4.  Pre-solicitation Activities

Previously completed activities, such as market research (FAR 10) or acquisition planning (Far 7), though not discussed here are critical for successful acquisitions.  When considering contractor versus government performance, refer to FAR 7.3 and OMB Circular No. A-76 (revised), Performance of Commercial Activities, as supplemented.

4.1.  Source Selection Authority Designations [AFFARS 5315.303(a)].

[4.1.1]

4.1.1.3.  While the Source Selection Authority will officially establish the source selection team when he/she approves the Source Selection Plan, the program manager or contracting officer usually uses a group to complete activities prior to the plan approval.  This group drafts the Source Selection Plan, recommends the team structure, and should become key individuals on the source selection team.  Your recommendation should establish the team size and organizational structure that is necessary to perform the evaluation of proposals based upon the complexity, size, visibility, and other considerations.

Organization Structure:

(1)  For PEO acquisitions or source selections greater than $100 million, the team structure normally consists of the Source Selection Authority, Source Selection Advisory Council, the Source Selection Evaluation Team, and any advisors.  The Source Selection Evaluation Team typically consists of technical/service/programmatic evaluators, contracting officer/buyer, Performance Confidence Assessment Group, cost or price analyst(s), and advisors.  The Source Selection Evaluation Team should include the minimum number of evaluators necessary and may be supplemented with advisors as required.  Remember though, senior leaders cannot perform multiple leadership roles in source selection for any ACAT or major service (Category I and IA) acquisitions such as functioning as both advisor and evaluator.

(2) For less complex acquisitions, it may be appropriate for several roles to be fulfilled by a single individual resulting in smaller, simpler teams such as the following:

(a)  A source selection team consisting of only the contracting officer or of one technical member and the contracting officer; or

(b)  A source selection team consisting of the contracting officer as Source Selection Authority and the Source Selection Evaluation Team who, in turn, may consist of technical/service/programmatic evaluators, cost or price analyst(s), and, perhaps, a Performance Confidence Assessment Group.

If the Source Selection Team consists of one, two people, or a few individuals, then they are responsible for completing their respective areas for the source selection. For example, if the Contracting Officer and a technical lead are the only persons on the Source Selection Team, then the Contracting Officer is the Source Selection Authority and the two are responsible for completing all required activities of the Source Selection Evaluation Team.

4.1.1.5.  For example, a SSAC member cannot be the PCAG chairman or a member of the SSET.  An SSET member may, however, evaluate multiple aspects of the proposals as long as the member is not on the SSAC and is not the chair of multiple teams within the SSET.

4.1.2.  A Source Selection Advisory Council may be used when the advice and oversight of senior, independent reviewers is desirable and justifies the resources used.  Typically, most on the council will have source selection experience and as a whole the council will represent the primary stakeholders in the acquisition, including the users.

[4.1.3]

4.1.3.2.  Use of a Performance Confidence Assessment Group is at the discretion of the Source Selection Authority for source selections less than $100 million.

4.1.3.3.  Some SSAs want to be kept informed regarding personnel changes to the team; therefore, teams may notify the SSA of such changes as they occur.

[4.1.4]

4.1.4.2.  The Source Selection authority usually requests the Contracting Officer to manage the protection of Source Selection Information.  Special emphasis should be made to examine the application of information technology.  Opportunity for unintentional release of information increases with today's more robust software programs.  Extra measures such as secondary reviews before files are released via electronic means may be needed to ensure all documentation is handled properly.  A file or Power Point presentation could contain embedded information that is Source Selection Sensitive.

4.1.6.  Team members should be assigned by managers who have the authority to commit resources, especially when significant time will be required.  To reinforce that Government personnel assigned as a source selection team member shall consider the duty as their primary responsibility, consider placing the individuals on "orders" signed by the Commander.

[4.2]

[4.2.1]

4.2.1.2..  Because annual Non-Disclosure certificates are normally used by members assigned to MAJCOM and Secretariat Staffs, contracting officers should verify those members either have a correct certificate on file prior or have completed a new certificate for the specific acquisition prior to releasing any source selection information to those individuals.  Included with the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (Attachment 1) is a sample source selection cover sheet.

[4.2.2]

4.2.2.1.  In addition to the documents enumerated in FAR 3.104-3, the following documents are usually considered source selection information.

(1)  Justifications for not issuing a solicitation to specific sources as a result of screening criteria.  The information pertaining to a specific source is releasable to that source

(2)  All proposals and amendments or alternative proposals submitted by each offeror, including a summary of any oral presentation.

(3)  Any information marked proprietary by an offeror unless that offeror authorizes its release.

(4)  Evaluation reports including narrative assessments and cost or price analysis.

(5)  Any correspondence sent to offerors by the Source Selection Evaluation Team during the evaluation and the responses to the correspondence.

(6)  Company specific past performance information.

(7)  Completed questionnaires regarding past performance showing the evaluator's name.

Source Selection Plans are considered source selection information.  However, only a few areas of the plan cause the whole plan to be considered source selection sensitive.  In order to drive transparency and facilitate open communication with industry, the Contracting Officer should consider redacting portions of information in the source selection plan.  Once these areas such as the source selection team membership are removed, the plan should not be considered source selection information.  When the source selection plan contains no source selection information or where the plan is appropriately redacted, contracting officers may release the plan to offerors.

[4.3]

4.3.1.  It is prudent to perform some form of Risk Assessment for all competitive acquisitions in order to identify high-risk areas, to determine discriminators for Source Selections, and to identify incentive focus areas. These discriminators should be used to establish the evaluation subfactors.  Subfactors need to be kept to a minimum and will result in a more efficient source selection.  After the government's initial look, it is important to obtain industry input on the Risk Assessment results.  Risk Assessment results should be briefed as a part of any Acquisition Strategy briefing.

4.3.2.  (ref.1) It is critical that Industry understands what cost models (to include uncertainty analysis) and methodology we will be using as early as practical.  The goal of these discussions is to fully understand the reasons for the magnitude of the differences between an offeror's proposed costs or prices and the government most probable cost by the end of the source selection; including key cost elements.  The end result should be detailed cost data and narrative bases of estimates by WBS element that are fully understood by both parties prior to contract award.

4.3.2.  (ref.2) Two different government estimates are generally involved for source selections.  A Program Office Estimate (POE) is generally completed prior to the RFP release and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) is completed during the evaluation.  The POE is the government's estimate based on the government's assumed configuration, while the MPC is the estimate in source selection based on the contractor's proposed solution. In order to develop the governments POE prior to RFP release, the first thing that must be developed is a draft Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for the program.  This draft WBS provides a standard taxonomy for all the tasks (or components) and should use Mil Handbook 881A as a starting point.  This WBS should serve as the starting point for MPC discussions with potential offerors.  This draft WBS may be altered as the result of early and up-front communications with potential offerors.  The final program WBS should be finalized as part of the RFP.  Offerors may change the WBS to accommodate unique tasks or components of an offeror's technical approach.  The early discussions with offerors should reduce the WBS changes to the unique aspects of the offeror's approach and assist the evaluator in making "apples-to-apples" comparisons of individual proposals to the MPC.

[4.3.3]

4.3.3.4.  Early involvement with the applicable industry sector is highly encouraged from the date of requirement identification through the date of final Request for Proposal release (FAR 15.201).  This early industry involvement and openness are the cornerstones of the Air Force's enhanced cooperative relationship with industry.  Timely release of information to industry is essential to maximize the value of their inputs to the planning, requirements generation, and acquisition processes.  This involves engaging industry during the drafting of solicitations through group and one-on-one meetings and contracting business opportunity sites on the World Wide Web or other means.  It may also include providing relevant program and/or estimated contract budget information (either approved or tentative) unless deemed inappropriate by the Source Selection Authority.

4.3.3.5.  This would be the place to include approvals such as the Contracting Officer has the authority to release clarification and communication ENs after the appropriate subfactor chief, legal advisor, and SSET chair have reviewed the ENs.

4.3.3.8.  Once approval to use non-government advisors as described in FAR 37.2 has been granted, the PCO is primarily responsible for ensuring that all necessary steps are taken to protect proprietary information that may be included in any proposal.  This will generally include a notification (see AFFARS 5315.305(c)(2)(iii)) to offerors in Section L that A&AS contractors will be used by the government in the evaluation of offers, and will specifically address each contractor by name.  The PCO shall also ensure that the contracts on which A&AS personnel were made available include the necessary non-disclosure agreements and that each A&AS contractor employee participating in the source selection has signed both a non-disclosure agreement as well as the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement.  If the offerors do not object to participation of A&AS contractors, in most cases these precautions should be sufficient to ensure that the government's interests are protected against the willful disclosure of proprietary information.

Should a potential offeror object to the use of non-government advisors, the procedures in AFFARS 5315.305(c)(2)(v) apply.  If an A&AS contractor employee fails to provide the necessary non-disclosure agreements, or should he/she refuse to sign the Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement, the PCO should consult with the legal office and SSA regarding the possible exclusion of the employee from the SSET.

4.3.6.  Typically, the entire Source Selection Advisory Council will review the Source Selection Plan.  However, timeliness or other factors may require an abbreviated review.

4.3.8.  The Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide provides a discussion of recommended preliminary activities for a past performance review.

4.4.  (ref.1) This portion of Section M or the equivalent FAR 12 solicitation provision establishes how the government will make its selection for award; how the factors interrelate; and the number of awards contemplated.  It tells the offeror how the overall source selection decision will be made.

4.4.  (ref.2) The team should ensure those areas considered a high risk in the requirements risk assessments are addressed in the factors/subfactors.

4.4.  (ref.3) When developing the evaluation criteria, you often hear the term "discriminators" used.  "Discriminators" are the significant aspects of an acquisition that are expected to distinguish one proposal from another, thus having an impact on the ultimate selection decision. By using these discriminators, the source selection team can provide the Source Selection Authority with an evaluation that distinguishes among competing proposals in those areas the government believes are most important.  This facilitates selecting the offeror(s) most likely to deliver the best value to the government and to perform the resulting contract(s) successfully.

4.4.  (ref.4) Decide what's important or risky (from requirements and risk analysis); determine the evaluation factors and subfactors required to discriminate between offerors regarding the important or risky parts of the program or effort (basis for the evaluation criteria, Section M or equivalent solicitation provision), and then determine what information to be requested in order to assess the offeror's ability to address the important or risky areas (basis for Instructions to Offerors, Section L or equivalent solicitation provision).

[4.4.1]

4.4.1.1.  (ref 1) The mission capability factor (or mission capability subfactors when subfactors are established) should be constructed to focus on the technical or service requirements that are most likely to be key discriminators during the source selection evaluation and should reflect the results of the program risk assessment prior to the RFP development. They should focus on areas not only where significant differences in proposals are anticipated, but where these critical areas are of sufficient benefit to the customer and represent the high risk areas of the program.  Generally, the factor/subfactors should not describe requirements in "solution oriented" terms, but rather in "performance based" terms; state specifically what capability is to be evaluated; and for the measure of merit, be clear and as specific as possible in what the offeror must demonstrate in their proposal. If a technical or service area is important to ensure compliance with the contract, but not likely to result in discrimination between proposals, the area should not be identified as a subfactor under mission capability.  For required consideration of small business participation or bundling issues, reference FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii), (c)(4), and (c)(5) and DFARS 215.304(c).

4.4.1.1  (ref 2) Where appropriate, teams should ensure evaluation criteria allow offerors to exceed requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offerors process.

4.4.1.2.  Consider the importance of the past performance factor during the Acquisition Strategy Development Process.  It should be addressed as an individual topic during the Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP).  FAR 15.304(c)(3) requires that past performance be evaluated in "all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified threshold" unless the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor.  Normally, the past performance factor should be a significant evaluation criterion.  Past performance information to be included in the evaluation is within the broad discretion of the Source Selection Authority and should be tailored to the circumstances of each acquisition and may include completed contracts, ongoing contracts, or other effort accomplished by the offeror.  While developing the Request for Proposal, offerors should be informed of the information to be used to assess past performance (subject to the restriction in FAR 15.306(e)(4)) and be given the opportunity to recommend other information, if appropriate, that will provide recent and relevant information. Since the evaluation of past performance often takes longer than other aspects of the evaluation, consider including a requirement for submission of past performance information earlier than the closing date of the Request for Proposal.  Submission of past performance information may be requested as early as reasonable after issuance of solicitation.  Offerors should be instructed to submit a list of specific contracts for assessment.  Have the offeror include as a minimum, the following information (or equivalent):  (1) description of the product/services being provided; (2) name, address, and phone number of the contracting officer; (3) name, address, and phone number of current program manager (if applicable); (4) contract numbers and dates of performance, and (5) name, address, and phone number of current Administrative Contracting Officer.  We recommend not invoking the late proposal provision for this information as our goal is to increase competition, not eliminate it.  However, contracting officers should consider any past performance information submitted as part of the offer.

[4.4.1.3]

4.4.1.3.1.  For ACAT I programs, the MPC may include an analysis of the uncertainties inherent in any acquisition, from those related to the cost estimating methods chosen, to those associated with the technical and programmatic assumptions of the program.  One way of defining MPC is the most frequently occurring value (or mode) resulting from the analysis.  The application of the various statistical techniques inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct most probable cost, as well as a range (or distribution) of possible costs from which confidence levels may be determined.  Additionally, cost uncertainty described in this paragraph means the uncertainty and risk inherent in the cost estimating process, not the uncertainty referenced in Table 1 and defined in paragraph 8.16.  Techniques for cost uncertainty analysis are described in the Air Force Cost Risk and Uncertainty Handbook.

4.4.1.4.  (ref 1) The purpose of this risk rating is to provide information to the SSA that allows selection of an offeror who proposed a rational and realistic cost for the work to be accomplished.  Through the RFP, the Air Force team must communicate to all offerors our deep concern for risk to our programs that is associated with overly optimistic or unrealistic cost or price proposals.  We must clearly convey to all offerors that submitting costs or prices based on unrealistic or overly optimistic development outcomes may result in that offeror not being selected for award.  This optional evaluation criterion may be particularly suited for use in ACAT programs in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase using a cost-reimbursement contract type, where the Air Force is concerned that offerors may understate contract costs to obtain contract award.

4.4.1.4.  (ref 2) The Government should state in the RFP the general methods and/or tools that will be utilized when evaluating cost/price during the source selection.  The discussions should have already occurred during market research, industry days, and have been part of the draft RFP.  Due to the uncertain nature of source selection evaluation, the methods and/or tools should be described in general terms in order to maintain the flexibility to apply any commonly used methods or tools as appropriate.

4.4.2.  (Ref 1) If the solicitation states the individual importance of factors, then it must state the individual importance of all factors, including price.  For example, Past Performance is more important that Price, which is more important than Mission Capability

4.4.2.  (Ref 2) If threshold and objective performance requirements are identified in the Request for Proposals, you must communicate to offerors how a value analysis will be performed, comparing perceived benefit to the government against associated cost or price.  Generally, offerors' proposals that exceed threshold performance requirements provide added value to the government.  However, the Source Selection Authority must determine in accordance with the evaluation factors and subfactors whether exceeding the objective performance requirements at an associated cost or price provides the best overall affordable benefit to the government.  The evaluation Factors/Subfactors and their order of importance must be drafted to reflect the government's intent relative to trade-offs.  Although evaluation criteria must be tailored to reflect the specific requirements of a particular acquisition, it should reflect one of the following three alternatives:

(1)  Identify the required threshold performance requirements but not any objective performance requirements and inform offerors that any features or technical offerings that enhance the system will be given evaluation credit in the best value determination.

(2)  Identify both threshold performance requirements and objective performance requirements and explicitly state that the government reserves the right to evaluate and give evaluation credit for the proposed features that exceed either the stated thresholds or objectives.

(3)  Identify both threshold performance requirements and objective performance requirements and explicitly state that the government reserves the right to evaluate and give evaluation credit for the proposed features that exceed the stated thresholds and offerors will not be given credit for performance beyond the objectives identified.

4.4.3.  Often questions arise concerning how to treat those contract requirements not included as individual evaluation factors or subfactors.  The statement required in AFFARS 5315.305(a) addresses this concern.  If a review is desired for some items, e.g., higher level inspection criteria, then those items could be addressed as pass/fail.

4.4.4.  An example of such an alternative is the use of schedule in trade-offs where a Qualified Bidders List exists.  In circumstances where schedule is a mission essential consideration, such as when production lead time extends beyond the need date, the Source Selection Authority may wish to conduct trade-offs between price and schedule for technically acceptable proposals from offerors whose past performance demonstrate their ability to deliver on accelerated schedules.  In this procedure proposal risk is assumed to be a non-discriminator and the past performance evaluation may be limited in scope.

4.5.  A Draft Request for Proposal (if required by MAJCOM guidance, or desired by the Source Selection Authority) consistent with the Acquisition Strategy and the draft Source Selection Plan should be developed and made available to potential offerors as early as practicable.  The Draft Request for Proposal can be provided incrementally as sections become available, including the proposed evaluation factors and subfactors, and industry comment should be encouraged.  When all issues with the Draft Request for Proposal and/or the Source Selection Plan have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Source Selection Authority, and all required reviews have been accomplished, then the final Request for Proposal may be released to potential offerors.  Remember to include the clause at FAR 52.215-1  if the Source Selection Authority, in accordance with the approved Source Selection Plan, may determine to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range for efficiency purposes.

Maximum use of electronic media for Request for Proposal issuance, proposal submission, and proposal evaluation is encouraged.  The instructions should also specify the format required by the government to ensure the readability of the information and to facilitate evaluation of the proposals.

4.5.1.  If the Source Selection Authority requires a briefing prior to the Request for Proposal release, the following items should be presented along with or emphasized within the Source Selection Plan:

(1) Confirmation that all required approvals have been obtained (e.g., LCMP/SAMP/AP, etc.)

(2) Resolution of all issues from the acquisition strategy meeting and significant issues from other sources, if any

(3) Confirmation of commitments for availability of manpower for the evaluation process

(4) Final demonstrated traceability between risks, primary requirements that will be meaningful discriminators, funding, evaluation factors and subfactors, and information requested in the instructions to offerors.  (The "draft" or preliminary traceability is usually presented to the Acquisition Strategy Panel.).