Air Force Source Selection

1
Air Force Source Selection
2009 NCMA Workshop

• 11 March 2009

Integrity ? Service ? Excellence
2
Outline

• Recent Source Selection Policy Changes
• Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Changes
• Air Force Material Command FAR (AFMCFAR) Changes
• Recent Trends in GAO Protests
• GAO Statistics
• DoD Statistics
• Lessons Learned
• Other Topics affecting USAF Source Selections
• Acquisition Category (ACAT) I Programs
• Multi-Functional Independent Review Team (MIRT)
• Past Performance Alternate Methods (PPAM)
• Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
• Summary

3

• RECENT SOURCE SELECTION POLICY CHANGES

4

• AFFARS Policy Changes

5
AFFARS Policy Changes

• AFAC 2008-0128, effective 31 Mar 08, implemented
  revised AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3
  Source Selection
• All source selection plans approved on or after
  31 Mar 08 must comply with the revised procedures
• Compliance with the revised procedures is
  optional for source selection plans approved
  before 31 Mar 08
• Main Focus of the changes
• Factors and Ratings
• Definitions
• Planning
• Use of Non-Government Advisors
• Notification Requirement
• Other

6
Factors Mission Capability

• Past Two factors
• Mission Capability (MC) - assessed offerors
  capability to meet Government requirements, at
  the subfactor level if applicable
• Proposal Risk -assessed the risk of the offerors
  proposed approach, using the same subfactors as
  MC
• Present One factor with two assessments, at the
  subfactor level if applicable AFFARS MP5315.3,
  Para 4.4.1.1 and 5.5.1
• Mission Capability Technical -assesses offerors
  capability to meet the governments requirements
• Mission Capability Risk -assesses the risk of the
  offerors proposed approach
• Two ratings are presented together and have equal
  impact
• Reflects the current practice of looking at the
  risk associated with the technical approach of
  the item or service being proposed
• Additionally, incorporated the option to use plus
  ratings for additional stratification within
  the risk ratings

7
Mission Capability Technical Ratings
PRESENT
PAST
Through discussions, the government evaluators
should obtain the necessary information from
offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to
resolve outstanding issues within the offer.
Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the
time of the final evaluation.
8
Mission Capability Risk Ratings
PAST
PRESENT
A may be used when risk is in the upper
boundaries of a Mission Capabilities Risk Rating
but not enough to merit the next inferior rating
9
Factors Past Performance

• Reduced Performance Confidence ratings from six
  to five AFFARS MP5315.3, Table 3
• Combined significant and high ratings into
  Substantial rating as the most advantageous
• Removes the duplication and confusion with the
  High risk rating (less advantageous)
• Adopted a Limited rating
• Separated Unknown confidence rating from the
  other ratings
• Broadened the description to include an offeror
  with a sparse record can receive an
  unknown/neutral rating

10
Factors Past Performance

• Removed the requirement for Past Performance to
  be as important as the most important non-cost
  factor
• Teams can now determine the relative importance
  of each of the evaluation factors based on the
  specifics of their source selection

11
Past Performance Ratings
PRESENT
PAST
12
Factors Cost/Price Risk

• Elevated Cost/Price Risk to a separate factor
  (moved from within the Cost/Price evaluation
  factor)
• Only required on ACAT System Development and
  Demonstration (SDD) phase programs using a Most
  Probable Cost (Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Priced
  Incentive type contract)
• With SSA approval, it may also be used on
  non-ACAT acquisitions using Most Probable Cost
  (MPC)
• For ACAT I programs, the MPC must also include an
  Uncertainty Analysis
• Must discuss, prior to RFP release (Market
  Research, Industry Day, Draft RFP) general
  methods/tools that will be used to develop the
  MPC

13
Factors Cost/Price Risk (cont)

• The rating assesses the degree to which an
  Offerors cost proposal compares with the
  Government developed MPC
• When used, Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant
  factor
• The purpose of this risk rating is to provide
  information to the SSA that allows selection of
  an offeror who proposed a rational and realistic
  cost for the work to be accomplished

14
Cost/Price Risk Ratings
PRESENT
PAST
15
Source Selection Evaluation Matrix
PRESENT
PAST
Cost/Price Risk
Mission Capability
Mission Capability
Subfactor 1
Subfactor 3
Subfactor 2
Subfactor 1
Subfactor 2
Subfactor 3
Proposal Risk
Risk Rating
Risk Rating
Risk Rating
Technical Rating
Technical Rating
Technical Rating
Past Performance
Past Performance
Cost/Price This factor may require a risk
assessment as described in Paragraph 5.5.4.
Cost/Price
For use on cost reimbursement or fixed-price
incentive contracts where Cost/Price Risk is an
Evaluation Factor Most Probable Cost is utilized
16
Uncertainty Definition

• Added definition Uncertainty is a doubt
  regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets
  a material performance or capability requirement
  AFFARS MP5315.3, Para 8.16
• Definition is attached to the Yellow (Marginal)
  Mission Capability Technical Rating - not the
  uncertainty analysis in the ACAT I Cost/Price
  Risk
• It requires additional information from the
  offeror to further explain the proposal before
  the evaluator can complete his/her review and
  analysis and should generate the issuance of an
  Evaluation Notice

17
Deficiency Definition

• Withdraws AFFARS Deviation
• Past AFFARS 5315.001 definition of Deficiency
  was A material failure of a proposal to meet a
  Government Requirement
• Back to using FAR definition of deficiency
• A material failure of a proposal to meet a
  Government requirement or a combination of
  significant weaknesses in a proposal that
  increases the risk of unsuccessful contract
  performance to an unacceptable level
• AFFARS MP now uses the FAR definitions of
  Deficiency, Weakness, and Significant Weakness

18
Planning

• Deviations to Part 15.3 (FAR, DFAR, AFFARS, and
  MPs) can now only be approved by the Senior
  Contracting Official (Individual) and SAF/AQC
  (Class) AFFARS 5301.4 and MP5301.4
• New requirement to address the use of e-mails
  during the Source Selection process
• If used, e-mails shall be encrypted and include
  in the subject line Source Selection Information
  See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
• Now optional to include Section L with the Source
  Selection Plan (SSP)
• Personnel changes to the Source Selection
  Evaluation Team, after SSP approval can be made
  with Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET)
  Chairperson approval in an addendum to the SSP

19
Notification Requirement

• Moved the notification requirement for source
  selections gt100M from AFFARS MP5315.3 to AFFARS
  and expanded the definition to require
  notification of all competitive negotiated
  actions gt100M
• Now required for acquisitions using
• Full Trade Off
• Performance Price Tradeoff
• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
• This notification has been an item of interest
  for SAF/AQC since July 2007
• This information is provided on a regular basis
  at the SAF/HAF staff meetings.

20

• AFMCFARS Changes

21
AFMCFARS Changes

• AFMCFARS consolidated the product centers,
  logistic centers, test centers, and AFRL source
  selection authority delegations into the AFMCFARS
• Consolidated delegation table is at AFMCFARS
  5315.303
• AFMC Guides and Templates have become Air Force
  Level Guides and Templates
• Source Selection Plan
• Section L
• Section M
• Oral Presentations
• Proposal Analysis Report
• Source Selection Decision Document

22

• Recent Trends in GAO Protests

23
Task Order Protests

• The pool of actions that can be protested has
  increased
• Past federal law prohibited protest of a
  task/delivery order except for protests based on
  the grounds that the order increases the scope,
  period, or maximum value of the contract under
  which the order is issued.
• 2008 National Defense Authorization Act expands
  this exception and gives GAO jurisdiction over
  any protest of an order valued in excess of 10M
• Effective end of May 2008, and continues in
  effect for 3 years

24
GAO Bid Protest Statistics FY 04-08
Source Excerpt from GAO Report B-158766,
December 22, 2008
NOTE GAO has published a listing of significant
bid protest decisions on its website related to
evaluations, competitive range, discussions, etc.
25
DoD Protest Statistics FY 04-08GAO Sustained
Protest Filings
Note DoD Calculates sustain rate differently
from GAO
Source Information Memo from USD (ATL) January
13, 2009
26
Protest Lessons Learned

• Always, always ensure that your evaluations are
  based on your evaluation criteria in your Section
  M
• If your criteria or methods change, Amend your
  Section M and allow revised proposals
• Everyone in the Competitive Range gets to be part
  of the Discussion Process
• Meaningful discussions must be held with all
  offerors in the competitive range

27
Protest Lessons Learned (cont)

• Documentation is critical
• Evaluation worksheets, summaries, briefing
  charts, analysis report, and decision document
  must be complete and consistent
• Address minority opinions
• Ensure judgments/ratings are well documented and
  include the merit of differing approaches
• Consider Relevance of past performance efforts in
  determining the past performance confidence
  rating

28

• OTHER TOPICS

29

• Acquisition Category (ACAT I) Programs

30
ACAT I Programs

• Two recent policy changes affecting ACAT I
  programs in the Air Force
• SAF/AQC Policy Memo 08-C-08 3 Oct 2008 requires
  SAF/AQ approval of the Source Selection
  Evaluation Team Chairperson and the Contracting
  Officer for ACAT I competitive acquisitions
• SAF/AQC Policy Memo 08-C-10 3 Oct 2008 allows
  SAF/AQC, at his discretion, to assume Clearance
  Approval responsibilities for ACAT I programs
• Both these changes allow for greater oversight
  of ACAT I source selections

31
Multi-Functional Independent Review Team (MIRT)
32
MIRT

• Established by Air Force Deputy Assistant
  Secretary (Contracting) Policy Memo 08-C-15,
  November 28, 2008
• Required for all competitive actions where
  contract values are 50M or more (including task
  orders against multiple award ID/IQ)
• Intended to be part of an independent and
  objective clearance process to review and assess
  Critical Decision Points (CDPs) within the
  business and contract clearance process
• MIRT will have representation from technical,
  legal, and contracting functions

33
MIRT Critical Decision Points (CDPs)

• MIRT Mandatory CDPs
• Pre-Business Clearance CDP
• Review Draft Acquisition Strategy Brief
• Review Sections L and M of RFP
• Pre-Contract Clearance CDP
• Review of draft Competitive Range brief or Award
  without Discussions brief
• Review of draft Final Proposal Revision brief
• Review of draft Source Selection Decision brief
• MIRT Areas of Special Interest (ASI)
• MIRT may review source selection plans, model
  contracts, debriefing charts, etc

34
Past Performance Alternate Methods (PPAM)
35
PPAM Team

• Team chartered by Mr Charlie Williams (SAF/AQC)
  in September 2007
• Responsible to look at techniques that may be
  used for past performance evaluations for non
  ACAT acquisitions or less complex acquisitions
• Attempt to make past performance evaluations less
  labor intensive/complex
• Revisions to the Air Force Past Performance
  Evaluation Guide expected July 2009

36
Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
37
OCI

• FAR 2.101 Definition Organizational conflict of
  interest means that because of other activities
  or relationships
• a person is unable or potentially unable to
  render impartial assistance or advice to the
  Government, or
• the person's objectivity in performing the
  contract work is or might be otherwise impaired,
  or
• a person has an unfair competitive advantage.
• OCI issues must be addressed internally (do our
  evaluators have OCI issues) and externally (does
  the offeror have OCI issues)

38
OCI (cont)

• OCI issues becoming more and more critical as we
  use more and more AAS support in our day to day
  work
• OCI issues are valid grounds for protest
• Not just an issue in the Air Force
• GAO Report 08-169 March 2008
• Indications are that significant numbers of
  defense contractor employees work alongside DOD
  employees in the 21 DOD offices GAO reviewed. At
  15 offices, contractor employees outnumbered DOD
  employees and comprised up to 88 percent of the
  workforce. Contractor employees perform key
  tasks, including developing contract requirements
  and advising on award fees for other
  contractors.
• Address OCI Early and Often even prior to
  proposal receipt

39

• SUMMARY

40
Summary

• ALL Air Force source selections are under closer
  scrutiny right now because of recent GAO
  decisions
• CSAR-X
• Tanker Replacement
• DoD has established a Source Selection Joint
  Analysis Team (JAT) to look at standardizing the
  methodology and approach with which DoD conducts
  source selections.

41
References

• AFFARS MP5301.9001(b) MIRT
• AFFARS MP 5315.3 Source Selection December 2008
• GAO Report B-158766, December 22, 2008
• GAO Bid Protest Decision Page
• Organizational Conflict of Interest Protest
  Decisions (FAR 9.500)

42
(No Transcript)