1|

Veteran Entrepreneur Training Symposium

The ABCs of Government Proposal Evaluation

Susan Gerbing gMg Management, Inc

How Does the Government Score My Proposal?

The ABCs of Government Evaluation

3|

Proposal Evaluation • Ascertain the degree of

achievement of Government’s objectives

• Being an equitable determination of a proposal’s merit and significance, using criteria and model

• Critical assessment to help in the contract award decision-making,

4|

Achievement of Government’s Objectives

• Understanding• Feasible• Reasonable• Competence to perform • Enforceable

5|

Being an Equitable Determination • Each proposal is reviewed and

stands on its own• Individual evaluation• Evaluator’s rationale mapped

to criteria• Consensus evaluation – NOT an

average rating

• May compare and discriminate among proposals

• Round-table discussions

6|

Critical Assessment for Award Decision-Making Finding = Evaluator’s determination

Significant Strength

Strength

Weakness

Deficiency

Risks

7|

Subjective, Consensus, Summative

• Personal perspective, belief, point of view

• Stakeholders and Program Managers

• Knowledge and value based• Professional codes of conduct• Consensus Recommendation to

KO

8|

Evaluation Models • Factors and Subfactors:

Technical Excellence, Approach, Quality, Past Performance, Price, Key Personnel, Management, etc.

Ranked in descending order of preference

• Represent key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the award decision

• Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals

9|

Factors & Subfactors Factor 1. Technical Capability

Subfactor 1(a) UnderstandingSubfactor 1(b) Analytical ApproachSubfactor 1(c) Key Personnel

Factor 2. Past Performance

Factor 3. Price

All Factors roll-up to one overall evaluation rating, e.g., Blue, Green, etc.

10|

Evaluation Models • Best Value (BV):

Permits Trade-Off Analysis between technical and price

• Price, Past Performance (PPTO): Permits PP Trade-Off Analysis before consideration of lowest price

• Lowest Price Technical Acceptable (LPTA): Proposals rated technically acceptable (pass/fail) before consideration of lowest price

11|

Evaluation Ratings (Methods)

• Adjectival• Color• Numerical weights• Combination

Past Performance Evaluation

13|

Past Performance

• Assessment of relative risks w/ Offeror’s likelihood of success based on PP record• Quality

• Timeliness

• Cost Control

• Business Relations

• Major subcontractors PP record (>25%/$)

• May review additional references, e.g., databases, PPIRS (CPARS)

• Compliance to Subcontracting Plans

14|

Rating & Risk Assessment

Rating Color Past Performance Definition

Exceptional Blue Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving quality, timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is extremely likely to meet or exceed the requirements of the contract. Very Low Risk

Acceptable Green The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is low risk associated with receiving quality, timely services and work products and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate that the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the contract. Low Risk

15|

Rating & Risk Assessment

Rating Color Past Performance Definition

Marginal Yellow The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there may be some risk associated with receiving quality, timely services and work products and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate that the Offeror may meet the requirements of the contract. Moderate Risk

Unacceptable Red The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is significant potential risk associated with receiving quality, timely services, and contract performance. High Risk

Best Value –Trade Off Analysis

17|

Best Value Definition

Adjectival Color Best Value Definition

Exceptional Blue The Offeror has clearly demonstrated its ability to perform the work defined in the PWS, contains extensive detail, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement. The proposal exceeds the requirements in several areas, adding significant value to the Government.

Acceptable Green The Offeror has demonstrated its ability to perform the minimum requirements of the PWS, contains sufficient detail, and demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the requirement; however, areas where the proposal may exceed the minimum requirements are considered to be of minor or no value to the Government. There are no deficiencies.

18|

Best Value Definition

Adjectival Color Best Value Definition

Marginal Yellow The Offeror has not clearly demonstrated its ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and has provided a vague understanding of the requirement; in addition, the proposal has several weaknesses.

Unacceptable Red The Offeror has not demonstrated its ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and has deficiencies, omissions, and/or numerous significant weaknesses.

19|

Offeror Technical ScorePast Performance Score

Price

A Blue Green $200,000

B Green Green $175,000

C Blue Blue $215,000

D Green Yellow $150,000

Price, Past Performance –Trade Off Analysis

21|

Factor One –Technical Capability 1. Excellence

2. Management3. Quality4. Key Personnel5. Understanding6. Feasibility

All Factors roll-up toone overall evaluation rating

22|

PPTO Definition

Adjectival Color PPTO Definition

Acceptable Green The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made

Acceptable

Yellow The Offeror‘s proposal does not meet all the requirements in the PWS based on the initial offer. However, there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions, these proposals are considered “unacceptable.”

Unacceptable Red Fails to meet one or more requirements identified in the PWS, and major revisions would be required to make the proposal acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

23|

Factor Two –Price Evaluation

• Total price including all options/option years

• Reasonableness (if stated in the RFQ/P)

Labor mix assessment (right skills/knowledge) Quantity of labor hours Against the IGCE (K-Basis of Estimate) Other price information learned during Market Research

24|

Offeror Technical Score Price

D Green $150,000

B Green $175,000

A Blue $200,000

C Blue $215,000

25|

Factor 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment (Relevancy)

Relevancy Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort was less than the current solicitation requirements in magnitude, complexity, and tasking.

26|

Rating Definition

Very Confident Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Confident Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable.

Less Confident Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment (Rating)

27|

Offeror Technical Score Price Relevant PP

Confidence

D Green $150,000 Relevant Less Confident

B Green $175,000 SomewhatRelevant Confident

A Blue $200,000 Relevant Very Confident

C Blue $215,000 Very Relevant Very Confident

28|

Adjectival Color LPTA Definition

Acceptable Green The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable Red Fails to meet one or more requirements identified in the PWS, and major revisions would be required to make the proposal acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

29|

Criteria Numerical Weight PercentageEvaluation Criteria Factor One

0-50 50%

Subfactor A 0-25 25%

Subfactor B 0-25 25%

Evaluation Criteria Factor Two

0-25 25%

Price May be weighted or unweighted

--

30|

Additional Information

1.Source Selection, Margaret G. Rumbaugh, 2010, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA

2.Federal Acquisition Regulation,  Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, 

3.Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Memorandum Source Selection Procedures, 2011, DoD

4.Formation of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, Ralph C. Nash, Jr., John Cibinic, Jr., and Christopher R. Yukins, 2011 (various – Amazon, CCH, Wolters Kluwer Law)