[7]

7.  Source selection documentation should be kept to a minimum and not unnecessarily duplicate information contained in other documents pertaining to the acquisition.  In those instances where information is contained in another acquisition document, the source selection document should simply refer to the original document and a copy attached, excepted as noted within a specific document, e.g. the Source Selection Decision Document.  The source selection documentation should fully represent the source selection activity associated with this acquisition. For clarity, required and optional Source Selection documentation is listed in this section.  Generally, each document is listed in the order of the timing for approval (if required) and other information pertinent to documentation is described.

7.1.  MAJCOM and other community advice guidance on the preparation of Source Selection Plans is available in the AFFARS Library, Part 5315.

7.5.  Evaluation documentation must be demonstrably consistent with the RFP.  Documentation must reflect consensus discussions and the reasoned judgment of the evaluation.  If all team members are unable to reach a consensus, the SSET Chair, after considering each individual assessment, must determine which assessment accurately reflects the proposal as it relates to the solicitation.  Backup documentation should clearly explain rationale for the position adopted as well as the position that was not adopted and the rationale for rejecting that position.  SSET Chair must identify minority reports to the SSA.

Use of electronic source selection tools is helpful, especially in larger efforts. If worksheets are used, they typically include:

Subfactor Worksheets -- the evaluator's name, the offeror's name, the particular factor or subfactor being evaluated, a brief description of what is being offered, and a discussion of whether the proposal exceeds, meets, or fails to meet performance or capability requirements.  The same worksheet may include a discussion of mitigation efforts or weaknesses related to proposal risk. Here is a link to a sample rating team worksheet.

Subfactor Summaries -- after all subfactor evaluators have completed their evaluation, the subfactor captain should complete a subfactor summary which includes the offeror's name, a brief proposal description, and the results of the evaluation in terms of color rating assigned, with supporting rationale (strengths, deficiencies).  The same form may also include the risk rating, with supporting rationale (mitigation efforts, weaknesses).  Here is a link to a sample subfactor summary.

Past Performance Evaluation.  The members of the Performance Confidence Assessment Group must document the results of their assessment by listing all contracts that were relied upon, with the positive and negative aspects associated with performance under each.  A description of the relevancy of the contracts should also be included.

7.6.  Briefings are the primary means of providing key information to the Source Selection Authority.  At the outset of any briefing session, the roles and government/non-government status of all individuals must be made known to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Evaluation Team chair is usually responsible for managing the scheduling, content, and presentation of the briefings. The Source Selection Evaluation Team chair should plan for, and integrate, local staff advisory participation with that of the evaluation team during the formulation of any briefing. When a Source Selection Advisory Council is used, the Source Selection Advisory Council chair will manage Source Selection Advisory Council contribution to any briefing. Source Selection Advisory Council input will be a discrete supplement to the information presented by the Source Selection Evaluation Team, rather than a refinement or revision of any Source Selection Evaluation Team briefing. Attendance should be controlled and limited to the minimum number of essential individuals authorized by the Source Selection Evaluation Team chair, Source Selection Advisory Council chair (when applicable), or the Source Selection Authority.  Examples of those who would normally attend are:  Source Selection Authority, Source Selection Advisory Council (where used), Source Selection Evaluation Team, presenters, specified legal staff, contracting policy and source selection advisors, or any other individuals requested by the chairs for their specialized expertise.

The briefing may be in the form of charts, memoranda, papers, or any other format and may be presented as specified by the Source Selection Authority.

7.7.  A sample form for Evaluation Notices is provided.

7.9.  The briefing normally contains matrices displaying color ratings for mission capability technical rating subfactors and a mission capability risk rating for each subfactor, past performance evaluation, Cost/Price Risk (if required) and cost/price analysis for all offerors, according to definitions contained in paragraph 5.5.  The briefing also contains supporting narrative in bullet form characterizing all strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and confidence information to be considered by the Source Selection Authority regarding the comparison of offerors' proposals and past performance.  Strengths, deficiencies and weaknesses which contributed to the color ratings, and risk ratings are expected to include an indication of the potential benefit to, or undesirable impact upon, the government.  Also include those positive and negative aspects which affect the performance confidence assessment, if assigned.  Finally, address the proposed cost or price and any realism assessment.  As a minimum, the following information should also be briefed:

--  Recap of distinguishing aspects of this acquisition

--  Funding issues

--  Contractual considerations

--  Exceptions to Terms and Conditions

--  Recap of factors and relative importance

--  Evaluation criteria for each factor/subfactor

--  Summary of offerors' proposed approaches

--  Source Selection Evaluation Team's comments for trade off analysis for the Source Selection Authority's consideration in making an integrated assessment of best value in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria

--  Any analyses by the Source Selection Advisory Council

--  The source selection recommendation of the SSET or SSAC, if used, and any minority opinion.

7.10.  (ref 1) Ensure the Proposal Analysis Report is consistent with the Decision Briefing.  The Source Selection Authority may require that the Source Selection Advisory Council review the Proposal Analysis Report.  If the PAR is combined with the PCM/PNM, the price/cost analyst then becomes a key player in writing and reviewing the PAR. The Contracting Officer must sign the document since it will include the determinations of price reasonableness and adequate price competition.

7.10.  (ref 2) Typical organization and content of a Proposal Analysis Report follows (refer to IG5315.305 for more detailed advice on preparing a Proposal Analysis Report):

Part I Introduction - Evaluation Factors, Discussion of Requirements, and Identification of Offerors.  This section should include:  (a) Evaluation factors; (b) Discussion of the requirements in the solicitation; and, (c) Identification of the offerors who responded and those included in the competitive range.

Part II Description of Proposals - Summaries.  This section should contain a brief summary description of any significant, unique attributes of the proposal submitted by each offeror within the competitive range.  No judgments or comparisons as to the quality, rating, or ranking of proposals should appear in this section.

Part III Evaluation Results -- This section should contain the results of the evaluation of each offeror's proposal based on the comparison to the evaluation factors contained in the solicitation, i.e., cost/price risk (if used), past performance , mission capability, and price or cost.

Part IV Comparative Analysis of Offers -- This section should include a comparative analysis of all offers received that were included in the competitive range.  If offerors were excluded from the competitive range, the rationale for exclusion should be documented here.  The analysis identifies proposal strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses as well as the resulting evaluation ratings.  A discussion should also be included of the results of the past performance evaluation, along with a discussion of the price/cost evaluation.  When completed, this section should contain the overall assessment including any inter-factor analysis of cost/price risk (if used), price or cost, past performance , and mission capability, and shall document the rationale for the source selection recommendation of the SSET or SSAC, if used, and any minority opinion.

7.11.  Typical organization and content of a Simplified Source Selection Report follow:

Section I SSP and Acquisition Description - For acquisitions whenever the contracting officer is not the Source Selection Authority, attach the Source Selection Plan.  For acquisitions using a streamlined Source Selection Plan, provide the information required in paragraph 7.11.  For clarity, process refers to items such as Lowest Price Technically Acceptable or Performance Price Tradeoff, while techniques refer to items such as oral presentations, first article demonstrations, and so forth.

Section II Evaluation -- Section II details the evaluation by offeror and should be used for debriefings.  This normally consists of the Rating Team Worksheets (both initial and final) and the Price Competition Memorandum.  The Contracting Officer and the lead technical evaluator, if applicable, sign the Worksheets.

Section III Comparative Analysis -- Section III is a concise comparative analysis of offerors that supports the source selection decision.  When the SSA is other than the Contracting Officer, include the evaluation team's source selection recommendation and rational of the SSET or SSAC, if used, and any minority opinion.  This section will also include supporting rationale for offeror(s) excluded from the competitive range. The Contracting Officer and the lead technical evaluator, if applicable, sign the Comparative Analysis.

Section IV Source Selection Decision Document -- Section IV includes the Source Selection Decision Document.  The Source Selection Decision Document must be signed by the Source Selection Authority. The debriefing documentation may be attached to this section.

Note:  Some individuals include a tab in the source selection file labeled "Simplified Source Selection Report" under which a form is placed that indicates under which tabs the various parts of the Simplified Source Selection Report may be found.  This is wholly in line with the philosophy that this report is to be streamlined and use existing documentation wherever possible.

7.12.  The Source Selection Decision Document is required and is the single document that provides insight into the Source Selection Authority's integrated assessment and resultant decision.  It is important that this document be written clearly and in a manner that allows it to stand on its own without need of referencing other documents.  Paragraphs should be written in a concise manner and should flow logically.  Ensure that the source selection decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and that each conclusion or decision in the Source Selection Decision Document is directly linked to those evaluation factors. In addition, the Source Selection Decision Document must compare aspects of the most competitive offers against each other; e.g., "I have decided Contractor A's approach to factor XX was better than [Contractor B's][all other offerors'] because Contractor A proposed, discussed, resolved, identified, possesses, or whatever."  All pertinent information including necessary proprietary information must be included in the Source Selection Decision Document. The Source Selection Decision Document must be fully traceable to the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provision of the solicitation), the evaluation briefing charts, and the PAR.

7.12.1.  The Source Selection Decision Document should contain source selection sensitive information only to the extent it is pertinent to the decision.  Usually, the decision comes down to a serious debate between the relative merit of two or three offers, and the Source Selection Decision Document should reflect this debate.