Jun 2014

1
SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING (ACQUISITION
PLANNING) ltacquisition titlegt

ltTrainers namegt ltTrainers Organizationgt

2
Introductions

• Facilities Orientation
• Ground Rules
• Start/Stop Times
• Blackberrys/PDAs turned off
• Encourage Interaction

3
Overview

• Market Research
• Acquisition Planning
• 4 Ws
• Requirements Documents
• Risk Assessment
• Acquisition Considerations
• Contract Type Selection
• Performance-Based Acquisition
• Source Selection Planning
• SS Plan and Content

• SS Evaluation Approaches
• Tradeoff
• LPTA
• Evaluation Criteria
• SS Technique
• Team Members RR
• SS Tools
• Pre-Solicitation RFP release
• Governance/Oversight and Clearance
• MIRT and PEER Reviews
• Ethics
• Summary

4
Objectives

• Ensure Market Research is conducted throughout
  acquisition process
• Recognize importance of Acquisition Planning for
  a successful Source Selection
• Understand Key Elements of Source Selection
  Process
• Know consequences of behaviors and actions as
  they relate to Ethics and Procurement Integrity

5
Objectives (cont.)

• Prepare team to successfully develop and support
  Acquisition Strategy/Plan and Source Selection
  Plan
• Recognize how Contracting Process relates to
  Acquisition Strategy and Planning Process

Output Evaluation criteria for inclusion in
Source Selection Plan and RFP Section M (or
equivalent commercial provision)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Source Selection Process Pre-RFP Release
8
MARKET RESEARCH
Market Research Training Module Useful Market
Research Sources GAO/COFC Protest Decisions
Lack of Competition and Market Research
9
Engaging with Industry Article from The Source
10
Why Conduct Market Research?

• Identify commercial sources for govt
  requirements
• Obtain business intelligence for informed
  decisions impacting
• Acquisition Strategy Planning
• Source Selection Planning
• Contract Type Selection
• Reduce business risks
• Identify opportunities, industry trends,
  technological developments

Improves Chances for Success
11
Benefits of Market Research

• Identifies
• Sellers Buyers
• Our leverage in the market
• Industry trends
• Technology changes/advancements
• New commercial items
• Business/financial arrangements
• Factors influencing doing business with Government

12
Benefits of Market Research (cont.)

• Reveals key information about sources
• Capability
• Technological improvements
• Alliances and joint ventures (relationships and
  type of agreements with their suppliers)
• Business/contract type preferences (cost type,
  fixed price, etc.)
• Financial strength and growth potential
• Contractor incentives

13
Market Research Activities

• Activities include
• Industry Days
• Requests for Information
• Survey of market-sector - Sources Sought Synopsis
• Internet Search of commercial marketplace
• Networking with trade associations in specific
  market sectors
• One-on-one meetings with potential offerors
• Draft Request For Proposals

14
Market Research Toolkit

• Synopsis
• Internet Search
• Virtual Networks
• Report Template
• Market Research Report Database
• Market Research Product/Service
• Training and References
• GSA Schedules, Yellow Pages, Catalogs, etc.

15
Document Your Actions

• If you have not documented it - you have not
  done it!
• Determine your documentation methodology during
  the planning phase
• Document contemporaneously after the fact
  documentation is seldom accurate
• GAO and COFC place great emphasis on
  documentation at all phases of acquisition
  including

GAO/COFC Decision Summaries Importance of
Documentation in Source Selections
16
ACQUISITION PLANNING
17
Acquisition Planning 4 Ws

• Who
• Acquisition team, led by program / requirements
  manager
• What
• Acquisition of commercial items or
  non-developmental items
• Full and Open Competition
• Formalize Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP)
• Why
• Satisfy government needs in most effective,
  efficient, economical, and timely manner
• When
• As soon as requirement is identified

18
Contents of Acquisition Plans
19
Acquisition Planning Key Activities
Statement of Need - Requirements Documents
Tradeoffs
Risks
Source Selection Procedures Planning
Acquisition Considerations
20
Requirements Documents
21
Statement of Objectives (SOO)
Capability Production Document (CPD)
Statement of Work (SOW)
Capability Development Document (CDD)
Performance Work Statement (PWS)
Specifications
Requirements Documents Describe Agency Needs
Work Specification (WS)
Technical Requirements Document (TRD)
Purchase Descriptions
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)
Systems Requirements Document (SRD)
22
Requirements Documents Typical Content

• Descriptions, specifications, and criteria that
  define minimum needs of agency for supplies or
  services
• Requirements may be expressed as
• Minimum value or level of performance (threshold
  performance requirement)
• Desired goal (objective performance requirement)

23
Requirements Documents Commonalities

• Based on Market Research, describe Government
  needs in terms of
• Functions to be performed
• Performance level required
• Essential physical characteristics
• These documents are basis for
• Risk assessment
• Development of evaluation criteria
• Preparation of solicitation and proposal
• Contract type selection, formation and execution

24
Requirements Documents Connecting the Links

• Basis for Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
• Establish connection from Requirement Document to
  IGE, Schedule, Prices/Costs, Evaluation Criteria,
  Proposal Preparation Instructions

25
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Briefing
26
Purpose of Risk Assessment

• Identifies
• High-risk areas for both Government and
  contractors
• Impact and probability
• Discriminators for Source Selections
• Incentive areas
• Foundation for evaluation criteria

27
Risk Management Process
28
Conducting Risk Assessment

• Link risks to requirements clearly
• If high risk, ensure
• RFP requires offerors to address risk and provide
  mitigation strategies in proposal
• Evaluation criteria includes evaluation of risks
  and mitigation strategies
• Oversight of mitigation strategies in post
  award/incentives
• Obtain Industry input on Risk Assessment

29

Acquisition Considerations
Contract Type Selection
30
Spectrum - Contract Type and Risk
Cost Risk
Requirements Definition
Acquisition Phase
LOW
HIGH
WELL DEFINED
POORLY DEFINED
RESEARCH
SUSTAINMENT
Contract Type CR CPFF CPIF or FPIF CPIF, FPIF, or FFP FFP, FPIF, or FPEPA FFP, FPIF, or FPEPA
31
Selecting the Right Contract Type

• Consider what Market Research indicates
• Understand your potential offerors
• Technical capability
• Financial responsibility
• Adequacy of accounting/business systems
• Extent and nature of anticipated subcontracting
• Discuss your Program
• Type, complexity, urgency
• Acquisition history competitive/sole source
• Period of performance/length of production run

32
Selecting Right Contract Type (cont.)

• Consider political and fiscal environment in
  which you operate
• May effect current program requirements,
  acquisition plan/strategy and overall business
  deal
• Be aware of key stakeholders and possible
  impact(s)
• SECDEF, ATL, DPAP, AQ, PEO, CC, PM, etc.
• Be cognizant of leaderships current guidance
  preferences
• Policy info memos/guidance issued by Agency or
  DoD

33

Acquisition Considerations (cont.)
Performance-Based Acquisitions
34
Performance-Based Acquisitions
DoD Directive 5000.01, para E.1.1.16 Performance-B
ased Acquisition

• Use performance-based strategies contractual
  language to
• Maximize competition, innovation,
  interoperability
• Enable flexibility
• Reduce cost
• Improve life-cycle support
• Task contractor in clear and concise language

Resource Performance Based Payments Guide
Book and Analysis Tool
35
Performance-Based Services Acquisition

• All service acquisitions gt Simplified Acquisition
  Threshold (few exceptions) should be
  performance-based
• Include identifiable and measurable cost,
  schedule, and performance outcomes
• Consider customer requirements (ensure
  consistency)
• Ensure adequate planning and management to
  achieve desired outcome
• Performance Work Statement (PWS)
• Conveys what we want -- not how to do it!
• Cite required directives and standards by
  specific process/procedure ( paragraph or chapter
  vs. wholesale inclusion of AFI)

36
Source Selection Planning
37
Source Selection Plan (SSP)

• Required for all best-value, negotiated
  competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15
  (exceeding SAT - 150K)
• Name all individuals involved in source
  selection, and clearly define their roles in SSP
• Ensure SSP is approved by SSA prior to
  solicitation release
• Cover all required areas/topics

38
Source Selection Plan Contents

• As a minimum include
• Background and Objectives
• Acquisition Strategy
• Source Selection Team (names and roles)
• Communications
• Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
• Documentation
• Schedule of Events
• Non-governmental personnel (by name)
• Source Selection materials management

39
SS Evaluation Approaches

• Tradeoff
• and
• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
• GAO COFC Summaries on Best Value Tradeoff
  Decision

40
Tradeoff

• Tradeoff is normally used for more complex
  acquisitions
• Evaluation process requires more in-depth review
  of proposals than LPTA
• Level of detail depends on
• Complexity of acquisition
• Degree of competition
• Contract type

41
Tradeoff (cont.)

• Used when in best interest of Govt to Award to
• Other than lowest-priced proposal
• Other than highest technically rated proposal
• Process is more flexible - permits
• Tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost factors
• Best combination of technically superior, low
  risk proposals that also have a history of
  favorable past performance
• Best value decision is based on comparative
  assessment of proposals

42
Tradeoff Considerations

• What are expected consequences of tradeoffs among
  following elements?
• Cost/Price
• Capability
• Performance and Schedule
• Does your Requirements Document reflect users
  expectations?

43
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

• LPTA process is used when
• Best Value is expected from lowest-priced,
  technically acceptable proposal
• Procuring commercial, non-complex supplies or
  services
• Requirements are firm, clear and definitive
• No benefit is expected from proposals exceeding
  minimum technical or performance requirements
• Excellent Article on LPTA

44
LPTA (cont.)

• When using LPTA
• Evaluate proposals against minimum technical
  requirements (Acceptable/Unacceptable)
• Past Performance may be an evaluation factor
  (Acceptable/Unacceptable)
• Tradeoffs are not permitted
• Proposals cannot be ranked on non-cost/price
  factors
• Exchanges may occur
• Comparative Analysis is not required

45
LPTA (cont.)

• Technical
• Critical to define what constitutes Acceptable
• Clearly state minimum requirements
• Past Performance
• May be waived by PCO
• If evaluated, Unknown rating is considered
  acceptable
• Acceptable rating required in all non-price
  factors/subfactors

46
Evaluation Criteria Factors Subfactors

• Methodical process incorporates knowledge from
• Market Research
• Acquisition planning activities
• Evaluation factors
• Must be critical areas of importance and emphasis
  
• Identify key discriminators
• Provide meaningful comparison and discrimination
  between competing proposals
• Factors must address
• Price/Cost
• Quality of Product or Service
• Non-cost factors

47
Developing Evaluation Criteria Factors
Subfactors

• BRAINSTORM ideas to develop your evaluation
  criteria
• Assumptions
• Knowledge of market and requirements
• Potential offerors
• Discuss
• KEY discriminators
• Your confidence in offerors ability to meet
  requirement
• Uniqueness or clarity of specifications
• Identify high or moderate risks
• Small Business Participation

48
Determining Source Selection Approach/Technique

• Determine factor rating methodology and relative
  importance based on brainstorming
• Factor Cost/Price
• Factor Past Performance (unless PCO waives)
• Acceptable/Unacceptable
• Performance Confidence Assessment
• Factor Technical
• Subfactors
• Acceptable/Unacceptable (no tradeoff)
• Combined technical/risk or separate ratings
  (range of colors/adjectival ratings)
• Combination (can vary by subfactor)

49
Source Selection Team
50
Source Selection Team Example
51
SSA Roles and Responsibilities
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF
SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS
- Approves Source Selection Plan
- Appoints SSEB and SSAC Chairs
- Appoints and approves PCO, if ACAT I
- Establishes realistic schedule
- Limits Senior Leader Roles (major acquisitions)
- Ensures all SST members properly trained and experienced
- Responsible for execution of Non-disclosure agreements and COI statements
- Determines whether to award with or without discussions
- Selects the Best Value source
- Documents the SS decision
52
PCO Roles and Responsibilities
PRIMARY BUSINESS ADVISOR AND PRINCIPAL GUIDANCE
SOURCE FOR ENTIRE SOURCE SELECTION
- Establishes plan/procedures to protect Source Selection information, and manages SS documents
- Releases the RFP
- Single point of control for all Source Selection information
- Obtains all required approvals for Non-government advisors
- Ensures SSEB evaluation is consistent with RFP
- Controls exchanges with offerors
- Establishes competitive range after SSA approval
- Awards Contract
- Submits SS participants worksheet to SAF/AQC
53
SSAC Roles and Responsibilities
PROVIDES FUNCTIONAL EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT TO SSA
- Oversees SSEB
- Reviews SSEB evaluation results to ensure consistency with RFP
- Provides written comparative analysis recommendation to SSA
54
SSEB Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities
MANAGES EVALUATION TEAM
- Appoints SSEB members
- Establishes functional evaluation teams
- Ensures SSEB members know HOW to evaluate proposals BEFORE they review
- Staffs Source Selection Team with proper skill and experience
- Schedules adequate time to successfully complete Source Selection
- Ensures adequate resources are available
- Provides consolidated results
- Documents SSEB evaluation results (PAR, briefing slides, etc)
- Does not perform comparative analysis of proposals or make Source Selection recommendation unless requested by SSA
- Supports post Source Selection activities
55
SSEB Evaluators - Roles and Responsibilities

• NORMALLY ORGANIZED INTO FUNCTIONAL AREAS

- Source Selection responsibilities take priority over other work i.e. primary duty responsibility
- Conduct comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against solicitation evaluation criteria
- Document contemporaneously evaluation results
- Support post-award activities
56
Advisors Roles and Responsibilities
TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF ADVISORS GOVERNMENT AND
NON-GOVERNMENT
Government advisors
- Assist SSA if no SSAC used
- Assist the SSEB as subject matter experts
Non-Government advisors
- Used on a limited basis only advisory
- Must be approved in writing (except FFRDC, FAR 37.203/37.204)
- Sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), COI statement, AND provide documentation regarding stocks owned
- May not rate or rank any offerors proposal
- May not see or evaluate past performance information
57
Source Selection Tools
58
EZ Source Tool

• Mandatory Use for Competitive Acquisitions
• Value 50M or greater
• Hi-Vis Programs
• Consolidation of individual contracts
• Re-competition as a result of sustained protest
  (corrective action)
• Political sensitivity
• PEO or CC deems high-risk program regardless of
  value or ACAT level
• EZ Source Deployment - two spirals over 18 months
  (Jun 2013 - Oct 2014)
• Spiral I locations meeting mandatory criteria use
  EZ Source if solicitation is issued on/after
  locations effective date
• Spiral II - all remaining locations
• Policy Memo 13-C-02

59
Source Selection Tools POCs

• EZ Source tool (AFMC)
• POC Kerry Estes, DSN 785-5471,
  kerry.estes_at_wpafb.af.mil
• EZ Source Templates
• Electronic Source Selection (ESS) tool (SMC)
• POC Mr. Ted Nguyen, DSN 633-5072,
  ted.nguyen_at_losangeles.af.mil
• Decision Point
• See www.acqcenter.com for more information
• Fed Select
• See www.caci.com
• POC Steve Ford, [phone] ext 1031,
  sford_at_caci.com

60
Pre-Solicitation and RFP Release Activities
61
(No Transcript)
62
Developing Sections L M

• Section L - Proposal Instructions to Offerors
• Section M - Evaluation Factors and Criteria
• Must be developed by entire team!
• All stakeholders must be involved
• L M are tailored to each source selection
• Consider program risks
• Leverage L M templates and language when
  appropriate
• Link L M and requirements
• Cross Reference Matrix helps
  

63
Cross Reference MatrixSample 1
64
Cross Reference MatrixSample 2
 Cross Reference  PWS Para RFP Section LM  CLIN  CDRL Proposal (Vol Para)
Transition Phase-in   SF1 0001 A00F  
Element 1a GFE Usage Plan 1.2.2 L 4.1a M 2.2.1a 0001 N/A  
Element 1b Repair Process Demonstrations 1.2.1 L 4.1b M 2.2.1b 0001 N/A  
Element 1c Hire/Retain Qualified Personnel 1.2.3 L 4.1c M 2.2.1c 0001 N/A  
Element 1d Facilities Plan 1.2.4 L 4.1d M 2.2.1d 0001 N/A  
Element 1e Data Reporting 1.11 L 4.1e M 2.2.1e 0003 A00A-A0AD  
Supply Chain / Material Management   SF2 Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices A00C-A00E, A00G-H, A00N  
Element 2a Parts Forecasting and documentation of approved sources 1.9, 1.5.4 L 4.2a M 2.2.2a Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices N/A  
Element 2b Material Storage, Packaging / Transportation 1.3, 1.8, and 1.9 L 4.2b M 2.2.2b Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices A00D, A00E, A00G, A00H  
Program Management   SF3 Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices A00C, A00E, A00R  
Element 3a Schedule / Produce Requirements, Surge Responsiveness, and OA 1.4.1.a, 1.15, and 1.16 L 4.3a M 2.2.3a Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices, 0005 A00C, A00E  
Element 3b Transition Phase-Out 1.17 L 4.3b M 2.2.3b 0002 N/A  
Element 3c Small Business Requirements PWS N/A Clause H002 L 4.3c M 2.2.3c Imbedded in overhaul / repair prices A00R  
65
Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP)

• Highly recommended for ALL acquisitions
• Must be consistent with acquisition strategy and
  SSP
• Specific content determined by PCO consider
• Detailed description of Governments
  requirements, e.g. Requirements Document, PWS,
  SOO, etc.
• Price/Cost Schedule
• Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Contents e.g.
  Sections LM
• Benefits - Input from Industry on
• Realism and clarity of government requirements
• Contract type contemplated
• Schedule realism
• Note Maintain record of comments and adjudication

66
Review Draft RFP Requirements

• SSEB and SSAC (if used) review requirements as a
  standard for evaluation
• SOO or SOW must clearly describe work objectives
  or work to be performed
• Is SOO/SOW performance-based?
• Specification must clearly delineate key
  technical characteristics of product or service
• Schedule B CLIN structure must be complete and
  clear
• Requirements must be achievable and not overly
  restrictive
• Review Acquisition Strategy, unique special
  clauses and critical technical requirements
• Govt estimate must be consistent with
  requirements and available funding

67
Request for Proposal

• Governments formal tool to
• Communicate technical and contractual rqmts to
  industry
• Solicit proposals from industry to satisfy its
  requirements
• Must be consistent w/ requirement docs, AP and
  SSP
• Final solicitation cannot be released until
• AP or LCMP is approved
• SSP is approved
• Business Clearance has been obtained
• Notification required concurrent w/ issuance of
  RFP

RFP becomes the Binding Contract
68
Clearance and Governance Oversight
69
Clearance

• Objectives
• Implement approved acquisition strategies
• Ensure fair and reasonable business arrangements
• Follow laws, regulations, and policies
• Perform independent review and assessment of
  action
• Clearance Approval Authority
• ACAT I gt 500M DAS(C) ADAS(C) for
  Business Clearance Only
• gt 50M Senior Center Contracting
  Official (SCCO)
• 25M-50M One Level Below SCCO
• 5M-lt25M Two Levels Below SCCO
• --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------OPERATIONAL gt
  2M SCCO
• 1M -
  2M Squadron Commander
• 500K - 1M At Least One Level Above
  PCO

70
Business Contract Clearance
Business
Issue Solicitation
Competitive
Business Clearance
Contract
Award w/o discuss or FPR SSA Decision
Competitive
Contract Clearance
71
Multi-Functional Independent Review Team (MIRT)

• Required for competitive actions gt50M
• Provides independent assessment to CAA on
  acquisition, source selection or procurement
• Five Critical Decision Points (CDP)
• Pre-Business Clearance CDPs (simultaneously
  w/Clearance)
• CDP 1 ASP/Acq Plan
• CDP 2 Sections LM of RFP
• Pre-Contract Clearance CDPs (simultaneously
  w/Clearance)
• CDP 3 Competitive Range Briefing or Award w/o
  Discussions
• CDP 4 Final Proposal Revision Request
• CDP 5 Source Selection Decision Briefing

72
OSD Peer Reviews

• OSD Peer Reviews (DFARS 201.170)
• Competitive solicitations gt 1B (including
  options)
• Sole Source and IT solicitations gt 500M
• Comprised of senior contracting officials and
  attorneys from DoD, (civilian or military)
  external to the department, agency, or component
• Pre-award Peer Reviews - conducted in 3 phases
• Prior to issuance of solicitation
• Prior to request for final proposal revisions (if
  applicable)
• Prior to contract award
• Post-award Peer Reviews may be conducted for all
  contracts for services valued gt 1B (including
  options)

72
73
Common Findings in MIRTs and Peer Reviews

• Inconsistent language in acquisition documents
  between Sections LM and requirements
• Develop matrix showing crosswalk between
  performance specification, SOW and Sections LM
  of RFP
• Evaluation criteria in RFP did not address key
  areas of importance and emphasis
• Focus must be on key discriminators
• Define discriminators as evaluation
  factors/subfactors
• Assess feedback during pre-solicitation
  exchanges
• Keep factors/subfactors to a minimum (3-5) to
  simplify RFP
• If too many, then importance of each is diluted
• Consider using an "acceptable/not acceptable"
  approach to some evaluation criteria

74
Common Findings in MIRTs and Peer Reviews (cont.)

• ENs not written in a clear, concise and
  consistent way
• Be clear, complete, and direct when you write
  your EN
• Ensure SSEB Chair, PCO and Legal review all ENs
• LPTA approach did not make clear in Sections LM
  what constituted technical acceptability
• Describe technical factors/subfactors in RFP in
  enough depth to communicate what will be
  evaluated on A/U basis and
• Satisfy Government minimum requirements when
  assessing offerors proposal
• Pressure on SS teams to meet unrealistic
  schedules
• Need dates drive teams to meet deadlines w/o
  regard to team experience, complexity of
  acquisition, or limited resources
• SSA should validate need dates and advise SST
  on ways to ease schedule risks

75
Uniform Contract Format
Representations, Certifications, and other
Statements of Offerors or Respondents
Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors
or Respondents
Evaluation Factors for Award
76
Commercial Contract Format

• Use the following format to the maximum extent
  possible
• (a) Standard Form (SF) 1449
• (b) Continuation of any block from SF 1449, such
  as--
• (1) Block 10 if a price evaluation adjustment
  for small disadvantaged business concerns is
  applicable (the contracting officer shall
  indicate the percentage(s) and applicable line
  item(s)), or if set aside for emerging small
  businesses
• (2) Block 18B for remittance address
• (3) Block 19 for contract line item numbers
• (4) Block 20 for schedule of supplies/services
  or
• (5) Block 25 for accounting data
• (c) Contract clauses
• (1) 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions--
  Commercial Items, by reference (see SF 1449 block
  27a) (2) Any addendum to 52.212-4 and (3)
  52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required
  to Implement Statutes and Executive orders
• (d) Any contract documents, exhibits or
  attachments and
• (e) Solicitation provisions-
• (1) 52.212-1, Instructions to
  Offerors--Commercial Items, by reference (see SF
  1449, Block 27a) (2) Any addendum to 52.212-1
  (3) 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Items, or
  other description of evaluation factors for
  award, if used and (4) 52.212-3, Offeror
  Representations and Certifications--Commercial
  Items.

77
References

• DoD Source Selection Procedures
• Effective 1 Jul 2011 and mandatory for all
  competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR Part 15
  procedures
• Source Selection Trainers Reference/Resource
  Material
• Assists trainers in presenting SS Phase I II
  training modules
• Types of Contracts - FAR Part 16.103 104, DFARS
  216.1
• Contracting by Negotiation - FAR Part 15, DFARS
  215
• Acquisition of Commercial Items - FAR Part 12.303
• Describing Agency Needs (Rqmts) - FAR Part
  11.101, DFARS 211.1
• Market Research - FAR Part 10, DFARS 210
• Acquisition Planning - FAR Part 7.1, DFARSS 207.1
• Conflicts of Interest - FAR Part 3.104, DFARSS
  203.104

78
Summary

• Each Acquisition or Source Selection is unique
• Source Selection process is both objective and
  subjective
• Professional judgment, and critical thinking is
  required at every step

Goal Ensure quality, timely products and
services are delivered to the war-fighter and the
nation. Obtain best value for the taxpayer
79
Feedback and Certificate

• For acquisitions 10M and above
• Attendees names will be provided to designated
  Source Selection Trainers
• Certificates (Phase I or Phase II) will be
  provided to attendees by SS Trainers
• Continuous Learning (CL) points
• 6 CL points for each full day of instruction
• 3 CL points for any half day of instruction, and
• 1 CL point for 2 hours or less of instruction

Your Feedback is Very Important . . . Please Take
The Time To Complete The Survey
80
ETHICS AND PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY
SS Ethics Training GAO/COFC Summaries-Organization
al Conflicts of Interest
81

• Summary of Changes
• for
• Phase I Acquisition Planning

82
LINKED CHARTS
83
Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 1)
Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings
Color Rating Description
Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
84
Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 2)
Table 2. Technical Ratings Table 2. Technical Ratings Table 2. Technical Ratings
Color Rating Description
Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.
Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.
Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.
85
Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)
Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings
Rating Description
Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.
High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
86
Technical Ratings
Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings
Rating Description
Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
87
Past Performance Evaluation
Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating Definition
Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
May use, as a minimum, Relevant Not
Relevant ratings for source selections requiring
less discrimination in past performance
evaluation.
88
Past Performance Evaluation
Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating Description
Substantial Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
89
Past Performance Evaluation
Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings
Rating Description
Acceptable Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerors performance record is unknown. (See note below.)
Unacceptable Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort
Note In the case of an offeror without a record
of relevant past performance or for whom
information on past performance is not available
or so sparse that no meaningful past performance
rating can be reasonably assigned , the offeror
may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on
past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).
Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to
have unknown past performance. In the context of
acceptability/unacceptability, unknown shall be
considered acceptable.
90
The Best-Value Continuum Source Selection
Techniques
Trade-Off Source Selection Process described in
DoD Source Selection Procedures

Non-Cost Factors
Low Price