HOWEVER, IT S NOT THAT SIMPLE.
|
|
- April Harmon
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 10 Contract Management November 2015
2 An explanation of why the source selection process takes as long as it does, along with some tips for both government and industry to speed up the process. BY MARGE RUMBAUGH Contract Management November
3 Many government contractors often ask: Why does government contract source selection take so long? All they have to do is read the proposals and award the contract. HOWEVER, IT S NOT THAT SIMPLE. With experience from both the industry and government sides in the proposal preparation and source selection process, I will explain why the source selection process takes so long. I ll also provide tips for both government and industry to speed up the process. Foundational Documents: Request for Proposals and Proposal First, let s review the request for proposals (RFP) and proposal so we have a strong foundation for source selection. The RFP is the guiding document for both proposal preparation and evaluation, so it s critical that the RFP be clearly written. The government can t possibly get good proposals if the RFP is vague or ambiguous. The RFP The RFP provides the framework for the acquisition, including the statement of work (SOW), contract type, evaluation factors, and proposal preparation instructions. The RFP must also state which source selection method will be used: lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) or tradeoff. LPTA offers the best price to the government after minimum technical requirements have been met. Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability, but are not ranked based on non-cost factors. Using the tradeoff approach, agencies determine which evaluation factors are most important (which may or may not be cost) and permit award to a company that didn t propose the lowest cost. 1 After deciding the source selection method, the agency writes the evaluation criteria. This is an important step in the process because it impacts both proposal preparation and evaluation. The evaluation criteria should address critical SOW requirements. They should also be variable, measurable, and determinant meaning that there should be a reasonable expectation of variance among offerors that are measurable and respond to the agency s needs. For example, an evaluation factor is determinant if an agency is willing to pay more for higher quality. 2 The RFP must state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are: Significantly more important than cost or price, Approximately equal to cost or price, or Significantly less important than cost or price. 3 More isn t better: Limit evaluation factors to those that are critical to program success. Next, the contracting officer writes the proposal preparation instructions (PPI). It s important to write the PPI after the evaluation factors to make sure you get the necessary information in proposals that apply to the evaluation factors. 12 Contract Management November 2015
4 The PPI should: Describe how offerors should submit proposals; Be keyed to the evaluation factors and subfactors; Describe the type, scope, content, and format of the information required; Describe the order in which proposals should respond to RFP requirements; and Be limited to information needed to evaluate proposals. 4 It s important that the solicitation only request the information needed to evaluate proposals against the evaluation factors. Contracting officers should avoid requiring unnecessary data that might discourage offerors from submitting proposals and can make source selection take longer. The PPI essentially provide a roadmap for offerors, so they should be clear and concise. Well written PPI can also can simplify the evaluators job. For example, if the proposals are similarly formatted, evaluators will be able to complete their assessments more quickly. Before releasing the RFP, make sure there is connectivity between the SOW, evaluation factors, and the proposal preparation instructions. If the contracting officer can t map the SOW, evaluation factors, and the PPI, correct any conflicts before releasing the RFP. 5 Proposal Next, let s explore proposal preparation. Proposals should be clear, coherent, and detailed enough for evaluators to assess them against the evaluation criteria. Proposals must also include convincing rationale that the company can do what it proposes. A successful proposal not only responds to the RFP requirements, but also does it better than any other proposal. 6 Just as the agency should make sure the RFP sections map (SOW, PPI, and evaluation factors), companies should also conduct a final review of the proposal to make sure it meets all of the RFP s requirements. A good way to do this is to prepare a proposal compliance matrix, which is a cross-reference table that tells evaluators where they can find responses to specific RFP requirements. A proposal compliance matrix helps to make sure the proposal is complete. Some of you may be asking, What does this have to do with source selection? Plenty! The RFP is the foundational document for offerors to decide if they re going to submit a proposal. It also provides a roadmap for proposal preparation. There is a direct correlation between RFP quality, proposal quality, and the ease with which the agency completes the source selection process. Proposal Evaluation After contracting officers receive proposals, they must record the date and time they were received and ensure that proposals are safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure throughout the source selection process. 7 Before evaluators start proposal evaluation, the contracting officer reviews each proposal to make sure it complies with the proposal preparation instructions. Reviewing If the RFP PPI specifies a page limit for proposals, the contracting officer counts pages before releasing proposals to evaluators. The contracting officer should pay particular attention to ploys to bypass the page limit. For example, an offeror could number pages 5, 5a, and 5b, which is really three pages, but an offeror may count this as just one page. 8 How can an agency have any confidence in a company s ability to comply with contractual requirements if they don t comply with the PPI? It is important to note that several months may have elapsed since writing the RFP, so it s critical that all of the evaluators understand how to apply the evaluation criteria. In some situations, the evaluators may not have written the evaluation factors. It is helpful to review the evaluation factors, scoring, and source selection process to evaluators before giving them any proposals to evaluate. Evaluating According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency evaluates proposals and their relative qualities based only on the factors identified in the RFP. The Contract Management November
5 relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file. 9 Each agency conducts source selection differently, but the basic objective remains constant: to provide the source selection authority with sufficient information to make an informed and reasoned selection. That s why it s important for the evaluators to identify deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, clarifications, and uncertainties in each proposal and document the results. Many source selections involve collaborative teams of evaluators and advisors, so managing the evaluation is an important part of keeping the process on schedule. In some cases, the contracting officer and a couple of technical personnel might evaluate proposals. If the anticipated contract is a high dollar value or very complex, or has high visibility in the agency, teams may be assigned to evaluate the proposals. In complex acquisitions, one person might be assigned to manage each evaluation factor for that proposal volume. For example, if there are four technical evaluation factors, there would be four factor managers in charge of evaluating each specific evaluation factor. These managers should have resilient leadership skills and strong technical knowledge about the topic being evaluated. 10 The source selection process depends on the complexity of the requirement, the number of proposals received, and the personnel available to be evaluators. Some evaluators are assigned to the source selection on a full- time basis; others evaluate proposals while continuing with their other responsibilities. Full-time versus part-time evaluators can significantly impact the speed with which the evaluations are completed. The proposal evaluation process typically has four steps: 1 Identify and document proposal deficiencies, weaknesses, or significant weaknesses; 2 Identify and document proposal strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies; 3 Assign ratings for non-cost evaluation factors (when using the tradeoff process); and 4 Prepare a summary evaluation report. While conducting the evaluation, it s important for the evaluators to stay focused on the following tasks: Evaluate only what is actually written in the proposal, Follow the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP, and Do not make comparisons between proposals. 11 The technical/management evaluators may begin with a quick read of the proposals, skimming them to get familiar with the format and content. No assessment, judgment, or evaluation is done at this time. After the quick read, the evaluators read the technical/management volumes of the proposal to get a thorough understanding of the proposed approach. They conduct an in-depth, systematic evaluation of the proposals against the evaluation factors in the RFP, which they must apply consistently. Evaluators should conduct an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation of each proposal against the solicitation requirements. The evaluators should also review the offeror s basis of estimate to understand the proposed staffing levels and overall technical/management approach. 12 Evaluators also write evaluation reports to document the evaluation in addition to other forms if they have questions about a proposal. Evaluation forms vary between agencies, but typically include the following (although they may have different names): Clarification requests, Information requests, Significant weakness reports, and Deficiency reports. These forms are then summarized and sent to offerors if clarifications or discussions are necessary. 13 Evaluating cost proposals takes a different path. The cost evaluators are responsible for evaluating the proposed cost or price of the proposals and establishing price reasonableness. They look for inconsistencies, math errors, logic errors, unsupported assertions, and inappropriate estimating methodologies in each cost proposal. 14 Cost evaluators assess the cost proposals completeness, reasonableness, and realism. When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluators must perform a cost real- 14 Contract Management November 2015
6 ism analysis to determine what the government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, how well each offeror understands the work, and whether each offeror is able to perform the contract. Cost realism analysis is: [T]he process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror s proposed cost estimate to determine if the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work proposed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror s technical proposal. 15 Scoring The FAR does not specify how agencies should score proposals, so contracting officers have a lot of flexibility. A scoring or rating system is the internal road map an agency uses to apply the evaluation criteria. Agencies may use different scoring methods and there may be variations within an agency. The scoring method can use adjectives, colors, or numbers to identify how well proposals meet the standards for the non-cost evaluation factors. The particular scoring method an agency uses is less important than: The consistency with which the evaluators apply the selected method to all competing proposals, or The thoroughness of the narrative used to support the rating. 16 Agencies frequently use adjectival ratings to score proposals because it s flexible. The adjectives used indicate the degree to which the proposal meets the standard for each factor evaluated. Typical adjectives used include: Exceptional, Very good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. After reading and evaluating a proposal, the evaluator assigns an appropriate adjective to each factor. 17 The color coding system uses colors to indicate the degree to which an offeror s proposal meets the standard for each factor evaluated. Like the adjectival method, color coding is a flexible system. Agencies use different colors and definitions for each color, but generally blue is the highest possible rating and red the lowest possible rating, and the colors in between vary. 18 The numerical system assigns point scores (such as 0 to 10, 0 to 100, or 0 to 1,000 ) to score proposals. This rating system generally allows for more rating levels and may appear to give more precise distinctions of merit. Numerical systems aren t Contract Management November
7 always appropriate, however, because they may provide a false sense of mathematical precision that can be distorted depending upon the evaluation factors and the standards used. 19 In fact, some agencies prohibit numerical rating systems. 20 In addition to scoring the proposals, evaluators also assess risk. Assessing Risk Risk can be assessed on both past performance and technical proposals. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror s demonstrated past performance. Technical risk assesses the degree to which the offeror s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. 21 Evaluators typically score each evaluation factor along with risk for each proposal. Therefore, the more evaluation factors in the RFP, the longer it takes to evaluate all of the proposals. This is why it s recommended to limit the number of evaluation factors to the most important ones. Evaluating proposals involves more than just reading the proposals. Documenting the rationale for the scores and risks is an important part of the process as well. Documenting Evaluators document and justify proposal strengths and weaknesses for each factor. They should be thorough in writing the narratives that support their evaluation and rating scores because the agency uses them for several important purposes, such as: Explaining individual evaluations during the consensus process, Developing briefings for the source selection authority (SSA) that are used to determine the competitive range and the successful offeror, and Preparing debriefings for unsuccessful offerors. The supporting narrative also helps ensure that the evaluators consistently applied the criteria. Proper documentation of the entire source selection process is a critical aspect of source selection. The source selection authority will base his or her decision on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, so proper documentation will help the SSA understand the rationale the evaluation team used Contract Management November 2015
8 Evaluators should document their decisions clearly and logically so that someone unfamiliar with the source selection would understand it like the Government Accountability Office if there s a protest. After documenting the proposal scoring, evaluators meet to reach a consensus. Reaching Consensus Reaching consensus requires a meeting of the minds on the assigned ratings and associated deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks. 23 Evaluators discuss the rationale for their individual scores and reach consensus. Consensus meetings on a particular evaluation factor should continue until all panel members reach a consensus or the panel members agree to disagree. If the group cannot reach a consensus on a single score or rating, the panel should record the minority opinion (and rating) in the report. 24 Evaluators repeat the consensus process for every evaluation factor for each proposal. perfect proposal, or a perfect contract. Agencies must be willing to accept inherent reasonable weaknesses in proposals in order to award without discussions. 25 Awarding the contract without discussions will speed up the process. All of these steps are done for each proposal volume submitted. So, you can understand that a source selection with a lot of proposals would take a long time to evaluate. And this is before discussions. Before conducting discussions, the contracting officer must first establish the competitive range that is comprised of the most highly rated proposals. 26 Discussions The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the government s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. 27 The discussions should be tailored to each proposal within the competitive range. At a minimum, the contracting officer must discuss deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The contracting officer may also discuss other aspects of the offeror s proposal that could be altered to increase the potential for award. The contracting officer is not required, however, to discuss every way in which the proposal could be improved. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of the contracting officer s judgment, but they must be meaningful. 28 A proposal revision is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of, or as allowed by, the contracting officer. 29 The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify ambiguities or document understandings reached during negotiations. Proposal revisions may occur on an interim basis and/ or at the end of the process. The FAR only Briefing the SSA After reaching consensus, the evaluators brief the SSA on the evaluation results. The SSA determines if the agency will award the contract without discussions or to conduct discussions. Awarding without discussions is only an option if the RFP included FAR , notifying offerors of the possibility. It s important to note that a company doesn t have to have a perfect proposal to win the contract without discussions. It means that the proposal met the government s needs in accordance with the evaluation criteria at a fair and reasonable price. The evaluators may discover weaknesses in the proposal, but that does not preclude the agency from awarding without discussions. There is no such thing as a perfect RFP, a Online Bachelor s, Master s & Certifcates - Contract Management - Project Management - Security & Strategic Intelligence - Leadership & Organizational Development And more!!! Plus, new lower tuition for military and veterans Apply online at or call Contract Management November
9 requires final proposal revisions, so offerors may not be able to submit interim proposal revisions. 30 Write new proposal preparation instructions for final proposal revisions that require offerors to track changes to their proposals. This will speed up the final proposal evaluations. After receiving final proposal revisions, the evaluators need to evaluate them just as they did the initial proposal evaluations, applying the same standards and criteria as before. Afterward, the source selection authority reviews their evaluations and makes the source selection decision. Contract Award The SSA makes the contract award decision based on a comparative assessment of the proposals against the source selection criteria stated in the RFP. The selection decision must not only identify the differences between proposals, but also their strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the stated evaluation factors. The SSA documents the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs, including the benefits associated with higher cost, if applicable, in the source selection decision document. 31 This is why government contract source selection takes so long. Preparing proposals is expensive and time-consuming, so offerors should be assured that the evaluation was fair and impartial. CM ABOUT THE AUTHOR MARGE RUMBAUGH, CPCM, FELLOW, is a member of the Philadelphia Chapter of NCMA and has been an NCMA member for 30 years. She is a nationally recognized author and educator currently teaching contract management courses for Villanova University s online certificate program and NCMA s Online CPCM Preparatory Course. She is a member of NCMA s Board of Advisors and received NCMA s Charles A. Dana Distinguished Service Award in Send comments about this article to cm@ncmahq.org. ENDNOTES 1. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) See Margaret G. Rumbaugh, Understanding Government Contract Source Selection (Vienna, VA: Management Concepts, 2010): FAR (e). 4. See Johnnie E. Wilson, Best Value Source Selection (Alexandria, VA: Army Materiel Command, 1998): See Rumbaugh, note 2, at Ibid., at See FAR See Rumbaugh, note 2, at FAR (a). 10. See Rumbaugh, note 2, at See Peter S. Cole, How to Evaluate and Negotiate Government Contracts (Vienna, VA: Management Concepts, 2001). 12. Source Selection Manual (Chantilly, VA: National Reconnaissance Office, 2000): See Rumbaugh, note 2, at NRO Source Selection (N87) (Chantilly, VA: National Reconnaissance Office, 2008): FAR (d)(1). 16. See Harold V. Hanson, NAVSEA Source Selection Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command, 2001): See Source Selection Guide (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2005): Rumbaugh, note 2, at See Source Selection Guide, op cit. 20. See Wilson, note Department of Defense Acquisition Technology and Logistics Source Selection Procedures Memo (March 4, 2011). 22. See Rumbaugh, note 2, at See Claude M. Bolton, Jr., Army Source Selection Manual (Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology), 2007): See Rumbaugh, note 2, at Ibid., at As per FAR (c). 27. FAR (d). 28. FAR (d)(3). 29. FAR See Rumbaugh, note 2, at FAR Conclusion Now you understand why proposal evaluation and source selection take so long. It is much more demanding than simply reading proposals. The evaluators must evaluate proposals, determine the score, and document the rationale for the decision for each evaluation factor and for each proposal. In the consensus sessions, they reach an agreement on a final score for each proposal before briefing the SSA. Add to that negotiations and proposal revisions and you can see how the days, weeks, and sometimes months add up. 18 Contract Management November 2015
The ABCs of Government Proposal Evaluation
Veteran Entrepreneur Training Symposium The ABCs of Government Proposal Evaluation Susan Gerbing gmg Management, Inc 1 How Does the Government Score My Proposal? The ABCs of Government Evaluation Proposal
More informationSource Selection. NAVAIR Public Release SPR ; Distribution Statement A Approved for Public Release; distribution is unlimited
Source Selection Presented by: Barbara J Petrzilka Contracting Officer Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst, NJ barbara.petrzilka@navy.mil 732-323-2067 10 MAY 2016 The process the Government
More informationRFP Sections L&M Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES INDUSTRY CONFERENCE Win Transform People RFP Sections L&M Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE RFP Sections
More informationNAVAIR SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW
1 NAVAIR SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW Presented to: Navy Gold Coast 8 August 2012 Presented by: Sandy Scharn-Stevens Deputy Director for NAWCWD Contracts Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB
More informationBest Practices for Source Selection Planning
Best Practices for Source Selection Planning Breakout Session # D02 Debra W. Scheider, Director Office of Contracts, CPCM, Fellow, NRO Stephen Spoutz, Director Acquisition Center of Excellence, NRO Date
More informationLittle Rock District. Submitting Winning Best Value Proposals
Little Rock District Submitting Winning Best Value Proposals Sandra Easter Contracting Division Characteristics Winning Best Value Proposals Possess the necessary production and facilities or the ability
More informationAIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER
AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER TEAM TINKER Source Selection Process and Keys to Writing Proposals Van Garmon AFMC AFSC/PZCAB I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 1 Department of Defense
More informationAiming for Best Value in Government Contracts
Aiming for Best Value in Government Contracts John Dobriansky, MS, MBA, CPCM, Fellow Dr. Rene G. Rendon, CFCM, CPCM, Fellow Breakout Session A03 Date: July 22, 2013 Time: 11:30-12:45pm Learning Objectives
More informationSOURCE SELECTION PLAN. {Insert if Phase I or Phase II} {Insert Project Name} {Insert Project Acronym} SOLICITATION XXXXXX-xx-R-xxxx
SOURCE SELECTION PLAN {Insert if Phase I or Phase II} {Insert Project Name} {Insert Project Acronym} SOLICITATION XXXXXX-xx-R-xxxx {INSERT MONTH & YEAR} COORDINATION: Contracting Officer Date IPT Leader
More informationUNCLASSIFIED RFP SECTIONS L&M. Table Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
RFP SECTIONS L&M Table Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS Keys to Submitting Successful Proposals Early Requirement Analysis - Source Sought/RFI Synopsis & Market Survey Analysis Response
More informationSection M: Evaluation Factors for Award HQ R LRDR Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award For HQ R-0002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 LRDR Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award For 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Table of
More informationLet s be Practical- Evaluating RFPs for Key Requirements. Breakout Session Speaker: Brad A. Edwards
Let s be Practical- Evaluating RFPs for Key Requirements Breakout Session Speaker: Brad A. Edwards Disclaimer This presentation focuses on proposal evaluations. Not all procurement scenarios can be addressed
More informationChapter 15. Competitive Negotiation: Evaluating Proposals
Chapter 15. Competitive Negotiation: Evaluating Proposals Summary This chapter describes the steps to be taken in order to properly evaluate each proposal received in response to an RFP. Essential Information
More informationIt s Not Just LPTA: Best Practices for the Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Process
It s Not Just LPTA: Best Practices for the Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Process Breakout Session # B02 Kenneth Gilliland, Attorney, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
More informationArmy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Services
Army Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Services Army Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Services SOLICITATION NUMBER: W52P1J-14-R-0059 Army Contracting Command Rock Island (ACC-RI) 1 Rock Island Arsenal
More informationVersion 1.0. The Contract Management Standard Final Edition. Version 1.0
The Management Standard Final Edition 1 Purpose of the Management Standard The purpose of the Management Standard is to describe the nature of contract management in terms of the contract management processes
More informationVersion 1.0. The Contract Management Standard Final Edition. Version 1.0
The Management Standard Final Edition 1 Purpose of the Management Standard The purpose of the Management Standard is to describe the nature of contract management in terms of the contract management processes
More informationBest Value Acquisition Using Source Selection Trade-Off Procedures
U.S. Army Tankautomotive and Armaments Command Best Value Acquisition Using Source Selection Trade-Off Procedures An SSEB Introduction to the Process Source Selection Information- See FAR 3.104 Robert
More informationThe Department of Defense (DoD) finds it difficult to determine when higher. Tools for Deciphering Best Value. William Sims Curry
Tools for Deciphering Best Value William Sims Curry The Department of Defense (DoD) finds it difficult to determine when higher technical ratings for contractor proposals justify paying a higher price.
More informationAFARS Appendix AA ARMY SOURCE SELECTION MANUAL
AFARS Appendix AA ARMY SOURCE SELECTION MANUAL February 2007 \ AFARS Revision #21, dated May 22, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARMY SOURCE SELECTION MANUAL (FEB 07) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose 1 Scope 1 Definitions
More informationDecision. Cylab Inc. Matter of: File: B Date: July 13, 2010
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: Cylab Inc. File: B-402716 Date: July 13, 2010 Joshua Carvalho and Walter
More informationApproved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 14-2256 -2014 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. The Art of Evaluation Criteria Breakout Session #E02 Erin M. Schultz, The MITRE Corporation
More informationNegotiating Price in Competitive Acquisitions
Negotiating Price in Competitive Acquisitions Breakout Session #: G01 Presented by: Janie L Maddox Date: July 26 Time: 9:45 1 Before we begin, where are we? 1. Proposals have been evaluated Evaluation
More informationSource Selection The Good and Not So Good
Source Selection The Good and Not So Good Breakout Session #: F01 Steve Busch, VP Acquisition Programs Kepler Research Inc. Date: Tuesday, July 26 Time: 4:00pm 5:15pm AGENDA Current DoD Policy Waivers
More informationEvaluating Request for Proposal (RFP) Responses. Presented By: Department of General Services Bureau of Procurement
Evaluating Request for Proposal (RFP) Responses Presented By: Department of General Services Bureau of Procurement Rev. June, 2014 Agenda What is a Request for Proposal (RFP)? Evaluator Roles & Responsibilities
More informationNAVAIR-Industry Communication Plan for Competitive Procurements. 12 December 2017
NAVAIR-Industry Communication Plan for Competitive Procurements 12 December 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE... 1 II. APPLICATION... 2 III. COMMUNICATION PLAN BY COMPETITIVE PROCESS PHASE...
More informationProcurement Presentation to the Financial Management Institute of Canada
Procurement Presentation to the Financial Management Institute of Canada Bid Evaluation Methodologies By: James Steedman Senior Procurement and Contracting Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat November
More informationSBIR Procedures Unique Procedural Flexibilities & Other Streamlining Opportunities
SBIR Procedures Unique Procedural Flexibilities & Other Streamlining Opportunities 2017 DoD Small Business Training Week April 3-7, 2017 #SBTW17 Presented By Earl Anderson, Contracting Officer Washington
More informationSTUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis
STUDENT GUIDE CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis April 2018 STUDENT PREPARATION Required Student Preparation Read FAR subpart 15.4,
More informationSTUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis
STUDENT GUIDE CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis July 2018 STUDENT PREPARATION Required Student Preparation Read FAR subpart 15.4,
More informationCoastal Environments, Inc.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: Coastal Environments, Inc. File: B-401889 Date: December 18, 2009 Sherwood
More informationDeveloping Effective Capture and Proposal Strategies. Presented by Red Team Consulting
Developing Effective Capture and Proposal Strategies Presented by Red Team Consulting September 14, 2017 INTRODUCTION Red Team s major areas of support include: Proposal management Capture management and
More informationDEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 101 0 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1010 MAR - 2 2018 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF UNDER SECRET ARIES
More informationTCAQ UNCLASSIFIED. Together, we deliver.
1 United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Acquisition Tips Presented by: Suzanne Mudd-Yarber 2 Overview Where to Access Information about USTRANSCOM Business Opportunities Tips on Proposal Preparation
More informationAMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES J 1 8 2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)
More informationRev. July Department of General Services Bureau of Procurement
Rev. July 2014 Department of General Services Bureau of Procurement This course is presented on a series of slides. Navigate through the slides by selecting the NEXT or PREVIOUS button. Previous Next You
More informationAFARS APPENDIX AA ARMY SOURCE SELECTION SUPPLEMENT
AFARS APPENDIX AA ARMY SOURCE SELECTION SUPPLEMENT 28 November 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES... 1 1.1 Purpose... 1 1.2 Applicability and Waivers... 1 1.3 Best Value
More informationNorth American Development Bank. Engagement of Consultants
North American Development Bank Engagement of Consultants ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS This Note has been prepared by the North American Development Bank (the Bank) to assist staff and borrowers in the implementation
More informationProtests of ) Date: November 23, 1992 ) STANDARD REGISTER; ) MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. ) ) P.S. Protest No Solicitation No A-0002 )
Protests of ) Date: November 23, 1992 ) STANDARD REGISTER; ) MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. ) ) P.S. Protest No. 92-68 Solicitation No. 105603-92-A-0002 ) DECISION Standard Register ("Standard") and Moore
More informationAVOIDING LANDMINES : Lessons Learned from. Subcontract Source Selections. by Daniel J. Finkenstadt
AVOIDING LANDMINES : Lessons Learned from Subcontract Source Selections by Daniel J. Finkenstadt 22 Contract Management May 2015 This article calls for federal agencies to consider developing guidance
More informationDefense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Advanced Technology Support Program IV (ATSP4) Small Business Set-Aside RFP. Pre-Proposal Conference
Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Advanced Technology Support Program IV (ATSP4) Small Business Set-Aside RFP Pre-Proposal Conference 5 March 2015 03/05/2015 Page-1 Disclaimer The ATSP4 information
More informationPHASE 2 - Pre-Final Proposal Revision
Type of Feedback Type of Feedback Category Feedback, multipleaward IDIQ PHASE 2 - Pre-Final Proposal Revision ing Officer (CO) prepared a worksheet/checklist that included every requirement to be evaluated
More informationDecision. Matter of: Logistics 2020, Inc. File: B ; B Date: November 6, 2013
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationNO , Chapter 1 TALLAHASSEE, February 13, Human Resources
CFOP 60-35, Chapter 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CF OPERATING PROCEDURE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES NO. 60-35, Chapter 1 TALLAHASSEE, February 13, 2018 Human Resources PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM FOR
More informationProcurement Requirements under the Uniform Administrative Guidance
Procurement Requirements under the Uniform Administrative Guidance Purpose: This Technical Assistance Guide has been developed to assist Local Workforce Development Areas (LWDAs) in making informed decisions
More informationB , B , B
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationGeneral Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationCHAPTER 10 FACILITIES EVALUATIONS (PRE-AWARD) SURVEYS PART 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 10 FACILITIES EVALUATIONS (PRE-AWARD) SURVEYS PART 1 INTRODUCTION 10-1 PURPOSE. This section prescribes procedures for conducting an evaluation of the facilities and capabilities of an offeror,
More informationMaximizing the Audit Experience for Nonprofits. Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Maximizing the Audit Experience for Nonprofits Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Welcome to the Webcast! Produced by www.501ctrust.org Providing nonprofit unemployment risk management services since 1982. Education
More informationRFP 3512R09 Strategic Consultant Services for the Office of Policy and Public Private Partnerships Addendum 3 Appendix H Questions & Answers
1. Question Is pre-registration required for the pre-proposal conference on May 3? Answer Pre-registration is not required. Please refer to Section I-8 of the RFP for further information. 2. Question Please
More informationUnderstanding the Government s Source Selection Process An Industry Perspective
Understanding the Government s Source Selection Process An Industry Perspective 1 November 2017 Presented By: Rodger D. Pearson Professor of Services Acquisition Presentation Purpose This presentation
More informationSTUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 5, Lesson 1 Cost Analysis Process, Players, and Business Systems
STUDENT GUIDE CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis Unit 5, Lesson 1 Cost Analysis Process, Players, and Business Systems January 2017 CON170, Unit 5 Lesson 1 Cost Analysis Process and Players
More informationNUWCDIVNPT SeaPort-e Council Meeting
NUWCDIVNPT SeaPort-e Council Meeting May 19, 2016 Q1: NUWC is enforcing a policy stating: A CAC can only be issued to someone with an Interim clearance, if their FBI Fingerprint check has been returned
More informationHUD-US DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Understanding Internal Controls. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the
Final Transcript HUD-US DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Understanding Internal Controls SPEAKERS Petergay Bryan PRESENTATION Moderator Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to
More informationDetermining Your Performance Evaluation Mindset
Determining Your Performance Evaluation Mindset You should respond to this quiz as you actually think. The result of this quiz does not need to be shared. Answer each question true (T) or false (F) 1.
More informationDecision. Matter of: APEX-MBM, JV. File: B Date: October 3, 2011
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationLunch n Learn GAO Protests: 14 Feb 2018
Lunch n Learn GAO Protests: 14 Feb 2018 Session will start at 1230 EDT (1130 CDT) Audio will be through DCS sound check 30 minutes prior to the session. Everyone but the presenters muted Download the Presentation:
More informationDecision. SKE International, Inc. Matter of: B ; B File: Date: June 5, 2008
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationPreparing for Your Audit. David F. Graling, CPA Ian Shuman, CPA
Preparing for Your Audit David F. Graling, CPA Ian Shuman, CPA Professional Bio David F. Graling, CPA President, Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman CPAs More than 35 years of experience in public accounting,
More informationKoontz Electric Company, Inc.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: Koontz Electric Company, Inc. File: B-407946 Date: April 5, 2013 Dean Hoover
More informationBY Gerald L. Trepkowski
BY Gerald L. Trepkowski 38 Contract Management June 2009 The standard of practice for communication between the government and offerors has been set far too low. By engaging in more meaningful discussions,
More informationAnother option that is becoming more and more prevalent is the use of independent CPAs to perform audits of a contractor s accounting system.
Many readers know that the government has options when it comes to audits that have traditionally been performed by DCAA. For example, draft 2018 NDAA language would permit contractors to engage independent
More informationINSIGHTS. 10 Talent Management Activities to Stop Doing Right Now
INSIGHTS 10 Talent Management Activities to Stop Doing Right Now You can radically simplify your talent management practices by eliminating activities that don t add value 10 Talent Management Activities
More information#evaluate: The Quality- Infused Price Methodology
#evaluate: The Quality- Infused Price Methodology Breakout Session #B01 Daniel J. Finkenstadt, Capt, USAF Force Development Action Officer, SAF/AQCX Timothy G. Hawkins, PhD, Lt Col USAF (Retired) Assistant
More informationRFP EVALUATORS GUIDE
RFP EVALUATORS GUIDE INTRODUCTION You have been selected to serve in the Proposal Evaluation Committee for a Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP process measures economy and quality when purchasing goods
More informationPHASE 4 - Post-Award. Type of Feedback Type of Contract Feedback Category Feedback
PHASE 4 - Post-Award Type of Feedback Type of Feedback Category Feedback Commodity (Competitive) Use of the Bid Evaluation Model (BEM), when validated, is a best practice approach to evaluating competitive,
More informationASSESSING THE ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Chapter Six ASSESSING THE ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES In Chapter Two, we identified five organizational alternatives for structuring an MHS organization (see Table 6.1 for a list of these alternatives).
More informationEffective Technical RFP Development: A Guide for Jurisdictions and Other Organizations December 19, 2016
Effective Technical RFP Development: A Guide for Jurisdictions and Other Organizations December 19, 2016 HLN Consulting, LLC 72810 Hedgehog St. Palm Desert, CA 92260 858/538 2220 (Voice) 858/538 2209 (FAX)
More informationReport Documentation Page
Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
More informationBusiness Opportunities. and Insurance Board. with the Workplace Safety. Becoming a WSIB Supplier
Business Opportunities with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Becoming a WSIB Supplier Business Opportunities with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board If you are interested in becoming a WSIB
More informationBest Practices for a FAR 15 Procurement PART 3 PREPARING AWARD DECISION DOCUMENTS
Best Practices for a FAR 15 Procurement PART 3 PREPARING AWARD DECISION DOCUMENTS Agenda Prepare Source Selection Decision Document Price Analysis Typical FAR Part 15 Source Selection Process Source: DISA
More informationWashington, D.C. London New Delhi Chicago San Francisco Scottsdale West Chester Sydney The Corporate Executive Board: What the Best Companies Do Toolbox.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporate
More informationKirk W Buffington, CPFIM, CPPO, C.P.M.,
Kirk W Buffington, CPFIM, CPPO, C.P.M., An Overview We will be talking about: The elements of the RFP process Factors determining the selection of the procurement method The elements of risk and how they
More informationCh 7 - Account for Differences
Ch 7 - Account for Differences 7.0 - Chapter Introduction 7.1 - Identifying Vendor-Related Differences o 7.1.1 - Responsibility o 7.1.2 - Understanding Of Requirements o 7.1.3 - Technology o 7.1.4 - Efficiency
More informationChoctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Comptroller General of the United States Decision Matter of: File: Choctaw Staffing Solutions, Inc. Date: August 24, 2016 Nathaniel R.
More informationOctober 19, Cyrus E. Phillips IV (757) Direct Line (703) Facsimile (703) Mobile
October 19, 2015 Cyrus E. Phillips IV (757) 378-2917 Direct Line (703) 312-0415 Facsimile (703) 819-5944 Mobile lawyer@procurement-lawyer.com VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Matthew T. Crosby Office of General Counsel
More informationCurrent Practices are Threatening Past Performance as an Effective Tool
Current Practices are Threatening Past Performance as an Effective Tool Breakout Session #: D01 Gary Poleskey, Colonel, USAF (Ret) Vice President, Dayton Aerospace, Inc. CPCM, Fellow Date: Tuesday, July
More informationMid-America Intergovernmental Audit Forum. Selecting an External Auditor. Guide for Making a Sound Decision
Mid-America Intergovernmental Audit Forum Selecting an External Auditor Guide for Making a Sound Decision May 2007 Foreword The benefits of having a high-quality audit of a government's financial statements
More informationDeveloping and Managing RFPs and RFQs
Developing and Managing RFPs & RFQs Mike Purdy Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC (206) 762-2699 (office) (206) 295-1464 (cell) mpurdy@mpurdy.com 1 Free e-mail Subscription to my Blog: http://publiccontracting.blogspot.com
More informationRequest for Proposals Professional Audit Services. January 17, 2019
Request for Proposals Professional Audit Services January 17, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. General Information 4 B. Term of Engagement 5 II. NATURE OF SERVICES REQUIRED A. Scope of Work 5
More informationThe Best Value Source Selection Debate Tradeoff or LPTA
The Best Value Source Selection Debate Tradeoff or LPTA Breakout Session A09 Lyle Eesley, Fellow, Senior Consultant, Reed Integration John Dobriansky MS, MBA, CPCM, Fellow, Date: July 28 2014 Time: 11:30am
More information8.Performance Appraisal 1. Performance Appraisal Objectives of Performance Appraisal 2.Advantages of Performance Appraisal Promotion: Compensation:
SEC 8 Page 1 of 6 8.Performance Appraisal 1. Performance Appraisal is the systematic evaluation of the performance of employees and to understand the abilities of a person for further growth and development.
More informationA Contractor s Guide: Is the Alliant 2 RFP for You?
A Contractor s Guide: Is the Alliant 2 RFP for You? Are you finding yourself completely overwhelmed with all the information out there on GSA s Alliant 2? Understanding the draft RFP can be a challenge
More informationBest Value in Action
Workshop C Best Value in Action Julia M.I. Holden Davis Garvey Schubert Barer Timothy R. Thornton Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, St. Louis, MO The Original Program Concept Best value procurement was born
More informationDefinitions Definitions used in this document are taken from TNI SOP 7-100, and may be found there.
Request for Proposal (RFP) Evaluating Non-Governmental Accreditation Bodies BACKGROUND The NELAC Institute (TNI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to foster the generation of environmental
More informationINTRODUCTION Where Opportunity Meets Talent
INTRODUCTION Where Opportunity Meets Talent This report compares a specific job benchmark to the results of one to five talent reports. Use the following guidelines to effectively interpret the results.
More informationREQUEST FOR OFFER RFO: For: Business Continuity Program Development Consultant Services. For: Covered California
REQUEST FOR OFFER RFO: 2017-04 For: Business Continuity Program Development Consultant Services For: Covered California Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 You are invited to review and respond to this Request
More informationResource alignment review of Shared Services Canada. Fairness monitor Final report
Resource alignment review Shared Services Canada Fairness monitor Final report Project: Resource alignment review of Shared Services Canada Report Stage: Final report Date of submission: October 28, 2016
More informationMEASURES RELATED TO JAPANESE PUBLIC SECTOR PROCUREMENTS OF COMPUTER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Attachment 4 (Tentative and Unofficial Translation) MEASURES RELATED TO JAPANESE PUBLIC SECTOR PROCUREMENTS OF COMPUTER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES I. General Policies A. In the interest of expanding trade opportunities
More informationSubj: CIVILIAN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
BUPERS-05 BUPERS INSTRUCTION 12410.25 From: Chief of Naval Personnel Subj: CIVILIAN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL Ref: (a) SECNAVINST 12410.25A 1. Purpose. To issue the Bureau
More informationContents 5. Building and Maintaining an Effective Team 6. An Overview of Planning and Estimating
TEAMFLY vi Contents 5. Building and Maintaining an Effective Team 77 The Mechanics of Building a Team 78 Team Leadership Starts on Day One! 83 Fostering Teamwork and Synergism 88 Getting the Most from
More informationPROSPECTIVE OFFEROR TO: PREAWARD SURVEYS. Defense Contract Management Agency WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
PROSPECTIVE OFFEROR TO: S GUIDE PREAWARD SURVEYS Defense Contract Management Agency WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW INTRODUCTION Congratulations on your selection as a prospective defense supplier! You re well on
More informationPerformance Skills Leader. Individual Feedback Report
Performance Skills Leader Individual Feedback Report Jon Sample Date Printed: /6/ Introduction REPORT OVERVIEW Recently, you completed the PS Leader assessment. You may recall that you were asked to provide
More informationNAVFACSW Procurement Forum-- Improving Environmental Contract Vehicles and Execution
NAVFACSW Procurement Forum-- Improving Environmental Contract Vehicles and Execution MISSION Environmental Restoration delivers sustainable, innovative, cost effective remediation solutions with stakeholder
More informationFEATURE ARTICLE Changes to Foreign Military Sales Administrative Surcharge Structure and Rate
FEATURE ARTICLE Changes to Foreign Military Sales Administrative Surcharge Structure and Rate By Beth M. Baker Defense Security Cooperation Agency Background On 15 March 2006, the Defense Security Cooperation
More informationEXHIBIT A. 1) General:
1) General: EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT FOR EXEMPTION FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND USE OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (CM/GC) METHOD OF CONTRACTING FOR TILLAMOOK PUD OPERATIONS CENTER AND
More informationGovernment Proposals Technical, Management and Past Performance Guidelines
Government Proposals Technical, Management and Past Performance Guidelines P.O. Box 22667, Knoxville, Tennessee 37933 Phone: 865.414.0310/ E-mail: alanbakercpc@aol.com Phone: 865.414.8310: E-mail: reneebakercpc@aol.com
More informationDecision. CMI Management, Inc. Matter of: B ; B File: Date: January 26, 2010
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationPublic Disclosure Requirements for Buyers. BY William A. Cox. and Sellers:
Public Disclosure Requirements for Buyers BY William A. Cox and Sellers: 44 Contract Management February 2010 Justifications for Other than Full and A review of the documentation requirements for justifications,
More informationRequest for Proposals (RFP) For A CEO Performance Evaluation Report to the Fresno EOC Board
Request for Proposals (RFP) For A CEO Performance Evaluation Report to the Fresno EOC Board Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission (Fresno EOC) 1920 Mariposa Mall, Suite 300 Fresno, CA 93721 1 Summary
More information