Attachment 9 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT
Solicitation Number:
Short Title of Requirement or Project
This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104
1. This source selection was conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this acquisition, I have determined the proposal submitted by ______________ provides the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement. This decision is based upon the criteria established in Section M (If this is a commercial acquisition, revise each reference to "Section M" to "FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items.") of the solicitation, an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, the terms and conditions agreed upon during discussions (if conducted) and the capability (i.e., Technical, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Cost/Price) of ______________ to fulfill the subject requirement. (Tailor this sentence to describe the exact scenario, i.e., delete "technical" if there were no technical factors for evaluation, and do not mention "discussions" if none were conducted, nor integrated assessment if lower priced substantial confidence offeror selected..)
2. Section M of the solicitation set forth the following areas for evaluation, with past performance being evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than, the cost considerations (Take the statement from Section M of the solicitation):
Price
List technical factors, if any
Describe the evaluation approach followed. To be eligible for the comparison assessment of Past Performance and Price, offerors must have received an acceptable technical rating, i.e. all requirements of the technical factor had to be met for an offeror's technical proposal to be determined acceptable. Offerors technical proposals were assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance was not evaluated for offerors rated as unacceptable, i.e. not awardable. If only a specified number of lowest priced proposals were evaluated for technical acceptability, tailor the above and specify how many proposals were evaluated.
3. Technical Acceptability. Of the __________ proposals received, _______offerors were rated acceptable, with _______offerors rated as susceptible of being made acceptable, and _____ rated unacceptable. Or, if no technical proposals were required, state that offerors were determined technically acceptable by submission of an offer in accordance with the terms, conditions and technical requirements of the solicitation. Explain if any offeror's proposal was not compliant and therefore unacceptable.
4. Price Evaluation. Information in the price proposal was limited to the Contract Line Item Number(s) (CLINs) as specified in the Schedule. Each offeror's (or specify how many offerors' prices were evaluated) CLIN prices were evaluated for reasonableness and total price, as detailed in Section M of the solicitation. (Insert awardees' name) price proposal was determined to be reasonable based on adequate price competition. The government estimate compared to the offerors' proposed prices is shown below. (Explain how the government estimate was developed. Provide the government estimate, total proposed prices and/or total evaluated prices for each offeror, as applicable. Discuss differences between the government estimate and the offerors' prices.)
Paragraph 5 below describes the Source Selection Authority's judgment of the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance and supports why the contractor selected is the best value for the Government. Usually, the performance confidence assessment will screen for recency and relevancy, and then consider such areas as contractor personnel, quality of the product or service provided, and the contractor's quality control procedures. There are no standard "templates" for this portion of the documentation. Each determination must be based on the particulars of the situation and must present a clear and convincing argument for the position taken. Under the PPT strategy, there are only three possible award scenarios. These scenarios and some suggested "starter" or "opening" paragraphs are as follows:
Award to the lowest priced, most highly rated (substantial confidence) offeror
5. Past performance questionnaires were sent to references provided by the ____ lowest priced offerors (or by all technically acceptable/reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable offerors). These offerors were rated as follows, in order of price:
Price | Performance Confidence Rating | |
Based on the responses received plus other sources of information obtained and documented in the file, the lowest priced offeror is found deserving of a substantial confidence performance rating. I have therefore determined this offer represents the best value to the government. Further consideration was not given to any other offeror.
Award to lowest priced offeror rated less than substantial confidence (satisfactory confidence or lower)
6. Past performance questionnaires were sent to references provided by the ____ lowest priced offerors (or by all technically acceptable/reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable offerors). These offerors were rated as follows, in order of price:
Price | Performance Confidence Rating | |
Based on the responses received plus other sources of information obtained and documented in the file, the lowest priced offeror is found deserving of a ________ performance confidence rating. While the selected proposal did not receive the best rating in terms of performance confidence, I have determined the offer represents the best value to the government for the following reasons:
Note: Discuss all factors considered in the decision, i.e., cost differential, criticality of the project or service, potential consequences to the government in the event of poor contractor performance or failure to perform. Explanations must present a clear and convincing argument.
Award to higher priced, more highly rated offeror
7. Past performance questionnaires were sent to references provided by the ____ lowest priced offerors (or by all technically acceptable/reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable offerors). These offerors were rated as follows, in order of price:
Price | Performance Confidence Rating | |
Based on the responses received plus other sources of information obtained and documented in the file, the _____ lowest priced offerors were found deserving of the ratings indicated above. While the selected proposal is not the lowest priced proposal received, it has received the best rating in terms of performance confidence. I have determined this offer represents the best value to the government and I conclude it is worth the additional cost/price due to the greater likelihood the offeror will successfully perform because of its better past performance rating for the following reasons:
Note: Discuss all factors considered in the decision, i.e., cost differential, criticality of the project or service, potential consequences to the government in the event of poor contractor performance or failure to perform. Explanations must present a clear and convincing argument.
8. In summary, based on my assessment of the proposals as described herein, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by _________ represents the best overall value to the government.
Source Selection Authority
Signature Block