technically acceptable offeror who has a higher performance confidence. Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) can be used when it is unnecessary to distinguish levels of technical merit among the proposals to make an award decision. Technical acceptability is determined on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In a PPT the only factor traded off with cost/price is past performance. You may evaluate technical factors, but they are not traded off. Basically, PPT involves: a pass/fail evaluation for technical acceptability (if necessary) and an assessment of performance confidence. For some construction efforts and other services that have been typically acquired by IFB, a technical evaluation would not be appropriate. Also, PPT should not be used for commercial services where market research has shown that technical evaluations are not standard commercial practice. In addition PPT should not be used for other straight forward requirements. After evaluation of technical acceptability and past performance, a trade-off decision is made. The decision will be made to either award to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror or to award to a higher priced, technically acceptable offeror who has a higher performance confidence.

    82. 8/6/2012 82 Full Trade-Off (FTO) Process FTO is used 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 factors Allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal Best combination of technically superior, low risk proposals that also have a history of favorable past performance As long as perceived benefit of a higher priced proposal merits the additional cost The full 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. When making tradeoff decisions, performance requirements, fiscal constraints, and affordability must be taken into account. Although it is not necessary to state the Government’s cost limitations or objectives in the solicitation, the SSA must consider the limit the Government is willing to pay, regardless of increased benefit in other factors. While a low risk is more desirable than high risk, the Government can still award to an offeror with a high risk proposal if that offeror has the best overall combination of factor ratings. The full 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. When making tradeoff decisions, performance requirements, fiscal constraints, and affordability must be taken into account. Although it is not necessary to state the Government’s cost limitations or objectives in the solicitation, the SSA must consider the limit the Government is willing to pay, regardless of increased benefit in other factors. While a low risk is more desirable than high risk, the Government can still award to an offeror with a high risk proposal if that offeror has the best overall combination of factor ratings.

    83. 8/6/2012 83 LPTA Factors & Ratings Technical Acceptability Acceptable Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable Unacceptable Price Reasonableness RFP Requirements Terms and Conditions (Ts & Cs) Certifications & Representations, etc. FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) The evaluation factors and subfactors that establish the requirements of technical acceptability shall go in Section M. If the contracting officer established past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305, not only on a pass/fail basis which is a responsibility determination under FAR 9.1. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply (i.e., you can’t do tradeoffs for a higher performance confidence). AFFARS 5315.305(a) requires offerors “…to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award…..The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria (Sections L and M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation) shall inform offerors of this condition for award.” FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) The evaluation factors and subfactors that establish the requirements of technical acceptability shall go in Section M. If the contracting officer established past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305, not only on a pass/fail basis which is a responsibility determination under FAR 9.1. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply (i.e., you can’t do tradeoffs for a higher performance confidence). AFFARS 5315.305(a) requires offerors “…to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award…..The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria (Sections L and M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation) shall inform offerors of this condition for award.”

    84. 8/6/2012 84 PPT Factors & Ratings Technical Acceptability Acceptable Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable Unacceptable Past Performance Evaluation Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence RFP Requirements (Ts & Cs, Certs & Reps, etc.) Price Reasonableness AFFARS 5315.101-1(a) states that when using PPT past performance shall be evaluated consistent with MP5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.3 (should state 5.5.2) and 5.6.2.1. See Informational Guidance IG5315.101-1, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), for samples of Section L & M without technical proposals and with technical proposals. It also contains several other examples that would be useful in a source selection using the PPT process. AFFARS 5315.101-1(a) states that when using PPT past performance shall be evaluated consistent with MP5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.3 (should state 5.5.2) and 5.6.2.1. See Informational Guidance IG5315.101-1, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), for samples of Section L & M without technical proposals and with technical proposals. It also contains several other examples that would be useful in a source selection using the PPT process.

    85. 8/6/2012 85 FTO Factors & Ratings Mission Capability Technical Rating Blue - Exceptional Green - Acceptable Yellow - Marginal Red - Unacceptable Past Performance Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence Mission Capability Risk Rating Low Moderate High Unacceptable Cost/Price Risk (In certain cases) Low Moderate High Cost/Price Price Reasonableness Cost Realism (In certain cases) MP5315.304 and 305 defines each of the above ratings and describes their application. MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.4, states that a Cost/Price Risk Factor is required for ACAT programs, SDD phase programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure. The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the government’s computed Most Probable Costs (MPC). Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor. If a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract is used for non-ACAT acquisitions and a government MPC is compute, with SSA approval, a risk rating may be assigned. MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 5.5.3, references FAR 15.305(a)(1). The cost or price evaluation factor is normally limited to an assessment of reasonableness and in certain cases, realism (reference FAR 15.4 as supplemented for definitions of cost realism and price reasonableness).MP5315.304 and 305 defines each of the above ratings and describes their application. MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.4, states that a Cost/Price Risk Factor is required for ACAT programs, SDD phase programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure. The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the government’s computed Most Probable Costs (MPC). Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor. If a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract is used for non-ACAT acquisitions and a government MPC is compute, with SSA approval, a risk rating may be assigned. MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 5.5.3, references FAR 15.305(a)(1). The cost or price evaluation factor is normally limited to an assessment of reasonableness and in certain cases, realism (reference FAR 15.4 as supplemented for definitions of cost realism and price reasonableness).

    86. 8/6/2012 86 Source Selection Types Lowest Price/Technically Acceptable (LPTA) - 2 Steps Technically Acceptable Lowest Price among Tech. Acceptable Performance/Price Tradeoff (PPT) - 2 Steps Technically Acceptable Trade-off between Past Perf. & Price Full Trade-Off (FTO) - 1 Step Trade-off between all 4 Factors This chart compares the types of source selections and sealed bids (low price). This chart compares the types of source selections and sealed bids (low price).

    87. 8/6/2012 87

    88. 8/6/2012 88 L and M Development Process Prepare Section M (Evaluation Criteria) Most important section to the source selection Most difficult to develop Establish clear relationship between acquisition documents Requirements set forth in SOO, SOW, or PRD High or Moderate Risk Items identified in the Risk Assessment Factors and Subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to Requirements and Risk Assessment Section L (information required to be submitted by offerors to be evaluated against criteria specified in Section M) Refer frequently to Sec M when creating Sec L; the two sections must track Ask for only data needed to evaluate proposals Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the SSET should prepare Section M and Section L and the Section L attachments prior to issuance of the DRFP. Each team should prepare their portion of Section L and M but the SSET Chairperson and the CO should make sure the total Section L and M fit together, are accurate and tracking. Section M is the most important part of the RFP for a source selection and the most difficult to prepare. Start the development of Section M first before writing instructions to the offerors on what is needed in their proposals. The key to a successful source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Risk Assessment, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Also, make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what information is required in the proposal and what the Government will evaluate. If you require the information in the proposal in a certain paragraph in Section L, make sure Section M for that same factor/subfactor states how the Government will evaluate it. Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the SSET should prepare Section M and Section L and the Section L attachments prior to issuance of the DRFP. Each team should prepare their portion of Section L and M but the SSET Chairperson and the CO should make sure the total Section L and M fit together, are accurate and tracking. Section M is the most important part of the RFP for a source selection and the most difficult to prepare. Start the development of Section M first before writing instructions to the offerors on what is needed in their proposals. The key to a successful source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Risk Assessment, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Also, make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what information is required in the proposal and what the Government will evaluate. If you require the information in the proposal in a certain paragraph in Section L, make sure Section M for that same factor/subfactor states how the Government will evaluate it.

    89. 8/6/2012 89 Specifics for LPTA Section M of the solicitation shall state that award will be made to the lowest evaluated price offer that meets or exceeds all the minimum mandatory criteria in the solicitation Specify all requirements of acceptability No tradeoffs are permitted even if a proposal exceeds the minimum requirements Section L should instruct offerors to submit specific information needed to evaluate against the criteria in Sec M FAR 15.101-2-Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. (b)(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the CO documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(is), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the CO elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the CO determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C.637(b)(7). (2) Tradeoffs are not permitted. (3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. (4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).FAR 15.101-2-Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process. (b)(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the CO documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(is), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the CO elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the CO determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C.637(b)(7). (2) Tradeoffs are not permitted. (3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. (4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).

    90. 8/6/2012 90 Specifics for PPT Section M of the solicitation shall state the basis for contract award. This is a competitive best value source selection in which the competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis…(choose one of the following), cost or price considerations. Significantly more important than, Approximately equal to, Or significantly less important than Section M shall state the evaluation criteria Evaluate Technical, then Rank by Price, Assess Performance on all (or specified number) OR Rank by Price, Evaluate Specified Number Technically, Assess Performance Section L should instruct offerors to submit specific information needed to evaluate against the criteria in Sec M When technical proposals are required, the technical acceptability of each offeror is determined using the pass/fail evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Only evaluation criteria in the RFP will be used to determine technical acceptability. All of the criteria must be passed to be considered technically acceptable. The only tradeoff done in PPT is Past Performance against Cost/Price. When technical proposals are required, the technical acceptability of each offeror is determined using the pass/fail evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Only evaluation criteria in the RFP will be used to determine technical acceptability. All of the criteria must be passed to be considered technically acceptable. The only tradeoff done in PPT is Past Performance against Cost/Price.

    91. 8/6/2012 91 Specifics for Full Trade-Off Source Selection Next we will consider what you need to know to develop Sections M and L for a Full Trade-Off source selection.Next we will consider what you need to know to develop Sections M and L for a Full Trade-Off source selection.

    92. 8/6/2012 92 Sec M—Evaluation Factors Mission Capability (Technical Rating and Risk Rating) Past Performance Cost/Price Risk (Applies to ACAT programs in SDD) Cost/Price State whether all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are: Significantly more important than cost or price; Approximately equal to cost or price; or Significantly less important than cost or price. However cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision--FAR 15.304(e) says adequate price competition if award made to best value where price is a substantial factor. If trade-offs are to be considered, how trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in RFP. Sec M must state Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used (MP5315.304, para 4.4) There is no longer a requirement that past performance be most important non-cost factor. Determine importance of the factors based on the specific acquisition. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Para 4.4.1.2, states that normally the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criterion. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.4, states that the Cost/Price Risk factor shall be a significant evaluation factor. Mandatory for ACAT programs in a System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase utilizing Most Probable Cost (Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contracts). AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Trade-offs. The solicitation shall state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are: (1) Significantly less important than cost or price; (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) Significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in the RFP. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) “Adequate price competition…if (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source selection; (B) Price not unreasonable. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.4, “Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used.” There is no longer a requirement that past performance be most important non-cost factor. Determine importance of the factors based on the specific acquisition. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Para 4.4.1.2, states that normally the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criterion. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.4, states that the Cost/Price Risk factor shall be a significant evaluation factor. Mandatory for ACAT programs in a System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase utilizing Most Probable Cost (Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contracts). AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Trade-offs. The solicitation shall state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are: (1) Significantly less important than cost or price; (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) Significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in the RFP. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) “Adequate price competition…if (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source selection; (B) Price not unreasonable. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.4, “Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used.”

    93. 8/6/2012 93 Section M – Basis of Award Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria (Section M of the DRFP/RFP) General Basis for Contract Award Best Value to the Government Integrated Assessment Subjective judgment is implicit in the evaluation process Include statement that proposal must meet all technical requirements, conform to all terms & conditions and include all required certifications AFFARS 5315.305(a) stated that offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria (Sections L and M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation) shall inform offerors of this condition for award. AFFARS 5315.305(a) stated that offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria (Sections L and M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation) shall inform offerors of this condition for award.

    94. 8/6/2012 94 Mission Capability Factor Section M Evaluation Criteria For Mission Capability Technical Rating

    95. 8/6/2012 95 Section M – Mission Capability Mission Capability is called a Factor Factor is the top level of Evaluation Criteria Uniform Baseline Against Which an Offeror’s Proposal is Evaluated Subfactor focuses on areas of Product or Services Written in depth to communicate measures of merit used to determine how the proposal will be evaluated Include specific program characteristics tied to user needs Significant enough to impact Source Selection Decision Expected to be discriminators Relate to Significant Program Risks Determine the “Discriminators”—significant aspects of an acquisition expected to distinguish one proposal from another Focus on the technical or service requirements most likely to be discriminators to distinguish one proposal from another. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.4(ref 3), When developing the evaluation criteria, you often hear the term “discriminators” used. “Discriminators” are the significant aspects of a program that are expected to distinguish one proposal from another, thus having an impact on the ultimate selection decision. By using these discriminators, the source selection team can provide the SSA with an evaluation that distinguishes among competing proposals in those areas the government believes are most important. This facilitates selecting the offeror(s) most likely to deliver the best value to the government and to perform the resulting contract(s) successfully. Focus on the technical or service requirements most likely to be discriminators to distinguish one proposal from another. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.4(ref 3), When developing the evaluation criteria, you often hear the term “discriminators” used. “Discriminators” are the significant aspects of a program that are expected to distinguish one proposal from another, thus having an impact on the ultimate selection decision. By using these discriminators, the source selection team can provide the SSA with an evaluation that distinguishes among competing proposals in those areas the government believes are most important. This facilitates selecting the offeror(s) most likely to deliver the best value to the government and to perform the resulting contract(s) successfully.

    96. 8/6/2012 96 Section M – Mission Capability Mission Capability Subfactors normally limited to 6 Objective is to keep evaluation focused on discriminators Subfactors should be developed as a result of risk assessment that identifies program/business/contract risks Systems engineering shall be subfactor in ACAT program & all others where systems engineering effort is required In acquisitions that require FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, other than those based on LPTA, the extent of participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract shall be addressed in source selection (DFARS 215.304(c)(i)). Consider the purchase of capital assets manufactured in the U.S. for all major defense acquisition programs (DFARS 215.304(c)(ii)). AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1 states Air Force source selections shall utilize the following evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, Cost or Price and Cost/Price Risk (if applicable). Para 4.4.4 states that MAJCOMs and DRUs may establish alternative factors or subfactors for specific classes of “other contracting” acquisitions when required to conduct an effective and efficient evaluation of offers. However, all other requirements of this procedure must be followed. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.1, establish the minimum number of subfactors necessary for evaluation of proposals, normally limited to six subfactors. Additional subfactors may be justified and documented in the SSP. Systems Engineering shall be a mission capability subfactor in all ACAT program acquisitions, and in all other acquisitions where systems engineering effort is required. If the ACAT acquisition has no Systems Engineering effort, the SSA, with PEO approval, shall document the contract file. IG 4.4.1.1.(ref.1) Subfactors should focus on areas not only where significant differences in proposals are anticipated, but where these critical areas are of sufficient benefit to the customer and represent the high risk areas of the program or acquisition. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4, states evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision, and expected to be discriminators. 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 subfactors and their relative importance shall be set for in the evaluation criteria (Sec M or equivalent provision) in the solicitation. Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used. Evaluation factors and subfactors may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both. The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors (Sec L or equivalent provision). AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.4.2, states if threshold and objective performance requirements are identified in the RFP, you must communicate to offerors how a value analysis will be performed, comparing perceived benefit to the government against associated cost or price. In addition to the above language, DFARS 215.304(c)(i)) also states that the CO shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business and historically black colleges or university and minority institutions in performance of contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A) contains the following examples of evaluation factors: (1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals; (2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (i.e. enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); (3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; (4) The realism of the proposal; (5) Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of clauses FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9. (6) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of value of the total acquisition. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1 states Air Force source selections shall utilize the following evaluation factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, Cost or Price and Cost/Price Risk (if applicable). Para 4.4.4 states that MAJCOMs and DRUs may establish alternative factors or subfactors for specific classes of “other contracting” acquisitions when required to conduct an effective and efficient evaluation of offers. However, all other requirements of this procedure must be followed. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.1.1, establish the minimum number of subfactors necessary for evaluation of proposals, normally limited to six subfactors. Additional subfactors may be justified and documented in the SSP. Systems Engineering shall be a mission capability subfactor in all ACAT program acquisitions, and in all other acquisitions where systems engineering effort is required. If the ACAT acquisition has no Systems Engineering effort, the SSA, with PEO approval, shall document the contract file. IG 4.4.1.1.(ref.1) Subfactors should focus on areas not only where significant differences in proposals are anticipated, but where these critical areas are of sufficient benefit to the customer and represent the high risk areas of the program or acquisition. AFFARS MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4, states evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements having an impact on the source selection decision, and expected to be discriminators. 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 subfactors and their relative importance shall be set for in the evaluation criteria (Sec M or equivalent provision) in the solicitation. Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used. Evaluation factors and subfactors may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both. The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors (Sec L or equivalent provision). AFFARS MP5315.3, IG Paragraph 4.4.2, states if threshold and objective performance requirements are identified in the RFP, you must communicate to offerors how a value analysis will be performed, comparing perceived benefit to the government against associated cost or price. In addition to the above language, DFARS 215.304(c)(i)) also states that the CO shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business and historically black colleges or university and minority institutions in performance of contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A) contains the following examples of evaluation factors: (1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals; (2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (i.e. enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); (3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; (4) The realism of the proposal; (5) Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of clauses FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9. (6) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of value of the total acquisition.

    97. 8/6/2012 97 Section M – Mission Capability Technical Rating Mandatory to rate at the Subfactor Level (Shall Not Roll Up to Factor)—there will not be a rating for factor level. Rated with Color Codes—Blue, Green, Yellow, Red Narrative Assessment Strengths Deficiencies Uncertainties Section M of the RFP will state the factors and subfactors that will be used to evaluate the offerors proposals. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1, states that the mission capability technical rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal. When subfactors are established, the mission capability rating shall be rated at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned. Mission capability technical ratings shall be rated using color ratings. The definitions for colors and narrative assessments will be discussed in the next 2 charts.Section M of the RFP will state the factors and subfactors that will be used to evaluate the offerors proposals. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1, states that the mission capability technical rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal. When subfactors are established, the mission capability rating shall be rated at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned. Mission capability technical ratings shall be rated using color ratings. The definitions for colors and narrative assessments will be discussed in the next 2 charts.

    98. 8/6/2012 98 AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1,Table 1 sets forth the Mission Capability Technical Rating colors, ratings and descriptions. MP states that through discussions, the government evaluators should obtain the necessary information from offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to resolve outstanding issues within the offer. Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the time of the final evaluation. MP also states that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1,Table 1 sets forth the Mission Capability Technical Rating colors, ratings and descriptions.

    99. 8/6/2012 99 Sec M -- Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Narrative Assessment for MC Technical Rating Shall Include: Strength: Significant aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process. Deficiency: 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. Uncertainty: A doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN. Remember that Mission Capability Technical Ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal. Definition of strength is in AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.15. As defined in FAR 15.001 and AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.1, 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. As defined in AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.16, an uncertainty is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN. Remember that Mission Capability Technical Ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal. Definition of strength is in AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.15. As defined in FAR 15.001 and AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.1, 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. As defined in AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.16, an uncertainty is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN.

    100. 8/6/2012 100 Mission Capability

    101. 8/6/2012 101 Section L – Mission Capability Sec L - Draft the Instructions to Offerors Volumes of proposal State how many copies are required including electronic copy Page count of each volume State what counts and what does not count Write Proposal Preparation Instructions to Offerors for Mission Capability Subfactors Section L should track directly to the corresponding Section M “Evaluation Criteria” Refer frequently to Sec M when creating Sec L; the two must track. Ask for only minimum data needed to evaluate proposals in accordance with Section M Write Sec L attachments such as Past Performance Questionnaire What goes in Section L of the DRFP or RFP? Instructions to the Offerors: Explain the numbers of volumes in the proposal Provide instructions on proposal preparation—font size, page size, etc. Write instructions for information required on Mission Capability subfactors Example for Volumes of Proposal: Volume 1—Executive Summary, Volume 2—Mission Capability, Volume 3—Past Performance, Volume 4—Cost, and Volume 5—Contractual Documents If your acquisition has Cost/Price Risk Factor, decide where you require the offeror to provide the information required for that factor. Prepare Section L attachments. Remember Attachment J only contains those items that will be included in the contract. All other attachments should be in Sec L. SSET must make sure Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, and Section M, Evaluation Criteria, track to requirements and risk assessment. The Cross Reference Matrix is a good tool for Government and industry to use. In preparing Section L, ask the question: “What do I, as an evaluator, need to see to evaluate the offeror’s proposal in accordance with Sec M to determine if the requirement has been met, fails to meet, or exceeds the minimum requirement?” DO NOT require the offeror to provide something in their proposal that you have not said you will evaluate in Sec M. What goes in Section L of the DRFP or RFP? Instructions to the Offerors: Explain the numbers of volumes in the proposal Provide instructions on proposal preparation—font size, page size, etc. Write instructions for information required on Mission Capability subfactors Example for Volumes of Proposal: Volume 1—Executive Summary, Volume 2—Mission Capability, Volume 3—Past Performance, Volume 4—Cost, and Volume 5—Contractual Documents If your acquisition has Cost/Price Risk Factor, decide where you require the offeror to provide the information required for that factor. Prepare Section L attachments. Remember Attachment J only contains those items that will be included in the contract. All other attachments should be in Sec L. SSET must make sure Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, and Section M, Evaluation Criteria, track to requirements and risk assessment. The Cross Reference Matrix is a good tool for Government and industry to use. In preparing Section L, ask the question: “What do I, as an evaluator, need to see to evaluate the offeror’s proposal in accordance with Sec M to determine if the requirement has been met, fails to meet, or exceeds the minimum requirement?” DO NOT require the offeror to provide something in their proposal that you have not said you will evaluate in Sec M.

    102. 8/6/2012 102 Cross Reference Matrix Sample cross reference matrix. The government team completes all blocks except the last two to ensure a well-constructed RFP with internal continuity and consistency between the requirements documents (CDD, SRD, SOO, PWS etc.), section M and section L. The offeror will complete the proposal reference and submit the completed cross reference matrix with the proposal.Sample cross reference matrix. The government team completes all blocks except the last two to ensure a well-constructed RFP with internal continuity and consistency between the requirements documents (CDD, SRD, SOO, PWS etc.), section M and section L. The offeror will complete the proposal reference and submit the completed cross reference matrix with the proposal.

    103. 8/6/2012 103 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors Answer the following questions: Is this subfactor or component of a subfactor critical to program success? In Section L, did I tell the offeror what I need to see? In Section M, did I tell the offeror that I was going to evaluate this component? Can the offeror exceed our criteria? How? Is it clear to the offeror? Is there benefit to the government of a response that exceeds our requirement/criteria? Did I check to make sure that this component isn't covered anywhere else in the factors? Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson has responsibility for quality of the evaluation factors and subfactors Will be released as part of the RFP Now that you have finished Sections L and M for Mission Capability Technical do a quality check by asking yourself these questions.Now that you have finished Sections L and M for Mission Capability Technical do a quality check by asking yourself these questions.

    104. 8/6/2012 104 Mission Capability Risk

    105. 8/6/2012 105 Section M – Mission Capability Risk Rating MC Risk Rating focuses on weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposal Assessed at the Mission Capability Subfactor Level Shall not roll up to mission capability factor level Considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance Rated Low, Moderate, High or Unacceptable Narrative Assessment Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Deficiency: Combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. For any weakness identified, the assessment should address the offeror’s proposed mitigation (if available) and why that approach is or is not acceptable. Any strength identified in MC Technical Rating shall be assessed as to whether the offeror’s proposed approach would likely cause an associated weakness which may impact schedule, cost or performance. Note that the term weakness is used only in connection with the assessment of mission capability risk rating—NOT mission capability technical rating. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A mission capability risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and document why that approach is or is not acceptable. Whenever a strength is identified as a part of the mission capability technical rating, the evaluation shall assess whether the offeror’s proposed approach would likely cause an associated weakness which may impact schedule, cost, or performance. The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (dollarized), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the government’s most probable cost analysis of the Cost/Price evaluation factor. If an offeror’s proposal revels a significant weakness or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal and results in an unacceptable risk rating the proposal is not awardable. Note that the term weakness is used only in connection with the assessment of mission capability risk rating—NOT mission capability technical rating. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A mission capability risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and document why that approach is or is not acceptable. Whenever a strength is identified as a part of the mission capability technical rating, the evaluation shall assess whether the offeror’s proposed approach would likely cause an associated weakness which may impact schedule, cost, or performance. The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (dollarized), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the government’s most probable cost analysis of the Cost/Price evaluation factor. If an offeror’s proposal revels a significant weakness or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal and results in an unacceptable risk rating the proposal is not awardable.

    106. 8/6/2012 106 Mission Capability Risk Ratings 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. 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. Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties. The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable. *+ At the option of evaluators/teams, a plus “+” rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but is not high enough to merit the next higher rating. AFFARS MP 5315.3, Table 2, Mission Capability Risk Ratings *+A plus rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but not enough to merit the next higher rating. “When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate or High Risk ratings is desired, evaluators/teams may (optionally annotate this by adding a plus “+” to the risk rating.” The use of a (+) shall not apply to the Unacceptable risk rating. Mission capability risk can be summarized by one question— “Can the offeror actually perform the work as proposed?” AFFARS MP 5315.3, Table 2, Mission Capability Risk Ratings *+A plus rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but not enough to merit the next higher rating. “When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate or High Risk ratings is desired, evaluators/teams may (optionally annotate this by adding a plus “+” to the risk rating.” The use of a (+) shall not apply to the Unacceptable risk rating. Mission capability risk can be summarized by one question— “Can the offeror actually perform the work as proposed?”

    107. 8/6/2012 107 Section L Instructions to the Offerors For Mission Capability Risk Mission Capability Risk

    108. 8/6/2012 108 Section L—Mission Capability Risk Include instructions to the offerors to identify aspects of their proposal they consider to have potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk Provide rationale for risk rating Describe impact of each identified risk Suggest a realistic “work-around” or risk mitigation for identified risks A example of the Section L mission capability risk paragraph is as follows: Address Mission Capability Risk by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2—Mission Capability Risk Ratings. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Suggest a realistic “work-around” or risk mitigator for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.A example of the Section L mission capability risk paragraph is as follows: Address Mission Capability Risk by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2—Mission Capability Risk Ratings. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Suggest a realistic “work-around” or risk mitigator for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

    109. 8/6/2012 109 Section M Evaluation Criteria For Past Performance Past Performance Factor

    110. 8/6/2012 110 Section M – Past Performance Assessed using Recent and Relevant Past Performance Mission Capability Subfactors Cost/Price Factor Evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed based on demonstrated record of performance Rated at the Past Performance Factor Level Narrative Assessment shall include: Observations which support the performance confidence assessment. AFFARS MP 5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.2, states: The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.4.1.2 states: Consider the importance of the past performance factor during the Acquisition Strategy development process. It should be addressed as an individual topic during the Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP). Normally, the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criteria. AFFARS MP 5315.305, paragraph 5.5.2, reads as follows: “The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs. The performance confidence assessment is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.” PCAG Guidance: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/affars/5315/informational/IG5315.305(a)(2).doc AFFARS MP 5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.2, states: The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 4.4.1.2 states: Consider the importance of the past performance factor during the Acquisition Strategy development process. It should be addressed as an individual topic during the Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP). Normally, the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criteria. AFFARS MP 5315.305, paragraph 5.5.2, reads as follows: “The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs. The performance confidence assessment is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.” PCAG Guidance: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/affars/5315/informational/IG5315.305(a)(2).doc

    111. 8/6/2012 111 Performance Confidence Assessments AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3. Note that “Unknown” confidence rating is separated from other ratings and the description was broadened so that an offeror with a sparse record can receive an unknown confidence rating. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.2.2. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably [FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) & (iv)]. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3. Note that “Unknown” confidence rating is separated from other ratings and the description was broadened so that an offeror with a sparse record can receive an unknown confidence rating. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.2.2. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably [FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) & (iv)].

    112. 8/6/2012 112 Section M—Past Performance Consider the following when developing Past Performance Portion of Section M Determine the relative importance of the Past Performance Factor. Normally, the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criteria. Govt Will Assign a Performance Confidence Assessment to the Past Performance Factor IAW AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3. State how we will evaluate the proposals in Section M AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.2 states a past performance evaluation is required IAW Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29, 1999, which states the requirement thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care. A past performance evaluation may be accomplished for acquisitions below these thresholds at the discretion of the SSA. Past Performance Factor for each offeror shall be assigned one of the following performance confidence assessments: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.2 states a past performance evaluation is required IAW Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29, 1999, which states the requirement thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care. A past performance evaluation may be accomplished for acquisitions below these thresholds at the discretion of the SSA. Past Performance Factor for each offeror shall be assigned one of the following performance confidence assessments: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence.

    113. 8/6/2012 113 Section M—Past Performance Recency Length for Past Performance must be stated in Section M Consider product being acquired in determining how many years to go back in looking at Past Performance Time should not be longer than 3 years except for unique items Recency Example: Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Define recency or, as a minimum, reference the Section L paragraph where recency is defined. Example: each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past ____(fill in a number) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The three year limit is a recommendation, based upon how long the government can maintain its past performance records. FAR 42.1503(e) states past performance information shall not be retained to provide source selection information longer than 3 years after completion of contract performance. Must decide correct amount of time for recency based on what you are buying. Define recency or, as a minimum, reference the Section L paragraph where recency is defined. Example: each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past ____(fill in a number) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The three year limit is a recommendation, based upon how long the government can maintain its past performance records. FAR 42.1503(e) states past performance information shall not be retained to provide source selection information longer than 3 years after completion of contract performance. Must decide correct amount of time for recency based on what you are buying.

    114. 8/6/2012 114 Section M—Past Performance Relevancy definitions must be in DRFP/RFP PCAG must determine how to define Relevancy Definitions may be varying degrees OR single definition for Relevancy. Team must realize it can not evaluate more or less relevant performance on single definition. Consider the following when developing Relevancy definition: Relevant does not mean same or identical Relevant means similar to instant acquisition to provide indicators of performance. Consider such things as product or service similarity, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, program phase, division of company, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual contract—prime, joint ventures, subcontractors? State the relevancy definitions in Section M. The PCAG must determine how to define relevancy for this acquisition. The definitions may be for varying degrees of relevancy such as very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant and not relevant OR a single definition for relevancy. Agency level acquisitions should contain definitions for varying degrees of relevancy. For Performance Price Tradeoff acquisitions and Basic Source Selections, a single relevancy definition is acceptable; however, the past performance team must realize it can not evaluate more or less relevant performance based on the single relevancy definition. Consider the following when developing the definition or definitions for relevancy: (a) Relevant does not mean the same or identical product/service. (b) Relevant means sufficiently similar to the instant acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, consider such things as product or service similarity, product or service complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, program phase, the division of the company which will do the work, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. (c) How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual contracts—prime contracts, joint ventures, teaming partners, and subcontracts? The PCAG should give consideration to the effort, or portion of the effort, that will be proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract will be reviewed. Are the relevancy definitions written to support evaluation of a portion of the requirement? State the relevancy definitions in Section M. The PCAG must determine how to define relevancy for this acquisition. The definitions may be for varying degrees of relevancy such as very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant and not relevant OR a single definition for relevancy. Agency level acquisitions should contain definitions for varying degrees of relevancy. For Performance Price Tradeoff acquisitions and Basic Source Selections, a single relevancy definition is acceptable; however, the past performance team must realize it can not evaluate more or less relevant performance based on the single relevancy definition. Consider the following when developing the definition or definitions for relevancy: (a) Relevant does not mean the same or identical product/service. (b) Relevant means sufficiently similar to the instant acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, consider such things as product or service similarity, product or service complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, program phase, the division of the company which will do the work, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. (c) How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual contracts—prime contracts, joint ventures, teaming partners, and subcontracts? The PCAG should give consideration to the effort, or portion of the effort, that will be proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract will be reviewed. Are the relevancy definitions written to support evaluation of a portion of the requirement?

    115. 8/6/2012 115 Section M—Past Performance Sample of Relevancy Definitions Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. This example of relevancy definitions provides general language that can be used if the PCAG determines that general language sufficiently defines the requirements for the instant acquisition. The PCAG or SSA may decide that relevancy definitions tailored to the requirements will more accurately define relevancy for that acquisition. Attachment One, Example Two of the guide provides an example used by SMC in one of their agency level source selections. It defines relevancy for each Mission Capability subfactor and for Price factor. This example of relevancy definitions provides general language that can be used if the PCAG determines that general language sufficiently defines the requirements for the instant acquisition. The PCAG or SSA may decide that relevancy definitions tailored to the requirements will more accurately define relevancy for that acquisition. Attachment One, Example Two of the guide provides an example used by SMC in one of their agency level source selections. It defines relevancy for each Mission Capability subfactor and for Price factor.

    116. 8/6/2012 116 Section M—Past Performance Determine if more recent and more relevant performance will have greater impact on performance confidence assessment. Define adverse past performance in section M Define how quality of performance will be rated PCAG may consider the offeror’s Past Performance in aggregate, in addition to effort (contract) by effort basis. If the PCAG team determines that more recent performance and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent and less relevant effort, they must include language in Section M. Define adverse past performance in Section M. An example of adverse past performance definition is: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The performance assessment establishes a quality or performance rating for each relevant effort. Section M must indicate the quality or performance ratings and definitions. Provide ratings and definitions or state you will use the ratings and definitions states in CPARS or the questionnaire. The PCAG may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis. Give consideration to previous joint-ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposed partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort. If the PCAG team determines that more recent performance and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent and less relevant effort, they must include language in Section M. Define adverse past performance in Section M. An example of adverse past performance definition is: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The performance assessment establishes a quality or performance rating for each relevant effort. Section M must indicate the quality or performance ratings and definitions. Provide ratings and definitions or state you will use the ratings and definitions states in CPARS or the questionnaire. The PCAG may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis. Give consideration to previous joint-ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposed partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort.

    117. 8/6/2012 117 Past Performance Factor Section L Instructions to the Offerors For Past Performance

    118. 8/6/2012 118 Section L – Past Performance Consider the following when developing PP Portion of Section L and Attachments Ask offerors for information on a number of on-going contracts or contracts with performance completed not more than X years. Keep number as small as possible to give accurate review of past performance Recommend 5 to 10 from prime and 5 from each major and/or critical subcontractor Include PP information format as Attachment to DRFP/RFP There are 11 different items identified in the guide that should be considered when developing the past performance portion of Section L and Section L attachments. 1. Ask offerors for information on a number of on-going contracts, or contracts completed not more 3 years ago. Keep the number of references requested to as few as possible to give an accurate reflection of past performance. We recommend 5 to 10 contracts from the prime and 5 from each critical subcontractor. If you establish one number for the prime including critical subcontractors, and you expect a substantial number of critical subcontractors, you may need to increase the number of references but remember to keep the references to a manageable number. However, when anticipating a large number of offeror responses, teams may want to reduce these numbers to streamline the evaluation. Where large, multi-function companies are likely to submit proposals, limit the references to work done by the division, group or unit that will be doing the proposed work. Ask the offeror to identify two current points of contact, original schedule and cost/price, current schedule and cost/price, and reason for differences. See Attach Two of the guide for a format example. There are 11 different items identified in the guide that should be considered when developing the past performance portion of Section L and Section L attachments. 1. Ask offerors for information on a number of on-going contracts, or contracts completed not more 3 years ago. Keep the number of references requested to as few as possible to give an accurate reflection of past performance. We recommend 5 to 10 contracts from the prime and 5 from each critical subcontractor. If you establish one number for the prime including critical subcontractors, and you expect a substantial number of critical subcontractors, you may need to increase the number of references but remember to keep the references to a manageable number. However, when anticipating a large number of offeror responses, teams may want to reduce these numbers to streamline the evaluation. Where large, multi-function companies are likely to submit proposals, limit the references to work done by the division, group or unit that will be doing the proposed work. Ask the offeror to identify two current points of contact, original schedule and cost/price, current schedule and cost/price, and reason for differences. See Attach Two of the guide for a format example.

    119. 8/6/2012 119 Section L – Past Performance Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance and corrective actions. Past Performance Information (PPI) of commercial, State and Local Gov’t similar to these requirements will be evaluated Consider what kind of Past Performance Information is needed to evaluate offeror’s team members--subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures Govt may use Past Performance Information obtained from other sources Past Performance Information is proprietary Source Selection Information therefore prime contractor must submit subcontractors consent Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance of the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. 3. Inform offerors that past performance information on work for commercial customers, state and local governments, and subcontracts that is similar to the requirements will be evaluated with similar Federal contracts. Obtain PP information on subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when the information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Clearly state in the RFP that the Government may use PP information obtained from other sources. 6. PP information is company confidential information not to be released outside the Government. Prime contractor must submit subcontractor’s consent for the Government to disclose it’s PP information to prime. Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance of the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. 3. Inform offerors that past performance information on work for commercial customers, state and local governments, and subcontracts that is similar to the requirements will be evaluated with similar Federal contracts. Obtain PP information on subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when the information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Clearly state in the RFP that the Government may use PP information obtained from other sources. 6. PP information is company confidential information not to be released outside the Government. Prime contractor must submit subcontractor’s consent for the Government to disclose it’s PP information to prime.

    120. 8/6/2012 120 Section L—Past Performance Identify which contracts are relevant indicators of performance for Factors/Subfactors Page count limitation for Past Performance Volume or referenced contract fact sheets, determine what to exclude from page count Prepare the questionnaire if offerors will send questionnaires to POCs. Attach the questionnaire to DRFP. Ask the offerors to identify which contracts are relevant indicators of performance against the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Consider limiting the pages for each referenced contract, rather than a limit to the total page count for the Past Performance volume. 9. Prepare the questionnaire if the offerors will mail to the POCs. Attach the questionnaire to the DRFP. Ask the offerors to identify which contracts are relevant indicators of performance against the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Consider limiting the pages for each referenced contract, rather than a limit to the total page count for the Past Performance volume. 9. Prepare the questionnaire if the offerors will mail to the POCs. Attach the questionnaire to the DRFP.

    121. 8/6/2012 121 Section L – Past Performance If offerors are to send out questionnaires, Section L should include Instructions and Cover Letter. Decide if Past Performance Volume will be required earlier than Proposal. Decide whether or not offerors will send out the questionnaires to POCs included in the past performance volume. Prepare language instructing the offerors to send out the attached questionnaire a certain number of days before the PCAG volume is due to the Government. Offerors should inform the POCs that completed questionnaire will be forwarded directly to the Government. 11. Decide if the Past Performance Volume is required earlier than the complete proposals because of the time involved in gathering data. A suggested time for submission of the Past Performance Volume is 15 days prior to receipt of the proposal. Decide whether or not offerors will send out the questionnaires to POCs included in the past performance volume. Prepare language instructing the offerors to send out the attached questionnaire a certain number of days before the PCAG volume is due to the Government. Offerors should inform the POCs that completed questionnaire will be forwarded directly to the Government. 11. Decide if the Past Performance Volume is required earlier than the complete proposals because of the time involved in gathering data. A suggested time for submission of the Past Performance Volume is 15 days prior to receipt of the proposal.

    122. 8/6/2012 122 Section L—Past Performance Questionnaire Purpose of Questionnaire is to obtain information on past and present performance Structure Questionnaire to obtain helpful information about the offeror’s performance Make Questionnaire easy to complete but avoid Yes/No answers Questions should elicit information that relates To Mission Capability Subfactors and Price/Cost Factor Questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance For consistency purposes during the evaluation, consider using CPARs Performance Rating Definitions for the Questionnaire Prepare the questionnaire and a cover letter as attachments to Section L of the RFP if you are requiring the offerors to send out the questionnaires or for issuance as soon as the past performance volumes are received. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from Government and/or non-government sources on the offeror’s past and present performance either on contracts proposed by the offeror or on other contracts which are relevant to the source selection requirements. The questionnaire is very important! Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror’s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoid yes/no answers. Questions should ask for information about the offeror’s performance as it related to the Mission Capability subfactors. The questionnaire should include at least one question for each Mission Capability subfactor, Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance on a contract. The definitions for performance ratings included in the RFP will be used in the evaluations of past performance. Cover letter should clearly explain why and when the requested information is needed, as well as to whom and how the information is to be returned since the completed questionnaire contains source selection information. Prepare the questionnaire and a cover letter as attachments to Section L of the RFP if you are requiring the offerors to send out the questionnaires or for issuance as soon as the past performance volumes are received. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from Government and/or non-government sources on the offeror’s past and present performance either on contracts proposed by the offeror or on other contracts which are relevant to the source selection requirements. The questionnaire is very important! Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror’s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoid yes/no answers. Questions should ask for information about the offeror’s performance as it related to the Mission Capability subfactors. The questionnaire should include at least one question for each Mission Capability subfactor, Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance on a contract. The definitions for performance ratings included in the RFP will be used in the evaluations of past performance. Cover letter should clearly explain why and when the requested information is needed, as well as to whom and how the information is to be returned since the completed questionnaire contains source selection information.

    123. 8/6/2012 123 Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) Definition: a report that assesses a contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, on a given contract during a specific period of time Compiled by Government Rebuttal by Contractor as appropriate Purpose: ensures source selection teams have a detailed assessment of contractors’ past performance Data is current and available Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Frequently, CPAR data will not coincide with that collected from questionnaires from individual PCOs and/or Program Managers working the same program. In this case follow-up phone conversations with both the PCO and Program Manager should be conducted to determine the correct performance assessment. Limited amount of data can be obtained from commercial sources. PPIRS contains data from the following additional systems: Contractor Performance System (CPS) Past Performance Data Base (PPDB) Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS) Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Frequently, CPAR data will not coincide with that collected from questionnaires from individual PCOs and/or Program Managers working the same program. In this case follow-up phone conversations with both the PCO and Program Manager should be conducted to determine the correct performance assessment. Limited amount of data can be obtained from commercial sources. PPIRS contains data from the following additional systems: Contractor Performance System (CPS) Past Performance Data Base (PPDB) Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS) Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)

    124. 8/6/2012 124 Cost/Price Risk Cost/Price Risk

    125. 8/6/2012 125 Section M--Cost/Price Risk Cost/Price Risk Factor (AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.4) This evaluation factor shall be used for ACAT, SDD phase programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the Government’s best estimates of the offeror’s Most Probable Costs (MPC) All MPC Components must be defined and specified in Section M The MPC is developed using the Program Office Estimate (POE) and an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor May be used with SSA approval for non-ACAT acquisitions if a Cost-Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract is used AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.4. Cost/Price Risk. “This evaluation factor shall be used for Acquisition Category (ACAT), SDD phase programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure. The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s Most Probable Cost (MPC). Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor. If a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract is used for non-ACAT acquisitions and a government MPC is computed, a Cost/Price Risk Rating may be assigned with SSA approval.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.4 (ref 1), The purpose of the risk rating is to provide information to the SSA that allows selection of an offeror who proposed a rational and realistic cost for the work to be accomplished. Through the RFP, the Air Force team must communicate to all offerors our deep concern for risk to our programs that is associated with overly optimistic or unrealistic cost or price proposals. We must clearly convey to all offerors that submitting costs or prices based on unrealistic or overly optimistic development outcomes may result in that offeror not being selected for award. IG5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.4 (ref 2), The Government should state in the RFP the general methods and/pr tools that will be utilized when evaluating MPC during the source selection. The discussions should have already occurred during market research, industry days, and have been part of the draft RFP. Due to the uncertain nature of source selection evaluation, the methods and/or tools should be described in general terms in order to maintain the flexibility to apply any commonly used methods or tools as appropriate.AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.4. Cost/Price Risk. “This evaluation factor shall be used for Acquisition Category (ACAT), SDD phase programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure. The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s Most Probable Cost (MPC). Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor. If a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract is used for non-ACAT acquisitions and a government MPC is computed, a Cost/Price Risk Rating may be assigned with SSA approval.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.4 (ref 1), The purpose of the risk rating is to provide information to the SSA that allows selection of an offeror who proposed a rational and realistic cost for the work to be accomplished. Through the RFP, the Air Force team must communicate to all offerors our deep concern for risk to our programs that is associated with overly optimistic or unrealistic cost or price proposals. We must clearly convey to all offerors that submitting costs or prices based on unrealistic or overly optimistic development outcomes may result in that offeror not being selected for award. IG5315.3, paragraph 4.4.1.4 (ref 2), The Government should state in the RFP the general methods and/pr tools that will be utilized when evaluating MPC during the source selection. The discussions should have already occurred during market research, industry days, and have been part of the draft RFP. Due to the uncertain nature of source selection evaluation, the methods and/or tools should be described in general terms in order to maintain the flexibility to apply any commonly used methods or tools as appropriate.

    126. 8/6/2012 126 Section M--Cost/Price Risk Most Probable Cost (MPC) MPC estimate is the government estimate of the costs to acquire specified goods and/or services. (MP5315.3, para 4.4.1.4.1) Includes costs that will be included as part of the contract May include any other costs that will be incurred by the government in performance of the acquisition program For ACAT 1 programs, the MPC must include an analysis of the uncertainties inherent in acquisition From those related to the Cost estimating methods chosen To those associated with the technical and programmatic assumptions of the program MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal IAW FAR 15.404-1 Section M—Specify all components that make up the aggregate government MPC MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.4.1.4.1, Most Probable Cost (MPC). The MPC estimate is the government estimate of the costs to acquire specified goods and/or services. This estimate includes not only those costs that will be included as part of the contract, but may include any other costs that will be incurred by the government in the performance of the acquisition program. For ACAT 1 programs, the MPC must also include an analysis of the uncertainties inherent in any acquisition, from those related to the cost estimating methods chosen, to those associated with the technical and programmatic assumptions of the program. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and may consider such information as contained in the Program Office Estimate (POE). Define all the components that make up the aggregate government most probable cost and specify them in the Section M evaluation criteria. MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.4.1.4.1, Most Probable Cost (MPC). The MPC estimate is the government estimate of the costs to acquire specified goods and/or services. This estimate includes not only those costs that will be included as part of the contract, but may include any other costs that will be incurred by the government in the performance of the acquisition program. For ACAT 1 programs, the MPC must also include an analysis of the uncertainties inherent in any acquisition, from those related to the cost estimating methods chosen, to those associated with the technical and programmatic assumptions of the program. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and may consider such information as contained in the Program Office Estimate (POE). Define all the components that make up the aggregate government most probable cost and specify them in the Section M evaluation criteria.

    127. 8/6/2012 127 Section M--Cost/Price Risk Little difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price are unlikely to occur and any potential impact is manageable. Some difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price may occur and the potential impact may require special attention. Significant difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price is likely to occur and the impact may be unmanageable. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Table 4—Cost/Price Risk Ratings. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4., “Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4 below. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision).” AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Table 4—Cost/Price Risk Ratings. AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4., “Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4 below. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision).”

    128. 8/6/2012 128 Section L—Cost/Price Risk Section L Instructions to the Offerors For Cost/Price Risk

    129. 8/6/2012 129 Section L—Cost/Price Risk Offeror shall provide an analysis of uncertainty as part of the cost/price volume if the Cost/Price factor utilizes the MPC estimating process for an ACAT I program Cost uncertainty analysis will be conducted that allows a range (or distribution) of possible costs developed based on statistical techniques Cost uncertainty analysis will quantify this uncertainty caused by the variance in cost estimating methods, as well as uncertainty in the technical, schedule, performance and programmatic inputs The application of various statistical techniques, inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct MPC, a level of confidence, and the confidence levels for all other costs Offerors shall refer to and use the “Air Force Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook” as a guide when preparing this analysis (If the Cost/Price factor utilizes the Most Probably Cost (MPC) estimating process for an ACAT I program, include a paragraph substantially similar to the following.) The source selection evaluation for this ACAT I program will utilize the Most Probable Cost (MPC) estimating process. As a result, cost uncertainty analysis will be conducted that allows a range (or distribution) of possible costs developed based on statistical techniques. This is necessary because the term “most probable” implies that other less likely estimates exist. Cost uncertainty analysis will quantify this uncertainty caused by the variance in cost estimating methods, as well as uncertainty in the technical, schedule, performance and programmatic inputs. The application of various statistical techniques, inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct most probable cost, a level of confidence, and the confidence levels for all other costs. In addition to providing the proposed cost/price information, the offeror shall provide an analysis of uncertainty as part of the cost/price volume. When preparing this analysis of uncertainty, offerors shall refer to and use as a guide, the “Air Force Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook,” located on the FM Knowledge Now Website at https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/afcruh (paragraph taken from draft IG5315.3XX, Source Selection Documentation, Solicitation – Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents Guide, March 2008)(If the Cost/Price factor utilizes the Most Probably Cost (MPC) estimating process for an ACAT I program, include a paragraph substantially similar to the following.) The source selection evaluation for this ACAT I program will utilize the Most Probable Cost (MPC) estimating process. As a result, cost uncertainty analysis will be conducted that allows a range (or distribution) of possible costs developed based on statistical techniques. This is necessary because the term “most probable” implies that other less likely estimates exist. Cost uncertainty analysis will quantify this uncertainty caused by the variance in cost estimating methods, as well as uncertainty in the technical, schedule, performance and programmatic inputs. The application of various statistical techniques, inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct most probable cost, a level of confidence, and the confidence levels for all other costs. In addition to providing the proposed cost/price information, the offeror shall provide an analysis of uncertainty as part of the cost/price volume. When preparing this analysis of uncertainty, offerors shall refer to and use as a guide, the “Air Force Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook,” located on the FM Knowledge Now Website at https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/afcruh (paragraph taken from draft IG5315.3XX, Source Selection Documentation, Solicitation – Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents Guide, March 2008)

    130. 8/6/2012 130 Cost/Price Factor Section M Evaluation Criteria For Cost/Price

    131. 8/6/2012 131 Section M – Cost/Price Step 1 – Determine Importance of the Cost/Price Factor relative to other evaluation factors. State whether all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are: Significantly less important than cost or price; Approximately equal to cost or price; or Significantly more important than cost or price. However cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision—(FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) says price is based on adequate price competition if award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value where price is a substantial factor in the source selection.) If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in RFP. MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.2, Relative Weight of Factors and Trade-offs. The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are: (1) Significantly less important than cost or price; (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) Significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade- offs will be evaluated must be stated in the RFP. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) “Adequate price competition…if (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source selection; (B) Price not unreasonable. MP5315.304, Paragraph 4.4.2, Relative Weight of Factors and Trade-offs. The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are: (1) Significantly less important than cost or price; (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) Significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade- offs will be evaluated must be stated in the RFP. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) “Adequate price competition…if (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source selection; (B) Price not unreasonable.

    132. 8/6/2012 132 Section M – Cost/Price Factor Step 2 – Determine Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria and Methodology – driven by contract type Reasonableness, Realism Price Analysis, Cost Analysis Step 3 – Determine Content of the Cost/Price Evaluation – also driven by contract type Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices, cost elements, rates, Other Government Costs (OGCs), Life Cycle costs, etc Step 4 – Determine Data You Will Need For Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts, the criteria is reasonableness, and price analysis is the method. Cost analysis is only used if you do NOT have adequate price competition. For Cost Reimbursable contracts, the criteria is reasonableness and cost realism; price analysis and cost realism analysis are the methods. Sources of data for the evaluation: Offeror (request in Section L) Other government agencies: DCAA, DCMA Market Research Program Office Independent Government Estimate For Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts, the criteria is reasonableness, and price analysis is the method. Cost analysis is only used if you do NOT have adequate price competition. For Cost Reimbursable contracts, the criteria is reasonableness and cost realism; price analysis and cost realism analysis are the methods. Sources of data for the evaluation: Offeror (request in Section L) Other government agencies: DCAA, DCMA Market Research Program Office Independent Government Estimate

    133. 8/6/2012 133 Cost/Price Factor Cost/Price (assuming competition) Mandatory Factor used to determine price Fair & Reasonable May consider “affordability” Evaluation technique & data required is determined by contract type (FAR 15.4) Must evaluate all CLINs, all years Fixed Price (FP) – Price Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(b)) using Pricing data Cost Type – Realism assessment (FAR 15.404-1(d)) using cost analysis techniques (FAR 15.404-1(c)) on cost & price information Realism assessment requires calculation of Probable Cost Incentive – may require Realism assessment Mixed – may require price analysis on FP CLINs and Realism on Cost CLINs Consider whether you will use Government costs in best value decision Use of Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) -- Required for A-76 Studies Cost/price evaluation is part of the integrated assessment of offerors. The cost or price evaluation factor is normally limited to an assessment of reasonableness and in certain cases, realism (reference FAR 15.4 as supplemented for definitions of cost realism and price reasonableness). 1. PRICE REASONABLENESS: All source selections are conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and rely on market forces to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. Only in certain circumstances will additional information beyond proposed prices be necessary for the contracting officer to determine the price fair and reasonable. a. AFFORDABILITY: (1) The preferred use of “affordability” is related to budget, i.e., the proposed costs are within the estimated budget & therefore affordable. (2) In the past the term has been used to to characterize the value or benefit of a trade-off with cost, i.e., a higher price offer is affordable because the perceived benefits merit the additional cost. However, I prefer to avoid using the word in this sense and, rather, say in Section M something like: “The SSA will make a Best Value decision which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal where the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal merit the additional cost.” Remember, cost increases of a higher priced offer must be fully justified and documented, showing that the value of the perceived benefits (from the higher rated offeror) justify the additional costs; Section L must request the data needed for this justification. 2. TECHNIQUE: The analysis technique(s) to be used is determined primarily by the contract type, i.e., Cost, Fixed Price, Incentive, T&M, etc. 3. DATA: The amount of price/cost data (see FAR 15.402) requested in the Request for Proposal or solicitation should be limited to only the data absolutely necessary for making the reasonableness/realism assessment (reference FAR 15.403 as supplemented). The contracting officer, as supported by any price/cost analysis team members, is responsible for all aspects of price or cost evaluation; however, the CO bears the responsibility for determining the amount of price or cost information to be requested in the Request for Proposal. Cost/price evaluation is part of the integrated assessment of offerors. The cost or price evaluation factor is normally limited to an assessment of reasonableness and in certain cases, realism (reference FAR 15.4 as supplemented for definitions of cost realism and price reasonableness). 1. PRICE REASONABLENESS: All source selections are conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and rely on market forces to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. Only in certain circumstances will additional information beyond proposed prices be necessary for the contracting officer to determine the price fair and reasonable. a. AFFORDABILITY: (1) The preferred use of “affordability” is related to budget, i.e., the proposed costs are within the estimated budget & therefore affordable. (2) In the past the term has been used to to characterize the value or benefit of a trade-off with cost, i.e., a higher price offer is affordable because the perceived benefits merit the additional cost. However, I prefer to avoid using the word in this sense and, rather, say in Section M something like: “The SSA will make a Best Value decision which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal where the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal merit the additional cost.” Remember, cost increases of a higher priced offer must be fully justified and documented, showing that the value of the perceived benefits (from the higher rated offeror) justify the additional costs; Section L must request the data needed for this justification. 2. TECHNIQUE: The analysis technique(s) to be used is determined primarily by the contract type, i.e., Cost, Fixed Price, Incentive, T&M, etc. 3. DATA: The amount of price/cost data (see FAR 15.402) requested in the Request for Proposal or solicitation should be limited to only the data absolutely necessary for making the reasonableness/realism assessment (reference FAR 15.403 as supplemented). The contracting officer, as supported by any price/cost analysis team members, is responsible for all aspects of price or cost evaluation; however, the CO bears the responsibility for determining the amount of price or cost information to be requested in the Request for Proposal.

    134. 8/6/2012 134 Cost/Price Realism Cost Realism Analysis Government will Derive Probable Cost -- Shown to SSA May Differ From Proposed Cost Include Credited Savings for Cost cutting initiatives Include Government Incurred Costs Use input from MC review, DCMA, DCAA, contractor’s approach Independent Cost Estimate not basis of probable cost adjustments; may be “starting point” for review to compare innovations Government’s Estimate of Probable Cost/Price to be Used for Evaluation Purposes Will Address Total Anticipated Performance Period Realism Evaluation- Does Proposal Reflect … A Clear Understanding of Requirements? A Sound Approach Toward Satisfying Requirements? Unrealistic Estimates Will Be Challenged Offeror Must Justify Numbers Cost Realism. If a cost realism analysis is to be accomplished, the offeror should be advised that the Source Selection Authority will be shown both the government estimate of probable cost or price, and the offeror’s proposed cost or price during the evaluation briefing. The evaluation criteria (section M of the Request for Proposal or equivalent solicitation provision) must clearly state how the cost evaluation is to be conducted. 1. PROBABLE COST: a. The probable cost is accomplished IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). b. Use of ICE: Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or Independent Government Estimate (IGE) -- If an ICE or IGE is used in a Realism assessment, then be sure that it is the starting point to understand and evaluate the offeror’s approach, NOT the basis of the Probable Cost. 2. ANTICIPATED PERFORMANCE PERIOD: means all CLINs that are priced -- Transition, Base Year and all Option Years. All costs are evaluated.Cost Realism. If a cost realism analysis is to be accomplished, the offeror should be advised that the Source Selection Authority will be shown both the government estimate of probable cost or price, and the offeror’s proposed cost or price during the evaluation briefing. The evaluation criteria (section M of the Request for Proposal or equivalent solicitation provision) must clearly state how the cost evaluation is to be conducted. 1. PROBABLE COST: a. The probable cost is accomplished IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). b. Use of ICE: Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or Independent Government Estimate (IGE) -- If an ICE or IGE is used in a Realism assessment, then be sure that it is the starting point to understand and evaluate the offeror’s approach, NOT the basis of the Probable Cost. 2. ANTICIPATED PERFORMANCE PERIOD: means all CLINs that are priced -- Transition, Base Year and all Option Years. All costs are evaluated.

    135. 8/6/2012 135 Cost/Price Realism Cost/Price (assuming competition) Release budget? Yes – Must evaluate quantity/quality of deliverables for given $ No – Must have quantifiable deliverable for offeror to price Price analysis is preferred approach Should also be conducted when Cost Analysis is used 1. How will you evaluate or analyze cost/price to determine Best Value for an ID/IQ contract? Usually, real tasks and/or sample tasks are used for this purpose. Remember the tasks should permit evaluation of all CLINs and all years including options. 2. How will you evaluate or analyze cost/price to determine Best Value for a Time & Material (T&M) contract? Since the wrap rates are FFP, the information you need is limited to information needed to understand the labor categories and factored labor within the labor categories. The evaluator also needs information to determine how realistically the offeror estimates hours to accomplish tasks. For instance rates may be high because of the use of experienced personnel. Evaluation of a sample task might reveal the hours required to complete the task is low because of the offeror’s experienced personnel (confirmed by the Mission Capability team). The result is that the proposed price for the task is lower that an offeror with lower rates. Assuming any resultant contract would lock in the use of more experienced personnel, the offeror with the higher rates would provide services at a lower cost. 3. Especially for a cost type contract (including T&M & Labor Hour), consider whether to release the budget. If YES, in an era of under-funded services contract, expect the proposals to reflect the budget. The analyst must now evaluate the deliverables to be received for the available funds. If NO, then ensure there are quantifiable deliverables for the offeror to price. For FP type contracts, releasing the budget can be very helpful and one should still have price competition. However, every acquisition is unique and while releasing the budget is usually beneficial, in any particular acquisition it may not be viable or desirable. 1. How will you evaluate or analyze cost/price to determine Best Value for an ID/IQ contract? Usually, real tasks and/or sample tasks are used for this purpose. Remember the tasks should permit evaluation of all CLINs and all years including options. 2. How will you evaluate or analyze cost/price to determine Best Value for a Time & Material (T&M) contract? Since the wrap rates are FFP, the information you need is limited to information needed to understand the labor categories and factored labor within the labor categories. The evaluator also needs information to determine how realistically the offeror estimates hours to accomplish tasks. For instance rates may be high because of the use of experienced personnel. Evaluation of a sample task might reveal the hours required to complete the task is low because of the offeror’s experienced personnel (confirmed by the Mission Capability team). The result is that the proposed price for the task is lower that an offeror with lower rates. Assuming any resultant contract would lock in the use of more experienced personnel, the offeror with the higher rates would provide services at a lower cost. 3. Especially for a cost type contract (including T&M & Labor Hour), consider whether to release the budget. If YES, in an era of under-funded services contract, expect the proposals to reflect the budget. The analyst must now evaluate the deliverables to be received for the available funds. If NO, then ensure there are quantifiable deliverables for the offeror to price. For FP type contracts, releasing the budget can be very helpful and one should still have price competition. However, every acquisition is unique and while releasing the budget is usually beneficial, in any particular acquisition it may not be viable or desirable.

    136. 8/6/2012 136 Cost/Price Section L Instructions to Offerors For Cost/Price

    137. 8/6/2012 137 Cost Information Needed Determine what cost information will be required to perform the Section M cost/price evaluation Sources of information may include: Offerors (requested in Section L) Contract Type drives the cost information you may request from offerors Other Government Agencies, such as DCAA, DCMA, Other Services, NASA, etc. Market Research Program Office Independent Government Estimate (IGE)

    138. 8/6/2012 138 Cost Information Needed Offeror Information (Section L): CLIN prices Loaded Labor Rates (e.g. T&M, ID/IQ) Pricing matrices (e.g., ID/IQ) Prices of materials and supplies Payment terms Economic Price Adjustment terms Etc. “Other than cost or pricing data” requires approval from SAF/AQC (AFFARS 5315.402(a)) If CO determines there isn’t adequate price competition, “cost or pricing data” may be required (FAR 15.403) Rates (e.g. T&M, IDIQ) – These are usually loaded labor rates Pricing matrices (e.g., IDIQ) Quantity Ranges times Unit price for the range, or Labor Category times the Labor rate Rates (e.g. T&M, IDIQ) – These are usually loaded labor rates Pricing matrices (e.g., IDIQ) Quantity Ranges times Unit price for the range, or Labor Category times the Labor rate

    139. 8/6/2012 139 Cost Information Needed Offeror Information (Section L): All contract costs by cost element Labor rates & applicable burdens Subcontract Proposal Evaluation, if >$650k Subcontract Proposal, if >$11.5M or 10% of contract value Status of Contractor Accounting System Completed Cost Model Reliability & Maintainability data (e.g. failure rates, repair data) Subcontract pricing considerations are discussed in FAR 15.404-3. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices; include the results of these analyses in the price proposal; and when required by paragraph (c) of this subsection, submit subcontractor cost or pricing data to the Government as part of its own cost or pricing data.Subcontract pricing considerations are discussed in FAR 15.404-3. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices; include the results of these analyses in the price proposal; and when required by paragraph (c) of this subsection, submit subcontractor cost or pricing data to the Government as part of its own cost or pricing data.

    140. 8/6/2012 140 Cost Information Needed Contract Price history Program cost/sales histories Wage determinations Technical reports Market prices for same/similar items OGC information, e.g. facilities, range support, etc. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements/Recommendations Program office estimate (Budget) Operation and Support (O&S) Data Concept of Operations (CONOPS ) Maintenance Concept (ICS, CLS, Organic, Mix) Organic Personnel Requirements # years of ramp-up, steady state Can be used with either FP or CR contract types. ICS—initial contract spares CLS—contractor logistics supportCan be used with either FP or CR contract types. ICS—initial contract spares CLS—contractor logistics support

    141. 8/6/2012 141 Evaluation Matrix Sample Source Selection Factor Evaluation Matrix We have discussed all factors to be evaluated in a full trade-off source selection—Mission Capability (technical and risk ratings), Past performance and Cost/Price Risk (when applicable) and Cost/Price. We talked about requirements for Sections M and L for each factor.We have discussed all factors to be evaluated in a full trade-off source selection—Mission Capability (technical and risk ratings), Past performance and Cost/Price Risk (when applicable) and Cost/Price. We talked about requirements for Sections M and L for each factor.

    142. 8/6/2012 142 Sample Source Selection Factor Evaluation Matrix A sample source selection factor evaluation matrix is for use when cost/price risk is not an evaluation factor. It is provided to show the evaluation and the integrated assessment. A sample source selection factor evaluation matrix is for use when cost/price risk is not an evaluation factor. It is provided to show the evaluation and the integrated assessment.

    143. 8/6/2012 143 Factor Evaluation Matrix Including Cost/Price Risk This sample source selection factor evaluation matrix is used for those source selections including a Cost/Price Risk Factor. This sample source selection factor evaluation matrix is used for those source selections including a Cost/Price Risk Factor.

    144. 8/6/2012 144

    145. 8/6/2012 145 Source Selection Plan (SSP) SSP Mandatory for Acquisitions Covered by AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.3.3 Contents of SSP Description of Requirement Acquisition Strategy including type contract, incentives contemplated, milestone demonstrations intended, special clauses, performance metrics and language supporting it as a performance based service acquisition Source Selection Team Presolicitation Activities—market research, draft solicitations, synopsis Communications—describe process and controls, use of e-mail Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Schedule of Events Non-Government Personnel Deviations and Delegations Approved by SSA Prior to RFP Release AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.3.3 states that acquisitions covered under this Mandatory Procedure shall have a Source Selection Plan. The SSP shall include the information outlined below. When the contracting officer is the SSA, a streamlined SSP may be documented in the Simplified Source Selection Report. a. Brief description of the requirement, including reference to any applicable guidance such as a Program Management Directive (PMD). b. Summary of the acquisition strategy including type(s) of contract(s), incentives contemplated, milestone demonstrations intended, special contract clauses, performance metrics and language supporting it as a performance based service acquisition. c. Source selection team. Describe the proposed organizational structure. List recommended members and advisors by name, position title, company affiliation, if applicable, or by functional area. Identify other government organizations that will participate in the source selection. d. Pre-solicitation activities. Describe activities leading up to the release of the solicitation such as market research, draft solicitation, and synopsis. For market research, discuss how it was used to achieve competition, including a discussion of screen criteria, if applicable. e. Communications. Describe the process and controls for communication between industry and government personnel, and internal government communication to include the use of e-mail, during the source selection. Include a discussion of the types of communications that are authorized by the SSA for the source selection. If the use of e-mail is authorized, it shall be encrypted to ensure only the intended recipient can open/view the contents and the subject line shall include the words “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” f. Evaluation factors and subfactors. Describe the evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative order of importance by attaching the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation). Describe the evaluation process, including specific procedures and techniques to be used in evaluating proposals. If the SSA desires to review the relevant portions of the instructions to offerors (Section L or equivalent provision of the solicitation), attach those as well. g. Schedule of Events. Identify the schedule for significant source selection activities in sufficient detail to allow the reviewing authorities to assess the practicality of the schedule. h. Non-government personnel. Address the use of non-government personnel. Non-government personnel shall not serve as the SSA, be SSET or SSAC chairpersons or members of or advisors to the PCAG and shall not have any financial interests with any of the offerors. i. Identify and explain requested delegations or approved deviations. (For deviations to FAR, DFARS, AFFARS, see AFFARS 5301.403, Individual deviations. AFFARs 5301.403 Individual deviations. a. SCOs are authorized to approve individual deviations except as restricted by DFARS 201.4. b. Except as described in (c) below, individual deviation approval authority may only be delegated to an SCCO. c. Individual deviations from FAR 15.3, DFARS 215.3, AFFARS 5315.3, and MP5315.3 shall be approved by the SCO. This approval authority shall not be further delegated.)AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 4.3.3 states that acquisitions covered under this Mandatory Procedure shall have a Source Selection Plan. The SSP shall include the information outlined below. When the contracting officer is the SSA, a streamlined SSP may be documented in the Simplified Source Selection Report. a. Brief description of the requirement, including reference to any applicable guidance such as a Program Management Directive (PMD). b. Summary of the acquisition strategy including type(s) of contract(s), incentives contemplated, milestone demonstrations intended, special contract clauses, performance metrics and language supporting it as a performance based service acquisition. c. Source selection team. Describe the proposed organizational structure. List recommended members and advisors by name, position title, company affiliation, if applicable, or by functional area. Identify other government organizations that will participate in the source selection. d. Pre-solicitation activities. Describe activities leading up to the release of the solicitation such as market research, draft solicitation, and synopsis. For market research, discuss how it was used to achieve competition, including a discussion of screen criteria, if applicable. e. Communications. Describe the process and controls for communication between industry and government personnel, and internal government communication to include the use of e-mail, during the source selection. Include a discussion of the types of communications that are authorized by the SSA for the source selection. If the use of e-mail is authorized, it shall be encrypted to ensure only the intended recipient can open/view the contents and the subject line shall include the words “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” f. Evaluation factors and subfactors. Describe the evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative order of importance by attaching the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation). Describe the evaluation process, including specific procedures and techniques to be used in evaluating proposals. If the SSA desires to review the relevant portions of the instructions to offerors (Section L or equivalent provision of the solicitation), attach those as well. g. Schedule of Events. Identify the schedule for significant source selection activities in sufficient detail to allow the reviewing authorities to assess the practicality of the schedule. h. Non-government personnel. Address the use of non-government personnel. Non-government personnel shall not serve as the SSA, be SSET or SSAC chairpersons or members of or advisors to the PCAG and shall not have any financial interests with any of the offerors. i. Identify and explain requested delegations or approved deviations. (For deviations to FAR, DFARS, AFFARS, see AFFARS 5301.403, Individual deviations. AFFARs 5301.403 Individual deviations. a. SCOs are authorized to approve individual deviations except as restricted by DFARS 201.4. b. Except as described in (c) below, individual deviation approval authority may only be delegated to an SCCO. c. Individual deviations from FAR 15.3, DFARS 215.3, AFFARS 5315.3, and MP5315.3 shall be approved by the SCO. This approval authority shall not be further delegated.)

    146. 8/6/2012 146

    147. 8/6/2012 147 Solicitation (RFP) Release SSA Authorizes CO to release the RFP After Source Selection Plan signed and Business Clearance Approval Generally recognized as the initiation of formal Source Selection activities Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) becomes single focal point for all exchanges with industry Notification for Issuance of RFPs—CO shall issue concurrent with issuance of RFP for source selections or competitive negotiations in excess of $100M. Sent to appropriate AF commands and SAF/AQCK For source selections less than $100M recommend COs send out a source selection notice of some type. The Source Selection Plan and Acquisition Plan must be approved prior to release of the RFP. AFFARS 5301.90(c)(1) requires business clearance approval to issue a competitive acquisition solicitation. AFFARS 5301.9001 sets forth policy, thresholds, and approvals. For PEO programs supported by SMC and AFMC and for AFMC Other Contracting (excluding Operational) acquisitions with contract value >$50M, the Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO) is clearance approval authority. For Operational Contracting (excluding AFRC and AFMC) contract value >$2M, the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) or SCCO is clearance approval authority. For AFRC, contract value >$500K, AFRC/A7K is clearance approval authority.) For AFMC, contract value>$10M, the SCCO is the clearance approval authority. SAF/AQC letter, 13 Dec 2006, states that when the SCO or their deputy is the SSA, the clearance official is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting). The SSA will authorize release of the RFP after the SSA’s review of the RFP and after Business Clearance Approval. FAR 15.303(c) states that the contracting officer serves as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors after release of a solicitation and controls exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. AFFARS 5315.002 and MP 5315.002, requires the CO to send a notice concurrent with issuance of the RFP announcing that a source selection or a competitive negotiation is in progress for all acquisitions valued over $100M.The Source Selection Plan and Acquisition Plan must be approved prior to release of the RFP. AFFARS 5301.90(c)(1) requires business clearance approval to issue a competitive acquisition solicitation. AFFARS 5301.9001 sets forth policy, thresholds, and approvals. For PEO programs supported by SMC and AFMC and for AFMC Other Contracting (excluding Operational) acquisitions with contract value >$50M, the Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO) is clearance approval authority. For Operational Contracting (excluding AFRC and AFMC) contract value >$2M, the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) or SCCO is clearance approval authority. For AFRC, contract value >$500K, AFRC/A7K is clearance approval authority.) For AFMC, contract value>$10M, the SCCO is the clearance approval authority. SAF/AQC letter, 13 Dec 2006, states that when the SCO or their deputy is the SSA, the clearance official is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting). The SSA will authorize release of the RFP after the SSA’s review of the RFP and after Business Clearance Approval. FAR 15.303(c) states that the contracting officer serves as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors after release of a solicitation and controls exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. AFFARS 5315.002 and MP 5315.002, requires the CO to send a notice concurrent with issuance of the RFP announcing that a source selection or a competitive negotiation is in progress for all acquisitions valued over $100M.

    148. 8/6/2012 148

    149. 8/6/2012 149 Source Selection Tools EZSource Developed by Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), Wright-Patterson AFB See www.pixs.wpafb.af.mil/paso/ezsource.htm for virtual demonstration POC: Kerry Estes, DSN 785-5471, kerry.estes@wpafb.af.mil or Naomi Kump (contractor), DSN 785-5442, naomi.kump@wpafb.af.mil Electronic Source Selection (ESS) tool Developed by Space and Missiles Center (SMC), Los Angeles AFB See ax.losangeles.af.mil/axd/esst/download/esstool.htm to download tool POC: Maj Erica Williams, DSN 633-1329, erica.williams@losangeles.af.mil DecisionPoint Developed by AcqCenter, division of Integrated Data Systems (IDS) See www.acqcenter.com for more information POC: Bob Watts, (703) 654-9161, bob.watts@acqcenter.com Fed Select Developed by CACI, 2100 Washington Blvd, Suite 3000, Arlington, VA 22204 See www.caci.com POC: Steve Ford, (703) 486-3266 ext 1031, sford@caci.com This chart provides the software tools that are currently being used by AF source selection organizations. EZ Source has been selected for the AF wide source selection software tool. The implementation plan for EZ Source is pending. This chart provides the software tools that are currently being used by AF source selection organizations. EZ Source has been selected for the AF wide source selection software tool. The implementation plan for EZ Source is pending.

    150. 8/6/2012 150 Prior to Proposal Receipt Finalize Questionnaire if it was not attached to RFP Questionnaire and Cover Letter will be issued soon after receipt of Proposals--unless offeror sent out Purpose of Questionnaire is to obtain information on past and present performance Structure Questionnaire to obtain helpful information about the offeror’s performance Make Questionnaire easy to complete but avoid Yes/No answers Questions should elicit information that relates to Mission Capability Subfactors and Price/Cost Factor Questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance For consistency purposes during the evaluation, consider using CPARs Performance Rating Definitions for the Questionnaire If the questionnaire was not attached to the RFP, finalize the questionnaire and a cover letter for issuance as soon as the past performance volumes are received. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from Government and/or non-government sources on the offeror’s past and present performance either on contracts proposed by the offeror or on other contracts which are relevant to the source selection requirements. Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror’s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoiding yes/no answers. Questions should elicit information about the offeror’s performance as it related to the Mission Capability subfactors. The questionnaire should include at least one question for each Mission Capability subfactor, Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance on a contract. Suggest you use the same rating scale as the one used in CPARS for consistency. Cover letter should clearly explain why and when the requested information is needed, as well as to whom and how the information is to be returned since the completed questionnaire contains source selection information. If the questionnaire was not attached to the RFP, finalize the questionnaire and a cover letter for issuance as soon as the past performance volumes are received. The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information from Government and/or non-government sources on the offeror’s past and present performance either on contracts proposed by the offeror or on other contracts which are relevant to the source selection requirements. Structure the questionnaire to obtain the most helpful information about the offeror’s performance. Make the questionnaire easy to complete by avoiding yes/no answers. Questions should elicit information about the offeror’s performance as it related to the Mission Capability subfactors. The questionnaire should include at least one question for each Mission Capability subfactor, Price/Cost factor, as well as other relevant information to the factors/subfactors such as schedule control. The questionnaire must define a scale for rating performance on a contract. Suggest you use the same rating scale as the one used in CPARS for consistency. Cover letter should clearly explain why and when the requested information is needed, as well as to whom and how the information is to be returned since the completed questionnaire contains source selection information.

    151. 8/6/2012 151 The next section we will discuss is evaluation of the proposals. The next section we will discuss is evaluation of the proposals.

    152. 8/6/2012 152

    153. 8/6/2012 153 Proposal Receipt Source Selection Information must be safeguarded Administrative Review required By Contract Team Proposal validity—days requested in RFP Volume page limits enforced Extraneous pages removed Electronic copies submitted Appropriate number of copies Check paper copy with electronic copy Master table of contents Review each proposal volume page by page Erroneous material, cost data in wrong volume, incorrect assumptions, etc. Proposal Data will be loaded into the Source Selection designated system The SSET must determine prior to receipt of proposals how the data will be safeguarded, where the source selection will be conducted, and what software package will be used for the source selection so that on the day proposals are received the SSET will be ready to receive the proposals. The Contracting Officer and/or buyer should do an administrative review of the proposals prior to making distribution on any of the volumes to ensure accountability of all copies. CO or buyer should highlight assumptions to the correct team within the SSET for their review.The SSET must determine prior to receipt of proposals how the data will be safeguarded, where the source selection will be conducted, and what software package will be used for the source selection so that on the day proposals are received the SSET will be ready to receive the proposals. The Contracting Officer and/or buyer should do an administrative review of the proposals prior to making distribution on any of the volumes to ensure accountability of all copies. CO or buyer should highlight assumptions to the correct team within the SSET for their review.

    154. 8/6/2012 154 Quick Look Who submitted offers? Is proposal complete? Ensure page count limitations Have any exceptions to RFP requirements been noted? Obvious showstoppers Do proposals need to be loaded into any evaluation tool? “Quick Look” information will be provided to the SSA The Contracting Office will take a quick look at all proposals, making sure each proposal is complete, removing excess pages, and making a complete list of offerors including subcontractors. The SSET Chairperson will provide list of offerors including subcontractors, significant exceptions to the RFP, and cost/price total amount to the SSA. The SSA may request a Quick Look briefing.The Contracting Office will take a quick look at all proposals, making sure each proposal is complete, removing excess pages, and making a complete list of offerors including subcontractors. The SSET Chairperson will provide list of offerors including subcontractors, significant exceptions to the RFP, and cost/price total amount to the SSA. The SSA may request a Quick Look briefing.

    155. 8/6/2012 155 Source Selection Information FAR 2.101 Any of the following information that is prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an Agency Procurement Contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly: Bid prices submitted in response to an agency invitation for bids, or lists of those bid prices before bid opening. Proposed costs or prices submitted in response to an agency solicitation, or lists of those proposed costs or prices. Source Selection Plans. Technical Evaluation Plans. FAR 2.101 states that the items on this slide and the next slide are source selection information.FAR 2.101 states that the items on this slide and the next slide are source selection information.

    156. 8/6/2012 156 Source Selection Information FAR 2.101 Technical Evaluations or (of) Proposals. (Past Performance Evaluation) Cost or Price Evaluations of Proposals. Competitive Range Determinations that identify Proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for award of a contract. Rankings of Bids, Proposals, or Competitors. Reports and evaluations of Source Selection Panels, Boards, or Advisory Councils. Other information marked as “Source Selection Information – see FAR 2.101 and 3.104” based on a case-by-case determination by the head of the agency or the Contracting Officer, that its disclosure would jeopardize the integrity or successful completion of the Federal Agency Procurement to which the information relates. NOTE: Briefing charts prepared should be marked “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”. Source selection information is protected forever or until approved for release by the SSA/CO.NOTE: Briefing charts prepared should be marked “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”. Source selection information is protected forever or until approved for release by the SSA/CO.

    157. 8/6/2012 157

    158. 8/6/2012 158 Exchanges and ENs Types of exchanges with offerors after receipt of Proposals Clarifications are limited exchanges when Award Without Discussions is contemplated Communications are exchanges leading to establishment of Competitive Range Discussions are negotiations conducted after the Competitive Range--offeror is allowed to revise Proposal Evaluation Notices (ENs) are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of Clarifications, Communications, or Discussions (AFFARS MP5315.3,paragraph 8.2) FAR 15.306—Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. (a) Clarifications and award without discussions. (b) Communications with offerors before establishment of the competitive range. (c) Competitive range. (d) Exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range. (e) Limits on exchanges. Government personnel shall not engage in conduct that—(1) favors one offeror over another; (2) Reveals an offeror’s technical solution or any information that would compromise intellectual property to another offeror; (3) Reveals an offeror’s price without that offeror’s permission; (4) Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance; or (5) Knowingly furnish source selection information in violation of 3.104 and 41 U.S.C. 423(h)(1)(2). Evaluation Notices (ENs) are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions, AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.2. In accordance with MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.4.1., the contracting officer shall control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals IAW FAR 15.306. “All exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Any exchange addressing a proposal deficiency shall clearly indicate that a deficiency exists.” The information you can request will be limited depending on your situation. Always ask the contracting officer for help in this area. FAR 15.306—Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. (a) Clarifications and award without discussions. (b) Communications with offerors before establishment of the competitive range. (c) Competitive range. (d) Exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range. (e) Limits on exchanges. Government personnel shall not engage in conduct that—(1) favors one offeror over another; (2) Reveals an offeror’s technical solution or any information that would compromise intellectual property to another offeror; (3) Reveals an offeror’s price without that offeror’s permission; (4) Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance; or (5) Knowingly furnish source selection information in violation of 3.104 and 41 U.S.C. 423(h)(1)(2). Evaluation Notices (ENs) are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions, AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.2. In accordance with MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.4.1., the contracting officer shall control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals IAW FAR 15.306. “All exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Any exchange addressing a proposal deficiency shall clearly indicate that a deficiency exists.” The information you can request will be limited depending on your situation. Always ask the contracting officer for help in this area.

    159. 8/6/2012 159 Types of Exchanges Clarifications* As needed with Award Without Discussion (AWOD) Adverse past performance, not previously addressed Past Performance Information relevance Minor or clerical errors Negotiations / Discussions Conducted with offerors in the competitive range Goal is to get best value Discuss deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, and other aspects of the proposal to enhance award Adverse past performance information to which offeror has not had opportunity to respond Discuss efforts above mandatory minimums Conducted either orally or in writing or both Areas may also include issues of compliance with RFP other than evaluation factors AWOD: Award Without Discussions PPI = Past Performance Information Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. An offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. Communications are limited to offerors (1) whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being placed in the competitive range, and (2) May only be held with those offerors (other than offerors under paragraph (1)) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain. Communications should only be used with offerors who are “on the bubble” in terms of their inclusion in the competitive range. Communications are not allowed for the purposes of clarifying proposal characteristics that, if clarified, might allow for award without the conduct of discussions. CAUTION: Clarifications or Communications could inadvertently open discussions if you are not careful! Discussions are exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise the proposal. AWOD: Award Without Discussions PPI = Past Performance Information Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. An offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. Communications are limited to offerors (1) whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being placed in the competitive range, and (2) May only be held with those offerors (other than offerors under paragraph (1)) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain. Communications should only be used with offerors who are “on the bubble” in terms of their inclusion in the competitive range. Communications are not allowed for the purposes of clarifying proposal characteristics that, if clarified, might allow for award without the conduct of discussions. CAUTION: Clarifications or Communications could inadvertently open discussions if you are not careful! Discussions are exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range. Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise the proposal.

    160. 8/6/2012 160 Evaluation Notice (EN) Exchanges With Offerors Type of exchange must be identified ENs which result from Deficiencies in offeror’s Proposal must be clearly identified to the offeror as Deficiencies Should be Specific to Individual Concern Writing single EN for multiple topics not recommended Crossing subfactors not appropriate Easier to discuss, “Item Specific” issue Reviewed and approved by SSET Chair and SSA IAW SSP prior to release by the CO Evaluation Notices (ENs) are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions, AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.2. In accordance with MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.4.1, all exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Any exchange addressing a proposal deficiency shall clearly indicate that a deficiency exists. SSET Chairperson and Contracting Officer must decide how to number the ENs and the follow-on ENs. The CO will provide guidance on appropriate ENs for the particular phase of the source selection. Evaluation Notices (ENs) are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions, AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 8.2. In accordance with MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.4.1, all exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals shall clearly identify the type of exchange (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Any exchange addressing a proposal deficiency shall clearly indicate that a deficiency exists. SSET Chairperson and Contracting Officer must decide how to number the ENs and the follow-on ENs. The CO will provide guidance on appropriate ENs for the particular phase of the source selection.

    161. 8/6/2012 161 Evaluation Notice (EN) Content Type of EN—Clarification, Communication or Discussion Identify all Deficiencies RFP Reference is Preferable Section L Paragraph that Requested Proposal Information Section M Reference to Specific Factor, Subfactor Proposal Reference Summary: Description of the Issue/Question, and Specific Request for Additional Information Evaluator’s Name (not sent to offeror) Offeror Response Evaluator Analysis of Response—Impact of Ratings, Etc. Clearly identify to the offeror in the EN opening phrase either the proposal is deficient or whether this area in the EN results in a weakness or a significant weakness to the proposal. Use words at the beginning of the EN such as “Your proposal is deficient _____.”Clearly identify to the offeror in the EN opening phrase either the proposal is deficient or whether this area in the EN results in a weakness or a significant weakness to the proposal. Use words at the beginning of the EN such as “Your proposal is deficient _____.”

    162. 8/6/2012 162 Evaluation Notice (EN) MP5315.3 contains a “Best Practice” example. It states the template is provided as Informational Guidance. Different formats for ENs may be used; however, you must identify the type of EN and if the EN is a result of a deficiency. MP5315.3 contains a “Best Practice” example. It states the template is provided as Informational Guidance. Different formats for ENs may be used; however, you must identify the type of EN and if the EN is a result of a deficiency.

    163. 8/6/2012 163 Examples of EN Summary Poor EN: Need clarification on where the risk management process was demonstrated. “Current staffing for this task is 21 people. The proposed staffing of 9 people is inadequate.” Better EN: Describe where risk management process was used previously and why that program is analogous to this effort. Describe the process improvements to be implemented in order to achieve the efficiencies in personnel proposed. The key here is to clearly describe what problem you have with the proposal and what you want the offeror to provide to take care of that problem. Do not say the number of people proposed is not correct because we currently have XX people doing the job. The key here is to clearly describe what problem you have with the proposal and what you want the offeror to provide to take care of that problem. Do not say the number of people proposed is not correct because we currently have XX people doing the job.

    164. 8/6/2012 164 The Mission Capability team will evaluate the mission capability subfactors and accomplish technical and risk ratings for each MC subfactor. The Mission Capability team will evaluate the mission capability subfactors and accomplish technical and risk ratings for each MC subfactor.

    165. 8/6/2012 165 Keys to Developing Initial MC Technical & Risk Ratings Ensures integrated assessment of proposal Facilitates evaluation against MC subfactor As opposed to comparing proposals to one another More efficient as all evaluators are reviewing the same proposal MC team members can assist each other in finding information or answering questions The Mission Capability team should complete evaluation of one proposal at a time. That means each member assigned to evaluate a subfactor will do their individual evaluation, the team chief will lead the team in consensus and accomplish the subfactor summary plus complete the ENs for that subfactor.The Mission Capability team should complete evaluation of one proposal at a time. That means each member assigned to evaluate a subfactor will do their individual evaluation, the team chief will lead the team in consensus and accomplish the subfactor summary plus complete the ENs for that subfactor.

    166. 8/6/2012 166 Keys to Developing Initial MC Technical & Risk Ratings Evaluate only Information Contained in the Proposal Evaluate proposal on the basis of what we asked for, not what we would like to see Don’t expand the scope of evaluation beyond original intent Evaluate Proposals Against Evaluation Subfactors in RFP (Sections L and M)--Not Against One Another Ensure Consistent Evaluation across all proposals You can only evaluate what you read in the proposal. You may have knowledge that the offeror has some other capability or has done something but you can not evaluate based on your knowledge—ONLY evaluate what the offeror has written in his proposal. Mission Capability Team Chief must ensure consistent evaluation on all proposals. You do not compare proposals. You MUST evaluate each one consistently against Section M criteria. You can only evaluate what you read in the proposal. You may have knowledge that the offeror has some other capability or has done something but you can not evaluate based on your knowledge—ONLY evaluate what the offeror has written in his proposal. Mission Capability Team Chief must ensure consistent evaluation on all proposals. You do not compare proposals. You MUST evaluate each one consistently against Section M criteria.

    167. 8/6/2012 167 Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Individual Evaluator completes analysis for their Subfactor No collaboration with other Mission Capability evaluators Collaboration will be at Subfactor summary level Individual Evaluator evaluates each Mission Capability Subfactor in accordance with Section M of RFP and completes Individual Analysis Worksheet Proposed Approach evaluated as: Exceeding Requirement Meeting Requirement Not Clearly Meeting Requirement Failing to Meet Requirement The Mission Capability Team Chief will decide how to organize the team—by subfactor chiefs with certain evaluators evaluating one subfactor or all evaluators may evaluate all subfactors. Each evaluator must document his/her evaluation of the subfactor, draft ENs, and participate with other evaluators in reaching consensus of the overall evaluation and ENs for each subfactor. The Mission Capability Team Chief is responsible for reaching consensus of the evaluators on each of the Mission Capability subfactors. The Mission Capability Team Chief will make sure that the subfactor summary level documentation clearly shows the consensus results and disposition any individual evaluator’s difference with the consensus. The SSET Chairperson should decide which offeror will be evaluated first, second, etc. It is best for the Mission Capability Team to complete the evaluation of one offeror before any one starts the evaluation of the next offeror. The Mission Capability Team Chief will decide how to organize the team—by subfactor chiefs with certain evaluators evaluating one subfactor or all evaluators may evaluate all subfactors. Each evaluator must document his/her evaluation of the subfactor, draft ENs, and participate with other evaluators in reaching consensus of the overall evaluation and ENs for each subfactor. The Mission Capability Team Chief is responsible for reaching consensus of the evaluators on each of the Mission Capability subfactors. The Mission Capability Team Chief will make sure that the subfactor summary level documentation clearly shows the consensus results and disposition any individual evaluator’s difference with the consensus. The SSET Chairperson should decide which offeror will be evaluated first, second, etc. It is best for the Mission Capability Team to complete the evaluation of one offeror before any one starts the evaluation of the next offeror.

    168. 8/6/2012 168 Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Evaluate the Exceeds Requirements to determine which meet the Strength definition A strength requires you to document all three aspects of this definition: A significant aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements; Advantageous to the government; and Will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process Document the Strengths Documentation should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) to the Government The technical evaluators must review a strength to make sure that it meets all 3 parts of the strength definition. They must be able to explain how it meets each part in the documentation, on the briefing charts and orally to the SSA. Remember, identification of the strength or strengths is the way that the Air Force differentiates among proposals that meet requirement—Green, versus those that exceed requirement—Blue. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.1, when considering a Blue rating, recognize that Blue is earned based upon the magnitude of the additional benefit)s to the government for the strength(s). The documentation should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strength(s). Keep in mind that the mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit a Blue rating; though a Blue may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to the government. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit a Blue rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor. In any case, the documentation in the source selection record should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strenght(s). The technical evaluators must review a strength to make sure that it meets all 3 parts of the strength definition. They must be able to explain how it meets each part in the documentation, on the briefing charts and orally to the SSA. Remember, identification of the strength or strengths is the way that the Air Force differentiates among proposals that meet requirement—Green, versus those that exceed requirement—Blue. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.1, when considering a Blue rating, recognize that Blue is earned based upon the magnitude of the additional benefit)s to the government for the strength(s). The documentation should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strength(s). Keep in mind that the mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit a Blue rating; though a Blue may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to the government. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit a Blue rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor. In any case, the documentation in the source selection record should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strenght(s).

    169. 8/6/2012 169 Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Evaluate each Failed to Meet Requirement to determine Deficiencies Deficiency: A Material Failure of a Proposal to meet a Government requirement Document the Deficiencies The evaluators must also explain a deficiency. What government requirement did the offeror fail to meet in the proposal? All deficiencies shall generate the issuance of an EN.The evaluators must also explain a deficiency. What government requirement did the offeror fail to meet in the proposal? All deficiencies shall generate the issuance of an EN.

    170. 8/6/2012 170 Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Evaluate each item previously marked as Not Clearly Meeting Requirement and determine if it is an Uncertainty Uncertainty: A doubt regarding whether an aspect of the Proposal meets a Material Performance or Capability Requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN. Document the Uncertainties AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 8.16 defines Uncertainty as follows: “Uncertainty” is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN. Information Guidance paragraph 8.16 states that proposals including an uncertainty about meeting a material performance or capability requirement will normally be rated “yellow.” Proposals including an uncertainty about potentially exceed a material performance or capability requirement will normally be rated “green.” Unlike being non-responsive in the case of IFB, in negotiated procurements, teams should address any shortfalls, questions, or uncertainties during discussions and provide the offeror the opportunity to satisfy the government’s requirement. In cases where award without discussions occur an offeror may not have the opportunity to address such issues in order to clearly meet the government requirement. In these cases, the team should carefully weigh the benefit of awarding without discussions over what otherwise might be another competitive proposal if discussions were to be held and proposal revisions accepted.AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 8.16 defines Uncertainty as follows: “Uncertainty” is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN. Information Guidance paragraph 8.16 states that proposals including an uncertainty about meeting a material performance or capability requirement will normally be rated “yellow.” Proposals including an uncertainty about potentially exceed a material performance or capability requirement will normally be rated “green.” Unlike being non-responsive in the case of IFB, in negotiated procurements, teams should address any shortfalls, questions, or uncertainties during discussions and provide the offeror the opportunity to satisfy the government’s requirement. In cases where award without discussions occur an offeror may not have the opportunity to address such issues in order to clearly meet the government requirement. In these cases, the team should carefully weigh the benefit of awarding without discussions over what otherwise might be another competitive proposal if discussions were to be held and proposal revisions accepted.

    171. 8/6/2012 171 Sec M – Mission Capability Technical Evaluation Mission Capability technical ratings focus on Strengths, Deficiencies, and Uncertainties in the offeror’s Proposal for a Mission Capability Subfactor Narrative Assessment shall include: Strength Deficiency Uncertainty Write Evaluation Notice if necessary Verify Proposal meets all minimum Technical Requirements Interface with PCAG and Cost Team AFFARS MP5315.3, section 8, contains the above definitions of strength, deficiency and uncertainty. The definition of deficiency is set forth in FAR 15.001. The SSET Chairperson should hold interface meetings with the Mission Capability Team Chief, PCAG Chairperson and the Cost Team Lead frequently. Recommend you keep track of action items from these meetings to know when the action has been completed. AFFARS MP5315.3, section 8, contains the above definitions of strength, deficiency and uncertainty. The definition of deficiency is set forth in FAR 15.001. The SSET Chairperson should hold interface meetings with the Mission Capability Team Chief, PCAG Chairperson and the Cost Team Lead frequently. Recommend you keep track of action items from these meetings to know when the action has been completed.

    172. 8/6/2012 172 Mission Capability Technical Ratings Mission Capability Team Chief or Subfactor Chief is responsible for: Combining inputs from all MC evaluators Reaching consensus of the evaluators on each of the Mission Capability Subfactors Making Sure that the Subfactor Summary Level documentation clearly shows the consensus results and disposition of any Individual Evaluator’s difference with the consensus Assigning Color Rating AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.1, when considering a Blue rating, recognize that Blue is earned based upon the magnitude of the additional benefit)s_ to the government for the strength(s). The documentation should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strength(s). Keep in mind that the mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit a Blue rating; though a Blue may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to the government. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit a Blue rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor. In any case, the documentation in the source selection record should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strenght(s). AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.1, when considering a Blue rating, recognize that Blue is earned based upon the magnitude of the additional benefit)s_ to the government for the strength(s). The documentation should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strength(s). Keep in mind that the mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit a Blue rating; though a Blue may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to the government. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit a Blue rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor. In any case, the documentation in the source selection record should describe the magnitude of the benefit(s) of the strenght(s).

    173. 8/6/2012 173 AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1,Table 1 sets forth the Mission Capability Technical Rating colors, ratings and descriptions. MP states that through discussions, the government evaluators should obtain the necessary information from offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to resolve outstanding issues within the offer. Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the time of the final evaluation. MP also states that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. AFFARS MP 5315.305, Paragraph 5.5.1.1,Table 1 sets forth the Mission Capability Technical Rating colors, ratings and descriptions.

    174. 8/6/2012 174 Mission Capability Risk Evaluation Risk is assessed at the Mission Capability Subfactor level Focuses on the Weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach Assessment considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance When a Strength is identified in a Mission Capability Technical Rating, assess if offeror’s proposed approach would likely cause an associated Weakness which may impact Schedule, Cost or Performance (MP5.5.1.2) You evaluate risk against each mission capability subfactor without “rolling up” the rating. MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigating and why that approach is or is not acceptable. You evaluate risk against each mission capability subfactor without “rolling up” the rating. MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigating and why that approach is or is not acceptable.

    175. 8/6/2012 175 Mission Capability Risk Evaluation Evaluation Worksheets and Summaries shall document: Weakness: A flaw in the Proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Deficiency: Combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001) Risk Mitigation proposed by the offeror. For ANY weakness identified, the Evaluator MUST: Generate ENs for significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies Address the offeror’s proposal for mitigation, if available and document why that approach is or is not acceptable You evaluate risk against each subfactor without “rolling up” the rating. Note that the term weakness is used only in connection with the assessment of risk. MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigating and why that approach is or is not acceptable. You evaluate risk against each subfactor without “rolling up” the rating. Note that the term weakness is used only in connection with the assessment of risk. MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2 states that mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A risk rating is assigned to each mission capability subfactor. Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigating and why that approach is or is not acceptable.

    176. 8/6/2012 176 Mission Capability Risk Ratings 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. 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. Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties. The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable. *+ A plus “+” rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but is not high enough to merit the next higher rating. AFFARS MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2, Mission Capability Risk Ratings *+A plus rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but not enough to merit the next higher rating. “When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate or High Risk ratings is desired, evaluators/teams may (optionally annotate this by adding a plus “+” to the risk rating.” Ensure that the source selection record adequately addresses the rationale for assigning this inferior risk rating. The use of a (+) shall not apply to the Unacceptable risk rating. Mission capability risk can be summarized by one question— “Can the offeror actually perform the work as proposed?” AFFARS MP 5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2, Mission Capability Risk Ratings *+A plus rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries but not enough to merit the next higher rating. “When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate or High Risk ratings is desired, evaluators/teams may (optionally annotate this by adding a plus “+” to the risk rating.” Ensure that the source selection record adequately addresses the rationale for assigning this inferior risk rating. The use of a (+) shall not apply to the Unacceptable risk rating. Mission capability risk can be summarized by one question— “Can the offeror actually perform the work as proposed?”

    177. 8/6/2012 177 Mission Capability Risk Considerations / Examples Unproven processes May be technically desirable, but could introduce program risk State of the art technical solution May drive increased schedule, cost risk Example: Requirement: Light weight, high strength material Proposed solution: Exotic alloy MC Subfactor rating “Blue” as technical requirement exceeded Risk rating “High” as material is scarce and difficult to obtain Here are some examples of proposal approaches that could lead to higher risk for the program. Based on what you know about your program and offerors, think about things that might lead to higher, or lower risk. If you performed a risk assessment early in your program planning, the results of that assessment should point to things you might look for or see in proposals. Here are some examples of proposal approaches that could lead to higher risk for the program. Based on what you know about your program and offerors, think about things that might lead to higher, or lower risk. If you performed a risk assessment early in your program planning, the results of that assessment should point to things you might look for or see in proposals.

    178. 8/6/2012 178 Technical & Risk: The Differences Mission Capability color rating is comparison of proposed approach against Section M criteria for MC “Does their approach meet/exceed our requirement?” Mission Capability risk is an assessment of the risk of implementing the proposed approach “Will their approach work?” Integrated evaluation of approach, risk mitigation, schedule, and cost “Will their approach result in the need for increased government oversight?” Sources of MC Risk: Under-manning the effort, Incorrect skill mix Poor integration of tasks or processes as reflected in the IMP Poor integration within IMS (i.e., activity relationships aren’t logical) Mission Capability color rating is comparison of proposed approach against Section M criteria for MC “Does their approach meet/exceed our requirement?” Mission Capability risk is an assessment of the risk of implementing the proposed approach “Will their approach work?” Integrated evaluation of approach, risk mitigation, schedule, and cost “Will their approach result in the need for increased government oversight?” Sources of MC Risk: Under-manning the effort, Incorrect skill mix Poor integration of tasks or processes as reflected in the IMP Poor integration within IMS (i.e., activity relationships aren’t logical)

    179. 8/6/2012 179 Analysis Worksheet This Analysis Worksheet template is provided as attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. You are not required to use this template. This Analysis Worksheet template is provided as attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. You are not required to use this template.

    180. 8/6/2012 180 Subfactor Summary This Subfactor Summary template is provided as attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. You are not required to use this template. This Subfactor Summary template is provided as attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. You are not required to use this template.

    181. 8/6/2012 181 Subfactor Summary Completed by subfactor chief with team concurrence Combines inputs from all MC evaluators Compilation of subfactor analysis worksheets Assigns color and risk ratings Completed before Decision to Award Without Discussions or establish Competitive Range Request for Final Proposal Revision Final SSA Briefing Subfactor summary charts are shown to offerors As “interim ratings” prior to award To support debriefings The subfactor chief takes the information in all individual analysis worksheets and uses it to assign a color rating to represent how well the offeror meets requirements and a risk rating to represent how the offeror’s approach to meeting requirements might affect performance, cost, and schedule. Evaluations and the support for individual evaluator’s assessments is key to the rating the subfactor chief will assign. The subfactor chief takes the information in all individual analysis worksheets and uses it to assign a color rating to represent how well the offeror meets requirements and a risk rating to represent how the offeror’s approach to meeting requirements might affect performance, cost, and schedule. Evaluations and the support for individual evaluator’s assessments is key to the rating the subfactor chief will assign.

    182. 8/6/2012 182 Rating Team Worksheet This Rating Team Worksheet is an attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. The attachment states that the template is provided for Informational Guidance. It is a “Best Practice” example.This Rating Team Worksheet is an attachment to AFFARS MP5315.3. The attachment states that the template is provided for Informational Guidance. It is a “Best Practice” example.

    183. 8/6/2012 183

    184. 8/6/2012 184 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Read Executive Summary and PP Volume Prepare List Of Offerors Immediately provide list to SSET Chair Hold First Interchange Meeting With SSET Chair SSET Chair will provide list of offerors including subcontractors to SSA and SSAC PCAG will use list to obtain PPIRS information The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to read the Executive Summary. The PCAG will know the overall approach of each offeror, the subcontractors proposed for each offeror, and have a basis for interaction with other members of the SSET during the source selection process. Each member reads the past performance volume from all offerors since they are responsible for the final performance confidence assessments for each offeror. PCAG prepares a list that shows the names of all offerors, including subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners, CAGE (Commercial and Government Entity) codes, and full addresses. PCAG Chairperson will use this list for the first interchange meeting with the SSET Chairperson and to obtain CPARS on the offerors. The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to read the Executive Summary. The PCAG will know the overall approach of each offeror, the subcontractors proposed for each offeror, and have a basis for interaction with other members of the SSET during the source selection process. Each member reads the past performance volume from all offerors since they are responsible for the final performance confidence assessments for each offeror. PCAG prepares a list that shows the names of all offerors, including subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners, CAGE (Commercial and Government Entity) codes, and full addresses. PCAG Chairperson will use this list for the first interchange meeting with the SSET Chairperson and to obtain CPARS on the offerors.

    185. 8/6/2012 185 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Step 1 - Conduct Recency and Relevancy screening Validate Recency Determine Relevancy of each Contract, Task Order, or Delivery Order Step 2 - Search For additional Relevant Contracts Step 3 - Obtain Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Data Step 4 - Issue, follow-up, review Questionnaires. Conduct and document interviews on completed Questionnaires Step One – The first step in the past performance evaluation is for the PCAG to screen the contracts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its recency and relevancy to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this recency and relevancy screening in accordance with the definitions and criteria set forth in Section M of the RFP. The objective of the screening is to remove those contracts that are clearly not relevant or recent from further consideration. Do the recency screening first eliminating any contract that does not meet the recency definition. Next conduct the relevancy screening on all contracts that met the recency definition. Other source selection members and advisors will provide assistance in determining relevancy. Step Two – In addition to the contracts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant contracts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the contracts identified by the offeror since these may not give a true picture of the contractor’s past performance. Step Three – Contact the PPIRS focal point to obtain available PPIRS/CPARs on relevant contracts. The past performance team will request CPARs not in PPIRS directly from the PCO on that individual contract. Step Four – Issue, follow-up and review questionnaires. If the PCAG transmits the questionnaires, a PCAG member should telephone two points of contact for each contract. The PCAG will make follow-up phone calls or e-mails to confirm that the POC received the questionnaire and will meet the requested submission date. Conduct interviews with POCs who completed some questionnaires but there is incomplete information. Immediately following the interview, the PCAG member must prepare a summary of the conversation. Step One – The first step in the past performance evaluation is for the PCAG to screen the contracts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its recency and relevancy to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this recency and relevancy screening in accordance with the definitions and criteria set forth in Section M of the RFP. The objective of the screening is to remove those contracts that are clearly not relevant or recent from further consideration. Do the recency screening first eliminating any contract that does not meet the recency definition. Next conduct the relevancy screening on all contracts that met the recency definition. Other source selection members and advisors will provide assistance in determining relevancy. Step Two – In addition to the contracts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant contracts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the contracts identified by the offeror since these may not give a true picture of the contractor’s past performance. Step Three – Contact the PPIRS focal point to obtain available PPIRS/CPARs on relevant contracts. The past performance team will request CPARs not in PPIRS directly from the PCO on that individual contract. Step Four – Issue, follow-up and review questionnaires. If the PCAG transmits the questionnaires, a PCAG member should telephone two points of contact for each contract. The PCAG will make follow-up phone calls or e-mails to confirm that the POC received the questionnaire and will meet the requested submission date. Conduct interviews with POCs who completed some questionnaires but there is incomplete information. Immediately following the interview, the PCAG member must prepare a summary of the conversation.

    186. 8/6/2012 186 Step 5 - Rate Performance for each Offeror and Critical Subcontractors and Team Partners Rate Performance on each Relevant Contract Evaluate poor performance if necessary Consolidate data for each offeror Include a narrative portion with team’s observations Step 6 - Conduct site visits if beneficial to evaluation. Step Five – Rate Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror’s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Contract. Accomplish an analysis of each contract against Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Rate the offeror’s performance on each relevant contract for Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price Cost factor. Determine relevancy rating for Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Document results. b. Evaluate Poor Performance, If Necessary. Accomplish a critical analysis of each contract to ascertain performance, cause and effect of poor (adverse) performance record, e.g. who was really at fault: Government, contractor or both. c. Consolidate Data For Each Offeror. Consolidate results of the relevant contract analysis showing the total relevant contract information for an offeror. d. Identify Observations for Past Performance Factor. Identify evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind for each Mission Capability subfactor and Price/Cost factor based on past and present performance. Step Six – Determine the need for site visits and conduct site visits. Step Five – Rate Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror’s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Contract. Accomplish an analysis of each contract against Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Rate the offeror’s performance on each relevant contract for Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price Cost factor. Determine relevancy rating for Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Document results. b. Evaluate Poor Performance, If Necessary. Accomplish a critical analysis of each contract to ascertain performance, cause and effect of poor (adverse) performance record, e.g. who was really at fault: Government, contractor or both. c. Consolidate Data For Each Offeror. Consolidate results of the relevant contract analysis showing the total relevant contract information for an offeror. d. Identify Observations for Past Performance Factor. Identify evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind for each Mission Capability subfactor and Price/Cost factor based on past and present performance. Step Six – Determine the need for site visits and conduct site visits.

    187. 8/6/2012 187 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Step 7 - Perform an assessment of Performance Confidence at Factor or Subfactor as stated in Sec M Step 8 - Prepare ENs For Adverse Past Performance Information and other Past Performance issues Step 9 - Evaluate responses On ENs Step 10 - Review Performance Confidence Assessment & Observations based on additional information in response to ENs Step Seven – Perform an assessment of performance confidence at the Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Cost/Price factor in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The PCAG will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of performance for the prime and subcontractors, as it relates to the work each will be performing, when assigning the performance confidence assessment. This integrated performance confidence assessment is the rating for the Past Performance factor. AFFARS MP5315.305, paragraph 5.5.2 states, “The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs. The performance confidence assessment is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.” Step Eight - Prepare EN for all adverse past performance information that the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate, when the contract is determined to have a somewhat relevant or higher relevancy rating by the PCAG. Even when award without discussions is contemplated, ENs for clarification may be required. Remember Section M defined adverse past performance. Prepare ENs on any other past performance issue also. Step Nine – Evaluate responses to ENs. Determine changes to the individual contract evaluations based on additional information received from the offerors. Discuss additional information with POCs on questionnaires. Step Ten – Review performance confidence assessment based on additional information received in Step Nine. Review observations also. Make revisions as justified and document reasons for changes. Step Seven – Perform an assessment of performance confidence at the Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Cost/Price factor in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The PCAG will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of performance for the prime and subcontractors, as it relates to the work each will be performing, when assigning the performance confidence assessment. This integrated performance confidence assessment is the rating for the Past Performance factor. AFFARS MP5315.305, paragraph 5.5.2 states, “The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs. The performance confidence assessment is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.” Step Eight - Prepare EN for all adverse past performance information that the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate, when the contract is determined to have a somewhat relevant or higher relevancy rating by the PCAG. Even when award without discussions is contemplated, ENs for clarification may be required. Remember Section M defined adverse past performance. Prepare ENs on any other past performance issue also. Step Nine – Evaluate responses to ENs. Determine changes to the individual contract evaluations based on additional information received from the offerors. Discuss additional information with POCs on questionnaires. Step Ten – Review performance confidence assessment based on additional information received in Step Nine. Review observations also. Make revisions as justified and document reasons for changes.

    188. 8/6/2012 188 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Step 11 - Assist other Source Selection Team Evaluators Step 12 - Review documentation and verify PP evaluation completed IAW Section M Step 13 - Prepare briefing charts for SSA/SSAC Briefings Step Eleven - The PCAG can assist Mission Capability Team evaluators by serving as a resource in cases where a proposal risk rating of other than low is being considered for a proposed approach because the team is unfamiliar or uncomfortable with that approach. Example, the offeror is proposing to use a process that the evaluators are not familiar with. The offeror states in the proposal that he has used this process before on another contract. The Mission Capability Team Chief should request the PCAG find past performance information on the other contract. Step Twelve – Documentation. The PCAG should review the documentation using the questions in Attachment Twelve of the guide and verify that the past performance evaluation has been completed in accordance with Section M of the RFP and correctly documented. Step Thirteen - The PCAG prepares charts for the SSAC/ SSA briefings. Highlight any chart that will not be used to debrief offeror. Note: This must be a deliberative process in deciding which charts will be used for the debriefing. Step Eleven - The PCAG can assist Mission Capability Team evaluators by serving as a resource in cases where a proposal risk rating of other than low is being considered for a proposed approach because the team is unfamiliar or uncomfortable with that approach. Example, the offeror is proposing to use a process that the evaluators are not familiar with. The offeror states in the proposal that he has used this process before on another contract. The Mission Capability Team Chief should request the PCAG find past performance information on the other contract. Step Twelve – Documentation. The PCAG should review the documentation using the questions in Attachment Twelve of the guide and verify that the past performance evaluation has been completed in accordance with Section M of the RFP and correctly documented. Step Thirteen - The PCAG prepares charts for the SSAC/ SSA briefings. Highlight any chart that will not be used to debrief offeror. Note: This must be a deliberative process in deciding which charts will be used for the debriefing.

    189. 8/6/2012 189 Summary of Ratings: ABC Company Inc. This sample has only the performance blocks colored. This sample has only the performance blocks colored.

    190. 8/6/2012 190 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PCAG Chairperson is responsible and accountable to the SSA for the PCAG’s Rating. Must read/review proposals, questionnaires and all PCAG member assessments to provide an integrated assessment More, not less, PP Information is goal of the PCAG Ensure consistent, complete and auditable rationale, fair/impartial judgment, compliance with all RFP terms/conditions, and an error free process Brief the PCAG findings as a part of SSET to SSA/SSAC Keep process on timeline schedule Brief, or support, discussions with offerors if conducted Continue to participate in interchange meetings Other Activities for the PCAG Chairperson During This Phase: a. Review every offeror’s complete proposal, all questionnaires, interviews, and all assessments written by the PCAG members to provide an integrated assessment with one confidence rating on each offeror to the SSET, SSAC, and SSA. b. More not less past performance information is the goal of the PCAG. c. Ensure consistency, complete and audible rationale, fair/impartial judgment, compliance with all RFP terms/conditions, and an error free process. d. Brief the PCAG findings at any SSA/SSAC briefing. Brief, or support, discussions with the offerors and debriefings. e. Keep the process on the timeline schedule, ensure the team works together and elevate problems when necessary. f. Responsible and accountable to the SSA for PCAG’s assessment. g. Continue to participate in interchange meetings with SSET Chairperson and other team leaders. Other Activities for the PCAG Chairperson During This Phase: a. Review every offeror’s complete proposal, all questionnaires, interviews, and all assessments written by the PCAG members to provide an integrated assessment with one confidence rating on each offeror to the SSET, SSAC, and SSA. b. More not less past performance information is the goal of the PCAG. c. Ensure consistency, complete and audible rationale, fair/impartial judgment, compliance with all RFP terms/conditions, and an error free process. d. Brief the PCAG findings at any SSA/SSAC briefing. Brief, or support, discussions with the offerors and debriefings. e. Keep the process on the timeline schedule, ensure the team works together and elevate problems when necessary. f. Responsible and accountable to the SSA for PCAG’s assessment. g. Continue to participate in interchange meetings with SSET Chairperson and other team leaders.

    191. 8/6/2012 191 Cost/Price Risk EVALUATION Cost/Price Risk

    192. 8/6/2012 192 Cost/Price Risk Evaluation Assess the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal for contract line items and associated options compare with the government MPC for the same items in that specific offeror’s proposal Cost/Price Risk evaluation is the result of comparing and contrasting each offeror’s MPC (and its associated uncertainty analysis) with each individual proposal ( and its associated uncertainty analysis) SSET must develop initial government MPC before competitive range SSET must adequately communicate rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision) MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.4, states that the cost/price risk evaluation assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal for the contract line items to be included in the intended contract and associated options, if evaluated, compares with the government MPC for the same items. In order to ensure that the AF and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision). MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.4 states that the uncertainty analysis is required for ACAT 1 programs and the AF Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook can be used as a guide. This handbook and related information is located on the FM Knowledge Now Website (http://afkn.wpafb.af.mil/afcruh).MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.4, states that the cost/price risk evaluation assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal for the contract line items to be included in the intended contract and associated options, if evaluated, compares with the government MPC for the same items. In order to ensure that the AF and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision). MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.5.4 states that the uncertainty analysis is required for ACAT 1 programs and the AF Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook can be used as a guide. This handbook and related information is located on the FM Knowledge Now Website (http://afkn.wpafb.af.mil/afcruh).

    193. 8/6/2012 193 Section M--Cost/Price Risk Ratings Little difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price are unlikely to occur and any potential impact is manageable. Some difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price may occur and the potential impact may require special attention. Significant difference exists between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s most probable cost. Cost growth and/or other anomalies related to cost/price is likely to occur and the impact may be unmanageable. MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Table 4—Cost/Price Risk Ratings. MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision). MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Table 4—Cost/Price Risk Ratings. MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.5.4, Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision).

    194. 8/6/2012 194 The next section will discuss the cost/price evaluation. The next section will discuss the cost/price evaluation.

    195. 8/6/2012 195 Cost/Price Evaluation Fixed Price Evaluate for Reasonableness For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market Normally established by adequate price competition Cost Reimbursement Contracts Evaluate for Reasonableness and Realism Reasonableness—Same as above Realism: Offeror’s proposed cost are Realistic for the work to be performed; Reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements; and Consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal Products – Probable Cost (PC) for each offeror FAR 15.305(a)(1) says that “normally competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price.” The same FAR reference says the following when contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis: Evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror’s understanding of the work, and the offeror’s ability to perform the contract. Cost realism analyses may also be used on fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts. FAR 15.305(a)(1) says that “normally competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price.” The same FAR reference says the following when contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis: Evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror’s understanding of the work, and the offeror’s ability to perform the contract. Cost realism analyses may also be used on fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts.

    196. 8/6/2012 196 Price Analysis Concepts A price is based on APC if: Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the government’s requirement and if Best value source selection, price is a substantial factor There is no finding the price of the otherwise successful offeror is unreasonable There was a reasonable expectation that two or more independent, responsible offerors would submit priced offers even though only one is received and The CO can conclude the offer was submitted with the expectation of competition Reasonable determination that proposed price is based on APC and approved at a level above the CO Price analysis demonstrates reasonableness FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) Adequate price competition. A price is based on adequate price competition if— (i) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement and if— (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value where price is a substantial factor in source selection; and (B) There is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful offeror is unreasonable. Any finding that the price is unreasonable must be supported by a statement of the facts and approved at a level above the CO. (ii) There was a reasonable expectation, based on market research or other assessment, that two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, would submit priced offers in response to the solicitation’s expressed requirement, even though only one offer is received from a responsible offeror and if— (A) Based on the offer received, the CO can reasonable conclude that the offer was submitted with the expectation of competition, e.g., circumstances indicate that—(1) The offeror believed that at least one other offeror was capable of submitting a meaningful offer; and (2) The offeror had no reason to believe that other potential offerors did not intend to submit an offer; and (B) The determination that the proposed price is based on adequate price competition is reasonable, and is approved at a level above the CO; or (iii) Price analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the same or similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from adequate price competition. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) Adequate price competition. A price is based on adequate price competition if— (i) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement and if— (A) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value where price is a substantial factor in source selection; and (B) There is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful offeror is unreasonable. Any finding that the price is unreasonable must be supported by a statement of the facts and approved at a level above the CO. (ii) There was a reasonable expectation, based on market research or other assessment, that two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, would submit priced offers in response to the solicitation’s expressed requirement, even though only one offer is received from a responsible offeror and if— (A) Based on the offer received, the CO can reasonable conclude that the offer was submitted with the expectation of competition, e.g., circumstances indicate that—(1) The offeror believed that at least one other offeror was capable of submitting a meaningful offer; and (2) The offeror had no reason to believe that other potential offerors did not intend to submit an offer; and (B) The determination that the proposed price is based on adequate price competition is reasonable, and is approved at a level above the CO; or (iii) Price analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the same or similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from adequate price competition.

    197. 8/6/2012 197 Price Analysis Techniques Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation to: Each other (adequate price competition) FAR preferred technique Previous prices for same or similar items FAR preferred technique Parametric estimating methods Published prices (e.g. catalog) Independent Government cost estimates Prices obtained through market research Analysis of pricing information provided by offerors FAR 15.404-1(b) sets forth the proposal analysis techniques of Price Analysis. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. FAR 15.404-1(b)(3) says the first two techniques are the preferred techniques. Reference Contract Pricing Reference Guides [OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP] (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contractpricing/chap-index.htm) or you can locate it on the AQC AFFARS Library, Part 15, click Pricing Center, Informational Guidance Other Agencies. FAR 15.404-1(b) sets forth the proposal analysis techniques of Price Analysis. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. FAR 15.404-1(b)(3) says the first two techniques are the preferred techniques. Reference Contract Pricing Reference Guides [OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP] (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contractpricing/chap-index.htm) or you can locate it on the AQC AFFARS Library, Part 15, click Pricing Center, Informational Guidance Other Agencies.

    198. 8/6/2012 198 Items for Price Evaluation Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) Prices Loaded Labor Rates (e.g. T&M, ID/IQ etc.) Other Government Costs (OGCs)* (as applicable) Government Furnished Property (GFP) – quantify for each offeror Financing – calculate cost to treasury Progress payments Performance based payments Risk – Calculate for each offeror Etc. *OGCs shown separately to SSA Risk is situational; inputs provided by technical personnel, DCMA, DCAA. Price evaluation must cover all CLINs and all years including all options. Risk is situational; inputs provided by technical personnel, DCMA, DCAA. Price evaluation must cover all CLINs and all years including all options.

    199. 8/6/2012 199 Cost Evaluation Reasonableness FAR requirement – usually established by adequate price competition Cost Realism Required for cost reimbursable type contracts May be used for fixed price incentive type contracts Required to determine the PC of performance for each offeror Probable Cost The SSA uses PC in the source selection decision process PC may differ from proposed cost and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of contract cost FAR 15.404-1(c)(1) states that cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit in an offeror’s proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) requires that cost realism analyses be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3, “The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (dollarized), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the cost/price (probable cost) for the Cost/Price evaluation factor.” FAR 15.404-1(c)(1) states that cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit in an offeror’s proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) requires that cost realism analyses be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3, “The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (dollarized), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the cost/price (probable cost) for the Cost/Price evaluation factor.”

    200. 8/6/2012 200 Cost Evaluation Audit Reports Technical Evaluations/Independent Government Cost Estimate Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) or Recommendations (FPRRs) Recent Program History Wage Determinations Cost Models Published cost/price indices Comparison to analogous efforts Market Information FAR 15.404-1(c) cost analysis and (d) cost realism analysis. FAR 15.404-1(c) cost analysis and (d) cost realism analysis.

    201. 8/6/2012 201 Cost Evaluation Always evaluate in accordance with Section M Do not use one offeror’s data to adjust another offeror’s proposal Use ENs as the tool to understand discrepancies or obtain clarifications Don’t write in offeror proposals, as offerors may request their proposals be returned after source selection Remember you are evaluating a proposal; take into account the offeror’s unique approach, cost accounting system, etc. You are not developing an estimate independent of the offeror’s proposal Make sure the Mission Capability team’s input is adequately documented Cost Evaluation Will Be Documented in Briefing Charts and the PAR. Price Competition Memorandum required by AFMC may be incorporated into the PAR Adequate documentation of the Mission Capability (technical) team’s input is essential to justify positions taken by the cost/price analyst. You can not rely on verbal communications, e-mails, etc. You must have written document. PAR Guide, Jan 2005, contains two attachments. One attachments shows how the information required for a Price Competition Memorandum can be incorporated into the PAR. Adequate documentation of the Mission Capability (technical) team’s input is essential to justify positions taken by the cost/price analyst. You can not rely on verbal communications, e-mails, etc. You must have written document. PAR Guide, Jan 2005, contains two attachments. One attachments shows how the information required for a Price Competition Memorandum can be incorporated into the PAR.

    202. 8/6/2012 202 Contracting Evaluation EVALUATION Contracting

    203. 8/6/2012 203 Contracting Evaluation Proposal conforms to all Terms and Conditions Brief any exception taken to Terms and Conditions Proposal included all required certifications Proposal meets all technical requirements Brief any exception taken to Technical Requirements not identified as evaluation factors or subfactors Brief any assumptions made by offerors Identify any discrepancies in the proposal and whether an EN is required If the proposal is not going to be incorporated by reference, determine the need for special clauses or PWS changes to capture strength Establish a process on processing ENs—numbering, different color paper for change pages, when to request cost updates, and change pages vs complete revision to technical proposal AFFARS 5315.305 (a)(1) states: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria shall inform offerors of this condition for award. AFFARS 5315.305 (a)(1) states: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria shall inform offerors of this condition for award.

    204. 8/6/2012 204

    205. 8/6/2012 205 Competitive Range Reduction of number of offerors with whom discussions will be held Each Proposal is rated against all Evaluation Factors SSA establishes the Competitive Range Competitive range is comprised of all most highly rated Proposals, unless further reduced for efficiency Successive Competitive Range determinations possible MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.1.2, states the SSA shall establish the competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve release of evaluation notices (ENs). Clarification and Communication ENs can be released prior to the competitive range. The SSA may designate the Contracting Officer as the approval authority for release of evaluation notices by so stating in the source selection plan. FAR 15.306(c) states that prior to entering into discussions, the CO shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency (FAR 15.306(c)(2). SSA/SSAC will be briefed and SSA will authorize release of the ENs. ENs released before the competitive range must be reviewed by the CO, legal and approved for release by the SSA unless delegated to CO in the approved SSP.MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.1.2, states the SSA shall establish the competitive range, approve entering discussions, and approve release of evaluation notices (ENs). Clarification and Communication ENs can be released prior to the competitive range. The SSA may designate the Contracting Officer as the approval authority for release of evaluation notices by so stating in the source selection plan. FAR 15.306(c) states that prior to entering into discussions, the CO shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency (FAR 15.306(c)(2). SSA/SSAC will be briefed and SSA will authorize release of the ENs. ENs released before the competitive range must be reviewed by the CO, legal and approved for release by the SSA unless delegated to CO in the approved SSP.

    206. 8/6/2012 206 Competitive Range Briefing May recommend elimination of one or more offerors from the Competitive Range Must provide detail sufficient to support CO recommendation for SSA approval SSET presentation of initial evaluation results for all Factors Brief all Strengths, Deficiencies, Uncertainties and Weaknesses SSA approval to enter discussions Release ENs Should be available for review and approval by SSA unless SSA designated CO as approval authority for release of ENs in SSP SSA approval for Award Without Discussions If awarding without discussions, SSAC chair (SSET chair if no SSAC) will provide a source selection recommendation to the SSA Also provide a minority opinion if there is significant disagreement among the SSAC members SSA approval of Interim Ratings for release to offerors Even if no offerors are being eliminated the SSA will receive an “Competitive Range Briefing” that details the interim evaluation status of all offerors and clearly identifies all issues requiring issuance of ENs. The SSA must approve the release of ENs before discussions are opened. Examples of those people who would attend the briefing are: SSA, SSAC, SSET (all members) and source selection advisors. Charts—Recommend listing strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses etc., in descending order of importance on charts for each subfactor.Even if no offerors are being eliminated the SSA will receive an “Competitive Range Briefing” that details the interim evaluation status of all offerors and clearly identifies all issues requiring issuance of ENs. The SSA must approve the release of ENs before discussions are opened. Examples of those people who would attend the briefing are: SSA, SSAC, SSET (all members) and source selection advisors. Charts—Recommend listing strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses etc., in descending order of importance on charts for each subfactor.

    207. 8/6/2012 207 Structure of Competitive Range Briefing Source Selection Organization Program Overview Schedule Chart Offerors including subcontractors Definitions Basis for Award—Factors/Subfactors and Order of Importance Evaluation Matrix Summary-- All Offerors on Chart Evaluation by Offeror—Brief evaluation of all Factors/Subfactors including contractual issues before briefing the next offeror This chart lists information that the SSET should cover in the Competitive Range Briefing. AFFARS MP5315.306, paragraph 5.6.2 states that the SSET shall evaluate all proposals, prepare ENs and, if discussions are to be conducted, recommend through the CO whether any offeror should be eliminated from the competitive range. The SSET shall prepare the competitive range briefing, if required; the charts may be used to document the evaluation and competitive range determination. MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.2 (ref 1) states that normally, when the SSA is other than the CO, a competitive range briefing is conducted. This chart lists information that the SSET should cover in the Competitive Range Briefing. AFFARS MP5315.306, paragraph 5.6.2 states that the SSET shall evaluate all proposals, prepare ENs and, if discussions are to be conducted, recommend through the CO whether any offeror should be eliminated from the competitive range. The SSET shall prepare the competitive range briefing, if required; the charts may be used to document the evaluation and competitive range determination. MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.2 (ref 1) states that normally, when the SSA is other than the CO, a competitive range briefing is conducted.

    208. 8/6/2012 208 Sample Chart Format (Mission Capability Technical/Risk ) This is a SAMPLE chart to show one way of portraying the Mission Capability Subfactor Technical rating and the Risk rating on the same chart. Recommend you show a sample chart in the briefing and explain to the SSA/SSAC what they will see in the way of information on the following set of charts for each offeror for the Mission Capability subfactors. This is a SAMPLE chart to show one way of portraying the Mission Capability Subfactor Technical rating and the Risk rating on the same chart. Recommend you show a sample chart in the briefing and explain to the SSA/SSAC what they will see in the way of information on the following set of charts for each offeror for the Mission Capability subfactors.

    209. 8/6/2012 209 Sample Source Selection Briefing Charts Past Performance This is a SAMPLE chart for showing the combined data collected on one offeror. It is a way to show the data to the SSA/SSAC that is easily readable. It addition to this chart, the PCAG should have charts explaining their process, what data was collected, narrative observations they wanted to brief to the SSA/SSAC and a performance confidence assessment assigned this offeror. This is a SAMPLE chart for showing the combined data collected on one offeror. It is a way to show the data to the SSA/SSAC that is easily readable. It addition to this chart, the PCAG should have charts explaining their process, what data was collected, narrative observations they wanted to brief to the SSA/SSAC and a performance confidence assessment assigned this offeror.

    210. 8/6/2012 210

    211. 8/6/2012 211 Release of Interim Ratings SSET Shall Release Interim Ratings to Offeror MP5315.3, Para 5.6.5 Adverse Past Performance Strengths Deficiencies Uncertainties Weaknesses and Significant Weaknesses Same Offeror’s Rating Charts Briefed to SSA Mission Capability, Cost/Price Risk (if applicable), and Past Performance Ratings CO Releases ENs Recommend SSET hold face-to-face meeting with offeror to make sure the ENs are understood before issuance of signed ENs AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.5 “The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. As a minimum, at the initiation of and again at the conclusion of discussions, the SSET through the CO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) uncertainties, and (c) weaknesses, (d) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation, (e) strengths. This should be accomplished by providing the offeror its own mission capability, cost/price risk (if applicable), and Past Performance ratings. The final disclosure of ratings to the offeror prior to requesting final proposal revisions shall reflect the results of discussions with the offeror.” Discuss redacting of information from charts with the SSA at conclusion of briefings if there is any information that should not be released to the offeror.AFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.5 “The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. As a minimum, at the initiation of and again at the conclusion of discussions, the SSET through the CO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond, (b) uncertainties, and (c) weaknesses, (d) any deficiencies that have been identified during the evaluation, (e) strengths. This should be accomplished by providing the offeror its own mission capability, cost/price risk (if applicable), and Past Performance ratings. The final disclosure of ratings to the offeror prior to requesting final proposal revisions shall reflect the results of discussions with the offeror.” Discuss redacting of information from charts with the SSA at conclusion of briefings if there is any information that should not be released to the offeror.

    212. 8/6/2012 212 Source Selection Process During Discussion Phase Discussions must be conducted with each offeror in the Competitive Range Issue ENs Receive Response to ENs From Offeror Evaluate Response Follow Up May be Face to Face Discussions or ENs Evaluate Responses Received Use the process of ENs, Follow-on ENs and Discussions to make sure the two parties have a clear understanding of what the offeror is proposing and what the Government’s problem is with what has been proposed. See AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 1), for assistance on discussions. Here are some points from that paragraph: Discussions are required for those areas of a proposal that are deficient, where weaknesses exist, or where other aspects of the offeror’s proposal are significant enough to affect the selection decision, and/or where information presented is unclear. These areas may include issues of compliance with the requirements of the RFP other than evaluation factors. Discussions must be sufficiently robust to ensure a complete understanding of the proposal, and may include real time face-to-face dialogue as necessary. Discussions may be conducted orally or in writing or both determined by the nature of the issues to be addressed. Remember oral discussions also have to be documented in writing for the official record. Before concluding discussions teams should consider the release of a “pre-FPR” to include the ratings, the model contracts, and a specific delineation of any outstanding issues. This provides offerors the opportunity to resolve any potential issues prior to release of the FPR, and would logically reduce the likelihood of a substantial post-FPR discussion.Use the process of ENs, Follow-on ENs and Discussions to make sure the two parties have a clear understanding of what the offeror is proposing and what the Government’s problem is with what has been proposed. See AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 1), for assistance on discussions. Here are some points from that paragraph: Discussions are required for those areas of a proposal that are deficient, where weaknesses exist, or where other aspects of the offeror’s proposal are significant enough to affect the selection decision, and/or where information presented is unclear. These areas may include issues of compliance with the requirements of the RFP other than evaluation factors. Discussions must be sufficiently robust to ensure a complete understanding of the proposal, and may include real time face-to-face dialogue as necessary. Discussions may be conducted orally or in writing or both determined by the nature of the issues to be addressed. Remember oral discussions also have to be documented in writing for the official record. Before concluding discussions teams should consider the release of a “pre-FPR” to include the ratings, the model contracts, and a specific delineation of any outstanding issues. This provides offerors the opportunity to resolve any potential issues prior to release of the FPR, and would logically reduce the likelihood of a substantial post-FPR discussion.

    213. 8/6/2012 213 Discussions Cost/Price Risk The SSET through the CO will indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range (1) differences between the offeror’s proposed costs/prices and the government’s MPC and (2) uncertainty analysis methods and results Goal is to understand these differences to the maximum extent possible The SSET will conduct these discussions promptly so that each offeror has time to understand the cost/price differences and adjust their costs/prices accordingly prior to or with their Final Proposal Revision The SSET will assign a Cost/Price Risk Rating for each offeror AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.6.5.1, when the evaluation will include a cost/price risk evaluation, the SSET through the CO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range differences between the offeror’s proposed costs or prices and the government’s MPC for the same items with the goal of understanding these differences to the maximum extent possible. Discussions shall also include the uncertainty analysis methods and results. Conduct these discussions promptly so that each offeror has ample time to understand the government’s cost differences so that the offeror may adjust their cost or price proposal accordingly before or with submission of Final Proposal Revision.AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.6.5.1, when the evaluation will include a cost/price risk evaluation, the SSET through the CO shall indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range differences between the offeror’s proposed costs or prices and the government’s MPC for the same items with the goal of understanding these differences to the maximum extent possible. Discussions shall also include the uncertainty analysis methods and results. Conduct these discussions promptly so that each offeror has ample time to understand the government’s cost differences so that the offeror may adjust their cost or price proposal accordingly before or with submission of Final Proposal Revision.

    214. 8/6/2012 214 Clearance Pre-FPR Briefing Contract Officer shall obtain contract clearance from Clearance Approval Authority before the SSA approves release of the Request for Final Proposal Revision (MP5315.3, Paragraph 5.6.6) SSA is NOT the Clearance Approval Authority Obtain SSA’s authorization for release of Request for Final Proposal Revisions Review of contract documentation including performance metrics AFPEO/CM PEO must make performance based decision prior to FPR release for services over $100M AFFARS 5301.9000(e)(1) requires Contract Clearance for competitive acquisitions by the clearance authority for the SSA to make the decision to award without discussions OR to request final proposal revisions. The Clearance Approval Authority is the same as stated early for Business Clearance and set forth in AFFARS 5301.9001. USAF Management and Oversight of Acquisition of Services (MOASP) requires that all services acquisitions contain outcome based objectives and appropriate metrics that ensure timely and accurate assessments of the contractor’s performance. The objectives and over arching metrics should be developed by the requiring activities, addressed in the AP and approved in the ASP, included in the RFP and made a part of the contract. The designated official should review the objectives and metrics for the contractor’s performance as well as making a performance based decision prior to award of the contract. It is best to make this decision prior to request for FPR. Except for major weapon system and space program acquisitions, the Air Force Acquisition Executive has appointed Air Force Program Executive Officer for Services (AFPEO/CM) as the designated official to review services acquisitions (not in another PEO portfolio) over $100M, A-76 studies involving 300 or more FTEs, and any services designated as special interest. Therefore, the PEO for AFPEO/CM must make the performance based decision including performance metrics prior to award of the contract. AFFARS 5301.9000(e)(1) requires Contract Clearance for competitive acquisitions by the clearance authority for the SSA to make the decision to award without discussions OR to request final proposal revisions. The Clearance Approval Authority is the same as stated early for Business Clearance and set forth in AFFARS 5301.9001. USAF Management and Oversight of Acquisition of Services (MOASP) requires that all services acquisitions contain outcome based objectives and appropriate metrics that ensure timely and accurate assessments of the contractor’s performance. The objectives and over arching metrics should be developed by the requiring activities, addressed in the AP and approved in the ASP, included in the RFP and made a part of the contract. The designated official should review the objectives and metrics for the contractor’s performance as well as making a performance based decision prior to award of the contract. It is best to make this decision prior to request for FPR. Except for major weapon system and space program acquisitions, the Air Force Acquisition Executive has appointed Air Force Program Executive Officer for Services (AFPEO/CM) as the designated official to review services acquisitions (not in another PEO portfolio) over $100M, A-76 studies involving 300 or more FTEs, and any services designated as special interest. Therefore, the PEO for AFPEO/CM must make the performance based decision including performance metrics prior to award of the contract.

    215. 8/6/2012 215 Request for Final Proposal Revision Issued at conclusion of discussions Updated ratings shall be disclosed to offerors prior to request for FPR Issued to all offerors in Competitive Range May release & explain/discuss draft to ensure understanding of all issues Establishes common cut-off date Proposal revisions form baseline for Final Evaluation Technical Baseline Terms and Conditions Business Arrangement Gives offeror opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 1): Before concluding discussions teams should consider the release of a “pre-FPR” to include the ratings, the model contracts, and a specific delineation of any outstanding issues. This provides offerors the opportunity to resolve any potential issues prior to release of the FPR, and would logically reduce the likelihood of a substantial post-FPR discussion. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 2): Team may use the actual briefing charts that were used to brief the SSA as a method to provide the offeror the results of their ratings at the initiation of discussions and prior to final proposal revision request. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 1): Before concluding discussions teams should consider the release of a “pre-FPR” to include the ratings, the model contracts, and a specific delineation of any outstanding issues. This provides offerors the opportunity to resolve any potential issues prior to release of the FPR, and would logically reduce the likelihood of a substantial post-FPR discussion. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.5 (ref 2): Team may use the actual briefing charts that were used to brief the SSA as a method to provide the offeror the results of their ratings at the initiation of discussions and prior to final proposal revision request.

    216. 8/6/2012 216 Final Proposal Evaluation SSET must evaluate Final Proposal Revision to Mission Capability Technical and Risk Ratings, Past Performance and Cost/Price including Cost/Price Risk if applicable Document Evaluation Reassess ratings including Strengths, Deficiencies, and Weaknesses If an SSAC is used, the SSAC shall, with assistance of SSET chairperson, provide the comparative analysis of offers when the SSA assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the SSAC AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.6 (ref 2) says the team should jointly evaluate the final proposals using the Rating Team Worksheets, or other similar document. Only one worksheet is complete for each subfactor per offeror (unless the team is evaluating subfactors; in this case, the team should use one sheet for each subfactor per offeror). The “final” evaluation block of the worksheet should be checked. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 6.5 says the SSAC shall, with the assistance of the SSET chairperson, provide the required comparative analysis of offers when the SSA assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the SSAC. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 5.6.6 (ref 2) says the team should jointly evaluate the final proposals using the Rating Team Worksheets, or other similar document. Only one worksheet is complete for each subfactor per offeror (unless the team is evaluating subfactors; in this case, the team should use one sheet for each subfactor per offeror). The “final” evaluation block of the worksheet should be checked. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 6.5 says the SSAC shall, with the assistance of the SSET chairperson, provide the required comparative analysis of offers when the SSA assigns the responsibility for preparing that analysis to the SSAC.

    217. 8/6/2012 217

    218. 8/6/2012 218 Decision Briefing Briefing to SSA/SSAC must include the following: Include all the up front charts from the Competitive Range Briefing Color Ratings for Mission Capability Technical Rating for each Subfactors Mission Capability Risk Rating for each Subfactor Past Performance Rating Cost/Price Cost Risk Rating if applicable Contracting considerations and any exception to T&C’s Summary chart covering all remaining offeror’s ratings Only Final Ratings shown Sufficiently detailed narrative descriptions of each offeror’s Strengths, Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and Past Performance SSAC (if used) or SSET makes a source selection recommendation Summary Chart a. AFFARS MP5315.308 covers Source Selection Decision (Documentation Requirements) 6.1 A Decision Briefing shall be conducted whenever the SSA is other than the CO and Paragraph 7.9 states that whenever the SSA is other than the CO, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file. Note: The decision briefing depicts the final assessment only. While the SSET will brief the resolution of prior deficiencies and weaknesses, the charts contain no indications of ratings assessed at the time of the competitive range determination. b. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.9 gives information about the content of the briefing. 1. Matrices displaying color ratings for mission capability technical rating subfactors and mission capability risk rating for each subfactor, past performance evaluation, Cost/Price Risk (if required) and cost/price analysis for al offerors 2. Supporting narrative in bullet form characterizing: -All strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses --Strengths, deficiencies and weaknesses which contributed to the color ratings and risk ratings are expected to include an indication of the potential benefit to, or undesirable impact upon, the government. -Confidence information --Include those positive and negative aspects which affect the performance confidence assessment -To be considered by the SSA regarding the comparison of offerors’ proposals and past performance -Cost or price evaluation including reasonableness and any realism assessment 3. Also cover the following: distinguishing aspects of the acquisition, funding issues, contracting considerations, exceptions to terms and conditions, recap of factors & relative importance, evaluation criteria for each factor/subfactor, summary of offerors’ proposed approaches, SSET’s comments for trade off analysis for the SSA/s consideration in making an integrated assessment of best value, any analyses by the SSAC, and the source selection recommendation of the SSAC if used or the SSET, and any minority opinion. c. AFFARS MP5315.308, paragraph 6.5.1 covers the requirement for a recommended source to the SSA. Rationale for the recommendation shall be based upon the evaluation criteria from RFP and shall represent the SSET’s or SSAC’s recommendation to the SSA. In the event that there is significant disagreement among the SSAC members regarding the recommendation that should be presented to the SSA, a minority opinion shall be presented providing the SSA sufficient information to fully consider the minority view.a. AFFARS MP5315.308 covers Source Selection Decision (Documentation Requirements) 6.1 A Decision Briefing shall be conducted whenever the SSA is other than the CO and Paragraph 7.9 states that whenever the SSA is other than the CO, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file. Note: The decision briefing depicts the final assessment only. While the SSET will brief the resolution of prior deficiencies and weaknesses, the charts contain no indications of ratings assessed at the time of the competitive range determination. b. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.9 gives information about the content of the briefing. 1. Matrices displaying color ratings for mission capability technical rating subfactors and mission capability risk rating for each subfactor, past performance evaluation, Cost/Price Risk (if required) and cost/price analysis for al offerors 2. Supporting narrative in bullet form characterizing: -All strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses --Strengths, deficiencies and weaknesses which contributed to the color ratings and risk ratings are expected to include an indication of the potential benefit to, or undesirable impact upon, the government. -Confidence information --Include those positive and negative aspects which affect the performance confidence assessment -To be considered by the SSA regarding the comparison of offerors’ proposals and past performance -Cost or price evaluation including reasonableness and any realism assessment 3. Also cover the following: distinguishing aspects of the acquisition, funding issues, contracting considerations, exceptions to terms and conditions, recap of factors & relative importance, evaluation criteria for each factor/subfactor, summary of offerors’ proposed approaches, SSET’s comments for trade off analysis for the SSA/s consideration in making an integrated assessment of best value, any analyses by the SSAC, and the source selection recommendation of the SSAC if used or the SSET, and any minority opinion. c. AFFARS MP5315.308, paragraph 6.5.1 covers the requirement for a recommended source to the SSA. Rationale for the recommendation shall be based upon the evaluation criteria from RFP and shall represent the SSET’s or SSAC’s recommendation to the SSA. In the event that there is significant disagreement among the SSAC members regarding the recommendation that should be presented to the SSA, a minority opinion shall be presented providing the SSA sufficient information to fully consider the minority view.

    219. 8/6/2012 219

    220. 8/6/2012 220 Required Source Selection Documentation Source Selection Plan and revisions Draft Request for Proposal Comments received and Government responses to comments Request for Proposal, any amendments including Final Proposal Revision request Proposals received including all revisions Evaluation worksheets and summaries Mission Capability Technical &Risk Subfactor Worksheets Subfactor Summaries Past Performance PCAG must document results of their assessment by listing all contracts that were relied upon, description of the relevancy of the contracts, with positive and negative aspects associated with performance under each Cost/Price Cost team must document their evaluation of each proposal Reference AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 7, AF source selection documents: 7.1. SSP and any revisions 7.2. DRFP if issued along with comments received and government responses thereto 7.3. RFP and any amendments including the Request for Final Proposal Revision. 7.4. Proposals 7.5. Evaluation worksheets and summaries. After each member of the evaluation team has completed his or her review of a proposal, the evaluation must be documented and included in the source selection file. AFFARS MP 5315.3, IG paragraph 7.5 stated the use of electronic source selection tools is helpful, especially in larger efforts. If worksheets are used, they typically include: Subfactor Worksheets and Subfactor Summaries (see AFFARS MP5315.3 for complete language and samples). Past performance evaluation—PCAG must document the results of their assessment by listing all contracts that were relied upon, with the positive and negative aspects associated with performance under each. A description of the relevancy of the contracts should also be included.Reference AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 7, AF source selection documents: 7.1. SSP and any revisions 7.2. DRFP if issued along with comments received and government responses thereto 7.3. RFP and any amendments including the Request for Final Proposal Revision. 7.4. Proposals 7.5. Evaluation worksheets and summaries. After each member of the evaluation team has completed his or her review of a proposal, the evaluation must be documented and included in the source selection file. AFFARS MP 5315.3, IG paragraph 7.5 stated the use of electronic source selection tools is helpful, especially in larger efforts. If worksheets are used, they typically include: Subfactor Worksheets and Subfactor Summaries (see AFFARS MP5315.3 for complete language and samples). Past performance evaluation—PCAG must document the results of their assessment by listing all contracts that were relied upon, with the positive and negative aspects associated with performance under each. A description of the relevancy of the contracts should also be included.

    221. 8/6/2012 221 Required Source Selection Documentation Competitive Range Determination Competitive Range Briefing Information/Charts supporting the CO’s recommendation Include any documentation approving release of ENs or entering discussions Evaluation Notices and responses Clearance Documentation in addition to the Determination to award without discussions or Final proposal revision request approval Briefing to SSA/SSAC prior to requesting FPR if required by SSA Decision Briefing Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) Simplified Source Selection Report <$10M Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Source Selection Debriefing Documentations Reference AFFARS MP5315-308, paragraph 7, AF source selection documents: 7.6. Competitive Range Determination When the SSA is other than the CO, this determination may be documented in a briefing. Briefing information/charts shall be in sufficient detail to support the CO recommendation and included in source selection file. Include any documentation with the Competitive Range Briefing regarding approval to release ENs, or enter into discussions. 7.7. Evaluation Notices, responses, and Government evaluation 7.8. Clearance Documentation Clearance documentation in addition to the determination to award without discussions or the final proposal revision request approval shall be included in the contract file. 7.9. Decision Briefing Whenever the SSA is other than the CO, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file. 7.10. Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) 7.11 Simplified Source Selection Report for source selections <$10M at discretion of SSA 7.12 Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) 7.13 Source Selection Debriefing Documents Reference AFFARS MP5315-308, paragraph 7, AF source selection documents: 7.6. Competitive Range Determination When the SSA is other than the CO, this determination may be documented in a briefing. Briefing information/charts shall be in sufficient detail to support the CO recommendation and included in source selection file. Include any documentation with the Competitive Range Briefing regarding approval to release ENs, or enter into discussions. 7.7. Evaluation Notices, responses, and Government evaluation 7.8. Clearance Documentation Clearance documentation in addition to the determination to award without discussions or the final proposal revision request approval shall be included in the contract file. 7.9. Decision Briefing Whenever the SSA is other than the CO, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file. 7.10. Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) 7.11 Simplified Source Selection Report for source selections <$10M at discretion of SSA 7.12 Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) 7.13 Source Selection Debriefing Documents

    222. 8/6/2012 222 Records Retention Maintain source selection evaluation records Once presented to SSA in any form, that evaluative material and any related supporting evaluative material becomes an official record that must be maintained and must not be altered. Can update, revise, or change that evaluation information in subsequent documentation, but the original record must remain distinct Prior to presentation to the SSA, evaluative materials are “working papers” and may be changed/modified by their author as necessary Records Retention. Everyone is responsible to ensure that appropriate documentation of the evaluation is maintained. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.2.2.3 reads as follows: “Maintain source selection evaluation records. When evaluation information developed by any member of the source selection team is presented in any form to the SSA, that evaluative material and any related supporting evaluative material becomes an official record that must be maintained and must not be altered. Updates, revisions, or changes to that evaluation information must be captured in subsequent documentation in a way that the original record remains distinct. Evaluative materials are considered working papers prior to their disclosure to the SSA. These working papers may be changed or modified by their author as necessary in order to support the evaluation process.” Records Retention. Everyone is responsible to ensure that appropriate documentation of the evaluation is maintained. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.2.2.3 reads as follows: “Maintain source selection evaluation records. When evaluation information developed by any member of the source selection team is presented in any form to the SSA, that evaluative material and any related supporting evaluative material becomes an official record that must be maintained and must not be altered. Updates, revisions, or changes to that evaluation information must be captured in subsequent documentation in a way that the original record remains distinct. Evaluative materials are considered working papers prior to their disclosure to the SSA. These working papers may be changed or modified by their author as necessary in order to support the evaluation process.”

    223. 8/6/2012 223 Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) Part I – Introduction Acquisition background including requirements description List of offerors (to include Competitive Range if appropriate) Evaluation Factors/Subfactors Part II – Description of Proposals Focus on unique characteristics of each Proposal No judgments, comparisons, Ratings Part III – Evaluation Results Results of evaluation of each Proposal against evaluation Factors/Subfactors Strengths, Weaknesses and Deficiencies Part IV – Comparative Analysis of Offerors Comparison of Proposals by Factors and Subfactors Strengths, Weaknesses and Deficiencies Assessment of Cost or Price, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Risk (if used) Adequate price competition determination Source Selection Recommendation (if applicable, any minority opinion) Part V--Contracting AFFARS MP5315.308, paragraph 6.3.1 requires Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) for all acquisitions over $100M or as required by the SSA. The PAR shall be signed by the SSAC chairperson and the SSET chairperson. Based on an IG finding, recommend the CO sign to document that the price is fair and reasonable. Paragraph 8.6 defines the PAR as a report that fully documents the results of the evaluation of each proposal and the comparative analysis of all proposals within the competitive range. The PAR includes the assessment of Cost or Price, past performance, mission capability technical and risk, and Cost/Price Risk (if applicable). The PAR includes the source selection recommendation (and if applicable, any minority opinion). 3. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.10 discusses the PAR including the organization and what should be included. See AFFARS Information Guidance IG5315.305, PAR Guide. Note to instructor: Discuss when to start preparation of PAR, how long the process make take, and additional information their SSA may require. AFFARS MP5315.308, paragraph 6.3.1 requires Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) for all acquisitions over $100M or as required by the SSA. The PAR shall be signed by the SSAC chairperson and the SSET chairperson. Based on an IG finding, recommend the CO sign to document that the price is fair and reasonable. Paragraph 8.6 defines the PAR as a report that fully documents the results of the evaluation of each proposal and the comparative analysis of all proposals within the competitive range. The PAR includes the assessment of Cost or Price, past performance, mission capability technical and risk, and Cost/Price Risk (if applicable). The PAR includes the source selection recommendation (and if applicable, any minority opinion). 3. AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.10 discusses the PAR including the organization and what should be included. See AFFARS Information Guidance IG5315.305, PAR Guide. Note to instructor: Discuss when to start preparation of PAR, how long the process make take, and additional information their SSA may require.

    224. 8/6/2012 224 Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Provides SSA’s Integrated Assessment and Best Value Decision Must track to Requirements, Evaluation Factors, Decision Briefing and PAR Compares Proposals by Factors/Subfactors Must be a stand alone document Redacted copy will be provided to debriefed offerors AFFARS MP 5315.308, paragraph 7.12, Source Selection Decision. “A Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) shall be prepared for all Air Force source selections; shall reflect the SSA’s integrated, comparative assessment and decision; and shall include the rationale for any business judgments—tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA—including benefits associated with additional costs. The SSDD shall be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; it shall clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the SSA to reach the decision.” Paragraph 7.12.1,” The SSDD is fully releasable to the Government Accountability Office and others authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information. When releasing a copy of the SSDD to offerors or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information, redacted material should be limited to that which is proprietary and that which shall continue to be protected as source selection information. The need to redact such information is not a sufficient reason to refrain from preparing a properly written SSDD.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.12 states that the SSDD must compare aspects of the most competitive offers against each other; e.g., “I have decided Contractor A’s approach to factor.XX was better than [Contractor B’s] [all other offerors’] because Contractor A proposed, discussed, resolved, identified, possesses or whatever.” Note to Instructor: Discuss time to prepare SSDD including review and signature.AFFARS MP 5315.308, paragraph 7.12, Source Selection Decision. “A Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) shall be prepared for all Air Force source selections; shall reflect the SSA’s integrated, comparative assessment and decision; and shall include the rationale for any business judgments—tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA—including benefits associated with additional costs. The SSDD shall be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; it shall clearly explain the decision and document the reasoning used by the SSA to reach the decision.” Paragraph 7.12.1,” The SSDD is fully releasable to the Government Accountability Office and others authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information. When releasing a copy of the SSDD to offerors or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information, redacted material should be limited to that which is proprietary and that which shall continue to be protected as source selection information. The need to redact such information is not a sufficient reason to refrain from preparing a properly written SSDD.” AFFARS MP5315.3, IG paragraph 7.12 states that the SSDD must compare aspects of the most competitive offers against each other; e.g., “I have decided Contractor A’s approach to factor.XX was better than [Contractor B’s] [all other offerors’] because Contractor A proposed, discussed, resolved, identified, possesses or whatever.” Note to Instructor: Discuss time to prepare SSDD including review and signature.

    225. 8/6/2012 225

    226. 8/6/2012 226 Debriefings Use same Briefing Charts used for SSA appropriately redacted Redacted SSDD to all debriefed offerors Reasonable responses to relevant questions Do Not Discuss/Present Proprietary information of competing offerors AFFARS 5315.506(d) Post-award debriefings provide offerors an explanation of why they were either excluded from the competitive range or not selected for contract award. Open and frank exchanges of information with offerors after award are necessary in order to demonstrate the fairness and integrity of the source selection process and reduce unnecessary protests. Debriefings to all successful and unsuccessful offerors shall provide sufficient information to effectively convey the basis of the SSA's integrated assessment and selection decision and to assist offerors in improving future proposals. Follow Mandatory Procedures at MP5315.5 for conducting post-award debriefings. AFFARS MP5315.5 states “Debriefing shall include ratings and narrative description provided to the SSA of the strengths, weaknesses and past performance confidence assessment of the successful offeror’s proposal, appropriately redacted (see FAR 24.2 and Air Force Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Handbook). The successful offeror and the unsuccessful offerors shall not be provided information on any other unsuccessful offeror’s proposal except for the case when there are only two offerors.” MP5315.5 also states “The SSDD, appropriately redacted, shall be provided to all debriefed offerors. SSA may also release appropriately redacted PAR to all offerors in the competitive range.” Note to instructor: Discuss timing of debriefings. AFFARS 5315.506(d) Post-award debriefings provide offerors an explanation of why they were either excluded from the competitive range or not selected for contract award. Open and frank exchanges of information with offerors after award are necessary in order to demonstrate the fairness and integrity of the source selection process and reduce unnecessary protests. Debriefings to all successful and unsuccessful offerors shall provide sufficient information to effectively convey the basis of the SSA's integrated assessment and selection decision and to assist offerors in improving future proposals. Follow Mandatory Procedures at MP5315.5 for conducting post-award debriefings. AFFARS MP5315.5 states “Debriefing shall include ratings and narrative description provided to the SSA of the strengths, weaknesses and past performance confidence assessment of the successful offeror’s proposal, appropriately redacted (see FAR 24.2 and Air Force Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Handbook). The successful offeror and the unsuccessful offerors shall not be provided information on any other unsuccessful offeror’s proposal except for the case when there are only two offerors.” MP5315.5 also states “The SSDD, appropriately redacted, shall be provided to all debriefed offerors. SSA may also release appropriately redacted PAR to all offerors in the competitive range.” Note to instructor: Discuss timing of debriefings.

    227. 8/6/2012 227

    228. 8/6/2012 228 Summary Each Source Selection is unique Source Selection is a subjective process The purpose of source selection is to provide best value products and services to the war fighter Things to be completed after debriefings: Team not released until Lessons Learned prepared and administration completed (documentation, files and excess copies). Recognition of people. Things to be completed after debriefings: Team not released until Lessons Learned prepared and administration completed (documentation, files and excess copies). Recognition of people.

    229. 8/6/2012 229 HELPFUL LINKS

    230. 8/6/2012 230 Intro To USAF Source Selection Source Selection Key Participants http://farsite.hill.af.mil/archive/AFFARS/2006-1003/5315.htm

    231. 8/6/2012 231 Early Acquisition Activities Performance Based Service Contracts www.arnet.gov/Library/OFPP/BestPractices/pbsc/home/html Requirement Documents Development https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-AQ-PK-S1-10&Filter=OO-AQ-PK-S1 Market Research Guides and Training http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/tngtool.html http://www.dsp..dla.mil/documents/sd-5.html

    232. 8/6/2012 232 Early Acquisition Activities (2) Risk Assessment https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=19366 Acquisition Plan http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/PGI%20207_1.htm#P28_426 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/archive/AFFARS/2006-1003/5307.htm Acquisition Strategy Panel https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/mi./organizations_mil/ace_mil/asp.html

    233. 8/6/2012 233 Pre-Solicitation Activities Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFAFFARA.HTM Past Performance – PCAG Guidance https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/affars/5315/informational/IG5315.305(a)(2).doc

    234. 8/6/2012 234 Evaluation Activities and Documentation Cost/Price Evaluation – Contract Price Reference http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contractpricing/chap-index.htm Proposal Analysis Report http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/IG5315.305.htm Source Selection Decision Document https://www.afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PK/pkp/polvault/guides/ssddguide_nov04.doc

More Related