# AFARS Appendix AA

AFARS — Appendix AA

ARMY

SOURCE SELECTION SUPPLEMENT (AS3)

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

#### December 21, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

1.1 PURPOSE 1

1.2 BEST VALUE CONTINUUM – NO ARMY TEXT 1

1.3 APPLICABILITY 1

1.4 SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST) ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 2

1.5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/REQUIREMENTS OFFICE ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES – NO ARMY TEXT 7

CHAPTER 2: PRE-SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES 8

2.1 CONDUCT ACQUISITION PLANNING 8

2.2 DEVELOP A SOURCE SELECTION PLAN 9

2.3 DEVELOP THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 13

2.4 RELEASE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS – NO ARMY TEXT 18

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS 19

3.1 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 19

3.2 DOCUMENTATION OF INITIAL EVALUATION RESULTS 22

ADDENDUM TO CHAPTER 3 - EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS 25

3.3 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS 27

3.4 DISCUSSION PROCESS 27

3.5 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS 29

3.6 DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS 29

3.7 CONDUCT AND DOCUMENTATION OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 31

3.8 BEST-VALUE DECISION 33

3.9 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT 33

3.10 DEBRIEFINGS 35

CHAPTER 4: DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 39

CHAPTER 5: DEFINITIONS 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A__________________________LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS (No Army Text)

APPENDIX B__________________________DEBRIEFING GUIDE (No Army Text)

###### APPENDIX C__________________________SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDIX D__________________________PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDIX E__________________________ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROPOSALS

APPENDIX F__________________________USING CURRENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE AS A SOURCE SELECTION FACTOR

APPENDIX G__________________________PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX H__________________________SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

APPENDIX I__________________________COST REALISM ANALYSIS

APPENDIX J__________________________ON-LINE REVERSE AUCTIONS

APPENDIX K__________________________SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION TEMPLATES

SAMPLE/TEMPLATE PAGE(S)

- Determination and Findings (D&F) for Authority K-2 through K-4

to Use Non-Government Advisors in Source Selections

- Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award and Post Award) K-5 through K-8

- Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter K-9

- Source Selection Appointment Letters and K-10 through K-22

Responsibilities

- Source Selection Decision Document K-23 through K-28

- Source Selection Plan (Cost or FFP with SSAC)* K-29 through K-92

- Sample Task Used In Source Selection K-93 through K-95

* This template may also be used for Source Selections that do not utilize a SSAC. In such cases, eliminate references to SSAC in these documents.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

## 1.1 Purpose

This supplements the mandatory Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures and contains information on source selection processes and techniques to be used for competitive, negotiated acquisitions within the Army. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements prescribe the general policies governing these acquisitions. These documents are available on-line at https://dap.dau.mil/policy. Additionally, the following resources contain policies/information pertaining to source selections:

● Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003;

● Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System , December 8 2008;

● Defense Acquisition Guidebook;

● Army Regulation (AR) 25-1, Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology, December 4, 2008;

● Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP);

● Office of The Assistant Secretary of The Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology ASA(ALT)

● Guidebook for the Acquisition of Services

## 1.2 Best Value Continuum – No Army Text

## 1.3 Applicability

The Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) is a comprehensive source selection resource, which sets forth best practices that promote source selection flexibility and consistency in Army source selections. The AS3 is not a stand-alone document and shall be used in conjunction with FAR Part 15 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures as a supplementary guide. Any conflicts shall be resolved through normal chain of command procedures. It applies to best value, negotiated, competitive source selections; it may also be used as guidance in all other acquisitions. See DoD Source Selection Procedures at 1.3, page 2 for exceptions. The extent to which you will use the processes and techniques described in this supplement will depend upon the complexity and dollar value of the specific acquisition and your available resources. When using the AS3, apply prudent business sense to tailor the processes to fit your circumstances.

Any request for waiver of the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be submitted by the cognizant Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC), through the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement) (DASA(P)), Attn: SAAL-PP. DASA(P) will process all waivers and forward those as required, to the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) for approval/denial.

## 1.4 Source Selection Team (SST) Roles & Responsibilities

● Overview

Source selection is a multi-disciplined team effort. The team should include representatives from appropriate functional areas such as contracting, small business, technical, logistics, cost/price, legal, and program management; user organizations may also be represented.

The success of any source selection is determined to a large degree by the personnel involved. Likewise, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), with assistance from the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC), will ensure the appointment of people with the requisite skills, expertise, and experience to ensure the success of the source selection. Appendix D contains personnel considerations when forming the SST.

The size and composition of the SST will vary depending upon the requirements of each acquisition. In streamlined source selections, the team will consist of one or more technical evaluators and the contracting officer. In typical source selections, you may have a distinct compartmental structure (See Figure 1-3) consisting of individuals from various functional disciplines. Whether the team is large or small, it should be structured to ensure teamwork, unity of purpose, and appropriate open communication among the team members throughout the process. This will facilitate a comprehensive evaluation and selection of the best value proposal.

Figure 1-2: SST Responsibilities

● Key Components of the SST

Other than Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) designated SSAs, the HCA or the PARC are responsible for the appointment of SSAs. Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5115.303(a) provides specific guidance on the appointment of the SSA for major defense acquisition programs, major automated information system acquisition programs, and designated Army acquisition programs. The SSA will be in the contracting chain unless the HCA or PARC approves otherwise (for their respective delegation authorities). The PARC will establish an SSA hierarchy for the organization. The PARC may deviate on a case by case basis from the established hierarchy when it is determined to be in the best interest of the government. SSA delegation authorities may not be redelegated. All appointed SSAs are procurement officials and are subject to the statutory/regulatory rules associated therein (Appendix C). For source selections with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SST shall consist of the SSA, a Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

Figure 1-3: Typical SST Structure > $100M

SSEB

SSA

Contracting Officer

(Business Advisor)

SSAC

Other Advisors

(e.g., Legal Counsel, SB Advisor, Technical Experts)

Chairperson

Technical Team

Evaluates

Technical Requirements & Risk

Cost Team

Evaluates Cost/Price

Past Performance Team

Evaluates Past Performance

Small Business Team

Evaluates Small Business

Each of these SST entities has distinct and compartmented functions (See Figure 1-2). The SSEB is usually comprised of multiple groups of evaluators who are responsible for evaluating specific areas of the proposal against the request for proposal (RFP) requirements. The precise structure of the SSEB is a matter within the SSA’s discretion. Figure 1-3 illustrates a typical SST for an acquisition with a total estimated value of $100M or more.

In such source selections ($100M or more), the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) serves as a business advisor to the SSA and provides contracting technical support and guidance to entire SST, as needed. The PCO serves as the focal point for inquiries from industry, controls all exchanges with offerors (See Figure 3-4), and executes the contract award. Additionally, legal counsel, small business advisors, cost/price, and technical experts may also serve as SST advisors.

Major hardware acquisitions frequently involve requirements organizations from across the Army (or from other services on joint-service programs). In such cases, and when forming the SST, SSEB Factor/Subfactor teams should include evaluator representation from each major requirements organization. These evaluators should be assigned to the evaluation criteria associated with their specific area of requirements interest. However, sharing of proposal information across SSEB Factor teams is permissible, with the approval of the PCO/SSEB Chairperson. Information may be shared on a need to know basis, particularly with respect to Cost/Price proposals. The sharing of proposal information across SSEB Factor teams (crosswalk Appendix I) facilitates an integrated assessment of proposals, by the SSEB Factor teams, considering the entire proposal. Inclusion of technical evaluators who are subject matter experts on the requirement(s) being evaluated is essential to a successful evaluation process and fair/accurate assessment of the proposals, and absolutely critical where joint-service and/or multiple functional requirements are involved.

On ACAT I/II Source Selections involving requirements organizations from across the Army (or from other services on joint-service programs), the SSAC must include representation from all significant requirements organizations and the SSAC representatives must be at an organization and grade level commensurate with the other members of the SSAC, usually military 0-6/GS-15 or higher.

● Roles and Responsibilities of SST Members

The information below supplements the Roles and Responsibilities found in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

1. Source Selection Authority. The SSA shall ensure that the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and evaluation criteria are consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and applicable regulations.

NOTE: The identity of the SSA shall be considered procurement sensitive and shall not be disclosed to anyone who has not signed a non-disclosure agreement for that solicitation.

2. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will:

a. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

b. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

c. Award the contract.

d. Chair all required debriefings.

e. Secure personal stock holdings documentation of all members participating in the source selection per the DoD Source Selection Procedures found in 1.4.5.2.1.

3. Source Selection Advisory Council. The SSAC will:

a. Meet and discuss evaluation findings with appropriate members, as required.

b. Before the PCO issues the Request for Final Proposal Revisions, meet with the SSA to determine that meaningful discussions with offerors have been concluded.

c. Identify discriminating evaluation findings for each offeror in the written comparative analysis and award recommendation to aid the SSA in the selection process.

d. Review the source selection decision document for the SSA’s signature, if requested by the SSA.

4. Source Selection Evaluation Board. The SSEB will:

a. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

b. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

c. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

● Composition of the Team

1. The SSAC will consist of senior Government personnel including a person from the cognizant contracting office to advise the SSAC.

2. The SSEB will consist of a Chairperson, and as necessary, a Deputy Chairperson, Factor Chairpersons, Subfactor Chairpersons, and evaluators.

a. SSEB Chairperson - The SSEB Chairperson is also required to review all aspects of all proposals and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of competitive proposals in an impartial and equitable manner. The SSEB Chairperson is also responsible for the following:

(i) Assure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

(ii) Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

(iii) Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

(iv) Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, authorized, and approved.

(v) Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

(vi) Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

(vii) Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

(viii) Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

(ix) Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

(x) Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

(xi) Secure source selection Non-Disclosure Agreements and conflict of interest statements from all members participating in the source selection per the DoD Source Selection Procedures found in 1.4.1.2.6.

● Administrative Support Considerations

A successful source selection requires careful planning of the administrative requirements needed to support the SST. Each acquisition will vary in terms of the administrative support requirements; however, Figure 1-4 contains a checklist of some important requirements common to many acquisitions.

##### Figure 1-4

##### Administrative Support Considerations

● Adequate facilities (to include space for the evaluators and related meetings and for discussions with offerors): Consider whether the facilities are of an adequate size, capable of segregation of committees, comfortable, properly furnished, secure, accessible to disabled persons, and close to support services such as copiers, restrooms, and eating facilities.

● Security controls, such as identification badges and access control.

● Secure storage space for proposals and source selection materials.

● Appropriate computer hardware and software and related support.

● Adequate telephones, facsimile machines, copiers and/or printing services located in secure areas and audio/video teleconferencing capabilities that can be secured.

● Adequate office supplies.

● Lodging and transportation for personnel on temporary duty (TDY).

●

●

## 1.5 Program Management/Requirements Office Roles & Responsibilities – No Army Text

CHAPTER 2: PRE-SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES

## 2.1 Conduct Acquisition Planning

Acquisition planning is the process by which the Government coordinates and integrates the efforts of all personnel responsible for an acquisition through a comprehensive plan. Its purpose is to satisfy an agency’s needs in the most effective, economical and timely manner and should address how the Government will manage the acquisition through all phases of the acquisition life cycle.

Acquisition planning should start when an agency identifies a need for supplies, construction and/or services. When practical, utilize an Integrated Product Team (IPT) approach to develop the acquisition strategy. This early teaming effort will reduce false starts and resultant delays that frequently accompany the preparation of a complex procurement.

● Performing Market Research

The extent of market research and the degree to which you should document the results will vary depending on such factors as urgency, estimated dollar value, complexity, and past experience. In some cases, one person will be able to conduct all of the required market research. In other cases, a team effort will be required. Figure 2-1 illustrates a variety of techniques that you may use in conducting market research.

Figure 2-1

Examples of Market Research Techniques

● Use general sources of information available from the market place, Government sources, and Internet.

● Contact knowledgeable individuals regarding market capabilities and business practices, include Small Business Advisor.

● Review the results of recent market research.

● Query Government and/or commercial data bases.

● Publish formal requests for information in appropriate technical or scientific journals or business publications.

● Conduct interchange meetings or hold Industry Days/Presolicitation Conferences.

● Participate in interactive, on-line communication.

● Review catalogs and product literature.

● Issue Sources sought notices.

● Utilize Draft Request for Proposals (RFPs).

●

## 2.2 Develop a Source Selection Plan

NOTE: See Appendix K for a Sample Source Selection Plan which includes samples of the following:

n Members of, and Advisors to, the SSAC and SSEB

n Source Selection Participation Agreement

n Evaluation Form

n Evaluation Notice (EN)

● Selection of Evaluation Factors

Selecting the correct evaluation factors and subfactors is the most important decision in the evaluation process. Structure the evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative importance to clearly reflect the needs of your acquisition. Base them on user requirements, acquisition objectives, perceived risks and market research/analysis.

Factors and subfactors must:

● be definable and measurable in readily understood quantitative and/or qualitative terms,

● represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision, and

● be limited to the essential elements that will enable you to distinguish among the proposals; i.e., will be true discriminators.

●

● Mandatory Evaluation Considerations

You must address the technical quality of the product or service through one or more non-cost evaluation factors; e.g.:

● technical excellence,

● management capability,

● key personnel qualifications.

●
In every source selection, you must evaluate cost/price and the quality of the proposed product or service. Additionally, you must evaluate past performance on all negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the thresholds identified in FAR 15.304, unless the PCO documents why it would not be appropriate (Appendix F). The contracting officer’s belief that all past performance ratings will be the same is not a basis for this exception. There may be other required evaluation factors, such as small business participation, based upon regulatory and/or statutory requirements (see FAR 15.304 and its supplements). From this point, apply prudent business judgment to add other evaluation factors, subfactors and elements that are important to selecting the most advantageous proposal(s). You have broad discretion in determining these other factors, subfactors and elements and their relative importance. The number of factors and subfactors should be kept to the absolute minimum required to effectively assess the proposals.

Remember that not everything that an offeror will have to provide or perform under the contract is a discriminator in selecting the best value proposal. It is of utmost importance to limit the evaluation factors and subfactors to those that warrant a comparative evaluation in a particular area. Adding non-discriminators will dilute the importance of the true discriminators, make proposal preparation more burdensome, require more evaluators, and increase the evaluation time. Limiting factors also serves to reduce the evaluation oversight span-of-control responsibilities of the SSEB leadership, SSA/SSAC, PCO and legal staff, thereby permitting more focused oversight on the remaining (and most important) factors/subfactors and reducing the likelihood of evaluation errors.

Common evaluation factors are cost/price, technical, past performance, and small business participation. Additionally, as appropriate, you may have other evaluation factors and/or may use one or more levels of subfactors. The standard Army naming convention for the various levels is: Evaluation Factor – Subfactor – and Element. Figure 2-4 illustrates a sample evaluation factor structure. More evaluation factors are often a net negative. Use caution when subdividing factors into multiple levels of subfactors since they further diminish the importance of any one aspect of the factor and introduces unnecessary complexity into the source selection process. This can also lead to closely rated proposals with little discrimination among competitors and no distinction among criteria that drive performance and criteria that have no real impact.

Figure 2-4: Sample Structure of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Subfactor 2

Element 3

Element 2

Small Business Participation Factor

Technical Factor

Cost Factor

Past Performance Factor

Subfactor 1

Element 1

●

●

● Developing Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

As practical, use a multi-disciplined team to develop the evaluation factors and any appropriate subfactors. The team should select the factors and subfactors based on user requirements, acquisition objectives, perceived risks, and thorough market research. Figure 2-5 illustrates the steps involved in developing the factors and subfactors. Before finalizing the evaluation criteria on major hardware acquisitions, a multi-disciplined team must crosswalk the draft criteria against the program's Requirements and Risk Management documentation to ensure that the evaluation criteria development process has appropriately considered the program's key risks. RFP amendment changes to Sections L and M must cross-map to the Source Selection Plan and be approved by the SSA prior to issuance of the amendment.

##### Figure 2-5

##### Steps Involved in Formulating Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Conduct market research as a starting point for development of criteria in order to maximize competition.

● Conduct risk analysis in accordance with FAR 7.105 necessary to support the acquisition.

● Brainstorm critical factors and subfactors.

● Identify key discriminators.

● Define the discriminators as evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative order of importance.

● Obtain SSA approval of the list of factors and subfactors.

● When a draft RFP is used, clearly inform offerors in the draft RFP of the proposed factors and subfactors and their relative importance.

n Assess feedback during presolicitation exchanges.

n Get SSA approval as necessary to change the factors and subfactors before issuing the RFP.

● Clearly inform offerors of the factors and subfactors and their relative importance in the formal RFP. Do not change the factors and subfactors after the receipt of proposals except in extreme circumstances and only then after obtaining the SSA’s approval and amending the RFP and SSP.

● Evaluation Relative Importance

When using the tradeoff process, you must assign relative importance to each evaluation factor and subfactor. Tailor the relative importance to your specific requirements.

The Technical, Past Performance and the Small Business Participation Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Technicalis significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation, which are equal. The Past Performance and Small Business Participation Factors are more important than the Cost Factor.

Figure 2-6

Sample Priority Statement

Use priority statements to express the relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors. Priority statements relate one evaluation factor (or subfactor) to each of the other evaluation factors (or subfactors). Figure 2-6 contains a sample priority statement. Numerical weighting, i.e., assigning points or percentages to the evaluation factors and subfactors, is NOT an authorized method of expressing the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors (see AFARS 5115.304(b)(2)(D)).

Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e), you must identify in the RFP whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are –

n significantly more important than cost or price,

n approximately equal to cost or price, or

n significantly less important than cost or price.

● Establishing the Rating Methodology

Utilize the rating methodologies and associated definitions as set forth in Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for factors and subfactors.

Methodology 1. For any “Technical” Factor (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance), the most suitable rating methodology for most Army source selections is Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.1). This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process.

Methodology 2. When applying Methodology 2 (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2), Weaknesses, Risks, and Uncertainties are captured under the Technical Risk Rating (which also considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance). For firm-fixed price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions. Strengths and Deficiencies are captured under the Technical Rating.

● Access to the Source Selection Plan

The plan is source selection information, as defined by FAR 2.101. You will not disclose source selection information to any person not authorized to receive the information. Normally, only SST members and personnel from the responsible contracting activity with a need to know are authorized access to the plan. Development of the SSP is managed by the Contracting Officer and the requirements office. The SSA must approve access to anyone outside the SST and the recipient(s) must sign a non-disclosure agreement. All source selection information will be marked in accordance with FAR 3.104-4(c).

However, the evaluation factors and significant subfactors and their relative importance will eventually become public knowledge, as they become part of the solicitation. The PCO will put them into Sections L and M (or equivalent) of the solicitation exactly as they appear in the SSP.

● Source Selection for Services

Generating the SSP for a services type source selection offers some unique challenges to organizations and to the SST conducting the evaluation. For instance, Past Performance is frequently a major factor in the evaluation of services and usually ranks as the first or second most heavily weighted factor. As with all source selections, organizations shall take great care in providing qualified personnel to the SST, who are knowledgeable in the types of services being acquired.

The use of Sample Tasks is an effective tool in the evaluation of services (see Chapter 5 for a definition of Sample Task and Appendix K for an example of a Sample Task). They can provide a reasonable basis to assess the relative cost of the competing proposals, but only to the extent they are representative of the contract work. However, care must be taken to draft the sample tasks as closely as possible to the types of services being acquired and to limit the evaluation criteria to essential areas. This will provide the SSA with a meaningful understanding of the cost or price implications of making award to one or another concern.

## 2.3 Develop the Request for Proposals

The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through the issuance of a solicitation. In negotiated procurements, this document is called a Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP includes information necessary for the offerors to understand what the Government is buying, what information they must provide, and how their proposals will be evaluated.

The success of an acquisition is directly linked to the quality of the RFP.

A well-written RFP will:

● facilitate a fair competition,

● limit criteria to discriminators that add value,

● clearly detail information required by the offerors,

● clearly identify the evaluation and award criteria,

● preserve the offerors’ flexibility to propose innovative solutions,

● convey a clear understanding of the Government’s requirements,

● specify areas where the offerors can make technical and cost tradeoffs in their proposals.

●
You must place the evaluation factors and subfactors from the SSP into Section M (or equivalent) of the RFP and ensure consistency between these two documents (see DoD Source Selection Procedures, Chapter 2).

● Format

Most acquisitions to which these procedures apply use the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) described at FAR Part 15, which consists of a number of sections. Each section addresses a different topic; e.g., description of the supplies/services, inspection and acceptance, delivery or performance requirements, contract administration, instructions to offerors, standard provisions and clauses, and evaluation factors.

● Small Business Participation

The extent of Small Business Participation shall be evaluated in source selections for unrestricted acquisitions that require use of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, other than those based on the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process unless the contract, together with all of its subcontracts, will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas. See paragraph A.4 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Additional guidance may be obtained at FAR 15.304(c)(4), DFARS 215.304 and DFARS PGI 215.304.

The Army preferred methodology for evaluating Small Business Participation in unrestricted source selections is to establish a separate factor with an assigned relative order of importance for Small Business Participation as it relates to the other evaluation factors (DoD Source Selection Procedures 2.3.1.2.3). The factor shall be designed to require all offerors (both small and large businesses) to submit a Small Business Participation Plan (see sample plan at Appendix H). The offeror should articulate how small businesses will participate through performance as a small business prime offeror and/or through small business subcontracting.

You may evaluate large business offeror’s past performance in complying with requirements of Clauses FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 under the Past Performance evaluation factor. Although DFARS PGI 215.304 provides an example that indicates evaluation of Past Performance compliance within a separate Small Business Participation Factor, it may be evaluated instead under the Past Performance Factor, but not in both Factors.

● Common Problems with the RFP Process

Inconsistency among the RFP and Related Documents -- It is critical that there be alignment between the RFP and related documents. It is particularly important that there be consistency between the SSP and the RFP. Figure 2-6 illustrates how the key documents and evaluation standards track to one another and shows the recommended sequencing for document preparation.

Inconsistencies Within the RFP -- Particularly troublesome are inconsistencies between the descriptions of the Government’s requirements, instructions on how to prepare a proposal, and information related to the evaluation factors and subfactors. These inconsistencies may be caused by different groups of people developing the different RFP sections without proper coordination. Such inconsistencies can result in less advantageous offers, necessitate changes to the RFP, cause delays in the acquisition, lead to offerors losing confidence in the process, or result in litigation.

Requesting Too Much Information from the Offerors -- The instructions for preparing and submitting proposals are critical to an acquisition. There has to be a link between solicitation requirements and objectives, each evaluation factor and subfactor, and the proposal preparation instructions. Request only the essential information needed to evaluate proposals against the evaluation factors and subfactors. Never ask for information you do not intend to evaluate. Instructions that require voluminous information can cause potential offerors to forego responding to the solicitation in favor of a less costly business opportunity. Furthermore, excessively large proposals may increase the time and costs associated with performing the evaluation. Proposal page limitations or page recommendations are encouraged but need to be clearly defined and tailored to the needs of the acquisition (See Appendix K). Focus exclusively on discriminators. Failure to do so compromises the ability to identify the best value proposal.

##### Figure 2-6

##### Sample Tracking of Typical Acquisition Documents

WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) | SPECIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENET (PWS) | EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
WBS | SPECIFICATION | PWS | PROPOSAL EVALUATION INFORMATION Factor - Technical Subfactor - Software Modification Approach | PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION
3.1 Systems Engineering 3.1.1 Software Engineering 3.1.1.1 Software Modification 3.1.1.2 Code 3.1.1.3 Software Documentation | Software code shall meet the computer software design and coding requirements as defined in International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000-3. | 3.1.1. The contractor shall modify, integrate and test software as specified in the system Specification. 3.1.1.3 The contractor shall prepare a software modification plan. | The offeror's software modification approach will be evaluated relative to the modified software’s ability to accommodate open architecture, tracking accuracy, and reliability. | The offeror will describe its approach to software modification and explain how the software will accommodate open architecture, conforms to ISO-9000-3, tracks accurately, and maintains reliability.

Unnecessary Use of Design Requirements -- Presentation of the Government’s requirements in the RFP can have a significant impact on a source selection using the tradeoff process. Use of detailed design requirements or overly prescriptive performance work statements severely limits the offerors’ flexibility to propose their best solutions. Instead, use functional or performance-based requirements to the maximum extent practicable. While it may be more difficult to develop evaluation criteria and conduct the evaluation process using this approach, the benefits warrant it. These benefits include increased competition, access to the best commercial technology, better technical solutions, and fewer situations for protests.

● Ways to Improve the RFP Process

Ø Promote understanding of the Government’s requirements through presolicitation exchanges with industry (See FAR 15.201). Early industry involvement is key to learning and understanding what available solutions presently exists to satisfy the customer’s needs. The knowledge gained will help in determining how best to describe the requirements, identify risks to successful contract performance and select the proposal evaluation criteria to obtain the best products, services, and prices available in the commercial marketplace. This can be accomplished through use of various communication forums such as Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) notices, Advance Planning Briefings for Industry, one-on-one meetings with potential offerors (including due diligence), and/or presolicitation conferences. Any presolicitation exchanges of specific information about a proposed action, other than confidential business strategy, that would be necessary for the preparation of proposals must be posted to the Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) or other forum used to publicize the acquisition.

Ø Information technology facilitates distribution of the RFP and associated presolicitation documents.

Ø You may find it beneficial to develop a matrix that correlates the RFP sections and content to ensure consistency. Provide industry with a copy of the matrix (make it part of the solicitation) as a reference tool to aid in proposal preparation. This approach promotes understanding of the linkage within the solicitation and explains how all parts of the proposal will be used in the evaluation process.

Ø Provide specific guidance to offerors regarding the structure of their proposals. This type of guidance is put into Section L (or equivalent) of the RFP. The proposal should be divided into distinct volumes or files. These volumes/files should correlate to each of the evaluation teams (e.g., technical, cost/price, past performance, etc.). You should also prescribe how each volume/file is to be structured. These practices will facilitate distributing the proposal material to the various teams and will make it easier for evaluators to locate specific information in the proposals.

Ø Clearly advise offerors to keep technical and pricing information separate, and not intermixed between proposal volumes.

Ø Maximize the use of appropriate contractual incentives to ensure the resultant contract(s) represents an effective business relationship.

Ø Depending on your requirements, you may find it beneficial to use oral presentations (Appendix E).

● Independent Management Reviews (“Peer Reviews”)

Pre-award Peer Reviews will be conducted prior to each of the following three phases of the acquisition: (1) issuance of the solicitation, (2) request for final proposal revisions (if applicable) and (3) contract award. See AFARS 5101.170(b)(1) for specific requirements.

The Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) will organize teams of reviewers and facilitate Peer Reviews for competitive solicitations and contracts valued at $1 billion or more. For solicitations and contracts with an estimated value of $1 billion or more, the organization’s cognizant PARC shall initiate a DPAP Peer Review by notifying the designated DASA(P) representative. The notification will include the PARC's determination that the acquisition has been reviewed in accordance with their internal procedures, to include a SRB (prior to solicitation issuance) and/or a CRB (prior to contract award) chaired by the HCA, and that documents are ready for higher level review. The results and recommendations of the DPAP review are intended to be advisory in nature.

Reference DFARS 201.170, DFARS PGI 201.1 and AFARS 5101.170 Peer Reviews.

## 2.4 Release the Request for Proposals – No Army Text

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS

## 3.1 Evaluation Activities

In conducting the evaluation and making the award decision, you will apply the factors and subfactors and their relative importance to select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. The factors and subfactors give the offerors insight into the significant considerations that you will use in selecting the best value proposal and help them to understand the source selection process.

The SSEB will perform an in-depth, systematic evaluation of the proposals against the evaluation factors and subfactors set forth in the solicitation. Using the evaluation factors and subfactors will facilitate an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation of the offeror’s proposal against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other unless requested by the SSA, per DoD Source Selection Procedures 1.4.4.2.3.

While the specific evaluation processes and tasks will vary between source selections, the basic objective remains constant -- to provide the SSA with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. Towards this end, the evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties applicable to each proposal. In addition to the SSA using this information to make a source selection decision, the PCO will use it to establish a competitive range when discussions are necessary and, as appropriate, will provide the information to the respective offeror during clarifications, communications, and/or discussions (See Addendum to Chapter 3. below).

● Evaluation Steps

Following is a discussion of the general steps that the SSEB members will take in evaluating proposals. While these steps are identified in a linear manner, the process is actually iterative and some of the steps may be taken concurrently. Except where noted, these steps apply to the evaluation of both the cost and non-cost factors. (However, additional information related to the past performance and cost/price evaluations is provided in other sections of this chapter.) The groups responsible for evaluating past performance, other non-cost factors, and cost/price normally perform their evaluations in parallel. As necessary and appropriate, these groups should consult with one another to ensure that the evaluation of each proposal is performed in an integrated, comprehensive manner.

n Step One: Conduct Pre-proposal Training -- Prior to receipt of proposals, each evaluator should become familiar with all pertinent documents; e.g., the RFP, SSP, and adjectival ratings. Training shall be conducted by Contracting, with Legal Counsel assistance, that includes an overview of these documents and the source selection process, with detailed training on how to properly document each proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies. Training should match the contents of the DoD Source Selection Procedures and this supplement, and shall also include ethics training and the protection of source selection information. This training is especially crucial when there are evaluators with no prior source selection experience.

n Step Two: Perform Initial Screening of Proposals -- Upon receipt of proposals, the PCO or designee should conduct an initial screening to ascertain that each offeror has submitted all of the required information, including electronic media, in the quantities and format specified in the RFP. Figure 3-1 is an extract of a sample audit sheet that may be used to accomplish this initial screening and should be tailored to match the specific proposal submission requirements of the RFP. A key aspect of this step is also screening proposals for any exceptions to the terms and conditions as set forth within the RFP.

Figure 3-1

Sample Audit Sheet

n Step Three: Crosswalk of Cost/Price Information. The SSEB Chairperson and PCO, in coordination with the SSA, shall determine whether cost information will be provided to the technical evaluators, when and what information shall be provided, and under what conditions. The evaluator of Small Business Participation should verify total proposed price and any subcontracting information with the Cost/Price team. The purpose of the Small Business Participation Team verifying the total proposed price (not individual cost elements) is to ensure the dollar amounts are consistent with what is being proposed in the Small Business Participation Plan.

n Step Four: Identify and Document Areas of the Proposal That are Resolvable Through Clarifications or Communications -- If information is required to enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposal, the PCO may request amplification and other information from the offeror by means of the communication or clarification process (See Figure 3-5 for a detailed discussion of the differences between communications, clarifications and discussions).

n Step Five: Prepare an Initial Evaluation Identifying and Documenting Proposal Findings including (at a minimum) Strengths, Weaknesses, Deficiencies, Risks and Uncertainties, and Associated Evaluation Notices (ENs) -- The evaluators must identify and document proposal deficiencies and any evaluation notices (ENs). Additionally:

Ø The non-cost evaluators must identify and document the proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties, and

Ø In arriving at a Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the past performance evaluators must identify and document the offeror’s past performance to determine (a) how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the RFP required effort, and (b) how well the contractor performed on such recent/relevant contracts.

n Step Six: Assign Ratings for Non-Cost Evaluation Factors When Using the Tradeoff Process -- At this point, the evaluators may or may not individually assign ratings to each evaluation factor or subfactor for which they are responsible. At a minimum, each evaluation group must convene to discuss the offeror’s proposal. The purpose of the discussion is to share their views on the offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties related to their assigned evaluation factor(s)/ subfactor(s) and to reach a final rating for each factor and subfactor using the Adjectival Rating(s) identified in the SSP. In exceptional cases where the evaluators are unable to reach an agreement without unreasonably delaying the source selection process, the evaluation report shall include the majority conclusion and the dissenting view(s), in the form of a minority opinion, with supporting rationale which must be briefed to the SSA.

Consensus requires a meeting of the minds on the assigned rating and associated deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties and risks. A simple averaging of the individual evaluation results does not constitute consensus.

n Step Seven: Prepare a Summary Evaluation Report -- The final step is to prepare a summary report for each proposal that includes the evaluated price, the rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, and a discussion of the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties. An evaluation report must be prepared at each stage of the process; i.e., initial evaluation, interim evaluation, and final evaluation (see Figure 3-2).

## 3.2 Documentation of Initial Evaluation Results

Figure 3-2

Methodology 1 Sample Summary Evaluation Form

SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM RFP No: EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:
RFP REFERENCES: FACTOR: | PROPOSAL REFERENCES: VOLUME/PARAGRAPH:
SUBFACTOR: | PAGE NUMBER:
Evaluation Rating: (Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U))
Evaluator’s Rating: Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: Discussions: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:
RATIONALE: Include supporting narrative rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation rating definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Also include any evaluation notices. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.
STRENGTHS: (Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any identified risks associated with the strength.)
WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the identified risks associated with the weakness.)
DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Address the identified risks associated with the deficiency.)
UNCERTAINTIES:
EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency, and uncertainty.

Using evaluation forms and automated evaluation tools can ease the administrative burden associated with these tasks. Figure 3-2 is a sample form that may be used to report these items when you are not using an automated tool such as ASSIST (Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool). Whatever method you use, it is important that you support the evaluation findings with narrative statements. All evaluations must be documented. Ratings alone are not conclusive data upon which to make a source selection decision.

● Past Performance Evaluations – See Appendix G

● Small Business Participation Evaluations – See Appendix H

● Cost/Price Evaluations (See also Appendix I, Cost Realism Analysis)

Figure 3-3 provides a side-by-side comparison of what price analysis, cost analysis, cost realism analysis, and profit or fee analysis are and when they must be used. For detailed instructions and professional guidance on how to conduct these analyses, refer to FAR 15.4 and Contract Pricing Reference Guides.

Figure 3-3

Comparison of Price, Cost, Cost Realism, and Profit Analyses

| Price Analysis | Cost Analysis | Cost Realism Analysis | Profit/Fee Analysis
What is it? | The process of examining and evaluating an offeror’s proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee. Price analysis always involves some type of comparison with other prices; e.g., comparing an offeror’s proposed price with the proposed prices of competing offerors or with previously proposed prices for the same or similar items. | The review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit/fee in an offeror’s proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. | The process of indepen- dently evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s cost estimate to determine whether the estimated cost elements are: ● realistic for the work to be performed; ● 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. The probable cost estimate is a product of a cost realism analysis. | The process of examining the proposed profit or fee to determine if it is reasonable in light of the associated risks. DFARS 215.404-4 contains DoD’s policy on performing profit or fee analysis.
When must you perform it? | When cost and pricing data is not required to determine if the overall price is fair and reasonable. Price realism may be performed to determine that the price offered is consistent with the effort proposed. | When cost or pricing data is required. Also you may use it to evaluate information other than cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness or cost realism. | When cost-reimbursement contracts are anticipated. Also you may use it on fixed price (FP) incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive FP contracts when the offerors may not fully understand new requirements, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality/service shortfalls. | When cost analysis is performed.

The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) may play a key role in cost/price analysis. It serves as a benchmark for price analysis and in cost realism, it may also serve as a benchmark for individual cost elements. The IGCE must contain a rationale for how it was developed, e.g., what estimating tools were used and what assumptions were made, in order to properly evaluate cost/price.

Following are some general evaluation guidelines and recommendations for evaluating cost/price:

● With the approval of the SSEB Chairperson and the PCO, the cost/price evaluators should coordinate with the non-cost Factor/Functional Team Leads as necessary to ensure consistency between the proposed costs/prices and other portions of the proposal. This interchange between SSEB factor teams is part of the initial validation exercise and should be continued throughout the evaluation process to assure that interrelationships are promptly identified and the evaluation findings reflect their recognition. This will be beneficial for both the non-cost Factor/Functional Team Leads and cost/price evaluators. For example, a clue to the soundness of a contractor’s technical approach can often be obtained from an analysis of the related Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for the RFP Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) structure between the cost/price volume and the Statement of Work included in the technical volume. Conversely, when issues, weaknesses or risks are uncovered in the technical proposal, related inadequacies in the cost (or price) and other proposal components may be revealed. A cost/price concern is defined as a flaw, issue with, or lack of information in the cost/price proposal.

● While interchange between the SSEB factor teams is permissible with the approval of the SSEB Chairperson and the PCO, it is necessary to protect the cost/price data to avoid intentional or unintentional bias on the part of the evaluators. To preclude prejudice, in most cases you should disclose cost/price information to the non-cost evaluators only after the initial non-cost/price evaluations are complete. To the extent required, the SSEB chairperson and the PCO shall manage the sharing of cost information to include information required to conduct cost realism analysis. In all cases, provide copies of the proposed BOEs without costs (or prices) to the non-cost evaluators so that they can ensure the proposed BOEs track to the associated technical narrative. The Cost Factor should include a requirement in section L of the RFP that requires offerors to provide a cross-walk in their cost volume that reconciles by page reference the proposed Statement of Work by CLIN in the technical volume with the proposed Basis of Estimates by CLIN in their cost volume.

● When conducting price analysis, consider not only the total price, including options, but also the prices for the individual CLINS to ensure they are not unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. The PCO with concurrence of the SSA (and if permitted by the RFP) may reject the offer if they determine that this poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. For more information on unbalanced pricing, see FAR 15.404-1(g).

● For fixed-price contracts, the evaluation can be as simple as consideration of adequate price competition and ensuring prices are fair and reasonable. For cost-reimbursement contracts, you must analyze the offerors’ estimated costs for both realism and reasonableness. The cost realism analysis enables you to determine each offeror’s probable cost of performance. This precludes an award decision based on an overly optimistic cost estimate. Additionally, whenever you perform cost analysis you must also perform profit or fee analysis.

If cost realism is performed, the cost evaluators will identify and consider cost risks as part of that process. This risk is not scored. Cost realism analysis results in a probable cost estimate. The difference between the estimated cost and the probable cost estimate provides the evaluators with insight into the risk associated with performance from a cost perspective. The larger the difference between the cost proposed and the probable cost estimate, the larger the risk that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

● When conducting a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (MA IDIQ) competition, and in order to perform a meaningful evaluation of cost/price within the confines of the Competition in Contracting Act, key proposed IDIQ prices (i.e., labor rates, indirect rates, specific tasks, prices on a bidding schedule) must be binding and incorporated into resultant contract awards. Binding rates/prices must be included for base and all option periods. This assessment is not satisfied by the promise that cost/price will be considered later during the award of individual task or delivery orders.

● In some cases, where you are using lowest price technically acceptable as basis for award, you may find it beneficial to utilize on-line reverse auctions as a pricing tool. See Appendix J for more information on this tool.

###
Addendum to Chapter 3 - Exchanges with Offerors

●
GROUND RULES FOR EXCHANGES

During exchanges with offerors, the Government may not:

● favor one offeror over another,

● reveal an offeror’s solution to another offeror,

● reveal an offeror’s price to another offer without that offeror’s permission,

● knowingly disclose source selection information, or

● reveal the name of individuals providing past performance information.

●
Conducting Exchanges with Offerors

#### The PCO controls all exchanges with offerors. Before participating in any exchanges, the PCO shall review the ground rules with the team members.

●
●
Types of Exchanges

After receipt of proposals, there are three types of exchanges that may occur between the Government and offerors -- clarifications, communications and negotiations or discussions. They differ on when they occur, their purpose and scope, and whether offerors are allowed to revise their proposals as a result of the exchanges. All SSEB exchanges must be accomplished through the use of evaluation notices (ENs). Figure 3-5 provides a side-by-side comparison of the three types of exchanges.

Figure 3-5

Comparison of Types of Exchanges (After Receipt of Proposals)

| Clarifications | Communications | Negotiations/Discussions
When They Occur | Limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors when award WITHOUT discussions is contemplated | When award WITH discussions is contemplated -- prior to establishing the competitive range May only be held with those offerors (other than offerors under FAR 15.306 (b)(1)(i)) whose exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. | After establishing the competitive range Note: The term “negotiations” applies to both competitive and non-competitive acquisitions. In competitive acquisitions, negotiations are also called discussions.
Scope of the Exchanges | Most limited of the three types of exchanges | Limited; similar to fact finding | Most detailed and extensive
Purpose | To clarify certain aspects of proposals | To enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposal by addressing issues that must be explored to allow a reasonable interpretation of the offeror’s proposal to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the competitive range | To allow the offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal so that the Government obtains the best value, based on the requirement and applicable evaluation factors
Examples of Topics of Exchanges | ● Relevance of an offeror’s past performance ● Adverse past performance information ● Resolution of minor or clerical errors. | ● Ambiguities or other concerns (e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes) ● Relevance of an offeror’s past performance ● Adverse past performance information | Examples of potential discussion topics include the identification of all evaluated deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.
Are Resultant Proposal Revisions Allowed? | No | No | Yes

## 3.3 Award without Discussions

● Conducting Clarifications

If the SSA has determined that any offerors would be excluded from award based on past performance only, conduct clarifications with the offerors as appropriate. Give the offerors an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information about which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to comment. The same procedures will be used for sole source and single proposals. Remember, offerors are not given an opportunity to respond to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies or revise their proposals as a result of the clarifications process.

## 3.4 Discussion Process

● Conducting Communications

The PCO will conduct communications when award with discussions is contemplated (as described in Figure 3-5 above) prior to establishment of the competitive range.

● Establishing the Competitive Range

The PCO will establish a competitive range before conducting discussions. The SSA, if other than the PCO, must approve the competitive range determination.

Based on the language of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Establishing the competitive range results in greater efficiency by limiting the number of offerors with whom you must hold discussions.

The PCO determines, with approval of the SSA, which proposals are within the competitive range based on the evaluated price and other evaluation factors included in the RFP. The PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In such case, the RFP must clearly state that the Government reserves the right to limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency by including the following: “The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions with offerors. However, in the event the SSA/PCO concludes conducting discussions is in the best interests of the Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offerors initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.” However, you should not establish predetermined cut-off ratings or identify a predetermined number of offerors that will be included in the competitive range. Rather, the PCO should make the competitive range determination using prudent business judgment based on the specifics of the source selection. The competitive range decision must be clearly articulated. The rationale for the competitive range must be clearly documented in the Competitive Range Determination and Prenegotiation Objective Memorandum (POM). (See FAR 15.406(b)) Figure 3-6 identifies the steps involved in developing a competitive range.

Figure 3-6: Development of the Competitive Range

Step 1: Identify the most highly rated proposals. (Note: If there is only one proposal falling within the competitive range, ensure the evaluation factors and subfactors are not too restrictive and the procurement is truly competitive. The single proposal must meet the requirements of the RFP.)

Step 2: If these proposals exceed the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted and the RFP allows restricting the competitive range, limit the competitive range to the greatest number of proposals that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In such a case, the basis for this further restriction must be adequately documented. However, consider the following before doing so:

● The expected dollar value of the award,

● The complexity of the acquisition and solutions proposed, and

● The extent of available resources.

Step 3: Obtain the SSA’s approval of the competitive range.

Step 4: Document the competitive range determination and the supporting rationale.

Step 5: Promptly send written notification to the offeror(s) whose proposal is excluded from the competitive range.

The PCO and the SSA should continually reassess the competitive range as discussions and evaluations continue to ensure neither the Government nor the offerors waste resources by keeping proposals in that are no longer contenders for award. The PCO must notify the offeror immediately of its elimination from the competitive range (see Figure 3-13 for requisite content of the notice to unsuccessful offerors and 3-14 for debriefing information.)

● After Establishment of the Competitive Range

The PCO must conduct meaningful discussions with all offerors within the competitive range. The Government’s objectives will be fully documented prior to entering into negotiations in the Pre-negotiation Objective Memorandum (POM) (See FAR 15.406-1, DFARS PGI 215.406-1). The PCO will tailor the discussions to each offeror’s proposal relative to the solicitation requirements and evaluation factors. Discussions should at a minimum include identification of all evaluated deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and any adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The PCO should also discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could, in his/her opinion, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the PCO will not discuss with individual offerors how their proposal compares to other offerors’ proposals.

The PCO will confirm information obtained through discussions by requesting or allowing proposal revisions, as appropriate, from offerors who are within the competitive range and still eligible for selection. The PCO should require offerors to submit written proposal changes resulting from discussions before requesting final proposal revisions. As necessary, this will allow you to conduct further discussions before the final cutoff date. After receipt of the offerors' responses to all the issues raised during discussions, the SSEB must re-evaluate proposals. Responses based on final proposal revisions (FPRs) must be evaluated/rated again in the same manner as in the initial evaluation.

## 3.5 Final Proposal Revisions

The PCO shall obtain contract clearance approval as part of the Peer Review process, prior to releasing the request for final proposal revisions (FPR) (required for acquisitions equal to or greater than $1B). The PCO must notify the offerors remaining in the competitive range of the cut-off date for FPRs and that the FPR is subject to the provision on late submissions. If, after receipt of FPRs further negotiations are necessary, the PCO must re-open discussions and extend a second FPR opportunity to all offerors remaining in the competitive range after receiving approval from the SSA.

## 3.6 Documentation of Final Evaluation Results

At the request of the SSA, the SSAC and/or SSEB members present the evaluation results by means of one or more briefings. Figure 3-7 illustrates a sample format for the briefing. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 illustrate sample attachments to the report. The documentation should be clear and concise and should cross-reference, rather than repeat, information in existing documents as much as possible (e.g., the SSP, evaluation team reports, etc.). In rare occasions, if the SSA identifies concerns with the evaluation findings and/or analysis, the SSA may require the SSEB and/or SSAC to conduct a re-evaluation and/or analysis to address these concerns. The evaluation results shall clearly be documented in the Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM). (See FAR 15.406-3, DFARS PGI 215.406-3.)

Figure 3-7 Sample Briefing Format

I. INTRODUCTION: Include information such as the evaluation factors and subfactors; Source Selection Team (SST) structure; summary of the solicitation requirements; the number of offers received; and number of offerors remaining in the competitive range.

II. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION RESULTS: Summarize the evaluation results of each remaining offeror’s proposal. You may use the sample format at Figure 3-8. Present both cost and non-cost factor evaluation results in a format which facilitates the SSA’s understanding of each proposal’s evaluation. Include each proposal’s strengths and weaknesses.

III. SUMMARY: Summarize the proposal evaluations in a comparative chart, and if necessary, include brief statements and issues considered significant to the SSA’s decision. The SSAC will prepare a written comparative analysis of proposals and award recommendation for the SSA’s consideration. If an SSAC is not utilized the SSEB should not conduct a comparative analysis of the proposals or make an award recommendation unless specifically requested by the SSA or required by the SSP. You may use a matrix such as the example at Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-8 Sample Format for Individual Proposal Evaluation Results

FACTORS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT/RISK Summarizes assessment of the offeror’s proposal as measured against the technical subfactors. Also, summarizes assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with the offeror’s proposed approach derived from the technical evaluation Example: Good | Technical Subfactor 1 Technical Subfactor 2 Technical Subfactor 3
PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE Summarizes assessment of the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent and relevant contracts. Also see Small Business Participation text at Appendix H. Example: Limited Confidence | Past Performance Relevancy Past Performance Record (including small business if applicable)
SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION Summarizes assessment of small business participation as a prime or subcontractor, and the offeror’s commitment to meeting goals specified in the RFP. Also see Small Business Participation text at Appendix H. Example: Good | Small Business Participation
COST/PRICE Reflects the total proposed or evaluated cost/price. Where cost realism is evaluated, the cost also reflects the probable cost resulting from any adjustments made for cost realism. Example: Proposed Cost $XXX. Probable Cost $XXX |

Figure 3-9

Sample Matrix Summarizing a Typical Proposal Evaluation Comparison

OFFEROR | TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/ RISK | PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE* | SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION | EVALUATED PRICE
A | Outstanding | Substantial Confidence | Good | $171,503,971
B | Outstanding | Limited Confidence | Good | $134,983,305
C | Good | Limited Confidence | Outstanding | $120,976,836
D | Outstanding | Limited Confidence | Outstanding | $150,840,308
E | Acceptable | Substantial Confidence | Acceptable | $115,751,933

*One performance confidence rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. SEE FAR 15.305 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.3.

## 3.7 Conduct and Documentation of Comparative Analysis

There are three possible outcomes of the SSAC’s (if one is required) written comparative analysis:

● The lowest-priced proposal is superior in terms of all non-cost factors,

● There are no meaningful distinctions between the non-cost portions of the proposals.

● The lowest-priced proposal is not superior in terms of non-cost factors.

In the first two outcomes, the decision is fairly clear that the award should be made to the lowest-priced offeror unless there is a significant distinction between the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. However, in the case of the third outcome, the decision is not as clear. The SSAC must consider whether or not the benefits of the non-cost strengths warrant the additional price premium. This is accomplished by conducting a trade-off analysis among the competing proposals. Figure 3-10 is a decision model that the SSAC may use when preparing the comparative analysis and award recommendation. While the award recommendation decision model appears simple, the process is far from simple. The evaluation, proposal comparison, and tradeoff analysis process require a great deal of subjectivity and judgment. Note: If the SSA disagrees with the award recommendation of the SSAC or the SSEB (if applicable), the rationale and justification for the disagreement must be addressed in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

Figure 3-10

Award Recommendation Decision Model

Recommend award to offeror that represents the best value

NO

NO

YES

Conduct tradeoff analysis and document results

There are meaningful distinctions between the non-cost portions of the proposals

Lowest priced proposal is the superior proposal in terms of non-cost factors

Conduct comparative analysis and document results

Conduct comparative analysis and document results

YES

Recommend award to lowest priced offeror

When performing the comparative analysis, consider each proposal’s total evaluated price and the discriminators in the non-cost ratings as indicated by each proposal's strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Consider these differences in light of the relative importance (or weight) of each evaluation factor. Figure 3-11 identifies suggested steps in performing a comparative analysis.

Figure 3-11

Suggested Steps in Performing Comparative Analysis

Step 1. Identify the individual proposal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced during evaluations.

Step 2. Analyze their impact on the acquisition objectives in light of the relative importance of the evaluation factors.

Step 3. Compare proposal evaluations

Step 4. Assess the best mix of cost (or price) and non-cost benefits and determine whether the strengths of higher-rated proposals are worth the price premium.

The comparative analysis does not preclude eventual selection of the lowest price offer as providing the best value. In fact, selection of a higher-priced offer always involves the necessity to state in the source selection decision document the rationale for concluding that payment of a higher price is justified by a proportionate superiority in non-cost factors. If the superior technical proposal is not selected, it is also imperative that the rationale for its non-selection be documented.

## 3.8 Best-Value Decision

The SSA will compare the proposals to determine the offer(s) that represent(s) the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. The selection process is complex and depending upon the evaluation factors, the SSA may exercise a significant degree of judgment in selecting the successful offeror(s). The adjectival ratings assigned by the SSEB are labels and not the sole basis for proposal comparison. The SSA uses the same methodology and deliberative process cited in Paragraph 3.7 above in arriving at the Best Value Decision. The SSA must not base the best value decision merely on the adjectival ratings or the comparative analysis and award recommendation of the SSAC (when an SSAC is required), but shall exercise independent judgment. Likewise, the comparative analysis (which compares the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals), and award recommendation of the SSAC or SSEB (when applicable) are not binding upon the SSA.

The SSA must document the rationale for selecting the successful offeror(s) in an independent, stand-alone Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD). Merely referencing the comparative assessment or other documentation is NOT adequate. Figure 3-12 illustrates the type of information that must be included in the source selection decision document. (See also SSDD definition in Chapter 5, Definitions.)

## 3.9 Source Selection Decision Document

When the SSA determines that the best value proposal is other than the lowest-priced proposal, the document must explicitly justify paying a price premium regardless of the superiority of the proposal's non-cost rating. The justification must clearly state what benefits or advantages the Government is receiving for the added price and why it is in the Government's interest to expend the additional funds. This justification is required even when the solicitation indicates that non-cost factors are more important than cost/price.

Likewise, where the SSA determines the non-cost benefits offered by the higher-priced, technically superior proposal are not worth the price premium as compared to the other offeror(s), an explicit justification also is necessary. The SSA shall engage legal counsel in review of the source selection decision document to assure that the decision clearly articulates the business judgment of the SSA.

This document becomes part of the official contract file and can be released, provided that any information exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is not released (i.e., proprietary and business sensitive information, trade secrets and cost information). You may find it beneficial to provide the unsuccessful offeror(s) with a copy of the document at their debriefing(s). If you choose to provide them with a copy, you must redact the copy to remove information pertinent to other unsuccessful offerors and information that is exempt under FOIA.

Figure 3-12

Sample Outline for Source Selection Decision Document

1. Decision Statement. Example: As Source Selection Authority for this acquisition, I have determined that the ____ product/service proposed by (fill in offeror’s name) provides the best overall value to satisfy Army needs. This selection was made based upon the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation and my integrated assessment and comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. This memorandum documents the basis for my decision.

2. Brief description of the product/service being procured.

3. Extract of the basis for award (as set forth in the RFP), including the factors and subfactors against which proposals were measured and their relative order of importance.

4. A list of offerors in the competitive range.

5. Rationale for business judgments and tradeoffs. Include the following:

Ø Succinct comparison of each proposal, focusing on key proposal differences (strengths, weaknesses, and risks) that surfaced in the evaluation and their impact on the acquisition.

Ø Explanation of specific tradeoffs that led to the decision.

Ø Explanation of specific benefits of the technically superior offeror(s) and why they are or are not significant enough to warrant any additional cost.

6. Summary. Example: In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals in accordance with the specified evaluation factors and subfactors, it is my decision that (fill in offeror’s name) proposal offers the best overall value.

Signature

> Source Selection Authority

● Awarding the Contract(s)

After the SSA has signed the source selection decision document, the PCO will execute and distribute the contract(s). Congressional notification may be required IAW FAR 5.303. For Section 8(A) Set Asides, the SBA shall be notified IAW FAR 19.804. For Small Business Programs, the apparent unsuccessful offerors shall be provided the pre-award notice required by FAR 15.503.

● Notification to Unsuccessful Offerors

The PCO must notify unsuccessful offerors in writing after contract award or whenever their proposals are eliminated from the competition within the timeframe identified in Figure 3-13. The type of information that must be included in the notice will depend upon whether it is sent before or after contract award. Figure 3-13 provides a side-by-side comparison of the differences between pre-award and post-award notices.

Figure 3-13

Comparison of Pre-award and Post-award Notices

| PRE-AWARD NOTICE FAR 15.503(a) | POST-AWARD NOTICE FAR 15.503(b)
Who Must be Notified? | Any offeror whose proposal was excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition before contract award. | Any offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range but was not selected for award or who had not received a pre-award notice.
When Must it be Sent? | Promptly after the offeror’s proposal was eliminated from the competition. | Within three days after the date of contract award.
What is Included in the Notice? | ● A summary of the basis for the determination ● A statement that the Government will not consider any further proposal revisions from the offeror. Note: Small business offerors are entitled to additional information as described at FAR Part 15.503(a)(2). After contract award and upon request from an offeror who previously received a pre-award notice, the PCO must provide the offeror the information normally provided as part of a post-award notice. | ● Number of proposals received; ● Name(s) and address(es) of awardee(s) ● Items, quantities, and unit prices of each awardee. If listing the unit prices is impracticable, include only the total contract price. (However, upon request, the items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award shall be made publicly available.) ● A summary of the reason(s) the offeror’s proposal was not selected, unless the price information readily reveals the reason. ● Notice of right to request a debriefing.

## 3.10 Debriefings

● Pre-award versus Post-award Debriefings

There are two types of debriefings – pre-award and post-award. Each unsuccessful offeror is entitled to one debriefing, either orally or in writing. Figure 3-14 outlines when each type of debriefing is appropriate and what may and may not be disclosed at each. Of the two types, the pre-award is more restrictive in terms of what may be disclosed to the unsuccessful offeror since the procurement would be still on-going at the time of the debriefing.

Figure 3-14: Comparison of Pre-award and Post-award Debriefings

| PRE-AWARD DEBRIEFING FAR 15.505 | POST-AWARD DEBRIEFING FAR 15.506
Who is Entitled to a Debriefing? | Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award. | Any unsuccessful offeror who has not had a pre-award debriefing.
When Must the Government Conduct a Debriefing? | As soon as practicable after receipt of a timely, written request. However, the PCO may refuse the request for a pre-award debriefing if it is not in the best interest of the Government to conduct a pre-award debriefing.(1) (2) | Within five days, to the maximum extent practicable, after receipt of a timely, written request for a debriefing. (3)
What is a Timely Request? | A request received by the contracting activity within 3 calendar days after the offeror received notice of exclusion from the competition. (4) | A request received by the contracting activity within 3 calendar days after the offeror received notice of contract award. (4)
What Can Not Be Disclosed? | ● Number of offerors ● Identity of other offerors ● Content of other offerors’ proposals ● Ranking of other offerors ● Evaluation of other offerors ● Point-by-point comparisons of a debriefed offeror’s proposal with other proposals ● Information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202 or information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5) | ● Point-by-point comparisons of a debriefed offeror’s proposal with other proposals (The ratings of a debriefed offeror and the awardee may be disclosed to the second level of evaluation without violating this principle.) ● Information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202, or information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5).
What Should Be Discussed? | ● The agency’s evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal (6); ● A summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition ● Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition. | ● The Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable; ● The overall evaluated cost/price (include unit prices only if releasable under FOIA, and DO NOT disclose the IGCE); technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror; and past performance information on the debriefed offeror; ● The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection; ● A summary of the rationale for award; ● For acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and ● Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed. ● Other information, as appropriate.

Notes to Figure 3-14:

> > (1) The offeror may request the debriefing be delayed until after contract award. When delayed, the debriefing shall include all the information provided in a post-award debriefing.

> > (2) In the event either the Government or offeror delays the debriefing, the PCO must provide the debriefing within the timeframe established for post-award debriefings.

> > (3) If an offeror submits an untimely request for debriefing, the PCO may nonetheless conduct a debriefing if feasible. In such case, inform the offeror the request is untimely.

> > (4) Do not count the day the offeror received the notice; start with the next day. Consider sending the notice by mail with return receipt requested or by electronic means (facsimile transmission or e-mail) with immediate acknowledgment requested so that you can easily establish the date the offeror received it.

> > (5) Includes such things as trade secrets; privileged or confidential information, e.g., manufacturing processes and techniques, commercial and financial information, and cost data; and the names of individuals providing past performance information. It does not include information otherwise available without restriction to the Government or public.

> > (6) If the element was significant enough to eliminate the offeror from the competitive range, it is significant for debriefing purposes. Include both positive and negative elements of the offeror’s proposal to help improve future proposals.

● Other Information to Ensure a Meaningful Debriefing

Ø
One of the primary goals of a debriefing is to inform the offeror of the positive and negative aspects of its proposal so it can provide more competitive proposals in future acquisitions.

In a post-award debriefing, disclose the evaluation ratings of the debriefed offeror and awardee to the subfactor level of evaluation; and all significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and deficiencies (if any) of the debriefed offeror’s proposal.

Ø Disclose the debriefed offeror’s total evaluated prices and the awardee’s total evaluated cost/price (include unit prices only if releasable under FOIA, and DO NOT disclose the IGCE).

Ø Disclose a summary of the rationale for the contract award decision. The rationale is contained in the SSA’s source selection decision document. Consider furnishing the debriefed offerors with a copy of this document. However, evaluation information concerning the other unsuccessful offerors and information not releasable under FOIA must be redacted prior to release (ensuring no information listed in FAR 15.506(e) is released).

Ø Add a conclusory statement in the debrief instructions to be clear on the start of the protest window.

● The Post Debriefing Memorandum

The PCO must include a summary of each debriefing in the contract file. Good post-debriefing memorandums are essential.

The post-debriefing memorandum should include at a minimum:

Ø A list of all debriefing attendees.

Ø A summary of the information disclosed during the debriefing. The most efficient means for doing this is to attach the debriefing slides to the memorandum.

Ø The offeror’s request for a debriefing, if any.

Ø The substance of all questions and answers discussed at, or provided subsequent to, the debriefing. This includes previously submitted questions, any hand-outs, and a list of written questions/answers.

Ø Any other relevant documents.

CHAPTER 4: DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

No Army Text

CHAPTER 5: DEFINITIONS

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as "PPIRS or FAPPIS." (A best practice can be to discuss adverse past performance which caused a rating to be lowered to Satisfactory, or possibly Good.)

Best Value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range is the offers rated most highly after proposal evaluations. Discussions will be held only with offerors in the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(c).

Deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Due Diligence (Industry) - The process followed by prospective contractors to fully understand the government requirement in order to submit a complete, responsive proposal to the government which will result in a successful acquisition. Methods maybe include such activities as conducting site visits, attending industry days, one-on-one sessions with the acquisition teams, pre- proposal conferences and responding to draft requests for proposals.

Due Diligence (Government) - The process followed by the government acquisition team to ensure all prospective contractors are as informed of the government requirement and method of acquisition as possible in order to receive a reasonable number of competitive proposals from industry. Methods may include such activities as providing for site visits, conducting industry days, one-on-one sessions with interested vendors, pre-proposal conferences and sending draft requests for proposals to industry.

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Formal source selection means the source selection process used where someone other than the procuring contracting officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA), normally for high dollar value or complex acquisitions.

Large Business means businesses determined other than Small Business based upon industry size standards/NAICs codes. Includes: Large businesses, State and Local Government and non-profit companies. May also include: public utilities, educational institutions, and foreign-owned firms.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is a process used in competitive negotiated contracting where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. See FAR 15.101-2.

Minor or Clerical Error is a minor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon recent, relevant past performance information.

Probable Cost is the government’s best estimate of the costs that a contractor will incur in performing a cost-reimbursement contract (FAR 15.404-1(d) (2)(i)). The probable cost must be ascertained by making a cost realism analysis during the evaluation of each proposal and must be used in making the source selection decision for best value.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

Requiring Office is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for translating user requirements into the requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Sample Task is a hypothetical task consistent with the RFP requirements to provide a common basis for comparing the relative costs/price of proposals and/or to assess an offeror's understanding of the requirement. It must be a reasonable representative of the kind or kinds of work that will be required. Some rates used to price the task order must be binding on the contractor for the sample to be valid. (Incorporation of binding rates also applies to any live/real task order.)

Source Selection is the process used in competitive, negotiated contracting to select the proposal that offers the best value to the Government.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of senior Government personnel who provide counsel during the source selection process and must prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's evaluation results and make a recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best value decision, ensuring that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

Source Selection Team (SST) is a team that is tailored to the unique acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost/Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document that reflects the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of Government and, if needed, approved non-Government personnel, representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition.

Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan that describes how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contract provisions in the solicitation.

Tradeoff Process is the process which permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

#### APPENDIX A

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Source Selection Process

No Army Text

#### APPENDIX B

Debriefing Guide

No Army Text

#### APPENDIX C

###### SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

Release of Source Selection Information and Contractor Proposal Information

The Procurement Integrity Act precludes individuals from knowingly disclosing source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information before award of a Federal contract to which the information relates. The PCO, after consulting with legal counsel, is authorized to approve release of source selection information (before and after contract award) to other authorized Government officials that have signed a non-disclosure statement providing the release would not jeopardize the integrity or successful completion of the procurement.

Security/Ethics Briefing

Ensure all SST personnel attend a security/ethics briefing that emphasizes each SST member:

● Is responsible for security of the evaluation and proposal materials and other source selection and contractor bid or proposal information related to the procurement;

● Should be knowledgeable of, and adhere to, governing security procedures and regulations;

● Will not discuss, communicate, reveal participation in the SST, or otherwise deal on matters related to the source selection with any individual not assigned to the SST, unless authorized (see above), and then only within appropriately secure areas; and

● Will challenge the presence of any apparent unauthorized individual within the SST physical location.

Required Certificates and Reports

Each SST member (including support personnel) must sign a certificate(s) that addresses nondisclosure of information, conflicts of interest, and rules of conduct (see sample certificate at Figure C-1).

Figure C-1

Sample Certificate

SOURCE SELECTION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

Important! This Agreement concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of a United States government agency. This Agreement prohibits you from making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and/or certifications. If you do so, you may be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C §1001.

AGREEMENT

1. This Agreement applies to individuals involved in Solicitation [NUMBER], also known as the [PROGRAM NAME] acquisition.

2. This Agreement contains the rules of conduct relating to this acquisition. It includes rules of conduct regarding conflicts of interest as well as rules of conduct regarding the safeguarding of confidential information.

3. Your signature on this Agreement indicates that you have read this Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms.

TERMS

4. I have read, understand and will abide by the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §3.104. I understand that I may request a copy of FAR 3.104 from the Contracting Officer for this acquisition.

5. Except as set forth below, I do not presently hold, and will not obtain during my participation in this acquisition, any financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, my spouse and dependent children do not have a financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

7. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, none of the following is a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor for this acquisition, or represents a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor with regard to this acquisition:

. any person or company with whom I have or am seeking a business, contractual or other financial relationship that involves other than a routine consumer transaction;

· my spouse and dependent children;

· any person or company with whom I have been affiliated within the last year;

· any organization in which I am an active participant.

*Financial Interest - Any continuing financial interest (such as through a pension or retirement plan, shared income, continuing termination payments, or other arrangements as a result of any current or prior employment or business or professional association) or any financial interest through legal or beneficial ownership of stock, stock options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements including trusts.

**Affiliation - A relationship as an employee, officer, owner, director, member, trustee, partner, advisor, agent, representative, or consultant; or a person having any understanding, plans or pending contacts regarding such a relationship in the future. (This includes sending resumes, making telephone inquiries or any act that reasonably could be construed as an indication of interest in a future affiliation.)

8. I understand that I may request a statement from the Contracting Officer as to whether a person or company is considered to be a reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor.

9. I will not knowingly disclose any contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information regarding this acquisition directly or indirectly to any person other than a person authorized in accordance with FAR 3.104 to receive such information.

10. I will observe the following rules during the conduct of the acquisition:

a. I will not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any promise of future employment or business opportunity from, or engage, directly or indirectly, in any discussion of future employment or business opportunity with, any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant of any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition.

b. I will not ask for, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, or agree to receive,

directly or indirectly, any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan,

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

forbearance or other thing of value from any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant of any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition, unless permitted under Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2635, Subpart B.

c. I will instruct members of my parent or home organization not to divulge my participation in the evaluation and source selection process or my physical location while participating in the evaluation and source selection process to unauthorized persons.

d. I understand that all communications with offerors or their subcontractors concerning this acquisition must be made by/through the Contracting Officer, or the Contracting Officer’s designee. I will divert all attempted communications by offerors' or subcontractors’ representatives or any other unauthorized person to the Contracting Officer, and advise the Chairperson of the SSAC or the Chairperson of the SSEB and Legal Counsel.

e. I will not discuss evaluation or source selection matters, including proposal information, with any unauthorized individuals (including Government personnel), even after the announcement of the successful contractor, unless authorized by proper authority. All discussions of evaluation/source selection matters with other SSEB/SSAC members shall be conducted solely in those areas designated for deliberations.

11. I realize that my actions in connection with my participation in this evaluation and source selection are subject to intense scrutiny and I will conduct myself in a way that will not adversely affect the confidence of the public in the source selection process. I will avoid any action, whether or not prohibited, that could result in or create the appearance of my losing independence or impartiality. I will not use my public office for private gain, and I agree not to engage in any personal business or professional activity, or enter into any financial transaction, that involves or appears to involve, the direct or indirect use of "inside information" to further a private gain for myself or others.

12. I understand that my obligations under this certification are of a continuing nature, and if anything takes place which would cause a change to any statement, or create a violation of any representation or rule of conduct herein, I will immediately bring such matter to the attention of the Chairperson of the SSAC or SSEB, or the Contracting Officer.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CERTIFICATION

13. I agree to the Terms of this Agreement and certify that I have read and understand the above Agreement. I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct.

_____________________________________

Signature

_____________________________________

Name (Printed)

_____________________________________

Organization

_____________________________________

Date

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Handling of Source Selection Materials

Handle proposal and evaluation material in a manner consistent with “For Official Use Only” or, as appropriate, a higher security classification. Establish sufficient safeguards to protect the material whether it is in the possession of the SST members or it is being disseminated, reproduced, transmitted, or stored. Additionally, establish appropriate procedures for disposal (e.g., shredding or burn bag disposal) of the material when it is no longer required by the SST.

Security of Physical Facilities

In more complex source selections, you should identify the location of the SSEB early in the process, and establish procedures to ensure the security of the source selection physical facilities. These procedures may include:

● Requiring identification to access the SST area and requiring authorized visitors (e.g., maintenance/service personnel) to sign in and out;

● Ensuring access points to the facilities are either manned at all times by a representative of the SSO or are kept locked (with appropriate key or password control procedures);

● Establishing procedures for approving visitors to the facilities; and

● Conducting security inspections and spot checks.

Responsibilities

All SST members are responsible for the security of source selection information. In more complex source selections, it may be beneficial to designate certain members of the SST to oversee and/or perform security control functions. These duties may be collateral duties or full-time duties of the team member.

#### APPENDIX D

###### PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS

Experience, Education and Skills

A key to selection of personnel is identification of the experience, education, and business and technical skills required of personnel at all levels of the SST. Define the required skills and experience with enough flexibility to allow substitution of training for experience. Source selection training methods include formal classes, on-the-job training, study of available source selection documents, and briefings by people with source selection experience. The SSEB Chairperson should have previously been a Factor Chairperson. The Factor Chairperson should have served as an evaluator on a previous SSEB. In most instances, the contracting officer should not normally be the SSEB Chairperson or a Factor Chairperson. The PARC is responsible for determining the capability of the organization to effectively resource the SST as set forth in the hierarchy of source selection expertise (Table D.1). In the event that the PARC determines that the required expertise is not obtainable, the HCA will be consulted. If the HCA concurs that the resources are still unavailable, the DASA(P) will be notified and will assist in providing resources from other contracting activities or assign the procurement to another contracting activity for execution.

Table D-1

Hierarchy of Source Selection Expertise

• Look within own organization for expertise.

• Identify and appoint Government personnel outside own organization with the requisite expertise.

• Identify junior personnel to grow expertise and experience in source selection by allowing them to participate on non-technical factors.

• If expertise does not exist then move acquisition elsewhere.

• Consider establishing and/or hiring, on an ad hoc basis, qualified retired annuitants to supplement source selection teams.

• Establish an advance pool of experts to supplement on an ad hoc and rotational basis.

• In accordance with FAR Subparts 7.5 and 9.5, hire contractor experts to augment the SSEB assuring there is no organizational conflict of interest or inclusion of inherently governmental functions .

Freedom from Bias or Conflict of Interest

SST members must not have any biases or conflicts of interest that would impact the source selection process. Financial interests in offerors and employment discussions with offerors are examples of conflicts of interests that would preclude an employee from participating in a source selection. (See the associated sample certificate at Appendix C that the SST members must sign that will assist you in determining if an individual has a conflict of interest.)

Support Personnel

Once you identify the primary evaluation team, determine if support personnel may be desired or required. Examples of such personnel are:

● Administrative assistant; secretarial support for the SSEB and/or SSAC, administrative support (e.g., for briefing charts, evaluation worksheets, etc.),

● Security custodians and special security ("eyes only" messages) personnel,

● Librarian/document-control personnel,

● Reproduction support,

● Visual aids and/or video support personnel,

● Information technology support,

● Transportation support,

● Property support, and

● Budget personnel.

Sources of Personnel

The sources of necessary personnel include the program management office (PMO), the command and/or major subordinate command, other military services, DoD agencies, civilian agencies and non-Government sources. Non-Government sources can include academia, nonprofit institutions, and industry willing to be subject to the organizational conflicts of interest provisions of FAR 9.5. Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, but they may not determine ratings or rankings of the offerors’ proposals. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly prohibited. Accordingly, non-Government advisors shall not participate in the review and evaluation of past performance information.

Before support contractors may be used to evaluate or analyze any aspect of a proposal, the PARC must sign a written determination in accordance with FAR 37.203. Support contractors may serve in advisory roles, assist in cost/price analysis, or perform administrative duties (e.g., information technology support) related to source selections. However, they may not be voting members of the SST or participate in rating proposals or recommending a selection. They will have access only to those portions of the proposals and source selection information that they need to perform their SST duties. When using support contractors, you must advise potential offerors of their participation in the source selection. Figure D-2 identifies suggested solicitation language relative to the use of commercial firms to support the source selection process.

(1) Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-government advisors in the source selection process. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition.

INSERT NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF FIRMS

(2) In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors' proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal.

Note: This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors.

Figure D-2: Suggested Solicitation Language

Staffing Levels

Identify the staffing as full-time or part-time personnel and specify the point in the evaluation process by which personnel must be available. The time available to conduct the evaluation can influence staffing requirements.

Management Support

Management support is critical to obtaining people for the SST. This includes the Commander, at all levels, and the Program Executive Officer (PEO), as applicable. Managers may be reluctant to release personnel for SSEBs, especially if a prolonged evaluation period is projected. Some functional area heads may not be motivated to support such efforts. Top management support can alleviate any such reluctance.

#### APPENDIX E

###### ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROPOSALS

Introduction

Oral presentations provide offerors an opportunity to present information verbally that they would normally provide in writing. You can conduct oral presentations in person or via video teleconference. However, a videotaped presentation does not constitute an oral presentation since it does not represent a real-time exchange of information.

Oral presentations may be beneficial in a variety of acquisitions. They are most useful when the requirements are clear and complete and are stated in performance or functional terms. Oral presentations are ideal for gathering information related to how qualified the offeror is to perform the work, how well the offeror understands the work, and how the offeror will approach the work.

Scope of the Oral Presentation

Before you can decide if oral presentations are appropriate for a given acquisition, you must select the evaluation factors and subfactors. Then decide whether the information you need to evaluate these criteria can be better presented orally or in writing or through a combination of both means.

You cannot incorporate oral statements in the contract by reference, so any information you want to be made part of the contract needs to be submitted in writing. At a minimum, the offeror must submit certifications, representations, and a signed offer sheet (including any exceptions to the Government’s terms and conditions) in writing. Additionally, as a rule of thumb, the offeror must submit other hard data ("facts"), such as pricing or costing data and contractual commitments, as part of the written proposal.

Oral presentations can convey information in such diverse areas as responses to sample tasks, understanding the requirements, experience, and relevancy of past performance.

In deciding what information to have the offerors provide through oral presentations, you should consider the following:

● The Government's ability to adequately evaluate the information.

● The need to incorporate any information into the resultant contract.

● The impact on the efficiency of the acquisition.

● The impact (including cost) on small businesses.

●

Require offerors to submit their briefing materials in advance of the presentations. This will allow Government attendees an opportunity to review the materials and prepare any associated questions.

Request for Proposal Information

If oral presentations are appropriate, you must notify offerors in the RFP that the Government will use oral presentations to evaluate and select the contractor. The proposal preparation instructions must contain explicit instructions and guidance regarding the extent and nature of the process that will be used. Discourage elaborate presentations since they may detract from the information being presented. At a minimum, include the following information in the RFP:

● The types of information the offeror must address during the oral presentations and how they relate to the evaluation criteria,

● The required format and content of the presentation charts and any supporting documentation,

● Any restrictions on the number of charts or the number of bullets per chart and how you will handle material that does not comply with these restrictions,

● The required submission date for the presentation charts and/or materials,

● The approximate timeframe when the oral presentations will be conducted and how you will determine the order of the offerors’ presentations,

● Whether any rescheduling will be permitted if an offeror requests a change after the schedule has been established,

● The total amount of time each offeror will have to conduct their oral presentation,

● Who must make the presentation and a requirement that the offeror provide a list of names and position titles of the presenters,

● Whether the presentation will be video or audio taped,

● The location of the presentation site and a description of the site and resources available to the offeror,

● Any rules and/or prohibitions regarding equipment and media,

● How you will treat documents or information referenced in the presentation material but never presented orally,

● Any limitations on Government-offeror interactions during and after the presentation,

● Whether the presentation will constitute discussions (See Figure 3-4),

● Whether you will use the information in the oral presentation solely for source selection purposes or whether such information will become part of the contract (which will require a subsequent written submission of that information), and

● Whether the offeror should include any cost/price data in the presentation.

Timing and Sequencing

You can conduct oral presentations either before or after establishing the competitive range. Where oral presentations are the only means of proposal submission, they must be presented by all offerors. If you conduct the oral presentations prior to establishing the competitive range, you must be careful they do not result in discussions.

Since preparing and presenting an oral presentation involves time and expense, you do not want to require offerors who are not likely to be serious candidates for award to have to conduct oral presentations. This can be an important consideration with small businesses. When this is a concern, establish the competitive range prior to oral presentations and clearly articulate in the RFP the methodology for doing so.

The contracting officer will often draw lots to determine the sequence of the offerors’ presentations. The time between the first and the last presentation should be as short as possible to minimize any advantage to the offerors that present later.

Time Limits

Establish a total time limit for each offeror’s presentation. It is not advisable to limit the time for individual topics or sections within the presentation; this detail is the presenter’s responsibility. If you are planning a question and answer session, exclude it from the allotted time and set a separate time limit for it.

There is no ideal amount of time to be allotted. Make this decision using prudent business judgment based upon the complexity of the acquisition and your own (or others’) experience and lessons learned.

Facility

Usually you will want to conduct the presentations at a facility you can control. This helps guard against surprises and ensures a more level playing field. However, nothing precludes you from conducting an oral presentation at an offeror's facility. This may be more efficient if site visits or other demonstrations are part of the source selection.

If you are using a Government-controlled facility, make it available for inspection and, if warranted, a practice session. Allowing offerors to get acquainted with the facility will help ensure that it does not detract from the presentation content.

Recording the Presentations

Recording the presentation by some appropriate means is not only required, it makes good business sense.

Having an exact record of the presentation could prove useful both during the evaluation process and in the event of a protest or litigation. You can record the oral presentations using a variety of media; e.g., videotapes, audio tapes, written transcripts, or a copy of the offeror’s briefing slides or presentation notes. The SSA is responsible for determining the method and level of detail of the record.

If you use videotaping, allow for the natural behavior of the presenters. If slides or view graphs are used, the camera should view both the podium and screen at the same time. Place the microphones so that all communications can be recorded clearly and at adequate volume. Every effort should be made to avoid letting the recording become the focus of the presentation.

The recording, which is considered source selection information, will become part of the official record. Provide a copy to the offeror and seal and securely store the master copy of the recording to ensure there are no allegations of tampering in the event of a protest or court action.

Government Attendance

The PCO should chair every presentation. All of the Government personnel involved in evaluating the presentations should attend every presentation.

Presenters

The offeror’s key personnel who will perform or personally direct the work being described should conduct their relevant portions of the presentations. Key personnel include project managers, task leaders, and other in-house staff of the offeror’s or their prospective key subcontractors’ organizations. This will avoid the oral presentation becoming the domain of a professional presenter, which would increase costs, detract from the advantages of oral presentations, and adversely affect small businesses.

Reviewing the Ground Rules

Prior to each presentation, the PCO shall review the ground rules with the attendees. This includes discussing any restrictions on Government-offeror information exchanges, information disclosure rules, documentation requirements, and housekeeping items. These ground rules should also be included in the solicitation.

If you are using a quiz as part of your evaluation, the PCO needs to discuss the related ground rules. For example, can the offeror caucus or contact outside sources by cell phone before answering?

Avoid too much control and regulation since it will inhibit the exchange of information. However, if you intend to avoid discussions, the PCO should control all exchanges during the presentation. If conducting oral presentations after opening discussions, you must comply with FAR 15.306 and 15.307.

Evaluation of Presentations

Evaluations should be performed immediately after each presentation. Using preprinted evaluation forms will help the evaluators collect their thoughts and impressions. Remember, even if you use preprinted forms, evaluators have to provide the rationale for their conclusions.

#### APPENDIX F

###### USING CURRENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE

###### AS A SOURCE SELECTION FACTOR

######

Introduction

In past performance evaluations, you examine the offeror’s performance record on similar contract efforts and use the information to predict the probability the offeror will successfully perform under your contract. The Government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed the thresholds identified in FAR 15.304 and Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002, dated January 29, unless the PCO documents why the evaluation of past performance is not appropriate. Evaluation of Past performance makes good business sense and is anticipated to be a meaningful discriminator among potential offerors.

Where possible, use past performance information available from Government-wide and agency-wide databases. Use of such information will help to expedite and streamline the evaluation process. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a web-based system used to input data on contractor performance. In addition, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) provides access to information about contractors and their performance collected throughout the Federal Government. If information is not readily available from existing databases, seek it from other Government entities and private sector sources (e.g., by means of questionnaires, published commercial evaluations and interviews).

FAR Parts 9, 12, 15, 36 and 42 contain regulatory policies related to the evaluation of past performance. FAR Part 36 provides specific procedures, forms, and thresholds for evaluation of Architect & Engineering and construction acquisitions. Additionally, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and DoD have published the following guides that pertain to the evaluation of past performance information:

● OFPP guide: Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information

● DoD guide: A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information

Regarding Small Businesses, the Past Performance rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” does not require referral to the Small Business Administration. This rating is different from the Responsibility Determination which would be referred to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) determination if the “otherwise successful offeror” would be deemed “not responsible” and therefore not eligible for award of a contract. (Note: See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for an exception related to Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selections).

Relative Importance Assigned to Past Performance

You may assign any relative importance to past performance compared to any other evaluation factor. However, the importance assigned to past performance should be sufficient enough to ensure that it is meaningfully considered throughout the source selection process and will be a valid discriminator among the proposals received.

Drafting Instructions to Offerors (Section L or Equivalent)

In Section L (or equivalent) of the RFP, you must clearly state what past performance information the offeror must submit as part of its proposal and/or oral presentation. Tailor the proposal submission requirements to reflect the complexity of the procurement and the relative importance assigned to past performance. Request only the information necessary for the evaluation. Consider the following when developing proposal submission requirements.

● Contract References -- Request offerors to submit a list of Government and non-Government contract references (including contract number, type, and dollar value; place of performance; date of award; whether performance is on-going or complete; extent of subcontracting; and the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of at least two points of contact (POCs) for each contract):

Ø Require the list to include all relevant on-going contracts or contracts completed during a specified period. This approach will provide an “unfiltered” view of the offeror’s contract efforts, not just the “select” contract efforts. If you anticipate that the number of contracts will be excessive, limit the submission to a specified number of the most recent, relevant contracts. In such cases, require the contracts to have been ongoing for a specified period of time, since newly awarded contracts will probably not provide sufficient information.

Ø Limit the specified period to contracts performed within the last three years (six years for construction) from the RFP release date. This is because the Government must retain past performance information for no longer than three years (six years for construction) after completion of the contract. A shorter period may be appropriate for acquisitions where there are numerous actions and/or many vendors providing the required items. In rare cases, where market research suggests a period of a 3 year period will not yield meaningful past performance information, a longer period (not more than 5 years) may be appropriate.

Ø When offerors are likely to be large, multi-function firms, limit the contract references to those performed by the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal.

Ø Allow offerors to submit information related to their past performance on relevant efforts for state and local Governments, private sector clients, subcontracts, and team or joint efforts. Additionally, if offerors have no relevant past performance, allow them to provide past performance information for their key personnel and/or key subcontractors. This will help ensure firms new to the Federal contracting process have a fair opportunity to compete and will reduce the instances where offerors have no record of past performance.

Ø Advise the offerors that, while they may submit past performance information on relevant efforts under subcontracts, you may be unable to obtain any qualitative information due to the Government’s lack of privity with subcontractors. In other words, since the Government deals directly with prime contractors, the POCs may be unaware of the offeror’s performance under a subcontract.

● Past Performance Information of a Prospective Subcontractor -- When you intend to evaluate subcontractors’ past performance, explain how you will handle any related adverse past performance information. In many acquisitions, an offeror’s prospective subcontractor may be the offeror’s competitor on other acquisitions. In such cases, the prospective subcontractor may be hesitant to have any adverse information related to its past performance released to the offeror. On other acquisitions, this may not be an issue. You should tailor your acquisition accordingly and advise offerors in the RFP how you will handle disclosure of such information.

● Description of Past Performance -- It is not necessary or efficient to ask the offeror to provide a detailed description of all of its relevant past performance efforts. Instead, request offerors provide detailed information on a smaller number of the most relevant contracts, while the Government seeks the appropriate information from existing databases and/or from identified contract POCs. However, you should allow potential offerors the opportunity to provide details on past performance problems and the corrective actions taken. As appropriate, have the offerors provide such information as part of their proposals or presented as part of their oral presentation, if used.

● Sources of Information

Ø Rely on existing documentation from Federal databases to the maximum extent practicable. This will expedite and streamline the source selection process. Sources of existing information available to the Government include the Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS).

Ø Advise potential offerors that you may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror.

Ø Advise potential offerors that you may not obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs.

Ø If adequate documentation is not readily available, you should seek the necessary information from individuals having knowledge about the offeror’s past performance (e.g., contract POCs, etc.). You may utilize questionnaires or interviews to obtain the information from these individuals. Consider the following when using questionnaires:

n Keep the questionnaire short. Typically, it should be no longer than 1-2 pages; long surveys are not returned timely, if at all.

n Include a copy of the questionnaire in the RFP.

n Either distribute the questionnaires to the POCs or have the offerors distribute them. In the latter case, the POCs must return the completed questionnaires directly to the Government. Having the offerors send out the questionnaires may save time and resources.

n Where the Government is sending out questionnaires itself and when practical, contact the respective POC prior to sending out a survey to advise them that they will be receiving it and emphasize the importance of their returning the completed surveys to you promptly.

● Relevant Past Performance --

Ø Include in the RFP a definition of what constitutes relevant past performance. Factors that may be used to define relevancy include similarity of size, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Comptroller General recommends the use of solicitation language such as “for the same or similar items” so that you do not overly restrict your ability to consider an array of information.

Ø As appropriate, require the offerors to provide a description of how the contract references are relevant to the immediate acquisition. Such information may be provided as part of the proposal or presented as part of their oral presentation, if used. In some cases, previous contracts as a whole may be relevant to the immediate acquisition, while only portions of other contracts may be relevant. In such cases, the offeror should specify which portions of the contract references are relevant to the immediate acquisition.

Ø Inform vendors that when an offeror’s or team member’s firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit), that the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

Drafting Evaluation Criteria (Section M or Equivalent)

In Section M (or equivalent) of the RFP, clearly state how past performance will be evaluated, its relative importance, and how offerors with no relevant past performance will be evaluated. Consider the following when drafting this section:

● Past Performance of Prospective Subcontractors and/or Team Members -- You may find it beneficial to evaluate a key subcontractor’s or team member’s past performance. However, as the Government only has privity of contract with the prime contractor, do not make the past performance of a prospective subcontractor and/or joint venture partners a separate rating.

● Synergy of Evaluation Considerations -- Use past performance to streamline the source selection process. For example, instead of evaluating management as an evaluation factor, assess management effectiveness in meeting Technical and Schedule requirements (and in Cost estimating, on Cost reimbursement contracts) as part of the past performance evaluation. A good record of management is an indicator that the offeror will perform well in this area on the immediate acquisition. Using past performance in this way may, under appropriate circumstances, eliminate the need for the offeror to submit management and quality plans.

● Past Performance Considerations -- At a minimum, consider the offeror’s record of complying with contractual requirements in the areas of schedule, technical quality, and cost control (for cost reimbursement contracts). You may also consider the offeror’s record of business relations. Tailor the scope of the areas considered so that they match the immediate requirement. Carefully consider whether they add value to the overall assessment, warrant the additional time to evaluate, and are discriminators among the competing proposals.

Potential Areas of Consideration

● Quality of Product or Service – e.g., record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates.

● Timeliness of Performance – e.g., record of meeting milestones and delivery schedules, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction.

● Cost Control (Cost Reimbursement type contracts only)– e.g., record of using cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated costs to actual costs and providing current, accurate, and complete billing.

● Business Relations – e.g., record of effective management, subcontractor management, meeting socioeconomic goals, cooperative and proactive behavior with Government representatives, flexibility, submission of reasonably priced change proposals and responsiveness to inquiries.

● Small Business Subcontracting Compliance - e.g., record of complying with requirements of Clauses FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 (unless evaluating under the Small Business Participation factor).

● Stand-Alone Evaluation Factor -- Do not integrate past performance with other non-cost factors. Past performance should be a separate evaluation factor in order to reduce the chances of its impact being lost within other factors.

Evaluating Past Performance

The evaluation team is responsible for conducting the past performance evaluation to determine the degree of performance confidence associated with each offeror’s proposal. The final product of this analysis is a single performance confidence assessment for each offeror. The evaluation team documents the performance confidence, strengths, and weaknesses indicated by each offeror’s past performance. When considering adverse information, determine whether the Government may have contributed to the problem and, if so, to what extent. See Appendix A of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for the evaluation of Past Performance under the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process.

Relevancy as part of the Performance Confidence Assessment

As specified in Paragraph 3.1.3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, evaluations under the Past Performance Factor will result in the assignment of a single Performance Confidence Rating for each offeror. This is the only formal "Rating" applied at the Past Performance Factor level. In assigning this rating, the DoD Source Selection Procedures require the use of the "Performance Confidence Assessments" Rating scale, included in Table 5 on Page 19 of the Procedures. The term "Assessment", in the context used in Table 5, means a Factor level Rating.

A Past Performance evaluation of Performance Confidence assesses the probability an offeror will meet contract requirements should that offeror be awarded a contract. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of prior contracts, and (b) the quality of prior performance. The relevance of prior contracts is an essential piece of the Past Performance Rating of Performance Confidence. Specifically, contracts with higher relevance are stronger predictors of likely future success than are contracts with lower levels of relevance. Therefore, while relevance is a significant contributor to the final Past Performance Rating, it is not a formal Rating in and of itself. Use of the term "Rating" for relevance, as used in Table 5, Page 18, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, means that each prior contract reviewed will be assessed, and a conclusion reached, as to the extent of prior contract relevance for each contract. The resulting relevance assessment conclusions will then be combined, along with the assessed quality of performance on prior contracts, to arrive at a single Performance Confidence Rating for the Past Performance Factor.

Following are general steps in the evaluation of past performance:

● Step One: Gather Contract Efforts -- The first step is to gather basic information on contract efforts that may be relevant to the immediate acquisition. You have broad discretion regarding the type of data to be considered in the past performance evaluation. This means you may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but are not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

● Step Two: Determine the Extent of Relevancy and Recency of Past Performance Information

The second step is to determine the extent of relevancy and recency of the past performance information. In order for an offeror’s record of past performance to be an indicator of its future performance, the past performance information must be relevant to the pending contract. In this regard, the DoD Source Selection Procedures require use of one of two Relevance assessment approaches: (1) a Relevant/Not Relevant scale for Source Selections requiring less relevance discrimination in the Past Performance evaluation, or (2) a 4 point Relevance scale (Very Relevant; Relevant; Somewhat Relevant; Not Relevant) when the Source Selection requires a greater level of relevance discrimination. Below is the four-point relevance scale from the DoD Source Selection Procedures:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating | Definition
Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

When using the 4 point scale, contracts with comparatively higher degrees of relevance will be stronger predictors of likely future contract performance success and, accordingly, will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Conversely, contracts with comparatively lower degrees of relevance will not be as strong of predictors of likely future contract performance success and will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating. Under either approach 1 or 2 above, contracts that have little or no relevance typically do not influence the performance confidence rating. However, any contracts with adverse past performance could reflect larger company-wide concerns and may impact upon the confidence rating. Based on the above, after you have gathered past performance information as described in Step 1, you will determine the extent of relevancy of each contract effort. At the same time, establish the “recency” of each contract effort (RFPs typically identify contracts performed within 3 years of the release of the RFP as “recent” (6 years for construction)). Contracts which are comparatively more recent may be better predictors of likely future success than older contracts. Contracts with a performance period ending prior to the RFP specified recency range should not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence assessment.

● Step Three: Assess Quality of Past Performance of Individual Efforts

The third step is to assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant efforts. You can gather qualitative information on the offeror’s past performance through the use of databases, questionnaires, and/or interviews. (See Appendix G for sample questionnaire) If possible, contact two POCs on each contract effort selected for in-depth review. Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs), Fee Determining Officials, and program management office representatives often are excellent sources of information. If multiple POCs are providing past performance information on a contract (for example, the PCO and PM), a best practice is to try and arrange for submission of a single consolidated input from these multiple sources. This obviates the need for the SSEB to have to reconcile variances in past performance information submitted by POCs.

When assessing feedback from:

● End users -- remember they may be unfamiliar with the contract requirement or the source of the problem may not be apparent to them.

● Private-sector references – consider the potential of any conflict of interest between the offeror and reference.

At this point, you may or may not apply assessment judgment to each individual contract effort. If you do make assessment judgment, use them as guides for arriving at the consensus rating described in Step Four.

● Step Four: Assign a Rating to the Past Performance Factor

Once you have assessed the relevance/recency of past performance information as described in Step 2 above, and assessed the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts as described in Step 3, the final step is for the evaluation team to arrive at a consensus on a single performance confidence rating for the past performance factor, for each offeror, using the Confidence Assessment Ratings from Page 19 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures and contained in the SSP. The following are the confidence ratings from the DoD Source Selection Procedures:

Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating | Description
Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) | 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.

Occasionally, the evaluators will be unable to arrive at a consensus. In such case, you may include the dissenting opinion with supporting rationale as part of the assessment report.

The rating process is not a precise mechanical process, but rather requires subjective judgment.

In determining the performance confidence rating for Past Performance, take into consideration the degree of relevancy/recency of all of the considered efforts; the overall performance record of the offeror on each contract assessed; number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised); and trend data. When your SSP uses the 4 point relevance scale from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, remember that contracts with higher degrees of relevance will typically have a greater influence on the final performance confidence rating. Contracts with lower degrees of relevance will typically have less influence on the final performance confidence rating. The final assessment will merge the extent of relevance/recency of prior contract, along with the quality of performance on those contracts, to arrive at a single performance confidence assessment of Past Performance. What you are looking for is overall results, not problem-free management.

The final assessment shall include the rationale for the conclusions reached, including instances of good or poor performance related to the solicitation requirement. As long as the rationale is reasonable, i.e. based on analysis, verification, or corroboration of the past performance information and is evaluated against the evaluation factors stated in the RFP, it will withstand legal scrutiny.

Lack of Past Performance Information

If the offeror is truly a new entity and none of the company principals have relevant work experience, the offeror is considered to have no past performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, you must evaluate the offeror’s lack of past performance as Unknown Confidence (Neutral), having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation. When using the LPTA source selection process “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past Performance Versus Experience

It is important to understand the definition of an offeror’s experience and its past performance. Experience is what the offeror has done; past performance is how well the offeror did it.

Experience reflects WHAT an offeror has done.

Past performance reflects HOW WELL the offeror performed the work.

Adverse Past Performance Information

When adverse past performance information is obtained, as appropriate, contact the respective POC to get further information about the circumstances surrounding the situation. Additionally, when practical, contact at least one other individual to get a second perspective on the contractor’s performance on the subject work effort. Consider the context of the performance problems, any mitigating circumstances, the number and severity of the problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

If there is past performance information that adversely (see Chapter 5 for definition) impacts an offeror’s proposal assessment, provide the offeror an opportunity to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. Whether this opportunity occurs during clarifications, communications or discussions depends upon whether discussions are anticipated and, if they are, if they have been opened. Figure F-1 illustrates when adverse past performance should be addressed.

When addressing adverse past performance information, identify the contract, but in no case identify the name of the individual who provided the information. Summarize the problems with sufficient detail to give the offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Figure F-1

Decision Model for When to Address Adverse Past Performance

Address during discussions

NO

Have discussions been opened?

Are discussions anticipated?

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

Is the adverse information the contributing factor for the offeror not being placed in the competitive range?

NO

Address during communications

Address during clarifications

Is the adverse information the contributing factor in the offeror not getting the award?

Do not have to provide offeror an opportunity to address the information

Figure F-2

SAMPLE PAST PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET

PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (To be completed for each project reviewed)
Step 1. Gather Contract Efforts. Review each project and record the information on a worksheet for each:
Offeror:
Project:
Dollar Value:
Period of Performance:
Description of Project Effort, Source of Information, and Offeror’s Role:
Step 2. Determine the extent of relevancy and recency of the past performance information by applying the appropriate adjectival descriptor:
Determine extent of recency/relevancy of the project being reviewed and your rationale, then apply the adjectival descriptors below (in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the scope of the instant RFP). If you determine the effort is not relevant for consideration, document why.
Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating | Definition
Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Figure F-2

SAMPLE PAST PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET

Step 3. Assess the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the project/effort if it is determined to be recent and relevant.
Record your findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties) relative to how well the Offeror performed using the information gathered (including database, questionnaire, interview, etc.). If the information provided is negative and the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond to it, using the appropriate Exchanges Process, the Contracting Officer will submit it to them in an Evaluation Notice (EN) process.
Step 4. Assign a rating to the Past Performance Factor.
IMPORTANT: The SSP may require ratings to be assigned considering the information in steps 1-3 above by both individual evaluators and then by team consensus. Follow the SSP as to the assignment of the past performance confidence assessment rating.
Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating | Description
Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) | 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.

Figure F-3

SAMPLE PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RFP No.: EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:
RFP REFERENCES: FACTOR: | PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SUBFACTOR: | PAGE NUMBER:
Evaluation Rating: (Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral)) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.
Evaluator’s Rating: Initial Rating:__________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____ Interim:________________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____ Final Rating:____________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____
● RATIONALE: Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance). ● Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings (with specific strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies below.) Identify (e.g. Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed
STRENGTHS: (Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)
WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)
DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one):
UNCERTAINTIES:
EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency/uncertainty

#### APPENDIX G

###### PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS

Normal practice is to use a written questionnaire addressed to points of contact and solicit a response. After questionnaires are received or if there is no response you may initiate an interview. Interview questions/discussion topics should be consistent with the written questionnaire. At the start of the interview, explain its purpose and assure the interviewee anonymity. While you may provide the interviewees with a generic description of the instant requirement, do not release the solicitation number, detailed program description, or other specific solicitation information to the interviewee.

After the interview, prepare a summary of the interview, including the interviewee’s name, mailing and electronic addresses, and telephone number; the date and time of the interview; and a description of the contract effort discussed. Send it to the interviewee, stating if he/she does not object to its content by a specified time, you may assume it is correct. If the interviewee indicates it is incorrect, send him/her a corrected summary to verify. If you cannot achieve a satisfactory and mutual agreed upon correction, do not rely on the record.

When using interviews, you may find it beneficial to have at least two evaluators conduct each interview. This will facilitate preparing a complete and comprehensive summary of the interview.

Figure G-1

Sample Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire

(See Appendix K for a Sample Cover Letter that can be sent with the Questionnaire)

Please provide your candid responses. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of federal contracts. Therefore, it is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators. If you do not have knowledge of or experience with the company in question, please forward this Questionnaire to the person who does. Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter within 3 days.

Adjectival Rating Definitions:

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

#### APPENDIX H

###### SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Overview

In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), evaluate Small Business Participation in source selections for unrestricted acquisitions that require use of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, other than those based on the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process. This evaluation factor will not be used for unrestricted acquisitions where performance is entirely outside the United States and its outlying territories. (See definition of large/other than small business at Chapter 5, Definitions.)

Both large and small businesses shall be required to submit Small Business Participation Plans to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition. Proposal submission instructions should be written clearly enough to indicate that:

- Large businesses primes may achieve the small business participation goals through subcontracting to small businesses.

- Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

The Army preference is that Small Business Participation is rated using the same DoD Source Selection Procedures rating scheme for the technical factors. Acceptable/ Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) rating schemes are the least preferred method of evaluating small business participation in best value source selections. Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) rating schemes do not allow evaluators to give higher ratings to offerors that significantly exceed the stated small business goals or submit proof of binding agreements with small businesses and therefore are discouraged.

Small Business Participation Goals

The Small Business Participation goals must be based on market research for each procurement. The contracting activity’s assigned subcontracting goals should be used when market research results shows that goals are achievable. The goals for Small Business Participation should not be arbitrary, but be developed specifically for the acquisition. The Army preferred methodology for evaluating Small Business Participation goals in source selections is in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition (IAW the example in DFARS PGI 215.304). However, it is permissible to set goals as a percentage of planned subcontracted dollars. The dollars should correlate directly to the percentage of subcontracted dollars in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

In all cases, small business prime offerors shall be advised that their own participation as a prime counts towards the percentages set in this evaluation factor and small businesses shall not be required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve the small business participation goals). Small business prime offerors shall be given the opportunity to meet the goals through their own performance as a prime.

It’s important to evaluate this area for best value, and apply a method of evaluation that ensures offerors are evaluated consistently using criteria that will determine which offeror’s proposal represents the best overall value in relation to the solicitation requirements. Requiring offerors to provide both the percentage and total dollars to be performed by small businesses will ensure consistency in the evaluation, and therefore is preferred.

Percentage of Subcontracted Dollars Example (Least Preferred):

Small Business Participation goal is set at 15% of the planned subcontracted dollars on a procurement valued at $1,000,000.

LB Offeror A: 20% (20% of $200,000 planned for subcontracting = $40,000)

LB Offeror B: 25% (25% of $10,000 planned for subcontracting = $2,500)

SDB Offeror C: 15% (SDB self-performs 15% of the total contract = $150,000)

In the above scenario, which offeror proposed the best value and will be rated higher? Since each offeror is allowed to determine how much of the work is planned for subcontracting, the basis for the evaluation could be flawed, because planned subcontracting will differ for each offeror. Under this scenario, though Offeror B offerors the highest percentage (25%), it has the least value in terms of participation of small businesses at $2,500.

* Reminder: Small businesses’ self performance counts as Small Business Participation regardless of whether evaluated as a % of subcontracted dollars or total contract dollars.

Total Contract Dollars Example (Preferred):

Small Business Participation goal is set at 15% of total contract dollars on a procurement valued at $1,000,000:

LB Offeror A: 20% (20% of $1,000,000 = $200,000)

LB Offeror B: 25% (25% of $1,000,000 = $250,000)

SDB Offeror C: 15% (SDB self-performs 15% of the $1,000,000 = $150,000)

The preferred method of using total contract dollars/value in the above scenario provides clearer results for the evaluation, and clearly supports the Government’s intent in terms of how much work is desired to be performed by small business.

Utilizing total contract dollars is more definitive in minimizing negative impacts on small businesses when services previously performed by small businesses are consolidated into an unrestricted acquisition.

Small Business Offerors proposing on unrestricted requirements are not held to the requirements of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting, because the clause is applicable to small business set-aside procurements only. However, small business offerors should meet the small business participation factor goals through performance as a prime small business, or a combination of performance and small business subcontracting.

Small Business Participation Language (Example)

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable

commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition; or alternatively may consider the percentage of ‘planned subcontracting’ dollars.

e. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {2%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.50%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {1%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

f. (Alternate when using planned subcontracted dollars) The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total subcontracted dollars; SDB: {2%} of the total subcontracted dollars; WOSB: {1%} of the total subcontracted dollars; HUBZone: {0.50%} of the total subcontracted dollars; VOSB: {1%} of the total subcontracted dollars; SDVOSB: {1%} of the total subcontracted dollars.

Small Business Participation Proposal (Sample Format)

The Small Business Participation Proposal format is designed to streamline and bring uniformity to responses and evaluations for Small Business Participation (FAR 15.304). The format provides clarity in that it is distinctly different than the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required for large businesses only (FAR 52.219-9). A copy of the format can be provided in your instructions to offerors or as an attachment to the solicitation.

Small Business Participation Proposal (Format)

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime

{ } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU)

or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a

{ } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

{ } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

{ } Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business

{ } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______

When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal

100%.

100%

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Disadvantaged Business _________%

HUB Zone Small Business _________%

Woman Owned Small Business _________%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________%

Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

HBCU /MI _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business (SB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

#### APPENDIX I

###### COST REALISM ANALYSIS

Overview

You must perform cost realism analysis when a cost contract is anticipated. You may also perform cost realism on FP incentive contracts, or in exceptional cases, on other competitive FP contracts (See FAR 15.404-1(d)(3)). However, on fixed price contracts, the results of the realism analysis may only be used in (a) proposal risk assessments under the non-price Factors and (b) responsibility determinations. FP incentive proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis. Adjustments for the probable cost estimate should not be based solely on differences from the IGCE. Where performance specifications are used, the IGCE is based on the Government’s implicit approach to the work, which may differ from the offerors’ approach. Also, the IGCE rates may not be comparable. The technical evaluation should reveal areas where each offeror’s approach is inadequate or its resourcing unrealistic, given the proposed approach. The technical evaluators and the cost evaluators should crosswalk technical deficiencies and weaknesses and their impact on cost to assure proper adjustments can be made to the proposed costs. However, this crosswalk should not be performed until after each group has completed their initial evaluation to avoid intentional or unintentional bias.

Probable Cost Estimate

When developing a probable cost estimate (which is used in Cost Reimbursement efforts), consider the following points.

● As you collect the information required to evaluate the realism of the offeror’s cost/price estimate, you are also collecting the information required to develop your own estimate of the probable contract cost.

● In developing your estimate, adopt the portion of the offeror’s estimate that appears realistic and modify the portion of the estimate that you believe is unrealistic. For example, you may accept proposed labor hours and adjust the labor rate based on an audit recommendation. Adjustments may increase or decrease cost estimates.

● Use relevant estimating tools and techniques.

● To the extent necessary, conduct meaningful discussions with offerors in the event there are any noteworthy adjustments to the offeror’s estimated cost.

● As you complete your estimate, clearly document your rationale for any adjustment.

Figure I-1

Steps Involved in Cost Realism Analysis

######
STEP 6

When in Discussions Allow Revised Proposal; Repeat Analysis when Revisions Received

Note: You may use cost realism on FP incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive FP contracts when:

● the offerors may not fully understand new requirements,

● there are quality concerns, or

● past experience indicates contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality/service shortfalls.

●
●
●
●
Optional

(see note below)

No

Yes

STEP 7

Adjust Proposed Cost to Probable Cost

No

STEP 8

Use Results as Stated in the RFP

Is This a Cost Contract?

STEP 4

Perform Risk Assessment

STEP 5

When in Discussions Advise Offeror of Findings during Discussions

Identify possible areas of risk/lack of understanding/mistake

● If cost contract, determine the Probable Cost of Performance

● If FP contract, determine

risk associated with unrealistically high or low proposal and risk to

contract completion

Analyze cost & technical proposals

● Pinpoint discrepancies

● Validate IGCE

● Determine if costs are consistent with technical approach

● Assess offeror’s understanding of contract requirements

● Identify obvious mistakes/ask for validation

●
●
●
●
●
●
Govt Field

Pricing Reports

Historical

Pricing

Other

Proposals

Contractor

Data

Audit

Reports

IGCE

Is this a Cost Contract?

Yes

Required

STEP 3

Conduct Analysis

STEP 2

Gather Information

STEP 1

Determine if cost realism analysis is required

#### APPENDIX J

###### ON-LINE REVERSE AUCTIONS

Definition

An on-line Reverse Auction (RA) is an internet-based (electronic commerce) acquisition tool that allows the government to procure goods and services from suppliers in a competitive environment in which sellers, anonymously, bid prices down until the auction is complete.

ON-LINE REVERSE AUCTION TOOLS ARE BEST USED FOR:

● Healthy price competition

● A well-defined requirement

● Bulk commodity type procurements (i.e. IT equipment, spare parts)

● Procurements in which there is a well-defined supplier base

● Procurements where the award evaluation criteria is not subject to interpretation (i.e. lowest price versus multiple criteria for trade-offs and subjective judgments)

A reverse auction is simply the opposite of a traditional auction. In a traditional auction, the seller offers an item for sale and multiple potential buyers submit sequentially higher bids for the item. Conversely, in a reverse auction, there are multiple sellers of items that compete for the business of a single buyer. During this competition the sellers ultimately drive the price of the item down.

Applicability to Best Value Acquisitions

On-line Reverse Auctions (RAs) are legal as long as the identity of the bidders is not disclosed. On-line RA tools may be used as a pricing tool for LPTAs or trade-off acquisitions. For example, an RA tool can be as a pricing tool for a trade-off acquisition after the completion of technical discussion. You may conduct a reverse auction to establish the offerors’ final prices, provide these prices, along with the rest of the evaluation results, to the SSA for his/her use in selecting the proposal that represents the best value.

Potential benefits are: reduced acquisition cycle time and increased competition that in due course drive prices down as the offerors have visibility of the other prices being proposed. Additionally, the on-line RA process is inclusive, transparent, and immediate advantageous to both government and industry.

FAR Subpart 4.5 supports the use of electronic commerce whenever practical or cost-effective. On-line Reverse Auctions should be utilized when it is anticipated that this method will deliver more value than the use of other available procurement methods. Additionally, RAs are more advantageous to the Government in reducing acquisition cycle time when the requirements are best suited for an RA environment.

Process

On-line reverse auctions are conducted using a variety of procedures and automated tools. An agency may contract with an on-line auction service to conduct the reverse auction or it may conduct the reverse auction itself using commercially-available software.

In either case, the reverse auction must be conducted on a secure Web site and you must clearly state in the RFP the ground rules for the auction, particularly when the bidding will start and stop.

The Army has established and implemented a reverse auction tool within the VCE website.

#### APPENDIX K

SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION TEMPLATES

TEMPLATE PAGE(S)

- Determinations and Findings (D&F) for Authority K-2 through K-4

to Use Non-Government Advisors in Source Selections

- Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award and Post Award) K-5 through K-8

- Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter K-9

- Source Selection Appointment Letters and K-10 through K-22

Responsibilities

- Source Selection Decision Document K-23 through K-28

- Source Selection Plan (Cost or FFP with SSAC)* K-29 through K-92

- Sample Task Used In Source Selection K-93 through K-95

Sample Determination and Findings (D&F) for Authority to Use Non-Government Advisor(s) in Source Selections

NAME OF COMMAND

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

Authority to Use Non-Government Advisor Support for ____________________

Solicitation No. _________

Upon the basis of the findings and determination which I hereby make pursuant to the authority of 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419) (as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204) contractor support may be utilized for the proposed contract described below.

FINDINGS

1. Background: The US Army REQUIRING ACTIVITY / PM has been tasked to conduct an acquisition for the DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT. The acquisition shall provide for NEED FOR GOODS/SERVICES. The TYPE OF CONTRACT FFP / COST PLUS / IDIQ, ETC. contract will be in effect from PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, A best value source selection will be conducted in support of this acquisition.

2. Program Goals: SPECIFY PROGRAM GOALS.

3. Discussions: Offerors will be informed of the non-Government advisors who will assist in the evaluation. The use of non-Government advisors will be strictly controlled. Non-Government advisors will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement for the DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT solicitation. The chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will monitor non-Governmental advisor activities while in the evaluation area. This support will be limited to specific tasks on an as needed basis, and only in those areas where Government expertise is not available. After the non-Government advisors have completed their particular area of evaluation, they will be released from the evaluation process. All non-Government advisors will only have access to the information corresponding to their area(s) of expertise. They will not have access to the Price section of the proposal. The companies identified herein have agreed not to engage in the manufacture or production of hardware/services/R&D/Construction that is related to this effort, to abide by FAR Subpart 9.5, “Organizational Conflicts of Interest,” and to refrain from disclosing proprietary information to unauthorized personnel.

A search within the Agency to identify available personnel with the required capability and training was unsuccessful. In view of the administrative costs, travel costs and schedule impacts, attempts to locate such personnel within other Federal Agencies were not pursued. Accordingly, it is requested that the following non-Government advisor(s) be utilized in the evaluation of the proposals.

a. NAME OF CONTRACTOR ORGANIZATION:

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL

b. NAME OF 2ND CONTRACTOR, IF APPLICABLE

NAME OF 2ND INDIVIDUAL, IF APPLICABLE

The above named individual(s) is/are subject matter expert(s) in EXPLAIN THE EXPERTISE OF THE CONTRACTORS. DO NOT REQUEST CONTRACTOR SUPPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AS THIS IS GENERALIZED AND CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. BELOW PROVIDE DETAILS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL BY CONTRACTOR, INDIVIDUAL’S NAME AND SPECIFIC EXPERTISE in the following areas:

a. CONTRACTOR:

INDIVIDUAL

FACTOR/SUBFACTOR AND SPECIFIC AREA TO BE EVALUATED

b. CONTRACTOR

INDIVIDUAL

FACTOR/SUBFACTOR AND SPECIFIC AREA TO BE EVALUATED

If authority to use Contractor Support is approved, the individuals listed above shall be made aware of their responsibilities in accordance with the Federal Procurement Policy Act 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 (formerly 41 USC 423), as implemented under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104 and shall be required to agree to and sign a NAME OF PROGRAM Source Selection Participation Agreement.

DETERMINATION

Based upon the foregoing justification, and 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204, I hereby determine that sufficient personnel, with the requisite training and capabilities, are not available at the current time within Federal agencies to provide the required expertise needed for the PROGRAM NAME acquisition.

DATE: ____________ CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

CONTRACTING OFFICER

DATE: ____________ LEGAL CONCURRENCE

APPROVAL

In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1709 (formerly 41 U.S.C. 419) and as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.203 and 37.204 and AFARS 5137.204, AND CITE ANY ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY I hereby approve the use of non-Government advisors to assist in the evaluation of the proposals for PROGRAM NAME.

DATE: ____________ PARC NAME

Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting

Sample Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Pre-Award)

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

DATE

Contracting Organization Name

SUBJECT: Solicitation Number _________, Program Name________________

COMPANY NAME

ATTN: XXXXXXXXX

ADDRESS

CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE

Dear XXX:

The Government has completed its initial evaluation of the proposals submitted in response to the subject solicitation and regrets to inform you that your proposal has been excluded from the competitive range and thereby eliminated from the competition. Based on the ratings of your proposal that were derived against all of the evaluation criteria, I have determined that your proposal is outside the competitive range because it is not one of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1).

In accordance with Section M of the Solicitation, Basis for Award, the Technical Factor is more important than the Performance Risk Factor, the Performance Risk Factor is more important than the Price Factor, and the Price Factor is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation Plan Factor. The non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than the Price Factor. Section M of the Solicitation, Basis for Award, further states that to receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Factors and each of its Subfactors. After extensive evaluation, your proposal has been rated (provide ratings for the Factors and Subfactors of the Offeror and brief explanation/reasons for the ratings). Those ratings did not place your proposal among those proposals that were most highly rated. This is based primarily on your (explain).

Based on the above and in accordance with the Evaluation Approach, it has been determined that Corporation Name, Corporation Division is outside the competitive range. Further negotiations concerning this acquisition are not contemplated; revisions to your proposal will not be considered.

You may request a debriefing in writing within three days after receipt of this notice. This debriefing may be delayed until after award if so requested. However, if you do not request a debriefing within those three days, the Government is not obligated to grant either a pre-award or post-award debriefing. Your attention is directed to FAR 15.505 regarding these procedures.

The Government thanks you for your participation in this acquisition and looks forward to your continued interest in future business opportunities at NAME OF COMMAND.

Sincerely,

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

Contracting Officer

Sample Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror (Post Award)

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

DATE

OFFEROR A

ATTN: XXXXXXXXX

ADDRESS

CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE

Dear XXXXX:

Reference your proposal submitted in response to solicitation XXXXXX-XX-R-XXXX for the SYSTEM OR ITEM TITLE.

Solicitation XXXXXX-XX-R-XXXX was posted to the ASFI/FEDBIZOPS as a full and open competition on DATE to be reviewed by industry for purposes of submitting a proposal. Five (5) proposals were received in response to the solicitation. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.303(b), you are hereby notified that award was made to NAME AND ADDRESS OF SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR.

The Government's final evaluation of your proposal has resulted in the following ratings and total evaluated price. The ratings and total evaluated price of the successful offeror are provided for your information.

| YOUR OFFER | SUCCESFUL OFFEROR
TECHNICAL FACTOR | Good | Good
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS SUB-FACTOR | Good | Outstanding
RELIABILITY SUB-FACTOR | Good | Good
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS SUB-FACTOR | Good | Good
SCHEDULE FACTOR | Outstanding | Good
PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR | Substantial Confidence | Substantial Confidence
SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION FACTOR | Good | Good
PRICE FACTOR | $XXXXXXXXXXX | $XXXXXXXXXXX
(Total Evaluated Price) |  |

Your proposal was not accepted due the overall evaluated price, which was considered unreasonable.

Pursuant to FAR 15.506, you are afforded the opportunity to request a debriefing regarding the evaluation of your proposal. Your request for a debriefing shall be submitted in writing to the undersigned Contracting Officer. Please specify the names and positions of the representatives of your company and team who will attend and include written questions planned for this session.

The Government thanks you for your interest in the NAME OF ITEM and looks forward to your continued participation on future acquisition programs. Should you have any other questions concerning this acquisition kindly contact the undersigned at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

Contracting Officer

Sample Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

Dear Sir or Madam:

THE NAME OF COMMAND is acquiring to fulfill its mission. Requirements include: (List as Required).

The US Army is conducting a performance confidence assessment in anticipation of a possible contract award. An offeror interested in proposing on this work has identified you as a Point of Contact (POC) on a past or present contract which the offeror deems relevant to this effort. We are, therefore, requesting your assistance in completing the attached Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire so that we may evaluate the offeror under the Factor of past performance. The Questionnaire has been developed for ease of electronic completion. Please provide your comments regarding the overall assessment of the offeror’s performance on the contract identified and any additional information that your organization deems relevant to our evaluation team. It is important that your information be as factual, accurate and complete as possible to preclude the need for follow-up by the evaluators.

Please complete and submit the Questionnaire within 3 days of receipt via e-mail to the undersigned Contracting Officer at _____________________________. If you have any questions relative to the enclosed Questionnaire, please contact me.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S NAME

Contracting Officer

Sample Source Selection Authority Appointment Letter

COMMAND LETTERHEAD (Dependent upon appointment level, DASA-P, HCA, PARC)

MEMORANDUM FOR XXXXXXX, Requiring Office (XXXX-XXX-XX)

SUBJECT: Appointment as Source Selection Authority

1. Acting in my capacity as DASA-P, Head of the Contracting Activity or the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (as appropriate) for the XXXXX Command, I hereby designate you, XXXXX, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the XXXXX Acquisition. This appointment is made per AFARS 5115.303.

2. The XXXXXXXX Area is responsible for conducting two of the Army's Advanced Technology Demonstration programs. These programs will push the state-of-the-art as a step toward transition to the XXXXX program. To support these efforts, the XXXXX Area will competitively award a contract to perform both the integration of technology testbeds and the experimentation activities associated with these testbeds. A (type/length) contract is anticipated, with a potential total value of $XX.XM.

3. As SSA, you are responsible for the proper conduct of the source selection process in accordance with applicable regulations and shall:

a. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

b. Appoint the chairpersons for the SSEB and, when used, the SSAC.

c. Ensure that personnel appointed to the Source Selection Team (SST) are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

d. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS 203.170(a).

e. Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

f. Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 (formerly 41 U.S.C., Section 423), and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information. Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement. Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements (from both Government members/advisors and non-Government team advisors) are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See CFR 2635).

g. Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

h. Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in Section M (or a non-Uniform Contract Format (UCF) solicitation).

i. Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

4. At all times, ensure conflicts of interest, as well as the appearance of such conflicts, are scrupulously avoided; there is no premature or unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or other source selection information. You must exercise extreme care to safeguard and protect sensitive information, including the identity of the individuals involved in the source selection evaluation.

5. (NAME), Associate Director of the XXXX Acquisition Center, should serve on the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), as well as any other individual you believe is necessary. You may also choose to appoint subject matter experts as advisors, as appropriate.

6. I am advised that you have discussed your appointment with the XXXXX Command Ethics Counselor and you have received an ethics briefing and the Ethics Counselor has conducted the appropriate screening of your financial disclosure report and there are no financial conflicts of interest that would preclude you from performing the duties of the SSA. You are also to consult with an Ethics Counselor should any situation arise which might result in a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one.

7. This appointment of the SSA for the XXXX Acquisition is to you personally, and you may not re-delegate this authority. If, for any reason, you are unable to complete your duties as SSA, please notify me promptly.

XXXXXXXX

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Procurement)

OR (as appropriate)

XXXXXXX

Major General, US Army

Commanding

OR (as appropriate)

PARC NAME

Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting

Sample SSAC Appointment Letter

COMMAND LETTERHEAD

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSAC Member)

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), (Name of Acquisition)

1. As the Source Selection Authority for the subject competitive acquisition, I hereby appoint you to the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). Your temporary duty assignment was requested because of your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. Your appointment as a SSAC member is effective immediately and terminates upon dissolution of the Source Selection Advisory Council. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will complete whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the council's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. Temporary release from your duties for return to your parent organization may occur. However, you will be called upon to provide assistance and clarification of matters as necessary throughout the process.

4. In connection with your duties as a SSAC member, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

5. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay the Source Selection for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), (Name of Acquisition)

6. Your specific responsibilities are outlined at Enclosure 1; a Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete Enclosure 2 and return it to:

(Contracting Officer’s Name)

ADDRESS

7. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

2 Encls Name

Source Selection Authority

SSAC RESPONSIBILITIES

Source Selection Advisory Council. The SSAC should represent the specific functional areas from which the SSA may require expertise. The SSA may convene the SSAC at any stage in the evaluation process as needed. The SSAC Chairperson shall appoint SSAC members, subject to SSA approval. The SSAC shall, at a minimum:

a. Review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied.

b. Consolidate the advice and recommendations from the SSAC into a written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best-value decision.

c. Ensure that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.

d. Meet and discuss evaluation findings with appropriate members, as required.

e. Before the PCO issues the Request for Final Proposal Revisions, meet with the SSA to determine that meaningful discussions with offerors have been concluded.

f. Identify discriminating evaluation findings for each offeror in the written comparative analysis and award recommendation to aid the SSA in the selection process.

g. Review the source selection decision document for the SSA’s signature, if requested by the SSA.

SAMPLE SSEB CHAIRPERSON APPOINTMENT LETTER

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSEB Chairperson)

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson, (Name of Acquisition)

1. As the Source Selection Authority for the subject competitive acquisition, I hereby appoint you to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in the capacity of SSEB Chairperson. Your temporary duty assignment as Chairperson of the SSEB was requested because of your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. Your appointment is effective immediately and terminates upon dissolution of the Source Selection Evaluation Board. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will assign whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the board's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. During the term of this appointment the SSEB will be your primary responsibility. Temporary release from your SSEB duties for return to your parent organization may occur when circumstances warrant.

4. In connection with your duties as a Chairperson of the SSEB, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

5. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay source selection process for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

6. Your specific responsibilities are outlined at Enclosure 1; a Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete Enclosure 2 and return it to:

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Appointment, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson, (Name of Program)

Contracting Officer

ADDRESS

7. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

2 Encls Name

Source Selection Authority

SSEB CHAIRPERSON RESPONSIBILITIES

The SSEB Chairperson shall:

1. Review all aspects of all proposals, and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of competitive proposals in an impartial and equitable manner.

2. Assure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

3. Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

4. Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

5. Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, allowed, and approved.

6. Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

7. Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

8. Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

9. Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

10. Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

11. Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

12. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSAC and SSA.

13. Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.

14. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and the time assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

15. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

16. Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

17. Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA or the SSAC, if the SSAC is designated as the interface between the SSEB and SSA.

18. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

SAMPLE SSEB APPOINTMENT LETTER

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR (SSEB Member)

SUBJECT: Assignment to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), (Name of Program)

1. As the Chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for the subject competitive acquisition, I am assigning/appointing you to be a member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Your assignment to the SSEB is based upon your demonstrated ability and qualifications.

2. As an assigned member to the SSEB you will be required to serve on a full-time basis. Your presence will be required at meetings and conferences and you will complete whatever work is necessary for timely completion of the board's mission. Relief from this assignment will be granted only in the event of a demonstrated emergency.

3. During the term of this appointment the SSEB will be your primary responsibility. Temporary release from your SSEB duties for return to your parent organization may occur when circumstances warrant.

4. This assignment will take effect upon receipt of this letter and will terminate upon formal dissolution of the SSEB.

5. In connection with your duties as a member of the SSEB, you will have access to confidential business information and proprietary data submitted by the offerors in response to the Request for Proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, under which this source selection is being conducted, requires you to safeguard this information and not release it to any person outside of the source selection process. The laws of the United States prohibit the unauthorized release of confidential business information and proprietary data. There are criminal and administrative penalties for violation of these laws.

6. The release of any information submitted by an offeror or any information concerning the evaluation of the proposals to any person outside of the source selection and proposal evaluation process will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to continue with the source selection process. Such a release of information could serve as the basis for a lawsuit against the United States and delay the source selection process for many months. The responsibility for protecting this sensitive information and ensuring that it is not released to unauthorized persons rests with you.

OFFICE SYMBOL

SUBJECT: Assignment to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), (Name of Program)

7. Your specific responsibilities as a member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board are listed at Enclosure 1.

8. A Source Selection Participation Agreement is at Enclosure 2. You are requested to complete the Enclosure 2 return it to:

(Contracting Officer)

ADDRESS

9. I know you are aware of the importance of this acquisition. Your professional efforts will ensure the impartial and equitable evaluation of all offerors proposals.

Encl (Appointed Chairperson)

Chairperson

Source Selection Evaluation Board

APPROVED:

(Appointed Chairperson)

Chairperson

Source Selection Advisory Council

SSEB RESPONSIBILITIES

The SSEB members shall:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the RFP requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

2. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

3. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

4. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

5. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

6. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

7. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

OFFICE SYMBOL

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Source Selection Decision Document,

Solicitation Number XXXXXX-XX-R-XXXX, Program Name.

1. Reference is made to subject solicitation for Program Name. The Program Name is a state-of-the-art, compact vision enhancing system for land-based warriors. The solicitation consists of a requirement for a one year basic contract for a quantity of XXX including warranties and a data item for a Safety Assessment Report, with an option for up to XXXX including warranties.

2. A Request For Proposal (RFP) for the above requirement was issued on 24 May 20XX, with proposals due on 23 June 20XX. Three (3) amendments were issued with no impact to the original proposal due date. Amendment Number 0001 was issued on 14 June 20XX to clarify information previously provided in the original solicitation. Amendment Number 0002 was issued on 16 June 20XX to add XXX marking information to the Statement of Work. Amendment Number 0003 was issued on 18 June 20XX to delete FAR Clause 52.215-4, entitled “Type of Business Organization” from the solicitation. Three (3) responses were received and identified as Offerors A, B and C to protect source selection information.

3. The solicitation utilized the best value with trade-off process. The award is to be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price. Technical is moderately more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation, which are slightly more important than Price. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. The offeror’s proposed price must meet the specified Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV) thresholds. Offerors were cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

4. On 6 October 20XX, it was determined that all three offerors (A, B and C) would be included in the competitive range. See Competitive Range dated 6 October 20XX. After performing a review and analysis of the technical evaluation and other factors pertaining to the proposals received in response to the subject solicitation in accordance with FAR 15.305 and reviewing the requirements of FAR 15.306, discussions were conducted with all of the offerors (A, B and C) who were determined to be within the competitive range. Evaluation Notices (ENs) were issued on 7 October 20XX to all of the offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Responses were received by this office on 19 October 20XX. A second round of ENs was issued to Offerors A, B and C on November 10, 20XX. Responses were received by this office from all three (3) offerors on 17 November 20XX. The referenced responses were evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the section entitled, “Evaluation Factors For Award,” of the solicitation. Offerors A, B and C have met all of the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). Requests for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) were issued on 30 November 20XX and responses were received in this office on 7 December 20XX.

5. Below are the offerors’ ratings for Technical (including the Subfactors), Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Final Evaluated Price. Offerors A, B and C did not submit Technical, Past Performance, or Small Business Participation changes to their Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs), however, Offerors B and C did revise their Prices.

| OFFEROR A | OFFEROR B | OFFEROR C
TECHNICAL | ACCEPTABLE | OUTSTANDING | ACCEPTABLE
Performance | ACCEPTABLE | OUTSTANDING | ACCEPTABLE
Quality Validation | ACCEPTABLE | GOOD | ACCEPTABLE
PAST PERFORM | SUBST CONFID | SUBST CONFID | SUBST CONFID
SM BUSINESS | ACCEPTABLE | GOOD | GOOD
PRICE | $1,486,450 | $1,433,846 | $1,258,846

6. Based upon the findings of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), the proposals have been compared giving appropriate consideration to the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and Source Selection Plan and their relative importance. Based on this comparison, I have determined that the basic proposal submitted by Offeror B, is the best overall proposal and most beneficial to the Government.

7. The SSEB findings show that Offeror B has a significantly better Technical proposal than Offerors A and C, with significantly better ratings in both Technical Subfactors. Offerors A, B and C received Substantial Confidence ratings for the Past Performance Factor. Offeror A received an Acceptable rating for SB Participation Factor while Offerors B and C received a Good rating. The price of Offeror B falls between Offeror A’s and Offeror C’s with Price being the least important factor.

Performance Subfactor (Technical Factor)

Offeror A’s proposal had two of the four desired enhancements which included reduced weight and extended battery life of 9 hours of continuous use, however, many concerns arose with the design and use of their system. The battery to be used with their system is a lithium battery that is not readily available in the field. Whereas, the batteries to be used with Offeror B’s and C’s systems are commercial in nature, are readily available and currently used in the field. Offeror A had many disadvantages regarding the design and use of their system, including a plastic tab adjustment design which presented the potential for a major field safety issue. Offeror A provided an incomplete sample hardware submission which required some risk be assessed to the offeror’s technical proposal. Offeror A provided a minimal Performance Specification which means latent defects were possible in their system.

Offeror B’s proposed approach is of very low risk due to the extensive detail and the numerous advantages provided regarding the design and use of their proposed system. Offeror B proposed three of the four desired enhancements which included a reduced weight, extended battery life of 22 hours of continuous use and a six (6) year warranty. In addition to these three enhancements, Offeror B's XXX displayed a focal adjustment of 37 lrm, as well as a superior mean-time-to-failure (MTTF) rate. One minor concern was the potential for negligible damage to the XXX safety clip design. Offeror B proposed a preset alignment feature which would further reduce the "time for use" requirement. Offeror B also proposed a reduce XXX weight. The weight reduction offered was a 1.25-ounce reduction to the KPP.

Offeror C’s proposal had four out of four desired enhancements which included reduced weight, extended battery life of 6 hours of continuous use and a three year warranty, however, there are some concerns with the design and use of their system. Even though Offeror C has offered four of the four enhancements, the evaluation of their sample hardware did not confirm Offeror C’s proposed enhancements. The test results of the submitted sample hardware did not confirm Offeror C's written proposal. The sample hardware tests showed that Offeror C’s sample hardware could not comply with two of the four Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) which causes concern in the design and use of their system. Based on the above information along with other disadvantages identified with Offeror C’s design and system use, the offeror’s approach could not be confirmed and, therefore, the risk associated with their proposal was considered moderate to high.

Quality Validation Subfactor (Technical Factor)

Offeror A submitted a complete Quality Validation Plan, but with minimal reliability standards. Additionally, there is some concern regarding Offeror A’s manufacturing subcontractor meeting the specified quality system requirement.

Offeror B has proposed an exceptional Quality Validation Plan which included a comprehensive Initial Production Test Plan (IPT) and Quality Conformance Inspection (QCI) plan which included a broad range of environmental and performance tests at reasonable intervals. Offeror B’s proposed Quality Validation Plan provided detailed test descriptions and involves very little risk.

Offeror C proposed an adequate Quality Validation Plan, but with minimal details regarding the IPT and QCI and very limited sample lot quantities. Offeror C has proposed minimal environmental testing after the initial IPT which concerns the Government because this lack of testing may lead to field failures under typical operational conditions, therefore there is significant risk associated with this Offeror’s Quality Validation Plan proposal.

Past Performance Factor

Offeror A had approximately thirty (30) relevant contracts and/or purchase orders with production quantities ranging from 1 to 1,500. All contract schedules were met for all thirty relevant contracts. Feedback also indicated that Offeror A has good business relations, and works hard to ensure that there are no problems and the customer is satisfied.

Offeror B had approximately fifteen (15) relevant contracts with delivery quantities totaling 20 to 32,116 production units. During late 20XX and early 20XX, the offeror had only one supplier of diopter adjusters (DAs) and because of shortages suffered minor delivery delays on several contracts. As a corrective action, the offeror now routinely purchases DAs from 5 vendors. This action sufficiently mitigates the risk of future shortages of DAs. Responses indicate that all of the technical requirements have been met, and that the offeror has an excellent record of business-like concern for the interests of their customers.

Offeror C had two (2) relevant contracts with delivery quantities totaling 6 to 20 production units. Responses indicate that Offeror C met delivery requirements on schedule, and worked with the Government to incorporate requested improvements. Even though Offeror C had very limited delivery production quantities with the Government, a 20XX pre-award survey indicated that Offeror C had taken the appropriate steps to be able to produce the volume of units required for the contract. A risk, nevertheless, remains since this offeror has yet to demonstrate its ability to produce such quantities.

Small Business Participation Factor

Offeror A met SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror A adequately identified small businesses and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror A showed a good commitment to utilizing small businesses however did not propose binding agreements with one or more small businesses. Offeror A’s proposal showed acceptable past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

Offeror B slightly exceeds SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror B adequately identified small businesses and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror B showed an exceptional commitment to utilizing small businesses with one or more binding agreements with small business firms. Offeror B’s proposal showed good past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting and or exceeding requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

.

Offeror C slightly exceeded SB Participation goals for SB category and met goals in at least one or more SB subcategories. Offeror C adequately identified small businesses in one or more subcategories and proposed small business participation at limited levels of complexity. Offeror C showed a good commitment to utilizing small businesses and proposed binding agreement with Mentor-Protégé firm. Offeror C’s proposal showed good past performance in terms of compliance with Subcontracting requirements (52.219-9), typically meeting and or exceeding requirements to include timely payments of subcontractors.

Price Factor

The Price Factor is evaluated utilizing each offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP equals the Evaluated Basic CAIV Price, plus the Evaluated Option CAIV Price, plus the Safety Assessment Report (SAR) Price. The findings of the SSEB provided the following evaluated prices:

Offeror A Offeror B Offeror C

PRICE $1,486,450 $1,433,846 $1,258,846

Summary

Offeror A’s sample hardware submission was incomplete and, therefore, it is difficult to confirm the performance and use of their proposed system. Additionally, there were several problems with the hardware that was submitted for evaluation which if these problems occurred in the field raise a major readiness issue. Offeror B provided an overall outstanding technical proposal with the least amount of risk. The evaluation of the sample hardware for Offeror B confirms the design and performance of the system defined in their proposal. Offeror C’s sample hardware failed to perform as specified in the Offeror’s proposal and the Government was unable to verify that the Offeror’s proposed system could meet two of the four KPPs. As discussed in previous paragraphs of this document and extensively detailed in the evaluation reports, Offeror B’s Technical proposal (Outstanding) and the advantages associated with it is clearly superior to the technical proposals submitted by both Offeror A (Acceptable) and Offeror C (Acceptable). Offeror A, B and C’s all received a Past Performance Rating of Substantial Confidence. Offerors B and C’s Small Business Participation rating of Good is slightly better than Offeror A’s rating of Acceptable. In addition, it is worth noting that Offerors B and C both demonstrated successful achievement of their stated SB goals than Offeror A. Offeror B’s evaluated Price is lower than that of Offeror A and is approximately $175,000.00 higher than Offeror C. The technical benefits of Offeror B’s proposal far outweigh the savings in price associated with Offeror C’s proposal.

8. Based upon the findings of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), I have compared the proposals giving appropriate consideration to the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and their relative importance. Based upon this comparison of the proposals and a detailed assessment of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each, I have determined that the proposal submitted by Offeror B provides the best overall value to the Government. Accordingly, award will be made to Offeror B for the system set forth in their proposal.

NAME

Source Selection Authority

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

(SAMPLE)

FOR THE

TITLE

SOLICITATION NUMBER:

CONTRACTING OFFICE

CITY, STATE, ZIP

DATE

Coordination Page

Submitted by:

_________________________________

Concurrence:

_________________________ ______________________________

Contracting Officer Legal Counsel

_________________________ ______________________________

SSEB Chairperson SSAC Chairperson

Approval:

________________________________ _______________

Source Selection Authority Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION | DESCRIPTION/TITLE | PAGE
I. | OVERVIEW…………………………………..………..…………………….. | K-33
| A. | Background and Objectives…………………………………...…. | 33
| B. | Acquisition Strategy....……………………………………………. | 33
II. | SOLICITATION PROVISIONS……………………….…………………… | K-34
| A. | Basis for Award………………………..…………………………… | 34
| B. | Factors and Sub-Factors to be Evaluated…………………….. | 34
| C. | Evaluation Approach……………………………………………… | 35
| D. | Proposal Submission…..…………………………………………. | 41
| E. | Discussions………………………………………………………… | 49
III. | EVALUATION ORGANIZATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.. | K-50
| A. | Evaluation Organization…………………………………….…….. | 50
| B. | Responsibilities of the Organizational Elements….……..…... | 50
IV. | EVALUATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES………………………. | K-56
| A. | Key Milestones……………………………………………………… | 56
| B. | Definitions…………………………….…………………………….. | 56
| C. | Rating Method……………………………………..……………….. | 60
| D. E. | Proposal Evaluation…………………....…………………………. Communications and Securing Source Selection Material… | 61 62
| F. | SSAC Written Comparative Analysis…………………………… | 62
| G. | Best Value Decision……..………………………………………… | 62
| H. I. | Announcement of Selection.…………………………………….. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors…………………………… | 63 63
V. | POLICIES, INSTRUCTIONS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT……. | K-64
| A. | General………………..………………………………………..……. | 64
| B. | Safeguarding Procurement Information.………………….…… | 64
| C. | Evaluation Policies..……………………………………………….. | 65

APPENDICES

A – MEMBERS OF AND ADVISORS TO THE SOURCE SELECTION ADVISORY COUNCIL (SSAC) AND THE SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

B – SOURCE SELECTION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

C – TECHNICAL EVALUATION FORMS

ENCL 1 SAMPLE SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM
ENCL 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION TEAM CONSENSUS REPORT

ENCL 3 MINORITY REPORT FORM

D – PAST PERFORMANCE
ENCL 1 COVER LETTER
ENCL 2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
ENCL 3 TELEPHONE INTERVIEW - QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

ENCL 4 TELEPHONE INTERVIEW REPORT FORWARDING

MEMORANDUM

ENCL 5 INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

ENCL 6 TEAM EVALUATION CONSENSUS FORM

E – GUIDELINES FOR WRITING EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs)

F – EVALUATION FORMS

ENCL 1 EVALUATION FORM (EN) - CLARIFICATION OR COMMUNICATION

ENCL 2 EVALUATION FORM (EN) - DISCUSSIONS

ENCL 3 EVALUATION OF EN RESPONSE FORM

ENCL 4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION

FORM

G – SAMPLE MAJOR MILESTONE SCHEDULE

SECTION I

OVERVIEW

This Source Selection Plan (SSP) defines the criteria, organization, and policies to be used in selecting a contractor to provide (Insert Acquisition Description) in support of the (Insert Name of Customer).

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The (Insert Contracting Office Name) has a requirement from the (Insert Name of Customer) to provide (Insert Acquisition Description).

B. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

This is a competitive acquisition for the single award of a (Insert Contract Type). Award will be made to the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Evaluation methodology for the instant procurement consists of four (4) factors: Technical, Cost/Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The business goal of the contract is to purchase (Insert Acquisition Description). An industry day was conducted in MONTH/YEAR. Approximately ## potential offerors participated. NUMBER (##) of the potential offerors were small business concerns.

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

NOTE: The language contained throughout this section is provided as a sample. This section would properly contain information directly pulled from Sections L and M of your RFP. Nothing in this section should be construed to be mandatory for use but is intended to be used as an example only.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Cost/Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The Technical factor is (insert relative weight) than the Cost/Price factor, which is (insert relative weight) than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation factors combined. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors) and the Small Business Participation factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE (insert relative weight) THAN COST/PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1

b. Subfactor 2

c. Subfactor 3

Subfactor 1 is (insert relative weight) than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is (insert relative weight) than Subfactor 3.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a (insert contract type). Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 4. Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed FILL IN THE BLANK for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall FILL IN THE BLANK could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

● KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s FILL IN THE BLANK. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

● KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s FILL IN THE BLANK. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

● KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION

● KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS
Color | Rating | Description
Blue | Outstanding | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Purple | Good | Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow | Marginal | Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3. Cost/Price Factor. The contract will be a INSERT CONTRACT TYPE. The Government will evaluate the realism of the offerors’ proposed cost for the cost reimbursable effort through a probable cost analysis. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. In determining the evaluated cost, the Government’s determined probable cost, will be added to the offerors’ proposed firm fixed priced effort to obtain the total evaluated price. (Note: TO BE USED IN A HYBRID CR/FFP TYPE CONTRACT) If the Government evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The base program and all option years shall be included in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

4. In determining the evaluated cost, the Government's determined probable cost, will be added to the offeror's PROPOSED firm fixed priced effort to obtain the total evaluated price.

Cost Reimbursable Requirements:

1) Probable Cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical and management approaches, adjusted by any additional cost to the Government, including use of the Government facilities and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) requirements other than those specified in the PWS. If the evaluated total cost is less than the proposed, the proposed total cost becomes the recommended probable cost. In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of major subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and this paragraph.

(e) For evaluation purposes only, in determining probable cost for options in the out-years, wage determination rates shall be escalated three (3) percent per year. However, if the offeror substantiates higher wage rates and justifies a different escalation factor, those wage/escalation factors will be utilized.

FFP Requirements

1) The RFP requires firm-fixed-prices contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data, as described in notes a – d above shall be utilized. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing should be reflected in the cost/pricing report.

2) The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy –in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

3) NOTE: When using range quantity pricing this approach will be applied. For evaluation purposes only, the estimated quantity of ## hours will be used to determine the evaluated price for CLIN ####. However, the proposed price for all other ranges will be evaluated for price reasonableness and proposal risk.

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) ######. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for

the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is

to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating | Definition
Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past

performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is

for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating | Definition
Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence | 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.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) | 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.

5. Small Business Participation Factor. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable

commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {8%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {2%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {0.50%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {1%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {1%} of the total contract value. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) {0%} (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color | Rating | Description
Blue | Outstanding | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Purple | Good | Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Green | Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow | Marginal | Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Red | Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

1. Introduction. The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal.

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) volumes. The Volumes are I – Technical, II – Cost/Price, III – Past Performance, IV – Small Business Participation, and V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate three-ring binder. Any pages that are changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be of a different color and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. The revised pages shall be dated. Each binder shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

b. Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

PRINTED DIGITAL MAXIMUM

VOLUME TITLE COPIES COPIES PAGES

I – Technical Original + 4 3 300*

II – Cost/Price Original + 4 4 N/A

III – Past Performance Original + 4 2 25

IV – Small Business Participation Original + 4 2 25

V – Solicitation, Offer and Award

Documents and Certification/

Representations Original + 4 2 N/A

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

*Manpower charts and the small business subcontracting plan are excluded from the page count.

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11X17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11X17 page counts as two pages.

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs. Zip disks are not permitted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable. ** If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Subfactor 1. The offeror’s proposed FILL IN THE BLANK. The Subfactor 1 portion of the proposal shall address the following as a minimum:

● KEY POINT #1

● KEY POINT #2

● KEY POINT #3

(2) Section 2 – Subfactor 2. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s FILL IN THE BLANK. The contractor will provide information that substantiates:

● KEY POINT #1

● KEY POINT #2

● KEY POINT #3

(3) Section 3 – Subfactor 3. This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s FILL IN THE BLANK. The offer will provide information to substantiate the following:

● KEY POINT #1

● KEY POINT #2

● KEY POINT #3

(ii) VOLUME II – Cost/Price. This volume shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. The information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and the requirements set forth below. There are no page limitations for this volume.

(1) The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.

(2) The proposal shall set forth a summary of the total estimated costs by cost element and shall provide a breakdown of the proposed estimated costs of each CLIN separately, including all direct and indirect charges and fees. In order to maintain a minimum level of commonality between proposals, each offeror is required to complete (in entirety) the four (4) cost summary spreadsheets provided at Attachment TBD. The cost summary spreadsheets shall be provided for the base effort and each option year. All documentation furnished to support the cost summaries are to be provided in a format chosen by the offeror that is easily traceable to the cost summary sheets.

(3) Estimated phase-in costs shall be included separately in the offerors cost proposal.

(4) The specific direct labor rates utilized to price the proposal must be identified in the cost and pricing proposal only. The proposal shall set forth a complete breakdown of the direct and indirect rates by category and the rationale thereof. Provisions for overtime and shift differential charges shall be clearly addressed on a per-hour basis. Bid codes (applicable codes used to identify a labor category in the offerors accounting system), employee names and/or other documentation (such as assigned letter of commitment for key personnel not currently employed by the offeror) to support the rates proposed shall be provided. Letters of commitment shall clearly identify the prospective employees’ agreed-to salary/hourly rate and other pertinent conditions of employment. The same detailed support data shall be furnished for all major subcontractors.

(5) For evaluation purposes only and in determining probable cost for options in the out-years, wage determination rates shall be escalated 3 percent per year. However, if the offeror substantiates higher wage rates and justifies different escalation factors, those wage/escalation factors will be utilized. Direct labor rates shall identify the baseline (takeoff point) plus projected escalation for each basic and option period, and the methodology for computing composite labor rates shall be shown. For example: 3 months of FY12 + 9 months of FY13 divided by 12 = the average labor rates for the contractual period of performance. The offeror and each subcontractor shall clearly state their fiscal year. Offerors are advised that projected escalation must be applied to both exempt and non-exempt labor categories.

(6) Direct labor hours and rates shall be delineated by labor category by contract year for the offeror and each subcontractor. The labor hour delineation must be directly traceable to the same information proposed in the Technical Volume.

(7) Indirect expense rates shall be proposed in the same manner as direct labor rates, i.e., by contract year with the methodology used to derive any composite rates proposed.

(8) Forward-pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA) shall be clearly documented with agreements and responsible Government officials identified.

(9) Offerors are reminded to identify any uncompensated or partially compensated overtime included in the proposal – per FAR Clause 52.237-10.

(10) Pursuant to the Service Contract Act of 1965, the determination by the Secretary of Labor as to the applicable minimum monetary wage and fringe benefits will be made part of any resulting contract. For evaluation purposes only, the Government has incorporated the applicable Area Wage Determinations and the Collective Bargaining Agreement as Attachment XXX of this RFP. The offeror shall provide a crosswalk of the proposed labor categories against the Area Wage Determinations.

(11) In order to expedite the evaluation, offerors (prime and sub) are requested to provide a copy of their cost and pricing proposal, in the same format required by this RFP, to their cognizant DCAA office upon submission of the proposal to the Contracting Officer. The offeror shall provide information regarding its cognizant DCAA office, to include point of contact, telephone number and email address.

(12) Offerors are reminded of the requirements of Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act (41 U.S.C. 1127, formerly 41 U.S.C. 435), as amended, which limits allowable costs for senior executive personnel compensation to $693,951 per year.

(13) An offerors proposed target fee on the cost plus incentive fee effort will be added to the bottom line value.

(14) For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is DATE.

(15) The offeror shall submit a complete breakdown of costs by major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a member of the offeror’s overall team who is expected to perform ##% or more of the proposed effort.

(iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code ######) required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/COR and current email address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax number.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the offeror’s delivered product.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to (insert email address). The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POC’s who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

(6) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency points of contact (POC) in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(7) Small Business Participation Past Performance. All Offerors shall submit information substantiating the Offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business”, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same.

(iv) VOLUME IV – Small Business Participation Form – See Appendix F, Enclosure 4

(v) VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award

Section G – Contract Administration Data

Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing in the (insert city/state) area.

SECTION III

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST)

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. EVALUATION ORGANIZATION. The evaluation and selection of the successful offeror will be performed by the following organizational elements:

1. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

2. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

3. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

4. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

* The composition of the SSEB is shown in Appendix A and their responsibilities are discussed below.

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS.

1. Source Selection Authority. The SSA is the individual designated to make the best- value decision. The SSA shall:

a. Be responsible for the proper and efficient conduct of the source selection process in accordance with this procedure and all applicable laws and regulations.

b. Appoint the chairpersons for the SSEB and, when used, the SSAC.

c. Ensure that personnel appointed to the SST are knowledgeable of policy and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting the source selection. Ensure the SST members have the requisite acquisition experience, skills, and training necessary to execute the source selection, and ensure the highest level of team membership consistency for the duration of the selection process.

d. For major weapon system or major service acquisitions, ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performs multiple leadership roles in the source selection in accordance with DFARS 203.170(a).

e. Ensure that realistic source selection schedules are established and source selection events are conducted efficiently and effectively in meeting overall program schedules. The schedules should support proper and full compliance with source selection procedures outlined in this document and the established Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the acquisition.

f. Ensure all involved in the source selection are briefed and knowledgeable of Subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 (formerly 41 U.S.C., Section 423), and FAR 3.104 regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and proposal information, as well as source selection information. Ensure that all persons receiving source selection information are instructed to comply with applicable standards of conduct (including procedures to prevent the improper disclosure of information) and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a conflict of interest statement. Ensure Conflict of Interest Statements (from both Government members/advisors and non-Government team advisors) are appropriately reviewed and actual or potential conflict of interest issues are resolved prior to granting access to any source selection information. (See CFR 2635).

g. Make a determination to award without discussions or enter into discussions.

h. Select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation established criteria in Section M (or a non-Uniform Contract Format (UCF) solicitation).

i. Document the rationale in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

2. Source Selection Advisory Council. The SSAC should represent the specific functional areas from which the SSA may require expertise. The SSA may convene the SSAC at any stage in the evaluation process as needed. The SSAC Chairperson shall appoint SSAC members, subject to SSA approval. The SSAC shall, at a minimum:

a. Review the evaluation results of the SSEB to ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and the ratings are appropriately and consistently applied.

b. Consolidate the advice and recommendations from the SSAC into a written comparative analysis and recommendation for use by the SSA in making the best-value decision.

c. Ensure that minority opinions within the SSAC are documented and included within the comparative analysis.

d. Meet and discuss evaluation findings with appropriate members, as required.

e. Before the PCO issues the Request for Final Proposal Revisions, meet with the SSA to determine that meaningful discussions with offerors have been concluded.

f. Identify discriminating evaluation findings for each offeror in the written comparative analysis and award recommendation to aid the SSA in the selection process.

g. Review the source selection decision document for the SSA’s signature, if requested by the SSA.

3. Source Selection Evaluation Board. Government personnel assigned to the SSEB shall consider this duty as their primary responsibility. Their source selection assignment shall take priority over other work assignments.

a. The SSEB Chairperson shall:

1. Review all aspects of all proposals, and shall fully participate in all ratings and ensure preparation by the SSEB of narrative support substantiating evaluation ratings. The SSEB Chairperson is responsible for the conduct of a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of competitive proposals in an impartial and equitable manner.

2. Assure that the SSEB members understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals so that there is a uniformity of approach in the rating effort.

3. Require the assigned members’ attendance at the meetings and conferences of the board and assign work necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

4. Relieve and replace members from assignment only in the event of a demonstrated emergency or other appropriate cause.

5. Arrange for members to work overtime, when necessary, allowed, and approved.

6. Assure the safeguarding of sensitive information used by the board.

7. Arrange for the needed administrative staff at the work site.

8. Plan the security requirements of the board and the work site and ensure their accomplishment through conclusion of the source selection, to include any protests.

9. Establish the agenda and the schedule for SSEB meetings.

10. Isolate policy issues and major questions requiring decision by the SSA.

11. Seek to build consensus among the SSEB members.

12. Be responsible for the overall management of the SSEB and act as the SSEB’s interface to the SSAC and SSA.

13. Establish functional evaluation teams, as appropriate, to support an efficient source selection evaluation. Appoint chairpersons and members to the functional evaluation teams, subject to approval of the SSA.

14. Ensure the skills of the personnel, the available resources, and the time assigned are commensurate with the complexity of the acquisition.

15. Ensure members of the SSEB are trained and knowledgeable on how an evaluation is conducted prior to reviewing any proposals.

16. Ensure the evaluation process follows the evaluation criteria and ratings are being consistently applied.

17. Provide consolidated evaluation results to the SSA or the SSAC, if the SSAC is designated as the interface between the SSEB and SSA.

18. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

b. The SSEB members shall:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of proposals against the RFP requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.

2. Ensure the evaluation is based solely on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

3. Assist the SSEB Chairperson in documenting the SSEB evaluation results.

4. Support any post source selection activities such as debriefings and post-award reviews/meetings, as required.

5. Brief the SSAC/SSA, as requested.

6. Respond to comments/instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

7. Prepare the necessary evaluation notices (ENs).

4. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO will serve as the primary business advisor and principal guidance source for the entire Source Selection. The PCO shall:

a. Manage all business aspects of the acquisition and advise and assist the SSA in the execution of his/her responsibilities and work with the SSEB Chair to ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

b. Ensure that required approvals are obtained and the appropriate notification clause is included in the RFP before non-Government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (FAR 7.503 and 37.205)

c. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and DFARS 203.104, ensure that procedures exist to safeguard source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information. Approve access to or release of source selection information and contractor bid or proposal information after consulting Legal Counsel before and after contract award.

d. Maintain the documents and source selection evaluation records.

e. Release the final RFP only after obtaining all required approvals including the SSA approval of the SSP.

f. Serve as the single point of contact for all RFP-related inquiries from actual or prospective offerors.

g. After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR 15.306.

h. With the approval of the SSA, establish the competitive range and enter into discussions.

i. Brief the SSAC/SSA as requested.

j. Respond to special instructions from the SSAC/SSA.

k. Award the contract.

l. Chair all required debriefings.

SECTION IV

EVALUATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

A. KEY MILESTONES. The source selection process will follow the sequence outlined below:

1. Issue RFP

2. Receive Proposals

3. Conduct Initial Evaluation

4. Present Findings to SSAC/SSA

5. Establish Competitive Range

6. Conduct Discussions

7. Conduct Interim Evaluation

8. Present Findings to SSAC/SSA

9. Revise/Reaffirm Competitive Range

10. Request and Receive Final Proposal Revisions

11. Conduct Final Evaluation

12. Present Findings to SSAC/SSA

13. SSAC Written Comparative Analysis and Award Recommendation

14. SSA Decision

15. CRB Peer Review

16. Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors

B. DEFINITIONS

1. Rating. The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

2. Factor Rating Definitions. SSEB will use a common set of adjectival ratings to evaluate non-Cost/Price Factors other than Past Performance (to include subfactors, if applicable). Keep in mind that mere promises to comply with contractual requirements are insufficient basis for a favorable rating; evidence is required in support of any statements relating to promised performance. Also, the chosen adjectival rating must be supported by the evaluator’s narrative reason(s) for the choice. The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the RFP, utilizing adjectival ratings as shown below:

Utilize the rating methodologies and associated definitions as set forth in Chapter 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for factors and subfactors. (SELECT THE METHODOLOGY AS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR PROCUREMENT.)

Methodology 1. For any “Technical” Factor (meaning all non-cost factors excluding Past Performance), the most suitable rating methodology for most Army source selections is Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.1). This methodology provides the most flexibility and least complexity in the rating process, conduct of the comparative analysis, and best value trade-off analysis process.

Methodology 2. When applying Methodology 2 (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2), Weaknesses, Risks, and Uncertainties are captured under the Technical Risk Rating (which also considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance). For firm-fixed price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions. Strengths and Deficiencies are captured under the Technical Rating. Typical source selections where a separate risk rating (Methodology 2) may be applicable is in the R&D area.

Small Business Participation Methodology. The most preferred method for rating of the Small Business Participation Factor is Methodology 1. Neither Methodology 2 nor the Acceptable/Unacceptable rating methodology (DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.3.4.1.1) is preferred for the Small Business Participation Factor.

Methodology 1

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings
Adjectival Rating | Definition
Outstanding | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Good | Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Marginal | Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.
Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Methodology 2

Technical Ratings
Adjectival Rating | Definition
Outstanding | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.
Good | Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.
Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.
Marginal | Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Technical Risk Ratings
Adjectival Rating | Definition
Low | Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Moderate | Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.
High | Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating | Description
Substantial Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence (Neutral) | 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.

In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of offerors.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating | Definition
Very Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Findings Definitions

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

C. RATING METHOD

1. Rating Package. Each individual evaluating a factor or subfactor of the offeror’s proposal will receive a rating package containing the following:

a. Evaluation Policies and Procedures (Section IV and V of this Plan);

b. Basis for Award, Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Approach (Section M of the RFP and Section II of this Plan);

c. Proposal Instructions (Section L of the RFP and Section II of this Plan);

d. Evaluation Forms (Appendix C); or

e. Past Performance Evaluation forms (Appendix D), as appropriate;

f. Guidelines for writing clarifications and discussion issues (Appendix E);

g. Evaluation Notice (EN) form (Appendix F); and,

h. Request for Proposal (RFP).

2. Rating Structure. The non-cost factors will be evaluated and rated based upon the general and specific instructions supplied in Section IV of this Plan. The ratings will be used for the final evaluation. The Cost/Price factor, while evaluated for fairness and reasonableness (including findings), will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1. All proposals will be received by the PCO or designee not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. Upon receipt of proposals the PCO or designee should conduct an initial screening to ascertain that each offeror has submitted all of the required information, including electronic media, in the quantities and format specified in the RFP. The PCO will retain the original of the offerors proposals and associated data. The SSEB Chairperson will control all copies of the offerors’ proposals and other associated data.

2. Upon receipt of proposals, evaluators will read their applicable section to gain an understanding of the level of the information and determine if errors, omissions or a need for clarification exists. These will be reported to the respective Factor Chairperson and the SSEB Chairperson. The SSEB Chairperson will notify the Contracting Officer of such issues.

3. Upon completion of their evaluations, the SSEB teams will assign the appropriate rating to each factor and subfactor as set forth above upon reaching consensus as to the findings and the ratings. Care must be taken to cite the section, page and paragraph numbers generating these findings. If after discussion of the findings and ratings a consensus cannot be reached, a Minority Report will be completed for inclusion in the file. Each SSEB Factor Chairperson will prepare an overall narrative summary for his/her respective factor and subfactors along with recommended factor and subfactor ratings and forward them to the SSEB Chairperson.

4. The SSEB Chairperson will review the narrative summary and recommended factor and subfactor ratings and provide an overall summary report (Initial Evaluation Report). This report will be forwarded to the SSAC/SSA and shall contain the adjectival assessments for each factor and subfactor as well as a Cost/Price report and the supporting rationale.

5. Any proposal(s) which the Contracting Officer determines, with SSA approval, to not be among the most highly rated proposals will be considered outside the competitive range and eliminated from further consideration. The Contracting Officer will promptly inform the offeror(s) in writing.

6. The Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with each offeror retained in the competitive range. After the conclusion of discussions, any new information received from the offerors will be evaluated. This evaluation will be documented in a supplement to the Initial Evaluation Report (Interim Evaluation Report) and will consist of an update, which addresses each factor and subfactor of the Initial Evaluation Report.

7. Using the Interim Evaluation Report, the Contracting Officer will amend the competitive range with SSA approval. The Contracting Officer will give all offerors within the revised competitive range an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions by a common cutoff date. Any final proposal revisions will be evaluated and the re-evaluation will be documented in another supplemental report (Final Evaluation Report), which addresses each factor and subfactor of the Initial and Interim Evaluation Reports. The Final Evaluation Report will not contain a recommendation pertaining to which offeror should be selected for award.

E. COMMUNICATIONS AND SECURING SOURCE SELECTION MATERIALS. The PCO and SSEB Chair will ensure “information security”, including information integrity, confidentiality and availability is maintained as described in FAR 2.101. Electronic source selection information shall be housed in an access controlled, password protected site. All source selection materials will be marked in accordance with FAR 2.101 (see definition of source selection information) and 3.104 and secured as prescribed by the PCO and SSEB Chair. Communications (internal and external) procedures and limitations (if any) will be provided by the PCO and SSEB Chair.

F. SSAC WRITTEN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. The SSAC must consider whether or not the benefits of the non-cost strengths warrant the additional price premium. This is accomplished by conducting a trade-off analysis among the competing proposals. While the award recommendation decision process may appear simple, it is far from it. The evaluation, proposal comparison, and tradeoff analysis process require a great deal of subjectivity and judgment. When performing the comparative analysis, consider each proposal’s total evaluated price and the discriminators in the non-cost ratings as indicated by each proposal's strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Consider these differences in light of the relative importance (or weight) of each evaluation factor. The comparative analysis does not preclude eventual selection of the lowest price offer as providing the best value. In fact, selection of a higher-priced offer always involves the necessity to state in the source selection decision document the rationale for concluding that payment of a higher price is justified by a proportionate superiority in non-cost factors. If the superior technical proposal is not selected, it is also imperative that the rationale for its non-selection be documented.

G. BEST VALUE DECISION. The SSA will compare the proposals to determine the offer(s) that represent(s) the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP. The selection process is complex and depending upon the evaluation factors, the SSA may exercise a significant degree of judgment in selecting the successful offeror(s). The adjectival ratings assigned by the evaluation team are labels and not the sole basis for proposal comparison. The SSA must not base his/her decision merely on the adjectival ratings or the comparative analysis and award recommendation of the SSAC, which compares the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals, but shall exercise independent judgment. Likewise, the comparative analysis and award recommendation of the SSAC is not binding upon the SSA.

The SSA must document his/her rationale for selecting the successful offeror(s) in an independent, stand-alone document.

H. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SELECTION. The Contracting Officer will make the announcement of the selection of a successful contractor directly or through his/her designee.

I. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS. The contracting Officer will chair and conduct the debriefing.

SECTION V

POLICIES, INSTRUCTIONS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

A. GENERAL. The impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals is dependent on the capability of the Government to provide each offeror the same information and to evaluate each proposal independently.

B. SAFEGUARDING PROCUREMENT INFORMATION. The sensitivity of the proceedings and documentation require stringent and special safeguards throughout the evaluation process.

1. Inadvertent release of information could be a source of considerable misunderstanding and embarrassment to the Government. It is incumbent, therefore, upon all members of the team not to make any unauthorized disclosures of information pertaining to this evaluation. All evaluation participants will observe the following rules:

a. Do not permit members of your organization to divulge your membership to casual callers.

b. Refer all attempted communications by offerors’ representatives to the Contracting Officer.

c. Do not accept any invitation from personnel of an offeror for participation in any functions, regardless of how remote they may be from the evaluation process.

d. Do not assume that a nonparticipating contractor can be told anything pertaining to the evaluation and source selection.

e. Do not assume that it is safe to speak about the evaluation because you are among Government employees or in Government buildings.

f. Do not discuss any aspect of the evaluation with other board members outside the area designated for deliberations.

g. Do not discuss the substantive issues of the evaluation with any unauthorized individual even after the announcement of the winning offeror.

h. Your supervisor does not have a “need-to-know” regarding any aspect

of the SSO proceedings if they have not been appointed as a member of the SST.

2. Care must be exercised to ensure that copies of the evaluation records and information relating thereto are adequately marked and safeguarded throughout the entire proceedings.

3. Removal of proposals or evaluation documents from the evaluation work site is not authorized except as specifically approved by the SSEB Chairperson.

4. To the degree feasible, all proposals and working papers will be kept in a locked container or room except when being used in conjunction with evaluation and source selection.

5. All participating personnel will sign the Agreement set forth at Appendix B to the effect that they are familiar with the regulations and other guidance pertaining to security measures.

6. Proposals may contain information or data, which the offerors do not want disclosed to the public or to other contractors or used by the Government for any purpose other than the evaluation of this proposal. Data so marked shall not be disclosed outside the Government without the written permission of the offeror except under the conditions provided in the offerors' restrictions. Since it is anticipated that there will be group discussions concerning aspects of offerors' proposals, conferees shall advise other members when proprietary data is being discussed. While special emphasis is given here to proprietary data, SST members should NEVER make any assumptions regarding release of any information relative to the source selection.

C. EVALUATION POLICIES

1. The principal purpose of the evaluation procedure is to provide a sound basis for the SSA to make an informed judgment. The evaluation methodology and techniques employed should enhance the quality, credibility and confidence levels in the adequacy of the evaluation results. The evaluation process, therefore, must be consistent, well thought out, adequately staffed, managed, and carried out in a professional, comprehensive and objective manner. It must frame the elements for the selection decision with sufficient clarity and visibility so that the SSA will be able to make a sound decision within a short time period.

2. Proposal evaluation requires a mixture of fact-finding and reporting and the application of professional judgment to provide a comprehensive picture of the adequacy of each proposal. This requires:

a. Examination and judgment of the merits of each proposal as compared to the criteria established for evaluation.

b. Validation of the information, estimates and projections of each offeror as presented in their proposal.

c. Successive summarization of the detailed evaluation results accompanied by analysis in sufficient depth to give visibility to any significant findings or reservations.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

SOURCE SELECTION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

Important! This Agreement concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of a United States government agency. This Agreement prohibits you from making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and/or certifications. If you do so, you may be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C §1001.

AGREEMENT

1. This Agreement applies to individuals involved in Solicitation [NUMBER], also known as the [PROGRAM NAME] acquisition.

2. This Agreement contains the rules of conduct relating to this acquisition. It includes rules of conduct regarding conflicts of interest as well as rules of conduct regarding the safeguarding of confidential information.

3. Your signature on this Agreement indicates that you have read this Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms.

TERMS

4. I have read, understand and will abide by the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §3.104. I understand that I may request a copy of FAR 3.104 from the Contracting Officer for this acquisition.

5. Except as set forth below, I do not presently hold, and will not obtain during my participation in this acquisition, any financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

6. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, my spouse and dependent children do not have a financial interest* or affiliation** in any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

7. To the best of my knowledge, and except as set forth below, none of the following is a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor for this acquisition, or represents a reasonably likely offeror or proposed subcontractor with regard to this acquisition:

● any person or company with whom I have or am seeking a business, contractual or other financial relationship that involves other than a routine consumer transaction;

● my spouse and dependent children;

● any person or company with whom I have been affiliated within the last year;

● any organization in which I am an active participant.

*Financial Interest - Any continuing financial interest (such as through a pension or retirement plan, shared income, continuing termination payments, or other arrangements as a result of any current or prior employment or business or professional association) or any financial interest through legal or beneficial ownership of stock, stock options, bonds, securities, or other arrangements including trusts.

**Affiliation - A relationship as an employee, officer, owner, director, member, trustee, partner, advisor, agent, representative, or consultant; or a person having any understanding, plans or pending contacts regarding such a relationship in the future. (This includes sending resumes, making telephone inquiries or any act that reasonably could be construed as an indication of interest in a future affiliation.)

8. I understand that I may request a statement from the Contracting Officer as to whether a person or company is considered to be a reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor.

9. I will not knowingly disclose any contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information regarding this acquisition directly or indirectly to any person other than a person authorized in accordance with FAR 3.104 to receive such information.

10. I will observe the following rules during the conduct of the acquisition:

a. I will not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any promise of future employment or business opportunity from, or engage, directly or indirectly, in any discussion of future employment or business opportunity with, any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant of any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition.

b. I will not ask for, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, or agree to receive, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance or other thing of value from any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant of any reasonably likely offeror or subcontractor for this acquisition, unless permitted under Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2635, Subpart B.

c. I will instruct members of my parent or home organization not to divulge my participation in the evaluation and source selection process or my physical location while participating in the evaluation and source selection process to unauthorized persons.

d. I understand that all communications with offerors or their subcontractors concerning this acquisition must be made by/through the Contracting Officer, or the Contracting Officer’s designee. I will divert all attempted communications by offerors' or subcontractors’ representatives or any other unauthorized person to the Contracting Officer, and advise the Chairperson of the SSAC or the Chairperson of the SSEB and Legal Counsel.

e. I will not discuss evaluation or source selection matters, including proposal information, with any unauthorized individuals (including Government personnel), even after the announcement of the successful contractor, unless authorized by proper authority. All discussions of evaluation/source selection matters with other SSEB/SSAC members shall be conducted solely in those areas designated for deliberations.

11. I realize that my actions in connection with my participation in this evaluation and source selection are subject to intense scrutiny and I will conduct myself in a way that will not adversely affect the confidence of the public in the source selection process. I will avoid any action, whether or not prohibited, that could result in or create the appearance of my losing independence or impartiality. I will not use my public office for private gain, and I agree not to engage in any personal business or professional activity, or enter into any financial transaction, that involves or appears to involve, the direct or indirect use of "inside information" to further a private gain for myself or others.

12. I understand that my obligations under this certification are of a continuing nature, and if anything takes place which would cause a change to any statement, or create a violation of any representation or rule of conduct herein, I will immediately bring such matter to the attention of the Chairperson of the SSAC or SSEB, or the Contracting Officer.

CERTIFICATION

13. I agree to the Terms of this Agreement and certify that I have read and understand the above Agreement. I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct.

_____________________________________

Signature

_____________________________________

Name (Printed)

_____________________________________

Organization

_____________________________________

Date

APPENDIX C

INDIVIDUAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION FORM

SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM RFP No: EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:
RFP REFERENCES: FACTOR: | PROPOSAL REFERENCES: VOLUME/PARAGRAPH:
SUBFACTOR: | PAGE NUMBER:
Evaluation Rating: (Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U))
Evaluator’s Rating: Initial Rating: (e.g., G/M) Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: Discussions: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: Final Rating: Evaluator Initials/ Date: Factor Chairperson Initials/Date:
RATIONALE: Include supporting narrative rationale for the ratings. Using the evaluation rating definitions, state the evaluation results in terms of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Also include any evaluation notices. Identify all comments and questions below with the rating (e.g., Initial Rating (IR), Result of Discussion (RD), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets or a database as needed and a separate sheet for every factor or subfactor.
STRENGTHS: (Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any identified risks associated with the strength.)
WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the identified risks associated with the weakness.)
DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Address the identified risks associated with the deficiency.)
UNCERTAINTIES:
EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency, and uncertainty.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION TEAM

CONSENSUS FORM

OFFEROR:__________________________ DATE:_________________________

CONSENSUS AGREEMENT

The Technical Evaluation Team has completed their evaluation for the above named offeror.

An adjectival rating of ________________________ has been assigned to the aforementioned offeror.

The following is a summarization of the team’s findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and uncertainties):

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

MINORITY OPINION REPORT

Evaluator Name:_________________________________________

Offeror :________________________________________________

FACTOR ____________________ To be attached to respective evaluation documentation
FACTOR/SUBFACTOR: | PROPOSAL REFERENCES (Cite Volume/Section/Page(s)/Paragraph(s))

Ratings (mark one): Outstanding (O) Good (G) Acceptable (A) Marginal (M) Unacceptable (U)
Past Performance Ratings (mark one): Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral)
Evaluation (circle one) Initial Interim Final Revised
Date:
I disagree with the Committee Consensus on the following issue for the reasons/rationale stated below:
My recommended rating for the Factor or Subfactor in question is indicated above. My assessment produced the following findings and results:

APPENDIX D

| DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY COMMAND/ACTIVITY LETTERHEAD |

(DATE)

Insert Contracting Office

SUBJECT: Offeror Past Performance Assessment in Support of Request for Proposal (RFP) Number (Insert solicitation number)

Dear Sir/Ma’am;

The US Army Aviation and Missile Command is currently conducting a competitive source selection to evaluate offerors on subject RFP. As part of this evaluation, we have requested that the offerors provide information about their past performance on same or similar federal, state or local government or commercial contracts as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) ######. You have been identified as the point of contact cited on the enclosure.

Your assessment of their performance is extremely valuable to our evaluation. Please complete the enclosure and return to the (Insert Contracting Office and address), no later than 15 days after receipt of request or MONTH DAY, YEAR, whichever occurs first. Your questionnaire may be submitted electronically to (insert Contract Specialist email address) or (insert Contracting Officer email address).

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to POC or the undersigned at (insert telephone number).

Sincerely,

NAME
Contracting Officer

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Contractor:____________________ Contract No.:____________________________

Subcontract No. (if applicable):_________________________________

POC:________________________ Title:________________________
(Name) (E.G. PCO/ACO/TM)

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail Address & Fax Number)

The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART III. RETURN INFORMATION

Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.

Thank you for your assistance.

_________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date

____________________________________
Typed or Printed Name

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Contractor:____________________ Contract No.:____________________________

Subcontract No. (if applicable):_________________________________

POC:________________________ Title:________________________
(Name) (E.G. PCO/ACO/TM)

_____________________________________________________________________

(Agency, Telephone No., E-mail & Facsimile No.)

If conducting a telephone interview:

“Hello, I am ______________________. I am calling in reference to Contract ____________________ with a company called ________________________. My questions will pertain to the contractor’s record of past, which is defined as within the past three years, and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. A summary of this discussion may be sent to you for your records. The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past three years) and current performance. The information that you provide will be used in the awarding of a federal contract. Therefore, it is important that our information be as factual and accurate as possible. Please provide examples and/or explanations (use additional pages if necessary). The following adjectival ratings shall be used in your response.

Outstanding: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements that benefit the end user. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable: Performance meets contractual requirements. Work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the contractor has either not yet identified corrective actions or the corrective actions taken appear only marginally effective.

Unacceptable: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements. Serious problems with contractor performance were experienced for which the corrective actions were ineffective.

PART I. (To be completed by the Offeror)

A. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

Contractor/Company Name/Division:

Address:

Program Identification/Title:

Contract Number:

Contract Type:

Prime Contractor Name (if different from the contractor name cited above):

Contract Award Date:

Forecasted or Actual Contract Completion Date:

Nature of the Contractual Effort or Items Purchased:

B. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR’S REPRESENTATIVE

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number:

Address:

E-mail Address:

PART II. EVALUATION (To be completed by Point of Contact – Respondent)

A. Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

B. Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

C. Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables.

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

D. Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Estimated Costs (Use this Question on Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts Only).

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

E. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its Customers’ Interest

♦ Outstanding (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Good

♦ Acceptable

♦ Marginal (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

♦ Unsatisfactory (Explanation must be provided in Comments field below)

Comments:

F. General Comments. Provide any other relevant performance information.

G. Other Information Sources. Please provide the following information:

Are you aware of other relevant past efforts by this company?

If yes, please provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact:

H. Respondent Identification. Please provide the following information:

Organization:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Telephone Number

Address:

E-mail Address:

Record of Interview: (to be filled out by PPT member)

( ) Discussed recentness and relevance of information

( ) Read summary to person contacted Date:____________________

( ) Sent copy to person contacted Date:____________________

______________________________ ________________________________
PPT Member Signature Typed or Printed Name

______________________________ ________________________________
Telephone Fax

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW REPORT FORWARDING MEMORANDUM

Contracting Office

MEMORANDUM FOR

SUBJECT: Telephone Interview Report

1. Enclosed is a summary of your telephone conversation, (date), with a member of a Past Performance Team at this Command.

2. It is requested that you review and verify the accuracy of this report and e-mail or fax it to us by (date). It is extremely important that you respond by this date so Army readiness will not be compromised. If we do not hear from you by the day indicated above, we will consider the summary of the discussion official.

3. We would like to thank you in advance for your time and assistance regarding this acquisition. If you have any questions or comments, you may address them to the Contract Specialist at XXX-XXX-XXXX or fax to XXX-XXX-XXXX.

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Encl(1)

APPENDIX D

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR REPORT PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RFP No.: EVALUATOR’S NAME: OFFEROR:
RFP REFERENCES: FACTOR: | PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SUBFACTOR: | PAGE NUMBER:
Evaluation Rating: (Insert appropriate rating from applicable adjectival rating; e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral)) Consider relevancy assessment/quality of performance as it relates to the reference/project.
Evaluator’s Rating: Initial Rating:__________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____ Interim:________________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____ Final Rating:____________ Evaluator Initials/Date: _____ Factor Chairperson Initials/Date: _____
● RATIONALE: Include supporting rationale when applying the evaluation rating definitions. The Rating results from the merging of assessment information on (a) the extent of relevance/recency of current/prior contracts and (b) the quality of current/prior performance). ● Support the Performance Confidence Assessment with your evaluation results in terms of overall findings (with specific strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, risks, and deficiencies below.) Identify (e.g. Initial Rating (IR), Interim Evaluation Report (IER)), or Final Rating (FR). Use continuation sheets as needed
STRENGTHS: (Precede the strength with an (S) if it identifies a significant strength. Address any risks associated with the strength.)
WEAKNESSES(identify EN number(s) for each one): (Precede the weakness with an (S) if it identifies a significant weakness. Address the risks associated with the weakness.)
DEFICIENCIES(identify EN number(s) for each one):
UNCERTAINTIES:
EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs) required for each weakness, significant weakness, deficiency/uncertainty

TEAM EVALUATION CONSENSUS FORM

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

OFFEROR:__________________________ DATE:_________________________

CONSENSUS AGREEMENT

The Past Performance Evaluation Team has completed the interview and assessment process for the above named offeror. This assessment takes into consideration the quality/ relevance of the Offeror’s performance for projects/references provided as well as information as documented from any other sources considered.

A confidence assessment rating of ________________________ has been assigned to the aforementioned offeror.

The following is a summarization of the team’s findings (including strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and uncertainties):

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

_____________________________ ___________________________
Team Member Signature Team Member Signature

APPENDIX E

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING EVALUATION NOTICES (ENs)

1. In the competitive procurement, your job is not to get the contractor to submit the best possible proposal. Your job is to evaluate the proposal submitted; obtain additional information (through the SSEB Chairperson/PCO) from the contractor when needed to perform this process; document your evaluation/assessment; and evaluate/assess the Final Revised Proposal (if any) including responses to the evaluation notices. The Government’s obligation during discussions is to call the contractor’s attention to all deficiencies, uncertainties, significant weaknesses and weaknesses at least once.

2. Always reference the RFP, proposal and prior related ENs when writing a notice. This provides an excellent method of tracking the finding.

3. Do not use adjectives (e.g. poor) which require some comparison to an unknown standard in order to establish the meaning of the objective, nor use the adjectival rating within the narrative (e.g. outstanding solution).

4. Remember to write the ENs so that, to the extent possible, contracting and legal can understand them as well as the offeror.

5. If the RFP establishes a firm requirement, the offeror’s proposal must not deviate from the requirement. In writing a deficiency EN, reference the RFP requirement, offeror’s proposal (if appropriate) and state that offeror has failed to comply with a firm requirement of the RFP.

6. If the RFP does not establish a firm requirement, you may not suggest or imply ways to improve the proposal. You should identify significant weaknesses and weaknesses and explain why the Government considers it to be a weakness. Include reference to the proposal and RFP (if appropriate).

7. If you believe the Government’s PWS/requirement is in error or deficient, do not attempt to get the offerors to cure it in their proposal by an EN. Instead, bring it to the attention of the SSEB Chairperson or PCO immediately.

8. For ENs, do not discuss the impact to the Government should the proposal be accepted. Such qualifications are for internal Government evaluations. The purpose of the EN is to call the offeror’s attention to the finding. The degree of impact should only be identified in your evaluation report.

9. Whenever possible write the EN in an unclassified form. Instead, include the classified information location in the RFP or proposal.

APPENDIX F

EVALUATION NOTICE (EN) FORM - CLARIFICATION

OFFEROR: _____________________________________________

EN NUMBER: _________________ DATE: _________________________

1. RFP AND PROPOSAL REFERENCES (Cite page and paragraph numbers)

a. RFP:

b. PROPOSAL:

2. REASON FOR SUBMISSION:

(Specify type of finding. See Section IV of this document for definitions.)

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

APPENDIX F

EVALUATION NOTICE (EN) FORM - DISCUSSION

OFFEROR: _____________________________________________

EN NUMBER: _________________ DATE: _________________________

1. RFP AND PROPOSAL REFERENCES (Cite page and paragraph numbers)

a. RFP:

b. PROPOSAL:

2. REASON FOR SUBMISSION:

(Specify type of finding. See Section IV of this document for definitions.)

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

APPENDIX F

EVALUATION OF EN RESPONSE FORM

1. OFFEROR:

2. EN NUMBER:

3. PROPOSAL REFERENCE:

4. EVALUATION OF RESPONSE:

APPENDIX F

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Proposal. Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals set forth in the evaluation of this area.

(a) Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime

{ } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU)

or

{ } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a

{ } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

{ } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

{ } Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business

{ } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(b) Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Example: If Prime proposes a price of $1,000,000 (including all options), and small business(es) will provide $250,000 in services/supplies as a prime or subcontractor, the % planned for small businesses is 25%; and 75% for large business equaling 100%.

Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) _______% = $ _______

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) _______% = $ _______

When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal

100%.

100%

(c) Please indicate the total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business. The percentage of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Example: Victory Prop Mgt (WOSB and SDVOSB) performing 2%; and Williams Group (SDB, HubZ and WOSB) performing 3%. Results equate to: SDB 3%; HubZone 3%; WOSB 5%; SDVOSB 2%; VOSB 2%;). SDVOSBs are also VOSBs automatically; however VOSBs are not automatically SDVOSBs.

Small Disadvantaged Business _________%

HUB Zone Small Business _________%

Woman Owned Small Business _________%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB _________%

Veteran Owned Small Business _________%

HBCU /MI _________%

(d) List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Example: If a Small Business qualifies also as a WOSB and a SDVOSB, and you can add them to each category below in which they qualify.

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business (SB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVO):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI):

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

____________________ ___________________________

(e) Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (for example, what types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition either – small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

APPENDIX G

SAMPLE MAJOR MILESTONE SCHEDULE

a. | Acquisition Planning Activities (e.g., Market Research, Review Previous Similar Acquisitions, Industry Days) |
b. | Army Services Strategy Panel (ASSP) – For Services |
c. | Acquisition Strategy Approved – For Services |
d. | Appointment of Source Selection Authority (SSA) |
e. | Acquisition Plan Approved |
f. | Source Selection Plan Approved |
g. | Phase I Peer Review |
h. | Issue RFP |
i. | Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit |
j. | Receive Proposals |
k. | SSEB Evaluation |
l. | SSAC/SSA Brief |
m. | Competitive Range Determination |
n. | Discussions with Offerors |
o. | Phase II Peer Review |
p. | SSAC/SSA Brief to Request Final Proposal Revisions |
q. | Evaluation Final Proposal Revisions |
r. | SSAC/SSA Brief of Evaluation Results |
s. | SSAC Prepares Written Comparative Analysis/Award Recommendation |
t. | Source Selection Decision |
u. | Phase III Peer Review |
v. | Contract Award |
w. | Debriefing of Unsuccessful Offerors |

Sample of a Sample Task Used In Source Selection

Operations Division Sample Task – Local Area Network

USER ADVISORY To the maximum extent practicable, sample tasks should define requirements that are contemplated for award to establish the expectation that offerors will be held accountable for the resources and costs they propose. The use of generic or hypothetical sample tasks may unintentionally create an environment encouraging offerors to understate resources and costs in recognition of the fact that the sample tasks will not be awarded. Consequently, care must be taken to draft the sample tasks as closely as possible to the types and scope of services expected to be acquired. Additionally, evaluation criteria should be limited to essential areas of performance that are measurable during the proposal evaluation process. This will permit a more focused evaluation of the offeror's proposed solution to the sample task.

1.0 Objective. To provide automation/networking support to the XXX Directorate Sensitive Unclassified (SU) Infrastructure Network.

1.1 Assumptions.

a) Background. XXXX requires contractor support to provide LAN/WAN services for up to 450 personnel at the SU level via an existing Local Area Network (LAN). The SU LAN operates on a 24/7 basis. The predominantly Cisco based SU network consists of a C4006 main backbone switch and C3550 edge switches running Cisco IOS and Cisco Works management software. The Gbit fiber backbone supports 100Mbit CAT-5 copper to the desktop. The network is connected through a Sidewinder firewall, with failover, to the XXXX metropolitan area network which routes traffic to the DISA NIPRnet. The backbone serves various XXXX-controlled buildings at XXXXX, with a T1 line providing connectivity to XXXX Activity. Remote access is provided via dial-in and VPN services. Eleven Microsoft-based servers and 450 clients run current Army approved systems and office automation applications, as do 100 laptop computers, some of which are dockable on the SU LAN. UNIX/LINUX based appliances provide some of the print and file services. The XXXX SU network is integrated into the Army Military Intelligence Active Directory Forest, which is part of the Army Enterprise Architecture.

b) Security Clearances. Contractor personnel must possess and maintain TS SI/TK security clearances at all times.

c) Place of Performance. Main technical work efforts shall be performed on-site at Anywhere, Any State. Remote and on-site support is also required at the XXXX Flight Activity at Anywhere, Any State on an as-needed basis. Some off-site travel for conferences, meetings and training may be required.

d) Government Furnished Information/Government Furnished Equipment (GFI/GFE). No GFI/GFE requirements will exist for this sample task.

e) Period of Performance. Offerors shall assume that their approach will include a twelve month Period of Performance.

2.0 Task Requirements.

2.1 Technical Automation Support. The Contractor shall:

a. Maintain XXXX SU network infrastructure in operational condition twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week (24/7), with the exception of scheduled downtime.

b. Maintain dial-in and VPN remote services in operational condition on a 24/7 basis.

c. Maintain network operations, including network, server and desktop/laptop systems administration, updating, troubleshooting and repair with the exception of scheduled downtime.

d. Work in concert with the Anywhere DOIM/NETCOM to maintain external network connectivity to the Anywhere MAN and NIPRnet.

e. Work in concert with the Army Intelligence Community (INSCOM) in operation/maintenance of the XXXX OU within the Army MI AD Forest.

f. Plan downtime for necessary network maintenance in concert with the XXXX Technical Point of Contact (TPOC). Every effort shall be made to ensure outages occur during periods of “low user demand”.

g. Maintain an inventory and track the location of all ADP hardware, spare parts, software and all related LAN/WAN equipment in support of periodic property book audits using a Government supplied database.

h. Maintain, implement, support and track all hardware and software updates and patches, maintenance actions, system security and operations, system software and user data back-up files.

i. Operate an on-site Helpdesk to serve as a single point of contact for all ADP, remote computing, hardware and software help calls and technical support for XXXX users. The Helpdesk shall be manned from 0800 to 1700 hours Monday through Friday; the Helpdesk phone shall be manned from 0700 through 1800 hours Monday through Friday. Emergency on-call support shall be provided by the contractor twenty four hours a day, seven days a week with a 60 minute callback time. The contractor shall track all service calls, including a brief description of the problem, in a database provided by the Government. Helpdesk call priority will be set by the TPOC.

2.2 Network Security. The contractor shall provide network security services including the following, in compliance with Army Regulation 25-2, Information Assurance:

a. Maintenance and operation of firewalls.

b. Addition of an intrusion detection system for monitoring of incoming and outgoing network traffic.

c. Maintenance and operation of remote access authentication systems.

d. Preparation of accreditation documentation in support of DoD DITSCAP and subsequent accreditation processes.

e. Monitor and act on all Information Assurance (IA) advisories from Army and DoD sources. Maintain compliance with Army IA directives. Interface with and report to XXXX IA authorities as required. Maintain current IA information in the Army A&VTR database and any subsequent Army data capture devices.

f. Perform detailed analyses of computer facilities site security requirements for TPOC review and implement requirements as directed.

g. Collect and review all systems and network log information as required by AR 25-2.

h. Maintain data backup including offsite storage of backup media as part of a comprehensive Continuity of Operations Plan.

i. Follow all applicable STIGS and Best Business Practices as issued by Army and DoD.

2.3 Web Support. The contractor shall provide expertise in development, operation, maintenance, enhancement and content editing of XXXX internal Intranet services.

2.4 Documentation. The contractor shall prepare, modify and maintain all XXXX IT documentation in accordance with DoD and Army standards. Administrative documentation shall include Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for all functions provided by the contractor, such as Helpdesk SOP, and Backup & Recovery SOP.

3.0 Specific Direction for Sample Task Submittal: Local Area Network.

a. Using the Performance Work Statement and Labor Categories provided list the skill levels, amount of hours and labor rates for prime contractor and each sub contractor, materials and other direct costs required to perform each effort of this sample task.

b. Describe the effort (how you would execute) that you would be required to perform to support the XXXX LAN in the manner described in Paragraph 2 and subparagraphs above.