1 / 61

Past Performance Training For Air Force Source Selections

9/29/2012. 2. OUTLINE. Training PurposeSource Selection (SS) Team and SS Overall ProcessFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS)Past Performance (PP) verses Responsibility DeterminationHow Do You Do PP Evaluation?Early ActivitiesPrior

mervin
Download Presentation

Past Performance Training For Air Force Source Selections

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. 9/29/2012 1 This is just-in-time training for you as a member of the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) responsible for doing the past performance evaluation on an Air Force source selection. This training has been updated to incorporate changes from AFAC 2008-0128, dated 28 Jan 2008.This is just-in-time training for you as a member of the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) responsible for doing the past performance evaluation on an Air Force source selection. This training has been updated to incorporate changes from AFAC 2008-0128, dated 28 Jan 2008.

    2. 9/29/2012 2 OUTLINE Training Purpose Source Selection (SS) Team and SS Overall Process Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Past Performance (PP) verses Responsibility Determination How Do You Do PP Evaluation? Early Activities Prior to Issuance of Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP)/RFP Prior to Proposal Receipt After Receipt of Proposals Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) This is the outline of the briefing for today. We will discuss the purpose of the briefing, what requires Past Performance, when evaluation of Past Performance is required, who does past performance evaluation, Past Performance verses Responsibility Determination, and how do you do past performance evaluation. Then we will have a few charts on Performance Price Tradeoff and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selections. Please feel free to ask questions as we go through the briefing. This is the outline of the briefing for today. We will discuss the purpose of the briefing, what requires Past Performance, when evaluation of Past Performance is required, who does past performance evaluation, Past Performance verses Responsibility Determination, and how do you do past performance evaluation. Then we will have a few charts on Performance Price Tradeoff and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selections. Please feel free to ask questions as we go through the briefing.

    3. 9/29/2012 3 Training Purpose Provide An Understanding of Past Performance Evaluation and the Process for Effectively Using It As An Evaluation Factor in “Best Value” Source Selections This briefing is structured for a person who has just been appointed to a Past Performance Team but has a very limited knowledge of what that task entails. Many of you have participated in Past Performance Teams already but I believe that you can gain from this training session also as well as provide assistance to others in future source selections. This briefing is structured for a person who has just been appointed to a Past Performance Team but has a very limited knowledge of what that task entails. Many of you have participated in Past Performance Teams already but I believe that you can gain from this training session also as well as provide assistance to others in future source selections.

    4. 9/29/2012 4 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.”

    5. 9/29/2012 5 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.

    6. 9/29/2012 6 Past Performance Use in Source Selection Best Value Competitive Source Selection conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 FAR Subpart 15.304(c)3(i): Past Performance shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions over $100,000 DoD Class Deviation 99-O0002 (January 29, 1999) the Thresholds are: Systems and Operations Support > $5,000,000 Services, information technology, science and technology > $1,000,000 Fuels or health care > $100,000 AFFARS Part 5315.3 “Source Selection” AFFARS Mandatory Procedure MP5315.3 “Source Selection” Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(iii), the Government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $100,000 unless otherwise documented by the Contracting Officer as to why past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor. However, for DoD pursuant to Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29,1999, the 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. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(iii), the Government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed $100,000 unless otherwise documented by the Contracting Officer as to why past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor. However, for DoD pursuant to Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29,1999, the 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.

    7. 9/29/2012 7 AF & DOD Guidance for PPI Use in Source Selection AFFARS Informational Guidance, IG5315.305(a)(2), Past Performance Evaluation Guide (PPEG), dated July 2005 DoD - “A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information”, May 2003 AFFARS 5315.305 Proposal evaluation, (2) Past performance evaluation. Informational Guidance on conducting the past performance evaluation is available in IG5315.305(a)(2). AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance paragraph 5.5.2. (ref3), states, the Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide provides step-by-step guidance on accomplishing a Past Performance evaluation. AFFARS 5315.305 Proposal evaluation, (2) Past performance evaluation. Informational Guidance on conducting the past performance evaluation is available in IG5315.305(a)(2). AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance paragraph 5.5.2. (ref3), states, the Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide provides step-by-step guidance on accomplishing a Past Performance evaluation.

    8. 9/29/2012 8 Why Evaluate Past Performance? Validates Promises Made in Proposal Integral to Best Value Source Selection Incentivizes Contractors to Strive for Excellence Rewards Good Performance Reduces Risk and Oversight The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs. (AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2) Why evaluate past performance? To aid the government’s decision process and award contracts to those companies that consistently produce and deliver quality products, on time and within cost! The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs. (AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2) Why evaluate past performance? To aid the government’s decision process and award contracts to those companies that consistently produce and deliver quality products, on time and within cost!

    9. 9/29/2012 9 Who Does PP Evaluation? Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) for source selections > $100M PP evaluations for source selections < $100M may be PCAG or individual(s) identified in source selection plan Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Full Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures ($1M to $100M) AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.2 requires a PCAG for Source Selections >$100M. Use of a PCAG for Source Selections <$100M is at the discretion of the SSA (IG4.1.3.2.). Past Performance evaluations for Source Selections <$100M may be conducted by a PCAG or by individual(s) identified in the Source Selection Plan which is approved by the SSA. The Contracting Officer and/or Technical Evaluator may be the Past Performance Team needed for a relatively small acquisition where only a limited number of proposals is expected. The team may need to be expanded for larger acquisitions where a significant number of proposals are expected. Activities listed for the PCAG in this briefing also apply to the Past Performance Team when a PCAG is not used. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.2 requires a PCAG for Source Selections >$100M. Use of a PCAG for Source Selections <$100M is at the discretion of the SSA (IG4.1.3.2.). Past Performance evaluations for Source Selections <$100M may be conducted by a PCAG or by individual(s) identified in the Source Selection Plan which is approved by the SSA. The Contracting Officer and/or Technical Evaluator may be the Past Performance Team needed for a relatively small acquisition where only a limited number of proposals is expected. The team may need to be expanded for larger acquisitions where a significant number of proposals are expected. Activities listed for the PCAG in this briefing also apply to the Past Performance Team when a PCAG is not used.

    10. 9/29/2012 10 PCAG Roles & Responsibilities PCAG is a group assigned to accomplish the Performance Confidence Assessment. Responsible for conducting the past performance evaluation through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, current and relevant performance. Assigns or recommends to the SSA a performance confidence assessment after reviewing the offeror’s demonstrated performance supplying products or services. The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel tasked with accomplishing the past performance evaluation for a source selection. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 8.5, definition of PCAG is a group of experienced government personnel assigned to accomplish the Performance Confidence Assessment. The PCAG is a part of the SSET in accordance with AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. AFFARS MP5315.3 paragraph 5.4.1 states the PCAG shall conduct the past performance assessment. Emphasis is on demonstrated performance -- Not promises!!The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel tasked with accomplishing the past performance evaluation for a source selection. AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 8.5, definition of PCAG is a group of experienced government personnel assigned to accomplish the Performance Confidence Assessment. The PCAG is a part of the SSET in accordance with AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.1.3.1. AFFARS MP5315.3 paragraph 5.4.1 states the PCAG shall conduct the past performance assessment. Emphasis is on demonstrated performance -- Not promises!!

    11. 9/29/2012 11 PCAG Roles & Responsibilities What is the Performance Confidence Assessment? Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to perform. Rating established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant. AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.2, The past performance evaluation factor assesses measures the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 5.5.2, 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. AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 4.4.1.2, The past performance evaluation factor assesses measures the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. AFFARS MP5315.304, paragraph 5.5.2, 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.

    12. 9/29/2012 12 Past Performance Versus Responsibility Determination Does the offeror have the capability to perform? Can the offeror do the work? Preaward surveys and pass/fail provide a yes/no, pass/fail or go/no-go answer PCO determines whether offeror is responsible It is important to distinguish comparative past performance evaluations used in the source selection (tradeoff) process from responsibility determinations. Responsibility Determination is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, quality assurance, and past performance. Pre-award surveys and pass/fail evaluations provide a yes/no, pass/fail, or go/no-go answer to the question, Can the offeror do the work? The answer to this question helps the PCO determine whether the offeror is responsible. It is critical that these concepts be understood because of the small business COC process inherent in the responsibility process.It is important to distinguish comparative past performance evaluations used in the source selection (tradeoff) process from responsibility determinations. Responsibility Determination is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, quality assurance, and past performance. Pre-award surveys and pass/fail evaluations provide a yes/no, pass/fail, or go/no-go answer to the question, Can the offeror do the work? The answer to this question helps the PCO determine whether the offeror is responsible. It is critical that these concepts be understood because of the small business COC process inherent in the responsibility process.

    13. 9/29/2012 13 PP Versus Responsibility Determination Identifies the degree of confidence associated with each competing offeror Will the offeror do the work successfully? Evaluation describes the degree of confidence the Government has that the offeror will succeed Based on the quality of recent, relevant performance Unlike a responsibility determination, a comparative past performance evaluation conducted during the source selection process is a very specific endeavor that seeks to identify the confidence associated with each competing offeror. The question asked in this process is will the offeror do the work successfully? The evaluation describes the degree of confidence the government has that the offeror will succeed. If properly conducted, the comparative past performance evaluation and the responsibility determination complement each other and provide a more complete picture of an offeror than either one could by itself.Unlike a responsibility determination, a comparative past performance evaluation conducted during the source selection process is a very specific endeavor that seeks to identify the confidence associated with each competing offeror. The question asked in this process is will the offeror do the work successfully? The evaluation describes the degree of confidence the government has that the offeror will succeed. If properly conducted, the comparative past performance evaluation and the responsibility determination complement each other and provide a more complete picture of an offeror than either one could by itself.

    14. 9/29/2012 14 Past Performance Activities I. Early Activities II. Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP III. Prior To Proposal Receipt IV. After Receipt of Proposals These are the past performance activities that we will discuss now.These are the past performance activities that we will discuss now.

    15. 9/29/2012 15 Early Activities – PCAG Chairperson Appointed by SSET chairperson Key participant in the acquisition planning process Early participation ensures chairperson knows requirements, understands strategy, and provides input to factors/subfactors Desired attributes Broad experience in acquisitions similar to instant acquisition APDP Level II certified Previously served on a PCAG The individual assigned as the PCAG chairperson or the past performance team lead is a key participant in the acquisition planning process. Identify this individual early in the acquisition in conjunction with the SSET chairperson and other key personnel. The individual assigned as the PCAG chairperson or the past performance team lead is a key participant in the acquisition planning process. Identify this individual early in the acquisition in conjunction with the SSET chairperson and other key personnel.

    16. 9/29/2012 16 Early Activities – PCAG Members Appointed by SSET chairperson Number of members depends on complexity of the acquisition and number of proposals expected Members should be experienced personnel, familiar with work required by the acquisition Members should include a person(s) who will have to live with the results of the source selection A technical expert may be assigned Consider a member from DCMA The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel assigned to accomplish the past performance evaluation. The SSET chairperson is responsible for appointing PCAG members (MP5315.3 paragraph 4.1.3.1). Total membership of the PCAG (including administrative support) depends on the complexity of the acquisition and the number of proposals expected. The individuals selected as members may be either military or government civilian. It is important that personnel assigned to the PCAG are familiar with the work required by the acquisition. At least one or two members should be personnel assigned to the organization that will receive the product or service being acquired; assign a person(s) that will have to live with the contract after award. Consider a technical person and a DCMA person for the PCAG. The PCAG is a team of experienced government personnel assigned to accomplish the past performance evaluation. The SSET chairperson is responsible for appointing PCAG members (MP5315.3 paragraph 4.1.3.1). Total membership of the PCAG (including administrative support) depends on the complexity of the acquisition and the number of proposals expected. The individuals selected as members may be either military or government civilian. It is important that personnel assigned to the PCAG are familiar with the work required by the acquisition. At least one or two members should be personnel assigned to the organization that will receive the product or service being acquired; assign a person(s) that will have to live with the contract after award. Consider a technical person and a DCMA person for the PCAG.

    17. 9/29/2012 17 Early Activities Begin discussing relevancy and recency Begin drafting questionnaire Discuss management processes for the source selection Handling of information in the evaluation process Data management process for tracking proposals, questionnaires, ENs, etc. Secure work area with phones, fax machine and locking file cabinets Dedicated resources and adequate administrative support Review latest past performance guidance Relevancy and recency are two key items involved in the review of offerors past performance. During the early phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should begin the process of defining what is relevant for this effort and how recent the performance should be in order to be applicable. The PCAG should begin drafting the questionnaire at this time. The past performance evaluation is directly tied to the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and the Price/Cost factor; therefore, development of the questionnaire needs to focus on the Mission Capability subfactors as well as the Price/Cost factor. The PCAG should discuss handling of information in the evaluation process and what data management process it will use to track the proposals, PPIRS, CPARS, questionnaires, evaluations, ENs, etc. The PCAG chairperson should meet with source selection experts/advisors/support teams, and their contract policy office for the latest guidance on past performance evaluations. Relevancy and recency are two key items involved in the review of offerors past performance. During the early phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should begin the process of defining what is relevant for this effort and how recent the performance should be in order to be applicable. The PCAG should begin drafting the questionnaire at this time. The past performance evaluation is directly tied to the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and the Price/Cost factor; therefore, development of the questionnaire needs to focus on the Mission Capability subfactors as well as the Price/Cost factor. The PCAG should discuss handling of information in the evaluation process and what data management process it will use to track the proposals, PPIRS, CPARS, questionnaires, evaluations, ENs, etc. The PCAG chairperson should meet with source selection experts/advisors/support teams, and their contract policy office for the latest guidance on past performance evaluations.

    18. 9/29/2012 18 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Prepare past performance portion of Sections L, M, and questionnaire Establish clear relationship between acquisition documents Requirements set forth in SOO, SOW, PWS, or TRD Factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to requirements Sec L and M should clearly state what past performance information the Government requires in the proposal and how PP will be evaluated Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should prepare the past performance portion of Section L and Section M, and draft the questionnaire prior to issuance of the DRFP. The key to successful use of past performance in the source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what past performance information the government will evaluate and the evaluation process.Based on the information obtained during the planning phase of the acquisition, the PCAG should prepare the past performance portion of Section L and Section M, and draft the questionnaire prior to issuance of the DRFP. The key to successful use of past performance in the source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the requirements documents, Section L and Section M. The factors and subfactors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the requirements documents. Make Section L and Section M clear with respect to what past performance information the government will evaluate and the evaluation process.

    19. 9/29/2012 19 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Ask offerors for information on performance, such as 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 critical sub Include PP information format as attachment to DRFP/RFP There are 12 different items identified in the guide that should be considered when developing the past performance portion of Section L and Section L attachments. Think about each one; tailor as necessary to fit the unique circumstances of your acquisition. Ask offerors for information on performance, such as a number of on-going contracts, or contracts completed not more than _____ years ago. (Whatever recency you decided for this acquisition.) State the number of efforts requested but keep the number as few as possible to give an accurate reflection of past performance. We recommend 5 to 10 contracts or other efforts from the prime and 5 from each critical subcontractor. 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. Specify whether PP information is to be at contract level or task/delivery order level. There are 12 different items identified in the guide that should be considered when developing the past performance portion of Section L and Section L attachments. Think about each one; tailor as necessary to fit the unique circumstances of your acquisition. Ask offerors for information on performance, such as a number of on-going contracts, or contracts completed not more than _____ years ago. (Whatever recency you decided for this acquisition.) State the number of efforts requested but keep the number as few as possible to give an accurate reflection of past performance. We recommend 5 to 10 contracts or other efforts from the prime and 5 from each critical subcontractor. 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. Specify whether PP information is to be at contract level or task/delivery order level.

    20. 9/29/2012 20 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance and corrective actions PP information of commercial, state and local government similar to these requirements will be evaluated PP information on subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures Government may use PP information obtained from other sources PP information is proprietary SS information therefore prime contractor must submit subcontractors consent 2. Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance of the identified effort 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 along with similar Federal contracts. 4. 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. 5. Advise offerors that government may use PP information obtained from other sources. 6. PP information is proprietary source selection information. Prime contractor must submit subcontractor’s consent for the government to disclose its PP information to prime. See AF Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Attachment 3 for a sample consent form.2. Encourage offerors to provide information on problems encountered during performance of the identified effort 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 along with similar Federal contracts. 4. 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. 5. Advise offerors that government may use PP information obtained from other sources. 6. PP information is proprietary source selection information. Prime contractor must submit subcontractor’s consent for the government to disclose its PP information to prime. See AF Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Attachment 3 for a sample consent form.

    21. 9/29/2012 21 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Identify which efforts are relevant indicators of performance for factors/subfactors Page count limitation for PP volume or referenced fact sheets Determine what to exclude from page count Prepare the draft questionnaire if offerors will send questionnaires to POCs Attach the draft questionnaire to DRFP, if planning to include a questionnaire in the RFP If offerors are to send out questionnaires, Section L should include instructions and cover letter 7. Ask the offerors to identify which efforts are relevant indicators of performance against the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and Price/Cost factor. 8. Consider limiting the pages for each referenced effort, rather than a limit to the total page count for the Past Performance volume. 9. Prepare the draft questionnaire if the offerors will mail to the POCs. Attach the questionnaire to the DRFP. 10. 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. Do not require offerors to track questionnaires.7. Ask the offerors to identify which efforts are relevant indicators of performance against the Mission Capability factor and subfactors and Price/Cost factor. 8. Consider limiting the pages for each referenced effort, rather than a limit to the total page count for the Past Performance volume. 9. Prepare the draft questionnaire if the offerors will mail to the POCs. Attach the questionnaire to the DRFP. 10. 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. Do not require offerors to track questionnaires.

    22. 9/29/2012 22 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Consider what kind of past performance information is needed to evaluate offeror’s team members including joint ventures and subcontractors Decide if past performance volume will be required earlier than proposal 11. Consider what kind of information is needed to evaluate the role of the various members when teaming or subcontracting arrangements are anticipated. When a subcontracting plan is not required, the PCAG may need to require that offerors indicate scope of work the subcontractors will perform. 12. 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. However, if past performance information is submitted after the Past Performance Volume due date but before the RFP due date, the government may still evaluate that information. Inform offerors accordingly. MP5315.3, Informational Guidance note 25.11. Consider what kind of information is needed to evaluate the role of the various members when teaming or subcontracting arrangements are anticipated. When a subcontracting plan is not required, the PCAG may need to require that offerors indicate scope of work the subcontractors will perform. 12. 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. However, if past performance information is submitted after the Past Performance Volume due date but before the RFP due date, the government may still evaluate that information. Inform offerors accordingly. MP5315.3, Informational Guidance note 25.

    23. 9/29/2012 23 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Normally the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criterion Government will assign a performance confidence assessment to the past performance factor IAW AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2 Past Performance should normally be a significant evaluation criterion (AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance paragraph 4.4.1.2). 2. 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. Past Performance should normally be a significant evaluation criterion (AFFARS MP5315.3, Informational Guidance paragraph 4.4.1.2). 2. 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.

    24. 9/29/2012 24 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)].

    25. 9/29/2012 25 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP State exactly how we will evaluate the proposals in Section M Recency length for PP 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 State exactly how we will evaluate the proposals in Section M. 4. 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 prohibits the retention of past performance information for source selection purposes longer than 3 years after completion of the contract. State exactly how we will evaluate the proposals in Section M. 4. 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 prohibits the retention of past performance information for source selection purposes longer than 3 years after completion of the contract.

    26. 9/29/2012 26 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP 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/size, program phase, division of company, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures How will the PCAG determine relevancy for individual efforts? Prime, joint ventures, subcontractors 5. 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. Acquisitions over $100M/complex acquisitions should contain definitions for varying degrees of relevancy. For Performance Price Tradeoff and simple acquisitions, 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. 6. 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/size, 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 efforts—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?5. 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. Acquisitions over $100M/complex acquisitions should contain definitions for varying degrees of relevancy. For Performance Price Tradeoff and simple acquisitions, 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. 6. 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/size, 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 efforts—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?

    27. 9/29/2012 27 Relevancy Example 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 its more complex 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 its more complex source selections. It defines relevancy for each Mission Capability subfactor and for Price factor.

    28. 9/29/2012 28 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Determine if more recent and more relevant performance will have greater impact on performance confidence assessment Define adverse past performance in Section M Adverse PPI—PPI that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. (DoD Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information, Appendix A.) Define how quality of performance will be rated PCAG may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort-by-effort basis (e.g., contract) 7. 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 rating for each relevant effort. Section M must indicate the quality ratings and definitions. The PCAG may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (e.g., 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. However, two or more non-relevant efforts or contracts cannot be aggregated to form a relevant effort. 7. 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 rating for each relevant effort. Section M must indicate the quality ratings and definitions. The PCAG may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (e.g., 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. However, two or more non-relevant efforts or contracts cannot be aggregated to form a relevant effort.

    29. 9/29/2012 29 Prior to Issuance of DRFP/RFP Early industry involvement is essential to resolve concerns Relevancy and recency definitions Questionnaire Past performance evaluation Develop timelines for PP activities in SS Establish interchange process within SSET Plan on aggressively pursuing sources of information on potential offerors CPARS, DCMA, DLA, PPIRS, Federal Procurement Data System, Dun and Bradstreet Other PCAG activities prior to release of the DRFP: Early industry involvement is essential to resolve concerns on past performance evaluation, relevancy and recency definitions and questionnaires before release of the RFP. The team’s early communications with potential offerors could consist of one-on-one meetings (must meet with all potential offerors), pre-solicitation conferences, requests for information, and draft request for proposals (DRFP). (Note to Instructor: Many PCAG teams interviewed emphasized the importance of industry involvement in this phase of the process.) Develop timelines for the PCAG activities in the source selection. 3. Establish interchange process within the PCAG team and between the SSET and PCAG. This process must be described in the Source Selection Plan (AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.3.3.5). 4. Plan on aggressively pursuing sources of information on potential offerors such as CPARS, DCMA, DLA, Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS, DD350), inspection reports, and financial reports such as Dun and Bradstreet.Other PCAG activities prior to release of the DRFP: Early industry involvement is essential to resolve concerns on past performance evaluation, relevancy and recency definitions and questionnaires before release of the RFP. The team’s early communications with potential offerors could consist of one-on-one meetings (must meet with all potential offerors), pre-solicitation conferences, requests for information, and draft request for proposals (DRFP). (Note to Instructor: Many PCAG teams interviewed emphasized the importance of industry involvement in this phase of the process.) Develop timelines for the PCAG activities in the source selection. 3. Establish interchange process within the PCAG team and between the SSET and PCAG. This process must be described in the Source Selection Plan (AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 4.3.3.5). 4. Plan on aggressively pursuing sources of information on potential offerors such as CPARS, DCMA, DLA, Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS, DD350), inspection reports, and financial reports such as Dun and Bradstreet.

    30. 9/29/2012 30 Prior To Proposal Receipt PCAG participates in activities with industry Industry day, one-on-one meetings, or pre-proposal conferences Finalize PCAG internal processes Internal team consensus process Data management process Formulate computer generated documents Determine what each PCAG member will review/work The PCAG chairperson should participate in the source selection activities with industry. The same individual should participate in all meetings. The team must answer industry’s questions on the past performance volume clearly and timely. The PCAG should prepare written answers to questions submitted by industry in the DRFP process and forward these answers to the PCO for issuance with other responses. If questions during the written or oral communications with industry reveal errors or unclear text in the DRFP, the PCAG must rewrite that language and submit the new language to the PCO. The PCAG should use this time to finalize the internal consensus process, data management process, formulate the PCAG computer generated documents, spreadsheets, and charts such as interview form, information data sheets, and ENs. The PCAG chairperson should decide how to divide the PCAG workload and the process to use in reaching team consensus on the PCAG ratings. The PCAG chairperson should participate in the source selection activities with industry. The same individual should participate in all meetings. The team must answer industry’s questions on the past performance volume clearly and timely. The PCAG should prepare written answers to questions submitted by industry in the DRFP process and forward these answers to the PCO for issuance with other responses. If questions during the written or oral communications with industry reveal errors or unclear text in the DRFP, the PCAG must rewrite that language and submit the new language to the PCO. The PCAG should use this time to finalize the internal consensus process, data management process, formulate the PCAG computer generated documents, spreadsheets, and charts such as interview form, information data sheets, and ENs. The PCAG chairperson should decide how to divide the PCAG workload and the process to use in reaching team consensus on the PCAG ratings.

    31. 9/29/2012 31 Prior To Proposal Receipt 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 the quality of performance DoD Guide to Collection and Use of PPI, Appendix G, states that “the evaluation group should use PPIRS as the starting point. The group also may gather supplemental information using various databases, questionnaires, surveys, and telephonic inquiries.” 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 efforts such as 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. 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.DoD Guide to Collection and Use of PPI, Appendix G, states that “the evaluation group should use PPIRS as the starting point. The group also may gather supplemental information using various databases, questionnaires, surveys, and telephonic inquiries.” 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 efforts such as 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. 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.

    32. 9/29/2012 32 Prior To Proposal Receipt DoD Assessment Rating System in Appendix F of DoD Guide Exceptional (Dark Blue). Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. Very Good (Purple). Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. Satisfactory (Green). Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. Marginal (Yellow). Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Unsatisfactory (Red). Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. The above rating system is in Appendix F: Common DoD Assessment Rating System, A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information. Other rating systems can be used for your questionnaire. Just be sure to include a rating system in the questionnaire.The above rating system is in Appendix F: Common DoD Assessment Rating System, A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information. Other rating systems can be used for your questionnaire. Just be sure to include a rating system in the questionnaire.

    33. 9/29/2012 33 After Receipt of Proposals Reread entire RFP, especially Sections L and M Read Executive Summary and PP Volume Prepare list of offerors PCAG Chair should have meeting with SSET Chair The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to reread the entire solicitation, paying particular attention to Sections L and M. Next the PCAG members should read the Executive Summary, if requested, for each proposal. 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 codes, and full addresses. PCAG Chairperson will use this list for information and tracking purposes and to advise the SSET Chairperson of the offerors. Within a few days after receipt of the past performance volume, the PCAG chairperson may hold the first interchange meeting (quick look) with the SSET chairperson. Smaller source selection teams may not need a quick look meeting. The first action of the PCAG members after receipt of proposals is to reread the entire solicitation, paying particular attention to Sections L and M. Next the PCAG members should read the Executive Summary, if requested, for each proposal. 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 codes, and full addresses. PCAG Chairperson will use this list for information and tracking purposes and to advise the SSET Chairperson of the offerors. Within a few days after receipt of the past performance volume, the PCAG chairperson may hold the first interchange meeting (quick look) with the SSET chairperson. Smaller source selection teams may not need a quick look meeting.

    34. 9/29/2012 34 After Receipt of Proposals Step 1 Conduct recency and relevancy screening by validating recency and determining relevancy of each effort Step 2 Search for additional relevant efforts 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 efforts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its relevance and recency to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this relevancy and recency 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 efforts that are clearly not relevant from further consideration. Other source selection members and advisors will provide assistance in determining relevancy. Step Two – In addition to the efforts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant efforts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the efforts 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 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 effort. 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. (See attachment for conducting telephone interviews.) Step One – The first step in the past performance evaluation is for the PCAG to screen the efforts presented by the offerors to make an initial determination of its relevance and recency to the instant acquisition. The PCAG must conduct this relevancy and recency 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 efforts that are clearly not relevant from further consideration. Other source selection members and advisors will provide assistance in determining relevancy. Step Two – In addition to the efforts provided by the offeror, the PCAG must aggressively research other sources for other relevant efforts. We highly recommend that you do not rely solely on the efforts 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 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 effort. 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. (See attachment for conducting telephone interviews.)

    35. 9/29/2012 35 After Receipt of Proposals Step 5 Rate quality of performance for each offeror and critical subcontractors and team partners Rate performance on each relevant effort Evaluate poor performance if necessary Consolidate data for each offeror Identify observations for past performance factor Step 6 Conduct site visits if beneficial to evaluation Step Five – Rate quality of Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror’s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Effort. Accomplish an analysis of each effort against Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Rate the offeror’s performance on each relevant effort 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 effort 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 analysis showing the total relevant 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. Reference Attachment 9 from AF Past Performance Guide for further information on planning and conducting a site visit. Step Five – Rate quality of Performance for Each Offeror and Each Offeror’s Critical Subcontractors/Team partners a. Rate Performance on Each Relevant Effort. Accomplish an analysis of each effort against Mission Capability factor or subfactors and Price/Cost factor. Rate the offeror’s performance on each relevant effort 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 effort 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 analysis showing the total relevant 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. Reference Attachment 9 from AF Past Performance Guide for further information on planning and conducting a site visit.

    36. 9/29/2012 36 After Receipt of Proposals Step 7 Perform an assessment of performance confidence at factor or subfactor as stated in Section 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 assessments and 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. The confidence assessment rating is established through an integrated analysis of those positive and negative performance indicators identified at the subfactor level as determined by the offeror’s recent, current and relevant performance. This integrated performance confidence assessment is the rating for the Past Performance factor. 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 effort 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 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 evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind (positive and negative performance indicators) 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. The confidence assessment rating is established through an integrated analysis of those positive and negative performance indicators identified at the subfactor level as determined by the offeror’s recent, current and relevant performance. This integrated performance confidence assessment is the rating for the Past Performance factor. 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 effort 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 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 evidence that leads to confidence or plants doubt in your mind (positive and negative performance indicators) also. Make revisions as justified and document reasons for changes.

    37. 9/29/2012 37 After Receipt of Proposals 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. 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 and 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. 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 and 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.

    38. 9/29/2012 38 Summary of Ratings: ABC Company Inc. This is an example of data presented on a source selection. This is an example of data presented on a source selection.

    39. 9/29/2012 39 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 date 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 date was collected, narrative observations they wanted to brief to the SSA/SSAC and a performance confidence assessment assigned this offeror.

    40. 9/29/2012 40 After Receipt of Proposals Read/review proposals, questionnaires and all PCAG member assessments to provide an integrated assessment Remember 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 SSAC and SSA 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. Ensure that the PCAG understands that 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 or SSAC briefing. Brief, or support, discussions with the offerors and de-briefings. 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 the PCAG’s rating. 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. Ensure that the PCAG understands that 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 or SSAC briefing. Brief, or support, discussions with the offerors and de-briefings. 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 the PCAG’s rating. g. Continue to participate in interchange meetings with SSET Chairperson and other team leaders.

    41. 9/29/2012 41 After Receipt of Proposals Clarifications are limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated Past Performance issues on adverse past performance and past performance information relevance may be Clarification ENs Communications are exchanges leading to establishment of competitive range Discussions are negotiations conducted after the competitive range Offeror is allowed to revise proposal ENs are used for these exchanges 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 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) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain. The purpose of communications is to enhance the government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the government evaluation process. Proposals can not be revised. 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. ENs are exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions. 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 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) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain. The purpose of communications is to enhance the government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the government evaluation process. Proposals can not be revised. 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. ENs are exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

    42. 9/29/2012 42 After Receipt of Proposal Revisions PCAG must analyze any change to proposal addressing past performance and reassess positive and negative performance indicators for each offeror PCAG drafts its portion of the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) PCAG prepares charts for the final decision briefing PCAG members may participate in the de-briefings If the FPR addresses past performance, the PCAG must analyze changes made to the proposal and reassess observations for the offeror. Discuss any change in the ratings with the SSET chairperson. The PCAG drafts its portion of the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) and prepares charts for the final decision briefing. The PCAG’s portion of the PAR should be detailed in describing the methodology as well as the results. The PCAG Chairperson should participate in the de-briefings and prepare lessons learned. The PCAG chairperson should meet with the appropriate person (SSEA, ACE) to provide feedback on lessons learned during the source selection.If the FPR addresses past performance, the PCAG must analyze changes made to the proposal and reassess observations for the offeror. Discuss any change in the ratings with the SSET chairperson. The PCAG drafts its portion of the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) and prepares charts for the final decision briefing. The PCAG’s portion of the PAR should be detailed in describing the methodology as well as the results. The PCAG Chairperson should participate in the de-briefings and prepare lessons learned. The PCAG chairperson should meet with the appropriate person (SSEA, ACE) to provide feedback on lessons learned during the source selection.

    43. 9/29/2012 43 Conclusion Past performance is important in source selections RFP Sections L and M must clearly state requirements for proposals and how evaluation will be conducted Past performance team must strive for more performance data than submitted by offerors in doing past performance evaluation PP evaluation must be done IAW Section M Past Performance is critical in the source selection process. Past Performance is an integrated part of the source selection with Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, and Cost/Price. The Past Performance process in a large number of acquisitions is the first part of the source selection to start because the Past Performance Volumes are required earlier than the total proposals; therefore, earlier planning is essential. There are many sources available for Past Performance Teams to use for past performance information and it is absolutely essential that sources other than the offerors proposal be used! Offerors are prone to provide information only on those contracts for which performance would be considered exemplary. Appendix B of the Guide provides a list of Automated Past Performance Information Systems. Past Performance is critical in the source selection process. Past Performance is an integrated part of the source selection with Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, and Cost/Price. The Past Performance process in a large number of acquisitions is the first part of the source selection to start because the Past Performance Volumes are required earlier than the total proposals; therefore, earlier planning is essential. There are many sources available for Past Performance Teams to use for past performance information and it is absolutely essential that sources other than the offerors proposal be used! Offerors are prone to provide information only on those contracts for which performance would be considered exemplary. Appendix B of the Guide provides a list of Automated Past Performance Information Systems.

    44. 9/29/2012 44 Questions or Feedback? Questions? Feedback? Please complete the Feedback Sheet before you leave. The training modules will be reviewed/updated periodically based on your inputs

    45. 9/29/2012 45 BACKUP CHARTS

    46. 9/29/2012 46 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT GROUP (PCAG) Initial Past Performance Briefing Mr xxx PCAG Chairman DATE

    47. 9/29/2012 47 Performance Rating Process Chart shows the steps we went through to do the performance confidence assessment for the Past Performance Factor.Chart shows the steps we went through to do the performance confidence assessment for the Past Performance Factor.

    48. 9/29/2012 48 Offerors send in contracts they thought showed they could perform the requirements on the proposal. The PCAG started with the Requirements outlined in sections L & M of the SOW and developed a conservative set of guidelines to be used in determining Relevancy on each sub-factor. Each sub-factor was rated independently by no less than 3 team members, using the aforementioned guide lines. After all xxx subfactors were rated, the team sat down and performed a consensus on each one. We started verifying information and checking with the POC’s on each contract to cover any missing areas. We then used the Past Performance Questionnaires, telephone interviews, faxes, e-mails, CPAR Data, and DCAA information to develop ratings in performance (quality) on each subfactor. After all 195 subfactors were rated, the team again sat down and performed a consensus on each one. We then pulled observations from the PP data obtained. The observations from the past performance investigation, relevancy, and performance (quality) from the contracts were combined and used to generate a performance confidence assessment by offeror. (This was the process used by one team with edits to make it a teaching tool.) Note: The contract must meet the definition of recency in the RFP before being evaluated for relevancy.Offerors send in contracts they thought showed they could perform the requirements on the proposal. The PCAG started with the Requirements outlined in sections L & M of the SOW and developed a conservative set of guidelines to be used in determining Relevancy on each sub-factor. Each sub-factor was rated independently by no less than 3 team members, using the aforementioned guide lines. After all xxx subfactors were rated, the team sat down and performed a consensus on each one. We started verifying information and checking with the POC’s on each contract to cover any missing areas. We then used the Past Performance Questionnaires, telephone interviews, faxes, e-mails, CPAR Data, and DCAA information to develop ratings in performance (quality) on each subfactor. After all 195 subfactors were rated, the team again sat down and performed a consensus on each one. We then pulled observations from the PP data obtained. The observations from the past performance investigation, relevancy, and performance (quality) from the contracts were combined and used to generate a performance confidence assessment by offeror. (This was the process used by one team with edits to make it a teaching tool.) Note: The contract must meet the definition of recency in the RFP before being evaluated for relevancy.

    49. 9/29/2012 49 Sources of Data Past Performance Volumes Questionnaires Telephone Interviews CPARs via the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Site Visits Federal Procurement Data System (DD350 Database) Central Contractor Registration Program Dunn and Bradstreet What were your sources for the past performance data?What were your sources for the past performance data?

    50. Need to include a chart stating what data was obtained such as the above chart.Need to include a chart stating what data was obtained such as the above chart.

    55. 9/29/2012 55

    56. The terms strong and weak points were used on this briefing. Notice that we are using the term “Observation” in the training briefing.The terms strong and weak points were used on this briefing. Notice that we are using the term “Observation” in the training briefing.

    57. 9/29/2012 57 Offeror XX PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

    58. 9/29/2012 58 Attachment Conducting Telephone Interviews from DoD “A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information”, Appendix G: Collection of PPI During Source Selection

    59. 9/29/2012 59 Conducting Telephone Interviews Following the screening of previous contracts for further in-depth review, the evaluation group should send questionnaires and/or initiate telephone calls to the identified references for those efforts. The interviewing and reporting of results are usually individual efforts conducted by each evaluation group member. However, it is sometimes helpful to collect information as a group through the use of conference calls. At least two references should be contacted on each previous contract effort selected for in-depth review. The current or previous Contracting Officer, Program Manager, and Contracting Officer's Representative—whoever has the most relevant experience on the contract—often proves to be an excellent source of information. Additional references are often identified during the interviews. Maximum effectiveness occurs when the expertise of the evaluation group interviewer matches that of the reference. Prior to initiating a telephone interview, a group member should gather all avail specific effort and draft a list of questions. There may be a common group of questions for all offerors and/or tailored questions for each offeror, depending upon the circumstances. These questions can either be sent as questionnaires to each reference or be used by the group member during the telephone interview.

    60. 9/29/2012 60 Conducting Telephone Interviews At the start of each telephone interview, the group member should explain the purpose of the call and request voluntary assistance from the reference. The interviewer should explain that he or she will document the results of the conversation and send a copy of the memorandum to the reference for verification. There is usually no need to divulge the solicitation number, program description, or other identifying information to the reference. If it is necessary to do so, a nondisclosure statement must be obtained. In most instances the reference will willingly provide the information requested. In those rare cases when the reference is reluctant to participate, the interviewer should assure the reference of anonymity. At the least, the reference should be requested to provide additional references. It is important to pursue and document the underlying facts supporting any concluding statements received on a contractor. The evaluation group member can determine neither the magnitude of a reported problem nor its possible impact on the current risk assessment without first understanding the details surrounding the problem.

    61. 9/29/2012 61 Conducting Telephone Interviews Documenting Telephone Interviews Immediately following a telephone interview, the interviewer must prepare a narrative summary of the conversation and send it to the reference for verification. E-mail and datafax transmissions are encouraged. The following step is extremely important. Extra care must be taken to ensure accuracy, clarity, and legibility because these summaries often represent the only written back-up supporting the opinions and conclusions of the final evaluation report. In order to maintain accurate records and facilitate verification, the telephone record form should include the reference's name, full mailing and electronic addresses, telephone number, the date and time of the call, and the description of the contract effort discussed. The evaluation group member should send the telephone memorandum to the reference, stating explicitly that if the reference does not object to its content within the time specified, it will be accepted as correct. The amount of time allowed for a response depends on the circumstances of each acquisition. Note that the reference need not sign a nondisclosure form if the group member withholds the identity of the program and solicitation number. If the reference indicates that the narrative is incorrect, then a corrected narrative must be sent for verification. Experience indicates that in most instances, changes are minor. If, however, a reference expresses opposition to a record and satisfactory corrections cannot be agreed upon, the evaluation group should not rely on that record.

More Related