A.  Dos.

Re-read Section M of the RFP and then the evaluation documentation, including contents of briefings.

 Write the SSDD for four audiences:  the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the offerors, and the media.  Do not expect that these audiences will ever have to read it but ensure that the SSDD is written in a manner that would allow them to understand it (not necessarily agree with it) if it happened to be read by any one of the four audiences.

 State the evaluation factors, their subfactors, and elements if used, and their relative importance and ensure consistency with Section M.

 State the relative importance to cost/price of all other factors when combined.  Ensure this is consistent with Section M.

 For each mission capability subfactor technical rating, identify each offeror's strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies within the proposal and then explain how the strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies resulted in the final rating, using the definitions of those ratings contained in MP5315.3, section 5.5.1.1, Table 1.  (If there were uncertainties and deficiencies that were resolved during discussions there is no need to discuss those in the SSDD.)

 For each mission capability subfactor risk rating, identify the weaknesses and significant weaknesses of the approach, if any.  (If there were weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that were resolved during discussions there is no need to discuss those in the SSDD.)

 Adequately address the impact of past performance and its relative order of importance with respect to all of the evaluation criteria.  Ensure this is consistent with Section M.

 In teaming arrangements, such as mentor-protégé, joint venture, or subcontractors, consider the partner's relevant past performance only to the degree they will play in performance of the contract.

 Discuss the cost/price evaluation.  Explain how the price(s) were determined fair and reasonable, costs were determined realistic, or Probable Costs developed, as applicable.  Use comparative language about which offeror was X% more/less than the others.

 For programs requiring a most probable cost/price evaluation, discuss the cost/price risk evaluation.

 Discuss those discriminators that make one offeror better than another.  Be as detailed and focused upon discriminators as the source selection results allow.  If something was not a discriminator then say so and also state why it was not.

 In a "best value" evaluation process, be sure to explicitly state in the SSDD that a proposal with a higher evaluated cost/price was not worth the additional cost/price if the SSA is selecting a proposal with a lower evaluated cost and lower mission capability technical rating or past performance rating.  

 Explain in sufficient detail why the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal offer the best value.  Explain, with supporting evidence, what is worth the additional money.

 Show the SSA's thought process and reasons behind the comparative analysis.  Include declaration of thinking/intent on the part of the SSA.  For example:  I selected; I thought; I determined; I reviewed; etc.

 Spend some time on the summary to make it correct as it is very important.  In order to assure that the SSDD is correct, it must "track" with the contents of the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) if the SSA agrees with the conclusions of the SSET.  It is meant to very quickly put in words the best of the key discriminators used by the SSA to reach their decision.

 Have source selection experts' review and provide assistance/advice on the SSDD.

 Have legal counsel review and provide assistance/advice on the SSDD (per AFFARS 5301.602-2).