US Special Operations Command UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED Source Selection and Evaluation Briefer: Raisa Barnes Office: SORDAC-KX Date: 1 May 2013 1.

US Special Operations CommandUS Special Operations CommandUS Special Operations CommandUS Special Operations Command

UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED


Source Selection and Source Selection and EvaluationEvaluation

Briefer: Raisa BarnesBriefer: Raisa Barnes

Office: SORDAC-KXOffice: SORDAC-KX

Date: 1 May 2013Date: 1 May 2013

1


UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED 2

AgendaAgenda

Types of Source Selections

Source Selection Process/Government’s Responsibility

Source Selection Teams

Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP)

Proposal Submission and Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation and Decision Process





Exchanges with IndustryExchanges with Industry

Before receipt of proposals Industry conferences Public hearings Market research Pre-solicitation notices Draft RFPs Site visits





Source Selection ApproachesSource Selection Approaches

Two common types:

Lowest price technically acceptable (FAR 15.101-2 )– Best value is expected to result from selection of a technically

acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price

Trade-off Process (FAR 15.101-1)– In the best interest of the Government to consider award to

other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror

– All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated

– Possible Trade-offs: Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost





SourceSource Selection Process

Receive procurement request package Develop the acquisition strategy/plan Prepare and issue the solicitation Receive proposals Conduct initial proposal evaluation Establish competitive range Conduct “meaningful” discussions Request final proposal revision Conduct final proposal evaluation Source selection decision Award Debrief unsuccessful offerors

Understanding the whole

process before you

begin is critical.

DoD Source Selection Procedures Guide: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf





6

Government’s Responsibility: Identify the requirement

Determine how a successful offeror will be selected

Determine the criteria used to measure the merit of the proposal

Identify important discriminating factors & sub-factors

Identify the level of importance for each factor & sub-factor

Determine what information the offerors need to submit

Acquisition PlanningAcquisition Planning

6





Source Selection Authority (SSA)

GOV’T ADVISORS - CONTRACTING - LEGAL - OTHER

SOURCE SELECTIONADVISORY COUNCIL

CHAIRMAN

PAST PERFORMANC

E TEAM (PRAG)

TECHNICALTEAM

PRICE/COSTTEAM

Typical SourceTypical Source Selection Team

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD



Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factors

Go/ No-Go

EvaluatIoN

Go/ No-Go

EvaluatIoN

Strengths

Deficiencies

Significant Weaknesses

Weaknesses

Uncertainties

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debriefs

OfferorProposals

Award w/oDiscussion

Award w/oDiscussion

Initial SSEB Report

Discussions

CompetitiveRange

Determination(Briefing)

CompetitiveRange

Determination(Briefing)

DiscussionsDiscussions

FinalProposal Revision

Evaluation

FinalProposal Revision

Evaluation

ENs

Final Evaluation

Final SSEB Report

Findings

Ratings

AwardAward

Final Evaluation

Best Value Decision (Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

EVALUATION AND DECISION EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS PROCESS





10

Instructions to Offerors

Describes what the Government wants offerors

to submit

Evaluation Criteria

How we’re going to evaluate what offerors submit

Proposal InformationProposal Information

Section L mirrors the information in Section M.The proposal provides the only information that can be evaluated during the source selection, Government’s knowledge of the offeror cannot be considered or evaluated…so make sure you clearly document the data requested in Section L to be evaluated in accordance with Section M

10





11

Factors & Sub-factors

Test Results

Spec

ComplianceQA

User

Test

KPP’s

Know the important discriminating Factors & Sub-factors

Know the level of importance for each factor & sub-factor

Know what the factors and sub-factors are, and

clearly demonstrate how your technical approach will meet

the requirement. Specify benefits to Government.

11





Proposal Instructions

TECHNICAL (Area)Product Samples (Factor)

Test Results (Sub-factor)User Assessment (Sub-factor)Specifications (Sub-factor)

Technical Approach (Factor)Specification Thresholds/Objectives (Sub-factor)

Management (Factor)Quality Assurance (Sub-factor)Subcontracting (Sub-factor)Facilities (Sub-factor)

PAST PERFORMANCE (Area)PRICE (Area)

Section LTHINK--What information did the Government request? Make it clear in your proposal, answer the Government’s requirement.

Section L tells you what you must submit. Section M tells the importance of each area, factor and sub-factor is detailed. The Areas/Factors/ Sub-factors relative order of importance must be included in the RFP.



Steps To TakeSteps To Take

Know the Requirement Know the criteria and standards stated in the RFP

Read through the request for proposal - one time in total

Read through again and know what the government is looking for, what are the key elements





14

Proposal Evaluation vs. Source Selection

PROPOSAL EVALUATION Examination of the merits of each proposal against

the requirements of the solicitation and rating the factors and sub-factors.

Performed by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

SOURCE SELECTION Comparing the evaluated merits of each proposal

against those of the other proposals, using the established weights of the factors and sub-factors, and selecting the proposal judged to represent the “best value” to the Government.

Performed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).14



General Information for Evaluation General Information for Evaluation

Evaluations are consistent with the RFP criteria Government cannot use what they know about the Offeror, it must be

included in the Offeror’s proposal

Proposals are not evaluated against one another proposals are evaluated against the criteria outlined in Section M Evaluating the offeror’s unique approach to the requirement

Government will issue Evaluation Notices (ENs) as the tool to understand discrepancies or obtain clarifications ENs are not providing or developing a solution for the Offeror, they are

to obtain additional information ENs are specific to individual concern within an Offeror’s proposal

All source selections are governed by the DoD Source Selection Procedures http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-

DPAP.pdf





Evaluation MethodologyEvaluation Methodology

TECHNICALOUTSTANDING

ACCEPTABLE

MARGINAL

UNACCEPTABLE

PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

NO CONFIDENCE

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

PRICE $ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (FFP

Contracts)or

$ Most Probable Cost (MPC) (CPFF Contracts/Incentive Contracts) 16

Blue

PurpleGOOD

Green

Yellow

Red



Combined Combined Technical/RiskTechnical/Risk Ratings Ratings

Color Rating DescriptionBlue 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.



EvaluatingEvaluating a Technical Proposal a Technical Proposal



Tech Team reviews and evaluates, as a whole The technical approach described in the proposal The SOW to ensure that it implements what is described

in the proposal The Basis of Estimates (BOEs) to ensure that the hours

estimated to implement the approach described in the proposal are adequate to perform the work

Review estimating methodology to ensure it’s reasonable

The Bill of Materials to ensure that the material types and quantities necessary to execute the approach are included

Technical Team Evaluation ProcessTechnical Team Evaluation Process





Offerors

Technical Sub-Factor Rating

Product Samples Test Results

User Assessment Specifications Technical Approach

Spec (T/O) Management

Quality Assurance Subcontracting Facilities

DCBA SUBFACTORS





Roll-Up Process

TECHNICAL - AREA

Product Samples - FACTOR

Technical Approach - FACTOR

Management - FACTOR

DCBA

To derive the Technical Area rating, roll-up the factor ratings

L L

LL L

LM

H H

L

H M





Initial Evaluation Results

TECHNICAL

DCBA

Offerors

L L H H

22



Past Performance EvaluationPast Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance

Provide recent contracts with similar scope/ requirements

Ensure current contacts are provided with name and phone numbers

Consider relevant subcontracts



Past Performance Relevancy RatingsPast Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.



Past Performance Confidence Past Performance Confidence AssessmentsAssessments

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 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.






TECHNICAL

PAST PERF

DCBA

Sub Sat Sat Limited

Offerors

L L H H

26





Cost/Price

Per FAR 15.304(c)(1) price or cost must be evaluated.

The level of detail of analysis required will vary among acquisitions depending on the complexity and circumstances of the acquisition, the type of product/services to be acquired, and the contract type.

Every solicitation should provide a description of the cost or price evaluation. The main purpose of the price evaluation is to determine a Fair, Reasonable, and Realistic price.

Reasonableness: Usually determined through competition; represents the price a prudent person would pay for an item or service under competitive market conditions

Realism: Cost type contracts, probable cost adjustments required. Linked to technical/risk rating, other Government costs, etc.

FAR Subpart 15.4 and the Contract Pricing Reference Guides (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html) provide additional guidance on cost or price evaluation.





What’s The Price? Cost contracts

Govt. creates a Total Evaluated Price based on the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of the Offeror by making adjustments where necessary (i.e., direct and indirect rates, labor hours, material, etc.).

This helps to prevent the Gov’t from making a selection based on an unrealistic estimate and insures offeror understands the requirement).

For FFP contracts the TEP is the Offeror’s price Government will not adjust the TEP If the price quoted appears unrealistically low, it may influence

performance risk rating and reflect a lack of understanding of the requirement

Coordination between Technical Team and Cost/Price Team is critical to ensure that the Technical Volume is in line with the Cost/Price Volume

(i.e., Price is representative of the technical approach).ADVICE: Show all detailed calculations. Excel spreadsheets

should be submitted with all formulas and links included. How did you arrive at your price? Price/Cost Volumes do not have

page limits, explain your basis of estimate.



Major Elements InMajor Elements In Cost Realism Analysis Cost Realism Analysis

Inputs Labor Hours Material (Type & Quantities) Travel (# People,# Trips, Duration) ODC (E.G. Computer Time)

Rates & Costs Labor Rates Indirect Rates Material Costs

Profit/Fee

Terms and Conditions

Incentive Structure Ceiling Price / Share Ratios

TECHEVALUATOR

RESPONSIBILITY

COST TEAM

PCO / BUYERPRICE ANALYST



Cost Team Responsibilities: Verifying Rates and Factors Checking the cost proposal for completeness Understanding pricing assumptions that may affect

cost/ price Coordination with Technical Team to ensure

consistency between Technical Volume and Cost/Price Volume

Cost/Price TeamCost/Price Team

Coordination between Technical Team and Cost/Price Team is critical to

ensure that the Technical Volume is in line with the Cost/Price Volume (i.e.,

Price is representative of the technical approach)



Criteria: Cost proposals evaluated for: Consistency with technical proposals Clear understanding of solicitation requirements Sound approach to satisfying these requirements

Methodology: Labor and ODC evaluated for realism in relation to RFP and offeror ‘s

unique approach Cost impact of Technical/Management risks assessed Costs adjusted to eliminate competitive advantage from proposed use

of Gov’t property or facilities Most Probable Cost (MPC) developed for each offeror’s proposal

Technique: Comparison to program cost estimate, analogous programs,

parametric models (SEER-SEM), historical databases, and SSEB engineering assessments

Cost/Price Realism Assessment Cost/Price Realism Assessment MethodologyMethodology






TECHNICAL

PAST PERF

PRICE

DCBA

Sub Sat Sat Limited

$10M $9.8M $12M $15M

Offerors

L L H H

Government will use the initial evaluations to determine if weakness, significant weakness, and/or deficiencies can be corrected. FAR 15.306(c)(1) states “…competitive range

comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals”. Proposals with no chance of winning should not be carried

forward.32





Competitive Range & Discussions

SSA approves competitive range decision or to award without discussions

Leave in all offerors that have a reasonable chance to win. Eliminate from the CRD all others

If an offeror has no chance of award, the Government is doing them a favor by removing them. They may not like it at first but in

the long run it is best for all involved.





Evaluation Notices (ENs) are given to each offeror still in the competitive range addressing any identified weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies or exceptions.

Discussions allow the offeror to understand issues and potentially resolve them.

At the conclusion of discussions, offerors submit a Final Proposal Revision

Proposals are evaluated against

the evaluation standards in the

RFP and not compared to the

other vendors until the

comparative analysis.

Competitive Range Decision & Discussions



Source Selection Vocabulary Clarifications – limited exchanges with offerors when

award w/o discussions is contemplated. It allows for Q and A on past performance issues or to correct minor clerical errors.

Communications – contact with the offerors on matters that may determine if they may or may not be in the competitive range such as adverse past performance or ambiguities. Contractors cannot revise their proposal.

Discussions - negotiations that occur after any competitive range decision that cover weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies with the idea that the offerors will revise their proposal.

Exchanges w/ Offerors FAR 15.306





36

Source Selection Process- End Game

Receive requirement Prepare the acquisition strategy/plan Prepare the source selection plan Prepare and issue the solicitation Receive proposals Conduct (initial) proposal evaluation Establish competitive range Conduct “meaningful” discussions Request final proposal revision Conduct final proposal evaluation Source selection Award Debrief unsuccessful offerors



QuestionsQuestions

?

US Special Operations Command UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED Source Selection and Evaluation Briefer: Raisa Barnes Office: SORDAC-KX Date: 1 May 2013 1.

Documents

evaluation factors

evaluation criteria

source selection approaches

initial proposal evaluation

factors subfactors

evaluation briefer

decision process slide

acceptable proposal