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 Source Selection Procedures DoD Source Selection Procedures Effective May 2016 Roles and Responsibilities of Main Members Rating Definitions Evaluation Activities Documentation Requirements Discussions Debriefings 2
Best Value Award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror If the SSA reasonably determines that Technical Superiority and / or Superior Technical Risk PRICE DIFFERENCE WITH LOWER PRICED OFFERORS and / or Superior Past Performance 3
Source Selection Organization SSA SSAC Source Selection Authority Source Selection Advisory Council SSEB Chair Source Selection Evaluation Board SSEB Past Technical Price PCO Performance 4
Source Selection Authority (SSA) Makes the award decision Approves entering and closing discussion Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) Directs the evaluation of proposals Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Evaluate proposals Documents evaluation results Assigns ratings Source Selection Team Main Members 5
Source Selection Evaluation SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria Offeror A Offeror A EVALUATION CRITERIA Offeror B Offeror C Offeror B Offeror C 6
Source Selection Decision SSA does compare proposals against each other SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations Offeror A Technical and Past Performance information for each offeror Offeror B Offeror C total evaluated price for each offeror Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP 7
Request for Proposal SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT Describe technical approach Provide past performance information Provide pricing data Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD EVALUATION CRITERIA Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Trade-off considerations Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria 8
Evaluation Factors Factors Subfactors FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 TECHNICAL RISK FACTOR 3 PAST PERFORMANCE 1 Resources 2 Transition 3 Data Systems 4 Program Management FACTOR 4 PRICE 9
Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors Example: For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price). 10
Exchanges with Offerors During Evaluation of Proposals Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs) Three types of ENs Clarifications limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated Communications exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range Discussions formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal. 11
TECHNICAL and TECHNICAL RISK 12
Difference Between Technical and Technical Risk TECHNICAL Depicts how well the proposal meets the technical criteria listed in the RFP Rated as: Acceptable / Unacceptable Or, for tradeoff purposes: B P G Y R Deficiencies TECHNICAL RISK Assesses the potential of the offeror s proposed technical approach for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight. Rated as: LOW MODERATE HIGH Weaknesses 13
Technical Rating Definitions Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. 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 14
Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1- Resources 3 elements (a-c) 2- Transition 2 elements (a-b) 3- Data Systems 3 elements (a-c) 4- Program Management 4 elements (a-d) In order to be rated Acceptable for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor. Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an Unacceptable rating for the corresponding subfactor. An Unacceptable subfactor rating will result in an overall Unacceptable rating for the Technical Factor. 15
Technical Evaluation Section L Instructions to Offerors Subfactor 1 Resources a) The Offeror shall provide an approach for manpower and organization. As a minimum, the proposal must include an offeror s organization chart, and describe overall total manning numbers, and total manning numbers for each specific functional area. The proposal shall also include an approach for sustaining proposed manpower levels during the contract performance period (PWS 1.10). Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Subfactor 1 Resources a) The Government will assess the offeror s proposed manpower and organization approach. To be acceptable, the approach must include a sufficient number of qualified personnel, which ensures all workload requirements can be successfully accomplished in accordance with PWS 1.10. 16
Technical Evaluation Section L Instructions to Offerors Subfactor 2 Transition a) The offeror shall provide an approach for transition. As a minimum, the approach must describe hiring and training personnel, obtaining all equipment, and inventory transfer from the outgoing contractor. The approach must also include transition milestones from contract award through the start date of contract performance. (PWS 1.11). Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Subfactor 2 Transition The Government will assess the offeror s proposed transition approach. To be acceptable, the approach must ensure the offeror will be fully operational by contract performance start date, in accordance with PWS 1.11. 17
Technical Evaluation Section L Instructions to Offerors Subfactor 3 Data Systems a) The offeror shall provide an approach to obtain and maintain access to required data systems. As a minimum, the approach must include current certification levels, a process for obtaining new certifications, and a process for updating all certifications before they expire. (PWS 1.4). Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Subfactor 3 Data Systems a) The Government will assess the offeror s approach to obtain and maintain data systems. To be acceptable, the approach must ensure all certifications meet CPFA requirements and are current throughout the entire contract period of performance in accordance with PWS 1.4. 18
Technical Evaluation TECHNICAL FACTOR RATED AS ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE 1 2 3 4 RESOURCES TRANSITION DATA SYSTEMS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT a) a) Deficiency a) a) Deficiency b) Deficiency b) b) b) c) c) c) Deficiency d) 19
Technical Risk Evaluation TECHNICAL RISK FACTOR RATED AS LOW, MODERATE, HIGH 1 2 3 4 RESOURCES TRANSITION DATA SYSTEMS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT a) a) a) a) Weakness b) Weakness b) b) Weakness b) Weakness c) c) c) d) 20
Technical Proposal Preparation Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team. The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal. Instructions to Offerors (Section L or Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical proposal. The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements The technical proposal does not have to address all PWS requirements. 21
Technical Proposal Preparation Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M or Addendum to FAR 52.212-2) provides a Measure of Merit which must be achieved in order to be technically acceptable. Provide convincing rationale of how the proposal will meet requirements. Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding PWS paragraphs) are addressed and met. The Technical evaluation does not consider.. Past Performance information Company awards 22
PAST PERFORMANCE 23
Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort. Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror s recent, relevant, and past performance. Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. Emphasis is on demonstrated performance 24
Confidence Definitions Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Neutral Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Definition Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. 25
Past Performance Evaluation RECENCY RELEVANCY Reflects how relevant the contractor s previous work is to the proposed acquisition VERY RELEVANT RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT PERFORMANCE QUALITY Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work BLUE -- EXCEPTIONAL PURPLE -- VERY GOOD GREEN -- SATISFACTORY YELLOW -- MARGINAL RED -- UNSATISFACTORY GRAY -- UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE RATING 26
Past Performance Past Performance volume from the offeror s proposal Data Sources Contract Information Sheets (Prime and Subcontractors) Provided by contractor as part of proposal Questionnaires Included as part of the RFP package Completed by contractor references Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts Other sources as needed 27
Relevancy and Performance Quality Relevancy Considerations Scope (Fuels services, Contractor Logistics Support, etc) Magnitude (size such as contract value, number of orders, etc) Complexity (specific functions within technical subfactors) Contract Type (Firm Fixed Price, etc) Performance Considerations Positive performance (Satisfactory to Exceptional ratings) Adverse performance Issues How significant was the issue? Did the contractor take any corrective actions? Did the corrective actions result in improved performance? 28
Past Performance Evaluation Technical Price Program Title PPQ / CPARs SF 1 RES SF 2 TR SF3 DS SF4 PM Contract Type AMT REL PF BETA, INC (Prime) 1 ABC AFB FAAAA-12-C-0004 2 / 3 VR E SR S SR S R S FFP / IDIQ $87M R S 2 3 XYZ Corp ZZZZ-13-0500 VFY AFB FAAAB-13-C-0005 2 / 0 VR S R M R M NR NR T&M / FFP $23M SR M 1 / 1 R S R VG SR S VR VG FFP / T&M $45M R S ZETA CORP (Subcontractor) 4 5 Beta, Inc 13313-06-45 ABC AFB FAAAA-10-C-0014 1 / 0 R E SR S N/A N/A N/A 1 / 4 VR S R S N/A N/A N/A TOTAL: 7 / 8 -- Exceptional -- Very Good ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY? Y: N: X -- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown VR -- Relevant R -- Relevant SR -- Somewhat Relevant NR -- Not Relevant UK -- Unknown 29
Past Performance Additional Notes Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to overall Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity (the criteria in the Technical subfactors). Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria. Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform. Offerors should provide details regarding any adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. 30
FACTOR 3 PRICE 31
Price Evaluation Reasonableness Price proposal should address all RFP requirements Competitive market should establish price reasonableness PCO makes the determination of price reasonableness Realism Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance Provide rationale to support price Balance Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year. Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%. 32
Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation INITIAL EVALUATION Initial Evaluation offeror s proposal ENs prepared and finalized DISCUSSIONS Evaluation of EN responses Follow-up ENs FINAL EVALUATION Receive FPRs from offerors Final evaluation of proposals Initial Ratings established Award w/o Discussions Competitive Range Send ENs to Offerors Ratings adjusted Based on EN responses Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Final ratings established RESULT RESULT RESULT Best Value Decision 33
TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS AND AWARD DECISION 34
Evaluation Summary Alpha Beta Technical ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE Technical Risk LOW LOW Past Performance SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Price (M) $26M $23M Trade-off considerations are not strictly based on a comparison of ratings. They are also based on specific differences between the offerors. 35
Technical Risk Trade-off Analysis Alpha, Inc. Risk Rating LOW No Weaknesses Trade-off consideration Beta, Inc. Risk Rating LOW Weakness 3a: The WONDER database program does not include any contingency plans in the event the program becomes inoperable or disabled. Impact 3a: Without a back-up plan, there is a possibility information stored in WONDER could be lost, which would cause significant delays to the mission requirements, as the offeror restores or attempts to recover the information. Also, the offeror must continue to meet PWS requirements during the time WONDER is unavailable. 36
Past Performance Trade-off Analysis Alpha, Inc. Confidence Rating SUBSTANTIAL Very Relevant in all areas Trade-off consideration Overall Satisfactory to Exceptional Performance. No adverse issues Beta, Inc. Confidence Rating SATISFACTORY Very Relevant in Scope Small Magnitude Overall Satisfactory to Exceptional Performance. No adverse issues No Relevancy in Transition No Relevancy in Supply Inventory 37
Summary Source Selection is a Subjective process Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria 38