Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
5. source selection_101
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

5. source selection_101

726

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
726
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Source Selection 101<br />Susan Smith<br />21CONS<br />Col Tom Walker AFSPC/CX<br />
  • 2. Purpose<br />Insight in how and why the RFP is developed<br />Insight on how the Gov’t evaluates proposals<br />“Demystify” the source selection process:<br />Encourage more participation, especially small businesses<br />Improve offeror’s potential for awards<br />Objective is for the Gov’t to get better proposals<br />
  • 3. Topics<br />RFP Development Process<br />Evaluation Factors/Subfactors<br />Overall Assessment<br />Summary<br />
  • 4. RFP Development<br />Process<br />
  • 5. RFP Development Process<br /><ul><li>Define program requirements that meet our customer’s needs
  • 6. Identify program risks associated with the requirements
  • 7. Analyze risks to determine priority and risk handling approach
  • 8. Develop a mitigation strategy for the highest risks
  • 9. Use RFP discriminators to mitigate program risks</li></li></ul><li>Solicitation - Uniform Contract Format<br />Part I -- The Schedule A Solicitation/contract form B Supplies or services and prices/costs C Description/specifications/statement of work D Packaging and marking E Inspection and acceptance F Deliveries or performance G Contract administration data H Special contract requirements<br />Part II -- Contract Clauses I Contract clauses<br />Part III -- List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments J List of attachments<br />Part IV -- Representations and Instructions K Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors or respondents L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents M Evaluation factors for award<br />
  • 10. Commercial Contract Format<br />Standard Form (SF) 1449;<br />Any contract documents, exhibits or attachments<br />Solicitation provisions --<br /> 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items and any addendum <br />52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items, or other description of evaluation factors for award<br />52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items<br />Contract clauses --<br />52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions and any addendum<br />52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive orders<br />
  • 11. RFP Development Process<br />Sec L or 52.212-1 (What information offeror must submit to be evaluated against Sec M criteria):<br />Sec L and Sec M should track closely<br /> Requests only minimum data needed to evaluate proposals<br />Sec M or 52.212-2 (Evaluation Criteria):<br />Most important<br /> Represents about 95% of entire acquisition strategy<br /> Rules of selection; forms compact with offerors:<br />
  • 12. Evaluation Factors <br />&<br />Subfactors<br />
  • 13. Source Selection Types<br /><ul><li>Best Value Source Selections (vs Lowest Price):
  • 14. Lowest Price/Technically Acceptable (LPTA) - 2 Step
  • 15. 1: Min. Technically Acceptable (Pass/Fail)
  • 16. 2: Lowest Price among Technically Acceptable
  • 17. Performance/Price Tradeoff (PPT) - 2 Step
  • 18. 1: Min. Technically Acceptable (Pass/Fail)
  • 19. 2: Trade-off between Past Performance & Price</li></ul> Full Trade-Off (FTO) - 1 Step<br /><ul><li> Trade-off between all 4 Factors</li></ul> Mission Capability/ Past Proposal<br />PriceTech. AcceptabilityPerformanceRisk<br />Low Price <br />LPTA  +/-<br />PPT  +/-  <br />FTO    <br />
  • 20. Evaluation Factors<br /><ul><li>Mission Capability (Technical)
  • 21. This evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating
  • 22. Evaluation of offeror’s proposal against the Gov.’s minimum performance or capability requirements
  • 23. Proposal risk assessment - weaknesses associated with offeror’s proposed approach
  • 24. Past Performance
  • 25. Assessment of the degree of confidence the USAF has in an offeror to provide products or services that meet the users’ needs (including cost and schedule) based on demonstrated record of performance
  • 26. Price
  • 27. Total proposed price</li></li></ul><li>FTO Mission Capability (Technical) Ratings<br />Blue - Exceptional- Exceeds specified min. performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue<br />Green – Acceptable - Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths<br />Yellow – Marginal - There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable<br />Red – Unacceptable - Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable<br />
  • 28. Mission Capability Risk Ratings<br />High - Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.<br />Moderate - Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties..<br />Low - Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties<br />
  • 29. Technical Evaluation Process<br />Evaluator’s Process:<br />1) What is the minimum performance or capability requirement in the Section M evaluation criteria?<br /> 2) Does the Offeror’s proposal meet, fail to meet, or exceed that min. requirement?<br /> 3) Explain how and where in the Offeror’s proposal it meets, fails to meet, or exceeds.<br /> 4) If it exceeds, does it meet the definition of a “strength”?<br /> 5) If a “strength,” explain how it is a strength. Listing salient features of proposals as strengths is not enough. Benefits of strengths must be clearly articulated.<br />
  • 30. Technical Evaluation Process<br />Evaluator’s Process:<br />6) Describe the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach to meeting the Offeror’s proposed requirement (vs the RFP’s minimum requirement).<br /> 7) What is the schedule, performance, or cost impact of the risk?<br /> 8) Does the risk meet the definition of Weakness or Significant Weakness? How?<br />
  • 31. Past Performance Data Sources<br /> Contractor Past <br />Performance Volume<br />Performance<br />Data<br />Other Service/Command/<br />Agency/Commercial/State<br />or Local Government <br />Questionnaires/ Interviews<br />Past Performance<br />Information Retrieval <br />System (PPIRS)<br />
  • 32. Past Performance Information<br />Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully<br />Recency, relevancy of the information, and quality in contractor’s performance are considered<br />Offeror’s information on problems encountered on contracts they identify, and the offeror’s corrective actions shall be considered when evaluating the offeror’s past performance<br />
  • 33. Typical Past PerformanceEvaluation Process<br />Offerors requested in solicitation to ID their most relevant contracts with in the past number of years (typically 3)<br />PCAG gathers information on these and others (thru PPIRS, questionnaires, etc.)<br />Contract performance for each is assessed <br />Each are assigned relevancy rating<br />Past Performance assessment is weighted with contract performance from most relevant, most recent contracts <br />One final Past Performance confidence assessment is given for each Offeror<br />
  • 34. Past Performance Confidence Ratings<br />.<br />
  • 35. Past Performance Relevancy Definitions<br />VERY RELEVANT: Past/present performance programs involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires<br />RELEVANT: Past/present performance programs involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires<br />SOMEWHAT-RELEVANT: Past/present performance programs involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires<br />NOT RELEVANT: Past/present performance programs did not involve any magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires<br />
  • 36. Past Performance Quality Definitions<br />BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective<br />PURPLE/VERY GOOD- The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective<br />GREEN/SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory<br />YELLOW/MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented<br />RED/UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective<br />NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score.<br />
  • 37. Overall<br />Assessment<br />
  • 38. Factor/Subfactor Order of Importance<br />RFP Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, SHALL specify order of importance, including subfactors and elements, if used<br />All evaluation factors (other than cost or price), when combined, are:<br /> Significantly more important than cost or price;<br />Approximately equal to cost or price; or<br />Significantly less important than cost or price<br />Order of importance is needed when trade-offs are to be used<br />
  • 39. Evaluation Principles <br />Source selection is a process of discrimination:<br /> - All offerors come into the process with a clean slate<br /> - If source selection is properly structured and conducted:<br /> - - Offerors who are too expensive, too risky, don’t understand the requirements, will drop to the bottom<br /> - - Offerors who have superior ideas, excellent past performance, low costs will rise to the top<br /> - - Offerors who are OK or mediocre, will be in the middle<br />
  • 40. Summary<br />
  • 41. Keys to Successful Source Selection<br />- Gov’t evaluates proposals against the RFP, not against each other<br /> - Documents how minimum requirements were met, exceeded, or failed<br /> - Risks, weaknesses, strengths, inadequacies must be consistent with RFP requirements<br /> - Benefits of strengths and impacts of risks help support trade-off decisions<br /> - Gov’t evaluates all proposals consistently <br /> - Follow the RFP!<br />

×