SAMPLE SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

SAMPLE

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT

F88888-05-R-9999

Replace Military Family Housing, Phase XV

Any AFB, USA

This Document Is Source Selection Sensitive Information IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104

1.  As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this acquisition, I have determined the proposal submitted by Bo Peep Constructors, Freedom Falls MN, provides the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement.  This decision is based upon the criteria established in Section M of the solicitation, an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, and the capability (i.e., Past Performance Confidence Rating, and Cost/Price) of Bo Peep Constructor to fulfill the subject requirement.

2.  Section M of the solicitation set forth the following areas for evaluation, with past performance being evaluated on a basis approximately equal to the cost considerations.  Past performance information was sought on only the two lowest price offerors.

Past Performance

Price

3.  Five proposals were received in response to the solicitation.  All offerors were determined technically acceptable by submission of an offer in accordance with the terms, conditions and technical requirements of the solicitation.  

4.  Information in the price proposal was limited to the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) as specified in the Schedule.  Each offeror's CLIN prices were evaluated for reasonableness and total price, as detailed in Section M of the solicitation.  Bo Peep's price proposal was determined to be reasonable based on adequate price competition.  A government estimate of $2,575,000 was developed by comparison with previous efforts of similar magnitude and complexity and application of adjustments for inflation.  The difference between the government estimate and Bo Peep's price is not significant.

5.  Past performance questionnaires were sent to references provided by the two lowest priced offerors. Based on the responses received and documented in the file, these offerors were rated as follows, in order of price:

Following is a summary and analysis of performance information gathered on these offerors:

a.  Newstart Construction:

(1)  Newstart Construction, formerly d.b.a. Tomthumb Construction, provided 5 references to which questionnaires were provided.  The buyer, MSgt Smart, requested an expanded list of references, to include references as Tomthumb Construction.  The second list included such references as building inspectors, real estate agents, and home residents.  Of the 5 questionnaires sent out, 4 were returned, with one project still in progress. MSgt Smart made telephone contact with 3 of the references shown on the second list.  Attachment 1 is a brief synopsis of his conversations with references, and the responses given by Newstart Construction.

(2)  Though Newstart Construction has a record of mostly satisfactory performance, the preponderance of their work has been one-at-a-time, single-family residential houses.  Through clarifications with the contractor, and those references in paragraph 1 above, it was shown that the offeror's method is to buy a building site, build a house and then list the house for sale through a real estate agent. The offeror has never attempted a project to include demolition (removal of old houses) and rebuild.

(3)  The contractor showed no experience in large projects such as that described in the instant requirement.  After clarifications with this contractor, I was left with the impression that the contractor felt the government would be more understanding on schedules and design changes than individual homebuyers would.

(4)  While the offeror's past performance in building single homes on empty lots was satisfactory, I do not feel the risk associated with the offeror's lack of past experience with projects of this magnitude and complexity warrant award.  Although the offeror has performed similar work just in building houses, it is my opinion that the difference in magnitude and complexity of projects completed is so great, it makes the offeror's past experience irrelevant.  Based on this opinion, the offeror was rated "unknown confidence" overall.  This project is high visibility and is critical to the quality of life for military personnel residing on base. It requires a contractor with experience in coordinating multiple homes being built simultaneously. It is critical to have the project completed on time and the risk of having performance problems, caused by a lack of relevant experience, is an unacceptable risk to the government.

b.  Bo Peep Constructors

(1)  Bo Peep Constructors initially provided 4 references, along with letters of reference.  MSgt Smart requested additional references, and was provided another 6 references.  Eight questionnaires were sent out, 5 were returned.

(2)  Bo Peep Constructors received numerous favorable comments.  Bo Peep Constructors has experience in large projects to include planning, designing, and constructing homes.  Their experience in this area ranges from construction of 11 homes to the development of a 92-lot housing development in the local area.  Bo Peep Constructors' experience includes the financing, development, management, and superintendence of projects.  Based on this and feedback received from the questionnaires, this offeror has been assigned a rating of "substantial confidence."

6.  While Bo Peep Constructors proposed prices are higher than Newstart Construction, I found the trade off of higher price for less risk represents the best value to the government.  Bo Peep Constructors has shown a very good history of performance, as well as the capability to manage a project of this magnitude. Based on this record, I have little doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note:  Anytime the Source Selection Authority trades off price for a higher rated performer, the decision document must address the trade off assessment and analysis of all offerors between the low priced offeror and the selected offeror, not just the low priced and higher priced.

7.  In summary, based on my assessment of the proposals as described herein, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by Bo Peep Constructors represents the best overall value to the government.  Further, the difference of $104,376.00 in additional costs offsets the risk associated with the lack of relevant experience of the lower priced offeror.