1 Debriefings for Competitive Acquisitions Boston Chapter NCMA Workshop 10 March 2010
1
Debriefings for Competitive Acquisitions
Boston Chapter NCMA Workshop
10 March 2010
2
GOVERNMENT
Rick Andreoli Acquisition Center of Excellence, Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom AFB, [email protected]
INDUSTRY
Dick BeanLegal Department,General Dynamics C4 Systems, Needham, [email protected]
3
Why? Provide every offeror the opportunity to find out
how to improve for next time (even the awardee)
Find out what were good and bad proposal techniques and methods
Get limited insight into what the awardee did right (excluding proprietary information)
Insight into the complete evaluation process (to confirm compliance)
Instill confidence that offerors were treated fairly
4
15.505 -- Preaward Debriefing of Offerors. Statutory right to request this, but the contracting
officer may refuse for “compelling reasons” as long as reasons for delay are documented in the contract file▪ If delayed, debriefing shall be provided during postaward
debriefing period Can be done orally, in writing, or by any other
method acceptable to the contracting officer Should be chaired by the contracting officer (but
any senior ranking person can chair the event)
5
Agency’s evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal
Summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition
Reasonable responses to relevant questions about what authorities were followed in the competitive range process (e.g., regulations, policies, solicitation content)
6
• What will not be disclosed:– Number of offerors– Identity of offerors– Content of other proposals– Ranking of other offerors– Evaluation of other offerors– Anything prohibited in a post-award
debriefing• Debriefing summary required in the
contract file (discoverable if protest later filed)
7
Practice tips:- Use/provide actual evaluation notices- Provide in sufficient time to allow review- Alternatively, provide break in debriefing to allow review- Raise questions regarding any Q & A’s posed during solicitation and pre-solicitation phase
8
15.506 – Postaward Debriefing of Offerors. An offeror, upon written request, shall be
debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award
Can be done orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the contracting officer
Should be chaired by the contracting officer (but any senior ranking person can chair the event)
9
Content- Evaluation of significant weaknesses or
deficiencies Overall evaluated cost or price (including
unit prices), technical rating (if applicable) of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror and past performance information on the debriefed offeror
Overall ranking of all offerors (if used)
10
Content (continued)- Summary of the rationale for award For acquisition of commercial items, the
make and model of the item to be delivered Reasonable responses to relevant questions
about procedures, regulations and other applicable authorities
Some agencies require more than the FAR: the decision document (as redacted)
11
• What cannot be provided-– No point-by-point comparisons with other
offerors– Information prohibited from disclosure by the
Freedom of Information Act, trade secrets, privileged or confidential manufacturing processes or techniques, commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential, including cost breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, and names of individuals providing past performance information
• Debriefing summary required for the contract file
12
Debriefed offeror shall be provided the same ratings for its proposal that were briefed to the Source Selection Authority during the decision briefing (AFFARS Mandatory Procedure 5315.5)
Air Force will provide redacted decision document at debriefing
Air Force will also debrief in Fair Opportunity evaluations (SAF/AQC Policy Memo 07-C-02)
13
Practice tips- The more advance notice, the better!
Get senior staff from both Government and industry together
Consider use of VTC and/or telephone The more questions resolved at a
debriefing may preclude the need to file a protest!
Openness is the key to success
14
Timing is almost everything! FAR allows a contracting officer to
deny a debriefing if request is untimely (>3 days after notice)
See Coffman Specialties, Inc. B-400706.2, Nov. 12, 2008 – Debriefing denied. Award made Sep. 21; Sep. 22 inquiry for certain info (denied), then Oct. 8 letter citing FAR 15.506
15
Debriefing “should” occur within five days after receipt of a written request
Window of opportunity to obtain a stay of contract performance is a critical time line(five days after debriefing to get GAO stay)
16
Can an unsuccessful offeror file a protest more than five days after debriefing? Yes, up to ten days after award or debriefing, but no stay of performance! See Velos, Inc., B-400500.9, December 14, 2009 (footnote 13)
Filing an agency protest does not “toll” or suspend these time lines!
Requirements for overcoming statutory stay of performance are high; can be challenged
17
Assure timely, clearly stated, written debriefing request is submitted (consider asking for the Source Selection Decision Document)
Have right personnel present – including level above the proposal writer for objectivity
Not a debate – an exchange of information
18
Ask questions about your proposal Price (or rates) too high or low? Responsive to requirements (any
deficiencies)? Areas for improvement (significant
weaknesses)? Areas that were strengths? If best value, why a higher priced proposal
was worth the extra cost (or if you are higher, why wasn’t your proposal worth the extra cost)?
19
Adequacy of discussions? Examine the debriefing charts and source
selection decision document – any significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified which were not the subject of discussions? See Tiger Truck, LLC, B-400685, January 14, 2009
Any inconsistencies between record of discussion and final evaluation? See The Boeing Company, B-311344 et al, June 18, 2008; Velos, Inc., B-400500.7, November 28, 2009
20
“Best value” questions may reveal issues with application of the evaluation criteria Potentially uncover “hidden” evaluation
criteria Possible misapplication of the published
relative order of importance of the criteria Adequate understanding of what your
proposal offered versus the awardee? If you only met a requirement, was that a
disadvantage?
21
Compare language on briefing charts for similar strengths to the awardee Was the same technical benefit treated
the same? Confirm equal evaluation credit If different, ask why If no good explanation, could be a basis to
challenge the decision Similarly compare the decision
document
22
Past Performance A subjective area but worth questioning Any references fail to respond? How
many tries? What about awardee’s references? Same
number of attempts (equal treatment)? Were you allowed the opportunity to
respond to all negative references (excluding CPARS)?
23
Don’t overlook the price/cost evaluation process (Tiger Truck case previously cited) Was the evaluation criteria correctly applied? Was there a rational basis for the cost
realism assumptions made? Try to get all questions answered at the
debriefing because of timeliness rules – call a “life line” if needed, or take a “caucus” break
24
“Cygnus’s proposal contained several major weaknesses … and it had a major weakness under the single most important technical evaluation subcriterion …” (decision document) Cygnus Corporation, Inc., B-292649.4, December 30, 2003
Agency had not addressed these matters with Cygnus – protest sustained
25
Merits of Agency Protest/Ombudsman Complaint: While you may forego the ability to take it
further to the GAO due to timeliness issues, it may still serve an intended purpose to find out what went wrong and how to fix it
If agency uncovers actual errors that would have affected the decision, the agency would have an obligation to take corrective action▪ Corrective action would result in a follow-on
debriefing
26
Agency Protest/Ombudsman Complaint (cont.) Unsuccessful offeror could be building an
administrative record that could be used at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Federal Claims is the forum to challenge an “override” decision (overriding statutory automatic stay of performance)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Role of Each Debriefing Team Member: Program Manager Contracting Officer Technical Evaluation Lead Past Performance Evaluation Lead Cost/Price Evaluation Lead Legal Counsel
35
Contractor assurances of no protest-
Will this result in a different debriefing content?
Yes?
No?
36
Viability of debriefings at contractor facility
Is the cost/effort worth it?
37
What role, if any, can the Proposal Analysis Report play in the debriefing process? Arguably not required to be released,
but would that be considered in some circumstances?
38
Use of the Freedom of Information Act in obtaining relevant information
Substantively useful? Timeliness?
See Automated Medical Products Corporation , B-275835, February 3, 1997 [untimely]Coffman Specialities [cited decision earlier]
39
Thanks for attending our session today!
40
FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of offerors
FAR 15.506 Postaward Debriefing of offerors
AFFARS MP 5315.506 Postaward Debriefing of offerors