Best Practices for a FAR 15 Procurement PART 1 – DEVELOPING THE SOLICITATION

Agenda

Reviewing Customer Requirements Developing Evaluation Criteria Proposal Preparation Instructions

Typical FAR Part 15 Source Selection Process

Source: DISA Acquisition Deskbook

Reviewing Customer Requirements

Review the requirements and determine what it is the customer wants Set up Acquisition Team

Subject matter experts Technical writers End users Financial branch Contracting

Exchanges with Industry

FAR 15.201 Encourages agencies to promote early exchanges with industry prior to receipt of proposals

This can help clarify the contract requirements Interested parties are: potential offerors, end users, government

acquisition and support personnel

Information exchanged with interested parties

The following information can be exchanged with an interested party Acquisition strategy Proposed contract type Contract Terms and Conditions Acquisition planning schedules Data requirements Proposal instructions and potential evaluation factors Approach for processing past performance

Examples of Exchanges with Industry

There are several ways contracting can engage with industry Industry or small business conference One on one meetings with potential offerors Public hearings Market research Pre-solicitation notice Draft RFP Industry day for requirement (Pre-Proposal Conferences) Site Visits Requests for Information (RFIs)

Market Research

FAR requires market research for all procurements Key to determining if item is commercial or non-commercial Research contract types applicable to requirement Contact other agencies for lessons learned in purchasing the

requirement Review evaluation factors used in similar procurements

Factors and Subfactors

Factor: specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements that will have an impact on the selection of an offeror

Subfactor: Descriptive elements of a principal factor. The subfactors should be relevant to the selection of an offeror

Sample Factors

Factor Sub-FactorCapability: The government wants assurance that the selected firm is capable of performing mission-critical support services. The Government wants assurance that its capability is exemplified by appropriate resources to implement the requirements of the SOW. The strength of the offeror’s response will be based on the offeror’s experience and key personnel.

Experience: The Government is interested in recent and relevant experience that relates to operating a physical facility requiring a broad scope of functional responsibilities (similar to those described in SOW). Describe the firms experience in the following: Key Personnel: The key personnel managing this contract effort are important to successful operations. Identify key personnel; provide detailed information as requested below:

Developing Evaluation Criteria

Use adjective scores rather than numerical scores Too many factors and technical factors will cause confusion If it is not meaningful to the outcome of the source selection – leave

the factor out Cannot be vague or ambiguous

Required Evaluation Factors

FAR 15.304 (c) (1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source

selection (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A) (ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(B)) (also see Part 36 for architect-engineer contracts).

(2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 3306(c)(1)(A).

(3) (i) Except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, past performance shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

Proposal Evaluation

FAR 15.305 (a) Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.

Rating Methods

There are three methods for rating proposals Numerical (95-100, 89-94, 83-88, 77-82, less than 77) Adjectival (Excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory) Color Coding (Blue, Green, Yellow, Amber, Red)

Sample Scoring System

Numerical

Adjectival

Color Coding

Descriptor Examples

10 (95-100)

Excellent Blue Proposal demonstrates superior understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has several strengths that will significantly benefit the government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is minimal.

8 (89-94)

Good Green Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Sample Scoring System Cont. Numerical

Adjectival Color Coding

Descriptor Examples

5 (83-88) Satisfactory Yellow Proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that can meet performance or capability standards. Acceptable solutions are identified. No strengths are identified. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

3 (77-82) Marginal Amber Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and approach that marginally meets performance or capability standards. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderately high.

0 (less than 77)

Unsatisfactory

Red Proposal fails to demonstrate an understanding of requirements or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Legal Decisions B-275209, 97-1CPD JW Associates Inc.

The GAO Determined While both adjectival ratings and point scores are useful as guides to decision making they generally are not controlling, but rather, must be supported by documentation of the relative differences between proposals, their weaknesses and risks, and the basis and reason for the selection decision.

B-246185, 92 NITCO Comp. Gen. The Comptroller General rejected the use of past experience in manufacturing similar

equipment when the RFP contained no indication of such as a factor B-258829, 95-1 ENCORP International Inc.

The Comptroller General determined the evaluation to be improper as there was no evaluation factor or issue covering the “understanding of the work”

GSBCA 9131-P, 88-1 Digital Equipment Corp. A protest was granted when the RFP contained vague language describing the evaluation

factors and failed to indicate what characteristics in the computer system the agency was seeking.

Descriptor Development

There should be clear distinction between the different categories Develop descriptions that allow evaluators to readily identify which

category to apply Identify the risk Balance the system, descriptions should not favor upper and lower end

descriptions

Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process FAR 15.101-1

1-All evaluation factors and significant sub factors will affect contract award Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors must be clearly stated in solicitation Solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are

significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process FAR 15.101-2 Evaluation factors and sub factors establish the requirements of technically acceptable Solicitation must state: award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals

meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors No trade-offs Proposals are evaluated for acceptability (Go/No Go)

Example of LPTA Evaluation

Determination Comparison

Definition

Go (Pass, Yes, Acceptable) All of the minimum acceptable criteria are clearly set forth in the offeror’s proposal. The offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements as set forth in the performance work statement.

No-Go (Fail, No, Unacceptable)

Not all of the minimum acceptable criteria are met by the proposal. The offeror’s proposal contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements set forth in the performance work statement.

Relative Importance

FAR 15.304 Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors (e) The solicitation shall also state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation

factors other than cost or price, when combined, are -- (1) Significantly more important than cost or price; (2) Approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) Significantly less important than cost or price (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(iii) and

41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(C)).

Relative Importance Example

Source Selection

Sample

LPTA Selection will be made on the basis of the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal.

Tradeoff Selection will be made to the most superior technical proposal received.

Requirement Alignment

Solicitation Provisions + Terms and Conditions + Statement of Work = Contractor Proposal

Acquisition Plan + Statement of Work + Proposal Preparation Instructions + Evaluation Criteria

All of these must align for a good procurement

Proposal Preparation Instructions

Section L – Instructions, conditions, and notice to offerors

Requirement Considerations

Introductory Statement

Sets the overall tone of the requirement for offerors.

Proposal Content Overall number of volumes and package submission (box marked with solicitation identifier)

Size of pages and font This helps control the amount of documents submitted, need to be able to read the material submitted

Number of pages Limits the proposal to a specific number of pages reasonable for the requirement

Proposal Preparation Instructions

Section L – Instructions, conditions, and notice to offerors

Requirement Considerations

Forms List any required forms to be submitted (past performance, SF 1442/1449, etc.)

Other material submissions

Specific to the agency

Proposal marking Identifies how the proposal should be submitted and marked for easy identification

Proposal instructions for technical proposals

Tell the contractor what you want to see (organization chart, resumes, etc.)

Source Selection Evaluation Plan

Contain nondisclosure statements/Conflict if interest for all members Outline the role of the Source Selection Authority and technical team State the rules of conduct for source selection State the evaluation process Include a schedule for significant events (Milestones) in the source

selection Include worksheets to be used in evaluation

Legal Decisions

B-184825, 76-1 Grey Advertising While point scores, technical evaluation narratives, and adjectival ratings may well be

indicative of whether one proposal is technical superior to another and should therefore be considered by source selection officials, we have recognized that selection officials are not bound by the recommendations made by the evaluation and advisory groups,

B-207847, 83-1 CRC Sys., Inc. Comptroller General agreed the SSA lowered the evaluation team’s score of a protestor

because the protestor’s offer did not meet all the request for proposal requirements B-259857.2, 95-2 Loral Aeronautronic

Comptroller General agreed when the SSA acted reasonably and consistent with the evaluation scheme, changed the risk assessment of an awardee from medium to low and increased another awardee rating from satisfactory to exceptional