# DLAD PGI

- 1.170 Peer Reviews [CH1]

- PGI 1.170-2 DPAP Pre-award Peer Reviews.
- PGI 1.170-3 Post-award DPAP Peer Reviews of service contracts.
- PGI 1.170-4 Administration of DPAP Peer Reviews.
- PGI 1.170-90 Peer Reviews.

1.170 Peer Reviews [CH1]

(a) Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) Peer Reviews.

(1) (90) General procedures. In developing an acquisition plan, contracting officers shall take into account the requirement for scheduling and conducting a DPAP Peer Review in accordance with this section. The additional time required for each DPAP Peer Review is a minimum of 15 work days for each phase (see PGI 1.170-2(a) and (b), below, for an explanation of review phases). For example, for a competitive procurement allow a minimum of 45 work days to cover the 3 required Peer Review

phases. For a non-competitive procurement allow a minimum of 30 work days to cover the two required Peer Review phases. This time is in add1tion to the time required for the I-ARB Review process.

(2) In order to plan for Peer Reviews at the DPAP level, each activity shall provide

information regard1ng acquisitions that meet the $1 Billion threshold. Use the following format to provide information to J-73 by the 15~ of September, December, March, and June eve~ year in fulfillment of this "rolling forecast" requirement. The report will be updated eve~ quarter – add a new quarter to and delete the oldest quarter from the forecast each period so it always forecasts a year out.

Table 1. PRE-AWARD - COMPETITIVE

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of solicitation Issuance | Expected Date of Request for Final proposal Revisions | Expected Date of Contract Award

Table 2. PRE-AWARD - NONCOMPETITVE

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of Negotiations | Expected Date of Contract Award

Table 3. POST-AWARD - ALL SERVICE CONTRACTS

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Date of Award | Date of Next Option Exercise | Expected Date of Contract Award

PGI 1.170-2 DPAP Pre-award Peer Reviews.

DPAP Peer Reviews are required for ALL acquisitions for supplies and/or services valued at $1 Billion and greater (including options and surge requirements). The threshold is determined by the value of the maximum amount possible to be purchased under the solicitation/program. Individual solicitations that do not meet the $1 Billion threshold but are part of a program that exceeds $1 Billion are required to have a DPAP Peer Review. Solicitations that are greater than $1 Billion that will result in multiple awards less than $1 Billion are subject to the Peer Review. The DPAP Pre-award review is categorized by competitive and non-competitive actions that have different review requirements I as described below:

(a) Competitive: Pre-Award Peer Reviews shall be conducted in three phases for Competitive procurements: 1) prior to issuance of the solicitation; 2) prior to request for final proposal revisions; and 3) prior to contract award. Each phase will require an approved I ARB before the documents are provided to DPAP. Phase 1 approval will be accomplished at milestone A and Phase 3 approval will be accomplished at milestone B. Phase 2 approval requires an additional I-ARB (this is a new requirement).

(b) Noncompetitive: For a non-competitive procurement I there are two phases: 1) prior to

negotiation and 2) prior to award. Each phase will require an approved I-ARB before the

documents are provided to DPAP. Note that there is no Peer Review requirement at milestone A. Phase 1 approval requires an additional I-ARB (this is a new requirement) and Phase 2 approvals will be accomplished at milestone B.

PGI 1.170-3 Post-award DPAP Peer Reviews of service contracts.

DPAP post-award Peer Reviews are required for all contracts for services valued at $1 Billion and greater. The threshold is determined by the value of the maximum estimated amount (including options and surge). Post-award Peer Reviews shall occur prior to eve~ option period exercise. If the base period of performance is greater than one year l the first post-award Peer Review should take place at the mid-point of the base period of performance. If the base period of performance is one year or less, the post-award Peer Review should occur prior to exercise of the first option year. An I-ARB is required prior to the DPAP Peer Review to obtain approval of J-7. Contracting officers should ensure the I-ARB and Peer Review take place at least 3 months prior to the required option exercise date.

PGI 1.170-4 Administration of DPAP Peer Reviews.

(a) The review recommendations of the DPAP Peer Review team are advisory in nature.

However, significant findings may result in changes to the acquisition.

(b) The DPAP program manager will organize review teams and facilitate reviews. DPAP

Peer Review participants from DLA who will serve on other (non-DLA Peer Reviews) DoD Peer reviews are identified by job title as follows:

Senior Procurement Executive/Component Acquisition Executive

Acquisition Management Directorate

Deputy Director for Business Process Management

Deputy Director for Business Operations

Contracting and Acquisition Management, Executive Directors at DSCC, DSCP, and DSCR.

(c) DPAP Peer Reviews are conducted at the location of the contract action. The CCO is responsible for serving as the focal point for the DPAP Program Manager. Appropriate entrance and exit briefings shall be conducted. The subject matter experts involved in the acquisition shall be available for consultation while the DPAP Peer Review team is performing the review.

(d) A list of the documents that must be made available to the review team and the specific elements the team will examine is contained in DFARS PGI 201.170-4 Administration of Peer Reviews. The documents will be forwarded to DPAP by J-73.

(e) DPAP Peer Review Team report. The DPAP Peer Review team will provide immediate verbal feedback to the contracting officer and the senior procurement official upon completion of a review. The written report will generally be provided within 3 work days after completion of the review to the contracting Officer. A copy of the report must be provided to J-73 as soon as it is received. If there is a discrepancy between the approved DLA direction and the Peer Review recommendations, the HCA shall confer with the Director J-7 to determine appropriate action.

(f) The contracting officer shall document the disposition of all DPAP Peer Review recommendations (i.e., state whether the recommendation will be followed and, if not, why not) by a memorandum for the record in the applicable contract file prior to embarking on the next phase of an acquisition. A copy of the memorandum shall be furnished immediately to J-73. J-73 will in turn, provide the memorandum to DPAP.

(90) DPAP Peer Review waivers. Under unusual circumstances request for waiver from the DPAP Peer Review requirement can be pursued. A waiver may be appropriate for certain acquisitions, such as those that are repetitive in nature. Waivers are generally not granted so there is no standard format or time frame prescribed. Requests for waivers shall be forwarded by the HCA to J-73 for processing. Approval by the Director J-7 is required prior to approaching DPAP. Waivers can only be granted by the DPAP Director.

PGI 1.170-90 Peer Reviews.

(a) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Peer Review policy

(1) When developing the acquisition plan, contracting officers shall take into account the requirement for scheduling and conducting a DLA Peer Review in accordance with this section. The additional time required for each DLA Peer Review is a minimum of 15 work days for each milestone - A and B. This time is in addition to the time required for the I-ARB milestone A and B review process.

(2) In order to plan for DLA Peer Reviews, each activity shall nominate a pre-award acquisition to be reviewed. It must be valued less than $1 Billion and therefore not subject to a DPAP Peer Review, but represent a significant acquisition for the activity. In addition, the nomination should meet the I-ARB requirements (if possible), as an I-ARB review will be required. Use the format at Table 1. to provide information to J-72 by August 1st of every year for the next fiscal year.

Supply Chains should provide a consolidated report that includes their DLR sites, as the DLR sites are required to nominate an acquisition for the DLA Peer Review Program.

Table 1. PRE-AWARD Nomination

Supply Chain/Site/Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of Solicitation Issuance | Expected Date of Contract Award

(3) Post-award DLA Peer Reviews of service Contracts. Each activity that has an active service contract will nominate a significant service contract by August 1st of each year to J-72. The service contract can be the same acquisition as is nominated for Milestone A and B DLA Peer Review, if the award will be made in a timely manner so a meaningful Milestone C DLA Peer Review can be conducted within the Fiscal Year. The nomination should be provided in the format at table 2. Consider the timing of the contract when nominating for a Peer Review. The post-award DLA Peer Review should take place at the mid-point of the base or option period of performance. A Milestone C I-ARB will follow the DLA Peer Review. Contracting officers should ensure the I-ARB and Peer Review take place at least three months prior to the required option exercise date.

Table 2. POST-AWARD SERVICE CONTRACTS

Supply Chain/Site/Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Date of Award | Date of Next Option Exercise | Entire Period of Performance – number of years an date contract ends

(b) Administration of DLA Peer Review Program.

(1) The J-72 DLA Peer Review Program Manager will schedule the DLA Peer Reviews, organize review teams, and facilitate reviews. DLA Peer Review Teams will be comprised of HQs J7 code and field level contracting leadership personnel -DAWIA Level III in Contracting, (generally 1102 or 1101 -GS 14/15 or YC/YA 02 or 03). This includes such positions as the Director and Deputy of Procurement Operations, the Director and Deputy of Supplier Operations, Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) and Deputy CCO. The DLA Peer Review Program Manager will contact activities to request name(s) be provided for Peer Reviews as they are scheduled. The teams will be comprised of 3 to 4 members. The same team will review the acquisition at Milestone A, B, and C, if appropriate

(2) DLA Peer reviews will be conducted at the location of the contract action. The local CCO is responsible for serving as the focal point for the DLA Peer Review Team. Appropriate entrance and exit briefings shall be conducted. The subject matter experts involved in the acquisition shall be available for consultation while the DLA Peer Review team is performing the review at the location.

(c) Documents. The following documents must be made available to the team. The documents will be emailed to J-72 DLA Peer Review Program Manager at the time the review is scheduled. The Program Manager will email documents to the team at least 5 work days prior to the date of the review to allow time for review prior to the team meeting at the contracting location. It is expected that all team members will have reviewed the documents prior to the Peer Review.

(1) Milestone A - After I-ARB and prior to solicitation the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable. (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The requirements document or purchase request

ii. The acquisition strategy or acquisition plan

iii. The source selection plan

iv. The Request for Proposals (RFP)

v. The Determination & Finding (D&F) memorandum for single source delivery orders

vi. The Justification and Approval (J&A) memorandum for use of non-competitive procedures

vii. Consolidation memorandum (if applicable)

viii. Business Case Analysis

ix. Contract Management Plan

(2) Milestone B -prior to contract award the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable. (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The initial RFP and all amendments including any RFP requirements (technical or contractual) that were changed and the reasons why

ii. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) analysis and findings

iii. Any meeting minutes memorializing discussions between the Government and offerors

iv. All evaluation notices generated as a result of deficiencies in the offerors proposals as well as the offerors responses to those evaluation notices

v. All minutes memorializing the conduct of the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) deliberations

vi. The offerors responses to the request for Final Proposal Revisions

vii. The final SSAC deliberations

viii. The final SSA determination and source selection decision

ix. Award/incentive fee arrangements (if applicable)

x. Documentation of any required HCA D&Fs regarding non-availability of objective criteria

xi. Documentation of pre-negotiation objectives, cost/price negotiation and the assessment of contractor risk in determining profit or fee

xii. Price Negotiation Memorandum

(3) Milestone C -Service Contracts Only -Post-Award -the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The contract and all modifications

ii. The Contract Management Plan compliance

iii. Subcontract Plan

iv. The requirements document or purchase request associated with any modifications;

v. Contractor surveillance documentation to include metrics and quality assurance surveillance plans

vi. The business case analysis

vii. Market research documentation;

viii. The Price Negotiation Memorandum or business clearance including documentation of cost/price negotiation and the assessment of contractor risk in determining profit or fee.

ix. Price adjustments-Economic Price Adjustments or redetermination documentation.

(d) The DLA Peer review Team will assess the following areas. This is used as a guide, as the Peer review Team may review other issues or areas as they determine necessary.

(1) Milestone A -Supply Acquisitions

i. Are the requirements clearly defined and stated in performance-based terms?

ii. Are performance-based characteristics directly tied to program objectives? (These should include consideration of program cost.)

iii. Are the critical program objectives reflected in the evaluation criteria?

iv. Is there a multi-functional support cadre in place or planned to manage the contract? (The support cadre should include trained and qualified contracting officer representatives.)

v. Has the acquisition team developed a tailored quality assurance surveillance plan to monitor contractor performance?

vi. Does the acquisition team have a sufficient number of experienced, trained/qualified personnel dedicated and assigned to accomplish the source selection?

vii. Does the contracting officer or source selection authority have a plan to provide training to the acquisition team?

viii. Is the contract type appropriate --Does the risk analysis address and support the recommendations for contract type, pricing structure or type of source selection?

ix. If there are special contract requirements are they consistent with law, regulation and other terms of the solicitation?

x. Has the acquisition team mapped Section L to Section M to the Source Selection Plan to ensure consistency throughout?

xi. Are minimum thresholds and maximum performance objectives clearly defined?

xii. Are requirements stated in certain terms such that the evaluators will be able to assess whether the offeror meets or exceeds a particular outcome?

xiii. Is Surge and Sustainment included in the acquisition plan?

xiv. Is competition maintained, protected, or were attempts made to enhance?

xv. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. The peer review team must obtain a POC for each issue identified, so they may be contracted at a later date if needed.

(2) Milestone A -Service Acquisitions. The following are mandatory areas that shall be assessed by the DLA Peer Review Team. This data will be provided annually to DPAP in accordance with DPAP Memorandum dated February 18, 2009, Subject: Review Criteria for the Acquisition of Services. J-72 Peer Review program Manager is responsible for collecting this information.

i. Acquisition strategy - Is there a detailed written and approved acquisition strategy? Service acquisitions should have a comprehensive acquisition strategy that reflects program objectives, leverages spend data to arrive at strategic sourcing solutions for the enterprise being supported, incorporates strategic contracting tools, is developed prior to the issuance of the solicitation (amended as applicable), and is adhered to throughout the performance.

ii. Clearly Defined Requirements - Are requirements clearly stated? Service acquisitions should use performance work statements or statement of objectives that clearly defines the services the program seeks to receive.

iii. Period of Performance - Is the length of the contract appropriate? Service acquisitions should employ contract periods of performance of an appropriate length, consistent with the technological dependence, industry standards, and sufficient time to reclaim the program, ownership (in cases with an acquisition history of a single provider) such that fair competition can occur. Service contract length should typically be 3-5 years with certain exceptions (e.g., performance-based logistics and energy-savings performance contracts).

iv. Appropriate Contract Type - Is the contract type appropriate? Service acquisitions should employ contract types, CLIN and pricing structures that are appropriate for the acquisition situation. Time and Materials contracts are the least preferable contract type and must be justified when used and should be used in limited cases (e.g., no more than 10 percent of the contract value).

v. Socio Economic Considerations - Are there small business opportunities? The values small business contributions and expects maximum opportunities for small business participation.

vi. Participation Decisions Points - Are there decision points (on and off ramps) for longer term contracts? Service contracts with longer periods of performance, particularly multiple award contracts, should provide for decision points (on and off ramps) to ensure that the Government has a qualified pool of contractors that will provide continuous service throughout the life of the contract.

vii. Competition - Does the approach provide for robust competition? Service acquisition requirements should be articulated in such a way to provide for maximum competition for multiple award contracts, throughout the life of the contract with meaningful competition for orders. Evaluation factors are tied to key program requirements.

viii. Objective Incentives - Are awards/incentives set up to reward effective outcomes? Objective criteria will be utilized, whenever possible, to measure contract performance. Where objective criteria exist, and it is appropriate to also incentivize subjective elements of performance, the most appropriate contract type would be a multiple incentive type contract containing both incentive and award fee criteria.

ix. Inherently Governmental Functions - Are required determinations appropriately executed? Acquisitions for services must address the extent of the agency's reliance on contractors to perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions as defined by FAR Subpart 7.5, and DFARS 207.5.

x. Conflicts of Interest - Are financial interests of support contractors evaluated as required? When one contractor will provide oversight for another contractor or direct work to another contractor, the acquisition documentation should address measures to reduce /eliminate potential conflict of interest.

xi. Performance Management - Are meaningful performance measures in place? Service acquisitions should utilize performance based characteristics to the maximum extent practicable to include measures that are directly tied to program objectives.

xii. Contract Surveillance - Are appropriate government oversight personnel in place? Service acquisitions must have assigned Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) that use tailored quality assurance surveillance plans to monitor contractor performance.

xiii. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified for later contact to implement DLA policy/procedure

(3) Milestone B -Supply and Service Acquisitions

i. Source Selection was carried out in accordance with the Source Selection Plan and RFP;

ii. The SSEB evaluation was clearly documented;

iii. The SSAC advisory panel recommendation was clearly documented;

iv. The SSA decision was clearly derived from the conduct of the source selection process;

v. Did the evaluation team follow/comply with Sections L& M of the RFP, the Source Selection Evaluation Guide (if used), and Source Selection Plan?

vi. Was there consistency and fairness in evaluating each offer against Section M (evaluation criteria)?

vii. Was there consistency in applying the ratings across the offerors?

viii. What clarifications and/or communications, if any, were conducted?

ix. Were the appropriate clarifications and/or communications?

X. If discussions were held, were they meaningful and was the communication open so the offeror and government clearly understood each other's position and assumptions? (It is not sufficient to handle discussions in a way that is it only for the benefit of the government to understand the offeror's proposal.)

xi. Did the evaluation team apply any standards or undisclosed evaluation criteria to their evaluation of proposals or past performance?

xii. Does the documentation memorialize deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance desorbed in the evaluation notices? Were assumptions addressed as appropriate or acceptable?

xiii. Does the supporting documentation describe details of the evaluations?

xiv. Were discussions conducted IAW sections L &M?

xv. Does the supporting documentation adequately describe the basis and justification for the ratings?

xvi. Do the Interim Ratings prior to final evaluation support the degree of discussions held with each offeror? (E.g. there is no misunderstanding by the offeror that the Contracting Officer clearly discussed the issues that resulted in the red or yellow ratings.)

xvii. Is the documentation complete so the SSA has the complete picture from approval to establish competitive range to completion of meaningful d1soussions (with or without releasing of Interim Ratings

xviii. If interim ratings were not released prior to Final proposal Revision request, has the Contracting Officer clearly articulated his/her rationale?

xix. If an offeror's proposal is no longer be in the competitive range, does the documentation support the recommendation to eliminate it from consideration for award?

xx. Did the SSEB complete proposal evaluation, incorporate information provided through discussions and Final proposal Revisions IAW section M?

xxi. Is the proposal Analysis Report (PAR) (or similar document) reflective of the evaluations and justification documents?

xxii. Is the Source Selection Decision Document reflective of the SBA's integrated assessment and own personal decision leading to the selection of a contractor(s)?

xxiii. Does the documentation clearly summarize and justify the evaluation results?

xxiv. If a Proposal Analysis Report is not used, does the documentation contain adequate details of the evaluation results and a comparative analysis (cost/price, past performance, mission capability, proposal risk, and a source selection recommendation) of the competitive offers?

xxv. Can the SSA make an integrated assessment best value decision based on the information presented in the documentation?

xxvi. Can the information in the documentation be used, as applicable, for the source selection decision document?

xxv. Can the SSA make an integrated assessment best value decision based on the information presented in the documentation?

xxvi. Can the information in the documentation be used, as applicable, for the source selection decision documents?

xxvii. Overall, does the documentation of the acquisition support decisions/justifications?

xxviii. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified.

(4) Milestone C -Service Contracts. The following are mandatory areas that shall be assessed by the DLA Peer Review Team to be provided to DPAP in accordance with DPAP Memorandum dated February 18, 2009, Subject: Review Criteria for the Acquisition of Services.

i. Contractor Performance Assessment - Does the program meet or exceed established cost, schedule and performance criteria? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to ensure the program is on course with respect to cost, schedule and performance requirements: and any necessary adjustments are made.

ii. Maintaining Competition - Is there robust competition for orders? Was appropriate contract type used (e.g., could a firm fixed price contract be used when a Cost reimbursement or other type of contract was used -or vice versa…)? Are the requirements well defined? Were appropriate cost/pricing methods used? Multiple award services acquisitions use contracting mechanisms, including the use of competition, the contract structure and type, the definition of contract requirements, cost pr price methods, the award and negotiation of task orders, and managing and oversight mechanisms.

iii. Contractor's Subcontract Management - Is the Contractor's subcontract management evaluated? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to monitor the contractor's use, management, and oversight of subcontractors.

iv. Contract Surveillance - Are appropriate government oversight personnel in place? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to ensure the appropriate staffing of government contract management and oversight functions to include CORs

v. Assessment of Excessive Pass-Through Charges - Are contractor pass-through charges evaluated? Service acquisitions undergo periodic review to evaluate the extent of any pass-through and excessive pass-through charges by the contractor.

vi. Inherently Governmental Functions - Are appropriate performance of contractor functions evaluated as required? For service acquisitions under which one contractor provides oversight for services performed by other contractors, periodic reviews evaluate the extent of the agency's reliance on the contractor to perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions as defined in section 2383 (b) (3) of title 10, United states Code.

vii. Conflicts of interest (financial) - Are financial interests of support contractors

evaluated as required? For service acquisitions under which one contractor provides oversight for services performed by other contractors, periodic reviews evaluate the financial interests of any prime contractor.

viii. Objective Incentives - Are award/incentive fees paid in a manner consistent with DoD Policy, or with a corrective action plan in place to address past inconsistencies? For contracts with award and/or incentive fee, objective criteria will be utilized, whenever possible, to measure contract performance. Where objective criteria exist, and it is appropriate to also incentivize subjective elements of performance, the most appropriate contract type would be a multiple incentive type contract containing both incentive and award fee criteria.

ix. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified.

(e) The review recommendations of the DLA Peer Review team are advisory in nature. However, significant findings may result in changes to the acquisition. The DLA Peer Review report for the subject milestone will be provided within 3 work days after completion of the review to the HCA/CCO as applicable, at the activity. A copy of the report must be provided to J-72 by the Peer Review Team. If there is a discrepancy between the HCA/CCO direction and the Peer Review recommendations, the HCA shall confer with the Director, J-7 to determine appropriate action.

(f) The contracting officer shall document the disposition of all DLA Peer Review recommendations (i.e., state whether the recommendation will be followed and, if not, why not) by a memorandum for the record in the applicable contract file prior to embarking on the next phase of an acquisition. A copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to J-72.

(g) An I -ARB is required following a DLA Peer review to ensure J-7 is updated on the peer review program progress (except for milestone A - where the Peer review can only take place after the milestone A I-ARB so documents can be prepared.) The Peer Review Team members will participate in the Milestone B and C I-ARB by either VTC, telecom, or in person. The DLA Peer Review Program Manager or a DLA Peer Review team member will present the findings at the I-ARB. Pertinent comments and/or recommendations will be included in the I-ARB minutes to document the Peer Review.

(h) The DLA Peer Review Program Manager will build a data base of best practices, lessons learned, and trends for all peer reviews. An annual report will be issued that captures this information. Adjustments to the program may be made based on the results of the reviews.