Department of Defense

Source Selection Procedures

National Contract Management Association (NCMA)Pikes Peak Chapter

May 17, 2012

Suzanne Snyder, CPCM,CFMC, CPPO, Fellow

Source Selection Policy Update

Contracting Officers shall follow the principles/procedures in OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP memo, 4 Mar 11, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures (DFARS 215.300 / PGI)*

*New procedures will be applicable over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently set at $150,000)

2

Background for DoD Policy Update

• Procedures resulted from a Joint Analysis Team• Examined current source selection processes

utilized within DoD • Identified key elements of a successful source

selection• Develop procedures to provide uniform guidance • Develop procedures to simplify the source selection

process

3

Refresher…What is Source Selection?

• Source Selection is a process that deals with the selection of a contractor through a competitive negotiation

• The process begins with the establishment of an evaluation plan for a proposed acquisition and ends when the Source Selecting Authority (SSA) selects a contractor who will receive a contract award

• Consists of a continuum of approaches and tradeoff options to obtain the best value - under DoD two distinctions:• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)• Tradeoffs between non-cost factors and cost/price

4

5

Pre-RFP

CPD #1

RFPRelease CPD #2

ProposalReceipt

Competitive Range Briefing (Initial Evaluation Brief IEB)

CPD#3 Pre-FPR CPD #4

Interim Ratings and ENs released

• Req Devel• Risk

Assessment• Acq Strategy• DRFPs• Conferences• One-on-One

Mtgs• Market

Research• Acquisition

Plan• Cost/Price

Risk exchanges with offerors

• Business Clearance

• Independent Review

• CO Responses to Questions

• RFP Amendments

• All proposals eval• Comp range deliberated• No revisions allowed• Communicate only with

those uncertain if in/out of CR

• Must discuss• significant

weaknesses• deficiencies• other aspects to

enhance award potential

• Proposal revisions allowed

Debriefings

Discussions(only w/offerors in CR)

FPR Receipt

CO controls after release of RFP

Source Selection Process Overview

Oral Presentations

Communicationsfor greater understandingleading to Competitive Range Determination

Request for FPR Ratings

ReleasedAward

Debriefings of successful and unsuccessful offerors. Same rating charts as shown to SSA

EN Responses

EXCHANGES

PARSSDD

Decision CPD #5

ASP

• Contract Clearance

• Independent Review

• Independent Review

Peer Review (MIRT)Peer Review Peer Review

Source Selection Policy Update

These procedures ARE NOT required for:

---Competitions where the only evaluated factor is price

---Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) are used in accordance with FAR Part 35 to solicit proposals and award contracts

---Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT) acquisitions solicited and awarded in accordance with 15 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 638

---Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded in accordance with FAR Part 36

 --Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures in accordance with FAR Part 13 (including Part 12 acquisitions using Part 13 procedures)

---FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions 

---Orders under multiple award contracts – Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.505 (b)(1))

and

---Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.6

7

SSASSA

SSEB ChairSSEB Chair

Technical CapabilityTechnical Capability Past Performance TeamPast Performance Team Cost/PriceCost/Price Contract ElementsContract Elements

AdvisorsAdvisors

AdvisorsAdvisors

SSACSSAC

Source Selection OrganizationSource Selection Team

PCO/CO/KOPCO/CO/KO

Source Selection Authority (SSA)Advisors (Cost or Pricing, Legal, Small Business and other subject-matter experts. Contracting Officer (PCO,CO, KO)Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

The Players --Source Selection Team Composition

• Source Selection Authority (SSA)

• Shall be other than the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more, regardless of procedure used

• PCO is also referred to as CO or KO

• Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

• Required for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more

• Prepares written comparative analysis of proposals, provides source selection recommendation to SSA and oversight to the SSEB

• Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

• SSEB may conduct comparative analysis/make source selection recommendation only if specifically requested by SSA or required by Source Selection Plan

• Advisors, cost/pricing experts, legal counsel, small business specialists, other subject matter experts

9

SSA Roles and Responsibilities

Individual designated to make the best-value decision Responsible for proper and efficient conduct of source selection in

accordance with laws & regulations Appoint chairpersons for SSEB and SSAC when used Establish team and ensure team membership remains consistent for

duration of selection process Ensure all involved in source selection are knowledgeable of the policies

and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting source selection Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership

roles in the source selection Ensure source selection pacing is driven by events and not by the schedule

DOD Procedures: 1.4.1.1 For acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SSA

shall be an individual other than the PCO. For all other acquisitions, the PCO may serve as the SSA in accordance with FAR 15.303 unless the Agency head or designee appoints another individual.

10

SSA Roles and Responsibilities cont.

Source Selection Authority (SSA) Ensure all are briefed and knowledgeable of law regarding

unauthorized disclosure of source selection information Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are

instructed to comply with standards of conduct and sign the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement

Approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP) before release of RFP Make the determination to award w/o discussions, establish

competitive range or enter into discussions, approve release of Evaluation ns

Select the source whose proposal offers best value IAW RFP evaluation criteria

Document decision in Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

11

PCO-CO-KO Roles and Responsibilities

Contracting Officer (CO, KO or PCO) – primary business advisor & principal guidance source for the entire source selection (BIG JOB) Manage all business aspects of the acquisition Assist and advise the SSA on proper execution of each source

selection event Ensure required approvals are obtained and contract clause

requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to provide source selection support (CO must have copy of agreement in file as required by FAR 9.505-4)

Ensure procedures exist to safeguard source selection information (FAR 3.104)

Approve access to or release of source selection information before and after contract award (FAR 3.104-4)

Maintain source selection evaluation records Ensure that the SSP reflects the approved acquisition strategy and

contains linkages between requirements documents, program risks, evaluation criteria, and proposed evaluation methodology that will facilitate a sound SS decision

Ensure that requests for delegations are completed and documented in file

12

Contracting Officer (CO) Release RFP after approval of business clearance and SSA approved SSP Single Point of Contact (POC) for inquires from actual or prospective

offerors Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source

selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by

the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with mandatory procedure

Control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals Approve release of ENs if designated this authority by the SSA in the

Source Selection Plan Assist SSEB chairperson with preparation of the PAR and SSD Obtain contract clearance before contract award Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed and that the debriefing is

documented

PCO-CO-KO Roles and Responsibilities

13

SSAC ChairpersonRoles and Responsibilities

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chairperson Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSAC members and request additional assistance

from other governmental sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service members

Ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities Review the SSP and any revision prior to SSA approval Convene SSAC meetings as requested by SSA SSAC shall review the evaluation and findings of the SSEB to ensure their accuracy,

consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the SSA

Shall recommend a source for the SSA’s consideration

DOD Procedures:• 1.4.3.1.2.Organizations shall establish an SSAC for acquisitions with a total

estimated value of $100M or more. An SSAC is optional for acquisitions with a total estimated value of less than $100M.

• 1.4.3.1.3. The primary role of the SSAC is to provide a written comparative analysis and recommendation to the SSA. When an SSAC is established, it will provide oversight to the SSEB.

14

SSEB Chairperson Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSEB members including PCAG and

chair Ensure personnel, resources, time assigned to the source selection reflect

the complexity of the acquisition Ensure SSEB members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities

including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted BEFORE any proposal is reviewed

SSEB shall prepare and maintain SSP Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source

selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by

the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with mandatory procedure

Support SS activities such as debriefings & post award meetings

SSEB Chairperson Roles and Responsibilities

15

SSEB Members Roles and Responsibilities

SSEB Members Comprehensive review & evaluation of proposals only using the

RFP requirements and established criteria Write ENs for SSEB Chairman to recommend SSA approve release Prepare the evaluation documentation Participate in debriefings to offerors If no SSAC, recommend a source to the SSA

16

Non-Government Advisors

May be authorized, but should be minimized as much as possible (1.4.5.2) -- Non-Government advisors, other than Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR 37.203 and 37.204.

All non-Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreementsigned by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection (1.4.5.2.1) -- Submit documentation to the PCO -- PCO must ensure Government has received consent of the submitting contractor(s) to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the source selection

Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, but they may not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals 1.4.5.2.2. -- Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly prohibited (FAR 42.1503)

CAUTION

• There is no one “best approach” to source selection• The least complex option that meets the acquisition

needs will be the best considering:• Degree of complexity of requirement

• If the requirements are clearly defined (SOO vs PWS)

• If the government desires different options and approaches

• The risk of successful performance

• The market conditions

• Successful source selections start with engaged multi-functional teams from the point at which the need is identified

17

Traditional Outcomes

18

Requirements Docs Source Selection Criteria

More

Less

Less

More

CRITERIA

DETAILS

LPTA

HYBRID e.g. PPT

FULL TRADE-OFF

Best Value Continuum

SOO

Detailed construction specs

PWS

19

Trade-Off Source

Selection Process

described in DoD Source

Selection Procedures

Low PriceLow Price

Non-Cost FactorsNon-Cost Factors

The Best-Value Continuum – Source Selection Techniques

Greater Relative Importance of Cost or Price Lesser

Lesser Importance of Non-Cost Factors Greater

FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented

Tradeoff Source Selection Processdescribed in DoD Source Selection Procedures

Oh! The possibilities!

Mix-n-match tradeoffs:

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) Source Selection Process

described in DoD Source Selection Procedures,

Appendix A

Cost or PriceCost or Price Non-Cost FactorsNon-Cost Factors

TechnicalTechnical RiskPast PerformanceCost or Price

Lowest Price

• First, consider the rating methodology the team will use for the subfactors and factors w/o subfactors

• Determine if the offerors’ response to the criteria (technical solution and/or risk) can be assessed by

• Pass/fail –acceptable/unacceptable

• Rating levels – acceptable – better - best

• Method of assessment can vary for factors/subfactors (pass/fail for some, rating for others)

• Selected approach must consider trade space

• Do we have money to pay for better or best?

• Is there a benefit to exceeding the requirements?

• How critical is price?

• Finally, review the best value continuum to determine which source selection technique (or hybrid) is most appropriate

20

Determining the Source Selection Technique

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process

21

• Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price• Not limited to low dollar actions!• When bar to meet “pass” is high and budgets tight may

not be anything to trade -- LPTA appropriate• Tradeoffs are not permitted (no better or best)

• Past Performance (PP) may be used as an evaluation factor but rated only as acceptable or unacceptable

• Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors

Trade-Off Process

22

• Trade-Off is used when it is 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

• This process permits:• Tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors• Best combination of technically superior, low risk proposals that

also have a history of favorable past performance• Selection of approach where benefit of a higher priced proposal

merits the additional cost

• Requires environment where trade space exists in cost or price and non-cost factors

Pre-Solicitation Activities

• Risk assessment--required as necessary to support acquisition planning process

• Market research—Use of Industry Day(s) and draft Request for Proposals (RFP) are highly recommended for all acquisitions

• Source Selection Plan (SSP) required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15• SSA approves SSP prior to issuance of final RFP

• Evaluation factors/subfactors--expected to be discriminators• All source selections shall evaluate:

• Cost or Price of supplies or services being acquired • Quality of Product or Service

• Consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factor(s) tailored to the source selection process employed

23

• Iterative Process!

• Incorporate knowledge gained from:

• Market Research

• Acquisition activities

• Evaluation factors shall

• Represent key areas of importance and emphasis

• Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals

• We must evaluate:

• Price/Cost

• Quality of Product or Service

• Technical (Examples - Technical excellence/management capability/past performance/Small Business)

24

Developing Evaluation Criteria – Factors & Subfactors

Focus on significant Discriminators and Maximize Streamlining by only Evaluating what Must be Evaluated

25

Here’s Just a Few of the Options!*Variations refer to DoD Source Selection Appx

Variation 1a

Variation 1b

Variation 2a

Variation 2b

Variation 3a

Variation 3b

Variation 4a

Variation 4b

Cost/Price Past Performance (Pass/Fail)

Full Performance Confidence Assessment

Technical (All Subfactors Pass/Fail)

Technical (Combination of Pass/Fail and Color/Adjectival Ratings by Subfactor)

Technical Risk (Low, Moderate, or High)

• Evaluate

• Cost or price of all proposals, and

• Past performance of all offerors on “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-2)

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)“The SSA may choose, in rare circumstances,

to award a contract on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting discussions.”

26

Variation 1aCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE P/F

• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and

• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

27

Variation 1bCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence

• Evaluate:

• All technical proposals using DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”,

• Cost or price of all proposals, and

• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)

28

Variation 2aCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE P/FTECHNICAL P/F

• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”,

• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and

• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

29

Variation 2bCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE - ConfidenceTECHNICAL P/F

• Evaluate:

• All technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and separately assess Technical Risk as “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” rating using Table 3 descriptions

• Cost or price of all proposals, and

• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)

30

Variation 3aCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE P/FTECHNICAL P/FRISK

• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions

• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and

• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)

31

Variation 3bCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE ConfidenceTECHNICAL P/FRISK

• Evaluate

• All technical proposals using a combination of color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3, and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions at the subfactor level,

• Cost or price of all proposals, and

• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

32

Variation 4a COST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE P/FTECHNICAL Adjectival RISK

• Evaluate all technical proposals using a combination of color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3, and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions at the subfactor level,

• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and

• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors

• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)

33

Variation 4bCOST/PRICEPAST PERFORMANCE ConfidenceTECHNICAL Adjectival RISK

• Technical approach and related technical risk – one of two evaluation methodologies can be used

• Combined (single) rating – risk evaluated as one aspect of technical evaluation, inherent in technical evaluation factor or subfactor ratings; or

• Separate technical and risk ratings assigned at technical factor (or subfactor level if subfactors used)

• Past Performance • Extent of participation of Small Business concerns

• Separate evaluation factor, or a subfactor under technical factor• Pass/fail; or use same ratings scheme as for technical/risk

• Considered within evaluation of one of the technical subfactors• No separate small business rating applied

34

Evaluation Process

35

Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 1)

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk RatingsColor 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.

36

Technical Rating Evaluation (Methodology 2)

Table 2. Technical Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

37

Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)

Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased 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, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

38

Past Performance Evaluation

Table 4. 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.

39

Performance Confidence Assessments

Table 5. 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 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.

• Discussions are highly recommended for source selections

• Award without discussions shall occur in only limited circumstances

• PCO establishes competitive range; SSA approves

• When PCO is not SSA, SSA concurrence required prior to releasing the request for final proposal revisions

• Definitions Chapter: “strength” -- 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

• Debriefings -- PCO encouraged to use Debriefing Guide provided at Appendix B

40

Evaluation and Decision Process

Summary

• Goal is to select the proposal that represents the best value

• FAR 15 negotiated competitive actions• More formal process, try to make it simplified• Teams are essential• Evaluation criteria tailored to each acquisition• Must be followed through the evaluation process and

award decision• Integrity and creditability of the process must be

maintained

41