5.  Evaluation Activities IG 5

5.1.  The Source Selection Advisory Council Chairperson shall convene Source Selection Advisory Council meetings at any stage in the evaluation process as requested by the Source Selection Authority.

5.2.  The Source Selection Advisory Council shall review the evaluation and findings of the Source Selection Evaluation Team to ensure their accuracy, consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and consultation as requested by the Source Selection Authority.

5.3.  The Contracting Officer and the Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson shall ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the criteria contained in the approved Source Selection Plan and the solicitation (Section M or equivalent solicitation provision) and ensure the evaluation is properly documented in accordance with paragraph 7 of this procedure.  All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by the CO and the SSET Chairperson for completeness and compliance with this procedure.

5.4.  The Source Selection Evaluation Team shall conduct an in-depth review IG 5.4R1 and evaluation of each proposal and any subsequently submitted information or proposal revisions, against the factors and subfactors and other solicitation requirements (4.4.3). IG 5.4R2

5.4.1.  The Performance Confidence Assessment Group shall conduct the past performance assessment.

5.5.  Evaluation Factors.  Air Force factor ratings and assessments focus on each factor or subfactor as described below.

5.5.1.  Mission Capability Evaluation. The Mission Capability Factor or Subfactors when established, shall receive two separate and distinct ratings:  a technical rating that reflects the degree to which the Mission Capability Factor or Subfactor exceeds, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements; and a risk rating that assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the Mission Capability Factor or Subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  These two ratings are presented together and are of equal impact for the rating for each Mission Capability Factor or Subfactor.  When subfactors are established, the ratings shall be done at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned.  IG 5.5.1

5.5.1.1  Mission Capability Technical Rating.  The mission capability technical rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties IG 5.5.1.1r1 in the offeror's proposal.  When subfactors are established, the mission capability rating shall be rated at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned.  Mission capability technical ratings shall be rated using the color ratings listed in TABLE 1 below IG 5.5.1.1r2.

Through discussions, the government evaluators should obtain the necessary information from offerors with interim Yellow/Marginal ratings to resolve outstanding issues within the offer. Yellow/Marginal ratings should be rare by the time of the final evaluation.

5.5.1.2.  Mission Capability Risk Rating.  The mission capability risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach.  When mission capability subfactors are established, a mission capability risk rating shall be assigned to each mission capability subfactor and an overall factor-level risk rating is not assigned.  If mission capability subfactors are not established, mission capability risk rating is assigned at the factor level.  Assessment of a mission capability risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  Mission capability risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in TABLE 2 below.  For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation IG 5.5.1.2r1  (if available) and document why that approach is or is not acceptable.  Whenever a strength is identified as part of the mission capability technical rating, (see 5.5.1.1 above), the evaluation shall assess whether the offeror's proposed approach would likely cause an associated weakness which may impact schedule, cost, or performance. IG 5.5.1.2r2

*  A plus "+" rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries of a Mission Capability Risk Rating, but is not high enough to merit the next inferior rating.  When assigning the risk rating, teams should endeavor to rate proposals as low, moderate, high, or unacceptable.  However, if additional stratification within the Low, Moderate or High Risk ratings is desired, evaluators/teams may (optionally) annotate this by adding a plus "+" to the risk rating.  For example, where in the judgment of the evaluator, an offeror has risk that approaches or is nearly rated as a Moderate risk, a Mission Capability Risk Rating of "Low +" could be assigned.  Ensure, however, that the source selection record adequately addresses the rationale for assigning this inferior risk rating.  The use of a (+) shall not apply to the "Unacceptable" risk rating.

5.5.2.  Past Performance Evaluation. IG 5.5.2R1  The past performance evaluation IG 5.5.2R2 results in an assessment of the government's confidence in the offeror's ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints IG 5.5.2R3.  The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs. The performance confidence rating is normally assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant IG 5.5.2R4 to the mission capability subfactors and cost or price.

5.5.2.1.  Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation.

5.5.2.1.1.  Past performance information may be provided by the offeror.

5.5.2.1.2.  Past performance information shall be obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, from Defense Contract Management Agency, from interviews with program managers and contracting officers, Fee Determining Officials, or from other sources known to the government.  Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments shall be used if the information is recent and relevant. The recency and relevancy of the past performance information is important in determining what contracts/programs/effort are evaluated.  Recency and relevancy definitions shall be individually tailored for each acquisition and stated in Section M or equivalent solicitation provision.

5.5.2.1.3.  (INTERIM CHANGE: See Policy Memo 10-C-15)

5.5.2.2.  Performance Confidence Assessment.  In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in TABLE 3 below.  

5.5.3.  Cost or Price Evaluation. IG 5.5.3R1  Cost or price shall be an evaluation factor in each source selection. The proposed and, if applicable, evaluated total cost/price (such as most probable cost) must be presented with narrative descriptions of reasonableness, realism, affordability, etc. to the Source Selection Authority.  The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (in dollars), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the cost/price (probable cost) for the Cost/Price evaluation Factor.  The Source Selection Evaluation Team must use the appropriate analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404 as supplemented to evaluate the proposed cost or price and shall inform offerors of the technique(s) to be used in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation).  Note that a cost/price realism analysis cannot result in an adjustment of an offeror's proposed fixed prices.  See FAR 15.404-1(d)(3).  To ensure the best possible evaluation, the entire government evaluation team shall have access to cost or pricing information.  Under appropriate circumstances, non-government advisors (if approved to participate on the source selection IAW FAR 37.204) may be permitted access as required. IG 5.5.3R2

5.5.4  Cost/Price Risk Evaluation.  For programs in which the SSA has approved the use of a cost/price risk factor, the SSET must perform a cost/price risk evaluation.  The cost/price risk evaluation assesses the degree to which an offeror's cost proposal for the contract line items to be included in the intended contract and associated options, if evaluated, compares with the government MPC for the same items.  Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4 below.  In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror's proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government's risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision). IG 5.5.4